Why Wes Clark

[xkenx]

2008 is all about flipping a few red states into our column. Hillary certainly can't do it. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone.
Remember how much money Howard Dean (relatively unknown in 2003) raised thru grassroots/internet organizing to the point where he was MSM's "annointed one" until Iowa? Well, Wes Clark holds a commanding lead among activists if you believe DKOS and DU consistent polling. Here is a true leader who can dominate Rethugs on National Security turf!

[Burning Water]

1. Amen.

Say it again, brother.

Clark is da man. :dem:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

2. I don't know

He's not a politician, and doesn't seem to have what it takes to make his presence felt - and I think he's great, by the way - in the political arena.

I rooted so hard for him, but, in the end, he just went quietly, and I think he's far more suited for a support role. But, not as a President.

[xkenx]

5. His presence will be felt

by the same kind of grassroots organizing/fundraising that Howard Dean did so that MSM will be forced to recognize him. Then the word will get out to the primary voters who get their news from the 20 second sound bites on the 11 o'clock news. Clark is a military strategist. He learned from his late entry in 2004. He won't repeat that mistake. Watch the campaign he wages.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

13. Boy, I hope you're right

I really do.

I'll surely be watching. Thanks for the info.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Please look again

The 2004 run was Clark's first at bat against Major League pitching, and he didn't even enter the race in time to get any batting practice in before taking the field. Many of his problems in 2004 were continuing fallout from mistakes he made in his first few weeks as a politician, let alone as a candidate for President. Clark became one of Kerry's most trusted surragates in Kerry's 2004 race against Bush, partially because Clark was so much more efffective by then.

But look at him now. Start here with Clark's "Real State of the Union Speech", available in text, audio, and video formats:
http://securingamerica.com/node/560

Then check out a sampling of the commentary he's done in the Lion's den at FOX, (available through the same site) where swarmy "reporters" and news "anchors" are always trying to trip him up but Clark still manages to stay on his message at least 90% of the time. Clark is a very bright guy and he's had time to study this game now. He's ready.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

14. I agree

On paper, and in the interviews, he's terrific. No one better. But, there's nothing comparable to being in a campaign. Everything else, like a faux State Of The Union speech, is too easy.

That's a whole different world from politics. Like saying a great obstetrician would make a good elementary school teacher because he's delivered so many children. No, it's not so.

I'm just not convinced of his political capabilities. Everything else about him is brilliant. I think he'd make a gigantic Secretary Of State, but I think the Presidency is beyond his grasp. Alas.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Well you will most likely get the chance to see him campaign again

Just view that with an open mind, is that fair to ask? He's done great stumping for other Democrats.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

23. Absolutely

I'll be watching Clark and Feingold and Edwards. And my checkbook will be open - along with my mind - to all of them.

Thanks.

[Greyhound]

7. He's much better now. If you can stomach it, catch him on faux sometime

he has become quite adept at crushing their lies, while not leaving an opening for them to counter with more lies.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

15. He was always good on the facts,

and his style - oy, don't get me started at how good he is!!!

But, as I've stated, politics is a whole different game than herding assholes at Faux.

I'll be watching him, though. I think he's terrific.

[Greyhound]

22. Yeah, that's just what I meant. He has learned much about countering

the RW wacko techniques of obfuscation and diversion. I really want to like Feingold, I just don't trust anyone that has been under the influence of the beltway for any length of time. It has never failed to corrupt even the most altruistic of people.

[ChiciB1]

3. Sorry.. But It Seems Albright 's Firm Is Backing Dubai & Clark

is very very close with the Clintons! I don't KNOW what the Clintons are about these days, but it don't smell too pretty to me! Now Ickes & Soros are on the band-wagon trying to usurp Dean!

Is this really what we want??

I think it's pretty obvious who I'm backing and I think as Molly Ivins has sated WE NEED to take a very very close look at Feingold! I think an Edwards/Feingold ticket would be much much better!

Unless of course, Democrats can find some other shining star. I'm just too leery of the Clinton/Clark/Ickes/Soros connections! It seems to me that instead of trying to UNITE... they are more about DIVIDE! Now go ahead and hit me! I'm on my way to a meeting so I'll check in later! Just so you don't think I'm running away from any "hits" on my comments!

Sure Dean has made some mistakes, but Geeezz seems to me like the Clintons made a few themselves! I actually think Clinton (Bill) could be of MUCH MORE help if he would pitch in now and work for Democrats instead of his cozy relationship with Papa Bush! Perhaps he's doing good work in Africa, but then Edwards is working his heart out here in AMERICA trying to help the impoverished! Last time I looked we need some serious serious help right here in the US of A! It's not very long before 2006 elections and today on C-Span they had discussions about How Democrats "Have NO Message!" So Hillary and Bill, what say you... get YOUR friends in touch with YOUR base!!!

