I think Wesley Clark should run and now is the perfect time to announce.

[jenmito]

At this point, things are moving quickly. It looks like the media wants a Hillary/Obama race. Last time they wanted a Kerry/Edwards race and they got it. Hollywood is choosing already to get behind Obama from what I hear on MSNBC. Didn't Hollywood love Clark last time? If Clark enters the race now, maybe he'll have time to share that spotlight/money.

[Clark2008]

1. Do you think the media will dare to mention his name this time?

They talked about him some in the Fall of 2003, but, by the primaries, even as he won more races than Edwards (of those in which they both competed), they never even breathed his name.

[jenmito]

3. I HOPE so...

At least THIS time, since Kerry's out, he'll be the only military man. Maybe they'll start wanting a Clark/McCain match-up?

[PresidentObama]

2. America could use the general.

:patriot:

[Dinger]

42. Awww Thanks

Back at ya Kerry08! :patriot:

[AX10]

4. I hope he does so!

[keta11]

5. I hope Wes Clark runs

I have been blue since my main man - Russ Feingold - changed his mind. I am not enthusiastic about the current field at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[EndElectoral]

6. Now that Kerry's out, it is critical Clark run.

[jenmito]

12. I agree...

In '04, Clark was a combination of the best parts of Kerry and Edwards. Unfortunately, he didn't campaign in Iowa so he lost the momentum. This time could be different.

[Auntie Bush]

30. I wish he'd hurry up and announce right away for purely personal reasons.

My blood pressure would drop 20 points...and that's a good thing!

[gulliver]

90. Exactly!

[bigdarryl]

7. He will go nowhere sorry to say. because of all the media hype on Obama and Hillary

[jenmito]

8. I disagree...

THIS time neither of the current front-runners has any military experience and that's something pundits always bring up. With Kerry not running, I think he can get in and get attention.

[meow mix]

9. that might be true for others, but this is clark were talking about

and when he starts speaking people have a tendancy to move to his camp immediatly. and when i say people i mean any people whatsoever, he can gain support its his thing.

[PresidentObama]

13. Obama and Hillary don't have all the oxygen in the room.

Despite the media claims that they do.

There is plenty of room for good, strong candidates. And if my guy Kerry isn't in this, and if Gore decides again running....I'd probably end up supporting the general.

He'll be one of the most if not the most credible candidate to discuss and debate Iraq in this primary season.

[earthlover]

10. Clark in the picture would be interesting

Clark has been my favorite since 03. I have no doubts that he would have won in 04. I alos have no doubts that he would win in 08 in the general election if he got the nomination. Hard part for Clark is getting the nomination.

I think this is an opportunity for the Dems to take the White House, however it is NOT a shoo-in. Don't forget, as much the country is tired of Bush and as bad as Bush has been, Bush will not be on the ticket. Whoever is will certainly put as much distance from Bush as possible. If the Reps are smart, which they aren't, they would nominate Hagel....and at one fell swoop take the issue of Iraq off the table for the Dems....and, ironically, if the Dems nominate someone who voted for the IWR, Iraq could even become Hagel's issue against the Democrat!

Regardless, Americans still long for security. They also want a straight shooter, someone earnest, intelligent, with foreign policy expertise and someone with an understanding of the working class. So someone with Clark's background would be a strength, no matter who the Reps nominate. Needless to say he is a liberal, who has the ability to be perceived as a moderate.

I have observed also that Clark, having the strong security credentials, is not afraid to make points that the more... er... timid Dems are afraid to make. Such as opposing the IWR from the start, and now arguing for talks with Iraq's neighbors. Clark also had the most liberal tax program in 04, which would have eliminated all federal taxes for a family of 4 with an income of $50,000 and this being paid by the richest 1%.

I would be overjoyed if Clark got the nomination. Whether he will run has me wondering, and how he would fare with the current hype about Obama and Hillary is anyone's guess. There is, however, lot's of time before the voting.

In my view, if Clark were to run, the only ones with a credible chance of being nominated would be Obama, Clinton, Clark and Edwards and it would be interesting to see how this played out. To say the least.

[keta11]

11. He should run. Fallback he is guaranteed the VP slot! n/t

[Clark2008]

24. Why would he want that spot, though?

It would be an incredible waste of his talents (and he's said he doesn't want to be anyone's Dick Cheney - meaning he wouldn't want to control the president on foreign policy issues).

