Clark's 100 year vision is nothing but platitudes.

[Code_Name_D]

Patrolling Clarks web page, I began sniffing around for any kind of position on any thing. Their is in fact NOTHING! He has no stated position on any issue. Zip, nada, squat, zero, ziltch! By god, even the ineptitude of Leabermen has brains to set out his platform. I have seen harder firmer stances taken by Arnold. Reading his web page reads like a vanity love feast where its harder to tell whether Clark loves himself more than his own fans. If this doesn't change, and change quickly, than Clark's numbers are going to head south, really quickly.

So I thought I might take a look at Clark's 100 year plan. After all, I am trying to find a reason to support this guy. And all I found was two pages of platitudes in small type that stung my eyes to try and read. Even more worrisome is the fact that the below article doesn't even denote an author. It seems to imply that it came from Clark, but there is no way of knowing. No doubt because he wants to distance himself from this empty drivel.

Here are some examples of, well, of nothing.
------------------------------------------------------
The 100 year vision.
http://www.clark04.com/vision.php

Paragraph 1.
Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by our environment, both our physical environment and our legal, Constitutional environment. (1) America needs to remain the most desirable country in the world, attracting talent and investment with the best physical and institutional environment in the world.(2) But achieving our goals in these areas means we need to begin now.(3) Environmentally, it means that we must do more to protect our natural resources, (4a) enabling us to extend their economic value indefinitely through wise natural resource extraction policies (4b) that protect the beauty and diversity of our American ecosystems - our seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, rain forests, alpine meadows, original timberlands and open prairies. We must balance carefully the short term needs for commercial exploitation with longer term respect for the natural gifts our country has received. (4c) We may also have to assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act. (5)

Translation & Comments.
1. "Looking foreword, we must look back."
2. "America is #1, and we aim to stay that way."
3. "To stay #1, we need to start now."
4a. Obligatory bow to the environmentalist. But...
4b."We must protect our natural recourses, so that they may be exploited later." But...
4c. "We must balance 'development' with preservation." Red Flag here! "Development" is often a code word for exploitation.
5. "We must help the markets move people from point A to point B." Red Flag here! What the heck he taking about here? This is code speak for something.

Paragraph 2.
Institutionally, our Constitution remains the wellspring of American freedom and prosperity. We must retain a pluralistic democracy, with institutional checks and balances that reflect the will of the majority while safeguarding the rights of the minority.(1) We will seek to maximize the opportunities for private gain, consistent with concern for the public good.(2) And the Clark administration will institute a culture of transparency and accountability, in which we set the world standard for good government.(3) As new areas of concern arise - in the areas of intellectual property (undefined), bioethics (undefined), and other civil areas - we will assure continued access to the courts, as well as to the other branches of government, (4) and a vibrant competitive media that informs our people and enables their effective participation in civic life.(5) And even more importantly, we will assure in meeting the near term challenges of the day - whether they be terrorism (6) or something else - that , we don't compromise the freedoms and rights which are the very essence of the America we are protecting.(7)

Translation & Comments.
1. Bow to Constitution & America
2. Bow to capitalism.
3. "Breath of fresh air." Open government.
4. Tort reform. Red Flag here! Too many unknowns here. What dose he mean by "intellectual property" and "bioethics"? Is this code speak that he will back the music industries law suites asses to the courts, as well as the bio-companies right to sue patent violators?
5. Bow to the conservative news establishment. Red Flag here! Note the use of the word "competitive media." Micelle Powell used similar language to justify further deregulation to allow more media consolidation. Others argue that what is needed is not a "competitive" media, but diverse one.
6. Bow to the war on terrorism.
7. Bow to freedoms.

Paragraph 3.
If we are to remain competitive we will have to do more to develop our "human potential." (Labor market.)(1) To put it in a more familiar way, we should help every American to "be all he or she can be." (2) For some this means only providing a framework of opportunities (3) - for others it means more direct assistance in areas such as education (4), health care (5), and retirement security (6). And these are thirty year challenges - educating young people from preschool until they are at their most productive (7), helping adults transition from job to job and profession to profession during their adult lives (8); promoting physical vigor and good health through public health measures (9), improved diagnostics, preventive health, and continuing health care to extend longevity and productivity to our natural limits (10); and strengthening retirement security, simply because it is right; first for our society to assure that all its members who have contributed throughout their lifetimes are assured a minimal standard of living (11), and secondly to free the American worker and family to concentrate on the challenges of today. Such long term challenges must be addressed right away, with a new urgency. (12)

Translation and comments.
1. "If we are to remain #1, we have to build the labor market."
2. Free jingo – Insert theme music here.
3. "Framework of opportunities?" (I have no idea.)
4. Bow to education
5. Bow to health care.
6. Bow to elderly.
7. Another bow to education.
8. Bow to job retraining. Red Flag here! The problem is not job retraining, but the lack of jobs to be had.
9. War against fat. (Health care.)
10. More health care.
11. Bow to elderly.
12. No meaning. Just a bunch of words strung together.

