Supporting Clark because you think other people will vote for him

[Philosophy]

It seems like the overwhelming majority of the arguments in support of Clark over any of the other Democratic candidates always boil down to the completely unfounded idea that we should support him because there is a huge undefined group of other people - a bloc of centrist voters that would never vote for any Democrat unless they are a military mastermind that will be the swing factor in the upcoming election. Therefore since beating Bush* is only thing that really matters, we should just jump on the Clark bandwagon along with everyone else, and all candididates' positions on all the issues are irrelevant. Much of the time the Clark supporters all but some out and say explicitly that they really do support one of the other candidates on the issues, but by this reasoning Clark is the only one that is "electable".

Consider this then: what if those "other people" don't really exist?

[ibegurpard]

1. WHAT? Heretic!

LOL
Seriously, I can summon no passion one way or another for Clark. If he ends up the nominee I won't be upset like I would for a couple of the other candidates.

[Rowdyboy]

2. I disagree with your basic premise

Therefore I consider your entire argument faulty. Sorry, the overwhelming majority of Clark supporters support the MAN, not the idea that he is electable. You denigrate us all, when you stereotype us. JMO

[Philosophy]

7. OK, then name his positions on the specific issues

that you support in contrast with the other candidates differing positions. If you support him just because he's "a good man", then I contend that you are just trying to rationalize your position which is actually exactly as I described.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Here is some of his writing on Health Care......

The State Columbia, SC Friday Oct. 31, 2003

Time to help those who can't afford health care

By WESLEY CLARK, Guest columnist

Thirty-four years ago this coming February, I was a young army
captain, maneuvering through the South Vietnamese jungle. Searching
for the enemy, I was hit by a burst of AK-47 fire to my leg, hand,
shoulder and hip. I was med-evac'ed to Saigon in serious condition,
and then flown to Camp Zama in Japan for surgery on my hand. I was
lucky: There was no major bone or organ damage.

When I got home, I went through massive rehabilitation. It took
months before I could run again. And it was months more before I
could shake another person's hand with a firm grip. But the U.S. Army
was with me every step of the way.

It provided for every single bit of my health care, right down to the
rubber ball I squeezed for nearly a year to build strength in my
hand. And the reason I had such good health care is because the Army
understood that without adequate health care, our soldiers could not
do their jobs. I think the same principle applies to our families:
Our nation must provide the same kind of care for its families that
our Army does for its soldiers.

Unfortunately, we are far from realizing this vision today.

-snip-

http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/7146730.htm

EDITED BY ADMIN FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS

[Rowdyboy]

32. Since it's Saturday night, forgive me if I don't

follow your instructions to a tee.

Here is why I support Wes Clark:

1. He has not attacked another Democratic candidate. Even under attack, he reacts with class.

2. He has attacked George Bush more forcefully, and more consistently, than any other candidate.

3. He is pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay rights, and pro-environment.

4. He wants to repeal the tax cut for the top 2% of Americans.

5. He's willing to put cuts in Pentagon spending on the table. With his military background, he could force the issue.

6. He was first in his class at West Point and was a Rhodes Scholar. He is a certified battlefield hero, taking 4 severe wounds while continuing to lead his men to safety.

7. He spent a year in rehab, relearning how to eat, walk, dress himself etc. He would likely have some more empathy for the handicapped and disadvantaged than most.

8. He stopped ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and won the war there without the loss of a single American soldier.

9. He can win.

That is why I support Wes Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Here is his stance on environment....

CLARK'S ENVIRONMENTAL POSITIONS

Can now be found online in his response to the League of Conservation Voters at

http://www.enviros4clark.com/lcv.shtml

Here are a fewf highlights from a 26 page document:

"I strongly support the goals of the Endangered Species Act – to protect the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend, to protect the species themselves from extinction, and to implement our obligations under international conservation agreements. While I believe the ESA has been quite successful in the 30 years since its enactment, more needs to be done to stem the tide of extinctions. We should once again pursue multi-species habitat conservation plans over wide landscapes. These plans protect species, as well as the economic interests of landowners. As Professor E.O. Wilson has said, allowing species to go extinct is the folly future generations are least likely to forgive us."

"...First, we need to provide tax incentives to get hybrids or other highly efficient vehicles into the marketplace and out on the road. With currently existing technology we can make great strides in reducing emissions. Second, I will put a stop to President Bush’s interference with California’s pioneering program to cut global warming pollution from new vehicles. Third, my Administration will lead an aggressive effort to promote the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which hold great promise for the future. Fourth, I will increase support for better public transportation and other measures to clean the air in new highway legislation."

"President Bush has proposed new legislation – mis-named “Clear Skies” – that actually would weaken current clean air laws and let the nation’s power plants continue to pollute at unsafe levels. For this President, environmental policy is all about rhetoric, not action. His plan would be much worse for the health of our children and all Americans -- especially those at risk for respiratory illness -- than enforcing current clean air laws. His plan does nothing to curb the carbon pollution that causes global warming.

President Bush has also weakened long-standing clean air standards. He has let power plants, oil refineries, and other big factories undertake huge expansion projects without modernizing their pollution controls – increasing dangerous pollution in neighboring communities – simply by mis-labeling their projects as “routine maintenance.” We have already given polluters a free pass for thirty years since the passage of the Clean Air Act by not requiring them to use the best available technology to control their pollution unless they build new plants. And now that the time has come for them to install the appropriate technology – technology that was developed in the United States and installed on nearly every power plant in Germany and Japan – the Bush administration wants to change the rules of the game. Not only is this bad for the environment and the health of our community, but it is also bad economic policy. We need a level playing field: one that is fair to the utilities and refineries that have complied with the law as well as those to which this administration has sold out by changing the laws.

-snip-


EDITED BY ADMIN FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS

[FrenchieCat]

40. Here's his writing on why we need not be imperialists....

This is for those who know nothing about Clark but claim that it's his supporters who know nothing, I find that insulting and mean spirited! the arrogance and ignorance astounds!

HOW WRONG YOU ARE!

U.S. SOLDIERS ARE GREAT WARRIORS, BUT UNVILLING IMPERIAL GUARDS.
If we want to secure our interests, we must draw on other sources of power.