[Donna Zen]

9. Those are some dots ya got there

...Albright's firm is lobbying....Albright knows Clinton and Clark...thus WHAT?

Did you notice that when Shelton swiftboated Clark for Edwards, the Clinton's didn't mumble a word? And who was it that Albright vetted for the VP spot?

General Clark is in business. Does he know these people? Yes. Connecting him to some fakeass conspiracy is rediculous.

The Clintons take care of the Clintons: period. And that excludes the American people as well.

If your pissed because a diplomat has failed to mug on tv, trying to raise their poll numbers, by name-calling another country from a region where everyone hates us...well, I just don't know what to say.

BTW, I just read this stupid bill the republicans are passing. Mike Malloy is right. The republicans will get all the credit, and that bill does shit.

[xkenx]

12. And how does Edwards flip red states?

A one-term ex-Senator with no foreign policy experience when the Rethugs, as usual, will frame the election in terms of national security? The man couldn't hold his own in debates or conversations that strayed from his "One trick pony" mantra of the Two Americas.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Be careful xkenx, don't take the bait

There is a small handful of Edwards supporters, and I'm not saying this poster is one of them, who constantly get upset when any Clark supporter show up on any Edwards related thread, even when the OP asks questions and invites comments about Edwards. That has been duly noted. Don't get sucked into debating Edwards on a Clark thread, somehow the effort will be made to twist that against Clark supporters also, but more important, it can lead to a flame fest that will only trash your positive Clark thread. A reasonable discussion of the pros and cons of every candidate is fine, but stay away from the traps!

[xkenx]

19. Thanks Tom, noted

[ChiciB1]

24. No, I'm NOT One Of Them...

I happen to like Clark, just not for President.

And as for connecting the dots... well, I give. I'll be ALL TRUTH here. I was never aware of any connection between Edwards & Dubai!

As I've stated before, as a Liberal I have been surprised by my support of Edwards. Perhaps he didn't take his state, but then again, The Idiot didn't win the election either. That's just how I FEEL!

But if his hands are dirty, and I daresay we can find something on everyone, I just want to state that my comments were made simply because I respect the way he has tried to help those less fortunate, and has for the most part gone out to work for this cause since the election. That much I CAN respect.

So I'm NOT going to get into a flame war with anyone about this, for the most part I'm more upset with Ickes and Soros... who in fact DO have a close connection to the Clintons, and the Clintons have in the past been very supportive of Clark.

As I said, there is dirt to be found almost everywhere. Ain't that too sad??

I just want my country back... we just have a difference of opinion here and I have never bashed Clark in the past.

[FrenchieCat]

29. As stated earlier....

there are no more links to Clark and Dubai as they are to Edwards and Dubai.

Both Clark and Edwards served under the Clinton administration while the Sec of State was Albright. Clark has spoken in Dubai....and so has Edwards. Clinton and Albright both know Clark and Edwards very well. Clinton, Albright and Clark all stomped for the Kerry/Edwards ticket....

So your original rant was just that....and I'm glad you recognized your handy work!

[ChiciB1]

31. Hey, I Try To Recognize Reality!

And above all, I'm not too hot-headed to admit I don't know it all!

[FrenchieCat]

20. Well since you want to play that game.....I'm gonna connect these

Dots.... :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Edwards himself apparently swayed Kerry in a series of recent meetings, some of them secret. The most recent was Thursday night, aides said, when Kerry waited for reporters outside his home in Washington to leave before slipping out a back door with one Secret Service agent. He met Edwards two blocks away, at the home of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5365307

http://www.jregrassroots.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t13997.html
John Edwards to address 'Entrepreneurs in Dubai'
March 5, 2005

Former US Senator John Edwards, last year's `Vice-Presidential` nominee on John Kerry's US presidential election bid is due in Dubai this May to address the International Entrepreneurship Forum and Exhibition - Entrepreneurs in Dubai - to be held at the Dubai International Convention Centre.

Edwards, who represented North Carolina in the Senate for six years, will outline to a regional audience of around 1,000 'Toward a Future of Hope and Opportunity in the Middle East: The power of Entrepreneurship.'

"I am tired of Democrats walking away from President Bill Clinton, who did an extraordinary job of lifting up and reaching out to all of the American people,"--John Edwards
http://www.nationalreview.com/geraghty/geraghty071603.asp




Let's see...Under Clinton, Wes Clark was retired early without proper notice...But yet, you'd have him be a bed fellow via 6 degrees of separation.


Under your terms then, Edwards should be held directly responsible for Gen. Shelton's lowly attacks against Wes Clark's Character and Integrity during the primaries.....after all, Gen. Shelton, a Republican, was working FOR Edwards at the time that he slandered Wes Clark in attempting to Swiftboat Clark's 34 years of impeccable service to our country.

