Ya Know What Clark Has Goin' For Him?

[ThomWV]

He's electable. Strange quality and he's got it .....

[displacedtexan]

1. he's clinton with medals on his chest

the ghost of *'s AWOL days!

[UrbScotty]

29. I'd say he's Clinton plus medals minus scandal.

;-)

[OKNancy]

2. What I think is

That he is a liberal who has a sort of immunity. Those medals are a sheild against attacks of anti-Americanism. He can come right out and say, as he did last night that this country was formed by men of reason and the Enlightenment. He can give the public a history lesson and they might just listen.
( There is not comparison between Clark and Cleland so I reject that argument beforehand.)

[poskonig]

4. Clark sacrificed three limbs in 'Nam.

Cleland was merely a bureaucratic leader. Oh wait, I got that backwards. :P

If we think a cute title makes a candidate immune to GOP attacks, we're in for a big surprise. And that's IF Clark can snag Iowa or NH.

[Kahuna]

5. Clark was shot 4 times in Viet Nam. Sorry he didn't lose his limbs...

or life so you could respect him. :eyes:

[poskonig]

7. The poster said there was "no comparison" between Cleland and Clark.

I'm glad you disagree. ;)

[OKNancy]

9. I'm talking about the political climate

The Presidental race is nationwide and is not Georgia. I love CLeland, btw. Cleland had other political baggage in Ga as well.
And, honestly, Clark does not have the same personality as Cleland anyway. And furthermore, Clark would be prepared, given the Cleland experience.

[tjdee]

58. He did get a chunk taken out of him.

As a matter of fact, part of his right index finger and part of one of his calves.

I'm getting really tired of this "cute title" nonsense. Next time someone calls Dean "Good Doctor", I hope poskonig is right there to tell them all about cute titles.

[Julien Sorel]

23. Who said his strategy depended upon

winning NH or Iowa? Graham, Edwards, and Lieberman aren't pursuing those states aggressively, instead focusing on the South. Why does the southerner Clark have to? And if Clark is so insignificant, why do you spend so much of your time on every Clark thread telling everyone how doomed he is? It seems like a waste of what I'm sure is your valuable time.

[VolcanoJen]

27. For the record: Former Winners of NH and Iowa

I'm not one who puts much weight behind these two crucial contests. Here's some interesting historical information, and I think it bears looking at because it proves the "southern strategy" has some merit:

New Hampshire:

1984 - Gary Hart
1988 - Mike Dukakis
1992 - Paul Tsongas
1996 - Bill Clinton (unoppossed)
2000 - Al Gore

Iowa:

1984 - Walter Mondale
1988 - Richard Gephardt
1992 - Tom Harkin
1996 - Bill Clinton (unopposed)
2000 - Al Gore

[poskonig]

32. Guys -- this time candidates *need* NH and/or Iowa.

Why? Because the primaries are stacked so close together this year, a move which was ironically supposed to diminish the importance of NH and Iowa.

One could try to make a stand in South Carolina or Arizona after the winners of NH and Iowa get 50-100 million dollars of free airtime, but don't count on it.

[Pepperbelly]

41. pfft ...

the way you carry on ...

Super Tuesday is no earlier than before and that will still be the day of the nut-cutting. There are a few more primaries between Iowa and NH and Super Tuesday so they are calling it 'front loaded' but it really isn't that bad.

[snyttri]

85. He's a widely recognized foreign policy expert and has diplomatic

experience dealing with the leaders of all the NATO countries.
He is widely regarded as being qualified to be President by those he has dealt with professionally.

Richard Holbrooke, in his book, tells the story of the middle-aged 3-star General Clark scaling the side of a mountain to protect soldiers in a burning jeep who died when their jeep fell off the mountain in front of the jeep Holbrooke and Clark were riding in. Clark's personal bravery is not in question.

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_2.html

[GalleryGod]

3. The Max Taylor of his generation. Who ALSO would've made

a good President.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Max Taylor

I'm just led about his exploits on D Day.

I'm reading Evan Thomas's book on RFK...

RFK loved to be in the company of heroes like John Glenn and Max Taylo and would ask them about their exploits so he could grow by learning from them...


I think Wes Clark is in that group...

Men like Stansfield Turner, Hyman Rickover who overcame entrenched anti-semitism in the Navy to become the father of the nuclear Navy, and Elmo Zumwalt who rose in the military without surrendering their liberal values...

[JohnKleeb]

28. Schlessinger's book is the best on Bobby

BTW Bobby named a kid after Max Taylor. Yea Taylor was a great commander of the 101st Airborne. Screaming Eagles btw my uncle was in the 82nd at one time. John Glenn what a man he was, my dad lived near him and Bobby and shook Glenn's hand one time. I was so happy that old John Glenn got to go back in space. Other pretty I think democratic officers were: Ive heard that Omar Bradley was pretty democratic. Ike well we know about Ike a thumbs up though for him. Patton I dunno I heard his son criticized Kerry when he came back against the war. Ridgway I dont know much.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. I Respect Patton As A Gerneral

but he was flat out reactionary....



Do a Google search on him....

