Conversation at PDA Convention here in NC about General Clark/Ross Perot?

[KoKo]

I thought it was interesting that a person who came to our table for "Support Verified Paper Ballot" was interested in talking about Election 2004. Her viewpoint was that if Kerry had run with Wes Clark as VP he would have WON overwhelmingly. This person was a 50 Something and had been working hard in her NC County to get "paper ballots--Voter Verified Paper Ballots" but after engaging her in voting she volunteered that Kerry should have chosen Clark instead of Edwards. She felt a "tough military" twosome for the Candidates would have solved all our problems and Kerry would have been elected. :shrug:'

I asked her what she saw for our future and she said: "John Edwards."
she felt his book was fantastic and that he could be THE CANDIDATE.

I have to qualify that I did inform her about John Edwards TOTAL support for "Iraq Invasion," and that my encounters with him as a larger that $200.00 donor left much to be desired with him ever running again! And, she was shocked to learn that Edwards voting record is less than Progressive Dems would have wanted...but--that said, she did feel really strongly that we need to go with Clark on the VP Ticket. She wasn't sure who the front runner should be...but in her mind maybe Clark would be okay for that, too.

My impression was that Folks are SO SICK OF POLITICIANS that Wes Clark almost seems like Ross Perot. His supporters were SO SICK of Politics as USUAL that they came out in droves for him. I, personally, remember all the hoards of C-Span Callers who were ready to die for Ross Perot. He almost was a "cult figure" because he felt all politicians were "bad news" and we needed to "get under the hood and fix the engine."

Clinton Won that election.........and the rest is history. But, that so many folks might see Wes Clark as NOT a Politician might be a "good thing?"

[phiddle]

1. Clark at the top of the ticket,

with Bill Richardson for veep. South + West, career military + career pol, Mr. Intense + Mr. Smooth.

[Adelante]

2. KoKo, you could have pointed out to her

That an experienced commander-in-chief needs to be in the President's chair, not presiding over the Senate.

Clark supporters have so many different reasons for supporting Wes Clark that I really don't know what to say to that Perot thing. I guess his not being a politician doesn't hurt and not having a legislative record to be picked over probably helps.

[KoKo]

3. I think that so many of us are so SICK OF POLITICIANS ...as Usual...

that many are ready to go with ANYONE...who isn't "part of the machine."

I think a concern that I have with Clark is much the same as I had with Perot. Clark is a product of the "Military/Industrial Complex" which General Eisenhower cautioned against. He's probably a really good guy but the "military part" sort of worries me.

Then, if you look at Ross Perot..what bothered some voters about him was that his whole life experience was "Corporate."

So...there's the problem. We are sick of "Politicians" but how can these folks come from outside of politics and really run the country when in fact their loyalties to their own lifetime professions..i.e. Military/Tech/Business might put them in the same "box" that our carrer politicians have..given that so much in the last decades has made our politicians responsible ONLY to LOBBYISTS?

I don't know the answer. And, some would say things are so DESPERATE we should take a chance!

I'm so worried that things are SO DESPERATE...I've got to know every darned thing to an inch of "inside the brain" of the next candidate who runs in the Democratic Party. I want the next candidate vetted, gone over with a fine comb to find out every little nuance and indescretion they ever had before they can get my vote.

I'm sick of the Repugs/Swift Boat Liar types finding crap a little crack they can get into and trash my candidate.

I know...that I'm looking and hoping for the "impossible." And, I know that it shouldn't matter that every DEM Candidate be scrutinized..and maybe it all will change in the future. And, that the Repugs are corrupt and cover up every damned criminal activity of THEIR CANDIDATEs....still, I want my Dem Candidates to be "purer" than those criminals that are in charge of everything.

I don't think that's pushing "idealism" so far...Just to want honesty...and a thorough vetting? Is it? :shrug:

[Guaranteed]

6. I like Clark a lot, but I just

can't get over that interview that I remember, next to Madeleine Albright, on Meet the Press during the run up to the war.

And, no, I've never been able to find a transcript online. Would love to see one if someone can find it.

