WES CLARK on Bill Maher, this eve!

[FrenchieCat]

General Clark will be on the HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, Friday 5/5/06 @ 11:00pm EDT/10:00pm CDT

Start time: 11:00PM EDT | 10:00PM CDT

We recommend checking the schedule in your area for specific times.

Bill Maher welcomes actor Bradley Whitford, Fmr. PM of Canada Kim Campbell, and Fmr. Gov. James Gilmore. Plus, via satellite, Gen. Wesley Clark, and Sen. Mel Martinez.

http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/

[Us vs Them]

1. Excited for Wes, Kim Campbell is cool too!

She's been on the show before, and is really down to earth for a former world leader. Spoke out about how religion and politics is not really linked in Canada, and that Bush would have been laughed out of politics for publically admitting he talks to God.

[bdamomma]

120. it seems like Canadians don't take BS, they way we do

they would of laughed bush out of office because he talks to God. Pay attention everyone.

[robbedvoter]

2. Thanks! Should be fun tonight with the latest news! K&R

[FrenchieCat]

3. Yep.....that should be interesting.

Seems like he'll be on satellite...according to the website. I would have preferred him "in-studio" though!

[Donna Zen]

4. Now that's odd?

I heard yesterday that he would be in-studio. Then again, that never made sense to me. He was in Boston this morning speaking at a major function of the "Boys' and Girls' Club."

Anyway, without HBO, I'm completely dependent on what anyone is willling to report...<----hint.

[Texas_Kat]

5. I wonder if something happened today that made him

change his schedule?

Hmmmm.

[Adelante]

6. Me, too, Donna

hint

[Totally Committed]

8. It said all week long he'd be "in studio"...

Anyone know what happened? I'm kind of disappointed at that news.

TC

[Adelante]

11. I don't think anyone knows, TC

He was in Boston today and I guess couldn't get to the West Coast as planned for some reason.

[Totally Committed]

7. Kim Campbell rocks!

She's an amazingly strong and intelligent woman. I always enjoy her appearances. Bradley Whitford is pretty good, too. It should be a great show! I can't wait to hear what Wes has to say about Goss resigning, and who should fill the position.

TC

[incapsulated]

9. Clark and Campbell, YaY!

:woohoo:

[Pithy Cherub]

10. What a time for Wes to be on with Maher.

We have Iran and Darth Cheny's evil vist to Kazikstan right next door or Darth Cheney's shooting of a civilian or Darth Cheney and pissing off Putin who holds a key UN Security Council vote.

Or perhaps a certain CIA analyst who kicked Rummy's ass for lying, then maybe a CIA director who was practicing an old/new intel technique, but then there is NSA wiretaps and well time will be short.

Of course it could go in the direction of Wes's Real security plan, the 2006 elections, bus's plummeting poll numbers, republican screw-ups, democrats chances and Wes's plans for the future. And being gracious there are other Maher guests....

:popcorn: Go Wes!

[FrenchieCat]

12. Kick!

On the West Coast....so I won't know before others what was discussed!

[dogman]

13. Less time but hopefully more to the point.

Although the line-up looks like it would have been a good in-studio group for him.

[ajacobson]

14. Rerun?

I believe this was from last season.

On edit:
My bad. The HBO website says Gen. Clark is appearing via satellite. He was in-studio when he appeared last time. So, must be a new ep.

[Jai4WKC08]

20. Definitely a new episode

And the strangest thing. He WAS in the studio, but not part of the panel.

And he was just great.

I'm off to watch the rest of the show. :hi:

[Donna Zen]

15. Tapping foot....

Are there any HBO watchers here?

[Phoonzang]

16. Yep...

I'm watching it. Don't have much to say about it besides that I'm glad for once the conservative isn't talking over everyone else. :)

[Donna Zen]

17. Huh?

So he was in-studio.

Now I'm really confused.

[dogman]

18. Wes was on, in studio as a lone guest.

Between the monologue and the panel. Maher announced Wes ran for Pres and hoped he would again. Asked about Goss, Wes said likely personal reasons. Maher said Dems have no plan, Wes repeated Real Security details. Asked if Wes would run in '08, Wes said we must gain at least one house in "06 to investigate and adjust policy. Maher said Wes should run in '08 to be the spokesperson.

[Donna Zen]

19. Thanks dog

n/t

[globalvillage]

22. I missed Gen Clark

I'm glad to hear he shot down Maher on "Dems have no plan". I hate that shit, and Maher repeats it way too often.

[LaPera]

32. Was it a satellite feed, or was he a panel guest?

[Jai4WKC08]

52. Neither

Clark was there in person, but Maher brought him on between the monologue and the panel and spoke with him one-on-one. Like he usually does with his first satellite guest, but they wre in the studio and sat on stools up in front of the audience. I'm not sure I've ever seen Maher do that with a guest. But I don't catch every show.

Clark was originally scheduled to appear on the panel, according to the Real Time website I saw just a couple days ago. Then yesterday it changed to say say he would be on satellite feed. Clark was in Boston yesterday morning, speaking to the kids attending the Boys & Girls Club of America Centennial. Maybe the Real Time schedulers were afraid he might not make it in on time and so lined up another panel guest. Or maybe it was because Clark would have been the third liberal on the panel (that a**hole ex-gov was the late addition) and wanted to mix it up a little more. Which sort of pisses me off because two weeks ago they had three Repubs on, with General Zinni being the most "moderate." I like Zinni ok, but he's not really very moderate; he just happens to oppose the war. Wont even blame it on Bush--puts it all on Rumsfeld's back. A retired general should know better. Clark does.

[xxqqqzme]

107. Maher has done that before - he did it

w/ Howard Dean shortly after he became DNC chair. I think he does it when there is a schedule conflict. It is pre-taped before a live audience, then the guest leaves for his plane or whatever.

[incapsulated]

21. He was great!

:)

[FrenchieCat]

23. Video is available......

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5927#comment-100335

[FrenchieCat]

24. Wes said there's a lot of speculation on Goss Resignation.....

so he thinks it must be "personal".