[JohnKleeb]

55. I dont know his views

I wouldnt doubt you on that on being reactionary. What about Bradley, Ive discussed WWII with a DU Vietnam vet. I believe you when you say Patton was a reactionary, because he made like comments about the soviets and the like. Bradley I dont know about him politically but he was a soldier's soldier Ive been told.

[alfredo]

88. My former Commander was a soldier's soldier

Colonel Lew Millet. Read about him below.
http://www.osan.af.mil/PublicAffairs/base%20newspaper/2003/Feb/Feb.%2014/Hill180.htm



I see Old Blood and Guts Millet still has that great Mustache.

Here's a page that does a good job of describing hill 180
http://www.majordickwinters.com/captains_courageous_january_2002.html

[MGKrebs]

6. Well I guess we better hope the repubs

never run Shwarzkopf, we won't have a chance. /sarcasm.

How about General John Shalikashvili! We could run him! He has just as good of a chance, and better yet, he's not a candidate either!

[nuxvomica]

8. Has this been proven empirically?

Has Clark ever been elected to anything?

[KG]

10. thank you.

clarks electabilty is pure speculation, based on the hopes of a few DUers.

[OKNancy]

11. Looks like the few are growing

Each of us can only go on our personal experience. My experience has been that when people I talk to mention Clark, they think he is pretty interesting as a candidate. I guess there are probably twelve people in my circle of family and friends with whom I talk politics. Not one of them has ever heard of DU or cares one iota about what DU thinks. They watch teevee and read the newspapers..that's it.

My "bell-weather" friend is a Baptist military-brat. She loves the idea of Clark. If she can open up to the idea, then I think he deserves a look-see.

[ignatiusr]

12. It's not based on the hopes of "a few" DUers,

It's based on the hopes of about 40,000 draft members, most of which are completely unrelated to DU, and a heck of a lot of political strategists as well. And how is anyone's electability proven until they actually run head to head with Bush? We're not talking about Kerry running for Senate in a northeastern state, or Dean running for Governor in Vermont, we're talking about running in a presidential matchup with Bush. Has Dean ever done that? Has Kerry ever done that? None of them have. *All* questions of electability are based on pure speculation. IMHO, given Clark's message and his credentials, we have the most credible and substantial case in terms of our speculation.

Also- Of course the Republicans will try to smear Clark. They will try to smear whoever wins the nomination. The question is, who can most effectively bear the brunt of these attacks, and rise above them? Dean could easily be beaten down, because he has no defense on the national security argument. Whether you agree with his positions or not, he simply doesn't have any foreign policy experience. That's not a criticism, it's just a fact. I like Dean, but we've seen that he has a lot of trouble in front of the camera, and is much better on the offensive than the defensive. These are not traits that will do him any favors once the Republican attack machine is in full swing. I just don't know what he has that would enable him to survive these criticisms, at least from the perspective of middle America. In my opinon, none of the other candidates, while some are obviously more electable than others, would be able to survive these arguments as well as Clark could.

There's a difference between Clark and Cleland. Cleland was simply a veteran, albeit a heroic one. Clark is a 4-Star General, and a former Supreme Allied Commander. That makes questions of patriotism much harder to stick. I believe that considering how strong, credible, and articulate Clark is, he would have the ability to deflect, if not turn the tables on these Repub arguments.

[readmylips]

13. 4 Star General who will scare the crap out of this world....

Little man bushie was a AWOL, and yet has pulled the worst invasion and massacre against another country and it's people. He's a crazy with power cowboy.

A four star general, like Clark, would be seen by the world as more aggressive, calculated, trained invador. The people of the world are already scared of the USA. Ike Eisenhower was president at the right time in history, General Clark would be wrong at this time in history.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

14. I Give Foreigners Much More Credit Than I Do You

Most foreigners are better-informed about world events and even the U.S. than the average U.S. citizen.

And apparently you as well, based on your comments above. Clark has a much more restrained view of the use of American power than the majority (possibly even a significant majority) of the existing Democratic field.

Foreigners would welcome a Clark presidency, especially compared to the warmongering asshole current residing in the White House. Foreigners are not reflexive, anti-military bigots...unlike some.

DTH

[ignatiusr]

17. Exactly

DoveTurnedHawk is absolutely right. I think foreign citizens would be much more inclined to look at Clark's stances on the ISSUES (anti-war, internationalist, etc.) than to arbitrarily judge him based on his title, especially given what a stark contrast his views are in comparison to Bush's.

Also, if you were following the foreign press you would know that this is not true. After the war in Kosovo, Clark was viewed as a hero in Europe, and ignored in America. Many countries gave him medals and honors of distinction. He may have had more name recognition there than he did in the states. So a lot of Europeans are excited about Clark. If you do a Google news search, you'll see that he's probably getting more press over there than any other candidate.

[southern democrat]

15. I don't know about the entire rest of the world

but I believe our allies would prefer Clark over Bush any day.He was the NATO supreme allied comander for crying outloud.He has a proven track record of working together with our friends worldwide.A large part of his campaign is foucused on this.I guess if you were not friendly to America you might be threatened by a general.