By Gen. Wesley Clark

Last March, somewhere in Kuwait, the troops of the 101st Airborne Division gathered the last of their gear onto trucks that would carry them into war. They were a magnificent sight. All in uniform, taut and fit, talking quietly; their weapons slung over their shoulders; their rucksacks hung neatly along the trucks' rails. The scene reeked of training and discipline, the quiet professionalism of soldiers who have prepped for months and years, who know their moment is at hand. No scene showed more clearly the achievements of the all-volunteer force or the distance our Army had come since the trying days of Vietnam.
In the days that followed, performance lived up to appearance and reputation. Driving through the dust and grit, fighting to clear the built-up areas of Najaf, Karbala, and Hilla, and later surging into the far north of Iraq to work with the Kurds, the 101st burnished the reputation of the American man-of-arms. Fighting, as did those who fought alongside them, with skill, courage, and compassion, controlling their firepower to minimize civilian casualties and limit the destruction of local roads and buildings, this compelling image of force sprang on its nation's citizens, and the world's, like the genie emerging from Aladdin's lamp--unexpected, almost magically powerful.
But they were not only the world's most overwhelming military force. Their presence embodied a powerful political message. As the 101st's troops carved their way through the desert landscape and overcame scattered resistance, they signaled a new American assertiveness, a willingness to risk lives and treasure for our beliefs. The U.S. military was so superior as to be virtually unchallengeable on the field of battle. Perhaps not since the Roman Empire had a single state's power under arms so dominated every possible opponent. In Iraq, the destruction and dismemberment of the enemy's army had been accomplished with vast U.S. capabilities left over. This was a military that could rewrite the boundaries of what force could achieve. This was an armed force that made a new kind of empire appear inevitable. And many foreign policy theorists in and around the White House and the office of the secretary of defense were putting forward the idea that America should embrace its destiny as a new imperial power, using military force as the chief tool to create a more democratic and pro-American world order.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0311.clark.html


EDITED BY ADMIN FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS

[retyred]

49. Before I answer why I support Clark

Share with us who your choice is and why, knowing your reasons might give reason for ours.



Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

[Donna Zen]

54. The only one to be speaking about:

1) Opposes the Cuban embargo...Dean said he did but changed his mind.

2) He has named fed dept. of duplication and waste that will be eliminated.

3) He has stated on several occasions that the Pentagon budget is on the table. He said it is the budget he knows best and refers to it as the "make-want" budget.

4) Has called for a review of all of our major R & D to move the monies into technology R & D that will cut our dependence on oil.

5) Has the foreign policy credentials necessary to move this nation, this planet, to a path of sustainable peace. And if you doubt that...well, he is the only candidate who has successfully negotiated with foreign powers. Clark is considered one of the world's most knowledgable in this area. (BTW, that is probably my #2 reason for supporting him.)

6) He has spoken about something he terms "Constitutional Legitimacy." He believes we have moved too far from the "rule of law" and the balance of powers. #1 for me. Without accountability being applied to either the legislative branch or the executive branch, we have lost the balance of power. Of course both of those arms of our government would rather keep it that way because then they can vote for policies that are beneficial to their re-elections rather than the good of the country. Example: healthcare.

more? But what have you offered? Or is this a one sided tribunal. Personally, I respect General Clark and have come to actually like him as a person--we have a friend in common--that is why I wrote to him and asked him not to run. In a country who treats people who run for public office like offal, especially if they are Democrats, I thought he should enjoy his life without this heap of scorn. Now that he is in this race, it is truly sad how America treats one of its best and brightest. The one unlooked for outgrowth of this campaign for me has been my willingness to do things for my community. Following his lead, I find myself less cynical. I guess you can't put that on a bullet sheet.

[SammyWinstonJack]

37. Don't you love how they tell us why we support Clark?

Since when does one have to defend why one supports a particular candidate? :argh: I personally don't give a flying fig concerning anyone's reasons behind their choice of a candidate, none of my business. Obviously, others here don't share that POV.

[retyred]

50. That's what flame baiters do!

On edit: Then again he/she may not have any idea of what to look for in a candidate and is trolling for ideas.



Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

[Code_Name_D]

57. They support the man?

That is not what I have observed. The sum of his support seemes to following the line of

*he is a military Genral
*he will sweep the south
*he has intergrity
*he is an honrable man
*he fught a nobel war
*he is a military Genral

I fail to see the substance here. But many seem sinspired by the same nothing, none the less.

[FrenchieCat]

66. we know all about your "observations"....Code_Name_D

they are very blinded by your Love of Dean....

Not a bad thing, however, why you always wind up as the negative in a bunch of positive doesn't speak well for your candidate.

[unfrigginreal]

3. It's a gut feeling with most of them...

they're falling prey to the same type of CW spin that most here insist only effects others, or "sheeple". There is no evidence that Clark fares any better than any of the other candidates. There have been a few polls but most suggest that any of our candidates are within the MOE of each other when hypothetically matched with Bush.

So Clarks electability advantage is nothing more than an opinion, one that I disagree with.

[KittyWampus]

5. Those Of Us Who Have Read His Statements, Books & Speeches

And have taken a look at his record as base commander have alot more to go on than a gut feeling.

[mmonk]

91. Absolutely

There is plenty to know about Wes Clark on positions and thinking. He has written volumes of materials. There is plenty of information on his positions though on certain positions, his details had to be more finalized once he announced his candidacy (like all the other candidates had to do).


A better question to ask to those who question our reasons for supporting him is this:
What's wrong with our decision to support Wes Clark?
What's that got to do with why you support your candidate?
What real questions do you have regarding our support?
Have you read anything he has written and any of his posted positions and if you have, what about those positions posted makes you think we don't support him based on his positions?

[Rowdyboy]

6. Oh, goodie, so now Clark supporters

are "sheeple". The most disgusting, elitist, bullshit word in the language. Thank you for tolerating our feeble existence.

[unfrigginreal]

11. If your not pushing the "we must put up a General against Bush" position..

then my post doesn't apply to you does it? The original poster asked about a certain "type" of Clark supporters.

[Rowdyboy]

34. Every candidate has supporters they should be ashamed of...

Uneducated, uninformed, angry asses who mouth off too much and base their opinions on crap. Every candidate! Clark has no more than any other.

And you know, good and well, when you attack one supporter of a particular candidate, others will respond. Its just bait.

[Myra]

17. Don't dismiss Clark supporters as "sheeple"

I don't appreciate your smug and arrogant
name calling just 'cause you don't support Clark
as I do. I support him for very specific
reasons: for his stances on issues, for his
guts, for his academic and military accomplishments,
for his candor, and most of all for his backbone,
which most Dems have lacked for years.

People express doubt about him 'cause he's not
a "true Dem" - he's voted Repug in the past.
Hey, if he's not a "true Dem" then that's an upside.
Because "true Dems" like Daschle and Gephardt and
Leiberman have been licking Repugs ass for years.
They're not an opposition party; they're complicit
with the fascists. "True Dems" have helped get us
where we are today, in deep shit.

If you truly want to know more about why so many
support General Clark, go to his website and read
his words: http://www.clark04.com/.