In addition, he listed the Democrats' plan when Maher started whining that the Dems didn't have one.

Maher, a la Matthews implied that tje Dems, if they win congress in 2006, would spend their time impeaching Bush.

Clark bipassed that a bit by just stating that we MUST win back at least one house of congress....and then we can get to doing good work for America (listed Global warming, real energy plan, healthcare, and well, he said, we'll have to give the American people some facts...via the power of the majority in congress, via investigations......

Glad he didn't broadcast the "plan"....(cause that's the plan as far as I'm concerned....investigations --which of course will lead to impeachment...what else? If Bush is guilty.....so it will go.....), cause the Talking Heads are already trying to scare Republicans into the voting booth to vote GOP and save their Prezident...and we certainly don't want to give the Republican minions any reason to go and vote against us, if we can help it in 2006!

Wes made me hopeful that we can do this......against all of the odds. A Democratic congress in 2006!

PS. Did you know that if we win back the house, we will almost certainly win back the senate too? According to historical odds, that's how it goes.

[alfredo]

25. We have to make it happen.

I did some voter ID. In one hour I secured two volunteers and met two people who have moved from R to Independent and possibly into the Dem column. That is not out of line with what I have experienced in past voter ID outings.

I would have stayed out longer but I ran out of homes in the precinct. I need another precinct.


We need more people on the streets, we need people making calls, entering data, and writing letters. Talk with your neighbor.

[Donna Zen]

26. In New Hampshire

...when asked about "censure" Wes answered that bush had done very bad things, and that he needed to be held accountable. He seemed to imply then that investigation was the key. And yes, the Democrats would be smart to down-play any possibility of getting bush. Sure it makes us feel good, but it won't do us any good. Right now we have no power to investigate, and without power, we can't do anything. We must win at least one house.

[incapsulated]

27. Maher said "so you mean it's sex?"

And Clark said something like, "it usually is", heh.

(hookergate)

Also, he made it clear that when it comes to any impeachment that we first have to find out "the FACTS" "we need to know exactly what happened" (I agree, we don't know the half of what has been going on) obviously we need to take at least one house, first.

As for the "Democratic Plan" for Iraq, Clark listed :

A) This year must be a year of transition when the Iraqis take control of their own country
B) Troops must start to be deployed this year.
C) Diplomacy, not bombs, in the entire region, "including people we don't like, like Syria and Iran".

[Jai4WKC08]

28. One other point

He said the central message for the Democrats will always be that force is the LAST resort.

[incapsulated]

29. yeah, I edited to change that.

Thanks. :)

[Jai4WKC08]

30. Change what?

;)

[incapsulated]

31. I forget.

:)

[Adelante]

42. I think B) is "redeployed"

You drinkin' last night? :beer:

[incapsulated]

63. Eh, neither makes sense to me...

Military speak. :)

[Adelante]

66. However, I think it was the word he used

Begin to be "redeployed out of Iraq this year" - something like that.

[incapsulated]

71. Yes, you are right.

That is the word he used.

[Gloria]

110. Just watched the video---he said "redeployed out" ...I'm pretty

darned sure he said "out"....sometimes he "swallows" his words but that's what my ears picked up off the video.

[Donna Zen]

112. You are correct:

He said: "...."Number 2, we want to begin responsible redeployment out of Iraq. Number 3, we want to use all the tools...."

Note: In his book, and on several occasions, Wes Clark has said that the 06-7 will be the breaking point for the military. It is not recruitment problems which continue to be a problem, it is the retention of the officers' corp. I'll paraphrase: the first deployment...they go, the second--they figure, I've gotten through this, I'll do it again and do it better...the third, they just want to go and come back. But then Wes said, they start figuring..hey, I got kids and a wife/husband--time to look for something else. That is where we will be early winter to 07.

Loosing the young officers will be the tipping point. These men and women are educated and able to consider other civilian options. The General said that when writing his book, he talked with other generals etc., they all agreed that looking at the rotations, 06-7 would be the date. I was reading a diary at Kos written by someone shipping out for the 2nd time, his attitude was exactly the one which Clark outlined.

Dan Rather, speaking at the forum, "Vietnam and the Presidency" made an interesting observation. He said that we need to look at the years in 'Nam in phases. He said in the earliest years, we had a fine army there that was comprised of profession soldiers remaining from WWII. But as time wore on, those people got out after a few tours, thus, setting the stage for a different army.

Now will Rummy try to continue Iraq with the current numbers and thus a hollow army? Well, he's a crazy fucker for sure, but it may be out of control. I think the draw-down in coming. The real question is "will bush DO the diplomacy to at least come away with D-?

[Kolesar]

33. $46/month is not enough. I have to pay extra yet for good programming

Bill Maher, Sopranos, George Carlin and Robin Williams specials are not available to "cheapskates" like me. I get to watch the Mythbusters guys put pantyhose on a rocket or a rerun of the Battle of Britain.

[Cosmocat]

34. My wife bitches ...

Every month about the cable bill, but HBO is worth it ... The Sopranos is great, but they have a bunce of other shows that are worth it to me, specifically Deadwood and The Wire ... Both are special, IMO ... They have other pieces, one of the "iceman" a hitman for the mob that was really good, their movies, like Elephant, a great piece on the day at Columbine ...

What was nice was that Wes was in studio, and Maher put him in front of the table with him, on stools ... To me, As with Franken this week, Maher was pretty deferential to Wes ... You got the feeling that Maher was treating him special, and like Al, in addition to asking if he was running, in a demur manner ASKED HIM TO ...

It wasn't a great interview ... Maher was struggling to get a laugh the whole time ... Wes had a hard time finding ihs pace on answers because of that ... But, he is Wes, and comes across so genuinely, so capably, and so naturally finds a way to make a point without it coming across as directly "partisan" as the rest of us do ...

Whitford was on FIRE, and as someone else noted, TOTALLY did not allow the conservative member to talk over discussions with the bizzaro conservative logic ...

Wes is the man, and more and more it seems that the frontline left media people are starting to come on board ...

