A Reminder why CLARK '08

[xkenx]

GEORGE McGOVERN
Today, I am proud to stand here this morning and announce my support for a true progressive, a true Democrat, and the next president of the United States.

A man whose progressive policies on education, taxation, health care are in the finest tradition of the Democratic Party.

A man whose ideals, decency, and compassion are in the great tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.

A man whose life's work and devotion to America will serve as a beacon to our young and give pride to us all.

That man is Wes Clark - and he will lead our party to victory in November.

Like Wes Clark, I'm a veteran. I was an airman in World War II. And I believe there is nothing more patriotic than serving your country.

I also believe there is nothing more patriotic than speaking out - and standing up for what you believe in. That was one of the reasons I ran for president in 1972 - because I believed that Vietnam was a not a war America should be fighting. Back then, Wes Clark was an officer in the United States Army. And in the election of '72, he voted for the other candidate. Let's call it youthful indiscretion. The good news is that this time we both agree.

Today, we are fighting the wrong war in Iraq. And that's one of the reasons I'm standing here today. Because there is only one man in this race with four stars on his shoulders and thirty-four years of military experience. There is only one man in this race who stopped genocide and saved 1.5 million Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. There is only one man in this race who has a success strategy to get us out of the war in Iraq - and get our servicemen and women home safely. And that man is Wes Clark.

Wes Clark is also a champion of America's working families, because he knows that you can't be strong abroad unless you're strong at home. Wes Clark understands the problems facing ordinary Americans, especially the three million Americans who've lost their job since George W. Bush arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And the 44 million Americans don't have health care, and the thousands who can't afford the sky-rocketing costs of education.

Wes Clark is the only man who can get our country back on track. He's got a jobs program to get our economy going ... a real tax reform to help our working and hard-pressed families ... and a health care plan to make health care affordable for all Americans and universal for all our children. He wants to fight for all Americans, from all walks of life. These are not just Democratic values. These are American values.

Running for president is no easy task. And I have the battle scars to show it. I, too, was the subject of a few dirty tricks during my day. But I'll tell you, there is no better man to withstand the Republican attacks then Wes Clark. And the Republicans know that - they're running scared. The last thing they want is a four star general on their hands. So to my Republican friends out there: get ready, here we come.

Finally, let me say this: There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat. I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. And that's why he has my vote.

Wes Clark will bring a higher standard of leadership back to Washington. He'll fight for America's interests, not the special interests. He'll bring honesty, openness, and accountability to the White House. He is a born leader.

That is why I am standing here today: because there's one man in this race with a success strategy in Iraq... there's one man who can really stand up for working American families ... there's one man who can beat George W. Bush - and take back the White House in 2004.

And that man is my friend, our leader, a true progressive, and the next Democratic president of the United States, Wes Clark.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From a poster on Democratic Underground

Everything you've posted so eloquently could have come from my heart. AND I have another, completely selfish, personal reason.

My son decided long ago that he intends to make the military a career. This kid is not a gung-ho shoot-em-up type kid, but one that turned down a nomination to the Air Force Academy because he so adamantly opposes the way the leadership has dealt with women's issues there. A kid who is a 4.0 honors scholar and is majoring in political science and international affairs. A kid who is a Democrat through and through and values the leadership in a military that is based on a meritocracy.

My selfish, personal reason: I would trust Wes Clark with my son's life.

Wes Clark is a man who understands the value of each and every life and what a tragedy it is to lose even one. He understands that every action he takes has consequences. Wes has used his talents, his skill and his conscience to make sure that every decision he makes guarantees the best outcome with the least cost in lives and heartache. Tirelessly, sleeplessly and with unfailing courage and unceasing care.

Oh, there are a lot of politicians that I might vote for, but there are NONE that deserve to make the decision about whether my son lives or dies.

Except Wes Clark.

Because you see, I think he may be the only one out there that values my son as much as I do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO CUOMO
Mario Cuomo said, "Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MOORE
I?ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush ? by Michael Moore

Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!

I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country.

And he will cream George W. Bush.

I have met Clark and spoken to him on a number of occasions, feeling him out on the issues but, more importantly, getting a sense of him as a human being. And I have to tell you I have found him to be the real deal, someone whom I'm convinced all of you would like, both as a person and as the individual leading this country. He is an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House. He is clearly not a professional politician. He is clearly not from Park Avenue. And he is clearly the absolute best hope we have of defeating George W. Bush.

This is not to say the other candidates won't be able to beat Bush, and I will work enthusiastically for any of the non-Lieberman 8 who might get the nomination. But I must tell you, after completing my recent 43-city tour of this country, I came to the conclusion that Clark has the best chance of beating Bush. He is going to inspire the independents and the undecided to come our way. The hard core (like us) already have their minds made up. It's the fence sitters who will decide this election.

The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain't you or me or our good internet doctor.

This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class- at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen.

There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three. I still believe that each one of us must vote his or her heart and conscience. If we fail to do that, we will continue to be stuck with spineless politicians who stand for nothing and no one (except those who write them the biggest checks).

My vote for Clark is one of conscience. I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to devote the next few weeks of my life to do everything I can to help Wesley Clark win. I would love it if you would join me on this mission.

Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark:

1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been ?positioning himself slightly to Dean?s left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.

2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.

3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter! General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It's their votes we need.

4. He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn't mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our society a better place. He didn't have to get involved in that struggle. He's a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young.

5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper could have been identified within the first days of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (1.0, Dean himself), a better version of a good thing: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use.

7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He's a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of General Clark, are going to turn this country around.

Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate"? What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people.

Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) ? and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?

In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them?

We need to take that big DO NOT ENTER sign off our tent and reach out to the vast majority who have been snookered by these right-wingers. And we have a better chance of winning in November with one of their own leading them to the promised land.

There is much more to discuss and, in the days and weeks ahead, I will continue to send you my thoughts. In the coming months, I will also be initiating a number of efforts on my website to make sure we get out the vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

In addition to voting for Wesley Clark, I will also be spending part of my Bush tax cut to help him out. You can join me, if you like, by going to his website to learn more about him, to volunteer, or to donate. To find out about when your state?s presidential primaries are, visit Vote Smart.

I strongly urge you to vote for Wes Clark. Let's join together to ensure that we are putting forth our BEST chance to defeat Bush on the November ballot. It is, at this point, for the sake of the world, a moral imperative.

Yours,

Michael Moore

[Burning Water]

1. Well, I haven't

made my mind up yet. Certainly I am looking hard at Clark. Just not Gore, Clinton, or Kerry. Almost anybody else I can be brought to support in the primaries.

[kevsand]

2. Pretty amazing stuff.

With your indulgence, let me humbly add my words to these testimonials, in the form of a letter I sent to voters in Tennessee:

February 6, 2004

Dear :

You don't know me. I don't even live in Tennessee. But I am writing you today to ask for your support for retired General Wesley Clark in your state's Democratic presidential primary this Tuesday.

I've listened to all of the candidates. I've looked at their records. And I have to tell you that I am tired of wealthy Washington politicians who promise us the world, but never keep those promises. I'm tired of Senators and Presidents who say whatever they think we want to hear, and then vote exactly the opposite when they think we're not looking. And I'm tired of the news media trying to tell us who our next leaders are before we've even had a chance to vote.

I was raised to be proud of our country, and all of its accomplishments. But Bush and company have tarnished that pride by stealing it for their own political gain. They honestly don't care if any of us have decent jobs, or affordable health care, or good teachers for our local schools. And they don't care how many lies they tell to get re-elected, or how many people die as a result.

I believe that Wesley Clark is the one guy who can and will change all this. He came up the hard way, just like most of us. He loves this country as much or more than we do, and has spent his entire life serving his country in ways that cynical politicians or reporters can never understand. He has the same values we do: God, country, family. And he has never been afraid to stand up proudly for those values against any enemy, foreign or domestic.

I want to be proud of America again. I want back the country we were promised when we were kids. I think Wesley Clark is the man who can do that. I hope that you do, too.

[xkenx]

5. Great Letter! Not since Bobby Kennedy

have I been so inspired by a public figure as I have by Wes Clark. I stood at a booth at a local farmers' market campaigning for Clark during the primaries. The experience had me feeling like I was actually contributing to democracy if I could help get Wes Clark elected.
If enough good Democrats discover what we have, we will have the opportunity in 2008.

[Clark2008]

15. As a Tennessean, I thank you for doing that.

I have always maintained, based on working the campaign and the polls, that Edwards came in second in this state only because Republicans were voting for him because they knew he couldn't beat Bush should he become the nominee (there were conservative websites in this state actually TELLING RepubliCONs to do this).