If, on the other hand, you have so little respect for
your fellow DU'ers that you just assume those of
us who support Clark are stepford voters, then I
guess you're determined to troll and fling cheap
baseless insults. If that's the case I won't waste any
more time on you.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Here's Clark's OP-Ed on Affirmative Action

http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eclark24_20031024.htm

COMMENT: Success of military diversity proves affirmative action works

October 24, 2003
BY WESLEY CLARK

When I left the military and contemplated entering political life, many issues led me to find my political home in the Democratic Party. Affirmative action was one of the most important. This is an issue that Democrats both understand well and feel deeply. And, based on my experiences, I believe without hesitation that we Democrats are right in our belief that affirmative action is good for all Americans.

Growing up in Little Rock, I saw firsthand the ugly legacy of racial discrimination. After the local schools were closed because of the battle over desegregation, I had to go to a school in Tennessee for a year. For all of us in Little Rock, Central High School is a shrine to that struggle to end racial segregation. But the end of segregation did not mean the end of discrimination. Racial hatred has deep and pernicious roots in our nation's history. It is a cancer that needs to be cured, and affirmative action has been one of the most effective treatments.

There is one thing the opponents of affirmative action have never wanted to admit: It works.

I know this firsthand from my 34 years in the United States military. Affirmative action was essential to creating the diverse officer corps we need to defend our country. Throughout my career, I have seen the benefits of seeking out qualified minority candidates for leadership positions -- and I am a beneficiary of their leadership.

-snip-

EDITED BY ADMIN FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS

[KittyWampus]

4. Clark Is A Proven Leader

Who has an innate capacity to see the Big Picture.

He also is running a campaign built upon hope ... not anger.

He is one of two candidates who will cut Pentagon spending.

He is one of two candidates who can address the PNAC crowd most directly and effectively.

He is one of two candidates who most likely will resonate with Southerners.

That is why I support him and why others would might be inclined to so so.

[Philosophy]

9. I'm surprised you didn't list "compassionat conservatism" in there

Only one item in your list is an actual statement of a position. The rest are jingles and cliches.

[KittyWampus]

19. Why Would I List Compassionate Conservatism?

That doesn't have anything to do with my post.

And my assesement of Clark, the other candidates and the political realities is neither a jingle or a cliche.

Or rather, it's as much a jingle or cliche as your opinions stated in the beginning of this thread.

[Philosophy]

23. Jingles and cliches annotated

"He also is running a campaign built upon hope ... not anger." = jingle

"He is one of two candidates who will cut Pentagon spending." = actual position statment

"He is one of two candidates who can address the PNAC crowd most directly and effectively." = cliche - why would they listen to him? Because he's a general so there's an outside hope that he might conquer some more evil-doer contries for them?

"He is one of two candidates who most likely will resonate with Southerners." = cliche - are their really Southern voters who will only vote for Southerners any more? This only made sense when the South was a poor cultural backwater that need to vote in solidarity to safeguard their institutionalized racism. I'm from the South, and almost nobody has slaves and almost everybody I see wears shoes nowadays.

[KittyWampus]

44. Your Original Post Was Unproven Inaccurate Bullshit

I posted my own observations and assessments. Now lets look at the bullshit you posted.

"It seems like the overwhelming majority of the arguments in support of Clark over any of the other Democratic candidates"

Overwhelming majority? Let's see your numbers... have you been running statistics on DU threads about Clark? You are wrong, but why don't you try and prove your assertion anyway.

"always boil down to the completely unfounded idea that we should support him because there is a huge undefined group of other people - a bloc of centrist voters that would never vote for any Democrat unless they are a military mastermind that will be the swing factor in the upcoming election."

Always boil down? Always???? Let's see at least 3-4 links to posts of all these people saying A. There's a huge Centrist Bloc And B. this bloc will only vote Dem if it's a military mastermind.

"Therefore since beating Bush* is only thing that really matters, we should just jump on the Clark bandwagon along with everyone else, and all candididates' positions on all the issues are irrelevant."

Most Clark supporters know his positions and agree with them. Most Clark also assess the situation and think he's the best chance to beat Junior. NOT ONE Clark supporter has suggested that ANYONE just mindlessly jump on any bandwagon. Although I've been known to point out the discrepency between Dean's postions now and his record as Governor. It's a shame so many seem blind to Dean's snakeoil.

"Much of the time the Clark supporters all but some out and say explicitly that they really do support one of the other candidates on the issues, but by this reasoning Clark is the only one that is "electable".

I can't think of ANY DU'ers who's said they DISAGREE with Clark on the issues but are supporting him cause only he is electable. Please provide some actual numbers of posters who have said they support candidate X on issues but have switched to Clark for electability.
Remember you said "MUCH OF THE TIME".

"Consider this then: what if those "other people" don't really exist?"

I figure from your ill thought out post you are referring to Centrists... who most certainly DO exist.

[Philosophy]

55. Yes centrist do exist

But my point was that it has not been demonstrated, despite many Clark supporters' claims, that military heroism is the #1 criterion that centrists base their vote on.

As for citing specific posts - my aim here wasn't to make a formal essay with footnotes and citations. I'm just trying to create a lively and somewhat rhetorical discussion that gives Clark supporters a perfect chance to list why they support him because of his positions on issues. If they can't do that, and simply resort to praise of his leadership and military service, then that only serves to illustrate my original point - leadership and military service say nothing specific about what Clark may do if he is elected.

[dfong63]

8. the people who assume that are giving Clark way too much credit

Clerk is inexperienced, and has stumbled badly in his first forays into the real world of politics. the people who think he's so electable are forgetting about the minefields that this political novice has to thread his way thru.

besides that, all the teflon in the world can't make this guy into a genuine democrat. Clark was a repub when it was in fashion to be a repub, and now he wants to be a dem. bah.

[funkyflathead]

12. Right

Didn't he praise Ronald Reagan?

[FrenchieCat]

43. I get tired of that line handed to you by the GOP, and so does

a lot of other progressives:
Here's Michael Moore telling it like it is:

www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3

Most likely you don't like Michael Moore neither....wouldn't be surprised.

[gulliver]

10. Clark is electable primarily because he is the best candidate.

I'm not sure why saying someone is electable automatically makes them suspect. Electability and quality in a candidate are not mutually exclusive. Is that obvious or what? I think your argument trivializes the thinking of Clark supporters.

And to your question: "what if those 'other people' don't really exist?"

Obviously, they really do exist, but even if they didn't Clark would be the best candidate IMO.