[Kolesar]

35. Thanks for the review

Since you are following Wes Clark, can you tell me where he is on global warming? Does Clark spend much time on the issue? I am interested on how Democratic leaders are speaking to the matter.

[dogman]

36. Go to his website, it's featured there.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node
There is blogging on that specific item and links to podcasts with Clark discussing it, a real good one with Barbara Boxer.

[Spazito]

62. Thanks for the link!

Wes Clark is impressive every time he appears, wherever he appears. An invaluable representative for the Democrats, imo.

[Jai4WKC08]

37. Clark is totally out front on global warming

And trying to get it the attention it deserves. It has been one of the TWO pillars of his "100 Year Vision" since he started his campaign in Sept 03. It was one of the things that got me working for his campaign then, and it's part of his "platform" now.
http://securingamerica.com/vision

Last nite, when Maher brought up impeachment, Clark acknowledged that a Democratic house of Congress would give us the power to get to the FACTS and find out what really happened. But the next two things he mentioned a Democratic house of Congress could address effectively are an energy policy and global warming, which are afterall related. It's a very high priority for him. (Fwiw, the other two were education and healthcare, also high priorities.)

Clark just recently did a series of four audio podcasts on global warming and climate change, and they're really quite excellent. The first describes his view of the problem and what we need to do. The third is a real treat because it's a "conversation" between him and Barbara Boxer on the topic (altho they discuss other things as well) You can get them thru iTunes or download them from his website. ITunes is good, and free, because it'll do the download of all four automatically and set you up to get future podcasts from Clark.
http://securingamerica.com/clarkcasts

And finally, one of the WesPAC grassroots groups has been working on educational materials on "real science" and climate change. You can see their first two installments on the Clark Community Network, at
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5790
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5912

Please check these out. Clark is very "green." As a military commander in CA, he received an award from the Audubon society for the work he did in habitat protection at Ft Irwin. During his campaign, there was an active Environmentalists for Clark group, and he was endorsed by Gaylord Nelson.

There are a lot of good Democrats who are "right" on environmental issues, but I don't think anyone has done more than Wes Clark and Al Gore to keep to try to keep them on a front burner.

[Kolesar]

38. Thanks and thanks to dogman

:hi: I'll look into it. IMO, climate change is a very complicated topic, and I find that the framing and the messaging is difficult to accomplish.

[Kolesar]

40. After listening to this "podcast", I can tell that Wes Clark "gets it"

I am referring to the Boxer/Clark interview on this page: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5843 I think that we really need candidates to run on this issue. IMO, they won't lose any votes bashing Exxon or the electricity companies, either. I will have to read more of that site when I get a chance.

[Jai4WKC08]

48. He does indeed "get it"

I hope you will take a longer look. Especially that vision statement. It's not real detailed ("visions" seldom are) but it impressed me so much when I was first getting active in his 04 campaign. It was the very first thing that went up on his old website, and it's one the few things he highlights on the new one, with a link in the upper left corner.

I was impressed because it talked about the environment, and that's a very important issue to me... more than just an "issue" really. But what really got me hooked was that he is looking out a hundred years. I don't think I've ever seen a politician, or any leader, look that far. But it's where we need to be looking, especially concerning the environment.

We live in a society on a short fuse. Everyone wants whatever they want now, even if they're up to their ears in debt. Hell, the nation's been in debt for years, it's only getting worse, and both parties have contributed (altho none as badly as the current crop of Repubs). Politicians focus on the next election -- not that they don't have to at times, but too many look no further. CEOs live and die by quarterly profits and how their stock performs daily, and so too must their employees. Anything that takes too long to achieve gets ignored. "Won't happen on my watch" is the watchword. It's killing us.

My friend and fellow DUer, Tom Rinaldo, wrote a real nice little essay on Clark's view of what we need in the way of national healthcare, as laid out in his "Real State of the Union" speech back at the end of January (it was delivered the day before Bush's SOTU... you can find both video and transcript at his PAC website too). Clark said we must have a single-payer system, and why, but then he laid out the way to get there. Just a sketch, really, since he had only a little over an hour to talk about all our greatest problems. But the point is, it isn't a matter of walking in and passing a bill to change the whole system in one fell swoop. But his plan stands a much better chance, imo, of actually happening. It says a lot about the way he thinks about solving big problems, and we sure have a boatload of big problems.

Clark was considered a master strategist in the military, and held that position on the Joint Staff during the Bosnia conflict and peace resolution. He still is a strategist, and not just in the realms of security and foreign affairs. I think we need that.

[Adelante]

45. Yes, very complicated and difficult

But I think the public would absorb a term like "Climate Crisis" over "Global Warming" so that disasters like Katrina or the tsunamis or toxic salmon, which hit home with everyone, are clearly placed in discussion. "Global Warming" is almost too scientific, if you get my meaning, for the general public to relate to their own lives.

[Jai4WKC08]

54. Good point. Also....

The GOP and Big Oil people have spent years and boo-coo dollars "debunking" global warming. Most people are beginning to realize they've been lied to, but many, and not just the hard right, remain unconvinced -- mostly because they don't pay attention, but so what? They are still more likely to blow off the phrase.

But like you say, almost everybody can see what Katrina did, and the tsunami, and probably weather problems that may or may not have anything to do with global warming. They can understand there's a crisis on our doorstep, whatever all those "egghead" scientists might attribute it to.

[karynnj]

68. The various environmental groups did not agree with you on this:

There are a lot of good Democrats who are "right" on environmental issues, but I don't think anyone has done more than Wes Clark and Al Gore to keep to try to keep them on a front burner.


They endorsed John Kerry in the primaries because he had by far the best environmental record (along with Lieberman). Kerry had a lifetime average of 92 with the LCV as opposed to Gore's 64. Gore was by far the pre-eminant voice on global warming , but was less good on other environmental issues. Even before he was Senator, Kerry had done more on the environment than Clark has done to date. He researched and coordinated an effort to deal with the acid rain problem that plaqued the NE states and NE Canada. He was instrumental in getting a plan through the regional conference of governors that became the precursor for the way the Clen Air act works. (This from a position that normally does almost nothing.)

