Who can beat the right wing media juggernaut?

[Theide]

The contents of this post are a repeat posting, since the original seems to have disappeared. If you are an admin and reading this, please don't kill it. The only reason this was posted prior was that I could not originate a thread yet, being a newbie. Just want to get some feedback from others, what you think, feel, etc. A NICE verbal brawl!!!!


Wesley clark is the only truly electable candidate I see in the pool of potentials.

Hillary would be a great candidate, but the right wing media juggernaut has had over 14 years to vilify her. Most of the Joe six-pack demographic has been fed the idea that she is "anti-american" and they have eaten willingly. If you listen to the radio talk shows (O'Reilly, Hannity, Michael Savage, etc.), you will hear them actually say that they think Hillary is the most dangerous person on earth. Unfortunately, if you tell the public something often enough, a large number begin to believe it. She cannot win in the general election due to this concentrated propaganda effort, which has not eased off even a little since the original smearing of her reputation in connection with health care reform, way back in 1992-3.

Lieberman - not even an option - no fire in the belly.

Dean - Same as Hillary, except they managed to destroy him based on nothing at all, and in much less time.

Gore - Just can't see it.

Wesley Clark not only has the faith and trust of our armed forces, he has no real negatives for the right wing media juggernaut to pound on. The only thing they can fault him on is his willingness to play a bit of brinksmanship with the Russian military in Yugoslavia. Even that is a positive, because it gives him something unique. He engaged in said brinksmanship in order to stop the continuing genocide of Muslims in Yugoslavia.
This gives him something no one else can claim - credit with the Muslim world. Kind of hard to go on bitching about the "Great Satan" when it's leader is personally responsible for saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of Muslims.
Add to this the obviously clear grasp of Geopolitics (So clearly lacking in the current administration.) and a brilliant mind with a real understanding of strategy and tactics and you have the makings of a great statesman, a man who could lead America into a new age of global cooperation.
I have to admit I am not totally comfortable with the idea of a General being President, but despite that, he is my choice for the office.
On the domestic front, he has shown a penchant for putting forth realistic solutions that have been well thought out and can actually be implemented. Contrast this to the behavior of the current administration, which throws out an ill-considered initiative periodically, then implements just enough of it to put more money in the pockets of their corporate cronies (Halliburton,etc.). He has firmly established himself as a Progressive in the political arena, embracing many of the issues that matter most to the poor and middle class such as health care and schools.

Will we back the strongest of us, or will we divide our efforts, crippling ourselves and allowing this gang of criminals which are currently in power to retain their stranglehold on America? Will we struggle to regain our freedom, or will we give it up in the name of Homeland Security?

It's up to you, but for me, Wesley Clark is the right man to lead us from the depths of depravity to which our country's leadership has sunk into the bright clear light of a new and honorably lived day!

Wesley Clark for President 2008!!!!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

I don't know who the candidate will be, but it will be a person who has to be willing to clean up the gigantic mess Bush has made. They must have international experience, because its going to take a lot of fence mending to get us back in the world's good graces. They must not be connected to the corporate interests that are attempting to run both political parties so that their agenda, rather than the people's agenda, will be fulfilled.

If Gen. Clark wants to take on the challenge, I think he would be a great man for the job.

[Mrspeeker]

2. the military already runs the government

just look at the budget, so why would a former general and former republican be a good democratic candidate for president?

he should focus on kicking the neocons out of his party!

We don't need the old republicans to jump over here with some great advice, and two party's is ridiculous for a so called democratic republic.

Wesley should form his own party based on military strategies I'm sure if any new party could actually get on the ballots everywhere, one that supported the American Military industrial complex would get ample funding and prolly even succeed, which I'm rather sad to say.

Military mind sets are not the proper choice for the democratic party, I'm sorry I just dont see a bright future in trying to run a former general on the democratic ticket. :(

[Theide]

8. Clark was not a Republican

He was a military man who followed the same dictum that most career military men and women of good conscience follow. Whatever his opinions, he apparently tried to maintain his stance of political neutrality even in the privacy of his own thoughts. If you talk to retired military, a large number of them will tell you that they did not even vote for their entire term of service. I know that is true of my retired military friends, and when Clark says that was true of him, I am inclined to believe it.