Paragraph 4.
We have a solid foundation for meeting these challenges in many of the principles and programs already present today. (1) They need not be enumerated here,(2) except to argue for giving them the necessary priorities and resources. (3) We can never ensure that every one has the same education, or health care, or retirement security, nor would we want to do so.(4) But all Americans are better off when we ensure that each American will have fundamental educational skills and access to further educational development throughout their lives; (5) that each American will have access to the diagnostic, preventive and acute health care and medicines needed for productive life, (6) as well as some basic level of financial security in his or her retirement.(7)

1. We already have the programs we need in place. Red Flag here! Is he talking about the current Bush programs?
2. "They need not be enumerated here," They don't? When will you think they need to be enumerated?
3. They need to be fully funded. Red Flag here! Could this be code speak for Bush's "no child left behind" act? Educators are openly critical that the act itself is bad education policy, so fully funding it may do even MORE damage. But it is a classic DLC strategy to ignore the points of the act, and focus strictly on the sound bite, that "Bush isn't even funding his own initiative." The DLC is then tricked into supporting the full measure of the GOP's agenda, without considering the implications of the law itself.
4. "We can't insure equality. Nor would we want to insure equality."
5. Bow to education.
6. Bow to health care.
7. Bow to elderly.

Paragraph 5.
To do this we will have to get the resources and responsibilities right. (1) In the first place, this means allocating responsibilities properly between public and private entities. Neither government nor "the market" are universal tools - each must be used appropriately, whether the issues be in security, education, health or retirement. Then we must reexamine private versus public revenues and expenditures. (2) We need to return to the aims of the 1990's when we sought to balance our federal budget and reduce the long term public debt. (3) Finally, it means properly allocating public responsibilities to regulate, outsource, or operate. (4) This means retaining government regulation where necessary to meet public needs, (5) and balancing the federal government's strengths of standardization (undefined)(6a) and progressive financing (undefined) with greater insights into the particular needs and challenges that State and local authorities bring.(6b)

1. "Put the recourses into the right hands."
2. "Deregulate, or re-regulate?" Looks like he could go either way.
3. Balance the budget and reduce the national debt. Green Flag here! Yes, I have green flags too.
4. Federal vs States rights. (Not sure what he means by this.)
5. "Deregulate, or re-regulate?" Red Flag here! Note that he doesn't seem to include NEW regulations, only retaining current ones.
6a. Standardization only really comes into play when it comes to technical issues. They have to do with cell phones and such, but can also apply to accounting practices.
6b. Much of this depends on what he means by "progressive financing." (I will have to bug the guys down in the economics room so see if this rings any bells, or alarms.)


Paragraph 6. (The home stretch, yay!) Note: This paragraph has some material that requires more in depth explanation. So I will switch formats here.

As we work on education, health care, and retirement security we must also improve the business climate in the United States. This is not simply a matter of reducing interest rates and stimulating demand.

This is where things get ugly. Reducing intrest rates and stimulating demand are concepts of "supply side" economic. And has about as much bases to real economics as creationism has to do with biology. The problem is that Clintion was also a supply sider, just a little smarter about it.

Where Republicans think you grow the economy through tax cuts and deficit spending, Clinton assumed you do this by balancing the budget and raining in spending. And to some extent, Clinton was right. Both of these things freed up capital for investment that would otherwise be soaked up by the government deficit.

What we did not know at the time was this gave rise to a bubble economy. A massive one. This freed up capital was mostly dumped into the stock market, and achieved the same effect as Bush dumping vast sums of money into the markets in the form of tax cuts and no-bid contracts. The economic foundation continued to erode, while the market inflated beyond wild expectations.

Clinton made predictions that his polices would produce positive changes, and they did, but in each case, the changes in the "economy" far exceeded his predictions. Clinton then rushed to press with these numbers, and crowed about how his economic plan was far better than what he estimated, but in scientific circles, such errors were never fully explained until recently. That Clintion's higher than expected number, was the inflation of the market place taking place.

Every year, this economy must create more than a million new jobs, just to maintain the same levels of employment, and to reduce unemployment to the levels achieved in the Clinton Administration, we must do much more immediately.

As I noted above, simply bringing the budget into balance by itself causes problems. If it weren't for the market bubble, all of that extra cash would most likely have deflated the economy. (The opposite of inflation.) And subsequent to the collapse of the market bubble saw some impressive deflation pressures starting to mount. Thank God Bush was there to soak up every thing through new deficit spending, putting us right back where we were before, back into the frying pan.