[Philosophy]

14. Then tell me what makes him the best candidate

[FrenchieCat]

45. analysis from Amy Sullivan of Political Aims

analysis from Amy Sullivan of Political Aims:
"I've been saying this for a while and maybe some day soon inside-the-Beltway types will start listening to me: Voters really aren't going to choose a candidate this year based on whose health care plan they like better. In many ways, 2004 is going to be the opposite of 2000, where many sane, intelligent people argued that the White House would look essentially the same, regardless of whether it was occupied by Al Gore or by George W. Bush. This time around, people understand that a Democratic administration in 2005 would have entirely different priorities than a W2 administration, and it wouldn't really matter which one of the nine candidates sat in the Oval Office That kind of thinking hurts a guy like Dick Gephardt who is nothing if not a man with a plan and helps someone like Clark who may not have all the details yet, but just might win the White House for us. No one really believes that the guys who came up with Gephardt's health care plan or Edwards' economic policy proposal are just going to fade into oblivion if their guy doesn't win. They still play on the Democratic team, which means they'd still help make policy for a Democratic president. Right? Right."
Here's the link: http://www.politicalaims.com/archive/2003_11_02_archive.html#106789211346231495

[FrenchieCat]

47. Reason given by the Carpetbagger Report of Clark support

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000822.html
Posted November 5, 2003 11:06 AM
Clark's Courageous Stance against the Cuba Embargo
About a year ago, I started wondering if any of the Dem presidential candidates would have the courage to oppose the U.S. trade embargo of Cuba. I wasn't optimistic.

For nearly four decades, the U.S. has sought to crush Fidel Castro's brutal dictatorship with a trade embargo. So far, it hasn't worked. The Cuban people are still suffering under a cruel communist regime and Castro uses the embargo as equal parts excuse and rallying cry, arguing that it's our fault that Cuba does not have the food and medical supplies they need.

Defenders of the embargo, most notably Cuban-American families in South Florida, insist the policy must remain in place, despite its historic ineffectiveness. Considering Florida's political significance (27 electoral votes), the embargo has stayed in place.

In Congress, there has been increasing political support -- from Republicans and Democrats -- to end the embargo, open Cuba to U.S. trade, expand the market for U.S. companies and farmers, and help influence the future of the island. Yet in the White House, every administration for the last four decades has rejected changes to the embargo out of fear of losing support in Florida.

It's become something of a litmus test for me. I've been prepared to support any candidate who had the courage to admit the embargo hasn't worked, but in my lifetime, no serious candidates have stepped up.

Political leaders know the policy is a failure. No one, from either party, can explain why we have robust trade with communist China, but we refuse to sell an ear of corn to communist Cuba. Even my favorite president, Bill Clinton, refused to touch the embargo.

So I've waited, wondering if I'll ever see a presidential candidate brave enough to acknowledge reality, risk the wrath of Cuban-Americans in South Florida, and announce support for ending the Cuba embargo.

I had high hopes early on for Howard Dean, but he, too, let me down. Earlier this year, Dean said he supported easing the embargo "in return for human-rights concessions." I was impressed and thought I had finally found a brave candidate I could respect and support. Six months later, however, Dean became the front-runner for the nomination, flip-flopped on his Cuban policy, and said he would enforce the embargo as his predecessors have. So much for Dean's "straight talk."

Last night, I'm pleased to report, I found a candidate with the courage to state the obvious. Wesley Clark announced that he opposes the U.S. embargo of Cuba.

At a CNN/Rock the Vote forum, a young man asked Clark a straightforward question. "he U.S. imposes an ineffective and inhumane embargo against Cuba," the questioner said. "If you were elected president, would you change this policy?"

Clark paused, presumably to wonder whether he was willing to write off Florida, and told the young man the truth.

"The way we won the Cold War was not by isolating Eastern Europe, but by engaging it," Clark said. "We won the Cold War not just because we had great armed forces, but because we had the AFL-CIO, we had Citibank, and we had a Polish pope. And we reached out to Eastern Europe, and we connected with humanity. That's why I'm against embargoes. They don't work."

After the applause died down, Clark continued. "When you isolate a country, you strengthen the dictators in it. If you want to change the dictators, you've got to open it up so ordinary people in those countries can see what they're missing in the rest of the world, and gain strength and ideas from everybody else. And they'll take control of their future. We're not going to reward Fidel Castro, but we are going to make sure that Cubans have a democracy and they have the same rights as everybody else on this planet."

I genuinely couldn't believe my ears. I liked Clark before, but now I'm convinced. He's my guy.

Clark is not exactly new to Latin-American affairs. Before becoming Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Clark was Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command, Panama, where he was responsible for the direction of U.S. military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean. In other words, he knows of what he speaks.

Truth be told, Clark has opposed the embargo for a while. In July 2002, long before he was even thinking about running for president, Clark said, "The way to deal with Castro is to send Cuba American tourists, American goods and American farm products. There could be no better way to deal with this last vestigial form of Communism than to turn American business and American agriculture loose on them."

Two months ago, in his first campaign stop as a candidate, Clark visited Miami and attracted huge crowds. A Miami Herald reporter asked about the embargo. While acknowledging that "there are a lot of complexities" to the issue, Clark admitted he favored engagement as a means to democratization. "If you look at the way we operated in Eastern Europe, we were effective in taking down communism because there was no embargo," Clark said.

I wondered at the time if Clark would follow in Dean's footsteps and flip-flop on the issue. Considering Florida's importance, I almost expected Clark to explain that he had changed his mind as the campaign progressed.

The fact that he's standing by his previous statements and is willing to end a foreign policy that clearly does not work, represents the best example of political courage I've seen in the campaign thus far.

[FrenchieCat]

51. Cal Pundit's reasons for supporting Clark

WHY I LIKE WES CLARK....Why did I decide to support Wes Clark for president? That's obviously a combination of what I think about Clark and what I think about the rest of the candidates, and I'll try to cover both sides here without making this too long. Let's start with Clark.

On a policy level, I usually look at three areas — but not in White Paper detail. I want to know general tone and direction, not the intricacies of how they're all going to finance their competing healthcare plans. So here's how Clark stacks up on policy:


Economic issues. After three years of George Bush, I have a low bar here: I just want a candidate whose ideas are not obviously insane. (Yes, that's what it's come to.) All of the candidates qualify on that score, although I think Clark is smart not to suggest repealing the middle class parts of the Bush tax cut and smart to emphasize some areas of spending cutbacks as well as tax increases. His position on free trade seems reasonable too, although I haven't seen a definitive statement about it from him.


Social issues. I think this is an area where Clark shines. His basic instincts are the ones that liberals look for — "I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I am pro-environment, pro-health," as he famously said in the first debate — but at the same time he seems to understand that you can frame these issues as ones of basic fairness and security without gratuitously making them into culture war issues. I like that.


Foreign policy. This is probably the #1 issue in the 2004 election, and it's one where Clark's experience gives him credibility that the other candidates lack. It's true that most of the Democratic candidates say that they're committed to restoring our international relationships, but Clark is a guy who's actually fought a war with an international coalition and knows what a huge pain in the ass it is. When the other guys talk about alliances, I sometimes wonder if they really believe what they're saying, but when Clark talks about it I know that he believes what he's saying. What's more, I think he can convince the electorate that he's right about this and George Bush isn't.