According to him, when he was out of the military, he began a careful evaluation of the political situation in order to determine where his personal beliefs fit best. Where he landed was in the Democratic Party, that being the closest to a true Progressive Party we have.

As for supporting the military-industrial complex, I'm sure he does, to a degree, as do I. Just because we want the world to be peaceful does not mean that we have no enemies. As miserably as this administration has screwed the pooch in Iraq, and, to a degree, in Afghanistan, America desperately needs someone with a mindset like Clark to convince the world that our bark still has bite.

Do not forget what Clark did, and wanted to do, when he was Supreme Nato Commander. He was largely responsible for bringing the Genocide in Yugoslavia to a stop, even though he was hamstrung by the Clinton admin's fear of losing any American lives at all (Somalia). He also wanted to intervene in the Genocide in Rwanda, but was not allowed to do so. Do you think we could have done some good with our military-industrial complex by stopping over a million people from being hacked to death with machetes? How many American lives do you think that would have been worth?

Before you ask, no I do not think we should have gone into Iraq. Unfortunately, we are now stuck, and to just pick up and leave would simply create even more chaos than we have already caused. I don't really see a good way out of that mess, and I don't have any answers other than fairly dire predictions about the Iraqi civil war getting even worse. Perhaps partitioning Iraq into a Kurdish area, a Sunni area, and a Shiite area would help, but maybe not.

As for Afghanistan, they were a legitimate enemy. Al-Quaida was in bed with the Taliban, which had taken over Afghanistan by military force. Unfortunately, The Bush admin screwed the pooch there, too.

I guess one of my points is this - Would you rather have a president who is afraid to commit us where we really should be(Clinton), a president who goes to war on a whim and lies to the country in order to do it(Bush 2), or a president who is both willing to take a stand on principle and has the good sense to change his mind and admit he was wrong if that turns out to be the way of things?


Just because I am a Democrat does not automatically mean that I dislike the military nor should it for you. Our men and women in the military are largely dedicated people who remain apolitical while serving their country. They do this because they are duty-bound to follow the orders of their commander-in-chief, be that person a Democrat or Republican.

Just to be fair, I should mention that I would have been in the military except for one little problem. I cannot serve in good conscience because I am gay. Even under don't ask, don't tell I would be violating my own sense of honor by effectively lying. I am now to old to sign up, but Clark would remove that barrier for those who would wish to serve. Definitely not one of the old school.

[Mrspeeker]

29. Why do we fight?

Well now that you have done some research, and you found out that General Clark did vote republican a few times which is not a crime by any means, hell at least he voted.(Micheal Moore was a republican too)

I have a question for you, what is a democracy? especially if both party's share the same view of a pro-war candidates.

I can understand winner takes all which is still not really fair or right but if in this so called democratic republic, if both parties support war and war presidents then how is this really a democracy? A opposition party should be just that, its should not look to the other party for its tips on how to win the presidency which wasn't really won anyways as we know. Running a general because we are trying to out do them is not going to solve the problem.

The republican party is definitely not the anti-war party
So when I registered to vote along time ago I had to go with the party that best suited my interest which are Anti-war views. If the democratic party starts running generals where is the anti-war view spose to go?

In my opinion Generals and war are not the answer to the democratic party problems, standing up for the people is!

So why do we fight?

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Clark on the Military Industrial Complex

And you know damn well that Clark was never a Republican. Repeating a lie endlessy does not establish it as true.

New Hampshire Public Radio did a series of long free ranging interviews with Democratic candidates for President prior to the 2003 NH Primary. They were conducted by host Laura Knoy for the show, "The Exchange". She had each major candidate on twice, the first time explored background and general beliefs, the second time specific issues. This interview with General Clark was conducted on November 5, 2003, which was her first interview with him. It is still available to be listened to at their archive at:
http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

At about the 35:30 point in the interview a caller asks Clark about Ike's comments on the military industrial complex. This is my hasty attempt to transpose those comments, not an official transcript:

"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."