This is in part a matter of smoothing the business cycle, with traditional monetary and fiscal tools,

No it isn't. What is needed is a radical restructuring of American fiscal & economic policies. And of all the ideas I have seen floated to do this have always involved painful and potentially catastrophic correction to the US economy.

You see, that national debt is the equivalent of printing trillions of dollars in extra bills. And when you just print extra money, you have inflation. Money that is already in circulation, but only balanced out by the debt held by the government, and that leads to deflation. So currently, we are controlling inflation by exposing the economy with equal forces of deflation.

Think of it like this. Imagine a cliff. And over the side of this cliff is a giant bucket. At the top of the cliff is a tracker trying to pull the bucket up. But as the trackers wheals spin, it kicks dirt off the hill and into the bucket, making it heavier.

The bucket represents the debt, and the pulling power of the tractor represents the budget deficit. The faster you turn the wheals, the faster you fill the bucket. Of course meaning that the more money you spend from the budget deficit, the faster the debt will grow.

In steps the "traditional monetary and fiscal tools," which represents the cable connecting the two. As the debt grows, you need a stronger cable or "better fiscal tools needed to hide the debt." We call this Enron-onomics in the Economics room.

but as we improve communications and empower more international trade and finance, firms will naturally shift production and services to areas where the costs are lower.

Big Red Flag here!

Improved communication technologies is not the cause of jobs moving overseas. This is supply sider's rhetoric that comes strait out of the Carl Rove Talking points, care of the DLC. Jobs are moving overseas because corporations are exploiting slave labor in third world countries. Technology has nothing to do with it.

Clark has one step closer to making my list.

In the near term we should aim to create in America the best business environment in the world - using a variety of positive incentives (cough - bail outs, subsidies, and tax brakes) to keep American jobs and businesses here, attract business from abroad, and to encourage the creation of new jobs, principally through the efforts of small business.

Which is exactly what Bush is trying to do, only he is doing so through defect spending and tax cuts to the wealthy. Sounds like Clark is a supply sider as well, only trying to do trucker down through government subsidies and incentives target towards business.

These are not new concerns, but they must be addressed and resourced with a new urgency in facing the increasing challenges of technology and free trade. And labor must assist, promoting the attitudes, skills, education and labor mobility to enable long overdue hikes in the minimum wage in this country.

Translation: The unions need to help out with retraining, and THEN we will talk about raising the minimum wage.
-------------------------------
I will now turn over the floor to the Clark Cluckers with their inevitable charges of a smear campaign, and how I am really a secret CIA agent sent by Carl Rove, to prop up the Dean camp. :tinfoilhat: Or, something like that.

[sspiderjohn]

1. OK -- I'll bite

When your talking long term, you have to talk in general principles unless you are a bonafide psychic -- too many variablees to get too specific.

[Code_Name_D]

6. When giving a verbel speach.

You use generalities. However, the above was painted as a 100 year view, and being on the internet, space is unlimited, not to mention he could throw in links to other pages to lend further insight.

What is noticably absent here, is that their are no examples, or for-isntance. No problems were identied. Just platitueds twords education and health care.

Now perhaps this is due to in-exprince. One resone why I am posting this. If a Clark suporter truly cares about his canadate, he will insure that this finds its way into Clarks hands, (or who ever autherd it) so that they can learn from their mestakes.

Pladitues are frustratingly common, even in the Dean camp. But you MUST have some substance to back it up some where. Kerry and Gepheardt know this. Their problem is just no one cares for what they have to say. But at least they are comming forwored with some openenss.

A parrelel here is the Arnold campain, who as openly advertised "I will not take positions on the issues" (with an Austrian accent.) in order to appear open minded. But as time went on, he just became evasive.

Perhaps I should give clark some space here. It dose take time to spell out one's positions on the issues. But their is an abundunce of other matiral on Clarks web page, and he has been only the campain trail for some time. Where is the beef!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I applaud you for the time you took to write your post

but I have two questions.

What's wrong with capitalism and intellectual property?

As a small businessman in the publishing industry I embrace capitalsim and certainly see the need to protect intellectual property.

[Code_Name_D]

10. My responce.

What's wrong with capitalism and intellectual property?

Well nothing, on their face. But both terms have difrent meanings depending on which school you are in. Intellectual property rights is a plesent little code word for fashism. (No, I am not making that up.)

Fashism is defined as all elements of a cosioty beong owned, and controled, by a rulling eleate. When music and movies are owned by thoes who did not create them, and profit from them, even while thoes who created them do not profit from the fruites of their own labor. That is fashism.

That is also the core value of intulectial property rights. The right to buy, sell, and trade some one elses work.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. To Me Intellectual Property

means if you wrote a song you own it....

If you wrote a poem you own it...

If you wrote a book you own it...

One can sell a work before or after he creates it but it his and only his decision....

Anything else is theft imho...