He was basically supporting Bush's decision to invade Iraq- he just thought we needed more international support. I understand that he no longer (only) holds that position, but I remember...

I remember not being pleased with him and really *needing* to see some leadership at that time, from both Clark and Albright. They let me down. It just sticks with me.

[KoKo]

9. I think I saw that same interview....what you say rings a bell with me.

I've kind of revised my opinion of Albright in the last few years. I thought she was great at the time...but some of her comments have not been statements I could support at this point in time after the "stolen election" and the HELL we've been through with Bush II.

As an anti "Iraq Invasion" protestor I have a problem with "military excuses" by ANYONE who could have supported the "Neo-Con/PNAC, Bush Born Agains" that led our faltering spineless US House and Senate and the United Nations down the path to another Vietnam!

So...I have problems with folks saying..."we need more troops...we have a plan...freedom and democracy will take decades but it's worth it in the end for US Security..." Yadda...Yadda...Yadda. We Americans have heard this same old tune for TOO LONG.

I would hope that Clark would provide a real vision and a PLAN for Iraq that he wouldn't "lie...explain, weasel out of" and that he would feel comfortable enough to come forward with it, if he's serious about '08.

I think I really need to have more "specifics" than we are hearing from those sending out "teasers" about why they are running and asking us to just accept them on "faith" that they won't be George Bush. :-(

I'm probably closer to your viewpoint on this...but I'm trying to keep an open mind hoping that SOMEONE CAN HELP US HERE!!!!!

[Clark2008]

10. Clark NEVER advocated Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

He, in fact, testified the opposite in front of Congress in September 2002.

What he DID advocate was the initial troop movements - however, always noting that he did not support this war. He DID and DOES support decisions that would benefit our troops and get them in and out of there.

Which is why, since "Mission Accomplished," he's consistantly pointed out that BushCo. has not exit strategy.

One can support the troops without supporting the war.

[KoKo]

12. Has he said that Bush Lied and the Iraq Invasion wasn't necessary?

I would need to hear that. Not some PNAC stratigic vision of Democracy Reigning in the ME...and flowers and stuff for Hallibuton.

The Iraqi's under Saddam did have clean water, electricity and decent schools. Will Wes Clark and other Candidates really talk about us bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age so that Halliburton and "private contractors" could rebuild it with our "tax dollars" and the Huge Debt we are accumulating?

No candidate who doesn't talk about this will get my vote. I won't have lies and "cover ups" from these candidates anymore. :shrug:

[Adelante]

18. He has always called it an "unnecessary war"

Today he said to Maine Dems:

"It was a war I think increasingly is clear, that we did NOT have to fight. George Bush chose that war to take us into, God only knows what his motives were. We've heard explanation after explanation after explanation. I don't think we've ever heard the truth about it."


He's probably more gentlemanly than you might like, but he says what he says straight out.

[Clark2008]

20. Here's some quotes from Clark regarding Bush's lie about Iraq

"It's understandable that the administration would want to make this claim. After all, by any honest accounting, the Iraq operation has been a mess. The U.S. military has performed brilliantly for the most part. But we invaded the country for the express purpose of removing weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist. That effort has cost $200 billion and more than 1,500 American lives. It has strained our alliances, damaged America's reputation in the world, pushed the all-volunteer military to the breaking point, and left our troops exposed in a hostile country with an open-ended exit strategy. It would be convenient to be able to say that the intent all along was just to bring democracy to the region and that this was simply the necessary price. Convenient, but not true."
And:

"More fundamentally, with its armed occupation of Iraq, the Administration lost focus, and was substantially distracted from worldwide efforts against Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network are still at large, terrorist incidents have continued to take innocent life, and U.S. military actions in Iraq have provided a magnet for recruiting and training large numbers of extremist youth in continuing warfare. If Iraq is today the center of the war against terrorism, as some in the Administration have contended, it is not because the terrorists were there originally, but because they have been recruited there to the fight against us. Our military action in Iraq is more a catalyst for terrorists than a cure. Whatever results may ultimately come from removing Saddam Hussein from power, ending the terrorist threat against the United States of America is not likely to be one of them.