During this same interview Clark also made this statement:

"I think we're at a time in American history that's probably analogous to, maybe, Rome before the first emperors, when the Republic started to fall... I think if you look at the pattern of events, if you look at the disputed election of 2000, can you imagine? In America, people are trying to recount ballots and a partisan mob is pounding on the glass and threatening the counters? Can you imagine that? Can you imagine a political party which does its best to keep any representatives from another party — who've even been affiliated with another party — from getting a business job in the nation's capital? Can you imagine a political party that wants to redistrict so that its opponents can be driven out entirely?...it's a different time in America and the Republic is - this election is about a lot more than jobs. I'm not sure everybody in America sees it right now. But I see it, I feel it."

[Mrspeeker]

28. well your missing my point entirely

A general is not the right candidate for the democratic party, we already have a war time president and plenty of generals. There are plenty of great people that would be a lot better choice then Clark.

Your statement to me is wrong:

"And you know damn well that Clark was never a Republican. Repeating a lie endlessy does not establish it as true."

No I don't know that he is not a republican or ever been a republican because he actually did vote republican a few times. If you would like to look into it you will find the truth you seek.

When I think of the Democratic party, I'm sorry I think of Liberal, and I really can't associate Generals who wage war and kill people as liberal or a person that would share my view point. If both partys are pro-war then where does that leave us? Stupid question by me cause we both know they are. Whats this whole thing about? Why do we Fight? I think you know too!

I could name like 100 people that would be a lot better for our party and have no military credentials, which in my mind means they never killed people!

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Have you ever faced the choice of becoming a conscientious objector?

I did. I was draft age during the Viet Nam War. I fought against that war, and I decided I would go to Canada if I got drafted, but I decided not to become a conscientious objector. I decided I am not a pacifist, though I have opposed almost all wars in my life time.

You are obviously not alone in your belief that anyone who is willing to go to war can't be Liberal, and I am not going to try to persuade you otherwise. But I don't think your belief represents a sizable percentage of Americans. My father fought in World War II, and I don't think of him as a killer or Conservative. And it is not Generals who decide when to fight a war, it is politicians. Lately it has been civilians like Cheney who have been pushing us into wars, but our military follows the orders given to it by the President.

I know some are just not comfortable having an ex career military man as President, but you take that position even further. So be it, it is your opinion. I see your point, I just don't agree with it.

[Theide]

23. Correction

Upon further review, I found that Clark did actually vote Republican in the Vietnam era.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

Sorry about my incorrect statement, but the general idea still stands.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. That is an excellent article

I didn't see any mention of Clark's former voting pattern in it though, but Clark has always admitted that he voted for some Republicans for President prior to Bill Clinton. That is not the same as having been Republican however, since Clark was always liberal on domestic issues. Further that certainly doesn't indicate that Clark IS Republican. Such a comment is ridiculous and insulting. Clark voted for Clinton Gore and Kerry. Clark campaigned hard for Kerry all the way throughout the 2004 Election. Clark has given the National Democratic Party radio response to Bush on three occasions. Clark has been raising money and campaigning for Democrats ceaselessly across the nation since the 2004 Elections.

[Mrspeeker]

30. Why do we fight?

I'm anti-war!
A general just doesn't bring me to my feet, sorry its just my opinion, of course I didn't go out of my way to insult someone over it.

"Such a comment is ridiculous and insulting. Clark voted for Clinton Gore and Kerry. Clark campaigned hard for Kerry all the way throughout the 2004 Election."
Of course this just accounts for the last 6 years, but hey who's counting?

Which party should I be in now that everyone and their brother and sister wants to debate me on if Clark was a Republican? Which is missing my entire point but hey I'm not surprised!

So I should just shut up or something because I guess both party's would like to support the idea of war ?

The democracy of America has lead to this..Two party's same view..hummm is that really a democracy?

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Well if I take your statement literally

"The democracy of America has lead to this..Two party's same view..hummm is that really a democracy?"

