I'm not sure that Clark can save us. I think about Eisenhower....and I

[KoKo]

cringe. People felt that "War Hero" would be the perfect person to lead us after WWII and be a force in forging the "American Coming Home." Eisenhower was always "a general." Aside from his famous statement of: "Beware the Military/Industrial Complex" which some here on DU believe he never said, yet Googles show he did, and it's been so attributed to him....it's a legend in it's own right, however.......

Eisenhower was "DA MAN" after WWII, because people wanted to lean on a Military Person, because they felt he probably knew best given what our country had been through in that devastating war.

I feel we've rewound history, now and are assuming that Shrubby the Annointed is like Roosevelt or Truman and he's committed us to the "War on Terrorism" that some DU'ers believe might (in their darkest hours, really believe might be noble) and so to "counteract Shrub" the Dems need to get a TRUE MILITARY MAN IN POWER....CLARK....to SAVE US....from the PNAC'ers.

I don't think so. I've spent some time on this planet. I think as much as some of you just love Clark (and he has ALOT OF CHARM) so do SNAKES.......and I would be very careful about handing over AMERICA to a GENERAL just as an answer to a weak, ineffectual idiot like Shrub thinking because the RW Repugs tell us this is like WWII, it's true!

This is not the "aftermath" of WWII we're dealing with here. This is SHRUB WAR UNENDING...and its HIS and the REPUGS ALONE.to deal with.

It's not our's this war. It's theirs. I won't be coerced into thinking this is WWII and we need an Eisenhower/Clark to SAVE US from the Commies.

You Clarkies who are so dedicated to him, need to realize that GENERALS come with BAGGAGE! And, not be so blind as to the MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! READ......READ......READ........Clarkies...READ!

[Closer]

1. There it is!

[Clark Can WIN]

88. Whew................................ DAMN

There she was like lightning agian.............

nice reflexes baby!

[Closer]

97. What makes you think I'm a she?

:shrug:

And yeh, the reflexes are pretty good huh? That was faster than a Clarkette on a positive Dean thread! And I thought THAT was impossible!

[wyldwolf]

2. To have written so much you've said very little..

Give us some EXAMPLES of what your opinion is founded on.

[KoKo]

6. Here are some "highlights" of his Presidency. It was an interesting

time, where the "seeds of the 60's Revolution began." It was his time that lead to much of what we are dealing with.

Here's a link if you want to do some research:

Eisenhower (Rep) (1952-1960)
1952: Election - Eisenhower (Will end war) vs. Stevenson
1953: Rosenbergs executed
Terminate reservations for N.A.
Armistice in Korea – 38th parallel
Shah of Iran returns to power in coup – to keep Iran from going Communistic
Krushchev in control of Russia
1954: Army – McCarthy hearings – brought down Joseph McCarthy
Brown vs. Board of Education – overturns Plessy vs. Furguson decision
SEATO – alliance Turkey, US, Iraq, and Iran
Fall of Dien Bien Phu – French loose in Vietnam
Geneva Conference – reduction of nuclear weapons, divide Vietnam along 17th parallel
– elections in a year
Mao bombs Taiwan – Eisenhower threatens to send troops in and the A-bomb - brinkmanship
China bombs Taiwan – Eisenhower sends in troops – China backs off
1955: Montgomery bus boycott begins – Rosa Parks
AFL and the CIO merge
Warsaw Pact: USSR and Eastern European allies unite to counter NATO
1956: Election of 1956: Eisenhower re-elected: ended Korean “War” and balanced budget
Suez Crisis – Egyptian President nationalizes canal
Howl – by Allen Ginsberg – bohemianism – Beat Generation
Interstate Highway Act - building federal roads; movement into rural area; creation of suburbs
Hungarian Revolution – rebel against Communism – US doesn’t support
US puts Diem in power in South Vietnam
Election 1956: Eisenhower defeats Stevenson again
1957: Eisenhower Doctrine – extends to Truman Doctrine to Middle East – help fight Commumism
Domino Theory - if one country fell to Communism, it would undermine another that one would fall,
producing a domino effect.

More....here for read of the significance of Eisenhower and the times he lived in.........http://www.ku.edu/heritage/abilene/ikeeven.html

[wyldwolf]

15. You've still said nothing relevant...

and other than the fact they were both General, what does this have to do with Clark?

Nothing.

So far, your post is striking out.

[Julien Sorel]

17. You just slopped together a timeline.

Am I supposed to somehow conclude from that that Eisenhower was bad? And, to go one step further, am I supposed to conclude that because you, with an absolutely ludicrous piece of evidence, claim Eisenhower was bad, Clark will also be bad?

Here is an mp3 of Eisenhower's Farewell Address, in which he talks about the military industrial complex. He talks about it at about 8:52 into the speech, and specifically uses the term. Now, which tin foiler said he didn't say it?

http://lib0131.lib.msu.edu/vvl/010547/public/all/01-0547-028.mp3

[The Magistrate]

39. Gen. Eisenhower Did Pretty Well, Mr. Bunter, All Things Considered

Gov. Stevenson could never have kept Curt LeMay in check; that reptile would have pushed us into nuclear war with the Soviets if he had nothing but intellectual civilian leadership above him. Gen. Eisenhower backed him down on several occassions, and his prestige on military and strategic questions was sufficient he could not much be argued with when he did so.

[KoKo]

54. Eisenhower was sort of "nothing." He was a General........and Curtis

LeMay......ohhhhhh a name out of the past!

[The Magistrate]

63. Do You Even Have A Point, Fellow?

It does not seem that you do. Most of your comments here consist of various vaporings, the most entertaining of which are that Gen. Clark is a snake loosed into the garden of the Democratic Party, a clear enough suggestion that he is a tool of some sinister conspiracy, and that those in this forum who support Gen. Clark are agents of that conspiratorial campaign, hopefully paid ones. There is certainly no arguing with someone so firmly ensconced in an active imagination as to treat such things as serious possibilities, though it might be worth pointing out that Gen. Clark's reputation in military circles as "Clinton's General" dates back seven or eight years to my knowledge, and that several leading supporters of Gen. Clark have been members of this forum longer than me, who has been here two years. Certainly the groundwork has been laid long and carefully....

[KoKo]

55. Yes.....I slopped a "Timeline." But, check out what happened on that

"Timeline." I'm not so naive as to think if I did a whole dissertation on Eisenhower's Presidency that anyone here on DU would have, or take the time to read it. He was a President who was Okay, for the time he served, but there was more to the Cold War which has now been revived by the "PNAC'ers" than met the eye. And, Eisenhower was a General imprisoned in his Post War times.

Those "Cold War" times never died when the Soviet Union fell apart under it's own weight which Reagan took credit for, nevertheless.

A whole generation was drained by the "Cold War." It's BAAAAAAAAAAAACK! in a most distressing form with a MORPH.....The Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emption!

[maggrwaggr]

3. gee, what a thoughtful post, comparing Clark to a snake!

you're not biased or anything at all I can see.

[rumguy]

4. Deaners don't like to have their guy compared to McGovern

then why compare Clark to Ike?

[Mz Pip]

5. Oh good grief

Here we go again.

It's Clark's complete package that impresses me, not just the military part.

Geez, stop putting words in our mouths.

MzPip
:dem:

[KoKo]

58. Take the "General" out of Clark, and what credentials does he have to run?

You tell me? What would he run on. How would he be a Candidate coming in late like he did.

His whole "claim to fame" is that he IS a GENERAL! :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

59. Take the General out?

take the head off of the body and tell me what color are his eyes.

Man, now that was dumb!

