Clark: Is he really the man or is he fluff?

[Hawkeye-X]

The last few days has been quite disturbing for me to find out the unfortunate truth about Clark.

First and foremost, it is correct that Clark has ZERO political experience whatsoever. Being in the military has nothing to do with politics, because they TELL me that they aren't supposed to be dabbling with politics, when I've tried to point out that most military folks vote Republican (thanks to the info in the 2000 election fight in Florida)

Second, the smoking gun - Clark's connection with Club for Growth anti-Dean ads has been revealed last night. If you don't believe me, read this thread: http://tinyurl.com/3as9u - and you'll see for yourself. Clark's former employer shortly before he resigned to be an CNN analyst was the Stephens Group, and Jackson Stephens is listed as a member for Club for Growth.

Third, Clark and Kosovo. Say what you will, but the truth is there, Clark was very controversial in Kosovo. This article here at http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102003_beyond_bush_2.html, tells me that why we should not trust Clark whatsoever.

Fourth, The Clark campaign. Rewinding back to October 7th, Clark's campaign manager, Donny Fowler resigned suddenly, according to CNN, because his authority has been usurped by two Clinton insiders. It tells me that Clark is a puppet for Clinton, greasing the wheel for Hillary Clinton to run in '08. Trust me on this.

Fifth, check this out. Back to Clark's Republican connections. Many of you tell me that Clark has never supported the Iraq war. Well, here's the problem. He did. Want proof? Here it is..

What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by General Wesley Clark


Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph....

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Take it what you will, but Clark supporters. I STRONGLY advise you to look at your own candidate. He is not who you think he is. If you are picking General Clark because he's strong on foreign policy, think again. The last two Democratic Presidents, Carter and Clinton had NO foreign policies when they got elected, and YET turned in one of the best foreign policies in history - namely Carter winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the Israel issue in 1979, and Clinton is well on his way to getting one for his work in Ireland and Kashmir.

Hawkeye-X

[cthrumatrix]

1. thank you for sharing....the "sudden entrance" of Clark left a question

[Legate]

6. Seen most of it before.

Doesn't change anything for me.

[mzmolly]

2. Great info HX

Spot on!

[Jack_Dawson]

3. Hawkeye you're beginning to panic

Any more stale stuff you'd like to throw out there? Clark is closing the gap, and you're going to have to deal with it.

[Hawkeye-X]

9. Sorry, the more people who is exposed for who Clark really is

then I'm not panicking.

Hawkeye-X

[ClintonTyree]

14. Stale?

The notion that Clark is Hillary's set up guy is irrefutable. It's the monkey wrench thrown into the works to jamb the Democratic machine in 2004, clearing the way for Hillary in 2008. I have nothing against Hillary and I believe she'd make a fine President. Yet the fact remains that the DLC is sacrificing 2004 for Hillary's ambitions.
Four more years of Bush as a lame duck President, is that what you want? Does our future mean so little to you that you'd allow that?
These are not stale issues, and until one peels back the thin veneer of the Clark candidacy and looks at the true intentions of our Democratic leadership, we're all sailing on a ship of fools.

[jmaier]

17. Irrefutable?

Cite one piece of credible evidence that isn't the published guttersniping of a Clinton hating pundit. Well ....

[Renew Deal]

24. Hello? Is this FR?

"The notion that Clark is Hillary's set up guy is irrefutable"

Geez, Maybe you forgot to call her Hitlery. The only ones using that line are at FR.

[ClintonTyree]

35. Did I attack Hillary?

No, open your eyes. Half of you people can't see that forest for the trees.

[Renew Deal]

45. Who people?

What forest? Trees? I thought freepers wanted to cut down all the trees.

[BootinUp]

44. heck its like a year old baked goods sale

The price has been cut so many times, and it still won't sell!

Last night they tried to sell it too.

Sooner or later you gotta haul it out to the garbage.

:hi:

[Capn Sunshine]

81. Closing the gap

at his current rate of progress, General Clark is assured by his staff he will "close the gap" by December 2004.

[101 Proof]

4. Say what you want about Clark...

he's still exponentially better than Bush.

On edit: I'm starting to like the man myself.

[Padraig18]

5. The subject line is needlessly infl;ammatory, HawkeyeX

Could you change it, please? :hi:

[Jack_Dawson]

8. Appreciate the civility, Padraig

:hi:

[Bucky]

23. I disagree. (I'm pro-Clark) See post #22.

[jmaier]

7. Must be a slow news day, Hawkeye

You've been harping on at least some of these issues well before the "last few days". Sheesh. I'm a strong Clark supporter but you won't find a single Dean attack thread that I've launched. Especially one filled with links to discounted reports, smear by association(s) with no evidence, etc.

