About Clark

[renie408]

So, what is Clark's deal? I have heard it mentioned several times that he is a great man with great beliefs and that he has great credentials. But I am completely ignorant of his positions. I saw him on TV a couple of times and thought he sounded pretty smart, but all I know of him is that he is an ex-general who got a gig doing the color commentary on wars.

(Ok, that is somewhat disingenuous. I know more than that about him, but it is mostly pretty sketchy)

[renie408]

1. Hey, everybody don't jump at once, okay??

We wouldn't want anybody to hurt themselves.

[dfong63]

7. you nailed it

i've heard that response so many times from the Clarkies. "go out and do your own research, the information is out there". the real candidates are expected to WORK to get their message out, but the stealth candidate Clark apparently expects potential supporters to "educate themselves". one would think that people who really wanted Clark to be elected, would be more helpful to those wishing more information...

it's almost as if, rather than wanting to spread awareness about their candidate, they prefer to gloat over their own superior knowledge and insider status.

Dean or Kucinich supporters, in contrast, will practically beg you to visit specific sites, to read about them.

[renie408]

16. LOL

Yeah, you have to beat Kucinich, Dean and Kerry supporters off with a stick!! It's like trying to shop at Home Depot around here sometimes!!

[Rowdyboy]

2. There are already....

loads of Clark threads here with links to sites that spell out in great detail who the man is, what he stands for, and where he wants us to go. People should assume responsibility for educating themselves, not waiting to be spoon-fed. That way, you'll know if you really do support a specific candidate.

[renie408]

3. Hey, thanks for the help

I think you guys should stick with that self help approach, that is going to encourage a lot of people to vote for Clark.

Hey, that computer chair would probably be a lot more comfortable if you would pull that stick out of your ass.

[disgruntella]

4. I understand your frustration

However, this same question seems to be posted at least once a day (if not more) on DU. I will give you the information I have, although I am not involved in any official capacity with the Draft Clark folks:

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/ - the main "Draft Clark" site with lots of links

http://www.leadershipforamerica.org/ - Clark founded this organization

http://digitalclark.com/ - lots of video/audio hear for the "in his own words" viewpoint

I am interested in Clark but there is not a whole lot about his campaign platform publicly available at this time, since of course he has not announced his candidacy. I would surf the 1st and 3rd sites to look for interviews, and since he's been on TV a lot, look for transcripts at network/cable news web sites.

If you Google for "wesley clark" you'll get this article:

Wesley Clark - A War Criminal?
http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html

... which has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, it is pretty obviously anti-Clark. I don't mention it because I believe it's a trustworthy source, just because it's come up on this board before and is controversial.

Anyway, good luck.

[renie408]

6. I have seen the 'war crimina;' thing...

and didn't find it terribly credible, either.

Thanks for the links. I have been to the 'Draft Clark' website before, but found mostly a bunch of rah rah "Clark is our man" kind of things without a whole lot of details. I will check out the other sites and see if they offer anything more.

[disgruntella]

8. Yeah, I know

That is why I am looking forward to his announcing and forcing an actual candidate web site. I get a good feeling from the guy, but being a Kerry supporter, I also appreciate specifics on policy. And I don't think there's much hope for that until he announces.

I forgot this article by Michael Moore:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0913-06.htm

The digitalclark.com site looked promising, since I like interviews as a "primary source" of info on candidates. Unfortunately my current computer setup won't do multimedia very well. Maybe I'll do a hunt for transcripts and make a bookmark list (anything to avoid studying for my Linux certification, of course ;))

[renie408]

11. ROFL

That would be precisely what I found out and was writing to you when you were writing this to me!!

[RevolutionStartsNow]

13. Renie...

Sorry you were attacked for a simple question, that was lame. I have the same question myself.

I've been doing some looking, but since he's not running yet, his "positions" have to be pieced together from his various speeches. I had CNN on a lot during March-April, but I didn't listen that closely to him. It did occur to me then that he was getting his face on TV every day to possibly prepare for a run at the WH.

From his website, many of his unofficial positions are similar to Dean's (and to some of the others), specifically that gun control is a local issue, that the Patriot Act needs to be reviewed, and that the Bush tax cuts were a mistake.

I am looking forward to hearing his more specific stances and plans when he finally jumps in.