Clark also does a pretty good balancing job. One of the fundamental problems with opposition is that you spend most of your time attacking the guy currently in office. That's fine, it's the way the game is played. But you also need to make it clear that you have a positive plan to make things better, and Clark does that pretty well. I think it could still use some work, but overall his ideas for fighting terrorism seem realistic, toughminded, and sensible.


Aside from policy stands, Clark has a lot of other things to recommend him too. His personality is attractive and levelheaded, he "oozes sincerity," he's a good speaker, and his character and judgment are sound.

In addition, he is also George Bush's worst nightmare. So not only do I think he would be a very good, liberal president at a policy level, but I also like his character and I think he's the most electable of the candidates. What more could I ask for?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So how about the rest of the field? I want to make it clear that I have nothing against any of the major candidates and would support any of them against George Bush. In other words, I'm not trying to smack any of them down. Still, with that said, here's what I think of them.

Howard Dean: I like Dean's energy, I like his passion, and I like the fact that he's obviously not afraid to take on George Bush with gusto. But there's a flip side to this, and I think you can see them both in his "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks" remark. On the one hand, he was making a smart observation: these guys ought to vote for Democrats and we shouldn't alienate them. But on the other hand, it was a really, really stupid way to make his point and he was too stubborn to back down from it until it had already done him a bunch of damage.

So while I don't have any huge policy differences with him — although he's sounding a little too sincere in his opposition to free trade these days — his character seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Too much of his appeal is built on anger, he often comes across as defensive and perhaps a little bitter to people who aren't true believers in the first place, and I think he'd get flattened by Karl Rove's $200 million war chest. I feel bad saying that, but it's my best guess.

John Kerry: I just can't warm to the guy. All politicians waffle on their positions, but Kerry too often seems like he's waffling. Fair or not, his positions often seem a little too finely calibrated and his speaking style a little too calculated. Sorry.

Joe Lieberman: I don't have the instinctive revulsion toward Lieberman that a lot of liberals seem to have, but at the same time he's just too far from my own positions to consider seriously.

Dick Gephardt: He's run before, and he's lost before. I don't think he'd do any better this time.

John Edwards: I like Edwards a lot, but he just hasn't been able to gain any traction. I don't know why, but that's the way it goes sometimes. He'd make a great VP, or a great presidential candidate sometime down the road. Just not this year.

Kucinich, Sharpton, Moseley Braun: None of them have a chance of winning, so I just haven't paid any attention to them. Sorry, but life's too short.
http://www.calpundit.com/

[Donna Zen]

58. Is that an order?

Several people including myself have asked about your candidate and would be pleased if you would answer. Also, I have listed several issues where Clark differs from the other candidates, and yet you insist I haven't, so why do you want more?

[charlie]

13. "overwhelming majority"

"always boil down"

Really? It should be easy to produce a good number of cites then. I've rarely seen that argument.

"all candididates' positions on all the issues are irrelevant"

Now that I've never seen.

"Much of the time the Clark supporters all but some out and say explicitly that they really do support one of the other candidates on the issues, but by this reasoning Clark is the only one that is 'electable'".

LOL. That's the inverse of my guy's problem. I've seen a fair number of people say they'd vote for Kucinich, but they don't think he's electable. Seriously though, I've haven't heard a single Clarkie say they would prefer someone else, but bank on Clark's "electability."

[JohnKleeb]

16. Yeah Charlie thats our problem lol

[Philosophy]

20. Most of the candidates share this factor to an extent

"LOL. That's the inverse of my guy's problem. I've seen a fair number of people say they'd vote for Kucinich, but they don't think he's electable."

That is a good point - most of the candidates share this factor, pro or con, to an extent, its just that with Clark this is the ONLY factor.

"Seriously though, I've haven't heard a single Clarkie say they would prefer someone else, but bank on Clark's 'electability.'"

Every time someone says that the they support Clark because his military experience proves he's not a wimp like other Democrats (Republicans get an automatic pass because they are the party that is always for increased military spending and for unleashing the troops on our real or imagined enemies = they "support our troops") and he's a good leader, this is in effect what they are doing. What specifically will he do using his experience as a general to help our country when he is elected? Win more wars?

[charlie]

27. Okay

Concerns amongst us Democrats about Clark's military career aside, the appeal of a former high-ranking officer to the broad electorate (including disaffected Republicans) may well be considerable. Jingoism and knee-jerk defenses of "American exceptionalism" are as widespread as I've ever seen. The argument that a soldier won't be as easily denigrated or dismissed isn't unsound.

As to his experiences as a leader, SACEUR isn't small potatoes. The job involved large-scale administrative, logistic, strategic, and diplomatic duties, as well as having to navigate domestic and international political intrigues.

But still, as I said before, I really haven't seen the "I'm only voting for him because he's a general" posts you're talking about.

[roguevalley]

52. You wrote this:

"Kucinich, but they don't think he's electable."

That is a good point - most of the candidates share this factor, pro or con, to an extent, its just that with Clark this is the ONLY factor."

People have listed dozens of reasons why Clark is there man.
Yet you don't even acknowledge this. You say ONLY factor. So
I guess its true because you say so. Humph. You aren't
interested in your own question. You just want to yank sincere
people around.

Will you vote for clark if he gets the nod? The sheeple want
to know.

[Donna Zen]

60. Are you amusing yourself?

You said:

That is a good point - most of the candidates share this factor, pro or con, to an extent, its just that with Clark this is the ONLY factor.

Again, people are presenting you with many reasons why we support Clark, and you don't seem to be reading them. I mean, bush is electable (maybe) but we are not supporting him. Does that trouble your logic or just your game?

[Philosophy]

63. Yes

I was looking for reponses about Clark's positions on issues, and I got a few. But I also got quite a few responses about how he is a "good man" and a "great leader" which I don't consider logically defensible reasons to support a candidate:

Supporting your leader because he led you to support him therefore he must be a great leader is circular reasoning.

[Donna Zen]

71. That is not what I wrote

So let me rephrase my question: Are you asking these questions solely to amuse yourself, or do you intend to read all of the answers?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. Thank You For Enlightening Me

I was carrying the burden that leadership qualities are an important consideration in electing a leader....


Now that burden has been lifted....

[OKNancy]

15. Not me

Electability is a nice bonus, but for me it is his intellect, his vision and his sense of history. I like that he is optimistic, says, "never be afraid" and believes in serving in some sort ( not just the military, but in some form) He makes me want to be a better person.

I like his stand on Iraq, and his economic ideas - these can be found on his website, so I won't go into them. His health care policies are not as radical as I would like but they are a good first step.

I think Clark is a liberal in every sense of the word.

[DuctapeFatwa]

18. seems to be popular reason for supporting most of the candidates

Isn't that what 'electable' means?