[11cents]

16. With all respect ...

>A four star general, like Clark, would be seen by the world as more aggressive, calculated, trained invador. The people
>of the world are already scared of the USA

This is just plain ignorant. Ignorance can be fixed; do so. Europeans, at least, know a lot more about Clark than you do. And they're perfectly aware, as you *should* be, that the warmongers in the Bush regime are not from the military. There will be vast relief around the world if any Democrat is elected next year; double that if it's Clark, somebody whose diplomatic skills and commitment to internationalism have already been proved.

[readmylips]

18. Will all respect: No on Clark

I respect and admire General Clark, but I don't want him as president at this dangerous time in history. NO for CLARK.

Besides, he's not even running so why bother with your personal insults.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. Why Are YOU Bothering?

You seem pretty terrified of a man who's not even running.

DTH

[dfong63]

20. again DTH resorts to personal attack,

when someone dares to say they don't like Clark. DTH never acknowledges the argument, but tries to change the subject into a personal issue, like whether the person is "terrified".

no, i'm not "terrified" of Clark. i just think he's not the best candidate. i have an instinctive distrust of men in uniform who won't give a straight answer to a simple question. and he has zero track record.

[Pepperbelly]

42. ok and you get ...

precisely ONE vote, just like the rest of us. Go for it!

[Julien Sorel]

24. This is silly.

Clark has a track record with our most important allies in Europe from when he was SACEUR. They gave him a boatload of medals and heaps of praise after Kosovo. Chirac, Blair, Solana, they know him personally. You are taking one of Clark's biggest strengths -- the confidence foreign leaders have in him -- and acting as if it doesn't exist.

Or to put it differently, do you have any evidence that Clark would 'scare the crap out of the world,' or is this simply your opinion?

[lanlady]

95. sorry, but your second sentence--

--is just plain ignorant.

[Pastiche423]

26. Fear Factor

It boogles my mind that some USians are so afraid of what the repugs think of them, they are willing at all costs to play by the repug rules.

Screw the fact that Clark has never governed, nor been elected. He's wears a uniform w/pretty, shiny medals! That'll show the repugs the Dems aren't pussies!

Screw the fact that until a few days ago, Clark couldn't utter the words, I am a Democrat. He's a big, bad general!

Screw the fact that he's too indecisive to say if he's running. He knows how to drop cluster bombs and DU on innocent civilians!

Screw the fact that he has not done the hard work and debated w/the nine candidates, nor campaigned. He's electable! (Whatever the fuck that means.)

Hey, by all means, campaign like the repugs do, on FEAR. It's worked for them, right? After all, our country needs an unproven neophyte to protect us from the boogeymen. (The boogeymen created by the neocons.)

Me? I'm stickin' w/someone w/a proven track record that is transparent about who he is and what he stands for and is more than willing to go among We, the People and include We, the People in the Democratic procress.

But then, I guess I am just a purist, since I don't want to just WIN, I want the person best to lead us in the recovery of our Democracy.

[VolcanoJen]

30. Liberals: Please debunk this (my transcript from Bill Maher show)

Last night, Bill Maher conducted a thoughtful interview with Wesley Clark. Here's what Clark said, in response to Dean's campaign manager insisting Dean did not admit he's a liberal:

Transcription by VolcanoJen; emphasis by VolcanoJen

Maher: Of all the people who have the credentials to say "liberal" is not a bad word, I'm wondering if I could get you to say that.

Clark: Well, I'll say it right now.

Maher: Good for you!

Clark: We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this... this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back.

Maher: Thank you. (audience applause)

Clark: Can I follow up on that?

Maher: Yes!

Clark: A lot of people have said, what are you interested in? Why would you even consider running? Isn't it just about Iraq? It really isn't. Iraq is part of it, I think our foreign policy has serious problems, but I think the economy and the way the administration has dealt with the economy has serious problems. But more fundamental than that, it's about what kind of country we want to live in. I think this nation wants an open, transparent government. I think it likes the two-party system. I think it likes to hear reasoned dialogue, not labeling, name-calling, hateful politics. I think 2004 is the election the voters have to put that back in.

Just wondering what is so freaking scary about the things he said. He's certainly said it more thoughtfully and convincingly than any other candidate, in my opinion, so far.

Pastiche, you know I respect you, and I've heard you out on your strong feelings and arguments against Clark, but I implore you to listen to the words of Wesley Clark before just judging him on what you feel he stands for. I simply don't get (to use your words) fear, cluster bombs, shiny medals or big, bad general out of a single thing he said last night. Why do you see it so differently?

- Jennifer

[Pastiche423]

37. Why do you see it so differently

Because I have researched Clark's history. (Bad news to those that are against killing and violence.)

Because until a few days ago, he couldn't state that he was a Democrat.

Because he's sticking his finger in the political wind before he decides whether he will run or not.

Because he has no track record of governing when it is imperative we elect someone that does.

Because the only reason he is being seduced into running is because of his military career. (Say all you want about his words on talk shows, he has not produced a platform.)

Because of his connections to defense procurements.

Because of his connections w/PNAC.

Because the DLC in supporting him.

And lastly because, it makes me ashamed that some Democrats so lack confidence in our party, they are willing to support a mystery military man, not because of the ideologies of our party, but because they simply want to win.

[VolcanoJen]

38. I neither lack confidence in our party, nor am I willing to support...

.. a "mystery military man."