[Code_Name_D]

16. But the whole idea of copy right...

Is not to make some ones works into another commodity to be sold on the open market. But to insure the means by which the creator of the work can profit by his works, freeing up his time to produce more works. When the artist dies, his works become part of the public domain, and can be freely used as a foundation to build new works, and to protect the right to be inspired by the artist before you.

Intellectual property however, is a direct contradiction to that notion. It uses a "freedom of contract" argument to protect the rights of an artist to barter away his works for little or no compensation, and no control over his works. It insures that the cooperation that owns the intellectual property, owns it for all times, and by all means, and has a right to dictate how it is used. And without exception, that usually involves money.

Are you aware that some discussion in intellectual property right theory has floated the idea that the corporation has a right to rent out this property? Disney is about to launch a line of "self-destruct" CD's that will turn black after being exposed to a bright light source, such as a laser being used to read the DC. Each time you wanted to watch Beauty and The Beast (a story that Disney took from the public domain, BTW, as it was created centuries ago) you would have to buy one CD.

[library_max]

20. The one thing is part-and-parcel with the other

The right of a creator to make a profit from his or her work also means the right to sell that right to somebody who actually has money. Who can publish a book by him- or herself? And how can publishing companies stay in business if they are not allowed to own the copyrights they purchase?

The same thing is true in the other industries that deal in intellectual property. People's thoughtless greed for "free music" etc. threatens to kill the golden goose. Either the industries that make it possible for you to hear music above the level of Uncle Vinnie singing in the shower (etc. for books, movies) will shrivel and die, or they will get more and more anti-public and anti-sharing because their right to make a profit (that's how they survive, by the way) isn't respected.

I am a librarian, and I can tell you that publishing companies and associations have become increasingly anti-library in the wake of Napster and all this contempt for intellectual property law.

[Code_Name_D]

26. Yay, so it is argued.

The right of a creator to make a profit from his or her work also means the right to sell that right to somebody who actually has money. Who can publish a book by him- or herself? And how can publishing companies stay in business if they are not allowed to own the copyrights they purchase?

Following that logic however, when I buy a CD, the music is on that CD, and is there fore mine to do with as I please, including sharing it with my peers through fair use. This is not the case. The music industry gets it both ways, to buy the rights with a one time payment, then take in payments on the same right from here to eternity.

But in practice, what option is there for the creator? He can ether sell his music to the industry, or go home. He gets a one time payment, but he can't live off of it.

The same thing is true in the other industries that deal in intellectual property. People's thoughtless greed for "free music" etc. threatens to kill the golden goose. Either the industries that make it possible for you to hear music above the level of Uncle Vinnie singing in the shower (etc. for books, movies) will shrivel and die, or they will get more and more anti-public and anti-sharing because their right to make a profit (that's how they survive, by the way) isn't respected.

Ah yes. The greed of the peoples desire for free music is bad. But the corporations greed for profits from here to eternity is a good thing, isn't it. It artists can not make a living by there art, then this IS killing the goose. How is giving the cooperation's a free hand out saving the goose?

And the right to profit from the work belongs to the artists, NOT the corperation.

I am a librarian, and I can tell you that publishing companies and associations have become increasingly anti-library in the wake of Napster and all this contempt for intellectual property law.

Ah, no wonder you are defending the corporations then. Evil Napster stealing from the corporations. How DARE they.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I'm for Dean

but I'm not sure who you are for. What I'd like to know is what candidate/ candidates' platforms you like. What would your dream platform be?

[diplomats]

4. I'm sure he'll have plenty to say in the debate Thursday

eom

[Maple]

5. It is not possible

for any candidate to have a '100 year vision'

At this particular moment in the world's history it isn't even possible to know what will happen in the next 6 months.

[Code_Name_D]

14. I disagree.

Oh yes, it is possible for a candidate to have a 100 year vision. The idea isn't to predict the future, but to argue the possibilities of a possible ideal future.

[Bertrand]

15. Vision, as in what should happen, not what will

Although im sure that Clark is more than qualified to assess the evolution of civilization and its implications on today.

(eom)

[library_max]

8. You need to chill this red flag shit out.

If you have an issue on which you differ with Clark, fine. If you have a preferred candidate and wish to contrast his or her positions with Clark's, fine. But this is just an attack, and a very long one at that. I'm not accusing you of being a Rove plant, a Dean plant, or a houseplant. I'm not questioning your intentions. But the effect of all these "your candidate sucks" messages is to undermine Democrats generally and hurt our chances to unseat Bush. One of these candidates is going to be the nominee. How does it help us to keep doing hatchet jobs on all of them?

[Code_Name_D]

12. What makes you think the GOP will go easy on them?

If Clark can't hannel little old me, than the Big man will fry is bacan.

My point here is to point out the Clark campain is all hat and no cattle. You are of course at liberty to prove me wrong. But no one has done that in the past three days, dispite my taunting.

