Why Clark is best for America (in simple terms)

[Captain Absolut]

First of all I want to point out that most candidates in this election and throughout history make contradictory statements all the time. In most cases the candidate will not keep up with promises that he/she made during the campaign when they are elected.

You people need to get over using a few comments to bicker about a candidate and visa versa. THEY ALL DO IT. Get over it and move on because it's not helping any. Politics will never change no matter how optimistic or idealistic you are.

---

Now on to Clark. We all know he was a Republican. He became a Democrat, so bully for him. No matter what party he belongs(ed) to me he is still a centrist. He sees the positive on both sides and uses it to make his political views. At least that's how I see it and I think it's great. OF COURSE he has flaws and inconsistencies. My God, everyone on this board does. We've all cheated on lovers, done pot, jaywalked, used obscene words in front of kids, and eaten dessert before dinner.

We are a POLARIZED nation and no matter how we embrace our liberal creedo and denounce the conservative one, it still exists and will continue to exist. We CANNOT become like the right wing nuts who want to destroy the liberal mindset and have only theirs exist.

I want conservatives to exist. I would have no one to argue with if they didn't. A one idea country or a one party country will not survive. What must happen is that we must respect each other's ideas in order to get things done.

I believe Wesley Clark can do this. He is on the fence and that, in my opinion, is fantastic at this point in history. IF he will face off against Bush, he will get many Republican votes. This might help our country unite. It just might. He might be the man that people look up to and respect...ALL sides might respect him, and things might get done.

Now, I realize I'm starting to seem idealistic, but I see Clark as someone who can unpolarize this country, even with his flaws and inconsistencies. I would love for liberal ideas to permeate government, but that won't appease the other half of the nation. Baby steps, my friends, baby steps.

[jonoboy]

1. can't argue with any of that ! (except I did not enhale)

[digno dave]

2. nicely said

Well said, brotha.

There does need to be a sense of balance...a sensible balance. Politicians are prone to corruption. If one party assumes ALL the power then they take advantage of the situation and exploit it for their gain. See current republicans in congress and in the White House as an example. Even when the dems dominated the House there were all kinds of shady things going on.

We need a candidate who can appeal to both sides. Wesley Clark has a huge base of support in the democratic party. If he gets elected do you really think he will abandon it and go right wing-nut crazy? Please. He will be beholden to his party and his base if he wants to get anything accomplished and if he wants to get re-elected.

This man has social progressive ideals and is from the south. that is a winning combination. It's been 40 years since a dem was elected president who was not from the south. I'm sorry, Dr. Dean, but you WON'T WIN a southern state. If Gore couldn't do it what makes people think Dean can.

Voting for Dean gives you a nice, warm fuzzy feeling inside, but all it gets you is four more years of Monkey-Chew in the White House. That is what happened when i voted for Nader in 2000.

[Clark4VotingRights]

9. Agree, nicely said. Clark has the big tent. And...

We have to eat dessert before dinner.
Life is uncertain.

[imhotep]

3. fine

let him run as an independent then.

[digno dave]

6. you need $$$$

There is no financial base of support running as an independent. It's ok for Ross Perot.

[wtmusic]

7. welcome to DU digno dave

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[imhotep]

10. in other words

Clark can't win without hijacking a party even though he represents neither.

[kovasb]

13. So there is no role for centrists in politics?

So all candidates have to be either 'real' repugs or dems?

Since when is it an embarassment to put forth a candidate who can, you know, actually BRIDGE DIFFERENCES and LEAD?

I just dont understand. It is better that the republicans and democrats both be radical parties and that real issues go avoided in favor of partisan bickering? Cause thats what your comments imply.

Unless you think its ok for Republicans to put forth 'token/' moderate candidates , who of course must then lose to the liberal democrat cause we know they truly represent america.

[wtmusic]

4. Well thought out

I really can't disagree with anything you're saying.

I'm supporting Dean for the same reasons you're supporting Clark--he's the right man at the right time in history. For me, Clark doesn't go far enough. But I admit a lot of it is due to an impalpable sense I get from Dean. I believe the guy, and I think like him, probably in the same way you think like Clark.