If this is the best y'all can do, then perhaps Gov Dean is in trouble. And I have nothing against the Dean candidacy. I think he's a fine man -- regardless of the character of a small minority of his supporters. Yes, unfortunately, there are some rabid Clark supporters too -- immaturity transcends campaign affiliation.




Wes Clark. He will make an extraordinary American President.

[NV1962]

10. Funny that

For someone who yesterday loudly announced that you lost "all interest" in Clark, you seem to be pretty preoccupied with the next President, Hawkeye-W. :)

[Hawkeye-X]

11. I'm doing my part to expose Clark for who he is.

And I'm still interested in putting Clark where Lieberman should be - dead last.

Hawkeye-X

[NV1962]

21. Then be consistent for a change...

And instead of giving poor downtrodden and deeply demoralized Clarkies by the truckload of, eh, "evidence" that you post, a ray of relief from the headache, by simply stating that you are very much interested in seeing Wes Clark drop out of the elections, together with Joe Lieberman.

Good grief, if this is what constitutes "losing all interest" in a candidate you seemingly don't dig, God bless the poor soul you endorse...

Just out of curiosity: who do you endorse? I mean, maybe I could be swayed to support him or her, instead...

[Demobrat]

12. Just the fact that they are running Clark

shows why the Dem party keeps losing. All they are doing is proving that they are letting Rove set the agenda for the election. He say it's going to be about endless war, so they scramble to find somebody with a better military record than W. They are playing by Rove's rules. Thank goodness we have somebody who isn't.

[sfecap]

13. Clark was pro war.

"I was one of those before the war who said, “Don’t focus on Saddam Hussein. Go in there, take over the government and you’ll take care of things.” - Wes Clark, MTP 6/15/03


From MTP 11/16/03:

(snip)

MR. RUSSERT: Let me go to Iraq, because when you first started your presidential campaign, there was a lot of discussion about what your position was and when, and I want to go back and review it. Let’s start with September 26, your testimony to the House Armed Services Committee. And this is what you said: “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extent, and he is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities.” You went on: “Our president has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts...” And “I do believe the United States’ diplomacy in the United Nations would be strengthened if Congress can adopt a resolution expressing U.S. determination to act if the United Nations cannot act.” And you continued, “As Richard Perle ,” chief architect of the war in Iraq, “so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that’s longstanding. It’s been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this.”

A month later you went up to New Hampshire, campaigning for Katrina Swett, a candidate for Congress in the 2nd District, and said this: “Clark endorsed Democratic Katrina Swett in the 2nd District in New Hampshire.” And “He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution.” And as recently as September of this year, in response to a question of the press, “On balance, I probably would have voted for it.”

This was the resolution that the president asked for, giving him the authority to go to war. And the record’s pretty clear, General, that you were supporting the president.



Gosh. Wes thinks that Richard Perle is "eloquent".

It's simply astonishing to me that so called Progressive Democrats will support a pro war pseudo republican. My how times have changed...

[cthrumatrix]

16. "the clock is ticking on us" ? ....... that doesn't sound ant-war...thnx

[sandnsea]

15. On Kosovo

I've been reading Madelaine Albright's book and I understand what happened on Kosovo and why the Republican military is angry at Clark.

During Bosnia and Kosovo, parts of the Clinton Administration wanted a military plan that would hold various parties accountable without a full scale invasion. Colin Powell kept showing up with massive military plans and then saying they weren't feasible for various political reasons. In the meantime, wars raged on and people continued to die.

Finally, a group came together that presented a strategic bombing strategy, in conjunction with political actions. It didn't work 100% in Bosnia, but it worked effectively enough. Wes Clark was a liason or something at the time and possibly part of this strategy, I don't know.

But when it came time for Kosovo, they used a very similar strategy. Wes Clark executed it. It worked.

Clinton proved you don't need a massive military maneuver to effect change. You can have a targeted military strategy, along with political pressure from NATO and the UN, to effect change. Completely against anything the Republican military or Republicans in general believe. Turns international relations on its head.

That's why those Generals hate Wes Clark. He worked with the Democratic Clinton to execute a new kind of Democratic foreign policy and it worked.

(This is MY interpretation, not Madelaine Albright's)

[Devils Advocate NZ]

68. I wish the Clark camp would get their story straight on Kosovo...

When a Clark critic like myself points out that the Kosovo "war" was a disaster in that the supposed ethnic cleansing didn't actually happen until after the bombs started dropping, and the Serbs supposedly were not affected by the bombing campaign (only 14 tanks were destroyed out of the 300 or so, for instance), Clark supporters say - But Wes knew this and was calling for ground troops!

Now they are saying that Clark is hated because he enacted the Democratic plans of a limited air war only?