[library_max]

18. You're missing the point.

Why do the GOP's work for them? Why start another flame war of "Your candidate sucks!" "No, YOUR candidate sucks!"? Why encourage Democrats to tear each other apart?

Contrary to your "reasoning," taking a tire-iron to somebody is not a way of making him or her "stronger." And nobody will ever be able to "prove you wrong" when what you are writing is purely a matter of OPINION. Do you understand the difference between fact and opinion? Facts are subject to proof - opinions aren't.

What actual positive good do you hope to accomplish with your posts, or with this topic?

[Code_Name_D]

27. Is their an echo here?

Or are we stuck in a temrpal loop or something.

[OKNancy]

22. And that is the point, isn't it?

Despite your taunting, no one has "proved you wrong".
I don't think your posts are worthy of a response myself.

And I am certain you are not "looking for a reason to vote for" the guy. If that's true, then I'm a twenty-four year old Victoria's Secret model.

[Pepperbelly]

23. I think you give your ...

screed far more credit than it deserves. Sentence by sentence, the snarky comments that you thought so devestating struck me as lacking in substance and generally based on either a misunderstanding of the English langauge or intentional misinterpretation of words.

Dealing with your screed is not a problem. What is a problem is the scatter-shot approach you used in which you wrongly concluded that quantity is a substitute for quality. In other words, if you throw enough poo-poo on the walls, and somebody misses cleaning up one little skid mark, you can crow, "See! See! I rule."

No, you don't.

Instead, try posting a question small enough that it can be dealt with rather than flooding us with 200 points, most of which are little more than childish mockery of what was written. Limit your subject a bit and perhaps we can get an actual exchange of analysis and information rather than just another adolescent pissing contest.

[Code_Name_D]

28. Thats strange.

I have already hit you with one point, after another, and you ignored thoes.

So hay, lets ignore 200 points then.

The point still remanes. Your solution to any thing negitive about Clark, is to attack the mesanger, and ingore the mesage.

Fine by me. This only means I get a satifiying crunch from the Clark campain when the GOP dog piles on him like they did Gore. And then I cen tell you, I told you so, for 4 more years.

If you think this holds any substance, than bring it out. Come on, I dare you.

[Pepperbelly]

35. a scattershot approach is ...

indicative of either a weakness of position or a weakness in mind. Choose which ever one of your 'cogent' points and make a thread out of it. What you have done here is not anything more than a mockery of discourse and yet you post boastfully, as though you have accomplished something.

Your remarks about what Clark wrote were of no substance whatsoever and yet you persist in pretending that you have somehow said something relevant. BTW, "point after point" means that you truly do not understand the naure of discourse, debate, or even discussion. It is not a contest to see who can say the most things so one can gleffuly pretend that not addressing one of them means it is true. Of course, I already pointed this out to you once and you failed to grasp the concept.

on edit, as I reviewed your original post yet again, I should advise you that your failure to understand a point does not rebut the point, particularly when the words are readily understandable to others.

[Code_Name_D]

38. A clasic example of projection if ever I saw one.

When you make a point, I will respond to it. Thus far, all you have done is attack me and insult my spelling. Its anoying, but its not a debate.

I should advice you, that claming you make a point, dosn't mean you actualy made one.

Again, I chalange you to bring forth any substance from Clark's aricel. We are now up to a dubble dare. And all you have done thus far, is cluck. Put your money where your mouth is already.

[Pepperbelly]

40. how crazed are you?

I never mentioned your spelling. Not a single time. I think you're a bit paranoid about it, actually.

Bring up something of "substance," huh? Think about what you just wrote. I bring out the ideas that are indeed substantive and you merely have to say, "Ain't so."

From the very first SENTENCE if the piece, you misunderstood. The first sentence that you asserted meant that we should "Looking foreword, we must look back," was not at all what was done in the sentence. Instead, quite elegantly, Clark defined the lens through which we should view life in a hundred years, that being one of environment --physical, constitutional, and legal. As a reasoned writer, he set up a standard by which we should judge that time and the standard he suggested was that of desirablity. You might argue with his choice of desirability as the standard although I personally find it one that virtually everyone else in the country would agree with.

Should I continue to deconstruct what you wrote or have some of the balls made it into the pockets and we are beginning to see a glimmer of understanding?

"Environmentally, it means that we must do more to protect our natural resources, enabling us to extend their economic value indefinitely through wise natural resource extraction policies that protect the beauty and diversity of our American ecosystems - our seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, rain forests, alpine meadows, original timberlands and open prairies."

Your response?
4a. Obligatory bow to the environmentalist. But...
4b."We must protect our natural recourses, so that they may be exploited later." But...