[Cogito]

21. Why Clark is more electable

Family doctor tells you why Clark is more electable than Dean. How about explaining to me how the continuation of the sequence Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis is not Dean...the latest in a long line of Democrats from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party? Great guys...all of them. All of them got absolutely smoked by Republicans. The ONLY Democrats who have won or even come close since 1968 have been Southern centrists. Is Dean's great grassroots campaign going to spell the difference? Well McGovern had a great grassroots campaign too...raised alot of money in a very novel way using direct mail.

If a moderate southerner cannot win votes from moderates in Southern and Midwestern swing states then how is an angry liberal northerner going to do so?

[hlthe2b]

22. No way... I want to be MY candidate's

ONLY SUPPORTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aren't I special! :evilgrin:

Now doesn't this sound a little silly?

[Philosophy]

24. But doesn't it also sound silly

to say as a Democrat that you will only support a candidate that you assume non-Democrats will support? What's the point of even being in the Democratic party then? If those non-Democrats that can make or break the prospects of any Democratic candidate could just get organized, they could take over the whole country!

Oh, wait...they already have: they're called "Republicans".

[roguevalley]

53. I welcome libertarian, repug, perot voters.

I welcome anyone who will read up on my boy, decide
in their heart if he tells them things that ring in
their hearts and then votes for him.

Good grief. What are you talking about?

[WillyBrandt]

25. Thanks for the dime-store psychoanalysis

I assume by reading on DU, you've got a sense of the Clark supporters' souls? Really, we are just guessing how other people would vote, and voting accordingly ourselves--it must be so, for what else profiteth a man to support a general? At DU, mindreaders lurk.

The fact is that nearly all of the leading candidates have very similar positions on most issues. Except for, say, Sharpton and Kuninich, few support their candidates because of the superiority of their campaigns' whitepapers.

That leaves, roughly, roughly three criteria:

(1) How well s/he would do in the general election, and how they could change the political landscape in a progressive direction? You assume this is all we benighted Clark supporters have. But there's also. . .

(2) What is the nature of the candidates' campaign? This relates to the first question, but is different. One often hears Dean supporters speak of their enthusiasm coming from the grassroots nature of the Dean ascendancy. I support Clark because I think he and his campaign can best unite the Establishment and the Grassrotos; but I admire the Dean campaign nontheless.

(3) What are their personal qualities, and how do they relate to their capacity to govern and to lead? I think Clark has leadership qualities in spades, as well as the political skill needed for dealing with foreign countries--a skill that will be sorely needed as he seeks to fix Bush's mess. Moreover, I admire his mind and his writings, as well as his energy, and feel that he has the personal qualities to be a very good, if not possibly great president. Each candidate has their qualities. Supporters' affections for these qualities is subjective, and it varies. But it exists in all camps, and it is real.

[Philosophy]

30. Questions about your statements

"I support Clark because I think he and his campaign can best unite the Establishment and the Grassroots"

Why exactly? I suspect that you imagine that the "Establishment" thinks exactly as I described. In that case you are just projecting.

"I think Clark has leadership qualities in spades"

But to lead us to what? That's what really matters. Simply being a "great leader" isn't automatically good - history is replete with great leaders who led people to do great evil.

[WillyBrandt]

41. Answers

Establishment people: he is not running, in any sense, against the Democratic Party. Dean in large measure is (and, to be honest, for good reason). Moreover, while Dean has done this as well, Clark has been very good at holding those posh $2000 dinners as well as raising money on the Internet.

Leadership qualities: Evil? Jesus. His positions are very mainstream, normal Democratic views. Frankly, they are almost interchangable with Dean except for some details and exceptions. The leadership qualities matter because the best intentions and knowledge and intelligence isn't worth anything unless you can persuade, browbeat, and and unite people into moving forward on an issue.

So, yes, leadership is (in some sense) an amoral quality, in that it can be used for good or ill. But, you know, some of us think that Clark really is a good man, and not merely an electoral ephemera, and that he will lead for good.

[depakid]

26. Since Clark is finally putting up some outlines of position papers

It might be a good time for folks to start getting issue oriented and look at how his actual plans line up against those of the other candidates. At this point, only the big 4 are on his website- jobs, health care, his economic and national security plans. At this point, they're still basically "talking points," as opposed to more detailed anaylsys, but well worth the read.

If I were choosing a canidate (especially one without a proven track record outside the military) I'd want to see alot more about all of the important issues, but I figure this is a decent start. After all, Clark's only officially been in for about 9 weeks and it takes time to formulate rational and in depth political plans and positions.

Unfortunately for Gen. Clark, time isn't on his side and there's a whole boatload of information (and ammunition) that he and his campaign need to address if he is to reach a broader cross section of voters.

[Kahuna]

28. The lastest Newsweek poll suggest those people DO..

exist

snip...Bush's lead over the Democratic contenders in test match-ups has also decreased. In the latest Newsweek Poll, Bush and Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark are in a statistical dead heat: 45 percent of registered voters say they'd vote for Clark or lean toward voting for Clark, compared to 48 percent who'd vote for Bush or lean toward Bush.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031108/nysa010_1.html

[LittleApple81]

31. I WILL VOTE FOR THE PERSON SELECTED BY THE

DEMOCRATIC party. We don't have a primary where I live, so I don't have any input. But at this moment I have nothing against Clark. I consider him to be extremely smart but not a seasoned politician.

[gone2thechase]

35. What if the DLC goes Zell and supports Bush?

Will you *still* vote the DLC way?

[charlie]

38. The DLC can do whatever they want

They're not the Democratic Party, whose nominee LittleApple81 and I will be supporting.

[in_cog_ni_to]

39. I would NEVER

vote for someone just because I thought others were going to. That is just silly. Dean is, after all, in the lead. Is he not? If your theory were correct, I would be voting for Dr. Dean.

[roguevalley]

48. You asked why we support him and evidence of positions, experience

and common human decency was listed. All I hear from you
is that you don't like him, you don't trust him, you 'think'
he might be 'something'. Sounds like jingles and opinions
to me. I've been voting for 32 years and I don't EVER give
my vote away. I'm voting for Clark for his positions,
for his fearlessness against the Repugs and because he can
lead us back from the abyss with the help of the world, who
are waiting for us to put a REAL person into the White
House.

Any other insinuation is an insult to me. AND, it can be
applied to anyone else who supports any of the other
candidates. Really, we know how to think and we're adults.
Some of the anti-Clark opinions expressed here, even in
the face of evidence being presented by supporters suggest
you are either freepers freeping or anti-Clark trolls.

I don't believe Dennis or some of the others can be elected
but I don't insult their supporters because they love and
need and respect their candidate. I would hope the same can
be accorded to Clark supporters.

[depakid]

56. Actually, I'm ineterested in where he stands on the issues.

Always have been, ever since his name was floated around. That's what I use to make up my mind about candidates in primaries and so called non-partisan elections.

The trouble some of us have had with Clark (personally, I like much of what I've been able to hear and read) is that he doesn't have a lot on the record with respect to domestic policy. To put it simply, he's been an unknown quantity and that fact alone makes people wary.

