What are your criticisms of Clark?

[leftofthedial]

There are a couple of dozen Clark bashing thread since he announced. It seems to organized and orchestrated to be a natural artifact of his announcement.

I like Clark okay, based on seeing him in the talking head military analyst role on TV. What little I know of his past is either exemplary or not horribly alarming. I'm willing to wait, give him time to get his campaigning legs under himself, and learn more about his positions as they are articulated.

Some of you don't seem to want to wait. What are your concerns?

[meegbear]

1. He too thin

[Liberal Veteran]

2. And his hair is too greyish white!

It's shocking! Shocking, I tell you!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. How come Lewis didn't get top billing?

Once I hear him I may have some...have read some..not enough to comment.

[wryter2000]

5. And what about his former involvement with Coats?

Huh, what is he hiding there?

[MoonRiver]

4. I wish he'd gotten in sooner.

Other than that nothing. There are several Dem candidates that I really like, but I admit Clark has always been my dream candidate. Long before the Draft Wesley Clark movement began I was dropping his name on many boards. I believe he can beat that %#@&^$ *, and restore liberty, security, and responsible government to our country, if given half a chance.

[NashVegas]

6. "Annointed"

That's what bothers me. So articulate. So telegenic. Such a perfect candidate.

The mainstream press is swooning. The same press that lied through its teeth about Al Gore are going to try to choose our Democratic candidate for us.

[Abe Linkman]

7. Why don't you inform yourself?

There's plenty on Clark. Go to counterpunch.org (just the past three days is all you need to look at).

I don't know why anyone would have trouble figuring out what Clark is likely to do. He came up as a brown noser in the same system that produced Colin Powell. Clark has never known what it is like to have to struggle for anything. He has a long history of displaying contempt for those beneath him. The British refused to carry out one of his War demands in Yugoslavia, out of genuine fear it might cause the start of a nuclear war with Russia. Clark was "fired" (relieved of his duty and essentially forced to retire three months early) from his last military position.

Clark is a DNC candidate. Bill Clinton supports him, and you consider HIM a progressive turncoat; Clark is no different.

There is nothing in Clark's background which suggests an ability to galvanize a diverse group of interests and gain their cooperation in the pursuit of common goals that would benefit all of society.

And, he is certainly less than a stirring orator.

[leftofthedial]

9. thanks for the input

I am trying to inform myself by reading what I can about him and trying to catch at least parts of his speeches and interviews. Asking DU'ers to share their opinions is part of my process of enlightenment.

[IranianDemocrat]

11. No don't go to counterpunch.

they are a biased source with an agenda.

[sangh0]

8. He looks like Curly Joe

.

[RevelerRevenant]

10. Clark For President

I was torn between Dean and Gephardt but now I have my perfect choice
and, I believe, a winner in 2004. Gen. Clark has no excess baggage does he?

[Abe Linkman]

14. "Clark has no excess baggage does he?" That's how you decided?

No wonder we end up with such mediocre people in public office. If you happen to know anyone who troubles themselves to learn a little bit about the folks who want to rule the country (and they all will do the bidding of corporate America & its owners), ask them to tell you what Wesley Clark. Doesn't mean you'll be swayed by the facts, but it might interesting to know about your "man."

[newyawker99]

29. Hi RevelerRevenant!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[IranianDemocrat]

12. He has too many wrinkles.

.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. That with all the experienced candidates in the race,

ones who actually know how government works, ones who have long histories as Democrats holding up Democratic ideals to varying degrees, a claque of persistent Clark-promoters arrived all at once at DU a few weeks ago to push a moderately successful general and TV commentator of then-unknown political affiliation for president and to declare that he and only he is "electable."

Now that he has announced, the supporters are becoming even more vocal about how Clark is the savior of the Democratic Party and the only one who can beat Bush. Anyone who raises doubts is accused of "doing Karl Rove's work."

Yes, I know that Clark is "liberal" on all the social issues, but in fact, the greatest problem facing this country is NOT abortion or gay rights, even though there is still much to be done in both areas.