Clark was popular among Tennessee Dems.

[PeachyDem88]

3. I (heart) Wes Clark

I hope that I get to call him President Clark one day.

He's going to have a whole mess of competition, though. To win, he'll have to be the Anti-Hillary.

Starting in Iowa might help the man, this time...

[IA_Seth]

10. self delete n/t

[IA_Seth]

11. Exactly.

Starting in Iowa is necessary...and I hope he gets on it soon.

Wes getting in and gettin his name recog up right now would be a good thing. We have a couple of big congressional races that he could help with...anything to get his message out.

[Adelante]

13. He did a bunch of fundraising in Iowa

For the Iowa Democratic Party about four months ago, I think it was four or five events around Iowa. I know he's planning on getting back there. This month he's campaigning for three or four Dems in Texas. He's getting around a lot, actually, but the press coverage is local. I imagine Iowa candidates could call on him for help. I know he coordinates with Dean where the party needs him to go. I'm not talking for WesPac, here, but I do know it's being worked, so there's no harm asking, right?

[Nutmegger]

4. Clark is the person who can turn back the clock...

on what Bush Inc has done. THere are a few others that come close, but I'm for Clark 100%.

[xkenx]

9. Tell the world

[Dinger]

6. Thanks, Kicked & Recommended!

Oh, that Wes Would in the White House now:(

[Captain Hilts]

7. I'm on the bandwagon. nt

[xkenx]

8. If all of us forwarded this kind of material

to Dems. we know, it might help. One of the criticisms the last time was that Clark wasn't "A real Democrat." He's proved his genuineness to those in the know, but there are those who equate military general with something else.

[benEzra]

12. Moore gets one fact wrong (minor quibble)--

just one minor quibble with Moore's letter...

His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

The military doesn't use "assault weapons." They use actual NFA Title 2/Class III assault rifles (M16's, M4's), which are tightly restricted under the National Firearms Act. The "assault weapon" ban didn't cover any military weapons, just non-automatic civilian guns with modern styling, as well as magazines that hold over 10 rounds.

I know that's a common misconception, but it's one any candidate should be aware of.

[xkenx]

21. Moore may have been paraphrasing Clark's actual words,

but Clark's message was brilliant there. Sort of "If all you big brave chickenhawks want to shoot your big bad weapons and give anyone carte blanche to buy assault weapons which have no purpose other than to kill many human beings, then have the guts to serve in the military, otherwise STFU."
Only Clark can deliver this kind of message for the Dems.

[benEzra]

46. True (those were definitely Moore's words)...

I was just pointing out that "assault weapon" refers to civilian rifles with certain styling features, NOT military guns designed to kill as many people as possible, or whatever.

(I own a couple rifles with protruding handgrips, and my wife owns a handgun that holds 15 rounds, so we're both in the affected category.)

Agree with you that Clark is a fantastic speaker.

[Clark2008]

14. Thanks.

I get tired of people on this board ignoring him.

It's bad enough that the corporate media ignores him, but you'd think staunch Dem activists would remember to include him.

He's done more to walk into the fray of educating the unenlightened than any other Dem on the planet.

[LWolf]

16. No, thanks.

I respectfully retain my right to prefer others, and to save my vote for those I prefer.

Without attacking Wes Clark in any way, I can truthfully state that I have no interest in seeing him on any ballot I ever cast a vote on, and I'm not going to vote for him should he ever appear there.

Perhaps his fan club ought to start by promoting him in local or state races. When he has a record in other offices for me to consider, I'll take a look at him.

[Clark2008]

17. And thank you for discarding leadership over an electoral

record.

I think part of the problem in Congress today is that most of these people have spent to much time working to get elected to local, state and national offices and too little time leading, working with and listening to real people.

Respectfully, I would disagree with your need for a "record" in a candidate and suggest to you that many of us want leadership and proven abilities and not necessarily a candidate who spent the last four to 20 years acting like a politician.

[Adelante]

19. Aww

It's the one Clark thread among thousands that's the real problem. We just don't know our place :eyes:

[Clark2008]

20. Probably true.

I think it's funny that people yell about needing "new blood," yet, when presented with it, they then yell that the new blood has no voting record in some elected office or another.

:eyes:

[imlost]

23. The General inspires

He has my vote and my support. He is the one Democrat I can believe in.

[LWolf]

86. This interests me.

I can see that Clark inspires some. He leaves others completely cold. I would guess that this has more to do with what resonates with the individual, than with Clark himself.

What is it about him, and his history, that inspires many? As one who has listened to him, read him, watched him, etc., I just don't get it. While I don't dislike him, he doesn't hold my attention, either. What's the difference? A different set of values or priorities? Different life experience? What?

You don't have to answer; it's really a rhetorical question. One I am interested in, though.

[Totally Committed]

88. I believe if you really got to know him as a person,

this would make more sense.

Wes is an excellent communicator, especially with his grassroot supporters. He is generous with his time, effort, and is probably more accessible than any candidate I have ever seen. He blogs, answers questions directly, adresses issues personally, and listens. We rarely have to guess what's on his mind. Because of this openness, we know what kind of person he is. He is a good and decent human being. He's an honest and honorable man. He is knowledgeable, wise, thoughful, intelligent, and strong. He is a man who has lived to the age of 60 with his heart and soul intact. He has survived in a political atmosphere without beciming a "politician". He has a moral reason for each of his beliefs and a love for this country. So, we care about him, we respect him, and we trust him.

And, because his wonderful wife, Gert, and his equally wonderful son, Wes, are as open and honest as he is, we care, respect, and trust them, too. They are good, fine, decent human beings. That's a hell of a lot more than can be said about some of the Dems and all of the repubs out there today.

Rhetorical question or not, I hope this answers it to your satisfaction.

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. An excellent question

And a fair one because obviously, as you say, some thoughtful people are inspired by Clark, and some haven't been. I already pointed you to my story which a left a link to on another post to you here, I think #72. That thread includes stories from many other people that speak directly to your question also.

Something interesting that emerged on that thread was a commonality among a number of long time anti war political activists who found themselves increasingly impressed by Clark the more they got to know him, and a lot of us by now have spent a fair amount of time around him. That is one reason why I always laugh when a Clark critic throws out the accusation that Clark supporters are impressed by the shiny stars on his uniform because, really, they were more likely to initially put many of us off than attract us to him. Initially that is, by now I have a better appreciation of what Clark did to earn them and how they factor to Democrats advantage in a National Election. Of course there are some former career military people who support Clark who never had that problem.

Clark is a straight shooter, that is a lot of it, and he has the courage of his convictions. But the core for me is an affinity I feel with him that I never expected to find. Clark is motivated by a clear vision of giving service, as well as very high personal standards. He blasts way beyond me as an achiever of course, but I guess that is to be expected of anyone who would think of running for President. But here is the thing. Clark was pure gold in a capitalist world, he could have cashed in early and often: He is brilliant, First in class Rhodes Scholar and all that. Clark is polished. He can be very personally engaging. Clark has had a world class Rolodex of names he could call on for decades now, but the thing that mattered most to him was serving his country in the least elitist institution our culture offers outside a monastary, the Army. Students two years out of Business School often make more money than Clark did twenty years into his career.

It really is a combination of factors that inspires many of us about Wes Clark. He took humanistic stands against the grain of Pentagon thinking. He literally did not hesitate to risk his life to save others, not just when he was a young man in Viet Nam, but as a General serving in the Balkans when he was present at an accident that happened inside a war zone. It was nothing that a New York Fireman wouldn't have done, granted, but Clark was a Senior Officer when he sprang into action at the risk of his life. It counts. Clark has courage, he doesn't ask others to make any sacrifices he wasn't willing to make himself.

Clark has always been accessible to his supporters, within the constraints of what is possible for a man living a fast paced high profile life of course, and we appreciate that. And Clark has consistently been out in front of issues that are important, offering insights that tend to get picked up on by others months or even years later, rebranded as their own. Clark called out the PNAC agenda for mid east conquest and was derided for it at the time. Clark has been strongly warning about a drift toward war with Iran for a year now. He called on those in Congress to act to refute Bush's doctrine of preemptive war literally pushing both Iran and North Korea toward developing nukes.

We look at Wes Clark and see an honest, uncorrupted man of exceptional ability doing his best to serve this country, who always gives it his all. From his high school swim team in Arkansas when he swam two legs in a relay race to help his team win a championship, to finishing first in his class at West Point, to the way he willed his body to recover from wounds suffered in Viet Nam through constant painful work, to the way he pulled behind Kerry and fought so hard for Kerry/Edwards in 2004, to the way Clark is now doing everything he can to help Democrats across the country counter the Republican machine, though he gets no political paycheck to sustain his efforts.