One thing: he does have the benefit of having watched the 9 others so far, and he has an idea of "what works", as far as which issues to lead with.

[renie408]

15. We will all have to wait and see

I guess, to know what impact Clark will have. I want to say that I can vote for him as easily as I say that about the other candidates, but I just don't know much about him. I am sure that I will feel at least as comfortable with him in the end as I do with everyone else once I get to know him. And he is going to have to have cloven hooves for me to be less comfortable with him than I am with Bush.

I just wanted some straight answers from the same people who keep saying that he is the person that they want to be their next leader. I just figured that they all knew a lot more about him than I did and they would be happy for a chance to tell people what he has to offer.

[renie408]

9. I think 'digitalclark'

looks like my best bet. The others are just Rah Rah stuff. But the DigitalClark thing is a bunch of radio and television interviews that you have to listen to, so it is going to have to wait until daylight. Maybe they will get something in writing soon to make it a little bit easier to get some info.

[carpetbagger]

24. digitalclark.com links to transcripts.

They're in small print at the bottom of each appearence's listing.

[disgruntella]

26. thank you for mentioning that

But I really needed a project to procratinate with! <pout> oh well

[KC21304]

5. I think the answer is in the second line of your first post n/t

[Donna Zen]

10. Would love to help

This link will connect you to several goods sources:

http://www.united4clark.com/

But there are many other sources that have come my way. Here is one of the original posts by an amazingly savy politico. She was part of the original Wellstone team, and thus, I paid attention. BTW, this poster also ran two presidential elections at the state level, so her no nonsense message is very clear:

I have a couple of reasons for supporting him -- and I should add here that I support Dean too, and have donated some money to the folk who are starting to organize for him in the caucus next year. But I spent a lot of time thinking about how to beat Bush, and it was that which made me get a little more active supporting Clark.

I don't think Dem's have a chance in 2004 unless we are able to put National Security -- NATIONAL SECURITY IN CAPS -- out front. In the end people buy into a candidate based on trust, and security has a lot to do with that -- and none of the present crop, including Dean really, cut the mustard on that issue. I know there are some progressives who have an allergy to the Military (Clark covers that in his book) -- but in Clark you have a 4 Star General who also quotes Bob Dylan liberally. You have a character who thought through the youthful allergy to the military that he found in Clinton's early White House -- and came to laugh at it a bit when he realized what probably bothered them was his uniform, which he describes with wit as the "Ultimate Power Suit." He has a number of reflections on this, both witty and serious. I think as some of this is discussed a good many otherwise allergic folk will see the advantage of someone who cannot be questioned on "toughness" on National Security matters. Along with that goes the ability to tell Gingrich and DeLay that they are not competent to discuss military matters -- and make it stick. But we have to face up to the reality -- we have to get otherwise Republican Centerist voters -- and we will not get them with Dennis Kucinich, etc.

Clark is 180 degrees opposite Bush on so many levels I think will count Bush Declaims. Without suggesting rationals, he says, This is what I Believe (and as we now know, that's what God Told Him) -- Bush does not advance an idea based on evidence, good argument and the like, he doesn't really show the ability to do this. Clark on the other hand approaches almost every question as a chance to explain -- to lay out the rational, the evidence, past history, etc, as the reason for something. He can speak in clear sentences, and trusts that argument will convince you to support his premise. His style is to try to lead you into agreement on means and goals. Bush uses his limited rhetoric to bully or frighten people into agreement or at least to go along. Clark in contrast, expects people who listen to then agree or re-think, and then act. I profoundly believe that one of the most powerful political speeches ever made was FDR's first inagural -- but the quote is so often cut short. "We have nothing to Fear but Fear itself" as a shortened version eliminates the most important aspect of what FDR had to say when he went on to talk about "Nameless, Unreasoning, Unjustified TERROR that paralyses needed efforts to turn retreat into advance" -- it is the second part of the quote -- the cause and effect relationship between being terrorized, and being paralyzed that is critical. It is a vision of getting active on your own and society's behalf. Being an instrument of change instead of being a victim of fear. What we need in 2004 is someone who can recast that core truth, and expose Bush as the fear waving bully boy he is. It is a tough act -- and more a matter of attitude than any specific issue or program. But I don't see the possibility in any of the current pack of candidates...but I do see it in Clark. I suspect being trained to command in an all volunteer army has something to do with this -- and being a legislator is not exactly the right background in this environment. But I think it is our strongest thrust against Bush.