If he's not president, he should be Secretary of State. He wouldn't even have to update his Blackberry (or whatever he's using now) because he already has the numbers of all the heads of state. :)

[tishaLA]

14. Some will suggest it's a bad time to suggest this

Because some like to pose as the Moral Conscience here and felt it was wrong, so wrong, to suggest yesterday that Clark might want to announce his intention to run. Some thought it might be salt in the wounds of others. It's sad. So sad.

[jenmito]

17. Nah...

I mentioned it after I heard major money people in Hollywood were backing Obama. I don't think Clark announcing now or in a couple days would seem like rubbing salt in the wound of Kerry.

[tishaLA]

21. i know

my tongue was planted firmy in my cheek

[jenmito]

25. Oh...

I almost ALWAYS recognize that. I didn't this time. Oops. :)

[Adelante]

38. I got it

Even though I have that one on Ignore :D

[jenmito]

49. I haven't put anyone on ignore...

I don't know that much about their posts/positions.

[Adelante]

53. I have two

One of them for years now.

[jenmito]

74. Who and why?

Just wonderin'... :D

[Adelante]

77. It's against the rules to say who

But why, it's just two pains in the ass who sing the same anti-Clark song over and over and over until I was afraid of being bored to death -- I mean FOR YEARS. :crazy:

[jenmito]

92. Oh, ok....

Thanks for the "clues" anyway. :)

[Bucky]

15. I'm impressed the number and range of people for whom Clark is choice #2

I count a Feingold supporter and a Kerry supporter in this thread. In other threads I've seen Warner and Bayh people say they were eyeballing the ex-general (or as I like to refer to him, the ex-philosophy professor). Certainly after Dean's announcement that he wouldn't seek the 2008 nom if election to the DNC slot Clark picked up a good share of the cyber support.

I credit Clark's constant beam of a solid message into the wonkosphere. People who are alert and engaged like him. Not all, of course. We wouldn't be Democrats if we didn't have some rancorous dissent lurking just beneath our facade of unity. :)

I'm grateful for the diverse sources of Clark's support. Whatever his ultimate role in the next election, I'm certain Clark will be a key figure in bringing the White House back to the Democrats and the country back to its senses.

[cadmium]

18. general Clark has proven himself in

2004 and 2006.. I would be extremely supportive of Wes Clark if he got in the race. I'm not going to lie. I am still holding out a little hope for Al Gore but time is rolling by while Hillary Clinton's team has probably locked up most of the big money and media. I would prefer either of these two to anyone that has announced so far.

[MrSlayer]

16. I agree. He should get in now.

I'm ready to go all out for Clark. He just needs to say the words.

[jenmito]

19. I agree...

And I love that big pic of Clark! :hi:

[jen4clark]

20. Although I'm a bit anxious

I do trust General Clark to announce when the time is perfect! And that includes announcing that he won't run, if that's the decision. Oh, how I hope that's not the decision! If General Clark doesn't run, my 2nd choice is Gore. If Gore doesn't run I'm lost.

I don't believe the Corpress hype about not enough oxygen and/or money. We've seen the "game" they play long enough to know they are not to be trusted.

Try not to fret jenmito. I don't think we'll have to wait too much longer!

[jenmito]

26. I know how you feel...

And you're probably right. He's a quick study and that should include knowing when to announce he's running (or not running). Others have chosen not to run because they knew they wouldn't have support or someone else more popular is already running who is similar to them. Nobody running is similar to Clark and he'd have a lot of support. I hope he runs as much as you do.

:hi:

[Clarkie1]

22. The reason Clark hasn't announced is that he doesn't want to appear partisan.

He wants to influence the policy and not be seen through the lens of a partisan politician who's priority is drumming up support for himself...he wants his message to be heard as objectively as possible by the American people and policy-makers.

That would seen to be at odds with announcing. At the same time, running would give Clark more of an audience. So, I think Clark is weighing the benefits of getting in with the drawbacks, and his priority is influencing the policy now.

It is way, way early, but Clark has indicated he will make a decision in a matter of weeks, not months.



GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think the, the record of recent campaigns is that people like to get in early. They like to get the donor base established. They like to hire the right staff and so forth. I really am, am not into that. I, I'm a, more of a policy person, Neil, and, and what I believe is that you, you have- running is about carrying a message to the American people, and I think when I ran last time, it was a little bit early, I- it was, for people to understand what a disaster the President's strategy in Iraq was.

http://securingamerica.com/printready/transcript_070124.htm

[Bucky]

23. I don't like that quote

If he's using the "above the game" schtick as a gimmick, I'm cool with that. If he's really dragging his feet because he think it's unethical or unseemly to play the game by the same rules that everyone else is playing the game by, he's being wilfully naive. My genuine hope is that he's delaying his announcement in order to make a big splashy late entrance with some dramatic gesture as his calling card--something that will bump his numbers above the single digit doldrums where he'll be stuck until he throws his hat in.

I want this man on the train and I fear the train is leaving the station. Yes, it runs earlier each cycle. Yes, that's a problem. But it's a minor problem compared to a reckless war policy run amok and a Democratic field deprived of his voice.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Well Bucky, I prefer that he be different...that's part of his appeal....

THere are enough out there with their fingers to the wind.

You say he's being "wilfully naive"....but others understand that considering the media challenge he has compared to others, he wants to do it his way instead of being pushed into it by the pressure....and there is great pressures out there....

That only solidifies the point that he is a leader, not a follower. He'll decide sooner than later....

You see it as him not wanting to play the game by the same rules...I see it as him thinking that it ain't really a game, it's a commitment and he doesn't need to be pushed into it.

I like that.

OK Bucky, if you don't like that above quote, how do you like this one?

" If we could change people’s mind without using the military, we’ll all be a lot more secure."- Wes Clark 1/24/07

[jenmito]

32. The quote you posted is perfect...

especially coming from a MILITARY man! Thanks for posting it! :hi:

[Jai4WKC08]

88. No no no. You missed his point

He's not "dragging his feet because he think it's unethical or unseemly."

He's dragging his feet (if that's what you want to call it... to me, that implies reluctance, and I don't sense that Clark is at all reluctant) because he thinks he has a real chance at helping Pelosi and Reid put the right pressure on Bush to change the policy in Iraq and Iran without endangering their majority in the next election. He feels he's more effective if the public doesn't see him as competing with other members of Congress whose support he needs.

Obviously Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd, and their collegues who support them know that Clark probably will run. Or at least are smart enough to plan for that contingency. They will be hesitant to agree to anything that will give Clark any advantage over them. But if Clark's not officially running, what he does and says is far less likely to get attributed to him in the media, and it becomes much easier for any other candidate to go along.

[bonito]

28. I'll leave his timing up to him

Imagine Having an honorable commander and chief for our sons and daughters in the military, I think he's support will be second to none.

[jenmito]

33. So will I...

I'm just being selfish, I guess, because I want to be able to exhale. :D

[ShortnFiery]

29. You got that right!

I'm with you. Go General Clark!

[jenmito]

35. Thanks, ShortnFiery...

I REALLY want him to get a LOT of support AND attention this time. Last time he was ignored by the media.

[Dinger]

43. Thanks From Ding Too!

:kick: :)

[ShortnFiery]

46. Thank you both.

And no joke, I am a hard sell. I earlier thought that a former General Officer could not be totally objective and beholden to many contractors who work for The Pentagon.

I'm rethinking that opinion and believe that, from all that I know so far, General Clark is a highly intelligent man of integrity. I want to believe that we FINALLY have someone who will do their utmost not to become too power hungry and greedy.

Unlike both King George and Darth Cheney, Clark gives me the impression that he is comfortable in his own skin. When I was active duty, my senior, a captain, advised me that the best people live an open life. That is, if all our mistakes were put before us, we'd be embarrassed but able to fully own up to our true past.

I think Wesley Clark would make an honorable President. It would be so beautiful for our country to have someone in our highest office that genuinely "sets the example."

On a lighter note, I'm willing to have an Executive Branch that is anything but psychopathically warmongering. :P

Thanks again, I'm going to do more research and re-open my mind to General Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Here's a place to do some of that research.....

apart from other sources.