[Totally Committed]

92. This is an excellent point...

Tom wrote:

Something interesting that emerged on that thread was a commonality among a number of long time anti war political activists who found themselves increasingly impressed by Clark the more they got to know him, and a lot of us by now have spent a fair amount of time around him. That is one reason why I always laugh when a Clark critic throws out the accusation that Clark supporters are impressed by the shiny stars on his uniform because, really, they were more likely to initially put many of us off than attract us to him. Initially that is, by now I have a better appreciation of what Clark did to earn them and how they factor to Democrats advantage in a National Election. Of course there are some former career military people who support Clark who never had that problem.

As one of these long-time anti-war and civil rights activist from the 60's, it was General Clark's leadership in both of these areas that first made me take a look at him. His honesty, his "straight-shooting" as you say, his integrity, and in the end, his humanity made my mind up.

Nice post, as usual, Tom!

TC

[LWolf]

98. You make a terrific advocate.

Keep it up; more people are likely to take a 2nd thought, and a 2nd look, with advocates like you behind him.

[Totally Committed]

99. I agree. Tom is one of the best!

n/t

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

104. Thank you. Much appreciated...

Reasons why Clark inspires me, and reasons why I support Clark for President are not fully one and the same of course. I can support someone I am not inspired by, and have done it many times before, though it never ends up being whole hearted. And I can even be inspired by someone who I may not ultimately support. You asked why many of us are inspired by Clark so that is what I tried to answer. Honor means a great deal to Clark, and for Clark nothing is more honorable than striving to serve his nation. It's not just talk for him, that's clear from Clark's life choices, no matter what anyone may think about his views on any given issue. I'm not claiming Clark is unique among politicians in this regard, just that I see it in him. Clark actually walks the walk, and that's something I find and honor in the best of political activists, which is why I said what I did earlier about finding an affinity. It is easy for social change activists to become jaded about politics, and I'll put put myself in that boat. I certainly didn't trust Clark immediately, but I was never cynical about acknowledging real idealism when I saw it in my activist and health provider friends. Finally I realized it was an ingrained prejudice, mostly about the military actually, that initially kept me from seeing that in Wes Clark. I'm glad to be past it enough that I am willing now to say that yes Clark does inspire me, through his vision and his values and his personal example. It's not Cool to admit that in leftist circles sometimes, lol. It would be so much easier if Clark were a third world revolutionary.

There is so much to be angry about that it's hard sometimes to find places to talk about inspiration. Thanks for asking.

[Tinksrival]

108. Can I just say........

I love reading your posts Tom. You are the best!

[butterfly77]

102. Yes! i agree...

I knew he was the right choice for sure when I saw how angry Bob Dole became when Clark entered the race, and other repubs.

I always supported CLark in the primaries but I knew they were afraid, when they would say hateful things about him or act as if he wasn't a major contender,on the talking head shows.

[LWolf]

47. Not discarding.

Just requiring both. I don't think it's an "either/or" proposition, at least not for me.

[Totally Committed]

24. Please, not "fan club"... supporters.

To start out with a lovely post as you did, respectful and stating your valid opinion, and then call General Clark's suporters a "fan club" is to dengrate both him and us with one phrase. General Clark has many supporters who work very hard for him and don't mind doing so, and who believe totally in his leadership and viability. You don't and that's your prerogative, but please allow those of us who do feel this way the validity of our beliefs in the matter.

Thanks.

TC

[Crunchy Frog]

55. I agree with you there TC.

I have no problem with the rest of the post. It's a valid position, and God knows that there are a number of potential candidates being discussed who I can't support or vote for.

I nevertheless feel that one can disagree with another's choice of candidate, and still be civil, or even friendly. I don't feel that dismissing serious supporters of a particular candidate as a "fan club" is either. I may not respect a candidate that somebody else chooses to support, but I won't treat that support disrespectfully or try to invalidate someone's own strongly held beliefs, however much they may differ from my own. I consider it to be a matter of common courtesy.

[LWolf]

70. This is something that has really bothered me.

It's not just about Clark, or his supporters. It's the way so many people seem to see their chosen candidates. Once having chosen them, there is a flavor of hero worship, and a aura of blinders or denial that surrounds them so that they no longer seem to see their candidate as a real person with strengths and weaknesses, and a reasoned choice, but the "only" valid choice. I'm not speaking about you, but about many in the greater whole.

Maybe it's just inexperience on my part. Having been an independent voter, affiliated with no party, for 25 years, I joined a party in 2003 so that I could participate in, and work in, primaries. Maybe what I perceive as over-zealous hero worship is merely business as usual, and part of "politics." Sometimes it reminds me of the unwavering, unquestioning support that * has gotten from his "fans," and it makes me really uncomfortable.

I can find this "syndrome," if you want to call it that, among supporters of all potential candidates promoted here at DU, not just Clark. One responder above decided that I just wanted a "politician." I would say that it is this part of politics that brings my discomfort. Without meaning any disrespect, I have a question: From a political standpoint, which is better here at DU? To skip by the ever-present "________ in '08" threads without comment when I've excluded that person, so that noone's parade is rained on, or to step in and say "no thanks?" I guess if there were a primary campaign going on, it would make sense to have chosen one person and worked really hard for them. What kind of honest primary can we have, though, if so many people make their minds up before anyone has even decided to run?

[Totally Committed]

71. I agree with you, but up to a point...

I have already "chosen" Wes Clark, because, to put it simply... I believe there is no one out there better suited to turn this country around.

Having supported him since the earliest days, I "know" the man as well as his position on the important issues. He is very good at keeping his supporters "in the loop" on what he believes and why he believes it. Also, having supported him for as long as some of us have, we are very attuned to his absolute integrity, his dignity, his honesty, his devotion to seeing this country restored, his knowlege of the issues -- both foreign and domestic. But, of all those things, it is his honesty, integrity, and his dignity that allow me to trust him to the hilt with my future, the future of my friends and family, and the futute of this country and her constitution. I cannot say that about any other candidate, and believe me, I am no political neophyte. I am very informed about the other candidates that might run. That Wes is not a career "politician" is a comfort to me.

Whomever you end up supporting, you also will have to have this level of comfort with them. And, I think, you will have to have the level of trust in them that I do with Wes. I hope you find and support him/her. But, for whatever it is worht, Wes is the only one that does all of that for me.

TC

[CTyankee]

75. He's come along since he ran in '04.

I supported him in the early primaries and was deeply disappointed that he vanished so quickly. Since then, tho, he has been tenacious and a forceful speaker. I hope he is out getting the support he needs to do this in '08. He should run but should get a running mate who is strong on domestic policies. He was underinformed during the 04 primaries on reproductive rights issues but I am sure he could get up to speed on that. And I just loved Gert! What a lovely woman she is.

I think Wes is a plus plus all the way.

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. Thanks for a thoughtful comment

First thing to say, when discussing the motives or behavior of people who "support" any given Democrat, and different possibilities are listed, the correct conclusion to reach is "all of the above" because anyone for any reason can proclaim that they "support" any Democrat.

Second thing to say, thank you for out front saying you weren't limiting your comment to concerns about Clark supporters, frequently we have been singled out for criticism for behavior that supporters of many candidates engage in.

DU has an interesting combative edged debating culture, to say the least. Frequently frequent posters have their "guard up" so to speak, anticipating a heated debate, mostly because they have a lot of prior experiences that supports the likelihood that one is about to start. I applaud you on this post for asking a sincere thoughtful question. If you can generally project this type of attitude I think you will find yourself welcomed by most on any thread that you want to comment on, and I urge you to add your comments even if they are not supportive of the position taken by the opening post. However in a case like this, where a specific Democrat is being praised, it isn't realistic to think no one will reply with a question to you, or a rebuttal to a point you might make for why you do not share the enthusiasm expressed by the original poster. So you really should be prepared for that, and simply set the responder straight if they misunderstood you.

As to the question of "hero worship" and "fans", like I said above, if something can exist it does exist on message boards, but that doesn't make it representative for most supporters. Just because someone has already reached a conclusion on who they will support in 2008, that doesn't mean that they can not or will not change their mind later if something happens to change their reasons for having made that initial choice. I've seen that happen plenty on DU. Most people stick to their first choice, but not all, and it would be dishonest for people to pretend that they don't have a first choice when in fact they already do. With regard to those Democrats who ran for the President already in 2004, most core supporters for each of them, who were supporters of them in 2004, are extremely well versed in who those people are and where they stand on the issues. It is the exact opposite of blind loyalty, it is informed loyalty, based on long, close, and continued observation of those men.