[Clark2008]

79. Hmmmm... don't remember Kerry winning an National Audubon Society

award for saving an endangered species - while working in a position (as a military leader) that would never, in anyone's mind, ultimately lend itself to winning such an award.

And, alternative energy is Clark's freaking JOB in the private sector.

I applaude Kerry on his positions and appreciate what you're saying, but, please, you don't have to break up an interesting thread to inject an apple comparison to an orange statement.

(Edited: clarity)

[karynnj]

87. By saying that Gore and Clark had done more than any other

candidate, you asked for this. If I posted that of all the 2008 contenders, Kerry had by far the best foreign policy credentials because of his 22 years on the SFRC and his own experience in war - I am sure that you and others would counter regarding Clark's tenure at NATO and his long service record. I would not have posted if you gave info on Clark only or if you said: like Gore, Clark has a good record on the environment ...... Instead you initiated a comparison to ALL candidates. So, yeah YOU STARTED THE COMPARISON

[Jai4WKC08]

90. Not only did I say "to keep it on the front burner"

I also said, "I don't think..." That means I was stating my opinion. I have a right to do that.

You have a right to state your opinion too, of course. But you didn't. You tried to make a statement of fact. But it is not supportable, and not particularly relevant to the statement I made.

[karynnj]

95. I made it a matter of fact - all I did was support it

But fine I agree that you can say or believe anything you want as can I -
so feel free to say so. Maybe this should be in the Clark group.

[Jai4WKC08]

98. I don't understand what you're saying n/t

[Adelante]

106. "Maybe this should be in the Clark group."

Whatsamatter? Is this thread taking up one of the usual dozen Kerry spots?

[Clark2008]

102. Actually, no I didn't start the conversation.

In fact, my post to you was the first post I made in this thread; so, therefore, no, I didn't start this conversation. I was merely pointing out that you were comparing apples to oranges.

Clark has no voting record on this issue because he was serving his country in another way - as a military leader; however, the way he has lived his life - the things he has done in it toward the environment - suggests that he has done more, in actions, than most any other potential candidate save Al Gore.

Kerry made some wonderful votes, but Clark actually lived it. Voting (reactive) vs. Doing (pro-active). Apples vs. Oranges.

[Jai4WKC08]

85. I'd like to see some links

For which of "the various environmental groups" you are implying endorsed Kerry in lieu of Clark, and when they did so. I specifically remember the Sierra Club (because I am a member, and wrote to them several times) was considering endorsing Clark, but ended up endorsing no one until well after Clark dropped out. I don't know about the others, but I take great exception to your statement that "THE various environmental groups" (which sort of means all of them, or all the major ones) think Kerry has done more than Clark or Gore. Teresa maybe, but she is not her husband and I don't think you're including her.

As for who had the best record, that's debatable imo. Obviously a senator has more opportunity to have a more extensive record, and I'd be very dissappointed in any Democratic senator who didn't. But best? You'd have to define best, and we still might not agree.

In any case, you've got a bit of a non-sequitur there. I specifically said "keep them on a front burner." In other words, what are they doing NOW to promote environmental protection to the public. Whether Kerry was endorsed by anyone connected to the environment in 2004 has ZIP to do with what he has or hasn't done recently about publicizing climate crisis.

[karynnj]

94. Here are some links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=84322&mesg_id=84345

Kerry was a participant at all Rio, Kyoto and the other conferences. He has spoken on this issue very very often in 2004.

As I said, Gore is the leader on global warming.

[Jai4WKC08]

97. Only ONE endorsement in that thread, and in Oct 04

If I missed one let me know -- it's a long thread -- but the League of Conservation Voters was the only group I saw mentioned as having endorsed Kerry, and they did so just weeks before the general election. So it sure doesn't substantiate your claim that "THE environmental groups" endorsed Kerry during the primaries. Matter of fact, by itself that thread practically disproves it.

Gaylord Nelson, may he rest in peace, endorsed Clark. And he was sort of an environmental group in himself (in that he had many followers who stayed very active and with whom he stayed in touch). And there's no question that was a choice of Clark OVER Kerry, not over Bush as in your single example.

So Kerry was a participant in all those conferences. What does that have to do with the comparison I made? They were all quite a while ago. 2004 was long enough past in terms of public awareness. It's May already. We just had Earth Day. What has Kerry done this year, for example, to keep the public aware and informed? What has done to actually improve the environment? Any bills proposed? Any fundraisers? Any organizations sponsored? Any new technology helped along? With the exception of legislation, Clark has done all of those.

It is my strong conviction that Clark was the "greenest" of the 04 candidates. As I said above, it is one of two pillars of his vision for this country, and what I left out, one of his four family values, expounded on in afaik every single stump speech he ever gave (except for those dealing with a specific issue). To include the ones he gave for Kerry.

Fwiw, and fearing this may invite a little flaming, I don't accept that Gore is the leader on global warming either. He's strong on it, to be sure. I have nothing but the utmost respect for what he has done and is doing. Nothing I say in support of Clark in ANY way detracts from that.

But Clark is doing good things. And he will continue to. It's important to him, and to all of us.

[CarolNYC]

119. So, then "the various environmental groups that...

endorsed John Kerry in the primaries" really boils down to the Sierra Club and the LCV endorsing Kerry after he was the only one left standing vs. Bush? That's a pretty, um...interesting representation of the situation. Boy, if they had endorsed Bush over Kerry that would have really been bad.

I loved that Gaylord Nelson endorsed Wes--and that really did happen in the primaries. He was one of my three favorite Clark endorsements, the other two being my esteemed and beloved Congressman, Charlie Rangel, and my first political "crush", Senator George McGovern.

[Kolesar]

116. Sierra Club did not endorse any candidate in the 2004 primary

Kerry's endorsement was May 11

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=548247#548611

[CTyankee]

93. I love Wes, but have a few questions

I remember in his shortlived 04 campaign he strongly endorsed a woman's right to choose. Now we see that contraceptives are also under attack by the RW. Has Wes addressed the EC, abortion rights or defense of Griswold (sexual privacy and right to use contraceptives)? This anti-contraceptives push is the next Waterloo for the Republican Party as far as I'm concerned. And dems need to jump on it ("Alberto Gonzolez wants to take away your birth control pills").