When I point out that the airstrikes were made from such a great height that the pilots couldn't tell civillian from military, decoy from real, and in fact were often responsible for deaths among the very people they were supposedly trying to save, I get told that it was not his idea, but these same people say that Clark won the war with NO US casualties!

Tell me, exactly what about the Kosovo "war" makes Clark a great general? He was carrying out someone else's war plan, and didn't even do that properly, so just what the hell was so good about him?

[Donna Zen]

76. Powell?

Powell was no longer in the military during Kosovo. This is confusing.

[SayitAintSo]

18. Seen it all before .... Clark is still the best choice

I've looked at ALL candidates, met many, been to meetups, speechs read and researched extensively. I like them all. Yet....

Clark remains the one best equipped to beat Bush.

[Walt Starr]

19. He's DNC puppet fluff, plain and simple

He's an opportunist and was tapped because it looked like Dean was going to take this thing.

[BootinUp]

48. Then the puppetmaster is one hell of a ventriloquist

I mean, like telepathic. I always thought Clark was thinking on his feet! But no, he's wired up and gets his talking points from hidden electronic equipment or something. Thanks for finally clearing that up!

[Monte Carlo]

20. ''...being in the military has nothing to do with politics...''

I don't know about that one. Once you reach the top of the Pentagon, like 4-star general Clark did, politics is your job, as well as warfare. The Pentagon, despite appearances, is not a well-oiled military machine, it's a beauracracy much like any other, with all the conflicts, compromises, procedures, and politics that goes along with it.

[Bucky]

22. I'm pro Clark, but don't think the thread or subject line are inflammatory

I disagree with your conclusions. But I'm at work so I can't take the time to argue with you. But I do wanna say something.

The poster saying this has an inflammatory subject line is wrong. The title of the thread asks a legit question. The post is critical, but far from slamming.

For Dean supporters I'm telling you this: Make your arguments, work your votes, fight your fights. But please don't totally buy into the idea that Clark is one of them and not one of us. I don't mind litmus tests, but remember that no politician at this level can pass a virginity test.

If Clark ends up the nominee, watch who he works with and listen to what he says. I am 100% confident you will like what you see and hear. He is a real Democrat and a real democrat where George Bush is neither. My biggest concern about him is that he is, as a life long army man, a big government liberal, that he'll overreach in domestic policies. When it comes to his sincerity, liberality, Democraticness, and integrity, I have no concerns at all.

You don't have to like him now. But if we nominate him and you give him a fair shake, I know you'll come to love him. Good luck and may the best candidate win.


a friend

[sfecap]

26. If Clark becomes the nominee...

...it will save me a trip to the voting booth.

[Walt Starr]

28. I'm now positive, if Clark wins the nomination I will definitely vote

AGAINST BOTH CLARK AND *!!!!

[Demobrat]

30. Well, so will I.

But I'm not too worried about it.

[John_H]

33. Please Read: Dean style Dems in their own words.

[jmaier]

39. Now positive?

You've been stating this position for quite some time. :-)

[Demobrat]

29. Don't worry, Clark won't be the nominee.

You're going to be down there standing in line to vote for Dean with the rest of us.

[Bucky]

89. of course I will. What kind of A-hole wouldn't support our nominee?

Oops.

[JVS]

95. Swing voters who supposedly are the main appeal of Clark's candidacy

[SlavesandBulldozers]

31. oh man

that's terrible. That, in turn, will save one knuckle-dragging republican a trip to the voting booth.

[Walt Starr]

34. When faced with two men who think Rummy and Condi are great

I'll take a third choice, thank you.

[Demobrat]

49. At least with W

you know it's only four more years.

[Walt Starr]

53. Yup, with Clark we could be stuck with eight

and he's an unknown quantity politically. We have no idea how he would govern. If he governs like it's the military, Bush would be better!

[Hawkeye-X]

27. FYI

The subject thread was changed after Paidrag18 complained about it. It was originally "Clark: All hat and no cattle". I don't consider it inflammatory, but I don't need to be in trouble.

Hawkeye-X

[Bucky]

91. Still agree with you.

I don't buy that "all hat no cattle" thing at all. If I may be blunt, it's bullshit based almost solely on the fact that he wore his country's uniform. A balanced assessment shows that Clark is a solid liberal Democrat and a sworn enemy of the PNAC agenda.

BUT, that said, the "all hat no cattle" label is still fair criticism. I think it would be total bullshit if this board got so squeamish about democracy that we can't even critique our own candidates before they're nominated. You wanna argue against Clark? Have at him. Your critiques are substantive, not slanderous. These rules should limit our manners not our ideas or the passions with which we express them.