There are aspects of politics that I wish weren't true, but they are. Name recognition matters. It's silly isn't it? Why on earth should one person be more attractive as a candidate to a voter than another simply because s/he recognizes one persons name but not the other? Why do we "waste money" with bumper stickers that simply say "Joe Doe for President"? They certainly don't advance any understanding of the issues or provide any reason to vote for that person. So there is some truth to "Out of sight, Out of mind". I am a firm believer that business as usual inside the Democratic Party for decades (at least) is to allow vetted power brokers to fight it out behind the scenes to determine which possible Presidential candidate will get the needed nods and winks and money and media coverage to enter the Primaries with a commanding set of advantages over other possible candidates who do not win their seal of approval.

Come January 2007 it is the intention of those power brokers that the Primaries NOT be conducted on a level playing field. If politics were a sport I might say that the steroids either are now or soon will be administered behind the scenes, to a few vetted contenders. It is not the intent of traditional power brokers to ensure a fair race. It is the intent of traditional power brokers to ensure that whoever emerges from the race is acceptable to their interests. I do not believe it is the intention of traditional Democratic, Media, and Money power brokers to allow Wesley Clark to emerge from the pack of 2008 Democratic Challengers positioned where he might win. If those who support Wesley Clark or any other non establishment blessed candidate wait until 2007 to become active in their support, the fix will not only already be in, but the concrete will have already frozen.

If you want to read my personal story of how and why I was won over to Clark, you can read post number #45 on this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1548301#1551953

[LWolf]

73. Very thoughtful and helpful, thanks. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

25. Yes

I don't want to support someone who never held any type of political job. I didn't do it here in my town for mayor either. Only place I'd support someone who never held a political job is a state seat (such as state senator or congress) or Congress.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. That makes as much sense as saying

"I would never support someone to be President who has never helped negotiate a Peace Treaty" Actually your position makes a lot less sense to me than the one I just offered. We have an awful lot of evidence to show that getting elected to office is not a very effective indicator of who will be a good leader. It is a whole lot easier in 21st Century America to win a political office than it is to know what to do while you hold it. Some good people win 'em and some bad people win 'em, and once they are in office bad people often use the power of the incumbency to remain popular for at least one term. Money and friendly media and some type of celebrity status can help almost anyone win an election nowadays. It is way down my list of how I would judge someone's ability to lead our nation now.

[Adelante]

27. I would never support someone to be President who has never

been an advisor to the General Accounting Office.



This is fun, tom :)

[Jai4WKC08]

29. I would never support someone for President who has never

been awarded a post-graduate degree in economics.

Preferably from a prestigious school... you know, like Oxford. And then taught economics at an equally prestigious school in the US... like the USMA.

Yeah, this IS fun. :)

[Adelante]

30. I would never support someone for President who has never

been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom

[FrenchieCat]

31. oooh....my turn!! I would never support for President

someone who co-sponsored and voted for both the Patriot Act AND the IWR that passed congress. :eyes:

[Adelante]

32. I would never support someone for President who has never

been an emergency preparedness expert!

[FrenchieCat]

33. K...one more! I would never support for President a candidate

who had nada experience on issues of National Security (see Bin Laden Tape aka GOP distraction headlines today!)

:hi:

[Adelante]

35. I would never support someone for President who has never

been thanked "on behalf of the nation" by Al Gore! (May 27, 2000)

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. I would never support someone for President who has never

personally called out Karl Rove.

[Jai4WKC08]

37. I would never support someone for President who has never

appeared personally before the International War Crimes Court at the Hague to prove his respect for and willingness to submit to the rule of international law.

[Adelante]

38. I would never support someone for President who has never

been Vice Chairman of the International Crisis Group

[melnjones]

44. I wanna play...

Um...I would never support someone for president who has no experience dealing with crisis situations cross-culturally.

[CarolNYC]

50. I wanna play too...

I would never support anyone for President who didn't testify against invading Iraq in front of the HASC.

[CarolNYC]

51. Oh, and I would never support anyone for President

who didn't lose the job he loved in order to stand up for what he believed in....

And I would never support anyone for President who hasn't stopped a genocide.

[Crunchy Frog]

56. I would never support anyone for President

who didn't have the capacity to appeal to a wide cross section of the political spectrum, from progressives like Michael Moore and George McGovern, to conservative red staters, and to do it without compromising his own values or simply telling people what he thought they wanted to hear.

[CarolNYC]

65. OK, and I would never support someone for President

who has never been endorsed by at least 55 US Ambassadors and diplomats (including one I had the pleasure of eating dinner with)

or

one who has never been endorsed by Civil Rights leaders of the stature of Andrew Young and Mary Frances Berry and environmentalists of the stature of Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson.

or

one who has never defended the term “liberal” on national TV and claimed that label proudly for him/herself

or

one who has never actually had a dialogue with “the little folk” on the internet, where he or she asked for questions and then actually answered them,

or

one who has never been involved with something as forward looking as the coming “digital universe” (www.manyone.net)

or

one who has never won an environmental award for protecting an endangered species

or

one who has not campaigned with 2006 Democrats in the red state of Texas

And, finally, I would never support someone for President who has never flipped pancakes with my first “political crush”, Senator George McGovern. :)



Gee, this is fun…..

[Jai4WKC08]

67. I just got off the phone with my Air Force son

And I thought of this somewhat personal one...

I would never support someone for President who I could not hold up to my son as a model of the type of man I'd like him to grow up to be.

[Donna Zen]

48. I don't want to support someone who never

took money from corporate fat cats all their lives

Oops! wrong one...try again..

had a $100,000,000 dollars in their personal checking account

Oh my...I'm having problems getting out of professional politician mode...try again...

had headed up a hydrogen engine company.

Cooking!!!

had written an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of Affirmative Action

Wow..this is easy

had a Rhodes Scholarship

I'm done for now...thanks for asking.

[Adelante]

52. The amicus brief

One of my faves

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

43. You have every right to respect yourself and respect your vote... n/t

[madmunchie]

63. It looks like you want the same old, same old.

A politician who is elbow deep in Washington BS. Why does the word "Politician" mean so much to you? Define what the President is in charge of doing...his job description, then look at the qualifications that best fit. Bush was a Politician....look where we are now.

Close mindedness is not a good quality to posses. Disqualifying a person because they are not a "Politician" is as close minded as you can get. Take the name out of the job, and just look at the job qualifications, then make a list of likely candidates qualifications and compare them side by side.

NOT being a "Politician" is a huge plus in my book anyway.

[LWolf]

68. Ok.

You assume too much.

1. Not being interested in Clark does not equal wanting "same old, same old." It means that he is not any part of the "new" I'm interested in.

2. The word "politician" does not "mean so much" to me. The word politician comes with a lot of baggage. There are good politics and politicians and bad politics and politicians, and a whole continuum in between where most politicians, like most people, lie: each has both strengths and weaknesses. Comparing all politicians to Bush is, frankly, ludicrous. Anyone who is running for president is either a politician or working to become a politician; it goes with the job. We're going to end up with a politician either way.

3. Close mindedness is certainly not a good quality to possess. That's why I haven't chosen a candidate so far ahead of the primaries; I want to be open to all possibilities. If I've narrowed my list by excluding some, it's not because I didn't give them fair consideration first. I had the chance to learn everything I wanted to know about Clark and more in the '04 primaries. I've had plenty of time to consider his credentials. Experience is part, not all, of my criteria. He doesn't match my criteria. If I'd made a choice at this point, and refused to consider any but my personal "favorite," that would be close-minded. As it stands, I've shaved a few Democrats off my list of possibilities. That leaves a nation still on my "open" list.

[madmunchie]

79. His "fan club" are Clark supporters, 1st hint as to your prejudice

"Perhaps his fan club ought to start by promoting him in local or state races. When he has a record in other offices for me to consider, I'll take a look at him."

That last paragraph says .. His fan club - - - - pure sarcasm and disrepspect for Clarks supporters.

"promoting him in local or state races" to me says that you are looking for an experienced "politician" with a record, and without that record you refuse to look at him, but with the record you will "take a look at him".

His achievements to date don't satisfy or impress you (apparently), even though his credentials far outshine most any other candidate that has been mentioned to date. What would turn your head (apparently) is his experience as a politician in office, which to me says that the ONLY qualification worth anything to you is..... time in office.

I don't know if Clark will run or not. I don't know who may else run against him. I don't know if the time will ever be right for a true patriot, hero and brilliant man. I think that most people don't or aren't able to appreciate excellence at the highest levels, especially if it doesn't fit to their own personal agenda. To me you sound like you have a personal agenda. If a person has to hold an office, any office local or state for you to even consider them, then yes, you are close minded.

