General Wesley Clark - 38 Yr service , 4 stars. NATO CIC not enough?

[FrenchieCat]

I want to say something about voting Clark,
In particular to those who start threads about his voting record.....

This is, of course, IMO....
I, unlike many of you, do not think that there are many in this race that can beat George Bush. I know that it's hard to believe, but it's true. We are up against Zillions of dollars, GOPTV, and a lot of gullible people.

I don't believe earnestly that someone in this race
is more electable than Clark against Bush.

No, No, No, No, No.....

There just isn't:

Dean's Crime - Everything, but has dough, mo and Internet Wow!
Gephardt's Crime - So '88 -IWR-
Edward's crime - Looks like a member of the Beatles & Ken all at the same time-IWR
Kerry's crime - "too French looking" and Talks like he's in perpetual speech-IWR
Kucinich's crime - Just can't be yet - only one that could vote...and did vote against IWR. Not Dean!
Braun - well, we all know why....for now.
Sharpton's crime - Let's just say he would be a great WH Spokesperson.

Clark's Crime - He voted for Nixon and Reagan, served in the military (so SOA, DU, war stuff, sorry ya'll...duh...he was in the military for CRIPES SAKES!!!!!)for 34 years....

so we are going to turn this Boy Scout down to keep BUSH for 4 more years?????

This is insane!...all of the things you all think are Wrong with Clark for the Dem nom becomes advantageous in the GENERAL as of day number 1, and yet you don't want to go with a guy that has a righteous chance of winning cause he's not pure enough to lead the party of inclusion!

The guy can definitly get votes everywhere.
Isn't that what we are supposed to be trying to do?
I guess the Repugs wants to watch ourselves cut our own throats! Can't you see that the Repugs don't want to run against Clark?
Why should they want to?
Then the ballgame changes and then we can have a real election!

So everything about Clark that we don't like, other voters do.
I think the guy is a natural to beat Bush....
and the funny thing about it, no matter what you all say
...it's never that Clark can't beat Bush...I don't hear that one
...why it not? Because that's not the case.
Where in the fuck is our Democratic Priority?...TO BEAT BUSH!

NOT TO F*CKING CHANGE AMERICA AS WE KNOW, GODDOGON IT! It aint' gonna happen. We can't be greedy and thinking that we can beat Bush and yet pick the nominee based on Idealism
....Pragmatism is the opposite....
I want to beat Bush, so I'm a pragmatic.

Because this is important y'all!
This is not the dressed rehearsal....

What are you all going to do?

That my FRIENDS is why we have to decide that
THE DEMOCRATIC PRIORITY is to Get rid of the COUP!
Don't fool yourselves that it's otherwise.
We cannot take A chance!
We must concentrate and fight...but not each other...
and we must put forth the best candidate......the one that can do it...and that is General Wesley Clark.

He's hell of intelligent
he's hell of got the persona to kick Bush's ass
He's a four star...Rhode Scholar....southern....Vietnam hero....Foreign policy up the yang-yang...and has got a good tax plan/Economic masters for Oxford, a great Iraq plan/NATO CIC, a job plan/Worked for Stephens as an investement banker and lobbyists, a Homeland security plan/served 38 years, ...and his full of metals...and was vetted by a Republican congress in 1997, for CRyPES SAKES!
Clark can ride horses/Bush can't
Clark swims/Bush runs
Clark gave to his country/Bush didn't
Clark was wounded in war/Bush drank
Clark was first in his class/Bush was a "c-" student
Clark was CIC/Cheney is CIC
Clark's father died when he was 4/Bush's father was the CIA/President
Clark Silver Star/Bush Silver Spoon
Clark has saved 1.5 Albanian Muslims/Bush gets credit for executing prisoners and soldiers
Clark Doesn't need cue cards/Bush must have teleprompter
Clark looks like Gary Cooper - Bush looks like a chimp
and
Clark Looks hella Presidential.

NOW ALL OF THAT, OF COURSE is IMO!

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[SCB]

91. You know, I hadn't thought about that but it makes sense

that poppy Bush would want junior out of office as soon as possible 'cause he keeps making the family look bad:tinfoilhat:

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[slinkerwink]

115. Clark named Donald Rumsfeld as one of his "colleagues" in

that Republican fundraising speech he did.

[Lurking Dem]

116. Wow. Really?

col·league   
n. A fellow member of a profession, staff, or academic faculty; an associate.


No shit, Sherlock.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

2. But Mike... he voted for Reagan... Clark voted for Reagan

http://www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3

[TexasSissy]

50. So did tens of thousands, if not millions, of Dems.

That's how Reagan won by a landslide against Carter. The Dems. didn't vote FOR Reagan, per se. They voted Carter out. The economy was in a huge mess. Much worse than now.

[bowens43]

73. Are they running for President on the Democratic ticket?

No? Enough said.