[JNelson6563]

62. Good post Bucky

Very fair minded. :toast:

Julie

[CWebster]

25. Clue

I understand why so many of Clark's true believers can't or won't or refuse, or fall asleep or deny or dismiss or gloss over or attack the messenger before confronting these truths. It is difficult to have the image shattered; cracks appearing in the ideal illusion of of an unquestioned projection. A crisis in faith.

It is not our allegiance to Dean that causes us to question and doubt Clark's eligibility or appropriateness for the Democratic contender--it is allegiance to our party and our purpose and it is correct that we investigate and question instead of being expected to buy all the campaign mantra sight unseen. Honestly, of all the other candidates who I have criticized and raked over the coals, I would prefer them in a heartbeat over Clark. Even though I may have issues, differences or disagreements, I have no doubt about where they are coming from, where they have been, and where they are going. All of them.

[BootinUp]

51. But who has the illusion and who has the real thing?

And whats with the twilight zone talking points!

:hi:

[NV1962]

52. Thanks for the clue

Here's my proposal: carry on supporting your preferred candidate, we're not disagreeing other than in preference.

Yes, looking into criticism and apparently suspicious facts that emerge is a welcome part of the electoral discourse. It's much harder to deal with vague "feelings" and "impressions" - in fact I don't think it's fair to try and "counter" those, if at all possible. Even less helpful would be to approach exercises that result from a deliberate strategy to discredit a given candidate as "sincere." Here I mean "sincere" as in: providing an honest, open-minded opportunity to reconsider a given opinion. They don't accept refutation, and tolerate only validation. That's what makes it "insincere.") Instead, such electoral jabs should be treated as an opportunity to assure casual onlookers that there's nothing behind those attempts. It's advertising on the back of the single-minded attacker, as it were.

Now don't get me wrong here - I don't intend to respond here treating your comment as "insincere." Au contra ire: you provide a reasoned and reasonable argument why you don't like one Democratic candidate least of all; I'm responding with an equally sincere explanation of my approach.

I don't support Clark because of his eligibility (however valid, I don't think that approach would make me a "supporter") but because I think he's the right man for the job. More precisely: in a field of much qualified Democratic contenders (sorry, exception made for Al Sharpton) I believe he's the best one.

However, if the case is made that Clark's policies are at odds with the inherent values of the Democratic party (heck, I'll accept charges of incompatibility with the Democratic "spirit") I'm interested in hearing, exploring and considering that argument. You probably won't be surprised to hear that I don't believe that's the case for Wes Clark... But I'll look into it, sincerely and openly. If only because I'd like to understand what the ideology really is that (supposedly) defines the Democratic party; other than a few vague terms, than can be framed minimally as "anything but Republican" I have no idea what that would be.

Yes, I have a pretty good idea of where Wes Clark is coming from, where he has been, and where he's going: 1600 Penn Ave in DC.

So, good luck with your candidate, and let the chips fall where they may in the nomination process...

Either way, to restate the minimalistic rally: B* out - that's (hopefully) the premise on which we can agree here.

[CWebster]

56. You have to actually say something

other than sophmoric academese in order for me to respond. You didn't actually address one of the points made in the original post, which is the point of this thread. In fact, I would have to concur with the original poster, the responses only reinforce the the title of this thread---claims that Clark is the best man for the job? Fluff.

[NV1962]

87. Apology for the, uh, "sophomoric academese"

Let's desophomorize it down to your better liking then.

Hawkeye-W opens with a fundamentaly incorrect assertion that Wes Clark has "zero political experience whatsoever." Not surprisingly, Fox News agrees with that erroneous statement. To wit, this excerpt from Fox News' report on the formal announcement of Wesley Clark's candidacy: “Clark, 58, has no political experience.” There; Fox says it, so it must be true!

I would qualify that as a deceptive smear, because I deem Fox News (and by extension Hawkeye-W) to be smarter and more knowledgable about the facts than is suggested by those statements. But let's not get ahead of ourselves and walk through this together. Here goes:

It is commonly known that Wesley Clark at one point had some important job or another at NATO. Google informs us that Clark's exact job title was "Supreme Allied Commander Europe" or "SACEUR" in NATO-speak. Google and/or common sense tell us the NATO site is located at http://www.nato.int/

A search for the jobdescription of a SACEUR takes us here:
http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb120701.htm

On that page we can read the following informative text:
“The primary task of SACEUR is to contribute to preserving the peace, security and territorial integrity of Alliance member states. Should aggression occur, or be considered imminent, SACEUR, as Supreme Commander, is responsible for executing all military measures within his capability and authority, to demonstrate Alliance solidarity and preparedness to maintain the integrity of Alliance territory, safeguard freedom of the seas and economic lifelines, and to preserve or restore the security of his Area of Responsibility (AOR).