Of course since then much has happened and I've learned much more.

[renie408]

12. How about the economy and jobs?

I realize that people are tense about foreign affairs right now, especially with our soldiers dying every day in Iraq. But here around home, people are worried about losing jobs. Don't you think that the economy will play a significant part in the upcoming election?

[carpetbagger]

17. Masters in economics, progressive rhetoric, admin experience

He'll be a player. Let's face it: there are a huge trove of democrats who could step in tomorrow and fix much of the economy. We've got plenty of policy-makers. Just ask yourself who ought to be at Treasury. Tyson, Panetta, Summers, Blinder? We've got the guys. Clark himself has enough business background to be able to weight their recommendations.

The biggest thing is getting into the White House. The second biggest thing is getting a program through Congress. We need someone who can speak plainly and convincingly, and appear to transcend petty politics.

[renie408]

21. Thing is

You are saying that anybody could fix the economy, so why do we especially need Clark as President, then? To fix Iraq? Couldn't he do that as Secretary of State? Or Chief of Staff or something? I have a really pathetically vague idea of what all these people do, but it seems to me that Clark's expertise in this one area could be utilized without making him President.

[carpetbagger]

28. Clark has two strenghts.

One strength is his background. I pointed out that he has a masters in economics, he's been directly responsible for budgeting in the federal government, and he's got at least a few years of business experience. I could see him letting his policy advisors loose more than I could the other candidates, all of whom (except Sharpton) have been spending the last several years looking at economics from a political perspective. I think Clark is much more likely to be able to create the broad sweep of failed policies, much of which has to do with failed Bush policies, but some of which has to do with the types of macroeconomic problems that don't appear on the radar screen of legislators.

The other strength is that Clark has the best chance at coming in as an "outsider" (although he's spent more time physically in the White House then any candidate except *perhaps* George Bush). This would enable him to declare to a divided Congress that they aren't fixing the system. This is my opinion, but I hear Clark talking in a way that would work the best. His rhetoric doesn't place one group against another. Sure, the GOP is screwing most of us, but 20% of Americans see themselves as being in the top 1% of income earners. I think having a general coming out and talking about teamwork and community, while corny, is as close to JFK and FDR as we'll be able to get in our self-centered society, the one Carter warned us about 25 years ago.

[Donna Zen]

37. Excellent post

Thanks...getting into the real guts of Clark's message: Constitutional Legitimacy...holding the government accountable to the people and the rule of law. Wow!

[Donna Zen]

19. This was her 1'st post

Later we would go on to discuss many facets of a Clark run. As far as jobs...healthcare...trade...yes, they will be very important. I'm encouraged to know that Clark has a master's degree from Oxford in economics and has spoken in reassuring terms about job growth....moving the upper income taxes to be more productive by putting them into state revenue and the hands of small and medium size business through tax incentives for hiring. I was just listening to Krugman on Charlie Rose; he was saying much the same thing. In fact, Krugman pointed out that this was standard operating procedure for getting out of recessions. And yet, the bushes did exactly the opposite. Gosh, imagine that. Clark also refers to the mechanisms that exist--right this minute--under the "Full Employment Act" that should kick in but can't because they are currently not funded.

Krugman said something very interesting. Currently the budget is running at 20% GDP but because of the junta's tax cuts, we are only collecting 16% GDP. That means we will soon look like Argentina. Argentina unless we retake the government.

Now I don't support Clark just because I think he is our best chance of winning, although of that I am perfectly convinced. I think some of the other candidates could win but it would be very difficult. Do you remember the McGovern ads? This country hated Nixon and elected him anyway. No, I support Clark at this point because I better understand his over all vision and it is very progressive. But if we don't win, we don't make progress.

[renie408]

20. Good to know

>>I'm encouraged to know that Clark has a master's degree from Oxford in economics and has spoken in reassuring terms about job growth.<<

That is promising.

Do you think that his army career could hurt him with some people? This is a concern of mine.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

14. "Quotes Bob Dylan liberally?"

Hey that's cool. I do that too. :)

[Donna Zen]

22. Blowing in the Wind

He speaks of it almost as a credo.