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/

[CarolNYC]

50. Hey ShortnFiery...

I've been wondering about you. I remember you when you weren't so, umm, complimentary toward Clark so, yeah, I believe you are a hard sell. Kudos to you for having such an open mind.

I've got to admit, I had to go through some soul searching myself as I was considering supporting a lifelong military man and a 4 Star General to boot. But I just kept researching him and watching him and, in the end, I decided that I could wholeheartedly support him with no reservations. For one, he's not your typical General and, for two, I discovered that maybe some of the opinions I held were actually unfair biases.

In any event, good to see you checking into Clark for yourself. A couple of books I found interesting as I was doing my research were Holbrooke's "To End a War" and Samantha Power's "A Problem from Hell". The piece, though, that I think convinced me to throw in my lot with the General (although I went through moments of doubt even after that) was this August 2003 profile in Esquire: http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_1.html

See you.

[ShortnFiery]

60. Thanks to everyone :-)

:blush: :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. ShortnFiery, whatever you decide, you won my total respect

Anyone having the personal integrity to willingly challange their own self fairly deeply held assumptions, based on the presentation of new information, is a person who I have very high regard for. As I know I shared with you before, the journey of discovery that you are on now regarding Wes Clark is one that I needed to make once myself. The fact that you had prior personal life experiences from dealings with some other General Officers that increased your skepticism about the suitability of someone who once held that position becoming President, definately increases my respect for you now. You had an initial informed bias based on own real experiences, yet you are willing to look beyond that to the person now in question. I can't ask for anything more fair than that from anyone. Thank you.

[xkenx]

101. Shortnfiery, I'll repost a brief "Duck Principle" for you, and thank you

for being openminded.

THE "DUCK PRINCIPLE"

Ducks don't wear signs labeling them ducks. If it has a ducksbill, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then you know it's a duck.

Wes Clark is one of the Democratic Party's foremost progressives by virtue of his actions over the years, not by any labels that people want to throw at him simply because he had a career in the military.
It is time to appreciate just how lucky we are to have this national treasure. Just a few items:

--Clark was always butting heads with the stereotypical "macho" military Neanderthals because he saw the horrors of war firsthand in Vietnam and always espoused "diplomacy first."
--Clark was one of the leaders of the all-volunteer Army created after the Vietnam debacle. To keep personnel in you had to do a good job of providing for their family needs, health, education, equal opportunity.
--Clark actually won environmental awards at bases under his command.
--When Clark was working at the Pentagon in the mid-90s, he was virtually the only voice crying out to intervene in Rwanda.
--It was Clark's voice, along with Madeline Albright, who persuaded the Clinton Admin., over the objections of the Pentagon, to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Tell the Kosovar Albanians that Wes Clark isn't a liberal, progressive, humanitarian.
--It was Wes Clark's voice prior to the Iraq invasion who urged that we exhaust all possible diplomatic means before any military action, including in testimony to Congress.
--It was Wes Clark who filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the University
of Michigan affirmative action case.
--It was Wes Clark who committed an act of political courage by appearing on the cover of the Advocate (gay rights magazine)

[kentuck]

31. I don't think so...

His announcement would only get drowned out by all the Obama and Hillary talk... He needs to be patient. His time will come.

[jenmito]

36. OK...but

if he waits too long, what if some supporters with the big bucks commit to someone else? I just don't want that to happen.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Clark will be a grassroots candidate.....

and I believe that there is a limit on what can be given.

If he comes out with a winning message......like "I'll fix Iraq first thing" or something....as Ike did in 1952.....there is money out there for him.

The others aren't saying anything radically different...just more of the same 'ol same 'ol tradional cautious market tested rethorics.

Clark is smarter than that, and can do better.

[jenmito]

48. Does that mean...

he'll take "matching funds" or does that have nothing to do with what you're talking about when you say there's a limit on what can be given? I know Hillary has opted out of that and so will have soooo much money to make ads, smear others, get more air time, etc. I hope that's not what you meant.

[FrenchieCat]

56. I'm not sure on that...

But what I do know is that we have to get this money out of our elections. It is becoming really a dangerous proposition and really doesn't make for good government....and someone who is more or less "going with it" out of the gate is no better than those who have gotten us where we are, IMO.

There is no principle in politics......

which makes us all bankrupt instead of rich.