Finally, your statement

"Anyone who is running for president is either a politician or working to become a politician; it goes with the job. We're going to end up with a politician either way." A person could simply be running for the Presidency to be a Leader that an ailing country sorely needs.

Clark's supporters come from the best of society. Diplomats, Leaders from foreign countries and yes, even "the majority of highly intelligent people ln the DU by an overwhelming margin."




t

[LWolf]

85. What a supercilious, elitist load of crap.

First there is this bullshit:

His fan club - - - - pure sarcasm and disrepspect for Clarks supporters.

I think I know when I'm using sarcasm or expressing disrespect just a little better than you do, thank you very much. While the post you are referring to was not sarcastic, and no disrespect was intended, I hope you can feel the disdain dripping from this one, because you've earned it.

Your post, by the way, exhibits the very qualities that led me to describe a "fan club" to begin with. What my words "say to you" is what you choose to spin them as, which has little to do with what I'm expressing. Complain about politics and politicians as usual on one hand, and use political spin to deliberately mis-spin my words on the other.....how hypocritical. Read it all and be honest, or STFU before you embarrass yourself any further.

His "credentials" "outshining" others is your opinion. Mine is just as valid. And yes; any person stepping into the political arena is engaging in politics, which makes them....a politician. Either all politicians are corrupt, which means that anyone running for office is as well, or there is some value in being a politician.

Happily, I believe that there are more intelligent, reasonable people who are also Clark supporters. I hope some of them will recognize the damage you do to your candidate with statements like this one:

Clark's supporters come from the best of society.

That statement reeks of elitism, and I don't think it belongs in the Party of the people.

[NativeTexan]

66. I supported Clark in '04 and....

....still love the idea of the man. But I still have no problem with Hillary, either. Whoever gets the nomination, should really look at Barrack Obama as their running mate. Thats assuming he doesnt run and get the nomination of course.

But I could definitely live comfortably in a country lead by either Clark or Hillary.

ANYTHING beats what we got now!

[MsAnthropy]

18. He's got my vote

K&R

[nickinSTL]

22. I really like Clark...

I started looking at him late in 2004...I was mostly split between Kerry and Kucinich, and stuck with my first choice, Kerry.

However, I've been increasingly impressed with Clark, and though he doesn't have my vote for 2008 (if he runs, of course), he's one up on the competition at this point.

I intend to keep an open mind until I see who the candidates are, and weigh them based on what I learn (or know already).

Clark's got a great chance of coming out on top for me, though.

[Adelante]

28. Thank you

That's nice to hear :)

[Silverhair]

34. Clark all the way. Yay. He can win many red states. NT

[mmonk]

39. Hate to bring this up but the fight for democracy here

is now. In '08, it will be over depending on what transpires.

[FrenchieCat]

40. You are totally right.....in reference to 2006.....

Which is why I have contributed to 5 Democratic congressional candidates who aren't even running in my state, let alone my district!

And in reference to 2008, unfortunately what will transpire leading up to that election is really pretty evident to me! (see Bin Laden tape/Saber Rattling against Iran from today's corporate news headlines for a hint of consistent "MO")--The GOp will continue to capitalize on American's fears) :shrug:

[wiley]

78. Ah, from your lips

come the truth.

Bonjour FrenchieCat!


IMPEACH
CORRUPT REPUBLICANS

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. Of course you are right

But we still need to have contengency plans for what happens if we win that fight. The new most severe threat is the frontal assault on Democracy Bush is engaged in, but if we win that fight than the older lesser threat is still there to deal with; the stage managed charade of Democracy where deals are cut behind closed doors to determin who we will be allowed to have represent us as our candidate. Power brokers and the media are already hard at work trying to wire the nomination process. Activists can no longer afford to tune out of the process untill a year from the Primaries.

I agree that we have to fight the critical fights in front of us now, and can't allow anything to prevent us from doing that. It really isn't mutually exclusive though unless one makes it that way.

[donjoofWeThePeople]

42. If whoever started this chain thinks that

negotiating the politics of the Army to rise to the level of 4-star General doesn't qualify one for any public office, you're seriously mis-informed. If you think that handling a war with 17 different "commanders" from various countries that demanded unanimous approval to virtually go to the bathroom, isn't an illustration of serious negotiating skill, then you are seriously mis-informed. Frankly, being President would probably be a step down from being SACEUR & Supreme NATO Commander at the same time. Wes Clark; A true national treasure.

[xkenx]

45. An interesting analogy I heard

related to the 19 countries' heads of state who had to concur to take any action in the Balkans---
"See if you could get 19 of your best friends to agree on a restaurant for dinner." Well, Clark navigated the Balkans as SACEUR. People also forget or fail to recognize the executive role Clark played in his major military commands, being responsible for housing, training, healthcare, education, social issues, in an all-volunteer army. U.S. senators do not come with that kind of resume, and governors don't come with the foreign affairs experience.

[CTyankee]

76. one slight quibble with what you said about governors

Bill Clinton obviously had no foreign policy experience, but he was so damn smart and well read, and he knew who to appoint to help him, that became famous for his international expertise. It can be learned, by the right candidate. Not to diminish Wes Clark. I like Clark. He would be great. In fact, he may be just what we need after our horrible experience with W. That is, if there is anything left of this country by 2008...

[Jai4WKC08]

82. Overall true, but...

When Clinton was first elected, he had had more exposure to foreign policy than most people give him credit for, certainly more than most governors. He had been an aide to Senator Fulbright and gotten a lot of exposure to the issues and how they are worked in Washington. Not hands on experience, true, but he wasn't completely new to the subject, the process, and the people involved. And as a Rhodes Scholar, he ran with a group who were extremely active in foreign policy, even as students. Some of them would come back to serve in his administration. Also, in his later terms as governor, he took a more active interest in foreign policy, probably with an eventual run for the presidency in mind, and attended all sorts of world-wide conferences and spoke to world leaders. And as you say, he was always well read and informed.

So, unlike our current pRez who didn't even know who was in charge of Pakistan during his first candidacy, Clinton had absorbed a lot of foreign policy knowledge over his entire career. And still he made some dreadful mistakes during his first term (Somalia, for example, and the early handling of the problems in the Balkans) which would come back to haunt him later on.

I don't think foreign policy is something you can learn overnight, or in a single election cycle, not even a single term in office. Of course, someone as intelligent and well educated as Bill Clinton (and probably more important, savvy about the nature of people) is bound to do far better than someone like Bush... not a high standard, but better than 99% of the rest as well. But if we can get someone who has all of that and the personal experience as well, so much the better.

Especially when you figure how fucked up everything is, and will only be worse by Jan 2009.

[Totally Committed]

49. Welcome, donjoofWeThePeople...

and right on!

TC

[Texas_Kat]

53. That's one of the reason Clark is fighting for Democrats

in some of the toughest places and toughest fights there are.

He'll be in Texas next week, supporting a a Gubernatorial candidate and 2 state house candidates.

How many 'national' Democrats care that much for the rest of the party? Which ones are campaigning for other Democrats in RED states? Which ones have the courage (and the stature) to appear in 'unsafe' territory? Which other candidates are being begged by red state Dems to come campaign for them?

Wes Clark is fighting for the WHOLE Democratic party.

[xkenx]

54. That is why

Clark has gone on FAUX News and ripped new ones for the likes of O'Lielly and HanRATty.

[wiley]

57. ....

:patriot:

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

58. Clark or Warner is my top horse for 2008

Either one of these two would attract wide mainstream support, yet still stay true to our liberal roots and avoid the warmongering, corporatist swansong. Warner surprises me since he's nominally DLC, but so far in VA (with his environmental policies and ability to raise taxes) seems to have avoided their worst instincts.

As for Clark, he's been against the Iraq War from the get-go, like Al Gore, and has been making his voice heard lately. Another secret advantage that Wes Clark has, that may be very useful for either the #1 or #2 spot on the ticket-- AFAIK he's fluent in Spanish, which means that he can communicate directly with the tens of millions of Latino voters who will be decisive in 2008, while potentially bringing a good number of them into our fold. He'd be a strong candidate.

[madmunchie]

61. Clark speaks Spanish, which is one of HOW many languages he

is fluent in?

[Clarkansas]

101. Clark and Warner!

[fishwax]

59. i haven't decided for '08

I was a Deaniac the last time around (all the way until the bitter end). I can't think of anyone, off the bat, I'd be more inclined to support at the moment ...

[xkenx]

60. Look closely at Wes Clark

He has the same tell-it-like-it-is qualities as Dean, has powerful grassroots support, and has the foreign policy creds.