It's not insulting anyone to suggest that they may be backing a candidate that they may not know very well substatively- it's also not insulting to note that some people "jump on the bandwagon," because that sort of behavior has been observed in just about every American election since Washington opted out of a 3rd term. Issue analysis doen't appeal to everyone.

As far as anti-Clark or freeper type posts, frankly, I haven't seen many lately- certainly nothing compared to the deluge of Dean bashing that's been doing on. Some of that was really getting distorted and at times, ugly.

[Donna Zen]

70. A fair position

Much of what would thought of as "domestic" issues, although I think that having a more peaceful foreign policy would be a major step forward, are positions he took while in the military. They include the problems of spousal abuse, education, housing, healthcare, and affirmative action. Oh yeah, he took on the plight of the loggerheaded turtle, successfully, when commanding Ft. Hood. The actual documentation, position papers, congressional testimony regarding all of these issues must be available somewhere. I'll try google but also, the campaign needs to make some of this available if possible. That is, if the entire paper trail exists for Pentagon eyes only, there would be a bump in the process.

[eleny]

42. Nonsense

I like his views and trust him. If I believe that this will draw others - is that a problem? I heartily disagree with your premise. It's his views first and then his wide appeal that makes him a good candidate. Pardon me - but you need to just get passed it.

[Mz Pip]

46. Not me.

I picked Clark all by myself, before he was even a candidate. Sorry, but it's kind of offensive to label Clark supporters as delusional sheep who are following him on hearsay.

I like him better than the other candidates, who are all a whole lot better than Bush. and by the way, I do exist.

MzPip
:dem:

[DemExpat]

84. Me, too....I had my eye on him long before

he became a candidate.

And I much prefer him to all the others - although any Dem will be my choice in the election!

Clark is the best we have. And MORE....

:kick:

DemEx

edit: and I see it as the only intelligent thing to do to back a candidate who looks to be the most electable! :eyes:

[chaska]

59. Wow, you guys are awesome.

I'm really proud to keep such company. No lack of brain cells in the Clark camp.

[Philosophy]

61. Can't we all just get along?

I am seriously considering supporting Clark and the purpose of my post here was somewhat rhetorical and may have been misperceived as a troll. But I really have seen many people use a form of the argument I described (though not so much here but rather in the media - so I exaggerated a little bit). I was very interested in some of your enlightened responses logically describing why you support Clark, especially in regard to specific positions on issues, which a few of you provided.

And a few of you also accused me of being a Freeper, but I guess that's to be expected here. O8)

[Donna Zen]

73. The I suggest

that there are many extensive posts here that are being overlooked. If you sense frustration, it stems from the responses you are giving that center on the more emotional answers rather than the substantive ones. Although I would argue that substance as presented by white papers, fall short of the responses that consider the whole person presented by Wesley Clark.

[TreasonousBastard]

83. Oh, perhaps we could...

if some people stopped toying with the Socratic method and just made their points or asked their questions outright.

You did not appear to be a seeker of knowledge-- just an obtuse clod or a troll.

And, note that appearance is everything.

[Clark Can WIN]

62. It's not why I support Clark

So first of all I think you are all wet.

Second of all, isn't it kind of dumb to support a candidate that you DON"T believe other people will vote for? Stupid.

[chaska]

68. Unfortunate timing on post 62.

All of us (supporters of all the candidates) are a bit touchy, especially the Clark and Dean people, who are most in contention for the heart of DU (apologies to DK supporters). Too bad we have to go through this, but it's really inevitable that we be antagonists until the voting is well under way and the party's choice is clear. I hope that we can try to remember that we are on the same team while we (LOL) savage each other. Lets agree to come together and sing Kumbaya once we work out who will represent us against the evil chimp in chief.

Till then, F*** all a ya'll. :^)

[John_H]

64. If you really believed Clark supporters don't exist

you wouldn't have bothered posting a thread bashing him, would you?

[wyldwolf]

65. (ahem) bwahahahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh!

Please provide several examples of posts and threads that support your premise of the motivations of Clark supporters. Nevermind. You can't.

However, it is a plus that Clark's military credentials trump the only card Bush is believed by many to have - national security strength.

In addition, that "huge undefined group of people" actually exists so it isn't really logical to theorize they don't. They're called "mainstream America."

Party officials, journalists and other campaign camp followers, who tally political statistics with the fervency of baseball fans, need to wake up. Between dropping off dry cleaning and picking up kids from soccer practice, most Americans could give a rat's patootie whether Clark once supported an incredibly popular Republican president. We are not a nation of party loyalists.

Numbers bear this out. According to Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, only about 37 percent of the electorate strongly identify as Democrats or Republicans. The majority's vote could be up for grabs.

To middle America, unnerved by political polarization, "centrist" is not a dirty word; it's a welcome return to sanity. Says Stephen Medvic, professor of government at Franklin & Marshall College, "The notion that someone isn't a diehard partisan, a lot of Americans will like that aspect of Clark's candidacy."

...Clark appeals to NASCAR men, who have fled the Democratic Party in droves since the Reagan era.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/6926945.htm

According to Ruy Teixeira, co-author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority," Clark's followers are right to suppose that their man's appeal is demographically broader than Dean's. In a post on the Emerging Democratic Majority blog, he analyzes an October Gallup poll to discern "The Demographics of Clarkism":

"While Clark receives more support than Dean among both men and women, his margin over Dean among women is just 3 points (16 percent to 13 percent), but an impressive 12 points among men (29 percent to 17 percent)," Teixeira points out. "He also beats Dean in every region of the country, but especially in the South (25 percent to 8 percent). Also intriguing is how well he does among low income voters (less than $20,000), clobbering Dean by 26 percent to 5 percent. In fact, Clark bests Dean in every income group up to $75,000. Above $75,000, Dean edges Clark, 26 percent to 25 percent."

Furthermore, unlike Dean, Clark seems to have significant support from black voters. He's been treated gently by Al Sharpton and endorsed by Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y. "When Charlie Rangel speaks up for somebody like General Clark, it speaks volumes in the black community," says Brazile.

Brooks-LaSure, an African-American who plans to work on communicating Clark's message to black communities nationwide, points out that when Dean spoke at a black church in South Carolina, the audience was primarily white. Clark, he insists, will appeal to black voters. "The general's experience growing up in Little Rock, and then in the military, where they boast of having more African-Americans in positions of management and leadership than any other organization in the world, you can tell is not something new for him," Brooks-LaSure says.

Finally, Clark has support among a constituency that doesn't relate to Dean at all -- those who think that Bush is a basically decent man who's doing a bad job as president.

Salon.com

[incapsulated]

67. Wrong

You are confusing discussions about general election strategy and issues of "electibility" with why Clark supporters like Clark.

The fact that we believe he has the edge in the general election is only part of it.