[jenmito]

61. I agree...

I just think if he wants to win, if he runs, he has to opt out or he'll be smeared with no means to rebut them.

[SaveElmer]

34. My prediction...Clark will not run...and

Will end up as Hillary's Vice Presidential candidate...

Just a guess!

[jenmito]

37. I hope you're wrong...

He can do much more in the #1 spot.

[FrenchieCat]

39. Bayh and Richardson are who she may want for the job.....

Hillary ain't not "out of the box" innovative thinker.

The pressure sure in the hell wouldn't be to choose Gen. Clark....that's for damn sure. And considering the amount of pressure that they put on Kerry last time to choose Edwards......considering that Hillary will do what concensus dictates, I don't see Clark anywhere on that ticket. The fact that they both have Arkansas ties would negate it.....I think...although it would probably win Arkansas as well as a few more southern bluish states. But Clinton is too confident (as was Kerry at the time) to believe that she needs reinforcement of that type. Far as she's concerned, she's bringing Bill on Board and doesn't need someone like Clark.

[SaveElmer]

41. I disagree...

First the Clinton/Gore team ripped apart the theory that geographic balance needed to be part of the equation.

Second I disagree with your assertion on her as an innovative thinker...hell the thought of a first lady running for Senate is out of the box to begin with. She will do what is best for the party's chances in November, and will pick someone qualified to be President...I think Clark, with whom she has a good relationship, would be a good fit on both those scores.

[Jai4WKC08]

89. The problem with Clark being VP

Is that he has too much gravitas and national security creds.

Think about it. No one, or either party, can win the Presidency unless he or she can make the voters see him/her as a strong commander-in-chief who can lead the nation thru any adversity. All the issues are important, but the underlying prerequisite to all of it is strong leadership and a willingness to do whatever it takes to protect us. Not just in war, or against terrorist, but against natural catastrophy or economic collapse. The key is not expertise in every field, but both strength and toughness.

That's why Hillary won't back down on her war vote. People are willing to see women as strong, but not necessarily as tough. One reason Hillary may have a real shot (or would if there were so many people who hate her already) is because she really is tough. But she also has to SEEM tough -- as a woman, doubly tough -- and she's not there yet.

People who support other candidates may not like this, but no one looks tough in direct comparison to Wes Clark. He is obviously a warrior. Those of us who have supported him for so long know that he is also a compassionate human being with the wisdom to know how infrequently fighting is the right course of action. But no one can question that he knows how to fight if he has to.

I will probably never forget what I once heard that Richard Holbrooke had said. It was after Kerry had clinched the nomination and someone asked him if he thought Kerry would pick Clark for his VP. Holbrooke said there was "zero chance" of it, because Kerry could never accept someone who knew more foreign policy than he did. Man, I sure didn't want to hear that at the time. But in retrospect, he was probably exactly right. Kerry had to define himself to the voters as THE national security expert. If he had picked Clark, it would have said, I need this guy's help.

Hillary won't be able to pick Clark for VP for the same reason. I doubt any Democrat can.

[SaveElmer]

98. Been done in t he past...

JFK picked Johnson, though Johnson was clearly the heavier weight politician...

[jenmito]

99. That doesn't make it right.

j/k :D

[Adelante]

40. Well, you guess wrong, SaveElmer

But I like what you're doing with your blog. I've recommended it to others to read :hi:

[Auntie Bush]

64. I'd love to know your thoughts and opinions on that post in greater detail

You probably know some little tid-bits that would surprise us.
Please enlighten us! Pretty please...
I'll buy you a Clark Bar! :hi:

Edited to add...I hate to read in between the lines.

[Adelante]

66. Nah

You would be surprised what I don't know, Auntie B. :D

[Hepburn]

45. I would LOVE to see Clark run...

...and as a VP, I would like to see Jim Webb on the ticket.

[jenmito]

51. Hey, Hepburn!!!

Looooong time no "see"! :hi: I doubt Webb would run. Even if he did, isn't he kind of conservative on social issues?

[madfloridian]

52. Sincere question...why did he cancel the SEIU session?

http://bluesunbelt.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=105

"Blog reports indicate that Wesley Clark has cancelled his session with the 60 members of the international executive board of the Service Employees International Union. SEIU is meeting with Democratic presidential hopefuls at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC.