Take the governor out of Dean....and what do you have? A rich white boy who was sent to medical school and hasn't practice in years!

give us a break....you need one!

[KoKo]

69. Dean isn't running as a Doctor, though. Clark is running as a General.

a former General who doesn't have a political record. How will he work with the House and Senate? He was a General all his life. He was used to following "commands" and serving his "commander-in-chief."

Dean, was a Governor, who had to listen to his constituency, but in the end he made the decision, not a "commander-in-chief." He didn't have to follow orders, but do the best for the people of his state.

Clark had to follow the Present's orders and the Pentagon. Then lead his men/women into miltary action.

There's a BIG difference!

[Beaker]

67. Take the Governor out of Dean, and Senator out of Kerry, et. al...

what credentials do they have to run???
can you tell me?? Please?

BTW- Clark was the Supreme Commander of NATO- A title that doesn't have "general" anywhere in it, so I guess that it would count as a credential under your guidelines...

[HoosierClarkie]

7. Here we go with the patronizing attitude again...

our we unlearned or do we just not have as many posts! I do read. I am educated. Thanks for your insults! Clark is smarter than all of us combined!

[AmericanDem]

8. and Clark sure did read

With his resume he has read more then all the candidates combined. Now I suggest you start practicing what you preach! :silly:

[KittyWampus]

36. Clark Also Wrote Two Books Which I Don't Think Were Ghostwritten

He also knows a thing or two about Economics.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. You know what?

I am just as tired of being told that I must be blinded by the light reflecting off the stars on Clark's uniform as Dean supporters are tired of being told that they are members of a cult. What is this stereotype you have of people like me anyway?

"Read, duh, gee, why didn't I think of that? Let's see, I have a People magazine, what section should I look in?"

Or maybe it's:

"Tell me what to do, Mr. General. I need someone to give me orders. I can't think very well by myself"

Or perhaps:

"Can we blow up one more bomb, please?"

Do you think it is any less offensive to assume that I obviously can't be looking as clearly at the situation that we are in now than you are, then it is when Dean supporters are accused of being programmed?

By the way, I'm not new to the planet either.

[mlawson]

10. I just want him to save us from the bush regime.

Commies are either gone, or are marginalized (with exception of Kim). If Clark has the best chance to beat bush, then that is an improvement I will gladly accept.

Besides, I suspect that Clark is far more intelligent than was Ike. Ike was a good general, but he seemed in over his head when it came to running a country.

[KoKo]

11. I usually agree with you.....but your post...leaves questions "begging."

it does.

[mlawson]

14. Well, I will agree on Ike with you.

He winked and nodded at the faaar RW Dulles brothers, and he did nothing that I know of, to shut McCarthy up. He allowed the US to get involved in IndoChina, as well.

But I really don't see why we should fear that Clark would make similar mistakes. He is very bright, and he knows history (as well as economics). I am a suspicion person by nature, but I do trust Gen Clark.

[KoKo]

18. If you trust him, then why? I'm honestly asking, here. Why is Clark the

annointed, just because he's a GENERAL.....and some folks feel we Dems don't have a "voice of our own" but need a 4 Star to combat Shrub who was AWOL?

I worry....because of Eisenhower...and we are way decades beyond him. where we should DEFINTELY be WARE THE GENERALS! GIVEN PNAC??? How could we NOT....beware the GENERALS!........:scared:

[wyldwolf]

22. Clark is hardly "the annointed.."

And Clark supporters don't imply it. We welcome a healthy competition.

Now some Dean supporters...

But anyway... Beware the former and present senators, governors, reverends, and mayors...

[mlawson]

26. I dont know that he is anointed.

My reason for thinking he has the best chance to beat bush, is because males will vote for him (even if he is a Dem), and the military will, as well, when previously they would not be caught dead voting Dem.

I really don't quite get your fear of him. He isn't a Grant, or a LeMay, or a Custer. And I was never in the military, either, so it's not some sort of training on my part.

[wyldwolf]

28. The fear she/he is expressing is...

..fear that Clark just might beat Dean. How else do you explain the original really weird post?

[KoKo]

32. Hey wildwolf....you assume I'm a Deanie? Have you seen me on Deanie

Posts?" You don't probably even know who the heck I am.....or whom I support....I'm taking another look at Clark because of Zephyr's post...so I'm questioning. Stand by your man.....and give me more reasons to support him! But, don't tell me you know who I support!

[HoosierClarkie]

27. He is not just any General... He was an outsider in the military because..

of his progressive and humanitarian beliefs.
Theodore Hill his roomate at West Point: "Wes is not one of those back-slapping everyone is my buddy types. He is a private person. I think some people were just intimidated by his intellectual power.But I loved it. We would talk for hours."

This is part of his appeal. He uses his intellect even in the midst of great opposition. Clark lost 15 lbs in his first week at West Point because he wasn't afraid to stand up for himself.

[quinnox]

12. lol

I don't think it is very fair to compare Clark with a snake.

The tone of the post is very condescending.

[AmericanDem]

16. This post is loaded...

loaded for flaming. I've noticed that anything even resembling criticism of Dean is met with flames left and right. I guess he was their savior here for awhile and have a very hard time sharing the limelight with others. Let alone the facts.

[rumguy]

19. Do you think Dean has anger issues?

[KoKo]

48. Deans "Anger Issue.." Well, Hell, I'm Angry....Aren't YOU? Why shouldn't

we be angry. And, for that matter, when we have a P-Resident who says Kill, Kill, Enemy, Evil Doer, in every other word you think Clark looking "Angry" is a problem? He's "refreshing" compared to the "Executioner/Judge of all his self procaimed Evildoers" in the WH, today!

[KoKo]

60. Sorry, couldn't edit...Dean looking Angry is expressing what I and others

feel, why not. Typo....putting Clark looking angry instead of Dean, couldn't edit because it was past the time.

[KoKo]

24. This post is "Loaded" with a BIG QUESTION! That's how it's loaded!

:-)'s and Peace to You!

[KoKo]

21. My post is Flaming? Really.......Oh PULEEZE! I asked questions, gave

link! I want to know about Clark at this point from DU'ers who are so committed to him......why else would I bother?

[Julien Sorel]

25. You've done this in the past with your

'innocent' questions. You've been hostile to Clark for months, before abandoning this board because you couldn't bear to see Howie getting back what you gave to others, and I could go back and dredge up some of your posts to prove it. At least have the guts to own up to your flamebait when people call it what it is.

[KoKo]

34. Billy, who is "Howie" and when did I leave DU in "Abandon?" Who are

you? Where do you come from.....please give links....I want to see links? Otherwise....:shrug: :crazy: as to where you are coming from, here?

[quinnox]

30. Hey koko

I didn't say it was a flame post. I just said I thought it was unfair to compare Clark with a snake and that the tone was condescending. Especially the last part where you say - READ - over and over as if Clarkies are not informed about him.

He is 4th on my list, I'm no Clark supporter.

lol, I like your posts in general, don't worry!

[KoKo]

35. Well Thanks! Was beginning to wonder....since I stay out of DU Candidate

flame posts, for the most part! Geeze......asking question here and get all kinds of "interesting" replies! ;-)

[quinnox]

38. heh

No problem.

[KoKo]

41. While I finish my pie: Why is Clark the "Antidote to Shrub?" Why not Gore

Why Not Dean, Why Not Kucinich or Moseley-Braun (just cause she's a black woman?) Why not Kerry......he's a true Democrat with a record..why isn't Kerry better than Clark? Just because Clark might appeal to White Southern/MidWestern Males???

[KoKo]

33. quinnox.....I have a nasty mouth at times. Normally a nice guy...but

sometimes "the devil" gets to me! ;-)'s

Edit: Using "guy" as slang......not my gender! But, I like to be "one of the guys/generic!"