[fishwax]

62. I looked closely at him last time around

and will consider him again, but I haven't made up my mind, and likely won't until after this year's elections.

(In my poorly worded last post, when I said there was nobody else I can think of who I'd be more likely support, I actually meant to refer to Clark, on the assumption that Dean won't run.)

[wiley]

64. I love Dean and Clark's

work on the 06 elections.

[sundancekid]

69. let's give our General's communications staff help for his 2008 bites,

so, DUers and Clarkies alike, get those creative juices going and help us out:

C is for the ... endless COURAGE he displays

L is for the ... LOVE he showers on his country

A is for the ... ARDOR of his patriotic passion

R is for the ... deep-set RESPECT he commands around the world

K is for the ... scary-smart KNOWLEDGE BASE he carries in his head

put them all together they spell C-L-A-R-K, a statesman that means the world to US.


YOUR TURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!


on edit: grammar fix in subject line

[xkenx]

74. You were great; I don't have the creativity.

[wiley]

77. Wes Clark is an honest person

which is 95% of the point as far as I'm concerned.

[sampsonblk]

80. Wes Clark is better by far

On foreign policy, he actually knows what he's talking about. That, as far as I am concerned, puts him miles ahead of all competitors.

[xkenx]

81. I'm including my own "Conversion"

Wes Clark's Amazing Town Hall Meetings
To piggyback on WesDem's and Lefta Dissenter's comments--I was a Kerry supporter prior to Clark's entry into the race, for all the usual reasons--Vietnam vet, good Progressive, lots of exprerience, etc. I felt he was doing well in early debates, but my wife said "Not so fast; Kerry sounds like he's lecturing, talking over people's heads, just not connecting with people." Once we started to notice Wes Clark, it turned to "OH MY GOD! THIS MAN HAS IT" (the indefinable "IT" that you know when you see it). The absolute clincher was Clark's first town hall meeting in Heniker, NH right after the first debate that he was in. That meeting was shown only on CSPAN, and it is since gone from the archives. The man was amazing, a political neophyte handling and connecting with the crowd like Bill Clinton. Answering any and all questions with sincerity, knowledge, compassion. I'll never forget a very hostile question from a woman, now retired from the military, who said that she was a victim of abuse in the military and nothing ever happened to the perpetrator, and what would he, General Clark, do about that? The woman was so upset and hostile, she was shaking. Instead of being defensive or blowing her off, he looked her in the eye and apologized for the military for what happened to her. He asked her if she used the chain of command for redress. She said "yes, but," and Clark said "Didn't work, did it?" "No." Clark went on to explain how they worked very hard in his commands for equality of opportunity, equal treatment, no abuse, etc., but understood that there were still problems, and that, as president, he would work hard with the military to correct the deficiencies. He also volunteered to speak privately with the woman after the meeting to learn more about her situation so that he could help. The woman melted before our eyes! I found out afterwards that Clark met privately with her for 20 min. after the town hall and that her complaint was serious--she had been raped. Instances such as this have convinced me that Wes Clark only needs sufficient exposure to have the following to be elected President. Once people get to know this man's intelligence, character, compassion, integrity, and depth of real world experience, they become dedicated Clarkies.

Ken

[Auntie Bush]

83. What a pleasure to read good things about the possibility of a

decent/fabulous/progressive POTUS in the future...instead of reading all the horrible/unlawful/unfair things the disgusting Bush Administration has inflicted on our country and his plans to commit more deceitful crimes in the future or as long as he is in office.

There is a bright light at the end of the tunnel if we get Clark into office. He is our salvation!

[Tom Rinaldo]

84. Something that Eisenhower said that gives pause

According to his granddaughter Susan:

"On at least one occasion, (my Grandfather) was heard to say "God help this country when someone sits behind this desk who doesn't know about the military as I do."

Of course Eisenhower warned all of us about the Military Industrial Complex during his Farewell Address, and that warning rings just as true today if not more so than it did when Ike first gave it. But many of the people who still remember that warning lose the significance of who it was who gave it; a Five Star General and legitimate patriot. Ike was in a position to see clearly in all of the important details what those who hadn't spent a life time around the military and the defense contractors could never get a close enough look at. Hence, I believe, his less well known quote cited above.

Some people go on and on about how important it is to elect a President who has held public office before, but I ask them to read this quote by Ike and ponder it quietly. When a Cheney type pushes a misadventure using our military, with theintentional consequence of Billions doled out in lucrative contracts to the likes of Halliburton, there goes the funding needed for guaranteed health insurance for Americans. But they don't even need to fight an actual war to loot our treasury, they just need to buy expensive weapons systems after devising a military strategy for keeping America safe that justifies the need for those expensive weapons systems. Clark can and will call them at their game, he knows how it is played and he knows how best to counter.

I am not suggesting that we should elect someone President simply because he served at the highest level of our military, but I find it brain dead to not realize that the experience that Wes Clark will bring to the job is of great value to our nation, and far rarer to find, at least among Democrats, than that presented by a competent Governor or Senator. It is extremely short sighted to only view Clark's military career as a disadvantage over one spent in elected office. One doesn't become a Four Star General without devoting a life time of service to a military career. I'm sorry, Wesley Clark didn't have the time needed to on top of that also rise up through the ranks of elective office. But he has served his country long and he has served his country honorably and his full career is a matter of public record.

Edited to ad that this Eisenhower quote was included among others within an excellent kos blog about Ike:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/17/212013/138

[rman]

87. will he expose the US-Saudi-Terror financial connections?

see Sibel Edmonds and other Whistleblowers Group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=344

[Jai4WKC08]

105. Clark was endorsed by Sharon Watkins, the Enron whistleblower

I don't think she's a part of Sibel Edmonds' group, but she has played a part in exposing the way Big Oil operates.

I'm probably going to be talking over my head to some extent, because this is not an area in which I have much expertise. But I don't think you have to look far to find Clark's being extremely critical of Bush failure to pressure the Saudis to go after terrorists, and the implications behind that failure. I've heard him speak about how the Saudis have supported the wahabi Islamist movement, and are responsible for funding the wahabist madrassas in places like Pakistan.

He's also been pretty outspoken about the need to wean ourselves from Saudi oil. I seem to recall on of the major tenets of the Clark 04 campaign was investment in new energy technologies. Not that such a view is particularly unique among Democrats, but I do think Clark's plan was probably the most visionary and at the same time realistic.

Don't know if that answers your question. Maybe someone with more knowledge than I can elaborate further.

[rman]

109. well, that's something

It may yet turn out that Clark is an incarnation of sorts of General Smedley Butler.
http://www.warisaracket.org/

If so, then Clark would be our safest bet. I'm not very fond of military folks entering politics, but in the end it's about people's integrity. If i can support Chavez then i could support a military guy for US president - if my fantasy turns out to be true.

[xkenx]

110. Re Clark being military

ELIZABETH DREW ON CLARK

I spoke recently with retired General Walter Kross, a former four-star Air Force general under whom Clark served on the staff of the Joint Chiefs in the mid-1990s. For two years Kross worked with Clark from 6:00 in the morning until 9:00 at night six days a week, and sometimes on Sundays. He disagrees strongly with Shelton and Cohen about Clark's abilities and character. When I asked him why Clark was disliked by some military officers, Kross replied,

He's not the army general officer from central casting. He's the extra-ordinary senior officer who can do extra-ordinary work on the entire range of challenges senior officers have to face—including Kosovo and the Dayton Accords, on which he worked himself into exhaustion. No army officer from central casting can do that work, but Wes did.
He added, "Some senior officers misinterpret drive, energy, and enthusiasm for overambition...he is outside the mold and that makes some other officers uncomfortable."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE "DUCK PRINCIPLE"

Ducks don't wear signs labeling them ducks. If it has a ducksbill, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then you know it's a duck.

Wes Clark is one of the Democratic Party's foremost progressives by virtue of his actions over the years, not by any labels that people want to throw at him simply because he had a career in the military.
It is time to appreciate just how lucky we are to have this national treasure. Just a few items:

--Clark was always butting heads with the stereotypical "macho" military Neanderthals because he saw the horrors of war firsthand in Vietnam and always espoused "diplomacy first."
--Clark was one of the leaders of the all-volunteer Army created after the Vietnam debacle. To keep personnel in you had to do a good job of providing for their family needs, health, education, equal opportunity.
--Clark actually won environmental awards at bases under his command.
--When Clark was working at the Pentagon in the mid-90s, he was virtually the only voice crying out to intervene in Rwanda.
--It was Clark's voice, along with Madeline Albright, who persuaded the Clinton Admin., over the objections of the Pentagon, to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Tell the Kosovar Albanians that Wes Clark isn't a liberal, progressive, humanitarian.
--It was Wes Clark's voice prior to the Iraq invasion who urged that we exhaust all possible diplomatic means before any military action, including in testimony to Congress.
--It was Wes Clark who filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the University
of Michigan affirmative action case.