Of great concern today and, frankly, in the years ahead is that the focus on Iraq has deprived the Administration of the time, diplomatic support, and military resources to act effectively against other, more dangerous sources of WMD proliferation. The “red line” established by the Clinton Administration against North Korea’s reprocessing of spent uranium fuel to make plutonium has now been breached. North Korea has announced that they have reprocessed and presumably now have the fissile materials to make at least a half dozen additional nuclear weapons. Furthermore, this Administration has refused to participate in the discussions aimed at persuading Iran to permanently renounce its uranium enrichment capabilities.

From the outset, the military mission in Iraq has been complicated by factors other than making the best decisions for success. Operations to destabilize Iraq were apparently viewed as the start of a broader campaign to destabilize or overthrow a number of governments in the Middle East, including Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Libya, and Sudan. The start of the campaign was rushed, for reasons that have never been made clear by the Administration. And once U.S. forces were inside Iraq, U.S. diplomacy failed to take measures to undercut regional resistance from countries such as Syria and Iran."

[Guaranteed]

13. That's just not how I remembered it.

It's not how I remembered it during the primaries. In my mind, it was between Clark and Dean. I was liking Clark a lot, but that interview kept haunting me. That was ultimately why I chose Dean.

Who knows, maybe I was just being overly-sensitive during that extremely nasty time. The interview was on February 18th, if I remember from my fruitless internet searches, so it was the most pressured time for Democrats. But that's how I remember both of them- pushing the Dem line of needing more international support, while the invasion was justified.

[Clark2008]

22. So you've never read his Sept. 2002 testimony before Congress?

Where he advised Congress NOT to vote on the resolution as presented because Saddam was contained?

[Guaranteed]

23. You could post it, if you like. But there was a lot of pressure on the

Democrats in February of 2003. It doesn't sound impossible to me that he could have buckled, along with Albright.

[Clark2008]

24. Buckled on what?

He didn't have a vote.

His role was to testify in front of Congress and he did and said this would be an unnecessary war.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A//www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/Clarkstatement050605.pdf&ei=6bL2QqGlK7zs4AGOzc2RDg

[Guaranteed]

26. On his position. nt

[Clark2008]

29. He didn't.

Trust me. I have followed him and his speeches for two years.

He has always been against this war, even though he supported certain troop movements once we were there.

[Guaranteed]

30. Well, I understand what you're saying,

but it's not my memory, and the interview was more than two years ago.

[Totally Committed]

33. This quote is from a speech he gave yesterday in Maine:

Seems pretty clear what he thinks of this war and Bush's motives for taking us there in the first place:

And if you look abroad at the challenges there, of course we did to Iraq. It was a war I think increasingly is clear, that we did NOT have to fight. George Bush chose that war to take us into, God only knows what his motives were. We've heard explanation after explanation after explanation. I don't think we've ever heard the truth about it. My heart goes out to the families of those who've served over there, especially those who've lost loved ones over there. We know what those sacrifices are like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1992995&mesg_id=1992995

[Jai4WKC08]

31. I think it was Feb 16, 2003

I just listened to a video clip I have downloaded. Clark was saying that at that point, he thinks war had become inevitable, but he never said that it was justified. In fact, Russet goes over an op/ed that Clark had recently written about three tests the administration should pass, and Clark pretty much says Bush hasn't passed any of 'em. He does say he believes that Saddam has WMD (chem and bio), but he asks some rather pointed questions about where are they, do we even know, and why hasn't the administration told us? And he goes on at some length about how Bush should have taken a different course after 9/11 but wanted to go after Saddam instead, so tried to pin 9/11 on Iraq instead of going after the people who really did it.

Clark does talk about what the administration needs to do to bring the European allies along, but he agrees with a WaPo editorial (which Russet quotes), that Bush has pretty much screwed the pooch... not his words... by two years of bullying them instead of working with them, and has no appreciation of their concerns and opinions, and the effects of their own domestic politics.