How did what you wrote even relate to what he wrote? He said that we have to extend the "economic value" of resources through "wise ... extraction policies" that will preserve the beauty and diversity of the different ecosystems. Fucking Greenpeace could have written that. What is your problem with that?

Then he wrote: "We must balance carefully the short term needs for commercial exploitation with longer term respect for the natural gifts our country has received."

Your response here? "4c. "We must balance 'development' with preservation." Red Flag here! "Development" is often a code word for exploitation."

Well, duh! He even used the word that freaks you out and HORRORS! used it in its appropriate economic context. What do you call it when minerals or oil or even fucking oxygen is used as part of the economic process but exploitation. In this instance, you again missed the boat.

And yet you boast of this?

Finally, Clark comes out with something pretty creative:

"We may also have to assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act."

What was your response to this?

"5. "We must help the markets move people from point A to point B." Red Flag here! What the heck he taking about here? This is code speak for something."

How could he have put it any clearer? He noted an historical model for government intervention accomplishing big-picture things through the use of policy in conjunction with the market system. Your "what in the heck he (sic) taking (sic) about here?" comment does absolutely no damage to what Clark said nor does your "code speak" remark.

Have we done enough of this or do I have to go through the whole goddamned screed for you?

[Code_Name_D]

42. All flame, and no heat.

Bring up something of "substance," huh? Think about what you just wrote. I bring out the ideas that are indeed substantive and you merely have to say, "Ain't so."

You haven't brought foreword anything. You know this, or otherwise you would not have tried to make the lame excuse of a reposes you are about to make. It ain't my nuts that's in the vice here. But it IS me turning the handle to make you cluck like a chicken.

From the very first SENTENCE if the piece, you misunderstood. The first sentence that you asserted meant that we should "Looking foreword, we must look back," was not at all what was done in the sentence. Instead, quite elegantly, Clark defined the lens through which we should view life in a hundred years, that being one of environment --physical, constitutional, and legal. As a reasoned writer, he set up a standard by which we should judge that time and the standard he suggested was that of desirablity. You might argue with his choice of desirability as the standard although I personally find it one that virtually everyone else in the country would agree with.

Oh, this is rich.

Clark -
Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by our environment, both our physical environment and our legal, Constitutional environment.

Me-
Looking foreword, we must look back.

You-
Instead, quite elegantly, Clark defined the lens through which we should view life in a hundred years, that being one of environment --physical, constitutional, and legal. As a reasoned writer, he set up a standard by which we should judge that time and the standard he suggested was that of desirablity.

Equals-
Nada

Unless you want to do a word count. According to you, Clark "defines the lens" which is "our environment" according to Clark. How is this not the past? I could easily say "heritage", "accomplishments", of "values" and still retain the same meaning. These are noting more than platitudes. Your rewording the platitude proves this vary point.

Next.

How did what you wrote even relate to what he wrote? He said that we have to extend the "economic value" of resources through "wise ... extraction policies" that will preserve the beauty and diversity of the different ecosystems. Fucking Greenpeace could have written that. What is your problem with that?

Question how to you preserve something, while also extracting it? Now in your frame of mind, that probably conjures up pink elephants. But I call that a contradiction. And I doubt Greenpeace would say that, even if they were distracted.

Next.

Then he wrote: "We must balance carefully the short term needs for commercial exploitation with longer term respect for the natural gifts our country has received."

Your response here? "4c. "We must balance 'development' with preservation." Red Flag here! "Development" is often a code word for exploitation."

Well, duh! He even used the word that freaks you out and HORRORS! used it in its appropriate economic context. What do you call it when minerals or oil or even fucking oxygen is used as part of the economic process but exploitation. In this instance, you again missed the boat.

And yet you boast of this?

Well at least I didn't take it out of context. Works have meanings, code words do NOT. Development and exploitation are the same word here. But one has a positive warm fuzzy feeling, while the other brings up words like capital HORRORS. More platitudes.

Next.

"We may also have to assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act."

What was your response to this?

"5. "We must help the markets move people from point A to point B." Red Flag here! What the heck he taking about here? This is code speak for something."

How could he have put it any clearer? He noted an historical model for government intervention accomplishing big-picture things through the use of policy in conjunction with the market system. Your "what in the heck he (sic) taking (sic) about here?" comment does absolutely no damage to what Clark said nor does your "code speak" remark.

Historical context? The man said he wanted to reactivate a law that was enforced in the 19th century, for crying out loud! To WHERE? Atlantis? Iraq? WHY? Are we over crowded here? Do we have slavery some where in the US we are trying to abolish? Are their vast tracts of land waiting out west that the "free land party" wants to get their hands on? Do we suddenly have a flood of returning Union soldiers who now need a plot of land to farm stead? How is the Homestead act relevant today? Clark dose not say! Dose he? Here, there is not context, to take it out of. Hell, he could be talking about colonizing Mars for all I know.