SACEUR conducts military planning, including the identification and requesting of forces required for the full range of Alliance missions, which include the promotion of stability, contribution to crisis management and provision for effective defence. He makes recommendations to NATO's political and military authorities on any military matter which might affect his ability to carry out his responsibilities. SACEUR has direct access to national Chiefs of Staff and may communicate with appropriate national authorities, as necessary, to facilitate the accomplishment of his missions.

Like the Chairman of the Military Committee, the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, also has an important public profile and is the senior military spokesman for the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). Through his own activities and those of his public information staff he maintains regular contacts with the press and media and undertakes official visits within NATO countries and in the countries with which NATO is developing dialogue, cooperation and partnership. He is also responsible for developing military contacts with NATO's PfP Partners.“

Sounds really like a job that not only entails getting hands-on political experience, but really requires political experience and related skills to be succesful. It should be noted here that NATO is an international organization, which adds an additional, complicating dimension to the political duties of a SACEUR: he/she has to deal with a multi-national setting of different, and oftentimes conflicting political traditions and interests. In other words, a SACEUR deals with political issues in a setting that is far more more complex than that encountered by someone operating within the comfortable known territory of one's own country, let alone a country's region (or state.) I think this is an interesting observation. Aside from Ambassador Carol Mosely Braun, I can't see that many presidential hopefuls with comparable hands-on political experience.

Then, an example taken from a longish profile of Wes Clark by the Boston Globe here tells us the following, about events that took place in the autumn of 1993, before his NATO job, when he was appointed chief of strategic planning for the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “The post was a breakthrough for Clark. Overnight, he went from being a military commander at a far-off base to chief of strategic planning for the Joint Chiefs, placing him squarely in the center of decision-making between the White House and the Pentagon -- and giving him the freedom to visit global hot spots.” Sounds like a politically charged job if there is one.

That same source says about a later event: “<...> in November 1995, the warring parties in the Balkans agreed to attend a peace conference in Dayton, Ohio. Clark played an integral role in the talks, once again working alongside Holbrooke as a military representative, this time to ensure that the military could implement the peace plan.” Yet another example of Clark's experiences participating in one of the most complex forms of international policy in action, peace negotiations. Something I'm sure other Democratic candidates would like to have to a similar extent - with the obviously noted exception of Ambassador Carol Mosely Braun.

Presented more neatly, on this location, we find the following tidy list of political experiences: “Supreme Allied Commander, NATO, 1997-2000; Director, Strategic Plans and Policy, J5, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1994-1996; Deputy Chief of Staff for Concepts, Doctrine and Developments Training and Doctrine Command, United States Army, 1991- 1992; Chief, Army Study Group, Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army, 1983-1984; Chief, Plans Integration Division, Office of the Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, United States Army, 1983; Assistant Professor, United States Military Academy White House Fellow, 1975-1976 Special Assistant, Director of the Office of Management and Budget.” Which incidentally points out that his experience with politics at the highest, federal levels carries back as far as the mid-70s. Not too bad a start for a newcomer with no -- zero! -- political experience whatsoever, eh?

In all honesty, I could have spared you this excursion through external references to demonstrate that Wesley Clark has political experience, to the chagrin of Hawkeye-W's, who presents this false argument of "zero experience" as the premise for the intended disqualifier: having no ("zero") political experience renders him unqualified for the job of President.

Unfortunately, Hawkeye-W ends his/her opening post in this topic with a classic example of self-defeating prose. And I quote: “The last two Democratic Presidents, Carter and Clinton had NO foreign policies when they got elected, and YET turned in one of the best foreign policies in history - namely Carter winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the Israel issue in 1979, and Clinton is well on his way to getting one for his work in Ireland and Kashmir.” Well gee, if smart, passionate and insightful people such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton somehow managed to survive with no prior international policy, I'm sure the General will do just fine with his readily available experience and political vision.

On a last note, being a good sport I'll give a clue for betterment: I think the cause of confusion for Fox News (and Hawkeye-W) may very well be their imprecision in framing the premise. It should be obvious now that Wes Clark has a bunch of political experience, be it "enough" or not. Had they, instead, stated that Wes Clark has no ("zero!") experience in an elected official position, they might have had a point. That is, until November 2nd, when he'll become the President-elect.

Hope that was useful! :)

[John_H]

32. So you exclude Dean for the same bogus reasons, right?

As blm and others point out Dean is a bigger Club for Growth buddy than anybody, a guy who Stephens said, "Finally, a Dem I can work with."

He also has ex-clinton staffers working for him, the sin of which I do not understand.

Now for the only two non-laughable assertions:

You get to be a four star general without political experience, eh?
I wonder if its harder to get to be, politically speaking: a four star general or the unelected-at-first Governor of Vermont.