I dunno if this link is still good, but you might give it a try. The host asks that you download first, instead of streaming, because she has bandwidth problems.
http://www.u-wes-a.com/vidclips/MSNBC_MTP_021603.WMV

The clip doesn't include Albright's appearance, btw, so I don't know what she said. They didn't appear together. But maybe Albright's support for the war (I seem to remember she pretty much did agree with it) colored your memory of what Clark said. He seems to me to be resigned to the fact that it was gonna happen, so talks to some extent about how it should be prosecuted. But I don't think you can say he ever thought it was a good idea.

[Guaranteed]

36. Yeah, I think it was the first half of the interview

that was kind of disturbing to me. The second half was much stronger, because he actually started saying that the war wasn't necessary.

It was also interesting when Russert started asking him about running for President.

[Jai4WKC08]

37. Well, I can understand that

Especially if he followed Albright, who was an advocate for the war, if not the way Bush was going about it. Like I said, I don't know when she appeared or what she said. But heck, if he followed her, it might be as simple as not wanting to sound too strident against her, since they are old friends from the Clinton administration days.

But more likely, I think it was this. When the interview took place, the draft movement was fairly new (I think if "officially" started in Oct or Nov 02, but didn't gather steam for some time) and while Clark was starting to realize that there might be some potential for a campaign, and had just started talking to party people about it, I don't think he'd started <i>thinking</i> like a candidate. Really, anything but. He just wanted to get his ideas out there, to be a part of the national debate, and he was beginning to see that making a run might be a way to do it.

So it was very easy, even natural, for him to put on his military hat, so to speak, in a conversation with someone like Russet, and speak as someone who's been given a mission and needs to figure out how to accomplish it, without letting his personal misgivings get in the way. Especially if he'd come to believe that we were going to war, whether he liked it or not. I think that's what you're seeing in the first part of the Feb 03 MTP. That he didn't like it was made very clear by the end of the interview.

I would even go so far as to say he may have assumed it was unnecessary to lead off with his opposition to the war, thinking most people knew he didn't like it because by that point he had testified before both houses of Congress, spoken out on talk/news shows repeatedly, and written a number of articles and op/eds, all saying that it was the wrong thing to do. One of the lessons Clark had to learn as a politician is how you have to keep repeating yourself because so many people have not been paying attention to what you've said in the past, as it was the source of one or two of the mis-steps he made early in his campaign.

[Adelante]

27. I remember you mentioning it, BGL

I've looked, but never found it. Once I found an expired link.

[Clark2008]

8. But Clark is the only candidate to address the military industrial complex

He fully recognizes how it effects policy and drives war.

Because he was, as you say, a "product" of it, he knows well how to defend against it - and sets forth examples in his speeches and policy papers.

Now, as to the Ross Perot factor, I can't say. I know that people ARE fed up with politicians and politics as usual, but I don't see Clark as a Perot-type. Clark fits within the Dem Party platform.

[Adelante]

15. He said this today to Maine Democrats

"And one thing Democrats know very clearly, we believe in a strong national security. But we will use all the instruments of national power before we use the military. The military needs to be used only, only, only as a last resort."

If it's any comfort, Clark often cites Eisenhower on the Military Industrial Complex.

[Donna Zen]

34. The MIC

Heading out the door after one NH townhall meeting, a person asked the General if he believed in the existence of the MIC. Clark answered: yes, I do and it's getting bigger. If you want to do something about it, vote for me.

My copy of Winning Modern Wars has been on loan for so long, I'll be purchasing another. In that book Clark discusses how the process of pork plays out in the congress. I remember when reading those paragraphs, that the weapons contractors and their congressional toadies would really, really hate to see someone who could speak to the American public with authority ruining all their wickedness and their dogs of war too.


Wes Clark has called the Pentagon budget "the make-want budget."

[Guaranteed]

4. The lady doesn't make sense.

Edwards wasn't good enough for V.P....but let's run him for the presidency.