The presidential hopefuls participating today are Sen. Hillary
Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), former Sen. John Edwards (D- NC), Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). On Saturday, SEIU's board members will meet with Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)
and will hear from Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) and former Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA) via satellite.
Today's one-on-one closed press meetings with Democratic `08ers start at 9:00 am ET and will run all day. Each candidate will appear for about 30 minutes with about 15 minutes devoted to prepared remarks and 15 minutes devoted to answering questions that SEIU board members
pose.

(Side Note: after initially indicating that he wanted to a Q&A
session with SEIU's board members, Gen. Wesley Clark notified SEIU on
Thursday that he would not be appearing before the group either in
person or via satellite)."

[FrenchieCat]

57. Hey......Madflo......

Maybe it means that you will get your wish afterall.

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. Assuming that is accurate (and I don't assume otherwise)

I don't know MF. The range of possible answers is pretty broad. Clark once cancelled appearing as the keynote speaker at a State Party convention because it conflicted with an important personal event, I think it was either Gert's birthday or their anniversary. It could be that one of Clark's private business committments presented an unavoidable conflict. Unlike all of the sitting Senators and Governors running in 2008, Wes Clark is not drawing a pay check from anyone to be in politics, and if he runs, he will pretty much go cold turkey for the next year or more regarding any income. Most people won't pay you if you don't show up to work when you are really needed.

I know that it isn't because Clark is anti-Labor. Wes Clark is a very strong supporter of organized Labor, his comments at a recent event in Alabama underscored that, as did his Labor day message this year and his entire 2004 platform. And Wes Clark just committed to speaking at a political event in Nevada along with Bill Richardson, on the 27th, and to the DNC Winter Meeting, November 2 - 4th. So Clark is showing up where Presidential candidates are expected to show up.

[jen4clark]

59. This is from CCN

in reply to a post that had the information you posted:

Wes was never scheduled to go to the meeting

Submitted by Kat

The Nevada appearance speaking @ Douglas County Democratic Central Committee’s 3rd Annual “Turn Nevada Blue Dinner", Minden NV has been in the schedule for awhile.

~~~~
Yeabut

Submitted by mad4clark

Isn't Richardson in NV with Wes? He's doing something by satellite.

~~~~

Richardson is officially a "candidate"

Submitted by Kat

Wes is not. This is a 'candidate's forum'. It's very ambiguous whether it would violate FEC regs for him to attend.

You can bet that if things move the way we all hope they will, other candidates will use anything to point and cry "Violated FEC regs".

[Leilani]

65. How much time in your life is spent

trailing Clark & posting turds?

Since Dean is not running, I think you have too much time on your hands.

Maybe you should get a hobby.

[madfloridian]

67. Excuse me..."posting turds?" People at other forums ask, don't get attacked.

The same question being asked on other forums without people being attacked.

It's a sensible question.

You guys are to the point that you think I have no right to post anything.

If Clark runs, he will be running to be MY president as well as yours. I have a right to ask questions. He is not your personal property at all. Once he announces, he is running just like Hillary, just like everyone.


:think:

Posting turds?

[Leilani]

69. Yes , Turds!

Like your post that Clarkies were being so thoughtless when Kerry withdrew.

Kerry folks knew that was bull, & so did we.

And the countless gems dropped into Wes Clark threads.

You've become more subtle, but your MO precedes you.

[madfloridian]

73. Why are people at other forums able to ask something...

without being attacked?

Why just here? Why?

Why did he not attend the SEIU sessions? It is a fair question. You do not need to dissect my personality or my posts.

I have been called a kool-aid drinker since 2003 here. Now I am posting turds.

[Crunchy Frog]

79. It's not the question, it's the questioner.

You have a bit of a record MF, and sadly, that tends to color the way people interpret the things you say. If somebody else had made the identical post, I doubt it would have gotten a similar response.

You have a long pattern of insinuating evil intentions about anything and everything any Clark supporter does or says on this forum. You shouldn't be so surprised that it has reflected back on yourself.

[madfloridian]

81. It's nice no one else here has a record, isn't it?

It's nice to know that.