The sources of the Kosovo and GOP hits--commondreams and fromthewilderness--may be compelling to one percent or so of the American voters but I don't think anyone in the Clark campaign has lost a second of sleep over them.

There is no question that Rove is going to do a much better job attacking Clark than his DU attackers, but if being a general, saving lives in Kosovo, and praising the troops is all he's got, We win by ten.

[CWebster]

36. Wow, that is incredibly sad

the American voter doesn't get the truth from the mainstream media so Clark has no cause to lose sleep. Bush either, eh?

All in all not much of a vote of confidence provided for progressive voters or true Democrats who would prefer NOT to elect a Republican just to beat Bush. Easy enough.

[John_H]

50. Clark's social issue proposals are solidly Democratic

Unless you believe thatpeople like Bill Clinton are republicans, which puts you in a tiny, tiny minority of Democratic Voters.

Have you taken the trouble to read Clark's initiatives? They look significantly to the left of Dean's actual record which is solidly an unalterably in the righthand quartile of the dem party.

What separates Clark from Dean is that Rove will not be able to attack Clark on National security.

[CWebster]

55. Well hell, bush is a compassionate conservative

If you belive what he says. We have a record to prove he is anything but.

Clinton, so you are suggesting that Clinton is the man behind the curtain producing Clark's script? Mary! Mary! You don't think that is a liability for Clark? Yes, in the dissatisfied base, which tends to vote in the primaries, there is growing contempt for Clinton era dominance of the party of triangulation. As for the general election, what a gift, what a windfall to have Clinton's remote association in play. They never get tired of Clinton--it is their favorite bait to dangle at their own base.

[Larkspur]

57. If you believe your own rhetoric, Max Cleland has a senate seat to sell

you.

What separates Clark from Dean is that Rove will not be able to attack Clark on National security.

Rove destroyed Cleland. He'll destroy Clark, because Clark is an inexperienced campaigner and civilian political neophyte.

[John_H]

61. Faulty Comparison for a number of reasons

1) The US ain't GA. We won the popular vote by half a mil. Since GA is a solidly GOP state Cleland lost and Clark won't win GA either. But he will win the election by canceling Chimp's only issue.

2) Clark will not make the Cleland mistake of "staying above the fray." He'll fight back. Hard.

3) Re: political experience. Winning a State senate race and a few incumbent races (Dean was a "selected" Lt. Gov. and inherited his Gov seat initially) in a Democratic State seems like it could be less politically difficult than getting to be a 4 star general.

I am curious, though. Dean supporters use the apples and oranges Cleland shtick a lot. It it a DU phenomenon or did someone at the Dean campaign HQ think it up? If it's the latter, I'm even more scared he might win the nomination.

[Cheswick2.0]

59. I can say I am the Queen of England

But I am not. All you have is a guy who until a few months ago thought the bush admin was just great.
So he is talking like a democrat right now? That doesn't mean a damn thing. All of the other candidates have records they have to defend. Clark has no record. He says he voted for Clinton and Gore, well bush says he is a born again Christian. Is it true just because he says so?
Wake up, there is nothing solidly democratic about Clark.

[Cheswick2.0]

63. wrong

Rove will be able to attack him on national security. You nominate a reactionary candidate and you have conceeded the debate. Why not just call off the electio.
But that is not even the main reason not to nominate him. The main reason is his record sucks. His resume is full of everything we are trying to get out of office.

[deminflorida]

37. The Polls are starting to say "HES THE MAN"...

now for the Voters to follow!

[zulchzulu]

38. Your words fit perfectly for your candidate

"I STRONGLY advise you to look at your own candidate. He is not who you think he is."

[Hawkeye-X]

43. Or rather...

[Cheswick2.0]

64. silliness

He has a record as a democrat and you can love it or hate it, but at least he has to answer for it.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

40. Gee, I dunno

maybe you should ask Gert. :shrug:

[killbotfactory]

41. Rove will use ties to the KLA and Al-Qaeda to paint Clark

as soft on terrorism.

Just great. The guy who was supposed to neutralize Bush's "awe-inspiring" record of national defense has pictures of himself hobnobbing with terrorists.

[Walt Starr]

42. That's why Rove and Co. have kept mum on Clark

They've got the goods on the guy and hope he's nominated. They'll savage him in the General election. He'd be lucky to take Arkansas after they get through with him.

[cthrumatrix]

71. agree..after watch the DLC support Clark on PBS...I thought of who

Rove really wants

[sfecap]

47. You mean this picture?

Imagine what people will think when they plaster a picture of a war criminal wearing a US General's hat all over the place.

I think it will make a lot of Americans sick to their stomach. WTF was Wesley thinking!?