[renie408]

23. That doesn't sound that good

when you think about it.

[Donna Zen]

27. Maybe...however,

...he talking about the same sort of solutions that Benjamin Barber writes about in: Jihad vs McWorld. He does not see bombs as the answer...he sees open windows.

Some will be tempted to seek our security by raising new walls to take the place of shriveled ocean distance.  They will call for restricted travel and trade, for tougher visas, fewer tourists and students, closed courts, diminished rights, and less international traffic and trade.  They will want an ocean shield and a missile shield, and a society far less open than it was before.

Others will argue, and in my view correctly, that our security depends more on building windows and bridges to the outside world than in building walls.  They will suggest that in the new millennium our best security lies in reinforcing others around the world that share our values, rather than shutting ourselves off from them. They will suggest that national security is far broader than national defense, and they will argue that what is ultimately a conflict of ideas and ideals cannot be won by bombs and bullets alone, but must include commitments to human rights and democratic norms.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

31. I was hoping for "Changing of the Guards"

Gentlemen, he said I don't need your organization, I've shined your shoes
I've moved your mountains and marked your cards
But Eden is burning either brace yourself for elimination
Or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards...

Now that would be a cool campaign song. A bit obscure, though.

[renie408]

35. I think

I was being too silly. My comment was strictly a joke. It seemed that kind of strange for somebody to quote "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind." as good politics.

I agree that we are better served by a more open and tolerant society than by a closed, neurotic one.

[Rowdyboy]

18. Reading this a couple of hours later...

I see how really tacky I sound. I apologise and a more personal apology will be sent to you by pm... I have no idea why that stick was us my butt but, indeed, it was...

on edit: tried to send you a pm but couldn't...please look in the lounge for my apology

[renie408]

25. Not a problem

it just kind of surprised me. LIke I said earlier, most people trip over themselves to tell you something about their candidate and I had done some looking around to find something about Clark and was drawing blanks.

No biggie.

[Rowdyboy]

29. And I should have done that...

Why I was pissy, I can't say. But I appreciate you overlooking it.

Thanks :toast:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

30. AWESOME NPR Interview (Clark Is Pro-FAIR Trade, etc.)

Others have pointed you to some good stuff, but here's another:

http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2003/09/20030908_b_main.asp

Lots of stuff in this 45-50 minute interview. It's really awesome.

DTH

[phegger]

32. Wow!

I wasn't aware of this interview DTH...I'm listening to it right now, and it's excellent. Thanks so much for the link!


-ph :hi:

[sandnsea]

33. Maybe he knows where the trillion dollars is

Since he's got that economics degree and has been so 'involved' with the Pentagon all these years!

[phegger]

34. huh?

n/t

[Donna Zen]

36. I think

the sandnsea is referring to the fact that the Pentagon cannot account for one trillion dollars...which is true. The junta-Rummy solution to this criminal situation is to waive forever an accurate and certified accounting of the $$$ at the Pentagon. And I agree...to run this country takes money, we have none. Promises cost money. Anyone who is going to fix anything will need money. In order to find money you must look at the Pentagon which will require three things: 1) you need to know where the bodies are buried (Clark speaks about over prices unnecessary spending in his book)2) you need to be trusted and have allies in the organization 3) you need to be able to fend off charges of "soft on defense."

So if you are serious about wanting to clean up the Pentagon then many factors are under consideration. Clark has already spoken out against Star Wars...he has longer been advocated a unified force structure which would save a great deal and was able to make cuts in the past by combining force training...yes, he's is the one.

[robbedvoter]

43. As Novak (and Blumenthal) will confirm. Pentagon didn't exactly like Clark

[kang]

38. I support Clark because of his stance against genocide

I've come to the decision to support Clark despite my earlier misgivings about his lack of political experience. For me, I want to have a president that won't let genocide happen on their watch (Bush Sr. and Clinton both failed on this count). I don't think most political leaders have the guts to lead on this issue because it requires the President to persuade Americans that it's the right thing to do rather than the other way around. Clark has proven to me that he is such a leader.

I know people are big on citations on this site, so Samantha Power's "A Problem from Hell" is a good book that briefly touches on Clark's advocacy but really examines how such atrocities happen without any real action from the rest of the world. This needs to change.