[Auntie Bush]

59. So did I dammit and I'm a DEMOCRAT

And I'll beat the shit out of anyone who thinks not!

[bowens43]

72. I imagine that this Clark's attitude too

Not something that I find desirable in a President.

[SCB]

93. You mean, beat the living shit out of anyone

who thinks not!

[Capn Sunshine]

109. Thank You.

You voted for Reagan.You proved you're susceptible to the media and their bullshit.
That may explain your preference for Clark.

But at least NOW you understand what's at stake

Don't you?

[Cheswick2.0]

3. you have just given the very best post against voting for Clark

Everything you think is a positive is cosmetic. I will say it CLARK CAN NOT BEAT BUSH.
They will rip him apart and all those crossover votes you think you are getting will evaporate.

So everything about Clark that we don't like, other voters do.
I think the guy is a natural to beat Bush....
and the funny thing about it, no matter what you all say
...it's never that Clark can't beat Bush...I don't hear that one
...why it not? Because that's not the case.
Where in the fuck is our Democratic Priority?...TO BEAT BUSH!


So you are saying we should vote for a guy we don't like to beat a guy we don't like?

[FrenchieCat]

4. Nope...When did 38 years become "comestic"?

That's what you are saying....and I am talking to you.....

When did wounds to your body become comestic?
when does making your own way become comestic?

You would rather have Bush.....you are therefore not ABB..

Your are not willing to put the best man out there.....

BEST MAN...MEANS BEST MAN.....it's impossible to find the PERFECT CANDIDATE.....if he can't win...he ain't perfect!

[Cheswick2.0]

12. I love this thread

you have posted all the cosmetic reasons to vote for Clark...... Cosmetic......, meaning it is all about how the campaign "looks" what impression people........ will get about him.
38 year in the miltary has nothing to do with being a democrat or republican..... I am ......talking about.....his campaign....for president..... and I think he is the ..........WORST... OF ALL THE ....CANDIDATES. I would rather.....have Lieberman on the.....TICKET.

AND you charges of not being ABB......wounded me right to the quick believe me. :CRY:


I LOVE THIS THREAD. Lo FREAKING L

[FrenchieCat]

5. Why do you say things....

but not say anything?

Clark's four stars were earned, not bought.

1.5 Million people is not "comestic"

That I said he looked good? Was that my crime?

Waging a war, keeping 19 foreign factions together is comestic?

I guess you must be the real deal...and he's just a posser.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

7. Yes...

He was promoted by many adminstrations...including Carters, etc...Please what are you saying?

http://query.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10C10FF3C5A0C758DDDA90994DB404482

October 16, 2003, Thursday
NATIONAL DESK
Clark's Campaign Releases Glowing Accounts of His Military Career
The comments of his commander when he oversaw a tank battalion in Germany in 1977 were typical: ''The most brilliant and gifted officer I've known.'' The commander, Col. Charles G. Prather IV, added: ''I have never been more impressed with an officer's talent and dedication.'' He added that he should rank with men like Douglas MacArthur.

A year later, the future General Clark, now 58, had advanced to assistant executive officer to Gen. Alexander M. Haig Jr., then Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. In his evaluation, General Haig wrote: ''Major Clark is an officer of impeccable character with a rare blend of personal qualities and professional attributes which uniquely qualify him as a soldier-scholar.''

The documents, given by the campaign to The New York Times, are performance evaluations that begin with General Clark's admission to West Point in 1962 and cover more than 30 years of his military career, in which he earned such decorations as a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart.

The records include high praise from Colin L. Powell, now secretary of state and then an assistant division commander at Fort Carson, Colo., who called then-Lieutenant Clark an officer of ''the rarest potential.'' The evaluations end in 1993, when General Clark earned his second star; officers at or above the rank of two-star general do not receive such performance reviews.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[SCB]

96. Having quotes from Haig and and particularly Colin Powell

praising Clark to the skies is going to be a tremendous asset in the GE when Rove starts his slime machine. Yet another reason Clark is our strongest candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Got his 2, 3 & 4th stars under Clinton.....

according to the article above. His entire record up to 1993 (year Clinton got in)was released..that means that anything under Republican administrations is totally documented and open to the public.

more of the article.........

One recurring trait that appears in the evaluations is that General Clark always spoke his mind. The evaluations are replete with mentions that he ''was not a yes-man,'' and ''says what he thinks.''

General Clark has made such qualities a theme of his presidential campaign. In almost every speech, the general, who has sharply criticized President Bush's conduct of the Iraq war, urges audiences to ''challenge authority'' and asserts that dissent is ''the highest form of patriotism.''

Through most of his career, his willingness to question served him well.

''Completely candid,'' one evaluator wrote in 1977. ''Exceptionally stable,'' he added. ''Never careless or irrational in his judgment.''

It was the following year that General Haig wrote his evaluation.

''Major Clark's earnestness, sincerity of purpose and absolute dedication convey a moral force in his work which gives him a significan voice in this headquarters.''