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. If you want to hear Wes Clark talk about the Military Industrial Complex

You can listen to the audio of this interview conducted with him by New Hampshire Public Radio in November 2003. The comments come at about 35:40 in the interview. Earlier he talks about how War creates Enemies among other things:

http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

[rman]

112. thanks

i'll listen to it.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

89. I will be working for him again in 2008 - love that guy!

n/t

[Radical Activist]

91. Zero political experience in elected office.

I realize this doesn't matter to most Clark supporters but I think its very important in order for a President to be effective. I have yet to be convinced that he's too good to run for Congress, Senate or Governor, and I resent people who think President is the only office they can run for. Its incredibly arrogant. A true public servant should be able to swallow his pride and run for something else.

[Totally Committed]

93. If someone saves you when you are drowning...

I doubt you'd see it as arrogant that they did so without a Red Cross Life-Guard Certificate.

This country needs a strong, honest, straight-arrow of a leader to pull us out of the muck and mire of the Bushies. With all of Wes's experience in leadership roles elsewhere, I don't see it as arrogant on his part to run, or on our part to support him. I feel he is the only one I can trust to do the job I feel needs to be done. Period.

TC

[Radical Activist]

95. I can't trust a politician with no voting record.

And yes, Clark became a politician when he chose to run for office. I didn't support Dean in '04 because his progressive rhetoric didn't match up to his moderate/DLC record and reputation as a Governor. With Clark, I have no record to check, so I have no way of knowing if he's truly a progressive, moderate, conservative...who knows what? There are a lot of great things about Clark, but this is why I'll never support him in the primary.

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. Just to be fair, after my post to you below

I can understand this position. Obviously I disagree with this one too, but it doesn't directly imply anything negative about Clark personally that he would run without having that specific record for you to judge, and obviously that record is important to you. I look at a lot of strong, real (as in having personal consequences) stands Clark has taken in his life to inform me on his values, and I look at his record of accomplishments in his career to inform me of his ability.

[Totally Committed]

97. I can understand this statement, but...

I just wish you would get to know more about him. His time in the military is plenty checkable. In the Military, he had a proven record of environmentalism whe it was not popular to have one. (Gaylord Nelson, founder of Earth Day, endorsed Wes in the last election for this -- http://www.milwaukeeworld.com/html/horne/h-040202.php) He wanted the U.S to intervene in African genocide, and fought the genocide in the Balkans. His dedication to this was written about by Samantha Power in her book, "A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide", and she later endorsed him for President and stumped for him as well.

These are only two instances of things that are evidence of his Liberal and Progressive stand on many issues, and they are easily checked and verified, if one has the desire and the open mind to do so.

Another good place to look is www.securingamerica.com

If you really want to know his "record", it is out there and as "checkable" as any Senator's or Governor's is.

TC

On Edit:

Quote taken from a speech by Michael Moore about Wes Clark:

"Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark:
1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been “positioning himself slightly to Dean’s left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.

2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.

3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter! General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It's their votes we need.

4. He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn't mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our society a better place. He didn't have to get involved in that struggle. He's a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young.

5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper, who bought his rifle in his own name, would have been identified after the FIRST day of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (1.0, Dean himself), a better version of a good thing: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use.

7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He's a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of General Clark, are going to turn this country around."

Entire Speech : http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0116-12.htm

[Tom Rinaldo]

94. Arrogance has nothing to do with it

It is up to voters to decide whether or not they only want a President who held another political office first. If enough Democrats agree with you, then Clark won't win the nomination. If he wins enough Primaries, perhaps you should rethink your conclusions.

Clark is one of the most experienced people in the Democratic Party when it comes to National Security and Foreign Affairs, he served his entire adult life in a National rather than State focused institution. Clark is not interested in running for a State office, his focus was and has always been national. Most men Clark's age would retire after finishing a 30 year career of public service at the highest obtainable level. I think it infinitely less arrogant for Clark to think he can provide leadership to America now than it was for Ronald Reagan or George Bush Junior to think that they could. Arkansas already has two Democratic Senators, so I suppose you are saying you think Clark should run for Congress. You are welcome to your opinion but I think it would be a waste of Clark's talents to push him to become a freshman Representative. That's me speaking, not Clark. I don't want him in the House of Representatives, I want him in the White House.

Let's just let the voters decide about the relevant qualifications for President. You have a coherent position about what is a red line issue for you, even if I disagree with it. Fine, but that doesn't make Clark arrogant for viewing it differently.

[ClassWarrior]

100. A reminder why we need to quit worrying about 2008...

...and start focusing on 2006.

NGU.

[butterfly77]

103. Who's running against this evil senile bastard?

Its time for him to go. No more meetings in the basement!

[serryjw]

106. I thought of this today about Wes Clark

I support him and would vote for him for President in 2008. Don't you find it strange that he could Commander in Chief BUT can't be SecDEF?

[Tinksrival]

107. Thanks for this post xkenx

I would like to book mark this for reference but first I would like to add these endorsements as well, I find it wonderful that so many truly hard working stand-up politicians and diplomats stood behind Wes Clark.

Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL)
Ex-Governor Don Siegelman (D-AL)
Congressman Marion Berry (D-AR)
US Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
State Democratic Chair Ron Oliver (D-AR)
Ex-US Senator David Pryor (D-AR)
US Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Congressman Vic Snyder (D-AR)
Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR)
State Rep. Denny Sumpter (D-AR)
Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA)
Ex-State Democratic Chair Mike Beatty (D-CO)
Ex-State Senate Minority Leader Mike Feeley (D-CO)
Ex-State Democratic Chair Sheila Kowal (D-CO)
Ex-US Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor (D-DC)
State Rep. Ken Gottlieb (D-FL)
Congressman Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
Ex-Governor Joe Frank Harris (D-GA)
Ex-United Nations Ambassador Andrew Young (D-GA)
Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)
Congressman Bill Jefferson (D-LA)
State Sen. Brian Joyce (D-MA)
Congressman Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Ex-US Attorney Todd Jones (D-MN)
Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Congressman Gene Taylor (D-MS)
US Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
Ex-State Democratic Chair George Bruno (D-NH)
State House Minority Leader Peter Burling (D-NH)
DNC Member Dudley Dudley (D-NH)
'02 Governor Nominee Mark Fernald (D-NH)
State Rep. Marjorie Smith (D-NH)
State Sen. Glen Cunningham (D-NJ)
State Assemblyman Lou Manzo (D-NJ)
State PRC Commissioner Shirley Baca (D-NM)
Ex-Lt. Governor Roberto Mondragon (D-NM)
Ex-US Ambassador Ed Romero (D-NM)
Ex-NYC Mayor David Dinkins (D-NY)
Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY)
State Sen. Seymour Lachman (D-NY)
State Sen. Valmanette Montgomery (D-NY)
State Senate Minority Leader David Patterson (D-NY)
Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
Ex-US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (D-NY)
Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman (D-OH)
US Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC)
Ex-Governor Jim Hodges (D-SC)
Ex-US Senator George McGovern (D-SD)
State Rep. Joe Armstrong (D-TN)
State Rep. Stratton Bone (D-TN)
State Rep. Kent Coleman (D-TN)
State Rep. Charles Curtis (D-TN)
State Rep. Gene Davidson (D-TN)
Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN)
State Rep. Joe Fowlkes (D-TN)
State Sen. Thelma Harper (D-TN)
Ex-State Democratic Chairman Doug Horne (D-TN)
State Sen. Doug Jackson (D-TN)
State Rep. Ulysses Jones (D-TN)
State Sen. Tommy Kilby (D-TN)
Ex-Congresswoman Marilyn Lloyd (D-TN)
State Rep. Mark Maddox (D-TN)
State Rep. Larry Miller (D-TN)
State Rep. Johnny Shaw (D-TN)
State Rep. David Shepard (D-TN)
Ex-State Democratic Chairman Bob Thomas (D-TN)
State Rep. Gabi Canales (D-TX)
State Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX)
State Rep. Norma Chavez (D-TX)
Ex-US Navy Secretary John Dalton (D-TX)
State Rep. Juan Escobar (D-TX)
Congressman Martin Frost (D-TX)
State Rep. Pete Gallego (D-TX)
Ex-Congressman Bob Gammage (D-TX)
State Rep. Ryan Guillen (D-TX)
State Rep. Mark Homer (D-TX)
State Rep. Jesse Jones (D-TX)
State Rep. Glenn Lewis (D-TX)
Ex-State Democratic Chair Molly Beth Malcolm (D-TX)
State Rep. Jim McReynolds (D-TX)
State Rep. Rick Noriega (D-TX)
Congressman Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
State Rep. Robert Puente (D-TX)
State Rep. Richard Raymond (D-TX)
State Rep. Jim Solis (D-TX)
Congressman Charlie Stenholm (D-TX)
State Rep. Barry Telford (D-TX)
State Rep. Carlos Uresti (D-TX)
State Rep. Miguel Wise (D-TX)
Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT)
State Rep. Spencer Black (D-WI)
State Sen. Bob Jauch (D-WI)
Lt. Governor Barbara Lawton (D-WI)
Ex-US Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI)
State Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-WI)
State Rep. Lena Taylor (D-WI)
State Rep. Dave Travis (D-WI)

This is not a complete list and he was just getting started.