[RufusEarl]

4. This should be considered,

This is a post that i saved about Wes Clark, i thought it relevant for post like this one.
The general has to answer a few questions, before i can support him. I really like the general myself, but i'm pretty damn tired of government intrusions into my personal life.




Edited on Sun Feb-26-06 04:41 PM by Twist_U_Up
I hate to do this folks but I have a feeling that the Gen. is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
I hope I'm wrong . I really like the guy .

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Cla...

* Clark Worked for Personal Data Firm: Acxiom Role Part of Airline Passenger Privacy Debate (posted 9/27) The Washington Post, September 27, 2003

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government. Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents. Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom’s board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000. Clark’s consulting role at Acxiom puts him near the center of a national debate over expanded government authority to use personal data and surveillance technology to fight the war on terrorism and protect homeland security. . . . (read more)

This is one of the companys that was on Russerts interview with Risen.


http://www.acxiom.com /

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Clark is clean on this. You can relax

Here is a post I saved (one of my own) also:

The Author of "No Place to Hide", Robert O'Harrow Jr., fully vouches for Clark and the brief work he did on behalf of Axiom regarding screening plane passengers for possible terrorists trying to board immediately after 911 (I assume that's what you are talking about - Clark hasn't worked with them for years)

Here is a link to a web site put up by O'Harrow and the Center for Investigative Journalism in case you are not familiar with O'Harrow's work:
http://www.noplacetohide.net /

Here's what O'Harrow had to say about Clark and his involvement with Axiom at this conference held in 2003:

"“NO PLACE TO HIDE: WHERE THE DATA REVOLUTION MEETS HOMELAND SECURITY”

MODERATOR:
P. J. CROWLEY, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS

FEATURING:
GENERAL WESLEY K. CLARK
JAMES X. DEMPSEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY
NUALA O’CONNOR KELLY, CHIEF PRIVACY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
ROBERT O’HARROW, JR., REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST; AUTHOR, NO PLACE TO HIDE

ROBERT O’HARROW:
"...There is a guy that I think many of us in the room respect and admire deeply, General Clark, and he serves as a great example of someone who was deeply involved in representing a company called Axiom. And Axiom was one of those companies that responded with – I know that from my reporting – very patriotic motives. They had a lot of that as a marketer and they shared it and they shared it to good effect; it helped. They also saw ways that they could change their business model and become part of the security industrial complex. And one of the people that was helping open doors for Axiom in Washington was General Clark. The reason I raise that is because I kept finding that General Clark got to places before I did and people spoke admiringly of his ability to say what he knew, to say what he didn’t know, to play it straight, and to in every case do it in the smart way, which is why people respect him."

Here's what Clark had to say himself about working with Axiom at that same event:

"...Can I just say one more thing about this impulse to privacy that you’ve mentioned, Bob, because when I was doing this – and I want to say this because Nuala is here, because when the government starts working programs and it does know where they go and where they going they are always cautious because everybody knows that these programs that do data are very sensitive. Before the government could even get a grip on some of these programs, when the word comes out on them they are blasted before people even understand it. So on the one hand, I understand exactly why there is an impulse for privacy. People – companies like Axiom were told, “Look, you just can’t compete for this contract if you talk about this to the press because we don’t know what the program is and we want to have – we want to be able to –“ this is – I’m speaking for the government – “We want to be able to see what data you have available. We want to figure out if we can use it, and we don’t want to have to answer a million inquiries from the press about it until we get it done. Then we’ll run it through.

You know, my instinct on it was a little bit different than the government’s, but I didn’t have any influence on them. I mean, my instinct would have to bring in the ACLU and to say, “Please create a group that’s sort of like a trusted group that we can bounce ideas off of and we want to run these ideas by you. And if you have strong objections, we want to hear them. We want to hear them right upfront. What we ask is that you will work with us in a collaborative sense so that – you know, you tell us before you run out to the Washington Post the next day and we have got (unintelligible.)” So, you know, we are just exploring ideas. We want to try to put this together and I do think there is a need for that. There is a need for enough privacy in governmental decision-making that the government can come out with programs and then have a chance to explain them, not to take anything away from the press because that balance is a dynamic balance. It’s fought by and maintained by hardworking reporters who make a lot of phone calls and get turned down a lot, but it’s a very important public duty.

So I am not sure if the balance is right is what I am saying. I don’t know if it’s right and that is one of issues we ought to explore..."

Clark's with the good guys on this one, not the good old boys network.

[Totally Committed]

25. Deja vous all over again....

and again, and again, and again. I keep wondering why we all keep bothering to refute this utter nonsense time after time. People who are looking for a reason not to support Wes will just dredge up this stuff whenever and wherever he's mentioned just for the hell of it.

I know you've all covered this by now, but geez, this bullsh*t just gets so tired.