Hell, if social issues are all you worry about, you might as well vote Libertarian.

The greatest problem facing this country is that our economy is hollowing out, the middle class is shrinking, and the poor are finding it harder to break out of poverty.

Well, say the advocates, Clark has a degree in economics, so he'll take care of it. News flash: economists come in all political flavors. I want to see specific proposals on the economy before I even consider supporting Clark as a second choice. What are his views on health care and affordable housing? How does he want to fight the drop in real wages for the working poor? Will he support the rights of workers to organize, or does he follow the neoliberal line that says that unions are a drag on corporate profits and "productivity"?

Frankly, the "draft Clark" movement always felt like astro-turf to me. The Clark partisans were asking me to support an unknown entity whose repeatedly cited "positions" were nothing more than vague platitudes. Far from doing Karl Rove's work, I would like to ask you all to consider the possibility that the forces behind the "draft Clark" movement are actually moderate Republicans who don't feel that they can challenge Bush directly but still want him out of the White House.

Social issues are fine, but what really separates moderate Republicans from Democrats is their view on the balance between the government and the private sector in the economy.

Yes, yes, yes, I will vote for whoever gets the Dem nomination. But from what I have seen of Clark and his supporters so far, I cannot support him in the primaries, and if Kucinich drops out during the primary season, Clark will not be my second choice, not unless he comes up with a bold, innovative plan to rescue the economy that is not just the same-old same-old neoliberal ideology.

[Abe Linkman]

16. Lydia telling it like it is. Straight ahead, LeftCoast Oracle.

Way to go lefty. You da woman.

[Pepperbelly]

18. yeah ... sure ...

I showed up a few weeks ago as astro-turf.

:eyes:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Not you, Pepperbelly

I know that you're a relative of Clark's, so it's only natural that you should support him.

I'm talking about all those other people who showed up all of a sudden pushing someone I'd never heard of.

[Brian Sweat]

21. I'm astroturf too.

I've only been around about a year.

[bicentennial_baby]

22. Me too!

I was an astro-turfer in hiding...just waiting for my chance to conquer DU!!!

:eyes:

[dfong63]

23. you said it

Frankly, the "draft Clark" movement always felt like astro-turf to me.

and isn't it wonderful how they come to this thread and instead of posting substantive information about the candidate, they just ridicule people who have concerns.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Yes, they have no answers for our concerns

only ridicule.

That's really the way to win us over, right? :crazy:

[Cheswick2.0]

25. very good

I agree!

[Brian Sweat]

15. The dingos ate my baby,

but they were under Clark's mind control technique.

[CMT]

17. my reservations about Clark

First let me preface this by saying he is a man of great ability and one who has honorably served his country. If nominated I certainly would vote for the General against Bush.

Initially I am leery of a career military man being president. I think it clouds their world outlook. I like someone (preferably) with executive experience but also experience in congress actually proposing and passsing legislation. I think many of our other candidates meet this criteria--The General does not.

As important as national security is as an issue I don't think the Democratic party has to nominate a professional military man just to prove that we are strong on this issue. We have many qualified people in congress or as Governors who meet this criteria. What we need to do is explain to the voters that Bush himself is not strong on national security--has he funded homeland security? what about Bin Ladden? where is he?

I also don't think that national security is the end all issue in the coming election. I think the american people in the end will vote pocketbook issues: jobs, healthcare, education and will be looking for a candidate with a proven record in these areas.

I'm also puzzled by some of the things the General has said since his announcement. I thought he was an anti-Iraqi war candidate--that is what the press labeled him as. Yet, he said last night in Miamai that he "probably" would have voted for the war resolution--yet he felt that we didn't have to go to war. Well, it was obvious to many people in congress that Bush was trigger happy to start this war and by voting to authorize it some democrats, imo, caved into the arguement that in an election year we had to support Bush on national security issues--or else. This authorization gave Bush what he needed to go in and start a pre-emptive and immoral war and we are paying the consequences for it. In short, I'm disappointed that Clark feels he "probably" would have voted for the resolution.