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

11. Excuse me...

it's an open record until 1993.....when no records are kept....You are so concerned when you can go on his website and read all about him. Have you tried that....I know, I've gone to the website of each of the candidates and have read their views......It's called reasonable homework. Why Say this is the thing that bothers me...or something like that, but don't bother to ever really get the info..

THIS IS THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE AGAINST BUSH....

This is serious.

So do we put you in the 38 years is not enough.....you want what?
A Virgin sacrificed?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

16. Thanks for setting the standard....

that it's the first star that really counts.....I wouldn't have known that's how it worked otherwise.....

http://clark04.com/records/

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[5thGenDemocrat]

98. Re: Becoming a general

Um, general promotions have to be approved individually by the Senate. A President may (or may not) recommend someone for general rank -- but ONLY the Senate has the authority to approve it. Every single individual, every single promotion, every single time.
John
Geez -- Alexander Haig said something glowing about Wesley Clark 25 years ago and you want to believe it's some sort of plot. Seems to me that if you don't want to vote for Clark, then don't vote for him -- he'll pick up plenty of votes from the center and reasonable right to make up for the loss.

[Democrats unite]

14. Frenchie4Clark this person is baiting you

Just let it go. It's apparent they have made up their mind (while trying to make you think their undecided). Just move on & let these people enjoy their skiing weekends. It's what they do best.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

20. Seems like

the two Rhode Scholars from Arkansas knew each other...although not best buds...certainly they knew each other...guess that could make somebody vote for you...also, you believe who he said he voted for or you don't.....since no one was with him at the time.

So as far as you are concerned, he selectively told the truth...

So the 38 years, 4 stars is not enough for you...you need more or something different....

Well have fun with Bush.....

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Auntie Bush]

64. What if...

Dean turns out to be a right leaning fiscal conservative and really balances the budget like he did here in Vermont? It hurts! I know!

What if he RAISES your taxes?
What if he cuts money to states ? You'll have to pay the difference.
What if the cuts S.S. as he already suggested?
What if he raises the retirement age to 70...as he suggested...and you only live to 69! lol
What if he let's the corporations foul our invironment...which he already did in VT. (Why do you think his records are sealed?)
What if he cuts social services and Medicare etc...as he did in VT!
Hey! I'm all for balancing the budget...but be prepared because it HURTS!
Don't think you will be getting a liberal with Dean. He isn't! He governed more like a Republican. ALL his fights in congress were with Democrats! Of course he won 5 times...the Dem's voted for him and so did the Republicans!
While you're reaching for straws...what if he becomes a Republican if he gets into office? LOL I don't think you know who Dean really is any more than you know Clark.
I've experienced Dean (voted for him) read everything about Clark (starting in April)both good and bad and I say VOTE FOR CLARK...you won't regret it!
I don

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[bowens43]

87. Only Republicans think that Dean is Liberal.

But EVERYONE knows that he is Democrat.

[jonnyblitz]

22. don't expect to get anything but condescending responses

to any questions you might have about Clark from many of his supporters. You will be personally insulted and accused of all sorts of evil things like being a (gasp) Dean supporter (the skiing reference.) I learned this a long time ago.

[Jerseycoa]

32. Believing him

If you believe him when he claims he voted for Nixon and Reagan and Bush Sr., what is your reason for not believing him when he claims he voted for Clinton, Clinton, and Gore? In your questioning, you are allowing yourself to have it both ways, which seems not quite honest.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Jerseycoa]

38. No that's not logic

Since nobody knows how he voted, he could just as easily have said he voted Democratic all his adult life and nobody the wiser. I am sure there are military people who do secretly vote Dem. You are selective in what you choose to believe because it serves your premise and that is not logical.

[Leilani]

88. But that makes Sense

& none of the Clark bashers make any sense..

oh, the School of the Americas...oh, military industrial complex...
oh, voted for republicans...oh, war criminal...oh, praised republicans...

WHAT BALONEY

I am so tired of defending Clark every day, day after day, against the stupidest, emptiest rhetoric.

I'm convinced there are many Dems who would rather lose to Bush than win with Clark. And then they can complain for 4 more years.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

18. OK...

Skiing...yes, that does ring a bell....

[Cheswick2.0]

15. So he served 38 years in the military

Do you think that earns him the nomination? That is not how I pick my nominees for President.

[FrenchieCat]

21. evidently.....

[xrepub]

62. It does not matter

who gave him his stars. Prior to Bush, the military (especially anyone of rank) was carefully politically neutral. They served their country, and accepted civilian leadership.

Clark served his country well. America is now at a point where no decent American should accept this leadership.

[bowens43]

77. What ever it is,

it isn't something that qualifies him to be president of the United States.

[imhotep]

24. none of those

are a reason to make him President.
Especially when all of the other candidates have the same qualities AND the one thing that Clark does not have=Loyalty and experience as a Democrat.