TC

[Totally Committed]

26. Delete

Sorry... dupe.

[lojasmo]

27. Depleted uranium? SOTA? take your pick.

I would like a president that has actually served as a democrat prior to running for the POTUS. That's my angle.

[FrenchieCat]

28. So have you asked any of "your already served" as Democratic

politicians they views on SOTA and DU, and what they have done about the issue? Cause it would seem they are the ones that could write and force the enactment of the bills and laws determining what's what. Ask them what they did about those issues while we were under a Democratic majority as well......just so you know. Figure out why you hold Wes Clark personally responsible for DU and SOTA, but not your elected "already Served" Democratic officials....the ones you vote for.

Further, Wes Clark served his country as an American....and a good one at that.....

In the end, the President has to serve All Americans, not just the ones he likes......

And what did your already served Democrats say about Rwanda while 800,000 were being machete to death? Do you know?

[lojasmo]

36. I can't think of three national democrats I'd support for POTUS either.

But I certainly won't support an individual with absolutely no experience as an elected official.

Wes has no track record on the issues I deem to be important.

He is on record as supporting the use of DU

He is on record as supporting SOTA.

He will never be my candidate.

[lojasmo]

38. Don't have to....

Russ Feingold has made it clear that he is opposed to the use of DU.

http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/issues_depleted_uranium.html

[Jai4WKC08]

34. Check the MTP transcript

I answered this last time you posted it, but got no reply. I read the transcript. Acxiom is NOT mentioned in that Reisen interview.

Not sure it matters. Clark severed his ties with Acxiom over 3 years ago. Before the CAPPSII proposal (altho I don't think that one ever went thru... but in any case, Clark had nothing to do with it).

[Dinger]

10. Wes Clark - All Patriot, No Act K & Friggin R!

Great job xkenx!

[AX10]

11. Wesley Clark, All Patriot, All Progressive, All American!

[Tinksrival]

18. My family comes from a long line of repubs

And Wes Clark was the only dem candidate they would have voted for in '04.

I tried to get them vote for Kerry and they just wouldn't do it. And don't even mention Clinton!
I don't understand it but I think they would give our idiot commander and thief a third term instead of electing Hill. I am no longer on good speaking terms with the inlaws!

[WI_DEM]

21. I'll say this--if it's John McCain for the GOP

I think Wes Clark would be our best choice to counter him. McCain cuts heavily into the Independent vote and I think that Clark would blunt that.

[Coexist]

30. Absolutely

and he already has name recognition with the Fox crowd.

[wysiwyg]

32. I thought he didn't want to run again - I wish he would!

I've heard of people asking him about running in 2008 and being told he wasn't interested; or that his wife didn't want him to run specifically.

I sure hope that's not true! I rooted for him in the primaries but never saw much news coverage of him in the run-up. Hopefully, if he does decide to run he starts early this time.

[FrenchieCat]

33. That's cause the news media didn't want you to see him in 04.....

and they accomplished that goal well.

But for 2008, if he decides to run....dealing with the media will be part of the strategy......

For now.....he's helping those running in 2006...and that is the most important thing, period. :hi:

[xkenx]

37. Clark only says "Rule nothing out."

with a twinkle in his eye. After the Nov. elections, I think we'll see him turn to the '08 run.
Clark holds frequent fund-raising rallies for Congressional candidates. These affairs are mostly a love-fest for Clark himself. When he speaks, you can tell he's talking much more broadly than the limited scope of this year's elections. IMO he'll be running and early enough to get good traction.

[ooglymoogly]

35. i hope he is either the ticket or on the ticket

he's got my vote

[pstans]

39. A lot of what you say sounds like

Russ Feingold. I admit that I don't know that much about Clark since he skipped Iowa. I also hope that the situation in Iraq has improved in the next 2+ years before the 2008 election and Clark's military background won't be as much of a need.

Feingold/Clark ticket might not be bad. Clark would be a great Sec. of Defense or Sec. of State for sure.

[TheModernTerrorist]

40. Clark and Gore

IMO, the only two people, at this point, who can/will save us.

[AtomicKitten]

42. I agree.

Gore is and has always been my first choice.
But when it was clear he wasn't running in 2004, I backed Wes Clark all the way.

Both are truly decent men.

[TheModernTerrorist]

43. there are plenty of good dems I'd like to see

but I'd really like a Gore/Clark ticket.

[rucky]

41. Is he running? n/t

[CarolNYC]

44. Not yet....

Right now he's focused on 2006, not 2008. He knows how important it is that we get at least one house of Congress back this year...Ask him after the '06 elections....

Oh, and he'll be on Ed Shultz at 4PM ESTR today, FYI....

[xkenx]

45. How was Wes on Ed Shultz? I missed it.

[BootinUp]

46. Here's a taste

I know its not much.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x627436