[Jai4WKC08]

99. When I heard Clark speak in Oct 05

In Stillwater OK, he talked about abortion rights and how they are fundamentally human rights. I think that's the way I remember his putting it. Perhaps someone else can elaborate further. Somehow reading something in a transcript sticks with me longer. Maybe due to the excitement of being at a Democrtic function--we don't have many big ones here in KS. :(

He also talked about how important it is not to let the Republicans get away with using abortion (and other wedge issues) to split people off from our party. Kind of like what he said on Al Franken's radio show last week... they're good at it. We can't give in to them. Again, I don't really remember his exact words.

He also said, and I've read about him saying it several places (so I remember better), that when Republicans talk about "values," they really mean sex. Abortion, gay marriage, porn, sex toys (he didn't mention those last two, but they seem to be in the news lately). They don't care about other values, like the common good, or like taking care of the poor and the sick and the young. He said our message has to be (and I guess this relates back to the bit about wedge issues) that Democrats have values, and they're the values that matter, and that the greatest Republican value is really GREED. That by telling it that way, we take back the issue.

So I don't know if that answers your question exactly. He isn't ignoring the subject. He still believes strongly in our right to choose, and in the right to privacy (and in that respect, has spoken loudly and often about Bush's wiretapping, so it's related in a way). But he wants us to address it in a way that wins people over and not drives them away.

[CTyankee]

104. It's right on message, imo.

It's great that he talked about reproductive rights in OK. But one thing Wes Clark is, is smart. The guy must know that being against birth control is the biggest loser the Repulsives could come up with.

Now, here's a question for ya: what do you think will be the pubs big stick to beat Wes Clark with? I've heard that it was "Clark was a Republican" and that he is some kind of "perfumed prince" implying that he is uh, lightweight and temperamental.

Frankly, I think that the attacks on Clark have been useless and dumb. But what do you think they'll use?

[Jai4WKC08]

105. I think they'll try to do in '08 what they did in '04

And what they're doing now, for that matter.

Ref this year, there's another rather long DU thread about it, but I don't have it bookmarked, about how since Clark got really active in supporting '06 candidates, especially in red states, we have seen a major up-tick in the number of RW attacks on Clark. Some of them stick out like sore thumbs. They'll be writing some crap about Democrats, or a particular Democrat, and then just throw in some slam on Clark that often doesn't even relate the the topic... or at least just barely. Clark isn't the only one, btw. We've seen it against Gore and Dean. And it's probably there against others, but we just haven't noticed.

As for '08, let me explain some of what I saw in '04 because I think it'll be pretty much the same, altho with different emphasis on different themes and targets. Cuz it was a two-pronged attack in '04. One side targetting the left, the other to the right.

A lot of the crap about Clark being a Repub came right out of the GOP. It was the Repubs who released the tape of that Pulaski County dinner, for example. It was Drudge who cut up his HASC testimony against the war, to make it look like he supported it, and RNC chairman Gillespie took what Drudge put out (and probably what he gave Drudge to put out) that spread it around even further. It was the Fox-sponsored debates that did the same thing to some of the op/ed's Clark wrote, cherry-picking selected parts to make it look like he was for it. It was a Repub governor who repeated his JOKE about calling Karl Rove (but swearing he was dead serious... even tho it was later proven by WH logs that there was no call). It was also the Repubs who put out a lot of stuff about his being a war criminal, mostly thru Serb-American organizations (which tend to be Repub-dominated). All these things were designed to turn away the left, but came out of the GOP. I'm probably forgetting stuff, but it's enough.

I think/hope that in '08, it will be harder for them to try to make people believe Clark was ever a Repub. For one thing, altho he had worked hard for some Dems in 2002, he's done SO much more now. And afterall, 1986 (the last time he voted for a Repub for president) will be that much further in the past. But it won't be impossible, because so many Dems still assume that all generals must be Repubs. So they will continue that meme, but push the war-criminal bit harder.

As I said, in '04 they also targeted the right, or rather the indies and moderate Repubs. Since there was no Repub primary contest, they were afraid indies and Repubs in states with open primaries would cross over to vote for Clark. I think that with a Repub primary battle, this line of attack will get less emphasis too. Or get "saved" for the GE. But it will still be there, probably left to the freepers to push. I won't bother with the message of the attack, because it won't be that much different from how they attack all Democrats, especially liberals, and how they attacked Kerry after he cinched the nomination, and how they attack Clinton (both of 'em) when they want to raise funds or sell books.

And finally in '04, the corporate media -- which is pretty much run by the GOP -- ultimately ignored him, and that may happen again too.

[CTyankee]

109. That's sad. Thanks for the update, tho.

If the MSM ignores him it is to their peril. We're up against a lot but somehow the truth must come out.

I think Wes is a great thing that happens to this country and I think he can lead us ably out of Iraq. I worry about how deep a hole we have dug ourselves thus far and how difficult it will be to dig us out.

Who do you like for Wes's veep candidate?

[Jai4WKC08]

111. Whomever he chooses

I'm reluctant to play the VP game, altho it's fun to speculate sometimes. Probably ought to be a legislator. I personally would like to see a minority, just because it's about time and I know there's some good ones out there. Harold Ford, for example. Loretta Sanchez maybe.

Charlie Rangel would be my dream choice. Gosh I love that guy. But I suppose he's a little long in the tooth. And he doesn't bring us a state we wouldn't have anyway. Neither does Sanchez, but she can bring in votes all over the SW and FL, I think. Altho their both being Catholic could be a problem.

But honestly, I trust Wes Clark's judgment. Only he knows who he can truly trust and have confidence in. That's what matters most.