[Crunchy Frog]

82. I don't see anyone else with that kind of record posting in this thread.

If fact, I can't think of anyone else on this board who has quite the same kind of record that you do. I certainly don't see any of them turning around and claiming injured party status when they get called on for their behavior.

[PATRICK]

55. Would he lose his TV soapbox

for nothing, even without the Fairness Doctrine? I am not so sure of the situation. maybe biding his time for a better opportunity is his best option until the glow fades from Hillary and Obama. To jump in and get rejected by the advisers and donors now might make it harder to snap them up later. Also, the need to crush the Iran plan means he might be needed where he is and will serve as a launch pad after such a time anyway. As a candidate his views get framed differently and others share that frame who will crowd him out like last time. His core and the veteran caucus that is close to him will always be there. The Hillary camp that might like him are tied up at the moment.

He know better than I do. I actually trust his judgment will place duty over career ambitions.

[IA_Seth]

62. I think he has time.

Pointed out by another DUer...

Why jump in when the media is full-on Obama/Clinton? Why not let the mud be flung around the way it was in 03 with Dean/Edwards/etc and stay out of it until the media has had their fill?

I suspect an exploratory in the next few weeks, followed by an announcement around say...March-20?


---------
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/


Wither Wes Clark? Wait Two More Weeks...
Over the Christmas holidays, Ret. Gen. Wes Clark told a close friend that, without a doubt, he would establish a presidential exploratory committee after the first of the year. And now?

A Clark adviser says the '04 candidate is "leaning towards setting up an exploratory then taking some time to explore." Clark accepted an invitation to speak at next weekend's DNC winter meeting in DC, along with the rest of the Democratic field. In addition, a major Democratic donor said that Clark has begun to make telephone calls to party donors."

(snip)


Here's what Clark told Neil Cavuto a few days ago: "Well, I haven't made a decision on that yet. I haven't said I won't run, but for me it's about the message. I'm very concerned about where this country's heading."
----------

[jenmito]

63. I'd love for him to announce he's running...

March 22nd...my birthday. That would be the best gift I could get. :D

[high density]

68. I hope so

I'm a major Clark fan and I'd love to see him run.


Here he is in Maine, August 2005... The second time I got to shake his hand. :)

[Cameron27]

70. That's a great picture/ he's gorgeous :-)

I haven't seen him in person yet, let alone meet him :cry:

I'm soooo jealous!

[jenmito]

72. I just said...

the same thing. I'M jealous, too!

[jenmito]

71. I'm jealous...

You got TWO bites of the apple and I got none. :D

[jenmito]

75. Clark's picture was just shown on MSNBC along with many others...

as possible '08 candidates. :D And on CNN they just said today that Clark will be with Richardson in Nevada for a Dem. dinner.

[cyberpj]

76. No. Wait. Come in after Hillary and Obama have spent their money and our patience! That's the win!

I hope he waits and (to most people) comes out of nowhere as a fresh and credible military face of the Dem Party!

[jenmito]

78. That point is true, but...

won't all the donors be committed to one of the other candidates by then?

[cyberpj]

80. Dunno. Do donors have to "commit"? Didn't Clinton come in "late" in his time?

Can't say I know how it all works, just wanted Clark to make an entrance!

[Digit]

83. I never hear his name mentioned on TV

I have never heard a speech, nada.
I don't even think he is running.

[PresidentObama]

84. I've never heard Vilsacks and Dodds name on TV.

And they are running. And I've heard his name on TV...

I won't count the general out until I hear it from him. And if him and Gore don't run, I'll be TOTALLY lost x(

[FrenchieCat]

85. Well on another thread, you didn't even know what Wes Clark had

actually done that was worthy of support......when you were saying you didn't care what Edwards's stance on Iran was. You called Clark..."What's his name"....

So I just wanted to make sure that you got this information so that you could familiarize yourself as to why there are some of us who believe that Wes Clark has what it takes to do what is right, no matter the cost to himself....and that is the kind of man that would make one work for him during an election. Sure, he's as perty as Edwards, just a bit older and vastly more experienced in the ways of war and peace.....

Wes' attempts to intervene in Rwanda is a good start....that's where 800,000 Black People were macheted to death. Do you remember that? Cause Clark was trying to do something about it when it was unpopular, and without photo ops....