[Renew Deal]

54. Oh, this Mladic?

http://www.interpol.int/public/Wanted/Notices/Data/1995/54/1995_47754.asp

Clark will also be able to talk about his victory without 1 loss of life on our side. How we stopped a genocide the way it should have been done.

[sfecap]

58. Yep, that one.

War criminal wearing a US General's hat. In fact the US General standing beside him in that picture. They look like friends! I think that will play very nicely for Wes.

Wanna talk about falsified bombing numbers, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium? I'm sure Wes doesn't.

[Renew Deal]

67. Sure talk all you want.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

70. What genocide?

The US killed more civillians in Iraq in THREE WEEKS than the Serbs killed in Kosovo in TWO YEARS - What effing genocide?

As for the right way - A significant proportion of Albanians killed in Kosovo were killed by US bombs dropped from so high the pilots couldn't tell the difference between a tractor and a tank. THAT is the RIGHT way?

And, it wasn't even his plan, apparently, after all, we keep getting told that Clark was fighting for a ground invasion rather than an air only "war" so Clark didn't even do THAT.

[SahaleArm]

77. Revisionism at it's finest - I'm sure there's some unsourced...

data with dubious origins waiting to be revealed at any moment.

[killbotfactory]

73. Yeah, that's one of them

Posing for pictures with war criminals. Brilliant.

[LandOLincoln]

83. I'll tell you what Wes was thinking,

and further I'll tell you he was being overly generous to apologize for the manner of his dealings with Ratko Mladic. He didn't have a thing to apologize for.

Now, if you're going to meet with your enemy to suss him out and get into his head as much as possible, do you march up to him and say,

"Howdy, I'm Wes Clark and I'm about to bomb your genocidal ass back to the Stone Age,"

or do you, you know, act all friendly-like and put him off his guard? While you take your time, chat him up and pick his brain--such as it is?

There's a scene from The Lion in Winter that comes to mind. Anyone remember it? Henry II Plantagenet (Peter O'Toole) has a couple of brandies with young Phillip Capet of France (Timothy Dalton) and then lowers the boom on the boastful blabbermouth by pointing out that he's just lured Phillip into burbling every bit of strategy he has, while Henry himself hasn't revealed a thing.

"And to these aged eyes, boy, that's what winning looks like!"

Just so.

[DancingBear]

46. So far, in this thread alone

there are three responses that state if Dean is not the nominee (and Clark is) they will not vote for Clark.

Our democracy in peril thanks you. You have done wonders for your candidate, as well.

And you wonder why Clark is gaining.

Let's all close ranks, everyone...

Or start another "If Dean is the nominee, will supporters of other candidates vote for him?" poll.

[maxr4clark]

60. He's Da Bomb

[Hawkeye-X]

65. For once you're right.

Wesley Clark will bomb.

[maxr4clark]

84. Could you please edit out

the content from that message? I like it better with just the subject line. ;)

[Atlant]

78. The only question is in regards to his megatonnage? (NT)

[JPJones]

66. Sounds a lot like 'the conference call'

'The next day, the speaker said, "surrogates" for Dean, both local and national, could "then hit Clark...'

How about the next paragraph of 'What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory'

"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."

Sorry that Clark wasn't frothing at the mouth, but he was against the war and smart enough to realize that you get taken more seriously if you make reasoned arguments.

[Hawkeye-X]

69. Nope. This ain't going to be buried.

Nosirree bob.

[JNelson6563]

72. haha

Well it is an interesting thread, I'll say that much!

Julie

[TexasSissy]

74. That is a pro-Dean organization, who has begun the attack.

We're not worried. Tell your leader that when you tell the truth, things are a lot easier.

1. I see nothing in the paragraphs above that indicate he supported pre-emptively bombing Iraq for an imminent threat involving WMD.

2. I see fair applause for sticking to resolve, something that Dean complains that Washingtonian Dems rarely do. When it was going on, I, too, was amazed at the resolve of Blair & Bush in the face of all the opposition. I disagreed with their position, but I was stunned by their resolve. This was a fair comment by Clark.

3. He does not criticize the IW opponents.

4. It is not an article about his views on whether we should have pre-emptively bombed Iraq because of WMD. It seems to be intended as a positive after-war article.

AT LEAST HE DIDN'T BACK AN IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION, LIKE DEAN DID, THAT GAVE THE DECISION TO BOMB IRAQ TO ONE PERSON ALONE: GEORGE BUSH.

Michael Moore seems to be okay with Wesley Clark, as are most Americans who get to know him.

I love 'im. I'm voting for him. He ain't perfect, but he's the best one. He will make a great President of the U.S.

[Hawkeye-X]

80. OK. so you are okay with a wolf in a sheep's clothing

because that's exactly what Wesley Clark is.