Then we might as well call McCain a Democrat. Or just call them all Replicrats or Demicans, and I do get that a good case can be made for doing exactly that. But unless that is where you are going, the old words still have some meaning. People do make choices about affiliations with Political Parties. People do decide which primaries they want to vote in (Clark voted in Democratic Primaries). People do decide at which Party Conventions they want to appear at. Zell Miller spoke at the Republican National Convention, which as far as I'm concerned cancels out whatever his party registration say, and Clark spoke at the Democratic National Convention, which as far as I'm concerned trumps who he might have voted for in 1984.

I am not arguing with you now about whether or not there is a sufficient difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties, and I'm not arguing with you about who is the Democrat among the Democrats who is most different from the Republican Party. I will be voting for Jonathan Tasini in New Yorks Democratic Party Primary for U.S. Senate over Hillary Clinton, but I recognize that neither of them is a Republican for what ever that is worth. And neither is Wes Clark.

[SteppingRazor]

3. One problem with this is...

You don't even address many of the potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidates. Where's Warner? Edwards? Kerry? And why even have Dean on there? He ain't runnin', and I'll take bets from anyone who thinks he is.

For the record, I agree Clark would make a fine candidate, and I'm not currently leaning toward any particular candidate. But I don't think "just can't see it" is legitimate political debate. Why can't you see a Gore candidacy?

As for Lieberman, I think his having "no fire in the belly" is the least of his worries, given his support of an increasingly unpopular war that, if trends continue, will be a campaign-ender for war supporters by 2008.

[Theide]

9. I am not ignoring the rest of the field

But the bald truth is that we need someone who can not only draw in the loyal Democratic voter but can also draw voters over from the moderate wing of the Republican party.

The right wing media juggernaut has managed to shred every one of the candidates I see as realistic. The unfortunate truth is that 49% of the voters believe(d?) that Gore already lost once. I like Al, I just don't think he can achieve the necessary plurality in the general election. We don't need another election that splits the country down the middle, we need someone who can draw at least a few percentage points more than 50.01%. Clark is actually what I would call a Progressive centrist, although the media labels him a liberal. As such, he stands the best chance of any of the candidates to draw the votes required for an unambiguous win in the general election.

I might add that his stint as Supreme Allied Commander for NATO gives him a great deal of experience in herding cats, which should help when it comes to dealing with Congress.

[SteppingRazor]

13. If it's drawing moderate Republicans you're worried about...

why not Warner? Moderate governor from a red state with a proven track record of getting Republicans on board to win an election

Understand, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I like Clark, in general.

[Theide]

18. We don't need a Moderate, we need a Progressive

who can draw the moderate vote. Warner fits that bill about as well as Lieberman.

[karynnj]

10. Great post - just needs one additional comment

Let's work on 2006 first!!!

The primaries (and the pre-primary period) will be enough to decide on the nominee. That is the purpose of the primaries. Although we should concentrate on 2006 now, for 2008 this would be a better time to learn about the positives (as much as the negatives) for the various candidates. If we spend 3 years claiming that only are favorite can be successful (or good), that will make the majority of us pretty useles in the general election.

Every candidate mentioned is better than every Republican I have heard mentioned. Can we stop these threads that essentially beg people to respond in this case bashing Clark and listing his perceived vulnerabilities and hyping their candidate.

Also, if nothing change in the media - realize that every candidate will be smeared - what we need to do is figure how to deal with it. (Remember that in 2004 - Nixon's administration 2 years after his service (when all the people involved were alive) - found that he was "squeaky clean - he was a hero. That didn't stop the Republicans from finding 200 liars, some who never met Kerry.)

[Theide]

17. 2006 is most important now.

You are absolutely correct, both in terms of the 2006 season being most important just now and about the inevitable smear campaign to come for whoever chooses to run.


>>"Can we stop these threads that essentially beg people to respond in this case bashing Clark and listing his perceived vulnerabilities and hyping their candidate."

Actually, that is sort of what I am after. I will note that the responses so far have been mostly well thought out.

[karynnj]

26. I think you misunderstand what I was saying

I am saying that anyone who posts ( ) is the only candidate who can win and then says why, causes everyone for the other candidates to list what is wrong with ( ) and the fellow adherents will put in stuff on why he is good.