[neverforget]

13. Generals come with baggage? So do governors, Senators,

congressman, ambassadors and anyone else running for Pres.

[KoKo]

44. But, Governors, Senators have VOTING Records which can be examined........

Generals do NOT......they must be taken "totally on their Word." It's like buying "A Pig in a Poke" and old fashioned word meaning you go online and download an MP3 from a site that says: "Greatest New Artist of the Millenium....buy now..download free MP3 from "Millenium Dude!" (I know....not the greatest analogy...but all I could come up with on short notice.) :-(

[KittyWampus]

66. You Are SO WRONG! Clark Was A Base Commander Who:

Turned around morale problems
Improved Race Relations
Worked on improving Education for Soldiers &their families
Worked on dealing with Spousal Abuse

These things are on his record.

Clark also,

Filed An Amicus Brief in favor of Affirmative Action
Testified To Congress regarding Education

[karlschneider]

20. I am only an egg.

[KoKo]

23. ROFL! Karl! I don't know...I'm just about to make my Pumpkin Pie, so your

post struck me as too funny....I was just about to crack one open!

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Why do many of us support Clark?

Check out the "This Deanie asks" Thread.

[KoKo]

46. Tom, do you have a "link" to the Deanies thread?

I will "Bookmark" to read later. Thanks!

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Here's the link

Sorry I was busy having dinner with friends. It's still a first page thread I here I think:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=777592&mesg_id=777592

[KoKo]

61. Thanks! n/t

n/t

[RandomUser]

31. Two items from the CCN

http://artemisia.forclark.com/story/2003/11/23/111259/00

http://artemisia.forclark.com/story/2003/11/24/12822/032

The first is about a woman's road from Kucinich to Clark. The second is about her anti-military activist history and what changed her mind about Clark.

And of all the candidates, only Kucnich and Clark have called the PNAC and MIC by name and said they'll cut the pentagon's defense budget. Dean has stated that he will not. Of the two candidates who have attacked the PNAC and MIC, I believe Clark has the better leverage and credibility to push through such legislation without being viewed as "weak on national security." The whole Nixon going to China thing.

When I look at a candidate, I look at the full package. The military credentials is a part of that, but is certainly not the extent of all that Clark represents. I'm not voting for Clark just because he's a general. I'm voting for Clark because I believe he is the best man for the job.

And I agree, you should not be "coerced" into voting for Clark. Look at the full package. Look at his skillset of foreign policy negotiations, international concensus building, domestic program management at military bases, Masters degree and professorship in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. Examine the way his mind works when he lays out complex problems and breaks it down into easily understood units for lay people.

Watch his appearances and judge if he has the charisma to attract undecided voters. Look at the way his eyes filled with tears when he spoke of babies dying in genocide on 60 Minutes II. Look at the way he masterfully wrestled control of the interview back from Asnan, tore Asnan apart for the attempted smear, and then gave Asnan a charming a gracious smile after doing so. Watch him with your own eyes and ask yourself if you trust this man with your country based on your own impressions of his appearances, not FUD thrown about on internet sites and politically biased newsources.

Look at the way he modestly did not say anything about his heroic incident rapelling down a cliff to a burning jeep, trying to save his colleagues in 1995. How the story only got out from the other people who were there. Does that sound like an arrogant and self-centered man?

Look at the way he delayed his campaign because he wanted his wife's blessing, placing her wishes and consent above his own political aspirations, knowing that he was hurting his chances. It takes a lot of skill, effort, and character to keep together such a long marriage despite the constant military relocating. This man will never have a Monica Lewinsky moment.

Look at his position on issues and at how he frames his message. The positive and uplifting vision. He's able to attack the Bush administration relentlessly while charming people away from Bush at the same time. He changed the gay marriage question into a question of equal rights and put a human face on it, asking about how parents would feel about their gay children being second class citizens. He change a divisive issue into a question of love and fairness, and how Americans love their children.

Look at the potential coat-tails he will spread in the south and take back the legislatures.

Look at how his concept of duty and self-sacrifice. After Vietnam, he could have gone into the private sector and made lots of money, just like all the other Westpoint grads. Their degrees gave them considerable leverage and were in demand. Clark refused, chose to honor his commitment, and continued to serve his country, at a pittance of pay, working up the ranks. After he left the military, he was again presented with a plethora of lucrative opportunities. He could have gone into weapons contracting like most other retired generals and made a bundle, but he chose not to go into weapons dealing.

Look at why he's running. He's not a governor or senator or any other type of politician. Running for president is not a powergrab culmination of years of political maneuvering and ambition, always aiming for the presidency -- so he's not as likely to spin and pander and lie just like politics as usual. He's running because people around the nation wrote letters drafting him, and he felt he could not refuse the call to duty after seeing what he's worked for his whole life crumble under Bush.

You may choose to support Clark or not, after looking at the whole package. But never think that we're coerced or bamboozled into supporting him. We've done just as much investigation and analyzing of our candidate as you have of yours. To suggest otherwise is insulting gall.

[KoKo]

37. I will read your links later, when I finish my pie, thanks! Zephyr's post

started me thinking about why I don't trust Clark. I think I needed to ask questions. I will check your links. I'm not a DU Partisan poster, so when I ask....I think it's because I want to know..not because I want a flame war....

Again, thanks for the links....I've read alot about all the candidates, including Clark, so I hope this is new..sounds like a personal story, so it should be a good read.

I am informed....I only ask on DU when I have "true" questions about subtle differences!

[David Zephyr]

40. Your Premise of Gen. Clark = Gen. Ike Suggests Gov. Dean = Gov. Bush

I am a supporter of Howard Dean. I am also supportive of General Clark.

Your suggestion that a General Clark would be another General Ike has no more weight than me suggesting that a Governor Dean would be a Governor Bush.

Clark is not a "snake".

[KoKo]

42. David, I have big worries that Clark is the "snake" planted in the Dem's

Garden of ....well...at this point.."garden of weeds" given our terrible problems with "Selection 2000, Jeffords Swtich which did nothing for us," Daschle giveaways, Mid-term disaster, and the Patriot Act, IWR, Medicare Bill, and other defeats we've suffered from "No Child Left InFront," to "Dirty Skys" and "Cleared Forests!"

Clark is a "Johnny Come Lately" and you expect me to believe he didn't come in a "prettily packaged box?"

I thought your post was interesting enough that it almost swayed me. But, then I've read much about Clark on my own, and all of what "Tinoire" and "Seventhson" on DU have posted about him with links.

Then I look at the huge amount of "Pro-Clark" posters on DU and wonder about "Astro-Turfing." I'm just naturallly suspicious after "Selection 2000 and the stuff the Bushies have gotten away with."

Your post has me thinking....it sounds so good. Clark as the Counter to Bush! Since Kerry is in what seems to be the process of "imploding" then maybe what he represented would be the perfect foil to the "militarists and religious right who are Bush's Base.

But, my gut is telling me that there's MUCH MORE we need to know about Clark..and what some of us have read says it will take more than maybe we want to know...because we would want to believe Clark is a truly sincere Candidate who is so appalled at the Bush's/PNAC/BFEE that he just HAD TO RUN.......

I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.....It's CONVINCE ME! ( BTW: Your post was intriguing and beguiling, I was trying to "ground myself" as to why Clark might deserve some further questions.)

[Tatiana]

43. I dunno about supporters of Clark "astroturfing"

A lot of people simply LIKE the man. He's engaging. He's physically striking and commanding... that's a package that appeals to some people.

Other people like his military record.