I'm somewhat taken back by the General saying that he supported Republicans up to 1992 for president. I think that people can change and am happy to have him in the Democratic party, but I'm not sure I want a former Reagan and Nixon supporter leading the choir.

[Breezy du Nord]

20. He failed me in 8th grade English!

No, wait, that was the old lady who was always screechingat me...

I hated her soooo much...

[drdigi420]

26. he hasnt posted a thread about william pitt here at DU!

how can we respect that?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. See?

No substance.

Just snotty remarks.

[ima_sinnic]

28. he is the one the neocons want

important article here, by Wayne Madsen, who wrote the book "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II"

The latest trick of the neo-cons is running retired General Wesley Clark for President as a Democrat. But not just any Democrat -- a "New Democrat." The same bunch that are pushing Joe Lieberman's candidacy are obviously hedging on their bets and want to have Clark in the race as a potential vice presidential candidate (to ensure their continued influence in a future Democratic administration of Howard Dean, John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt) or as a "go-to" candidate in the event that Lieberman stumbles badly in the first few Democratic primaries next year.

The "New Democrats" (neo-cons) are as much masters at the perception management (lying) game as their GOP counterparts (Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld). Clark's presidential candidacy announcement in Little Rock is one warning sign. This city is a sort of "Mecca" for the neo-con Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its main nurturers, Al From and Bruce Reed. It was from Little Rock where the DLC propelled a little known governor named Bill Clinton into the White House. And although Clinton did not turn out exactly as conservative as the DLC hoped for, his support for globalization and selected use of U.S. military power abroad were neo-con keystone successes. . . .

Before becoming NATO Commander, Clark was the Director for Strategic Plans and Policy within the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From this vantage point, Clark was well aware of and likely supported the arming of the Bosnian government by accepting contributions from various deep-pocketed Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Brunei, Jordan, and Egypt. Via something called the Bosnia Defense Fund, these countries deposited millions of dollars into U.S. coffers to buy weapons for the Bosnians and train them in their use through the use of private military contractors like Military Professional Resources, Inc. (MPRI). And when some of the weapons and cash for the Bosnians became "unaccounted for," where did some of the guns and cash wind up? In the hands of Al Qaeda and Iranian Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) units in Bosnia.

More interestingly is how General Clark's Bosnia strategy ultimately goes full circle. According to Washington K Street sources, the law firm that established the Bosnia Defense Fund was none other than Feith and Zell, the firm of current Pentagon official and leading neo-con Douglas Feith. Feith's operation at Feith and Zell was assisted by his one-time boss and current member of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Both Feith and Perle advised the Bosnian delegation during the 1995 Dayton Peace talks. The chief U.S. military negotiator in Dayton was Wesley Clark. . . .

After four years of Bush, the neo-con Fifth Column in the Democratic Party is trying to convince us that Clark is the "anti-war" candidate. Tell that to the people of Serbia, Kosovo, and Montenegro. Tell that to the coca farmer in Bolivia or Colombia who is trying to feed his family. Let's not fall for the deception and tricks of the neo-cons again. If you are tired of Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons and their phony wars, Clark is certainly not the answer. He has been, and remains part of, the great deception of the American people.

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen09182003.html

Wesley Clark hemmed and hawed for months. He let Howard Dean and the others pave the way for him and make it "safe" to come out against Bush. I don't trust him farther than I can spit. He is MILITARY (and don't give me this George Washington crap. The Revolutionary War was more than 200 years ago and times are DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT. At that time, Washington was the clear choice--he had led the fight against the colonizers and could be counted on to lead the new nation--but Clark isn't fighting anyone that we don't like, not particularly. And never mind Eisenhower--he was a fluke, and also a REPUBLICAN). Clark has ZERO political experience. He is a "manufactured" candidate--manufactured by the DLC and various other factions that don't want us--THE PEOPLE--to take back our government. He hasn't even been a Democrat for that long, and was fund-raising for the Republicans not long ago. Mark my words--Wesley Clark is not who he appears.