1. Morton Abramowitz, Ambassador to Turkey and Thailand, Assistant Secretary of State
2. Brady Anderson, Ambassador to Tanzania.
3. Christopher Ashby, Ambassador to Uruguay.
4. Jeff Bader, Ambassador to Namibia, Senior Director National Security Agency
5. Robert Barry, Administrator, Agency for International Development; Head, OSCE
6. J.D. Bindenagel, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues.
7. Donald Blinken, Ambassador to Hungary
8. Amy Bondurant, Ambassador to OECD
9. Avis Bohlen, Ambassador to Bulgaria, Assistant Secretary of State
10. George Bruno, Ambassador to Belize
11. Paul Cejas, Ambassador to Belgium
12. Tim Chorba, Ambassador to Singapore
13. Bonnie Cohen, Under Secretary of State
14. Nancy Ely-Raphel, Ambassador to Slovenia
15. Ralph Earle, Deputy Director of State, Chief U.S. Negotiator, SALT II Treaty
16. Thomas H. Fox, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
17. Mary Mel French, Chief of Protocol
18. Edward Gabriel, Ambassador to Morocco
19. Richard Gardner, Ambassador to Italy & Spain
20. Robert Gelbard, Ambassador to Indonesia & Bolivia, Assistant Secretary of State
21. Gordon Giffin, Ambassador to Canada
22. Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador to Brazil, Assistant Secretary of State
23. Anthony Harrington, Ambassador to Brazil
24. John Holum, Under Secretary of State
25. William J. Hughes, Ambassador to Panama
26. Swanee Hunt, Ambassador to Austria
27. James Joseph, Ambassador to South Africa
28. Rodney Minott, Ambassador to Sweden
29. John McDonald, Ambassador to the United Nations
30. Stan McLelland, Ambassador to Jamaica
31. Gerald McGowan, Ambassador to Portugal
32. Arthur Mudge, Mission Director for Agency for International Development
33. Lyndon Olson, Ambassador to Sweden
34. Donald Petterson, Ambassador to the Sudan, Tanzania & Somalia
35. Kathryn Proffitt, Ambassador to Malta
36. Edward Romero, Ambassador to Spain & Andorra
37. James Rosapepe, Ambassador to Romania
38. Nancy Rubin, United Nations Commission on Human Rights
39. James Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State
40. David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary of State
41. Howard Schaffer, Ambassador to Bangladesh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
42. Teresita Schaffer, Ambassador to Sri Lanka & Maldives
43. David Scheffer, Ambassador at Large for War Crimes
44. Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to the Netherlands.
45. Derek Shearer, Ambassador to Finland
46. Richard Schifter, Assistant Secretary of State
47. Thomas Siebert, Ambassador to Sweden
48. Richard Sklar, Ambassador to the United Nations
49. Peter Tarnoff, Under Secretary of State
50. Peter Tufo, Ambassador to Hungary
51. Arturo Valenzuela, Senior Director, National Security Council
52. William Walker, Ambassador to El Salvador & Argentina, Head, Kosovo VerificationMission
53. Vernon Weaver, Ambassador to the European Union
54. Phoebe L. Yang, Special Coordinator for China Rule of Law, State Department
55. Andrew Young, Ambassador to the United Nations

"I've never endorsed a presidential candidate before. But when I talk to General Clark, and when I listen to him, I can see him as a president for all Americans."

Mary Frances Berry, Former Chair, United States Commission On Civil Rights, January 6, 2004

Then there is my favorite from Kris Kristofferson, who sent the campaign an e-mail saying:

"Just when the world is being dragged into the death spiral of an unending cycle of violence by a vision-less, coldblooded collection of think-tank warriors goose-stepping their way into the new millennium with a stunning lack of respect for human rights, the environment, or international law, along comes a man with the proven credentials of intelligence, integrity, and courage singularly equipped by his spirit and experience to lead us out of this mess. Don't listen to what the lying liars say about him; listen to what he says. Wesley Clark is a prayer answered."

[xkenx]

113. Another reason

Supreme Allied Commander, Europe Best of Blogs: · Remove from Hotlist
By cris
Posted to cris's weblog (Firsthand Accounts) on Tue Nov 18th, 2003 at 06:51:17 PM EST

The Man for all Reasons

If you are lucky, once in your lifetime a truly exceptional person will cross your path. I met and know such a person: General Wesley Clark. For three years, I had the privilege of working for General Clark when he served as Supreme Allied Commander-Europe. I can attest to the fact that he is a general's general and a soldier's general.

I first met General Clark in June 1998 on a special assignment in Maastricht, Belgium, in support of General Hugh Shelton. I was immediately struck by two things. First, although General Clark wore the uniform of a four star General, he spoke as though he were a polished diplomat. He seemed comfortable in both worlds - as a General and as a spokesman for NATO.

The second thing I noticed was the way he treated his subordinates. He treated everyone equally, regardless of their rank, and he listened - really listened - to what people had to say. And the General's security detail clearly loved working for him. This is not common; most security guys don't get to know their principals on a personal basis.

A year later, I got a call from my assignment officer. He told me I could either work at the Pentagon for the Secretary of Defense, or I could work for General Clark. After my memorable first encounter with him, there was no question what I would do. I said that I wanted to work for General Clark.

In the weeks before I arrived at SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe), I thought that I would be the "token Hispanic." When I arrived, I quickly found out that I was mistaken. I had never seen so many minorities working in any high-powered setting. I learned that it was because General Clark values diversity and wants to give everyone a chance.

And from the moment I arrived, General Clark and his wife did everything they could to make me feel welcome. My first assignment was to take the General to his quarters and then to a dinner engagement with NATO officials. After the event, the first thing General Clark asked me was whether I had gotten anything to eat. To most four-star generals, security is an instrument. With General Clark, it was a different story. He always treated his staff like family.

During the war in Kosovo, I saw how deeply compassionate General Clark is. He worried about the pilots who were out on night missions, and he would not go to sleep until he knew the last pilot had bedded down. Instead, he would work in his study, going over the latest intelligence reports and providing updates to the alliance and officials back in Washington. When he finally went to bed, it was only for two hours, and more often than not, he would be awakened by calls. His instruction to me before going to bed was: "Cris, push every call through." No rest for the General.

In fact, I don't think anyone in the U.S. armed forces worked harder than the General. His superiors in Washington, DC knew this. They would often preface their calls by saying, "Don't wake General Clark." All of us who worked for him were amazed by his constant upbeat tempo and energy. We wanted to do everything possible to take care of him because he was doing so much for America and NATO.

And no matter how pressing a situation became, General Clark always stayed calm. I recall when an F-117 went down - the only plane to go down during the entire campaign. In contrast to other officers I knew who would explode in tense moments, General Clark remained calm and efficiently took the necessary steps.

I don't think anyone else could have done what the General did at NATO. For anyone who thinks that was a small accomplishment, just get nineteen friends together for dinner and try to pick a restaurant as a group. General Clark took nineteen countries and built consensus through dialogue. He gave Milosevic a chance, and then took action only as a last resort.

General Clark is an extraordinary leader. People trusted him because they knew that he was honest and a straight shooter. And there was no mincing words with him. He always wanted to hear the truth. You didn't put things off. He wanted to know what had gone wrong so that he could make corrections and get back on the right track.

But most of all, General Clark is loyal -- loyal to his country and to the United States Army, the organization that brought him up from West Point cadet to Supreme Allied Commander. I have worked around a lot of generals, and I can say that the Boss is one of the best I've ever worked with. He cared deeply about the soldiers he led, treated all of us who worked for him with the highest respect, and served his country with dedication, courage and honor.

Front the right front seat

Cris Hernandez Jr, Chief Warrant Officer (Ret)

Former Personal Security Officer to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe

Casa Grande, AZ