A lot of it comes down to personality, probably more than we would often like to admit. We're more forgiving of our candidate's faults; we're more exultant in our candidate's triumphs. As far as positions--we've been over the messy details time and time again, and it's unlikely posters on this board are going to change their minds at this point.

[NV1962]

5. Mind the oh-so-important babysteps

Thanks for highlighting that angle: the fastest, smoothest path towards government running under revolutionary progressive principles passes through moderation.

Shortcuts don't work in democracy - they're hallmark features of autoritarians and bloodshed.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[kovasb]

15. Too bad the miltary establishment hates him.

Reality check:

The military establishment disklikes him. He is no 'soldier's soldier" .
Despite what im sure you believe, he is not in league with the republicans.

There is a military industrial complex. Dont let your resentment of it drive paranoid fantasies, or let you prejudge people.

Outline a scenerio in which 'military rule' happens.

What the hell does it even mean? Sorry, but the culture that sustains military rule in other countries doesnt exist here, and isnt going to be created in 4 years, or even a generation.

[NV1962]

16. Step inside for a free reality check reality check

If by "military establishment" you mean fellow military personnel who actually served with him... I'd like to see a bit more than your assertion carried by itself.

However, if by "military establishment" you refer to the "character and integrity" smear, spread by a general who never substantiated the statement... Then, I'd like to see a bit more than your assertion carried by itself.

Since you mention "military inductrial complex" - that term was introduced and deliberately spread out by... former general and 2-term President Eisenhower. He happened to know what he was talking about, because he knew firsthand about the extent of the Pentagon's political tentacles (often spun out by chickenhawk) was a no-BS person with a smart set of brains on him. Kinda like another general in the race...

You mean "military rule" as in government under "martial law"? Pardon my hearty guffaw, when you suggest a connection with Wes Clark: wake up, that's happening already! Which is precisely why we need someone with a real understanding to untangle the damn thing and return to sanity.

[kovasb]

18. the point has been missed

Look, Clark makes no secret of the fact that he didnt fit in well into the military establshment. He is the kind of person that is resented. Its in waging modern war.

In the history of mankind, many a military dictatorship was founded upon personal loyalty by a core number of troops. Often times this was won by spoils of war and other benefits. In the professional armed forces of the US, this sort of dynamic does not exist.

I think there is an argument to be made that Clark can actually help avoid the situation lib 4 all envisions, by displacing the true threat to democracy - GWB.

But what i really want to know is how electing a retired general equates getting rid of civilian control of government. I want someone who holds this view to explain the details.

[dfong63]

11. all supposition - there's no evidence Clark can do any of it

I believe Wesley Clark can do this. He is on the fence and that, in my opinion, is fantastic at this point in history.

but there's no evidence Clark can do it. in my opinion, he's extremely ill-equipped to do so.

IF he will face off against Bush, he will get many Republican votes. This might help our country unite. It just might. He might be the man that people look up to and respect...ALL sides might respect him, and things might get done.

Dean is already stripping off repub votes. any dem candidate will at this point. and as for "all sides" respecting him, forget it. that's pure worshipful thinking. i don't even want Clark on the Dean ticket.

[Tweed]

12. I would like to see numbers...

Granted I don't have numbers on Republicans supporting Clark, but I do have a couple of Republican friends that have no respect for Dean, but would vote for Clark. I don't even want Dean on the Clark ticket thank you.

[Printer70]

14. Best because he can blur the differences with Bush...

...which makes him "electable" in the general. Which is also exactly the problem with him as well.

[Skwmom]

17. Clark was not a Republican

He was an independent (and expect the numbers of independents to soar if Dean is the nominee).

[dkf]

19. I need to vote for someone who opposed the Vietnam war.

Especially if he is a General.

I've been told by Clark supporters that he supported the Vietnam war and has never repudiated it.

I would appreciate more info if I am wrong.

Thank you...