I have read, with open mind, every single pro- and anti-Clark thread going in DU (there seems to be about six daily; he's a hot topic!).

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm undecided, but will enthusiastically support the Dem nominee with my blood, sweat, tears and hard-earned cash. However, I resent the anti-military bias that is rampant among so many DUers, and I resent the jingoism that is used to debunk Clark as a potential candidate. I've listened to the man, and as I said earlier, I just don't get "shiny medals, cluster bombs, fear and big-bad general" out of a single thing he's said.

I'm also quite disillusioned at the willingness for liberals on this board to use jingoism and link to conservative websites simply because they debunk Clark. The zpub (or whatever) link calling Clark a "War Criminal" that surfaces daily is disturbing to me, because the same website hosts a "Clinton Body Count" run-down...

I don't believe for one moment Clark is being "seduced" into anything. I feel he has a desire to continue leading, as evidenced by his devoted service to his nation during his entire adult career. Watching him on Bill Maher last night, I felt inspired, which is why I felt it necessary to post his words in hope you'd read them and take them to heart. I just don't want you to be frightened of a man who is so clearly on our side, Pastiche. I don't want you to use "fear" as a way of scaring us against supporting him. I don't think it's fair. And I think the anti-Clark gang is more blinded by those shiny medals sometimes than Clark supporters are.

- Jennifer

[Pastiche423]

39. I am not blinded by his pretty, shiny medals

How he got those pretty, shiny medals disgusts me.

If Clark "has a desire to continue leading", then why doesn't he either shit or get off the pot and fucking lead?

His behavior up until now, is not the behavior of a leader in our civilian society. It is more the behavior of a Perfumed Prince.

[Pepperbelly]

44. you are, of course, entitled to your opinion ...

As are we all and when I see such hyperbole in a post, I am always certain that it is a substitute for reasoned discourse. I think Jen hit the nail on the head and Wesley's decorations are all you see and cannot see past those.

Wesley is a lot more like an iceberg. The military stuff is what's above the waterline. That which is beneath it is primarily good. Very good. I do not expect you to see it right away but I think if you give him a fair listen, you will see it as well.

[Woodstock]

98. Clark seems like a man of integrity

I'm glad he is on our side. I follow his interviews/appearances pretty closely, and haven't been disappointed yet. He does face challenges as a candidate, however. But not impossible.

[5thGenDemocrat]

68. Hey P423

First -- You want to share what you found out from this "research?" I'm ready to support Clark if he is the Dem candidate -- so maybe you should save me from myself. Oh, and I'm a veteran, too -- so shock me with what you found out. Or at least post some links so I can judge for myself what this "research" entails.
Second -- Clark doesn't need to say what he is until he's good and ready. Sorry this annoys you, but Clark (as a four-star general) knows both strategy and tactics far better than you could ever pretend to. Ike was the same way before running (and winning twice) as a Republican. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Third -- no track record of governing: Like the tutu-wearing Lieberman or Kerry or Edwards or Gephardt -- all of whom voted and supported Bush War II? Or Dean, whose experience is in running a state with a smaller population than Detroit? Tell me again about the governing experience Sharpton has. And please tell me who your horse in this race is...I personally don't have one yet.
Fourth -- What exactly does "seduced into running" mean? Are you telling me Clark is some callow, naive bimbo? You probably have never been in the military, so let me say this -- any general (ANY general) is a politician first and a warrior second. That's one of the main reasons the Congress has to APPROVE a general's stars. Clark, it seems to me, was both first in his class at West Point (something I respect greatly, even if you don't) and a Rhodes Scholar, so I'd say he's far too intelligent to be "seduced" into anything.
The Bosnian campaign was a thankless task. But it wasn't nearly so bloody as the ethnic genocide it was waged to stop. Yeah, I've heard all about how Clark was accused by some cheese twit of nearly starting WWIII (the Russians and the airport thing), and I say that's one person's opinion of what happened.
The last three reasons are either speculative or overblown or of no particular concern to me.
Finally, what confidence should I have in the gutless political wonders (Kerry, whatever his flaws, isn't gutless personally -- just politically) who'd rather be Repub Lites than two-fisted liberals? Yeah, I want to win and I'll vote for whichever candidate garners our party's nomination. I did the same for Carter, and Mondale, and Dukakis, and Clinton and Gore, too. Maybe that bugs you, but I'm not very politically astute nor do I choose to be. The Dems nominate a candidate, I vote for that candidate and encourage all my friends to do the same. This doesn't make a genius -- just a loyal Dem even though, as far as I'm concerned, I currently have very little reason to be.
Like I said -- I don't have a horse in this race, yet. But if Clark wins the nomination, I'll vote for him without hesitation (which is a lot more than I can say for Lieberman or his ilk).
Best personal regards,
John
You know when I'm going to make my mind up about who I'm supporting for the nomination? About a week before the Michigan primaries. Until then, this is all sturm und drang.

[VolcanoJen]

89. John, that was one helluva post.

I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to share your feelings so wholeheartedly. There's some really good stuff in this post.

You know, nobody's asking anyone to jump off their favorite candidate's bandwagon. At the same time, I do wish more folks here could at least see the benefit of having a guy with Wesley Clark's credentials in our camp.