[bitchkitty]

25. I agree that his resume looks impressive -

but he's not running for President of the Armed Forces, he's running for President of the United States.

[Cheswick2.0]

26. you'd think he was running for Grand and Vainglorious ruler of America

I can't believe these are reasons we are supposed to want to vote for Clark.

[JNelson6563]

57. heh heh Ches

you funny.

[Hep]

27. I don't know how Clark's military resume translates into presidential

qualifications.

I like Clark because his policies look pretty good to me.

[Jerseycoa]

35. Thanks for the show of good sense.

I agree his policies should be the basis for consideration more than anything. I value his foreign policy experience more than his military experience, except to say it does factor into the commander in chief role post-9/11.

[Hep]

37. Clark's experience does greatly help one facet of a president's job

Which is to protect the American people. The reason it doesn't mean that much to me is that historically, a president's role is to make decisions based on the guidance of his policy advisors. It isn't like Clark won't appoint a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or anything. In the field of candidates, I trust every one of them to have a good set of advisors, certainly better than what we have now. For that reason I rule out foreign policy matters for the most part when deciding if I like a candidate.

And Clark is strong in many areas. I have grips with somne of his policies, and I have gripes with a few of Dean's policies. But it's about issues, contrary to what so many at DU seem to believe. Clark is strong.

BTW, thanks for responding in agreement. It's one thing to agree and another thing to actually say it to the opposition! Amazing how far being reasonable can take us!

[Jerseycoa]

81. I think this works both ways, though,

which is why I have insisted Clark needs on the ticket somebody very, very strong in domestic policy and with congressional weight; and Dean needs the same with congressional foreign policy weight. They were never a match for each other, in my opinion. They are both "outsiders" to one extent or another. Dean would have credit in working with other governors in lobbying Congress on states' behalf. I know he worked the health plan with Hillary. Clark worked in the OMB when he was younger and later directed strategic planning and policy for the Joint Chiefs, both of which positions involved interacting with congressional staff and members. So for two "outsiders," they each know their way around Washington fairly well.

Dean has civilian executive experience and Clark has military executive experience; but both situations have called for similar skills sets in resolving domestic issues. There have been many threads in which this has been outlined thoughtfully, so I won't repeat. But in this sense, Clark has civilian or "domestic" executive experience within the military. Given the size and population of the state Dean governed and the size and population of the army Clark governed as SACEUR, and the almost absolute mirror of human services provided, I don't find Clark lacking in this area given, as you point out, that expert advisers on civilian domestic policy will be on hand. He's studied and taught economics, as well as budgeted in practical terms in the military, so I don't see him at a loss there.

But why I lean the way of foreign policy in the president's chair is because of the sorry state we are in globally. Clark directed the Joint Chiefs' section for global politico-military affairs, his head is wrapped around this stuff in a way the complications of modern war and peace almost demand. We have already seen where having this end of things directed by advisers can lead. Again, I won't repeat what has been presented here so many times about the high diplomatic circles Clark ran in, but he does have creds with European and other world leaders, in general, that could go a long way in internationalizing the approach to global issues, such as terrorism, the environment, trade, etc. And whatever anybody wants to say against him, the man is an internationalist, a multilateralist, a humanitarian, and an environmentalist on a global scale.

I know all of the reasons for our domestic crisis and I don't discount them, but the new president will have to be able to carry us back into the world community and regain some respect and dignity in order to resolve the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, or we are never going to have a red cent to spend on domestic programs and national security.

It can be said, as it has been, that Clark has never won an election. So far, that's true enough, but I don't find the objection that he has never held elected office especially compelling given the executive and diplomatic strength he brings with him. Clark talks a lot about leadership and I don't doubt it brings out the cynic in a lot of folks, but I actually believe him. The country does now, more than ever, need leadership, more than anything. It needs it on two fronts. I see Wes as having the necessary experience in foreign policy and enough in "domestic" policy, along with promise and wits to spare, to lead us where we have to go.

[Auntie Bush]

89. Great post Jerseycoa

Ditto for me! Wish I could write like that but you express my thoughts eloquently.

[bowens43]

79. If Clark is as smart as people are led to believe

then he knows that his 'policies' have absolutely NO chance of passing a Republican controlled or closely divided congress. No income tax for people making 50,000 a year? The ENTIRE tax burden shifted to those making more then 100,000 a year? He thinks he can get that through this congress? Of course he doesn't. But he knows that if says the right words there is a segment of the population, a large segment, who won't bother taking the time to see if his policies are feasible. Without a filibuster proof majority,they are not.

And how about that abortion statement? The mothers choice until the MOMENT of birth. What a stupid thing to say. Even most reproductive rights advocates won't go this far.