And still others, like myself, are just astounded by the man's intellect. The more I hear from Clark, the more I'm convinced he is damn-near brilliant. He thinks outside the box of traditional thought. Somebody with as many smarts as he has is bound to develop solutions to some of the grave problems this nation faced.

It's sorta the same thing that captivated me regarding Al Gore. Al Gore is just smart as hell. His intellectualism appealed to me. Clark's intellectualism appeals to me as well. I don't think Clark is a "plant." I think he's the real deal. He was a "latecomer" because he didn't have political aspirations. If he did, he would have run for governor. His supporters "DRAFTED HIM." They organized and begged him to run for office, obviously because they weren't happy with the candidates who had already declared themselves. He jumped in the race, I suspect, because Gert finally gave him the OK.

[KoKo]

45. Tatiana, your post is as intriguing as Davids. BUT! You have to question

his past affiliations. I think Clark "parrots" what he thinks are good lines from the other Dems in the debates.
I saw him steal some Sharpton lines in Monday afternoon's debate. (I don't have a link....sorry..trying to think of the quotes, but I'm still trying to cook for TG.) Anyway, I've observed him "learning" from the other candidates as to how to be a Democrat....by quoting them....that has bothered me....

Clark may very well be sincere...David almost convinced me in his post here in "GD," but I pull myself back and say WAIT! Don't give it all to a GENERAL ......YET! WAIT.....and WATCH....

That's what I'm saying.....I don't have a background that's solid enough about Clark's true Democratic Views to annoint him. I want to wait......

[Tatiana]

51. I totally understand your feelings.

Living in this age, in this America where we are constantly deceived and lied to, it's so hard to figure out what's real and what's fake. We have Zell Miller, who calls himself a Democrat, but votes with the Republicans 100% of the time. So, he's really a Republican masquerading as a Democrat.

And you think Clark may be the same. Maybe Clark is telling us what we (Democrats) want to hear. I don't think so.

If that were the case, he wouldn't have said he was in favor of the flag-burning amendment. He HAD to know that Democrats would view that position unfavorably. However, he gave his honest viewpoint on the issue, because, in my opinion, he's an honest (to a fault... which sometimes gets him in trouble) man.

Ann Sauronova constructed a web page about Wesley Clark back during the Kosovo war. It's mostly an archive of news articles relating to Clark's tenure as SACEUR, but there's also some biographical information about him as well. Go there. Read those articles and news stories.

http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/

Almost as soon as the bombs started falling on Belgrade, harsh--and usually unattributed--words began to seep out of the Pentagon and other redoubts of the U.S. military, and the sniping has only increased in recent weeks. Clark is "elitist and aloof," a colonel who worked for him told me. "Frankly, he's more Westmoreland--handsome, attuned to political considerations--than Schwarzkopf," says a retired general. Not surprisingly, conservatives in the press have chimed in. Robert Novak derided Clark, who grew up in Little Rock and won a Rhodes Scholarship, as "the perfect model of a 1990s political four-star general"--someone who earned his stars by being a Clinton crony. David Hackworth, the retired colonel turned pundit, went even further, dubbing Clark the "ultimate perfumed prince." Hackworth's insult, according to a retired Army officer, "has shot around the military."

Take these critical words with a grain of salt.

<snip>

Part of the disdain for Clark among many military types comes down to plain jealousy. As an all-American swimmer who graduated first in his class from West Point in 1966, Clark has always been an object of envy. "The Army, like the church, has a hierarchy of seven layers," says retired Lieutenant General Theodore G. Stroup Jr., who attended West Point with Clark. "Some guys move up to be a bishop faster than others. Clark moved very fast." After serving in Vietnam, where he was wounded while leading a heroic assault on a North Vietnamese encampment, Clark came home to plum assignments: first a 1975-76 White House fellowship in the Office of Management and Budget, then a stint on the staff of Alexander Haig, at NATO, before joining the elite office of the chief of staff of the Army in 1983. He earned his third star in 1994 with a promotion to director of strategy for the Joint Staff, and his fourth came as commander of the U.S. Southern Command in Panama from 1996-97.

Along the way, Clark's cerebral approach did not endear him to the Army brass or foot soldiers. "He's not the kind of guy that inspires a willingness to get yourself killed on principle," says one officer. An order from Clark, the officer adds, "is just an order." Clark also weakened his standing in the Army when he accepted the appointment with the Joint Chiefs. Since his joint position required him to work in tandem with all four branches rather than representing the Army's interests alone, resentment of him within the Army only intensified. John Hillen, a retired Army captain and currently a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, admires Clark but admits that many in the Army don't; in their minds, he says, Clark is "outside the system."

http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/profile.htm

Particularly check out the section on "the early departure." It gives a whole chronology about Clark being forced into early retirement, the politics involved in his dismissal, and provides a more well-rounded picture as to the real reasons Clark was dismissed.

Plainly put, Clark is more of an "outsider" than an insider (similar to Dean). I like that about him.

[KoKo]

53. Thanks for your reply......it's interesting....I'll check him out from

that angle. And, I appreciate you didn't give me a one-liner answer! I will see about the "outsider." I've felt that might be a legitimate way of exploring him and what he's about....but I avoid the Candidate Advocate threads because of the hostility, for the most part. I scan threads for links or posts which seem sincere and not just "astro-turf."

[FrenchieCat]

62. Also check this out....

http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/11/26/how_i_beca.php
How I became a Clark supporter
By Mark A.R. Kleiman
My support for Clark has not come naturally. I'm a partisan and liberal Democrat, no great lover of old Clinton staffers and smug New Democrats. I'm prone to value experience in democratic politics over the hierarchical values of military service. And when I heard that Clark had voted for Reagan, praised Bush, spoken at a Lincoln Day dinner, and said that he'd have been a Republican had Karl Rove returned his calls (no, I don't believe that he was joking -- though he may have been trying for sarcasm), I judged him an amoral opportunist and borderline con artist. In angry e-mails to a pro-Clark friend, I called the general an "ambipartisan" and summarized the Lincoln Day revelation as "Game Over."
...............read the rest...it's very enlighting!

[KoKo]

91. This paragraph concerning his thoughts on our Domestic situation are one

of the chief reasons I have questions about him. Since I favor domestic over Military, this comment about Clarks lack of knowledge about Domestic America is worrysome. Structuring our Domestic Agenda on how the Military "does it" really isn't a solution I'm comfortable with. Here's the paragraph from the article.

If Clark seems to lack opinions on domestic policy, it's because he's
spent his life in a place that's seceded from domestic policy. In his
recent health care speech, he said he was shocked to find out that
ordinary people weren't required to get preventive checkups every
year. Riff on this: He also hasn't had to think very much about people
who lacked health insurance, couldn't afford college, or struggled to pay
rent. The Army has people with low incomes, but ensures basic living
standards and adequate opportunities for all. Clark's book convincingly
articulates a case for making the rest of the country like that. Clark's
long-running blindness to what Reaganism wrought is a flaw -- a big
one. But now that he's emerged into the Brave New World (new to
him), I think he gets it.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

70. Well said...that's exactly what I'm starting to think.

[Indiana_Dem]

47. If he was "planted"

then why are the repugs so adamant that Bill & Hillary pushed him into running and secretly support him over the other candidates?

You have a valid reason for thinking what you think though as I pondered the thought before....

[Pastiche423]

65. "Planted"

does not always mean by the repugs. Repugs are not our only enemy.

The most dangerous war that is going on on this planet, is the class war. And it isn't being fought just in our country. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO REALIZE.

(My answer to your question)

When someone enters the Democratic primary as a Independent, w/no history of governing and w/no record of voting on any of our most important issues, I want to know why.