At the very least, he keeps the heat on the Bushies. At the most, he'll send them whimpering back to Texas come November '04.

ON EDIT: Oh, and John, if you are the recepient of Clark-bashing links, don't be surprised if they come from Newsmax, or Zpub (which also hosts a cheerful "Clinton Death Toll" list).

[DoveTurnedHawk]

90. Totally Agree

Great post!

:thumbsup:

DTH

[hedda_foil]

43. Doesn't ANYBODY on DU UNDERSTAND that "liberal democracy" is NOT

the same thing as the current political definition of "liberal"?????? The term "liberal democracy" doesn't have any relationship at ALL to "liberal Democrat." It's a term that goes back to Enlightenment roots in the sense of the founding of this country as a democratic republic as opposed to a monarchy or theocracy.

ALL Clark's statement means is that he is not aligned with the religious right who deny the concept of liberal democracy, insisting on the converse, that it the US was founded as Christian nation.

That is a good thing, no denying it. However, it's a very clever parsing of words that links two unrelated terms and apparently makes liberal Democrats believe that he's saying he is a liberal Democrat, which he is NOT saying at all. The way he has carefully parsed his statements leads me to believe that he's always considered himself to be an Eisenhower/Rockefeller type of Republican but that he cannot identify with the current crop of neocons Now, that kind of old style Republican wasn't a bad thing to be at all. (Rockefeller Repubs were certaubkgt to the left of today's DLC.) But it sure as hell isn't the same thing as saying he's EVER been either a liberal or a Democrat.

Nor did he say on Judy Woodruff's show that he was a Democrat. He said something to the effect (someone please provide the exact words) that he related more to present day Democrats than he did to the Bush cabal. However, he also said in the same piece that he felt closely related to many Republicans. (Again, these are not the exact words.)

Clark HAS NEVER SAID (to the best of my knowledge) THAT HE IS EITHER A DEMOCRAT OR A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. However, he has very much hooked into the wishful thinking of liberal Democrats who buy into propaganda that national security credibility demands military credentials. Puhleeze.

Clark may be a very good guy and his politics are apparently WAY left of Bushco, but he has NEVER said that he is either a liberal or a Democrat. He has, instead, created the illusion of having said both. That, alone, makes me distrust him, even as a potential running mate for Dean (who obviously is my candidate).

The words he has very carefully chosen are a very sophisticated form of rhetorical caveating and certainly not straight shooting.

If you believe that we have to have a military man to win, okay. I disagree but okay. If you think Clark has stated that's he's a liberal Democrat to boot .... please rethink.

[Pepperbelly]

45. totally mistaken in one instance ...

and substantively on the other although I can understand where you get it.

Wesley has said he is a Democrat, which I assured everyone here all along. The family has a New Deal/FDR Democratic bias. Wesley grew up with it. I grew up with it. My cousins all grew up with it and without exception, all have maintained that outlook.

So far as the liberal democracy, you are spot on EXCEPT for the context of the remark. He noted quite succinctly that our government is the ultimate product of the enlightment and the Age of Reason and became a liberal democracy with guaranteed rights to people, a defined structure, and that recognizes the social conpact in its enabling paragraph ... We the People ...

Liberal? I think that as time passes, you will see that he may well be the most liberal of all of the candidates. You might be very surprised.

[Pastiche423]

46. No, Clark did not say

I am a Democrat. What he said was, "That's the party I belong to". Why is it so friggen hard for him to say, I am a Democrat!?

Nope, as Hedda said, "...he has NEVER said that he is either a liberal or a Democrat. He has, instead, created the illusion of having said both."

I do not trust him either.

[Pepperbelly]

48. well, watch him with slitted eyes then ...

and see if he does anything to actually justify additional suspicion. Just a thought ...

[Renew Deal]

52. "I am proud to be a democrat"

Check reply 49. He said it. I even gave you a link to a resource.

[Renew Deal]

49. "I am proud to be a democrat"

You are mistaken. He said he was a democrat and he said it clearly. You should check the transcript or watch the video. He said that he is "proud to be a democrat." Watch the video at digitalclark.com. And one last thing. I am proud to be in the same party as a man like Wesley Clark.

[charlie]

A-yup

"I'd be proud, and I am proud, to be a Democrat."

[VolcanoJen]

65. Nice link, Charlie.

It's pretty much there for the world to see. "I am proud to be a Democrat."

I know many, many of us were eagerly awaiting those words. We can argue all we want about how long it took him to utter them, which is a good and valid argument, but let's please stop being retro-historians, insisting he never said them.

:shrug:

[Pastiche423]

54. You check the transcript

He did NOT say, "I am proud to be a democrat".

[Renew Deal]

56. What did he say?

Is the problem that I left out the comma? Otherwise, he said it. Watch the whole video or read the whole transcript.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/clark.democrats/

[Clark Can WIN]

92. The problem is, some persons

are having a hard time with the big ass plate of crow in front of them.

[VolcanoJen]

59. For the record, hedda and Pastiche, please see the transcript.

Clark's appearance on Judy Woodruff, post #63:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=270866

He said the magic words a few times in the discussion, here's one instance:

Clark: I think that it helps clarify the situation, because I think that it's easier for people to relate to you if they can put a label on there. And, the label is, you know, I'd be proud, and I am proud, to be a Democrat.