[Auntie Bush]

92. He won't be able to get Congress to vote

If you don't think Clark can get his plan passed by Congress...then how the heck to you think Dean can? Please answer that particular question please...if you can. "They" say Clark will have longer coat-tails and that will help him get his plan passed. But, please don't ask me who "they" is or ask me to prove it because I don't know!

[SCB]

100. So now our candidates are only

supposed to suggest programs that would be passed by the current Congress? Whatever happened to asserting a program that you believe in and fighting for it until you can change enough minds or members of Congress to get it passed? By your logic Harry Truman should never have supported a Civil Rights plank in the '48 platform yet we now know that this started the path to the civil rights legislation that eventually became law.

[bowens43]

110. They are supposed to suggest programs that are

at very least realistic. Clark is pandering pure and simple.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

28. This gist of responses

to this thread fascinates me. It really does.

Here we have a man who served this nation for over 30 years...not for monetary gain, not for fame...yeah he's got a chest full of medals...might be able to pawn them for a couple hundred bucks.

And in response we have folks wanting to know, who pinned the first star on his shoulders as though that act would demand lifelong fealty. This makes no sense whatsoever.

Are we so jaded in this country that we can no longer believe that there are actually people who still LOVE this country and are actually willing to risk their lives to serve it?

Will we stoop to being suspect of all those who have volunteered to take those risks?

This line of thought just disgusts me...I'm sorry.

I personally don't give a shit who pinned the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th star on Wes Clark...and I think anyone who thinks it is a primary "sticking point" should take a step back and really ask themselves if they really want to apply that litmus test to all the soldiers who have served in the volunteer army.

[Hep]

30. Hundreds of thousands of Americans serve this nation

Many for their whole lives. Why do you think that automatically makes them presidential material?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Cheswick2.0]

34. understand

I think it is fabulous that he served in the military. However when it comes to being President, I don't care. Some Clark supporters are trying to use his military service as reason we somehow owe him the nomination. Sorry, can't sell me that.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

42. Not trying to sell you anything

But I am trying to make a point.

Do you seriously think G.W. Bushytushy loves this country? We already know he's a coniving coward in more ways than one.

My point is give the man credit for being willing to serve. Don't question his patriotism or sincerity.

Look at his proposals on the issues not who the hell pinned on his stars.

Look at the fact he has been a leader who worked hard for his people.

Look at the fact that he is respected by world leaders for his work in the military and continues to be respected after leaving the military. We certainly can't attribute world wide respect for the shrub.

Look at the fact that he has a working knowledge of economics & how our country's policies impact the world and is smart enough to see past the simplistic, "They hate us, they hate freedom" bullshit as a reason for what is going on.

Look at all those evaluations over the years prior to any stars and take in what his superiors thought of him & where those evaluations would lead anyone to believe he might end up. Be open minded enough to picture yourself reading those as a person thinking of hiring him to work for your company rather than someone running for office. Would those qualities that are mentioned make you seriously consider hiring him?

No, being in the service for 1 day or 50 years does not make one automatically fit to be POTUS. But it does give us some idea of the measure of the man.

All I would ask of anyone is to evaluate that measure based on the human qualities of the person and his beliefs...and try to do so without a preconcieved notion that because the person has military experience they must somehow be measured by a different standard than anyone else.

[Lefta Dissenter]

60. There's so much more TO him, however

He is brilliant, educated, has enormous intellectual curiosity, has negotiated successfully with world leaders, has led the fight against spousal abuse in the military, has helped to lead the fight against discrimination toawrds racial minorities, women and gays in the military. Yes, these experiences HAVE taken place in the military, but there are plenty of high-ranking members of the military who have not taken the stands that he has, who have not taken the risks that he has. He chose to do battle with his superiors to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. He stands up for what he believes in.

I'm not dazzled by the gold stars, I NEVER would have imagined myself supporting a military man for the Presidency, but I never knew that someone like Clark existed. There is just so much more to him than the stars on his uniform.

And, no, nobody is owed the nomination - they must earn it. NOBODY

[Auntie Bush]

99. We are not saying we OWE him the nomination we're saying

his military experience gives him EXPERIENCE ,knowhow and knowledge that he can use as president. He won't be SNOOKERED into doing anything as our stupid president has. Our military budget is HUGE and he will know just what is needed and how many projects to cancel and what is pure pork. Bush doesn't know what the F we need. I want out next president to personally know and understand what is going on...not just what his advisers tell him...making it possible to get snookered.
OK, I'd admit...the president wasn't snookered...HE JUST PLAIN LIED!

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Renew Deal]

47. Actually

Clark and Powell have both been good to eachother on TV. I don't think Clark hsa slammed Powell because they were friends in the military. And don't act the like Dems didn't want Powell.

Haig was on TV some time ago blasting away at Clark. He doesn't like CLark being a Dem.

Yep, Clark is a PNAC plant. Remember this, your boy Kerry voted for the PNAC agenda. Clark doesn't support it and has spoken out against it several times.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[exJW]

71. He was a general in the military...

fer god's sake!