When clark's name 1st came up on this board, he was not a Democrat, he had no stances and it was touted as being the most liberal man to come around. There was nothing to back his touted liberalism. He was a general. Period.

I, like many others here began to research this liberal guy about six months ago. Absolutely nothing I found pointed to him being a liberal guy. In fact, most of what I found was the opposite.

I believe that the only reason he is said to be the best person to go against whistle ass is because he is a general and has 4 shiny stars to prove it. I hear all of the time on this board that the Dems must fight the repugs w/a military guy of there own.

Why a military guy? Ike was a military guy that was voted in following WWII because people wanted/needed to be protected. He was a general. He had stars. But he wasn't the president many people thought he would be. He wasn't very effective. He wasn't bad, but he didn't have the experience to govern our nation.

Whether any clark supporter will admit it or not, I believe they want a big tough general to protect them and go against "our war president".

I've read about clark here and in article. I've heard him speak. To me, he lacks the same thing Ike lacked - experience w/governing a civilian populace.

There is more, but suffice it to say, I do not trust him a lick. Furthermore, at this most frightful time in our country's recent history, I WILL NOT buy a pig in a poke.

[Indiana_Dem]

49. Maybe reading his book would help us understand

where he has been and what he thinks.

I haven't read it but I think I'm going to. It's called Winning Modern Wars.

[HoosierClarkie]

57. You should it is a great one!

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/11/16/boy_from_little_rock_chooses_military_path/

Here is a good article that explains his integrity.

[David Zephyr]

64. KoKo

I have concerns about every single Democratic Candidate. It is a good thing that we question even the candidates that we have rallied behind. Still, even the least palatable of the current crop of candidates would never have taken this nation down the road the Bush Cabal has.

The concerns of good people like Tinoire, Seventhson and Eloriel regarding Clark are not without merit. They are among the brightest of this DU club and I respect them all more than they know. I am aware of their concerns. I've posted here about some of these same concerns regarding Clark.

Still, let me address the "Johnny Come Lately" charge regarding Clark. I am as guilty on this as anyone here and was really suspicious when he first appeared on the scene. But, words have power and "Johnny Come Lately" can apply to all of the candidates.

1.) Clark is a "Johnny Come Lately" to not just the race for the White House, but to the Democratic Party altogether. But he is on the right side of the War in Iraq, where Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt still are not. I ask you: Which is worse? Arriving late or never showing up at all? Clark has embraced just about every progressive platform in the Democratic Party from Choice to Gay Civil Unions. And in his doing so, Clark has burned his bridges and made powerful enemies---even within the military---all to be a Democrat.

2.) Dennis Kucinich, who is the candidate who articulates and votes the closest to my personal beliefs, was a "Johnny Come Lately" to the issue of a woman's fundamental right to control her own body. It took Kucinich until 2003 to get that correct. Yet, on balance he has been one of the best Congressmen in the House.

3.) Dick Gephardt, who along with Kucinich, has been a dependable voice for decades for labor and an opponent of so-called "free trade" legislation He has always had my admiration for this. And yet, Gephardt is not even a "Johnny Come Lately" on the issue of our pre-emptive war with Iraq. One might call him "Johnny Hasn't Even Arrived Yet" keeping with the branding iron that's applied to Clark.

4.) John Kerry, who has one of the most bulletproof voting records in Congress for progressive causes, and yet, like Gephardt, John Kerry would also have to be branded a "Johnny Hasnt' Even Arrived Yet" with regards to our entry into the War with Iraq.

5.) Howard Dean, who courageously signed the first Civil Unions legislation in the history of the nation for gay and lesbian Americans and who has been a brave critic of the War in Iraq (even when it was popular), did publicly approve of many of Gingrich's ideas regarding Medicare. Further, when Kerry was fighting the right wing agenda of Reagan and Bush, Dean wasn't even on the radar. And when Gephardt was fighting with his soul against NAFTA and WTO, Dean never showed up to fight with him. So the "Johnny Come Lately" brand could also be applied to my candidate as well.

We are now only weeks away from the early contests of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Arizona. The voters in those states will be making decisions that effect the rest of us, many of whom live in far more progressive states. We will have to live with their decisions as they will weed out the field of candidates long before many of us get to vote.

My post about Wesley Clark was an honest recognition, that in spite of my preference for Howard Dean, the General is moving up in poll after poll, in spite of coming in late, and that he is drawing independents and even some Republicans to his cause. My candidate, Howard Dean, as much as I hate to say it, comes across to many as being too angry. I understand this because I share his anger.

This contest is down to two candidates: Dean and Clark. I've posted that for months now. Nothingshocksmeanymore has a very good thread asking how each of us will reconcile ourselves with a Democratic candidate who is not our "first choice". It is something we all better begin considering.

Clark has appeal that transcends the current polarized nation. If that helps defeat George Bush, then I welcome it. We all should and if not, then the candidate without sin should throw the first stone.

One thing about you KoKo that I have grown to respect here is that you do ask questions--a lot of them. I've seen your willingness to openly modify your own opinion. I try to do the same. My second look at General Clark was in that spirit.

And in the spirit of NSMA's thread, I am willing to reconcile my own choices for our Party's nominee should they lose out. I want George Bush defeated in a landslide that can't be questioned in 2004. I know that you do also.

[KoKo]

75. David, I just saw this post when I finished and posted my reply to your

other post below on this thread. I will add to that post reasons that I will NOT settle for a candidate just because he/she brings in Independents and Republicans. Our nation is in jeopardy BECAUSE of a WEAK Democratic Party which has been taken over by special interests and where many of them are Republican "light." Just look at what happened with the Vote in Florida, the Midterms and all the legislation and appointments which have gone in Bush's favor!

When Jeffords came over to the Dems side, what did Daschle do? He ignored it and gave Bush Asscroft, Olsen and anyone else who was a good Fundie or Gingrich protege. There is NO EXCUSE for that.

I've been a "conservative" Dem all my life, and I am now way off to the left of many here on DU. I cannot settle for someone because they have "charisma and will bring in people who aren't Democrats into the party. We could all rally round Joe Lieberman if that's what we want. He's a true appealer to Repugs and Indies!

I am so disappointed in the cave in's here. We need to "reform" our party not become some sort of DLC/Repug mish mosh.

Yes, I ask questions. But, I have a lot of experience in "mainstream America." I AM in many ways so mainstream than I'm out of sync with much here on DU....but my experience shouldn't be discounted because of that......I know the Repugs and Independents. I've been around them all my life. We have a crisis of philosophies here in the US like nothing I've seen even in the 60's. I'm telling you if we don't get our "house in order," we won't have anything left.

Excuse typos/rambling.....I'm tired and it's 1:30 a.m. I've got to cook a turkey tomorrow early! ROFL....what am I doing here!

[Tom Rinaldo]

Thanks for turning this into a real discussion thread

I appreciate the attitude you showed in doing so. I've been busy all night, haven't had time to read many posts, but it is obvious that you have been asking sincere questions and raising sincere concerns, and that is all I ever ask of anyone. Hopefully I can find time in the next day to read this thread more thoroughly, and I will try to see if there is much of substance I can contrubute to it then.

[Kenneth ken]

50. I am sure

He CAN'T!

No one person can.


So support your Presidential candidate through the primaries, support your presidential candidate in November '04. But always, always pressure your elected representatives at every level to put the interests of the majority of the PEOPLE first, last and always.

Encourage and cajole your family and friends to also pressure their elected representatives at all levels to do the same.