The United States, however, wouldn't invade Rwanda, although Clark pushed his mentor, General John Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to push for an intervention. Shalikashvili declined after Clark told him twenty thousand troops would be required, and as Clark says now, "I watched as we stood by as eight hundred thousand people were hacked to death by machete."
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_4.html

http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.

General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.

She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .

He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.

----------------
Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.

and did help save 1.4 million Muslim Albanians....

Samantha Powers.....

details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance.

Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."

http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html

and so he lost his job of 34 years....but I guess that can happen when you stand up to do the right thing, no matter the consequences....! :shrug:

Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away.
http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/index.html

more....
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/kosovo_was_about_genocide_not.html

[alteredstate]

86. Great post, FrenchieCat!!

I couldn't agree with you more.....

[jenmito]

93. Do you mind if I use some of those links..

to spread the word? They show such strength as well as explaining why he was forced to retire (now I remember the smears against him in '04). :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

96. That's why I posted it ......so use what you want.......as it would be my pleasure!

go ahead...make my day! :)

[jenmito]

97. Thanks, Frenchie!

I intend to! :D

[jenmito]

91. Then you must not have watched tv in the past few days...

Not only was he mentioned (that he'll be going to a Dem. dinner with Richardson this weekend in Nevada) but his name was listed on their list of possible candidates. Similar with MSNBC. And he's a Faux military analyst who was just asked by Cavuto if he's running and he said he doesn't know yet.

[BlueIris]

87. OH, PLEASE GOD, YES.

General Clark--if I can't have Kerry, I want you: ANNOUNCE NOW. Make me feel better.

[kimsterdemster]

94. Come on Clark, we need you...

I'd like to have a women like Boxer but it seems the only women running is Hillary, we need someone who was against this war from the start. If we can't have Al Gore, Gen. Wes Clark is the one that can get us out of this mess.



:loveya:

:patriot:



:kick:

[election_2004]

95. Prediction: he might announce on Feb. 19

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3081843

[PresidentObama]

100. I hope it's sooner then that.

IMO, Clark should get into the race A.S.A.P!

[jen4clark]

102. Hey jenmito!

Don't know if you read kos, but ms in la (a Clarkie) has a GREAT diary up!

Wes Clark: the Crosswalk between War & Law

by ms in la
Sun Jan 28, 2007


A perfectly clear, 68 degree L.A. winter day presented itself for the General at UCLA Law School last Monday (1/22/07). I arrived early and was politely ushered to the taped off Media section in the first few rows of the lecture hall. A young writer for the L.A.Times plopped down to my right— Francisco Vara-Orta; long, straight black hair, note book and pen poised or action.

The UCLA Media Relations representative, Claudia Luther, graciously asked if we needed anything— I imagined for a brief moment that I was the ‘legitimate press’. (Should I ask for lunch?) Being this was a lecture on legitimacy, I decided to blend in and act legitimate.

Crack your notebooks students. The General is on campus to deliver a lesson well worth learning. There will be a pop quiz afterwards...

Much More!!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/28/141459/949

[jenmito]

104. Thanks, jen...

I read kos sometimes but not in a while. Thanks so much for that! I just read a lot of it. He sounds like such an authentic, thoughtful guy! Not to mention brilliant (and great looking, too). :D :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

103. Whadayaknow! Hillary endorses Wes Clark!

Even if she didn't mean to! :)

Hillary Clinton in Iowa: "Democrats should nominate someone that can inspire trust when it comes to National Security because, she says, Republicans will put up a strong candidate of their own"
--KRNV News 4 (1/27/07)

This is reported at the very end of the video clip here......
First part is Clark interviewed at Democratic Nevada function yesterday.....
http://71.242.238.154/~ice/vidclips/clark_nevada_01_27_2007.wmv

[jenmito]

105. HAHA! Good for us and Wes!

SHE'S not the one to trust for National Security. Not compared to him!

[Clarkie1]

108. That coming right after Clark's comments is just too funny. nt

[RiverStone]

106. He is my number 2 choice...

Behind Al Gore!


GORE/CLARK 08!

:applause:

[jcrew2001]

107. clark08.com

clark08.com is registered to the same person as clark04.com so at least he's forward thinking. He'll probably enter the race.

However, wesclark2008.com is still available, as is GENERALWESCLARK.COM