In any case, Kerry made the right choice for V.P. He already had the military credentials. What he needed was someone with a personality that would fill in his gaps. I.E. a smooth talker, a relater-type. Edwards was perfect. Southern, too.

There was no one better than Edwards to run with Kerry. Picking Edwards was one of the smartest things Kerry did.

[KoKo]

5. No....she thought Kerry should have picked Clark...but she thought that

Edwards should run for Pres in '08. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

[Guaranteed]

7. That was how I understood it. nt

[Clark2008]

11. I beg to differ.

Edwards brought nothing to the ticket.

He didn't bring in one red state.

[Guaranteed]

16. With Kerry at the top of the ticket, I don't think that anyone could have

brought in a red state. The conviction wasn't there.

But I think he made the best choice. He needed someone to fill in his personality gaps. That was what he did. I don't think piling on more military credentials would have changed anything.

[KoKo]

17. Many DU'rs so Edwards as "real" and fighting for the "little guy."

I understand why many folks saw that about him. And...in some small part I think he really did think that about himself.

Hey...a bunch of NC'linians worked their butts off and donated heavily to get him into the US Senate for us to replace the Jesse Helms/Lauch Faircloth (Agribusiness/Smithfield type Pig Farms/Chicken Farms) and we were so thrilled and excited when he was elected as OUR Senator.

Look at what we are left with. Another Liddy Dole Right winger in Burr who replaced Edwards. It's a bitter pill we Dems have that we don't have a Senator who will represent any Democrat. Edwards took his chance and gave up his seat to Erskine Bowles (Clinton DLC/Candidate) whereas Kerry kept his own Senate Seat and didn't have to give it up to run for President. Edwards got the "short end of the stick," on this with his run with Kerry.

But...he's started his "Foundation for the Poor." He's maybe closer to Jimmy Carter in that the good he can do will be better ouside of candidate politics. :shrug: I don't know...it's just what I'm throwing out trying to work my way through what we Dems are dealing with. I don't have a candidate. I'm still searching. I've tried to tell other DU'ers that I just don't know who I would vote for at this point...I just keep looking and thinking and passing along what I hear and feel. ????

[Guaranteed]

19. I never even really liked Edwards much at all, but I thought

he was the best pick for V.P.

[Clark2008]

21. I guess I'm in the minority, then.

I see Edwards as about Edwards.

He's just too "slick" for my red-state tastes. (I vote blue, but I live in a red state.)

I like his wife, though. She should be the one running for something.

[KoKo]

25. I can't disagree with you about Elizabeth Edwards...I think she "saw it"

and "got it." Either Edwards was mishandled by the DLC'ers...the "Status Quo-ers" or that wives only have just so much influence with their hubbies :D.... But, she did understand it.

Maybe we could look the same way at the "Clinton Presidency." Maybe Hillary (with her Universal Health Care Plan..early on) really understood what it was all about. But, it always ends up with HUGE COMPROMISE. WHY...Bush has never compromised ANYTHING! His wife is a "doormat." (well. maybe Laura Bush is better than we think...she's had to live with him and maybe he would be the worse without her...if one could imagine worse) but I do think that in "relationships" the best ones that last ...seem to be one partner counteracting the weaknesses of the other...supporting the strengths and trying to counteract the weaknesses. Life is very complicated. The politicians we DU'ers have focused on including Clark are folks who have had long term relationships where they've compromised and and it's lasted. Even Kerry has had a long term relationship with Theresa so...we maybe have to overlook his first wife because of the Vietnam experience.

So...what's my point, anyone might ask. Point is that life is complicated and in the case of politicians only their "pillow mates" and very closest of long time friends/supporters might really know who they are.

I just think that the American Voting Public needs to see more about these folks than our "Corporate Owned Media/Spinners and Handlers" want us to know.

So...our "individual experience" becomes the most important but taking into consideration EVERYTHING that we can find out about their "Private Life" including motivations, donors and where their loyalties are and to whom. And...who they sleep with and what the character of those across the pillow is. :shrug: I think that "stuff" tells alot about a candidate.