[DrFunkenstein]

52. Eisenhower/Nixon Came After MacArthur's Bid

MacArthur looked great on paper, but that was about it. I like Clark, but I'd be wary of making comparisons to past.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

68. I really think you have to look at the difference in management styles...

...between Eisenhower and Clark.

By all written accounts, Ike was an hands-off delegator as a manager. He rose through the ranks in the military managing his organizations that way, and he contiued to use that style when he became president. You're probably asking what that means in regards to his presidency. Well, here goes...

Ike delegated authority to the level below him and he expected his subordinates to keep him informed when issues came up that couldn't be handled at lower levels. Additionally, he didn't want to know in an operational sense what was being done at the lower levels to implement his presidency.

IMHO, that got him into trouble, and allowed certain individuals like his VP, Richard Nixon, to gather more power than they should have. Ike treated Nixon as his executive officer or operations manager, and Nixon ran the presidency on a dady-to-day basis.

Nixon was involved in planning for the Bay of Pigs operation, and he was also involved as the White House point-of-contact in a small covert action organization known as the 5412 Group. Some of the members included Al Haig, E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Bernard Barker, and others. One of the many activities carried out by this group included assassinations in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean basin.

Ike also allowed the CIA free rein in developing and running their programs. That hands-off attitude was the forerunner to quite a few of our problems today.

Clark is a very different type of manager. He apparently takes the time to learn the job of every person below him in his organizational chart, without giving the appearance of being a micro-manager. He does not have the air of aloofness displayed by Ike, and genuinely seems to like people.

IMHO, Clark would know exactly what's going on in his presidency, and he would know who's doing it every minute of the day.

Am I going to vote for Clark? I don't yet know for whom I will vote, but there are things that I like in the way he handles himself. I also like Dean because he appears to have a fire in his belly, and a willingness to say exactly what he's thinking.

Yes, generals come with baggage, but I've never known a civilian candidate not to have baggage either.

[KoKo]

71. Thanks for your post. But it does talk about Ike as President and how

he handled himself then. That's "hindsight." He probably was even more appealing than Clark given his popularity for the way he handled himself in WWII where he did make some decisions on his own (after clearing them with Roosevelt/Truman) and it worked out well for him.

In hindsight we can see his flaws as President based on what we feel was his experience as a General and not a politician. But, Clark is an unknown given that he doesn't have the popularity of Command and Decision that Ike had coming into his Presidency.

Clark seems a sincere and honorable man. I don't have the experience to judge how he performed as a General. The situation is different, but I do know that Generals follow orders, are used to serving "the Commmander-in-Chief" and their job is to lead troops into Military Action.

This makes it hard for me to understand what qualifies Clark as President. He will have to deal with Congress. He has no experience in this. He doesn't have any experience in governmental affairs and in dealing with constituencies. He could end up being "savaged by the system" he isn't familiar with. How can this just be ignored because Clark is appealing and some feel we need someone who's a GENERAL to defeat Bush. Bush has been a disaster militarily. Look at Iraq/Afghanistan. Why do some DU'ers feel that we need a General to Defeat an incompetent failed CEO who was a "so/so" Govenor of a State where Governor's have almost no power? Bush, a "put up job" by his Poppy needs a General to Defeat him????

I'd rather have a person with Political Experience who can bring our party together. Clark is more like an "Independent" Candidate running
which makes it seem like our other Candidates who were already "declared" are not "up to the job."

Clark's "claim to fame" as I said in an earlier post, is that he's a General. Take that away, and how is he better than Dean, Kucinich, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards or Moseley Braun?

[David Zephyr]

72. He Wasn't Just A General.

He was the Supreme Commander of NATO. That's an intensely political job requiring tremendous diplomatic and executive skills.

[KoKo]

74. David, can he act like Bush and get the Dems in House & Senate

to vote "lock step" on a bill? Does he have a true feel of the Democratic Party's history in America, and can he work to bring it back as a true representative of the "ordinary American?"

Will his Cabinet be filled with "military people" he's known all his life that he can trust? Who will be these military friends whose judgement he will rely on? He doesn't have Governor's experience so he doesn't have the ties that Dean would have. He doesn't have the Congressional Experience with legislation that Gephart, Kerry,Edwards, Kuchinich, Lieberman and Moseley-Braun have.

Who would Clark appoint? Would it be his own PNAC Crowd but with a Democratic Name? Friends of his Military years? How do we know? How will he get anything through the House and Senate? What power will he have to "knock heads and get anything through that will stop PNAC II, Corporate GiveAways and Corruption, Medicare and Insurance Reform, Job Growth, Environmental issues....all the issues we Democrats care about?

Clark may look good because none of the other Candidates seem to be "THE ONE" at this point. But, other than his military experience what does he have? Who are his friends, who would he appoint, how could he deal with Congress, how could he change legislation? Who would he call when he needed a vote changed.

That's what I'm thinking about. Charisma might be important to those who want Reagan as the "Second Coming" but Chimpy didn't have Charisma and he got Selected. I don't think likeablility is what we need to focus on when there are ISSUES of so much importance we have to get out there to get our country back on track after Chimp/PNAC/Fundie/Corporatists have torn it apart. Clark might be a wonderful Compromise in another time....but not in these desperate times. I'm not sure he wouldn't get into office and concentrate on the New American Empire, because that's what his training and experience is in. And, we could end up invading the rest of the Middle East. It's what he knows. He's a military man. He wasn't dragged into being that. That's where his interest lies. Shrubby is a Corporate Man and look at where that's gotten us. People follow their interests. Clark will go with what he knows. I don't want more war....so it's hard for me to feel that Clark should be President. I have no problem with VP....None.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

85. The problem as I see it is that quite a few people have never served...

...in the military and don't have a clue as to how utterly political the executive officer ranks really are. Yes, soldiers follow orders, but how different is that from following the directions of a manager in a business? How far will you get as a civilian in a business if you're constantly bucking the system and demonstrating that you're not a team player? The same is true in the military...it's either up (getting promoted to the next level), or it's out (leaving the military entirely).

To rise within the senior officer system requires the use of excellent interpersonal and political skills. That applies to relationships within the military and while interfacing with civilian counterparts outside the military. Competition for promotion to the next senior officer level is HUGELY competitive...if you don't get the promotion, you don't stay in the military.

I've personally known two Army generals and a few Navy admirals, and I'm not afraid to tell you that those people were smart, presentable, and well-rounded human beings. That's not to say that there aren't some bad apples that somehow manage to rise the top, but it's very rare that they do.

You also stated in your first paragraph:

"But it does talk about Ike as President and how he handled himself then. That's 'hindsight.'"

My post also discussed Ike's style as a military man in my first few lines:

"By all written accounts, Ike was an hands-off delegator as a manager. He rose through the ranks in the military managing his organizations that way, and he contiued to use that style when he became president."

I'm also confused as to why you typified my remarks as 'hindsight'. I must admit that is the first time I've seen historical research referred to as 'hindsight'. That's a rather interesting approach to having a discussion about historical figures.

You went on to state:

"He probably was even more appealing than Clark given his popularity for the way he handled himself in WWII where he did make some decisions on his own (after clearing them with Roosevelt/Truman) and it worked out well for him."

No, Ike was not even close to Clark in relative personal appeal. Ike was packaged and sold to the American people as one of the heroes of WWII, and it worked. His political handlers suggested the people that would be working for him when he became president. I strongly suspect that Clark already has a pretty good idea who will be in his cabinet...and no, they won't be cronies, military or otherwise.

[TLM]

73. Here is proof that Clark is Military Industrial Complex...

Wall Street Journal, 9/18/03

IN ANNOUNCING his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become : chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business. .


That's EXACTLY what Cheney did for Haliburton.


more....