Woodruff: All right. Spoken by retired General Wesley Clark, announcing once and for all, that he's a Democrat.

Clark's appearance on Bill Maher, post #147:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=284779#287760

Maher: They all talk about the military, though very few of them served, like mmm-mmm (pointing to Bush doll). I want to read you a quote, because Howard Dean said "...In Vermont, you know, politics is much farther to the left. A Vermont centrist is an American liberal right now." And then his campaign manager came out and said "That's not an admission he's a liberal!" Which, quite frankly pissed me off. Somehow they hijacked that word. And you're a Democrat, you said that last week.

Clark: Absolutely.(audience applause)

So for the sake of accuracy, please do not insist that Clark has never said he's a Democrat. You can parse his words if you want to, but he said it. It's on-the-record. And if we're wrong, please come back to this thread and show us why our ears and eyes don't work.

[robbedvoter]

82. Funny how Deanies ignore THIS part of the transcript (Thanks Jen):

Maher: I want to read you a quote, because Howard Dean said "...In Vermont, you know, politics is much farther to the left. A Vermont centrist is an American liberal right now." And then his campaign manager came out and said "That's not an admission he's a liberal!" Which, quite frankly pissed me off. Somehow they hijacked that word. And you're a Democrat, you said that last week.
Clark: Absolutely. (audience applause)

You're parsing and twisting Clark's declaration and skip Maher's promt to it

[Woodstock]

99. Again, "Deanies" are not the enemy, robbed voter

We got into this before.

News Flash: A lot of Dean supporters actually LIKE Clark.

No need to get personal when we are just talking politics.

[snyttri]

93. Clark is in violation of the enter the campaign by Labor Day Law? Arrest

him. Why should Clark enter the campaign on your schedule or anyone else's?

He will not get the nomination without showing up the experienced politicians in his first political debates. The fear in the Clark campaign is putting fear in the heart of Rove. He offers a very positive vision for the future of the country expressed in an intelligent and convincing manner as you will see when you become less hostile.

[Woodstock]

96. That's true

I like Clark (and don't want to rain on a pro-Clark thread), but he faces challenges related to never having held or run for office and raising money this late. That doesn't mean they can't be overcome.

[Clark Can WIN]

21. He liberal Teflon dynamite!

He's the one who can really put that "liberals hate America" bull**it in a coffin and bury it forever. He is by far the most electable candidate on the table. And yes, if you saw Real Time last night, you know he's running. THANK GOD.

[Palacsinta]

31. I agree......He can handle the PNAC crowd, too

I also think Clark might be the only candidate who the freepies, right wingers, repubs CAN'T spend the next four years undermining and attacking, if God willing, he is elected.

[knight_of_the_star]

35. He is?

Can I have a link to this? Please?

[Dookus]

25. Yep...

Dean COULD win. Kerry COULD win. Clark WILL win.

[DeaconBlues]

34. I'm still undecided

but damn if Clark doesn't look good.

1. He's a southerner (we need those southern states)

2. He's led NATO, fought in Vietnam, etc. - so the right-wingers can't question his patriotism and his stance on national security

3.He hasn't been involved in the political wars of the recent past, so he looks like he's above the partisan fray

4. And, unlike many of the Democratic candidates who have to do a verbal dance everytime Iraq is mentioned - CLARK WAS ACTUALLY AGAINST THE DAMN WAR!

Based on both pragmatism and ideology, he's looking like a winner.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

36. I don't dispute that but my problem with your post is that you provide

no reason whatsoever? Why did you post this and then ditch the thread? Are you void of reasoning skills?

Why can't others in the field win according to your estimation. Please explain.

BTW, I have great respect for Clark and will vote for him if he runs and gets the nomination but I am thoroughly over flame bait threads that provide no reasoning skills whatsoever.

Welcome to DU but I request you play on the threads with an ounce of integrity.

[Pepperbelly]

47. Teena ...

:hi:

One thing though ... this thread did provide a forum for some of us to try civil discourse. I wish there was a way to tell from post titles what is real and what is mere flame.

:bounce: Good to see you!

[ThomWV]

94. Hmmmm

I hope you don't mind, but that is what I would call a cheap shot. Do you think I lack integrity?

It would seem a good debate has come from that simple little post. Was that a bad thing?

I personally don't think that deep analysis of a candidate means jack shit in this day and time. Want to know why I think Clark can beat Bush where none of the others can? Its easy enough. He looks right and he sounds right. That really is enough to get you elected in this country. Look at the fuggin' idiot we have in the Presidency right now, he is there because to about half of the voters he looked right and he sounded (to them) right. He sure as hell didn't have any sort of track record that supported his bid for office and he sounded just like the people who would never bother to go look. But even the rubes in the "Solid South" will watch a debate and Clark will eat Bush alive on TV. Let me repeat that - Clark will eat Bush alive in a debate. He looks better and he sounds better. To the great drooling masses that is all that matters. To those of us who like to think we are a bit smarter (hubrus shows through on me - even though I can't spell) than that there is a respect for the man's education. Do you doubt for a second that Clark is not smarter than Bush (part of the eat him alive prediction) and that it will show and at the same time admit that Clark might also be a bit smarter than the rest of the would-be candidates?