And you call this a good thing. Explain to me WHY this is a good thing, WHY this is even an issue? And THEN tell me why Clark didn't mention any of it, because you aren't on trial here, Clark is!

FYI: A sight that mentions the Homestead act. http://www.nps.gov/home/homestead_act.html One comment in it did catch my eye. "this Act turned over vast amounts of the public domain to private citizens" Could this be a plan to sell off government lands to privet citizens for pennies on the dollar? It looks like only time will tell.

Have we done enough of this or do I have to go through the whole goddamned screed for you?

Oh. Please stop. No. I can't take no more. /Sarcasm

[Pepperbelly]

44. clearly ...

your problem is with the English language and the mistaken impression that your saying 'ain't so' is sufficient to refute anything. Perhaps you should take this opportunity to look into both problems. That way you won't be declaring victory when you never even left the starting gate.

[Code_Name_D]

46. Back to calling me names again? So soon?

:P

I am begining to think that Clark's largist liability, are his supporters. You do not reflect well on him.

[Eloriel]

45. Yeah, let's not open our eyes and see clearly

about our candidates. Let's NOT know the truth, or try to find out what they actually stand for. Let's not bother to question and ponder when we find code words that we know are not in our best interests for the candidates to promote.

Nosirreee. Let's please just stay deaf, dumb, blind and obedient.

Clark: the new face on the old establishment. (And apologies to the DUer whose name I failed to note who came up with that superb description, whowever s/he is.)

Eloriel

[grasswire]

9. send your critique...

...to the Clark campaign. They probably would appreciate your attention and worries.

[Webster Green]

17. Yes....

and run it through the spell checker a couple o' times!

[RichV]

11. Wow

"Clark Cluckers"? Heh.

Umm.. that website has been up all of five days and he's only had a Chief of Staff on hand for about a week, let along a web development team to do any more with the site. I don't know if you've been watching, but it's been stagnant in that time as far as I can tell, with no changes just yet. I imagine a more detailed issues section will be forthcoming. Remember they're just getting the ball rolling in the Clark camp, and there's a debate coming up in a few days to get prepared for and Clark has begun travelling now. They do finally have some money coming in now, it seems, as the AP is reporting $750K donated in the first three days they were in the race:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=2&u=/ap/20030921/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_2004_1

[dfong63]

19. that excuse won't cut it

Umm.. that website has been up all of five days and he's only had a Chief of Staff on hand for about a week, let along a web development team to do any more with the site. I don't know if you've been watching, but it's been stagnant in that time as far as I can tell, with no changes just yet. I imagine a more detailed issues section will be forthcoming. Remember they're just getting the ball rolling in the Clark camp, and there's a debate coming up in a few days to get prepared for and Clark has begun travelling now.

the other candidates and their campaigns have been rolling for months now, doing the work that Clark should have been doing if he was serious, instead of gazing at his navel and trying to decide if he was really a democrat.

[Bertrand]

21. Yeah, thats what he's been doing

Actually, he's been making the rounds and socializing to build a potential funding base while keeping up his profile to help legitimize a draft movement.


But hey, if he was staring at his navel and yet still became the FrontRunner of the election, that shows how much potential he has of being elected.

[TorchTheWitch]

24. nice one

But hey, if he was staring at his navel and yet still became the FrontRunner of the election, that shows how much potential he has of being elected.

Bravo!

How is it that whenever anyone mentions that the bashers of whatever candidate are hammering at the foundation of the entire Democratic objective, they never have any response and just keep on hammering away? Could it be because they're going to be voting Republican come next election or they're just plain retarded?

[Code_Name_D]

29. Vote for Clark

and you will be voting republican.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Code_Name_D]

34. Bwahahahahahahah

Oh, oh, I love this. Stop it, your killing me here. Bweahahahah.

Why should I bother worrying if you are a a secret agent sent by Rove? I suspect Rove has higher standards than this.

First of all, your entire hit piece is so long, nobody is going to read the whole thing. Nobody. They are going to glance through it, like I did, and like as not begin wondering why someone would devote so much time to something like this, draw some negative conclusions about you and move on. Second of all, your spelling is atrocious. It's not ordinarily a deal at all -- this is a message board after all -- but yours is so bad that even on the brief glance- through I did, I found myself getting annoyed. If you're going to devote this much effort to something, run it through a spell checker -- show some respect to those who will actually read the whole thing.

Thank you for the insults. Can I have another. Pleeeeeeeeese.

Finally, in terms of content, I paid a little more attention ot the economics section than I did the rest, and was a little, shall we say, perturbed by what I saw. You liberally throw off your own opinions as fact (something you do throughout the post, actually), and grossly oversimplify complex issues to the level of, 'I like that -- therefore it's good policy,' and 'I don't like that, therefore it's bad policy.'