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications. One is Acxiom Corp., based in Gen. Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., where he formally launched his campaign yesterday. He joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information.

"He has made efforts at putting us in contact with the right people in Washington ... setting up meetings and participating in some himself," says Acxiom Chief Executive Charles Morgan. "Like all of us around 9/11, he had a lot of patriotic fervor about how we can save our country."


<snip>

While he was originally hired as a consultant by WaveCrest Laboratories LLC, Dulles, Va.,to help find military buyers for its promising new electric motor, Gen. Clark became the company's chairman in April, and has also focused on selling products in the commercial market. But Gen. Clark's knowledge of and ties with, the military and government markets have been a large part of his appeal to potential employers.

Stephens Inc., the large, politically connected Little Rock investment firm, hired him to boost its aerospace business shortly after he gave up his NATO command. He left Stephens last year and opened his own consultancy, Wesley K. Clark & Associates.
While Gen. Clark was at Stephens, the firm also marketed him to clients such as Silicon Energy-in which Stephens held a stake - "as a good person to help us understand the federal procurement process," says Mr. Woolard. The company was trying to enter the government market, and Gen. Clark explained the process "and contacted people at the Navy and Air Force and told them what we had," Mr. Woolard says. (Silicon Energy was acquired earlier this year by Itron Inc., and Gen. Clark no longer advises the firm).

Time Domain Corp., a Huntsville, Ala., advanced wireless-technology company, recruited Gen. Clark to become an adviser in February 2002 through one of its chief operating officers, who had been a colonel under his NATO command during the Bosnia campaign. Gen. Clark has counseled the company on how to answer Pentagon concerns that its low-power radar system might interfere with global positioning and communications systems, as well as to better craft that technology for military use. board of Entrust, at the request of CEO William Conner, who had served with him on a Pentagon advisory panel.
At Entrust, Gen. Clark has provided advice on how to sell to various NATO governments, says David Wagner, Entrust's chief financial officer. He has also helped emphasize the firm's product securing electronic networks for new homeland-security applications.
_________________________________________________________

[FrenchieCat]

77. You are so scared

that your candidate is not strong to win in his own right, based on his own qualifications until you just want to associate Clark negatively with everything you can. :scared:

Why don't you go and sell your NRA A+ candidate instead? :nuke:

[rumguy]

79. Dean is way more electable

than beady-eyed clark

[FrenchieCat]

80. Excuse me???

Who has beady eyes?.....Clark's are large like a doe.....

Bush and Dean have beady eyes, thank you!

[rumguy]

81. Dean's eyes radiate power

Clark's eyes radiate "please don't hurt me"

His eyes are wild with a weakness that could strike out in anger at any moment....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

86. Oh, brother. Please spare me.

[KoKo]

78. And, TLM who will he appoint to his Cabinet/Administration. Who will

be his closest advisors..the folks he can trust, the people he feels the most comfortable with, whom he trusts to fulfill his "vision for America."

Reading his background and his associations since he left the military it seems very hard to know where he would turn. But, like all of us he will turn to those who've been there for him in his past.

Who are they? What is their background. It's not just the Candidate we elect, it's the baggage of his life and friends and contributors who put him into office. It's important to know that. It's important to try to think about that for each of the Candidates.

[OneBlueSky]

76. I think most of Clark's support is based on the electability perception

People who understand what's happening to this country also understand that a second Bush term could very well mean the end of this country as we know it. What they want is the person who has the best chance of beating him, as long as his record and positions are at least moderately acceptable. Any consideration I've given to Clark is based on my belief that, among the announced candidates, he may have the best shot at defeating the shrub. As for all the rest of it, it's "good enough."

[FrenchieCat]

82. Thank you!...

All the rest of it is better than just good enough...it's more than what we could ask for. Yea, it's all about electibility in 2004...everything else is extra!

[Pastiche423]

84. Why?

What is clark's "electability perception"?

Exactly?

[The Magistrate]

87. Two Simple Questions, Ma'am

How often do the people you think will win state or national elections actually win them?

How often do people you support unreservedly win state or national elections?

[KoKo]

93. Loaded for "Bear" are you? I actually was going to give you examples but

your antagonism to me and my post above....sort of turned me off having a dialog with you. Oil up them guns, buddy! But I ain't gonna be your target, when there are so many posters who have been "respectful."

[The Magistrate]

95. Disappointment Is The Law Of Life, Fella

It will be managed somehow....

[bhunt70]

83. Anyone wanna list all the other generals that were president?

I guess its nice to pick and choose what supports your argument.

[KoKo]

94. Here's an Interesting article on "Generals/President" talking about Clark.

History shows generals do well in
presidential stakes

But Clark must overcome a half-century gap

Sunday, September 28, 2003

By Jack Kelly, Post-Gazette National Security Writer

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark has vaulted to the top tier of Democratic
presidential candidates after tossing his helmet into the ring, and he didn't hurt
his prospects by what most analysts thought was a solid performance in his
first debate with his rivals last week.

But Clark has some history to overcome if he hopes to get into the White
House without a visitor's pass. It's been a half century since a former general
was elected president, although it was once quite common.

Of America's 43 presidents, 12 (28 percent) have been generals. Among the
professions, only lawyers have more representation. Four other generals have
been major party nominees, but lost in the "general" election.

Still other generals -- including Sam Houston -- have been minor party
nominees or contended unsuccessfully for their party's nomination.

Gen. George A. Custer's recklessness at the Little Big Horn was driven in
part by his ambition to parley a victory over the Sioux into the Democratic
nomination for president in 1876.

But of the 12 generals who became president, only two -- Andrew Jackson in
1828 and Franklin Pierce in 1852 -- were elected as Democrats, and they
were elected before the Republican party was formed.
http://www.post-gazette.com/election/20030928generals0928p5.asp

[Clark Can WIN]

89. Dear Koko

I have read, read, read, read.

Take some of your own medicine, just as an adventure if you must........

You are right when you say that Clark is not a saviour. He's never tried to claim that titile.

He is a proven leader.

He has, under the title "Commander in Chief" fought for the education, compensation, medical care and well being of his fellow citezens.

He's always been a good democrat at heart. (in my state our republican senator is a better Democrat than our republican senator) If you take the time to read either of his books it becomes obvious.

If you are a REAL progressive you would want to know his heart. No?

The shrub war unending is exactly the kind of (&%^$#$%^^) Wes can pick up and take care of. Really. He can tell the DOD contractors to go commit impossible acts upon themselves.

I don't want Clark to "save us from the terra-risssts"

I want him to save us from the Republican facist nazi wannabees.

[incapsulated]

90. Yet another

Ignorant post making ignorant assumptions about Clark supporters.

I'm sick of it.

:puke:

[KoKo]

92. Kick, for the arguments "For Clark" that folks gave me. It's worth a read

and for the links which DU'ers on this thread provided. There's some good stuff on this thread, if anyone cares to read it after the turkey/stuffing/goodies...wear off.

Thanks to all of you here who provided "links" and some "rhetoric." Helps many of us in deciding whom we think might be the best candidate. :-)'s

[Tom Rinaldo]

99. It's been a long day

Still, thought I would try to write a few thoughts about my support for Clark. One thing I think I suspect runs through the dynamic of Pro and Anti Clark talk is people's vaired perceptions of the Military as an institution. You of course recognized that yourself when you started this thread. Most of my adult life has been spent resisting the efforts of Rebublican Presidents, from Nixon through Bush the Junior, to misuse the Amreican Military. I mean actively resisting, through organizing and through protesting. It is a very small step indeed to move from being disgusted with the Commander in Chief to being disgusted with those who implement the orders of the Commander in Chief, at the very least it easily blurs on a subliminal, emotional level. Even as I write today, most of us I am sure are feeling actively repelled by all the militaristic posturing of the current "Commander in Chief".