You can change whatever, but you can't change the leopard's stripes because he's still loyal to the neocons, and these smoking guns has proven it.

Get Clark to denounce the Club for Growth ad within the next 48 hours, then maybe we can talk. Otherwise, he's just as low as Lieberman.

Hawkeye-X

[revcarol]

75. Not fluff. Sounds too benign.

An empty suit, which is just what we need in a time of Bush-fed crisis.<sarcasm>

[democratreformed]

79. And if we support him just because we like him and his policies

then what should we look at?

Yes, he is THE MAN.

[Capn Sunshine]

82. Those who would make Clark "the man" don't get it

you may want to see "the man" but a man is composed of his behavior. I'm concerned about the prowar message imbedded in evert Clark supporters message. Fighting in and consulting to the great war machine is not the sort of episodic background I want in a president, any more than the argument " He ran the CIA , so he's qualified!" reassured me about poppy Bush.

It's just my opinion, but ranking members of the military with any stars to their name should be dq'd from holding public office; same with any former members of the FBI NSA MI or DIA.

Just my opinion.

[CWebster]

92. Priceless

in it's simple and obvious truth.

[LandOLincoln]

85. So you're telling me,

"Take it what you will, but Clark supporters. I STRONGLY advise you to look at your own candidate. He is not who you think he is. If you are picking General Clark because he's strong on foreign policy, think again. The last two Democratic Presidents, Carter and Clinton had NO foreign policies when they got elected, and YET turned in one of the best foreign policies in history - namely Carter winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the Israel issue in 1979, and Clinton is well on his way to getting one for his work in Ireland and Kashmir."


...that both Carter and Clinton (who despise each other but admire Clark) have been duped by this supposed Neocon in Dem clothing?

Riiight.

Further, this interminable wingnut raving against Clark kinda reminds me of something I read about Clinton back in 1998-99. Somebody said he was "fortunate in his enemies," meaning Starr & Co. were such jerks their hatred of him worked in his favor.

You might want to give that some thought.

[rogerhall]

86. The real truth about Stephens and Clark

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=73251&mesg_id=74477

"Wes was a draw to get people to some events. We had a lot of lunches and conferences, and he spoke at many of those events," Stephens said.

"It would be incorrect to say Wes made a big contribution while he was here, but it would be wrong to say we expected that, either," Warren Stephens said.

And his campaign for president carries an unwelcome dividend. It draws attention to Stephens Inc. and the Stephens family, both of which have long and complicated political histories, most notably with Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It’s awkward, Warren Stephens acknowledged. He likes Clark and thinks highly of him, but they are on "different pages" politically. Stephens is the Arkansas financial co-chairman of President Bush’s re-election effort.



But I did hear that Clark flies around in a Black Helicopter, and I'm pretty sure he killed some kids with a train once, and I know for a fact that he is a member of both the Trilateral Commission and the PTA!

And don't forget that time he spit on the Pope!

But what really makes me hate him is that I heard he refuses to recycle both glass AND aluminum.

(Last three grafs were sarcastic, btw.)

:}

[maxr4clark]

88. ROTFLMAO

[CWebster]

93. Right, he is gonna come right out and say Clark is the man

while he spearheads a campaign to discredit Clark's competion. Not really a prudent plan.

[Printer70]

90. Clark = betrayal of principles

When this primary started, there was a sense that we could begin remaking America by first remaking the Democratic party. How many times have we talked about conceding to the Right, especially on matters of foreign policy? Clark led a unilateral war (no UN approval) in Kosovo, accelerated the killings, and shrugged off the aftermath in which 180,000 Serbs were driven from their homes by vengeful Albanians. Clark initially said he supported the IWR, only to change his mind after talking with his political consultants. All I can say is that this is a defining moment for our Party and our choice now determines whether we become an echo of Republican policies or stand up for Democratic principles.

[formernaderite]

97. Fluff,no....Republican fluff...yes

Clark is still a republican in my eyes, voicing opposition to the war doesn't cut it for me....sure he's still republican fluff.

[JVS]

94. Tax cuts for the well off. He's fluff.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arewethereyet]

98. thanks Hawk, its been obvious to some of us from the start

but people love to fall in love and love is deaf and blind it seems.

Give me some substance and real political savvy, give me Edwards.

[Boo Boo]

99. "The last few days has been quite disturbing...

for me to find out the unfortunate truth about Clark."

Uh-huh. Sure they has.

Look, I'm willing to accept that you're disturbed, but the rest of that post is twaddle. Anytime somebody has to resort to "From the Wilderness" to make an argument... Sorta speaks for itself, don't'cha think?

How's that tin-foil hat fitting? A little tight, I'm guessing.

[Moderator]

100. Locking....

The subject line of this thread is inflammatory.

thanks,

DU Moderator