Thom

[scipan]

40. Clark was an aide to Haig in Nixon WH.

I would really like to know more about this.

Wolfowitz has some nice things to say about him. Clark likes Wolfowitz too, a lot.

[Pepperbelly]

51. How do you know that?

I mean ... I have followed Wesley pretty closely and I have not seen anything indicating that. So ... enlighten me.

[charlie]

60. Here's a passing reference to his work with Haig

"...and service as assistant executive officer to Gen. Alexander M. Haig Jr. when Haig was chief of NATO."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/who.htm

But it was when Haig oversaw NATO, which means it was after the Nixon administration.

Haven't found any cites of Clark's opinions of Wolfowitz yet...

[DeaconBlues]

62. Being in the military

often means serving under people you don't particularly care for (I found out this was unfortunately true during my time as a poor enlisted slob).

I don't think that the fact that Clark worked under Haig can be used as an indictment of the man.

[charlie]

67. Neither do I n/t

[scipan]

61. here you go

Aide to Alexander Haig:

He did not return to action after Vietnam but chose the other fork in the road and arrived as an aide under Alexander Haig at the Nixon White House. There he was tutored in the ways of the modern political general, a line that includes Dwight Eisenhower and Colin Powell.

Wolfowitz likes him:

'He's bright, ambitious, willing to take some risks, incredibly hard- working and very knowledgeable,' says Paul Wolfowitz, dean of the school of advanced international studies at John Hopkins University, Baltimore. 'I have a lot more confidence in the whole operation than I would if he wasn't here.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,309111,00.html

He likes Wolfowitz, a lot (this is a March 2003 Salon interview and only accessible if you subscribe to Salon Premium):

Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ...

I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.

Do you disagree with them on their worldview?

I disagreed with them on some specific aspects. I would not have gone after the war on terror exactly as did and I laid that out in the . But I also know there's no single best plan. You have to pick a plan that might work and make it work. That means you've got to avoid the plans with the fatal flaws. This administration came into office predisposed to use American troops for war fighting and to realign American foreign policy so it focused on a more robust, more realistic view of the world than the supposedly idealistic view of the previous administration.

But the views that President Bush espoused recently at the American Enterprise Institute, if his predecessor had espoused that view he'd have been hooted off the stage, laughed at, accused of being incredibly idealistic about the hard-nosed practical politics of the Middle East. So this is an administration that's moving in a certain direction, and now that that's the direction they've picked they've got to make it work. Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index2.html

[Pepperbelly]

66. I chuckled as I read it ...

Remember, Wesley is neither dumb nor spiteful. Kinda like Bill Clinton in that regard...

Wolfowitz? "Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend." Was it an accident that his comment about Paulie was that he had known him a long time as contrasted to Hadley whom he claimed as a friend? It really isn't possible to conflate the two because they are even seperate sentences.

So far as the view of these people, he leveled criticism after criticism of the policies. True enough he didn't say, "the whole crew sucks donkey dicks" or anything like that. Instead, he said what was wrong with their view. He said, "I disagreed with them on some specific aspects. I would not have gone after the war on terror exactly as did and I laid that out in the . But I also know there's no single best plan. You have to pick a plan that might work and make it work. That means you've got to avoid the plans with the fatal flaws."

This is nice-speak for saying that they were fucked up from the start.
If this isn't what you want, look at the very next sentence. "This administration came into office predisposed to use American troops for war fighting and to realign American foreign policy so it focused on a more robust, more realistic view of the world than the supposedly idealistic view of the previous administration."

[scipan]

69. disagree about liking Wolfowitz...

Clark went on to say that "So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues." So I don't know how else you can read that except that he likes all of them.

I certainly agree with you that he's smart, and doesn't like everything the PNACers have done. But I don't hope they succeed and I'm bothered that Clark does. This is something pretty fundamental to me.

I'm going to assume for the time being that working for Haig was a good career move and Clark's main motivation, until I see something different. I can't imagine, though, that he didn't volunteer for it, as Haig would want someone loyal.

A lot of what Clark did in Kosovo bothers me too, the major thing being that he apparently lied about bombing a civilian convoy. He said the Serbs did it, then later admitted the truth. I think we are going to revisit the whole Kosovo war if Clark gets the nomination, so he is going to have to answer some questions either now or then.

[Donna Zen]

70. In his book

he mentions Perle. He said he expected Perle to sabotage the Dayton Accords. The Bosnians refusing to look at maps, had no idea what was going; therefore, they could not agree on anything. Knowing Perle and his ideological leanings he expected him to use his relationship with the Bosnians to further his own case, one of wrecking a peace agreement. As is turned out Perle fulfilling the premise that even a stop clock is correct twice a day, was able to get the Bosnians to agree. Clark was not warm and fuzzy about Perle, and did not know why he cooperated.

My boss is a republican....I am a democrat. I wonder how many republicans would spend their days bitching and moaning if a four star brainiac general with lots of TV face time were pitching their issues? If you give no trust , you get no trust.