Do you really have the impression that presidents go about bestowing "generalship" for lack of a better word, based on secret interviews with military men... ascertaining their political partisanship?

The military strives to be non-partisan, and the men who take it seriously, succeed in being non-partisan.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[BootinUp]

80. Did you read any of the reviews

Clark has gotten throughout his career? He has gotten glowing praise from both sides. I think you are seriously off-track with this whole line of thought.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[BootinUp]

86. edited: laughable-go read up some more

edited to prevent a moderator intervention. :)

[fernwoods]

53. Are presidents controlled by the money and power that got them elected?

According to The new World Order Exposed by Victor Thorn, The Washington Post on May 8, 1976 said that Jimmy Carter met with two individuals (who turned out to be David Rockefeller and Lord Rothschild) and was told that he would be given the go ahead to win the Presidency. The book later said that Carter cried when telling his friend, Sheldon, that the appointment process for his cabinet was out of his hands and he wasn't going to appoint any of his own people. So the point is if anyone backed by those in control wins they will be advised and controlled by those that got them elected.I feel sure Carter had good intentions but he was probably greatly affected by this. Bill Moyer said the one with the most money always gets nominated. And the one with the most money is usually the one those in control want to be elected, so what can we do? It seems the only possible opportunity is for people to educate themselves about what is really happening and be so active we can change things. But since most people get their information from TV which controls their thinking to fit the plan of those in control, we sure have a lot of work to do.

[KaraokeKarlton]

36. Sorry, but someone who has NEVER won an election isn't most "electable"

And Clark has plenty more "crimes" then wh ohe voted for.

1) He has NO political record for voters to look at.
2) He was a lobbyist for companies seeking government contracts.
3) He sits on the board of a company that he got government contracts for technology that spies on Americans.
4) He helped Bush raise funds.
5) Nominating a "gung ho" military leader after 9/11 is only asking for more things like The Patriot Act.
6) Clark has absolutely NO domestic policy experience. Domestic issues are THE most important to voters because those are the things that affect people first and most immediately.

There is absolutely no political record for me to look at to make sure Clark wouldn't be just as bad as, or God forbid worse than George W. Bush. Personally, I don't want to nominate a military uniform to run against Bush's flight suit. Sorry, but I want someone who has proven their electability by actually having a record of getting elected. Dean won 10 elections in a row and has NEVER lost one. He's got a phenomenal domestic record and he's the only one with the financial ability to stand up to Bush.

[Hep]

39. Help me out though

I know Clark has never been elected to public office, but has he run for public office?

[Cheswick2.0]

41. I don't know, but the presidency is not the place to start

!

[KaraokeKarlton]

44. Bingo!

You don't test a candidate who JUST joined the party by running him for president. Not only is it foolish, but it's political suicide.

[Renew Deal]

46. If he is the nominee

he will have won an election.

[Hep]

51. True enough!

n/t

[Jerseycoa]

58. I didn't think of that one

:7

[KaraokeKarlton]

68. Not against a Republican, and that's what determines electability

for Democrats, unless you're claiming that Clark isn't a Democrat, that is.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

49. You don't?

LOL, sorry, but we have.

And no Wes hasn't ever run for political office before.

Where are all those folks who want an "outsider"? Guess they only want an outsider if it's their outsider. :shrug:

Political suicide? Might be a bit over the top with that evaluation, but whatever floats your boat. Keep in mind...Eisenhour had just joined the party (both parties tried to recruit him) and served 2 terms. Didn't notice falling bodies then, did you?

[Hep]

52. I suppose your definition of outsider and mine are different

Dean and Clark are both outsiders. Clark is an outsider to politics, and Dean is an outsider to the washington establishment.

One of the reasons I prefer Dean is that he has experience in the executive branch of government.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

121. Agreed

our definitions are different...ain't democracy grand? :-)

[Auntie Bush]

108. Why not?

What do you want him to do?... get elected to be some mayor first, etc etc. etc. Or wait till he's old and mentally slow, like Reagan?
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Take him while you can and be grateful. He could have just worked in the private sector and be a millionaire rather than take on all the responsibility of being POTUS and trying to steer our country in the right direction. He is dedicated to this country. Vote for him!

[KaraokeKarlton]

43. I'm not sure, but if he has, he's even less electable

because he obviously didn't win.

[Renew Deal]

48. He's more electable

because he didn't lose.

[KaraokeKarlton]

67. No, you have to actually BE elected to prove electability

like Dean, for example, who has won 10 consecutive elections and lost ZERO elections. Dean has a proven track record of electability. Clark has nothing.

[BootinUp]

40. Thanks Frenchie, I bookmarked this thread

That was a nice summation of what a great man Clark is, certainly that should be one of the requirements for POTUS.

[EXE619K]

54. General Clark is a fine man and a great candidate.

Head of the class in WP.
Rhodes Scholar.
Fantastic job as SACEUR.