I voted for Bill Clinton in 1996, but I will always feel like his administration failed miserably in Bosnia and later Rwanda. He didn't feel that he could politically afford to do anything, especially given his lack of military service in Vietnam which had become a sensitive issue (unfairly in my opinion). This is my fear with Dean. Don't get me wrong, it's my sincerest hope that Dean (or any of the other candidates) would do the right thing and take action to stop mass murder, but I'm just not as certain on this as I am about Clark.

As for Clark's inexperience with domestic policy, it seems to me that Pres. Bush got along just fine in 2000 without any knowledge of domestic or foreign policy! This was in part due to lowered expectations, but it has given me an added level of confidence that Clark will be up to the task and won't falter on this front. In a political climate where the Terminator is running to govern the 5th largest economy in the world with NO experience of any kind, I think Clark's candidacy is a little more acceptable.

[renie408]

39. Getting in there

is only a very small part of the battle and if you will recall, Bush didn't actually win. And how do you think his lack of domestic policy knowledge has served this country since?

I will not vote for the Pro-Genocide candidate, whoever that may be.

[kang]

41. That wasn't my point

about Bush lacking domestic policy knowledge. My point was that he didn't get hammered like so many of us thought he would. He really held out only vague one-liners on each issue and that held amazingly held its own in the public eye against Gore's superior wonkishness. I know Bush didn't win the election (but it was closer than people like to remember), but my point was that it isn't necessarily a death blow to Clark's candidacy that he doesn't have domestic policy experience.

And I don't think Clark would be disaster like Bush (I don't think that's what you meant though). If people aren't allowed to say a candidate would be disaster as a commander-in-chief because of their lack of nat'l security experience, then it should go the other way too. We'll have to see what kind of domestic agenda Clark sets out. After all, it took Edwards the better part of late spring and early summer to put together his comprehensive domestic agenda.

Finally, of course nobody is "pro-genocide," but you don't have to be for it to occur again, which is my focus. I'm sure Pres. Bush Sr. and Pres. Clinton weren't "pro-genocide," yet the US actively gave economic aid to Iraq while they slaughtered Kurds, stood by and watched the Serb ethnic cleansing campaign, and did nothing when the Hutu Power regime murdered of thousands of Tutsis. If you're familiar with the Kitty Genovese story, then you know that diffusion of responsibility is a real phenomenon that explains inaction even in the face of clear wrong-doing.

My point is that on such an issue it is hard to know who will have the political courage to act swiftly and use America's power to lead the world to action. Given his past actions, Clark is the candidate that I'm most sure about on this.

[Nicholas_J]

40. I like Clark

But his actions as NATO commander in Kosovo and other areas of the Balkans requires some serious questioning, given the large numbers of civilian deaths and doctoring of evidence in order to make it look like there was no choice in some of the attacks:

NATO's supreme commander in Europe, US General Wesley Clark shortly afterwards showed two videotapes of the train appearing to be traveling fast on the bridge, and said it had then been impossible to alter the missiles' trajectories.

The Frankfurt newspaper said the two videotapes were both shown at three times normal speed.

A spokesman for NATO'S military command in Mons, Belgium, acknowledged in a telephone interview with the Agence France Presse that those images had been altered by "a technical problem."

http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins2000/tim2000-1-3.html

Again, I like General Clark, but one must not belabor the fact that candidates tend to gild the lily. It is best to look back at the entire past record in order to get an accurate picture of a candidate, not listen to their campaign speeches.

[kang]

42. That's your issue with Clark?

So you're saying that a misleading videotape of an accidental bombing of a train is the reason you have serious questions about him? That's an awfully strained reason coming from a website that doesn't exactly scream "fair and balanced."

What about the fact that he's fought for the Army to address issues of domestic abuse. Or how he has consistently put his career on the line in advocating humanitarian intervention when atrocities are committed abroad?

What about the fact that whole reason he was limited to the bombing campaign (from a certain altitude) was that he was denied ground troops and given orders from Pres. Clinton to avoid casualties. I don't seem to understand why people who are very critical of the Serbian campaign never seem to acknowledge the fact that the Serb forces had been conducting gruesome atrocities for years and that's why we were there. It was the right thing to do.

I'm as committed to looking at a guy's record as the next person, but this just isn't something that's a red flag to me.