[Donna Zen]

39. Alternative Energy is his job

Long before he ran for president, Wes Clark worked getting funding for emerging technologies. One of those companies was a hydrogen engine developer, Wavecrest. Wes became their CEO. Today as Chairman of the Board of an investment house focusing on emerging technologies in health care and energy, he is actively working to get the money to the people who can do something about our environment-energy. Finally, Wes along DiCaprio and others, is on the board and raising money for a non-profit organization called, iirc, "Green House" whose goal is building 10,000 house in New Orleans that are both low-cost and employ the latest in green technology. I guess you can say, the man "walks the walk."

[Jai4WKC08]

44. Thanks for bringing all that up!

I'm a little embarrassed I didn't think to, since I am one who gets SO frustrated when people say, "oh, we can't know what Clark really thinks because he has no voting record." What nonsense! He's been living his values and beliefs all his life, not the least of which is the necessity of protecting the environment. And he continues to, in many cases in a more "real" way than just voting for legislation, which is murky business where people trade votes, and vote for things they don't support when they know they won't pass, and on and on.

I'm not saying a voting record isn't an important indicator of what someone stands for. It usually is a very good one. But it's not cut and dried. If it were, you wouldn't find so many DU threads that say, "Why the hell did X vote for Y?!"

Anyway... I tried to allude to Clark's "walking the talk" when I mentioned his Audubon Society award, because being "green" isn't always the easiest thing in the military, as I well know. Clark made more than a few enemies in high places, because they wanted the area developed for more maneuver training room. It was during the first Bush administration, when the "command climate" wasn't exactly environment-friendly. But Clark did what he thought was right, even tho it risked his career and may very well have been part of what ended it prematurely. One of the guys above him then became the Army Chief of Staff during the Kosovo war, and he was the one who held back the Apaches that Clark took so much flack for pushing for against what the Pentagon wanted. The Army is a small world sometimes, and all of us know that past events can come back to haunt you in the most unexpected ways.

[Adelante]

46. Walks the walk

There's also the Virtual March to Stop Global Warming

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_marcher.asp?2724

I think he was one of the earliest on that?

[Jai4WKC08]

108. More walking the walk

I just remembered, posting on a completely different subject (funny how that works), that Clark was very solid, and helped put together, the Global Warming panel for the Clinton Global Initiative. My understanding was that contributers got some say as to which of the panels they wanted to be involved with.

[NCarolinawoman]

47. Let me add to that: He has NEVER owned an SUV.

Even when gas was cheap!

:-)

[imlost]

53. He kicks ass!

I didn't know this fact. I loved him before, now I drool!! :)

My husband and I live in Northern Cal where these monster of
cars have taken over our cities.
We love to hate them for all the right reasons, bad for environment,
dangerous, a total nuisance, etc.
Don't get me wrong I can see a use for them.

Let's just say I despise them. I volunteer in Search and Rescue
where they can be of great use and I still refuse to use one.
My little wagon does the job!

[imlost]

49. I agree..

HBO is expensive to have, but so worth it. I could do away with most of the other crap in our package but HBO kicks ass. I love he Wire, Deadwood, Rome, Sopranos, and Big Love is hard to watch but also very good. HBO puts out awesome documentaries, like "Paper Clips", "Death In Gaza", etc. They also have great comedy. I miss Six feet Under and Sex in The City.

I also agree that the interview with The General didn't flow as nice as I wish it would have. On the other hand it showed me how General Clark can adjust to just about anything. His has great presence and eloquence. He is a true leader with real ideas. I hope he runs in 08!

[Adelante]

56. You're killing me

God, I miss HBO :cry:

[Lorien]

51. Go to iTunes and download the audio (podcast) for free. n/t

[capi888]

41. He Reminds me of FDR...

He speaks common sense, intellect, with a touch of humor. This guy is the Real Deal. FDR was loved, because he was conversational to the people, down to earth. Thats Wes Clark...
Great comments on this blog, Thank You All..

[Sparkly]

43. That was great -- short but sweet!!

Maher's last line: "So you are running for president."

The General really kept the message on the Democratic party and the importance of this year's elections. But hearing him talk, you can't help but think what a great president he'd be!

[Totally Committed]

50. He was outstanding, as usual....

Talked up the Democratic Party's policies and plans, alternative energy (re: Global Warming), National Security, the need for diplomacy as a prevention for war as well as building partnerships with other nations, the need to win back at least one of the Hoses of government (Congress or Senate) in '06 as leverage to "get to the bottom of what has happened", and so much more -- all in that short amount of time. He also said that we need to start a re-deplaoyment out of Iraq, which made me very happy.

Anyone who has HBO On Demand can watch this program around the clock of they want, but for those who don't, it repeats many times during the week. Do not miss this show!

TC

[Jai4WKC08]

55. Being an old Army intell hand...

Back in the day (which ended just over 5 years ago) when NO one turned a blind eye to torture...

I really liked what he said about the CIA, how we need an intelligence agency that protects America but does it legally. Maher tried to challenge him on that, with the argument that since "they" do it, we should to. Clark FLATLY said no. That the CIA (and intell community by extention, imo) needs to reflect who we are as a nation, our values. That if we change our rules to the ones the bad guys use, we may win a tactical victory or two, but we'll never win the war. That the only way we can win this war (meaning against terrorists, I think, based on what he's said before) is to make more friends than we do enemies.

That's all paraphrasing, but I think I hit all his points. It was sure music to this old analyst's ears.

[Donna Zen]

57. No "I" in Team

When listening to nearly every Democrat speaking on the TV-Gasbags, the rule is to start every sentence with the word "I". What stands out in this interview is Wes' use of the word "we." He could have easily presented the Democratic talking points about national security with a litany of "I think," or "I believe," after all, Biden et al, do it all the time when they're spouting Clark's ideas. But instead, Wes used the pronoun "we." His inclusive team attitude is always front-and-center. Not only does this speak of leadership vs ego-ship, it also reminds us of why we are so damn lucky to have this man on our team.

[trillian]

118. "I"

Someone (Massa?) said that when Wes was SACEUR he allowed no correspondence to leave his office, that started with the word, "I"......so this is ingrained in him, not something he's picked up in his political life.

And speaking of politics, he was overheard saying, at a WesPAC event, that "There is too much 'I' in politics"

Ain't that the truth!