I admire his intelligence find his positions and ideas on the issues only get more impressive the more he speaks about them.

I believe he has character and integrity.

I think he would be an outstanding President.

I also believe he is hands down the best candidate to run against Bush in the general.

[FrenchieCat]

75. And in particular.....

"Philosopher" is a misnomer if ever there was. Your philosophy is apparently bash and bash again.

In the end, you have exposed only what many have already known....

that Clark can win and for all of the right reasons.

[charlie]

69. ATTN: Clarkies (and Philosophy)

Since many of you are here now...

There's a very good article about Clark by Elizabeth Drew at the New York Review of Books:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

It deals with some of the oft-cited controversies of Clark's career (his dismissal from the NATO post, Gen Jackson's WWIII retort, Shelton's apparent detestation of the man, etc), his inexperience as a political "pro", and some assessments of his campaign to date, his style, his chances.

As I said, it's really good, I think you guys will like it. Check it out soon, NYRB only allows free access to current articles for a week or two.

Edit: Minor site name correction

[incapsulated]

72. Thanks for the link! n/t

[Rowdyboy]

74. I can't believe that hasn't already been posted in a thread

Its a great link to a flawless article. Very interesting. Thank you so much...

[TreasonousBastard]

82. It has been...

several times, and referred to many more.

Makes me wonder if perhaps there should be an archive of great articles handy.

Nobody reads all the crap in here, and a lot of good stuff gets missed, while other stuff gets duped ceaselessly.

[in_cog_ni_to]

76. GREAT article.

Thank You for posting it!

It's good to know why General Shelton is such an ass...he's jealous! Should have known it was something like that....big EGO!

I thought this said a lot about the people in the military who have come out publically to criticize Clark:

Some also say that Clark was too cerebral, too much of an intellectual for some of his fellow military officers.

He's too smart????? Funny. He is just the kind of man who will be a great president. Contrast him with the squatter and my G-D...the man looks PERFECT!

[charlie]

77. So post it to a new thread

Like I said, the clock is ticking on access, you might not be able to share it next week :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

78. OK,

if you insist! This really is a must read! I saved it for sharing. Thanks, again! :7

[Rowdyboy]

79. Any idea on when you want to post it?

It should get out. Its too good to lose.

[in_cog_ni_to]

81. rowdyboy, I posted it and it got

no response. I'll give it a kick. :kick:

[maha]

80. It seems like you don't know what you're talking about.

Clark is my first choice because Clark is my first choice. I happen to think he's the most electable candidate, but I also think he would make an excellent President.

[CWebster]

85. Clark has an untested record on the issues.

But he does have a record, up until very recently, of supporting and complimenting the worst elements of the Right.

As for his military status, the reality is he was fired from the Pentagon. His supporters may choose to overlook this, his opponents will not.

[SahaleArm]

86. If I supported the 'Candidate of Political Convenience'...

I would bash Clark as well.

[FrenchieCat]

87. Please read all about Clark's Retirement Party......

General Wesley Clark was not fired. He was nearing his 4-year term limit, which applies to all 4-Star Generals and replaced with another 4-Star General, Joe Ralston, who was at the end of his own 4-year term. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton, decided that he needed to find a place for Ralsotn to command. So, Clark's position as head of SHAPE was handed over to Ralston at a full military ceremony with honors on May, 1, 2000; about 7 weeks before his term should have ended on June 21st.

At the ceremony, Shelton and Defense Secretary William Cohen lavished praise on General Clark for a job well done. Shelton said, in part, "Your ability to carry out the multitude of day-to-day activities, along with major operations, proves once again that you are equal to any task," "You are responsible for a very vital and dynamic area of the world.  You have never let us down, and I know that you never will."

Sec. Cohen stated, "In Gen. Wes Clark, America found a scholar, a soldier and a statesman -- a scholar who understands the forces of history on our time, a soldier of unquestioned courage , a statesman whose influence has been felt from the Americas where he helped to guide the fight against drug barons, to Dayton, where his counsel helped end the bloodletting in Bosnia." Cohen praised Clark and the command for their part in NATO Operation Allied Force. He announced that he has proposed the creation of a Kosovo campaign medal. "No one should ever doubt either your service or your success," he said. "Faced with an adversary who manufactured a vicious, humanitarian nightmare, you responded with compassion and speed to relieve human suffering."
The secretary awarded Clark with his fifth award of the Defense Distinguished Service Medal. The award citation credited Clark with leading EUCOM through the entire spectrum of military operations from warfighting to peacekeeping to humanitarian relief.

Before his official retirement in June, Clark was awarded another Distinguished Service Medal, the first Kososo Campaign Medal, Canada's Military Service Cross and America's highest peace-time award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

[FrenchieCat]

88. But don't just take my word for it....

Shelton at General Clark's Change of Command
http://www.dod.gov/news/May2000/n05032000_20005033.html
"Your ability to carry out the multitude of day-to-day activities, along with major operations, proves once again that you are equal to any task," the chairman said. "You are responsible for a very vital and dynamic area of the world.  You have never let us down, and I know that you never will.
"In terms of the honesty and integrity of most politicians, Clark is probably in the 99th percentile," says one who observed the Shelton-Clark spats (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031013/whispers/13whisplead.htm
This doesn't usually get people to completely drop it so follow up with the After Action Review where Cohen and Shelton admit that Clark was right about the ground troops. The combination has worked for me every time.
AFTER ACTION REVIEW FOR KOSOVO, OCTOBER 14, 1999
In The Joint Statement on the Kosovo After Action Review dated October 14, 1999 it appears that both Cohen and Shelton believed
the buildup of NATO ground combat power in the region (e.g., Task Force Hawk in Albania, allied peace implementation forces in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and visible preparations for the deployment of additional forces), combined with the increasing public discussion of the possibility of and planning for the use of ground forces, undoubtedly contributed to Milosevic's calculations that NATO would prevail at all costs.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct1999/b10141999_bt478-99.html
"IT'S THE DEMOCRACY AND YOUR WAR, STUPID!"
A REAL MILITARY HERO TELLS A GENUINE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

[FrenchieCat]

90. And if you want some real in-depth info....

Read the 12 articles found on a Soviet website which has archived the actual 1999-2000 mainstream American press coverage in reference to Clark and the Pantagon war he had to fight to win the KOSOVO war......

Here: http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm#top

Gen. Wesley Clark was Right-- And so he had to go

Levin Statement on Departure of General Wesley Clark

Perspective on the Military: Why Wesley Clark Got the Ax at NATO

U.S. Department of State, Daily Press Briefing Aug. 3, 1999

Warrior's Rewards

General Clark's Last Stand

The Unappreciated General

Clark's Exit Was Leaked Deliberately, Official Says
President Clinton's "Distress"

Washington's Long Knives

Army Faces Reduced Leadership Role