[TheBigGuy]

73. PB, that was a pretty good interp. of Clarks remakrs.

Clark was being very dipolomatic in his remarks, and also note that he is not "personalizing" policy disputes...he is disagreeing wth policy, not the personalities involved. Clark may indeed actually be friends and aquiantances with these folks, having worked with them in the past.

So I think Clark really shows he has some class those remarks.

[scipan]

74. He disagrees with the means

but not the ends. Note that he wants them to succeed:
"Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail."

It appears he is talking about the whole PNAC agenda.

[Pepperbelly]

75. not so ...

it appears as though that is what is on YOUR mind but what he delineated was a war against terrorism.

[scipan]

76. The war on terrorism started on 9/11...

To the question about whether Clark agreed with their (the ones running the war) worldview, he says:
"This administration came into office predisposed to use American troops for war fighting and to realign American foreign policy so it focused on a more robust, more realistic view of the world than the supposedly idealistic view of the previous administration."

Sounds to me like he is discussing their basic agenda.

[Donna Zen]

81. I'm not sure I understand

this exchange. Was Clark suppose to go on TV and say "Oh I hope they fail and America gets its ass kick so bushco and Perle look like the assholes I always thought they were."

Hmmmm?

[scipan]

83. he could have said what Dean said or what Graham said

about Iraq.

He is talking about the basic PNAC agenda.

Do you disagree? Or are you just taking pot shots?

[Julien Sorel]

84. I'm kind of missing the point here.

Clark was asked about PNAC specifically; why should he reply with something Dean or Graham said about Iraq? The two are linked, but not the same.

Anyway, Clark has spoken often and at length against the unilateralism that is part of the core PNAC agenda; I don't see how he could be pro-PNAC but anti-unilateralist. Those two do go hand in hand.

[scipan]

86. If I misunderstood and you are talking about the PNAC agenda

then he could have simply said he disagrees and stated his reasons why.

I don't think most Americans crave world domination. So what's the problem?

[durutti]

50. Yup

I wasn't particularly impressed with Clark until I saw him on Real Time with Bill Maher. He's very electable. I really hope he joins the race.

[MoonRiver]

53. Any solid indicators that he's actually going to run though?

Frankly it's torture knowing Clark is the most likely Dem to drive the Bush warmongering criminals into that proverbial sea, but without Clark actually announcing his candidacy. WHEN WILL HE END THIS DAMNED SUSPENSE??? :hurts:

[union_maid]

72. Probably on the 19th

I'm not too clear, but I think that on the 15th or thereabouts the candidates have to report on their campaign funds. Of course, even if he has a whole bunch of money solidly lined up, he doesn't have any ready at hand for accounting. To report zero dollars raised is a weak way to get started even though everyone knows why, so it makes sense to wait until after that date. So, if I have my fuzzy facts somewhere near right, every day that he doesn't say anything prior to that date is good news for those who want him to run. If he wasn't running, timing wouldn't matter. Seems that he's broadly hinted at the 19th, though. I really hope he runs. I do like almost all the candidates and had decided for Dean, but from what I've seen so far, Clark is the one who would have the best chance against Bush. If he's in the primaries and if my impressions haven't changed in that time, he's got my vote.

[VolcanoJen]

57. Clark/Maher: Click here for transcript!

I've finished my transcript of Clark's appearance on Bill Maher's show last night, for those interested in his words.

Click here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=284779&mesg_id=287760&page=

:-)
Jennifer

[Julien Sorel]

63. You roxor!

[TacticalPeek]

64. Thanks a googol! n/t

[Donna Zen]

80. Have I told you VJ

you are the best!!!!!

[davidinalameda]

71. hit it on the nose

welcome Thom

where in WV are you or are you in WV

[alphafemale]

77. He's drop `dead beautiful...It sucks that that matters. But it does.

He's also smart.

And he's an admitted "Liberal with...(well) GUMPTION!"

He puts pride back in the word.

Unashamed to stand up and say..."Damn right I'm Liberal! You got a problem with that?"

He will be an excellent VP choice for Dean.

[Renew Deal]

78. Or Dean

will be an OK VP choice for him.

[alphafemale]

79. either way...unbeatable

Clark needs to let the Dean Machine organize though.

What Dean is doing is astounding. People are being brought back in in record numbers.

Don't piss off the Dean people.

I'd of once said, a force was building, in the Dean camp to take on BUSH--whoever the nominee was.


I'm not sure I could vote for lie-man now though. Not after what he's said. :mad:

[waggawagga]

87. How Do You Know He's Electable?

Maybe the public will conclude that he's a prissy knowitall. I'm not saying they will but you can't predict how the public will respond to someone. Or do you think Magic Johnson is the king of late night tv?

[snyttri]

91. It's too early to know about anybody.

According to this "biographical" Zogby poll commissioned by DraftWesleyClark.com, voters prefer someone with Clark's qualifications over Bush. And Clark comes across much better when people see him than his credentials would suggest. Just something to consider. "Electability" has to be a matter of opinion.


http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/poll.htm

[robbedvoter]

97. He has a movement. The ability to inspire. The credentials and the courage

And a clue as to what is REALLY making us angry. (whish is why the movement is growing by leaps and bounds as more people become aware of all this. I see it happening right here (and elsewhere)