What's not to like about this guy?

But, the reasons that I do not support the good General are many and mainly due to personal preferences.

First, I don't believe that national security should be the overwhelming issue for our country. I'm rather sick to the stomach about this notion of "Have you forgotten?" theme in regards to the 9/11 and it's aftermath. 9/11 was a tradgedy however, thousands of people around the world die for various reasons and it happens everyday. I firmly believe that our over zealous emphasis on national security is driving our country into the ground and dragging along our international support and the goodwill of other populations.

If we put a ex-brass in the White house , in my opinion, we only serve to amplify this notion.

Second, Like the old saying goes...."you can't count strikes nor hits, if you've never been up to bat".
I believe the general is a fine man and there's no doubt about that. But, since the good general has almost no record in executive nor legistlative decisions(besides all thing related to military operations), it's rather difficult(in my opinion only) to figure out who he really is. Dean has records...some good and bad. But, at least he has records to judge what he might actually be like in the White House if he were to be elected.

I think the biggest problem for General Clark is that he has no records that proves him to be a worth while candidate and I hope his campaign addresses this issue.

Also, I'd like to know from Clark supporters if they believe this endorsement from Madonna is a good thing to laud in the general public. I think Clark should stay away from the notion of being "a Clinton's tool" or associate himself too much with people like Madonna during the primaries and the general election if gets the nod. Because the RW and the media is trying to portray him as such.

Best wishes to the General and his "troop".


DEAN LEADS THE WAY!

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Auntie Bush]

101. So what!

It you come from a trashy family...does that make you TRASH?
(Well...other than Paula)

[retyred]

61. I like this post.....Alot!

It is so the way I think about why Clark is the only one. If he doesn't get the nod bush will win plain and simple, and IMO, people are going to be kicking themselves for not choosing Clark with bush smirking for another 4 years.

To me it's about replacing the guy the SCOTUS gave us with someone that will put the best interest of America and the American people ahead of himself and the well heeled corporate interests in Washington today, this is not something we should expect to do with our fingers crossed, for 34 years Clark has proven his leadership ability through dedication and the uncommon sense of what's right and decent.

Wesley Clark "IS" the American President we were promised as a kid.


retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[Auntie Bush]

103. Paul would be proud of you for that comment n/t

[dd123]

119. How can you say Clark is against Corporate Interests?

Haven't I read somewhere that Clark's ambition out of the military was to make $40 million dollars in corporate america?

He joins the boards of quite a few corporations.

He lobbys for corporations, including Acxiom who aims to help the Government track every American who wants to fly.

This doesn't make sense to me. Yaack.

[moz4prez]

65. gary cooper? ya think? =\

[BootinUp]

66. ....puttin on the ritz....

:)

[bowens43]

70. Nope. Not even close.

nothing you have listed qualifies him for the Presidency of the United States. But it might qualify him for Dictator of a small third world country (perhaps after his loss in the primaries he can look into that). It certainly DOESN'T qualify him for the top spot in the Democratic party.


I can't believe that anyone can think that military experience is essential, relevant or even desirable in a presidential race.

IMO Clark is an opportunist who , if Gore had won the election, would now be fighting it out as a Republican candidate.

No thanks, we don't need to hand our party over to the likes of Clark. Better to lose with honor then sell out (not that we will lose with Dean, we won't).

What am I going to do? I'm going to encourage everyone in my sphere of influence to vote for Dean in the primaries. If Clark gets the nomination? I'm going to encourage everyone in my sphere of influence to either vote Green, Socialist or stay home. 2008 is right around the corner.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[Cheswick2.0]

122. how exactly do we get him as VP no matter what?

That's not how it works, Dean or anyone else who wins get to pick their own VP.

[quaker bill]

74. I agree, he has done enough

He can retire to his consulting career now.

[Shanty Oilish]

75. Not convincing

I'm a moderate Dem by DU standards, older than most. I think I speak for a lot of people in the middle when I tell you---
Clark will never convince me. The simple reason:

There is no evidence that he's a Democrat. We have only his word for it. This is usually inadequate, and more importantly, people who ask you to take them on faith are usually dishonest. They do not ask to be trusted. They don't need blind faith.
And Clark's own record speaks against him. The more he explains it, the faster I count my spoons.

[sandnsea]

76. But what does he THINK?

Especially about Reagan and his policies. And as an economist, if he didn't like his policies at the time, why'd he keep voting for him. What about the various military ventures of the 80's. Nobody should have to vote for somebody they know nothing about and not even be allowed to ask for more information.

I like Clark fine, but I see no reason to vote for an unknown. I'll stick to a tried and true friend, John Kerry.

[bowens43]

85. We'll never know because he has no verifiable record.

All we have are his words, frankly, that's not enough. I could easily vote for Kerry . I know what he has done and that he has history of supporting Democratic issues. If Dean gets knocked out of it I Kerry gets the nomination. All of the candidates, except Clark, have a history of supporting Democratic issues.