So for decades I carried an implicit distruct for everything and everyone Military. People of my Father's generation had a different set of experiences and a very different mind set, on the whole. Some of that difference can be explained by the evolving and changing threats facing humanity between World War II and now, and the shifting relevent of military might in addressing those changed threats. Most Americans saw the value in funding a large powerful military to confront Hitler and the Japenese after Pearl Harbor, and the emerging "Soviet threat" thereafter. In my generation people like me watched the amazing shrinking Peace dividend which had been promised at the end of the Cold War. It was easy for me to view military funding as directly prolonging human suffering which might otherwise be alieviated with those funds. A strikingly different world view from by Father.

But the military as an institution conceptionally never changed. We have had a military as long as we have been a nation, and we wouldn't be a nation if we hadn't had a military. In large areas of the country, and for many on the other side of the cultural divide that dissected us with the Viet Nam War, the military is as controversial as the Fire Department. It's something we can't do without, and those who serve their nation in it are making sacrifices for all of us.

That's the world, and the world view, Wesley Clark grew up in. It has been pointed out by many that Clark is extremely bright, has masters in political science, economics, and philosophy, is a Rhodes Scholar and all that. Clark is also an avid student of American History and our Democratic Constitutional form of government. Clark believes in the latter passionately, that's the government he took an oath to preserve and protect. He is also a fervent believer in Civilian control over the Military. Washington is a personal hero to Clark for having firmly established that tradition by resigning his commission as head of the Continental Army at the successful end of the American Revolution, handing over his sword to civilian authorities. Clark has been known to give copies of a painting of that act to people as a personal gift.

You know what, I too am a fervent believer in civilian control of the military. Every once in a while I get the startling realization that this isn't the way it works in most of the world. It is still Thanksgiving as I write this, so I will give thanks now to that reality. I have some radical friends who feel a little differently I know, but I for one don't go to sleep worrying about a military coup. I don't wake up wondering if there will be tanks parked at all the major intersections. So what does civilian control of the military really mean? It means if the electorate elects a corporate imperialist, or a cowboy as President, he gets to issue direct commands and the military carries them out. The military doesn't get to pick and choose which orders they will follow. If they are told to invade Panama, they invade Panama. Ugly, isn't it? Untill you consider the alternative. I think Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time." If we have to choose, and I think we do, I would rather have the President issue orders and the military carry them out, than the other way around.

Clark served the institution of the military, and the Democratic Constituiton that legitimized it, and yes, he followed orders. But unlike most officers of his generation, he also questioned authority. Literally, he questioned authority. He didn't defy authority, but he did question it, because Clark sees no contradiction in being loyal to the Government, including his past immediate superiors in the Pentagon and the Department of Defence, and questioning the wisdowm of their specific plans and directives. In fact he believes that it is actually a critical component of loyalty to enter one's views, and the facts that inform that view, into any discussion of important matters, so that whatever decision ultimately is reached will be a well informed and hopefully wise one. Clark believes that the witholding of a view point from a critical debate, and the suprression of debate itself, results in a weaker and poorer decision making process.

Clark studied this stuff at Oxford, and he taught it at West Point. He believes in the Enlightenment. I saw Clark one night this summer on a show hosted by Bill Maher (of "Politically Incorrect" fame). The following aren't exact quotes from that evening (I don't have a transcript - perhaps there is one somewhere), but they are pretty close. Maher complained to Clark that "No one has the guts anymore to come right out and say 'I'm a Liberal', Liberal has become a dirty word politicains all run away from". Clark immediately replied "I have no problem saying that. This country was formed as a Liberal Democracy, on the principle that truth and knowledge can best be sorted out and discovered through vigerous public discourse. We rejected the prevailing world view that truth was bestowed on a chosen few, who then dispenced it to the many."

Clark didn't just talk this talk, he walked that walk both when he was NATO Supreme commander, and in his immediate prior positions. He challenged authority and fought to ensure that the ethnic cleansing and genocide he saw spreading across South Eastern Europe was recognized as such and strongly opposed. If you saw him on 60 minutes II, he literally said there (again a close paraphrase) "After I reflected on what we allowed to happen in Rwanda, where 800,000 people were hacked to death with machetes, I vowed to speak up strongly if I saw something happening like that again" and he went on to explainn how he subsequently did that relative to Bosnia and Kosovo. He also said that the Pentagon at the time saw any military mission other than preparations for possible wars in the Middle East and Korea, as distractions that they did not want thrust on them. Clark said in this broadcast something to the effect: "They were willing to fight for Oil, and I thought we can't only be willing to fight for oil, when something terrible like this is happening." Clark made a number of powerful enemies during this period when he was speaking up for determined US intervention against Milosevic. That is at the root of his unpopularity with some in high circles, and his treatment by Shelton and Cohen. In the middle of several Clark smear threads, Wyldwolf posted an incredible summary of the history of the "charges" against Clark and their origins, along with links to documentation. If you have not already seen that post from wyldwolf, here is a link to one of them: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=780935&mesg_id=782368&page=

This post has gotton much longer than I originally planned, and is taking much longer to write, so I will wrap it up soon and try to return to add further thoughts later. I look at the "concerns" about Clark and instead I see opportunities for Amrerica. Everyone knows that "Money and corruption are ruling the land. Crooked politician betray the working man" - that's a quote from an old Kinks song by the way. Clark has not spent a lifetime pursuing favors from special interests. After spending 34 years in the Army, rising to the very top of his chosen profession, Clark was earning 10 times Army entry level pay. Compare that with the corporate world. In most of the world, the highest military brass are fabulously wealthy; they have the big guns, they get the big money. In the U.S. the military is not the chosen route for the brightest of our priveledged class who seek vast personal fortunes. Ckark had all the right chops to be filthy rich by 40, 50 at the lastest. White Male, handsome, articulate, brilliant. The kicker is his personal discipline, his sense of mission and his absolute perserverence towards accomplishing one once he is on it.

I am a bright white male, but I don't remotely have those qualities the way Clark does. Clark could have cashed in big time rather than serve 34 years in the Army. Clark is not an anti Capitalist radical, and I am not shocked at his brief post military career. I have seen much much worse. Clark dropped all that to answer the draft movement. He points out in some speeches that most of the other candidates got to keep their paying jobs, he has severed his business connections.

Here are some of the things I thought I would write about tonight but din't have time to. Clark's base of real world experiences that qualify him for the responsibilities that come with the Presidency. Clark's demonstrated leadership abilities, and exactly what it means to have demonstrated leadership abilities so thoroughly and under so much pressure as Clark already has compared to in my opinion lesser evidence of those abilities in the resumes of the other candidates. The basis of Clark's appeal to a broad range of the public, and the implications for the Democratic Party at this time in it's history to have a candidate with that broad of an appeal at the head of the ticket. For a sense of my views on the latter you can read my "The Emperors New Flight Suit" post on the "This Deanie asks thread... :http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=777592&mesg_id=778088&page=

Good night, or good morning all. Happy Thanksgiving.

[ozone_man]

96. 20/20 vision.

My opinion expressed many times better. As you point out, this is not our war. This is Bush's and the other neo-con's war. Let's apologize to the rest of the world and bring the troops home.

Let's have a civilian with experience leading civilians as a president.

[Nikia]

98. I have reservations about Clark as well

I suppose that I'd vote for him over Bush, but I'd vote for him reluctantly. I much rather vote for Dean, Kucinich, Kerry, or Gephart in the general election.