Bwahahaha! Oh you give me waaaaay to much credit. These aren't my opinions by a long shot. You have any doubt, than take it up in the message board where these issues have already been debated at length. I only echo the prevailing opinion.

Here's an example:

What is needed is a radical restructuring of American fiscal & economic policies. And of all the ideas I have seen floated to do this have always involved painful and potentially catastrophic correction to the US economy.

Says who? You? The U.S. is, by far, the wealthiest country in the world, and you are now saying we need to 'radically restructure' our economic system? Makes perfect sense to me -- or maybe it would after I've had a few too many.

Excuse me. How big is the national debt again?

Here's another where you are purely talking out of your ass:

Improved communication technologies is not the cause of jobs moving overseas. This is supply sider's rhetoric that comes strait out of the Carl Rove Talking points, care of the DLC. Jobs are moving overseas because corporations are exploiting slave labor in third world countries. Technology has nothing to do with it.

In actual fact, the high paying jobs, the white collar jobs, that are moving overseas are doing so because of technology. It's easy to electronically transmit tax returns to India, have an Indian accountant do them, and then have him electronically transmit them back, for example. It has nothing to do with slave labor, but the advances of technology opening up possibilities that didn't exist even a decade ago.

Opening up WHAT possibilities? Why India? Why not have Americans compute tax forms in Connecticut? After all, US workers are the most productive in the world, right? Becoming more productive all the time with the revolutions in technology?

Take a gander at these to threads, where I have already debated this at length. Then decide if you truly want to take me on here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=114&topic_id=492#562
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=114&topic_id=1094

The rest of your section on economics is similarly non-sensical. I've been in the economics board here, and there are some bright people down there. Maybe you should ask one of them for help before you decide to write another one of these.

Oh you have been there? Than you already read the above two posts. Now who is talking out their ass?

Where do they come from, and why do they think they can make it on the DU?

[Starpass]

30. "I Come for a Place Called Hope"

..I believe that dude won the election----twice. Nice try. Drivel, drivel has a way of turning into "win, win". Why---because M/M Joe Sixpack cry at sad movies and cheer on speeches with hope. It's called politics 101. Too bad some of the "stiffs" didn't think like this; then maybe some of that 2/3 who don't know there name, would.

[Democat]

31. Democratic Underground is becoming a parody

This thread is right out of Free Republic.

What the fuck is going wrong on DU lately?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I Don't Know

but Dolphins-Bills are on in fifteen minutes.....


See ya

[uptohere]

33. well to the main point

how can a hundred year plan be anything more than a bunch of platitudes ? It is impossible to have an actual plan that extends that far. To project twenty years is equally impossible.

Your red flag regarding the notion that technology was not the cause of jobs moving. This is not quite right. In the case of technology jobs it is precisely what allowed it. This had been tried before years ago but the inability to monitor work or even communicate was a disaster. Microsoft overcame that with the limited improvement in communication and its just gotten easier since then. Regarding non-technology it and improved shipping ability combined to allow use of the lowered labor costs. I always hesitate to use the term slave labor as that seldom occurs and no moreso than in this country (actual free or nearly free labor). There is much lower labor costs over there that people call slave labor but I have to question why the people flock to the cities there for these jobs if they are so horrible. On the technology side the $12 an hour that a programmer makes is a very comfortable living there. Here it would be an insult.

I'll be glad to hear anything serious Clark has to say but how long will it take for that to happen ? He's had months of uninterrupted time to put this together (no campaigning or fund raising) and this is all he could do.

Time will tell but it doesn't look good.

[Code_Name_D]

36. Technoligy replaced labor.

This is a lie given to us by the Bush administration to make excuses for the fundemental weekness of the economey, the suffering job market. This subject has been disgused at lingth on these two threads.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=114&topic_id=492#562
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=114&topic_id=1094

[uptohere]

37. thought we were talking Clark not Bush

.

[Code_Name_D]

39. Then why is Clark echoing Bush's economic talking points?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[uptohere]

41. maybe he doesn't have any of his own

and there is enough truth in them that anyone can make use of them.

Or maybe they're true. I mean he is a Rhodes Scholar economist and greatest general that ever drew breath. I know its true because all the important people here at DU say so.

The guy is a not as good as we can do. By far.

[Code_Name_D]

43. Let me get this straite.

You are under the impreshion that Bush's knowlage of economics is extesive and sound enugh for Clark to draw on?

Wait. I am on Canndid Cammera right?

[camero]

47. No red flag on job training

The average adult changes professions about every 5 years. I remember Clinton using this statistic. Job training is needed as our technology grows. I would propose he spend more money on community college programs and extend Americorps to people over 24 who are laid off, out of work, or between jobs.

For one, it would tilt the balance of power back to labor, and secondly it would give people a sense of giving back to thier community through volunteering and charity.