[JVS]

82. 0 years in the Democratic party. Independents can run as independents.

[Ramsey]

83. He has never been in office

While I think Clark is a great candidate, I have to say that his military record isn't enough. He has never held an elected office and therefore I have reservations about supporting him for the highest office in the land. And I do fear he would be too eager to pursue military solutions. After all, you do what you know.

[CJCRANE]

97. It's usually the civilian chickenhawks

who are keen to pursue military options.

I'm British so I can't have much impact on the matter, but I would vote for Clark if I could. He has crossover appeal, charisma, intelligence, leadership skills and it's clear from what he says that he's fairly liberal and has no respect for the current administration at all in terms of their domestic and foreign policy results.

[BootinUp]

102. Nice to hear opinions

from a friend across the pond.

I think your assessment is dead on BTW.

[Leilani]

107. Thank you for your Objective Post

For all the reasons you listed, I believe Clark would make a great President, & has best chance to beat Bush.

I believe the international community would be thrilled if he was elected, because they know him & trust him.

Unfortunatly, many Americans are more concerned with who Clark voted for 23 yrs ago, & who gave him his first star.

I believe this election is the most important to the future of our country in decades. Will we rejoin the world community, & reestablish ourselves as a force for good? And domestically, will we continue down this road of loss of freedoms, perpetual war based on lies, & a chance for the conservatives to pack the supreme court in a way that will affect our future, & our children's & grandchildren's future.

I believe this election is so much bigger than comparing minute detais of health care plans, tax plans, etc.

I think this election will be about who we are as a country & a people.

[Auntie Bush]

114. Maybe you don't trust clark...but others in the know do

Gaylord Neslon endorses Clark

Edited on Sat Jan-10-04 12:48 PM by eyesroll
Clark's not my guy, I'll gladly vote for him in November if he gets the nomination. Gaylord Nelson is well respected in Wisconsin and among environmental circles, and he has nice things to say about all 9. A class act.

Congratulations, Clark supporters.

http://www.madison.com/captimes/news/stories/64968.php

Former U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, one of the state's most revered political figures, has decided to endorse Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark.

Nelson, who helped graft the roots of the Progressive Party onto the modern-day Democratic Party in the state and served as Wisconsin's governor and U.S. senator for more than 20 years, is set to formally endorse Clark today during a teleconference while Clark makes a campaign swing through Superior.

Nelson praised all nine Democrats seeking their party's nomination for president, but said Clark is "first-rate and has the best chance to win."

He could have endorsed Dean but he didn't.

[littlejoe]

90. Clark is a poo poo head.

[bhunt70]

94. I agree with this whole post.

[Terwilliger]

104. ENOUGH?

He's a military man...why is this a good thing for a leader?

Military men should be tasked to military situations. We need someone who knows how to manage an economic and social agenda.

[Auntie Bush]

112. Silly comment

That's just what he did in the military as a general. Did you think he spent those 34 years in a foxhole and prounced around in his uniform?

[HFishbine]

105. I stopped reading

when you started trying to dismiss candidates because of their appearance. Fortunately, I was only a couple of paragraphs into your post.

[slinkerwink]

117. I stopped reading when Frenchie dismissed the SOA

which is a horrible school that teaches torture, and in which its "graduates" used to terrify their local populations back home with rape, torture, and murder. How can Clark praise this? He's just a neocon at heart.

[BootinUp]

120. You must have "inside" information

Share it with us or more importantly with the candidates even Clark. If there were damning evidence, any of the candidates would speak out against it. Fact is this is a hyped up anti-war thing driven by problems in South/Central America. The solution is to help our neighbors to the South. Clark believes the school can play a part of that role.

[Forkboy]

113. You're right about one thing

it IS your opinion.

[Cheswick2.0]

123. This is the best part

Clark can ride horses/Bush can't
Clark swims/Bush runs


Damn ya got me there! And that foreign policy up the ying yang thingy, he really should see a doctor for that.

[1floridademocrat]

124. Not for me.

*shrug*

Sorry militray background does not equal executive political knowledge to me.

IMO the main draw of Clark is the fact that a fair number of democrats who support him have convinced themselves and BEEN convinced by the RNC that "Democrats are weak on defense" so.. a General running as a Democrat, why that makes us unbeatable!

I think that this is overcompensation, simply put. He will still get attacked on National security grounds, and then get attacked on economic stewardship, lack of expirience with tax matters, etc. Yes, I'll fully admit that he will do better than Dean on Nat. Security, but then again, I don't think this election will BE about Nat. Security!

Why? Because every damn poll I've seen its the economy #1, Taxes #2. Nat. Security falls into the #3, or #4 spot. *shrug*

I don't have anything against Clark as a PERSON at all, I just think hes a poor Presidental canidate.