[Jai4WKC08]

32. I think the spouse says a lot about the candidate too

Not only because the spouse has some influence over the candidate, altho I suspect that's true. As you said, Bush might be a lot worse without Laura. Or he might not be in office at all (sigh...), not having overcome his alcoholism... assuming he has.

But mostly because what a person chooses in a spouse says a lot about who he or she is. There's no doubt that much of my respect for Wes Clark comes from, or at least is strongly reinforced by, the respect and affection I feel for Gert Clark. She is strong, opinionated, intelligent, and as hard a worker as he is. But she is also warm and down-to-earth, and I am sure she keeps him grounded in reality, and takes the edge off his intensity when it gets out of hand. And while I'm sure he has an big ego, if he were any of the tiniest part the meglomaniacal, napoleon-complexed, popinjay that the right-wing (and some on the left) have tried to paint him, there's no way he would have made it so long with a wife like her. Just couldn't happen. 'Course, those of us who have come to know him know he's not like that anyway, but you'd only have to know the wife to see it.

Likewise, Teresa and Elizabeth say a lot of good about their husbands. Altho I do think Elizabeth is as ambitious as John, maybe more so, and probably reinforces that aspect of his personality too much. Or maybe that's just the impression I've gotten, since I obviously don't know either personally.

Which is one problem with making judgments by the political spouse. It's hard to say how much is media filter and how much is reality when you haven't gotten to know them, either directly or over a long period of time.

That said, I feel pretty certain Laura Bush is the stepford wife she appears to be. Or a "political happy face" as someone I respect once called her. ;) And that's what Bush wanted in a wife, since he isn't strong enough himself to deal with a wife who might challenge him or think for herself.

[GreenInNC]

14. I was there also

I was at the same convention. It is always nice to get together with like minded folk here in NC. So often we are banging our heads against the brick wall of conservatism, not just Republicans but also many Democrats, in our state that we need a respite where we don't have to defend our every statement.

[KoKo]

28. So glad you were there! Lot's of it was really inspiring... Did you post

in NC Forum? I didn't post there. I'm still mulling it all over. Wanted to focus here on the Clark statement because I thought it was so interesting and DU has so many Clark supporters. Thought they would find the comment about him very interesting from the person who stopped by our table.

:hi:

[GreenInNC]

38. text of Meek's speech

The text of his speech has been released. Are you on the ncpd list?

[FrenchieCat]

35. IMO,

Wes Clark is not like Ross Perot, nor is he like Eisenhower....he's like Wes Clark.

That's why I support him, cause he's f*cking unique.

If we can't take away from what we didn't do as well as we could in 2004.....then we're sunk.

Here's what I learned from election 2004:

Don't have a nominee that uses a 35 year old war story as his calling card on National Security.

Don't have a nominee that selects a VP that the press has pushed via artificially building him up as "popular" by providing only positive coverage about him...rarely covering an actual speech...but showing lotsa pics of him. Instead be suspicious of the media whenever they "push" a candidate. The media is not a "friend" of Democrats.

Don't have a nominee that allows the media to tell Democrats what kind of convention to have, and what can and cannot be said.

Don't underestimate the opponents if they control the media, the voting machines and the White House. Understand the issues of any given election and who has power over what they will be. Then, based on those facts, do what's required to quash the opponent's advantage on the very issue they claim is their strength. have a real strong strategy instead to counter their strength and render it moot BEFORE changing the subject to talk about your own strength.

If a politician is listening to his advisors and hesitating on defending himself, he's no leader.

Fuck conventional wisdom. The media pundits are the one that invent what it will be, usually based on intentional incorrect analysis.

Fuck polls. The media pundits are the ones that drive those numbers via how many times they mention a candidate's name, and what type of coverage they give him/her.

Use history as a "guide"....not as a "Crystal ball".

Fuck the Democratic political "kingmakers". They ain't in power, and there is a reason for this.

If the media is not providing coverage on a viable candidate, ask yourself why.

(of course, that's just my advise to myself....y'all do what y'all want).