Also, I am a Clark supporter who also works for the Fighting Dems and in particular Eric Massa. You'll see my posts later today asking people to go over to kos to live blog with Eric and other Fighting Dems. The Massa/FD internet Team is comprised solely of Clark supporters.

[robbedvoter]

58. Yeay! Brought out Bushco media manipulation to silence Dems!

How when they were to announce their National Security plans, W planned an Iraq speech at the same time and got all the coverage! Wes knows, because that was EXACTLY what W did to him in the primaries.
So there - for saying Dems should bring out media bias - Wes just did it!

[wiley]

59. Kick and Recommend People!

The man is amazing!

[Jai4WKC08]

60. And Bill didn't seem to get it

WTF was that all about?

When Clark got to the point in his story about how Bush's last minute (and precisely timed) Iraq press conference got 100% coverage on all the cable news, Maher said in a very disdainful voice, "Boo hoo." Then he quicky said that Bush never says anything new about Iraq, gave a couple examples, and said he wants to hear something new from the Dems and doesn't know what the Dem plan for National Security is. So Clark left off the rest of his story and went into what the plan is, the main points, and it went from there.

But I sure didn't get that "Boo hoo" from Maher. It sounded like he was gonna say it's the Dems fault if they (we) can't get our message out. But then by complaining about the content of Bush's message, I thought maybe not. That maybe he just missed the Clark's point completely.

:shrug:

[Adelante]

61. I missed the "boo hoo" altogether

I don't know why except Maher was quick with the followup. But he was saying he didn't know what plan the Dems have for security. Maybe it was a fumble by Maher and then he caught what Wes was talking about.

[Totally Committed]

70. Wes pretty much shut him down, though....

I was disappointed that Bill didn't "get" the media shut-out as a factor in the dissemination of the Dem. message.

TC

[Agony]

64. This is for '08 not '06

I am not trying to be a wet blanket (and I love Wes) but for this thread to have 60 posts and the one in this forum about Voting for Eric Massa to have 13 is a mystery about priorities to me. So please if you like Wes go find the Massa thread and read the article posted there by xkenx, then go vote, kick the thing, recommend the thing (I can't i'm not old enough yet) and talk to all your repub buddies about all the dems running for the house and how much better off they would be. love y'all man!

[Donna Zen]

65. I can only speak for myself, but...

as someone who receives Boxer's e-mails, I did vote for Eric last week. I think if we really want people to support the amazing Eric Massa, the place to make the case is in the long non-Clark threads. I'm just supposing, but I would imagine that many supporters of other candidates would hold off on Eric because his name is associated with Clark's. Yes, it seems beyond petty, but I'll put that thought out there anyway. For me, Eric stands on his own credentials, and he is just who we need in the House.

[Adelante]

67. Hmm, no user profile

A bit odd.

[Totally Committed]

69. No user profile and 51 posts...

I'm dubious. Sorry, but this "appearance" just to voice your concern isn't washing with me.

TC

[Agony]

72. Well, Hi!

What am I supposed to say other than I was trying to make an observation (I don't have that much time to spend online). I don't understand what isn't washing? A commitment to Dem principals or party? At this point I just want to get Massa elected and Kuhl out, it seems like a very important race to take back the house. The threads on Massa that I have seen never seem to get much attention even in the NY forum (not that the NY forum is that active anyway) So Hi again!

PS i don't know what you mean exactly by no user profile

[Totally Committed]

74. I understand.

I just am dubious when someone with about 50 posts shows up just in time to "make an observation" that (s)he admits might sound like "wet blanket". I am not being hostile, just cautious, you understand. I've seen this sort of thing turn a thread upside down too many times.

Welcome to DU.

TC

[jonnyblitz]

76. when people don't like what you say and they don't have an

intelligent way to argue with you they will check your profile and if it is disabled they will imply that there is something shady about you because of that. I am not surprised that Clark supporters, who are generally thin skinned, would employ this lame tactic. Only fawning and praise are allowed on Clark threads or stand by for their wrath.

[Jai4WKC08]

80. We may be "thin-skinned" but not without cause

And if we check profiles, it's because a lot of the time the people who come into Clark threads to post negative things are very new posters. Whether they're trolls, or sockies, or something else is debatable, but not the fact that they are not being sincere in their oh-so "constructive" criticism.

That said, it really didn't occur to me that this particular poster wasn't making a valid point until I read the replies (to include yours), and I am about to post a reply to him/her right now.

[Maddy McCall]

113. Hey, YOU.

:hi:

I'm a Clark supporter, and I can't stand it when people do that. It's to imply that someone's a freeper or a newbie, and therefore a disrupter or just stupid.

I wish Clark people wouldn't do that. There's no justification for it.

And, like I said, :hi:

How the hell have you been? Haven't talked to you in forever. :loveya:

[Adelante]

117. Correct me if I'm wrong

A user has to deliberately disable the profile? What makes me edgy is when a new user already knows enough to do it. It makes me wonder, not if the poster is stupid, but if the poster is a disruptor, yes.

I'll try to behave better, Maddy. :)

It will be hard :evilgrin:

[Adelante]

78. Because you make an incorrect implication

that Clark supporters do not do enough to support Eric Massa. Eric himself would laugh his ass off.

[Jai4WKC08]

82. Welcome Agony!

A profile is a data file DU keeps on each of us. If you look next to the name of any poster, in any post, there's a little file card (I think that's the icon--can't see it while I'm typing this). If you click on it, it will usually show you when the poster joined DU, how many posts you have made, and some other bio-type information. You said you are too young to recommend, didn't you? Perhaps you do not have a profile for that reason.

Please don't take the replies about your profile personally. There are just a lot of folks who come in to Clark-oriented threads in order to criticize Clark or Clarkies, but who are not what they seem. Many of them are "new" and may be Repub trolls, or false IDs of people who don't want an attack on Clark to reflect poorly on whomever they support.

As for why the thread about Massa doesn't have as many posts... well, partly I think it's because more people know about Clark, since he's popular nationally, than about Massa who is mostly just known in NY.