If I posted that only Kerry could win, you would likely list all your problems with him then discuss why Clark is better. You would take the only win as a slam. If you just posted Clark can win - there wouldn't be these implicit slams to all other candidates and your same points could be made.

[IntravenousDemilo]

22. Exactly, because, you know, if all goes to according to plan...

...perhaps President Pelosi's incumbency will have to be taken into consideration.

[karynnj]

27. sounds good to me

I think she would be the most liberal President we ever had and the first woman. Can she pick Kerry for VP? (I don't think Gore would want it.)

[Options Remain]

4. Gore - Just can't see it.

I can. The "comeback kid" aspect alone will garner him support. don't get me wrong either. I like Wes too and would vote for either pretty happily.

[Southsideirish]

5. I sure can "see it". Its the ONLY thing I "see." Wes Clark? No way!

[cali]

6. What passionate boosterism!

But, sorry, I'm not going to be bullied into supporting a certain candidate by your argument that we have to back him or face defeat. If anything, it's a turn off. Wesley Clark is just as vulnerable to attacks as any of the others. We got a taste of that in 2004. It'll only intensify, and there's plenty of material to use. I like Clark and if he's the candidate, I'll vote for him, but not only do I find your argument unconvincing, I also find it disrespectful. I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but that's how it comes across to me.

[Theide]

12. Sorry about that

As for the passionate boosterism, I stand guilty as charged. You are correct as to the vulnerability to attack, which unfortunately is the dominant factor here. I cannot make myself forget that the majority of the mass media out there acts as a mouthpiece for the HyperNeoCons.

Didn't mean to turn you off, just trying to get a bit of a debate going on here. Also meant no disrespect, sorry if I came across that way.

I too will vote for whoever the nominee happens to be.

[Burning Water]

7. Well, I've been

saying this, and I think it's true. Others disagree. However, I really do not think we can afford a candidate who has led us into defeat previously. That is Gore and Kerry, and I don't give a damn about the stolen election or electoral fraud or the electoral college. (They're not in the White HOuse, Bush is) = (DEFEAT) They either couldn't, or didn't, do what it takes to win. Wish it were otherwise, but that doesn't make it so.

Looking over the sea of Dem candidates, Clark is the only one with a chance to put WON by his name, IMO. Others feel differently, and if their candidate wins the nomination, I will support them the same as I would Clark. But till that time, Clark's da man.

Yeah, I'm sure everybody and his little sister has a more ideologically pure candidate in mind. And I know it's very, very satisfying to to push for ALL your political ideas. But, the other side will also be pushing for theirs, and the better the candidate is from a progressive perspective, the easier the time the Repukes have had is trashing them. I don't know why that is, it seems logically something they couldn't do. But there it is. Look at what they did to Kerry, for instance. Or Dean. On the other hand, as far as I can remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, they didn't lay a glove on Lieberman. If the Dems can solve this problem, they can retake the government and get this country on the right road.

[karynnj]

11. They didn't have to lay a glove on Lieberman

He came in 5th in the first two races - he was never a contender.

[Burning Water]

16. True, but

that wasn't because of anything the Repukes did. However, I was thinking more of the 2000 election.

Of course there is a good counter-argument to my insistence upon Clark. That is that Dems have been nominating "electable" candidates since 1976. Let's see, that's 30 years. And in all that time we've had 12 years of Dem Presidents. 12/30 X 100% = 40%. That's not too bad, I guess :shrug:

[leftofthedial]

14. when it comes to defeating the RW media

9mm works pretty well

but it's hard to top the stopping power of a .45.

[Theide]

20. I can top that!

.50 Desert Eagle. Although I personally can't hit the broad side of a barn with a handgun.

My choice would be a nice deer rifle, say a .270, or a sniper rifle.

[Dinger]

15. Welcome To DU!!

Thanks for your post! Nobody screws with Wes, that's for damn sure. It's hell waiting for '08, but we really need to concentrate on 2006 right now, and I'm pretty sure future President Clark feels the same way:patriot:

[mrgorth]

21. Brian Schweitzer

[Theide]

25. A statement of principle from Wes Clark

http://www.democrats.com/node/8209