But for myself, I haven't been in that thread because I do love Massa (even tho I live in KS) and I'm on his mailing list, have downloaded his recent Al Franken audio, have donated to his campaign (twice, and will again), and visit his website often. I also read most of what he posts personally at Clark's blog, and occassionally catch his posts at Kos, TPM, and elsewhere. It didn't occur to me that there would be anything in that thread I hadn't seen already.

But you are dead right. I should have gone there to K&R it. Thank you for the reminder. :)

Edit for typos

[Agony]

83. Hi

I wasn't taking it personlly it all jsut seems conterproductive. I figured out the profile and for gosh sakes how would that prove anything about my sincerity? My gender and a quote from Thomas Jefferson? Man what does that prove!:smoke: (there ifigured ou t the smiley thing even tho i don't smoke)

Later

[Jai4WKC08]

89. Like I said

It doesn't "prove" anything about your sincerity. But because of how often those who are not sincere either joined recently and/or don't have many posts, some of us are immediately suspicious. It really can't be helped and I hope you can understand.

[Agony]

92. like I said, I learn somethin every day! No problem here.

[Agony]

73. oh, and

I think there a couple of older posts in my journal...

Anyway I can't see how supporting Massa in any way undercuts Clark. Lets get Massa and a bunch of other dems in in '06 and then fight like hell for the dem in '08. Clark would be fine with me as would a lot of other dems.

[FrenchieCat]

75. Clark supports Massa, and do Clark supporters....

When you look at the Massa thread, you should note that only Clark supporters responded....meaning, your comment would have done well to have been apporached slightly differently....and, had you provided a link to that Massa thread, your message would have been more constructive.

Apart from that, your message is the same as Gen. Clark: Let's fight like hell for 2006 candidates! That's exactly what Wes wants. and he most likely agrees that everything else is Bullshit! :hi:

[robbedvoter]

77. I posted there, voted. Now I post here. Mother, may I?

Thare's only that much I can say - "done it" in the other. Pissing your people - not a very good way to get support, I might add.

[Agony]

81. Can we stop the grousing at each other

Holy cow....I submitted a poorly written post. I am obviously a newbie at this and had no intention of starting a pissing match. I was trying to figure out why it seemed to me that there were at least 20 people on the Clarck thread who might be interested in suppoting Eric who is only at 4% in the Boxer poll. ????

[Jai4WKC08]

84. Oh, btw... I forgot to say above

I had already gotten Boxer's e-mail and voted for Eric. But I didn't even know that's what the thread was about--just glossed over it for the reasons I gave.

I would also like to add that, even tho this thread is about Clark, it's not completely about 2008. Since most of what Clark is doing is for 2006 (to include Massa... heck, especially Massa, since he was the first candidate Clark endorsed this year), anything that promotes Clark also promotes 2006 candidates. If my siggy, for example, gets one person to visit WesPAC and sign up, it helps guys like Massa and all the others.

Plus, a whole slew of the posts in this thread talk about how Clark turned Maher back to 2006, how he shot him down about the idea that Democrats have no plan, how the media hurts us, etc. That's all about 2006 as well.

[Agony]

86. OK, Thats all anybody had to say!

It prob would have been better if I put a "?" after the title of my original post. Massa is fighting in a district that has a lot of rural conservative repubs (i know all too well). He's talking about bringing Cleland here, man i hope so. Might be a good thing if Wes came with him.

Hey, If you don't learn something every day. You are probably dead.

on edit... hey maybe you can tell me. Is there a way to embed images in a post? I tried to figure it out when i got back from NYC last weekend. or is that only poss from an external server?

[Jai4WKC08]

101. Images are super easy at DU

All you have to do is type or paste the url in. No "img" or "scrn" or other html.

I think you can't put two images right together tho. I might be wrong, or maybe there is another way. I just know I tried once and had trouble with it. I think I gave up.

[Donna Zen]

88. k

I was also surprised by Eric's poor % in the Boxer poll. I didn't notice your post count or check your profile, but then I never pay much attention to such things. I do stand by my original post: if you want to get Eric's numbers up, other non-Clark threads might yield more votes. Most people who post in a Clark thread would have already voted for Eric.

Your idea and action are great. I hope you some time to also check on Clark threads. If we were thin-skinned, we would have been gone long ago.

[Agony]

91. thx, so what'a you do

copy and paste the URL out of the browser into a new post to make a link to another post thread?

yeah, seriously if i were thin skinned i wouldn't be here either.

[Donna Zen]

96. posting another thread????

The way you mentioned will work. Although above the "message" box, you will find a link to the "HTML" lookup table. The code for posting links that open the link in a new window is there. Very nice too. One other thing: In the past whenever I've posted links to DU, the link picks up my user name; someone told me that it's in the coding of the url. Therefore, I always log out before copy/pasting the url. <---This is probably a very dumb thing I just wrote, but I'll risk it for you :-)

[Jai4WKC08]

103. "If we were thin-skinned, we would have been gone long ago."

LOL! Good point, Donna!

Actually, I may be a little thin-skinned. Some days more than others. I'm trying to play "Tom" today, since he's not around. ;) But I TRY always to care more about supporting Clark, his message, and what he's trying to accomplish, than to worry about my own hurt feelings or outrage. I have to admit, sometimes I just throw up my hands and say, I can't take this s*** anymore. Then I come back for more. Maybe I'm a masochist, ya think?

[Agony]

100. Thanks, folks..I gotta go to work. Sorry to divert your Wes thread so much

[Maddy McCall]

114. You didn't divert it. Welcome to DU.

Don't let the nitpickers and bossy butts get you down.

Enjoy your time here--you'll learn as we all did...through trial and error.

:toast:

[lwcon]

115. My two favorite quotes from this episode

Bill Maher: "Republicans always say 'government doesn't work, it's inefficient.' Yeah, the way you do it!"

Bradley Whitford: "Why did it take six years for the President to acknowledge what everybody else knew? Apparently the science wasn't in on global warming, but it was on weapons of mass destruction."

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"