Wes Clark Surpasses Feingold in Presidential Poll at MyDD

[jenmito]

Tired of online straw polls that showed Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) “would win any poll huge that did not include Gore, and that Gore would win any poll huge no matter who else was included,” Chris Bowers suspended progressive activist MyDD polling for four months. Now they’re back and the results looks a little different:
Wesley Clark 546 (27.2%)
John Edwards 522 (26.0%)
Russ Feingold 444 (22.2%)
Mark Warner 311 (15.5%)
Not Sure 47 (2.3%)
Bill Richardson 41 (2.0%)
Hillary Clinton 40 (2.0%)
John Kerry 18 (0.9%)
Evan Bayh 17 (0.8%)
Joe Biden 10 (0.5%)
Tom Daschle 3 (0.1%)
Tom Vilsack 3 (0.1%)
Chris Dodd 2 (0.1%)

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/07/18/wes-clark-surpasses-gore-and-feingold-in-presidential-poll-at-mydd/


:D

[SharonRB]

1. Nice to see Hillary dropping way down

Of course, if it's a MyDD poll, it might be as slanted as a DU poll would be.

[IndianaGreen]

59. I am glad too that Hillary is dropping like a rock

Her recent public cheerleading of Israel's bombing of Lebanon's cities, infrastructure, hospitals, grain silos, gas stations, bridges, etc., puts her on the same moral level as Condi Rice.

[Mabus]

2. Gore wasn't an option

At least he's not listed on that poll. The only other explanations are that Gore either got no votes at all or, like in Volusia County in 2000, he ended up with negative numbers thanks to the voting machine.

[NYCGirl]

3. You might want to change the title. GORE IS NOT ON THAT POLL. NT

[jenmito]

8. Sorry. I just copy and pasted the title of the article...

And he wrote this for some reason:

"As a review of these pages would show, I voted for Gen. Clark in the California primary in 2004, however I stand by my more recent prediction that Al Gore, whose fan I am not, will be Democratic nominee in 2008."

[Mabus]

11. But the title is inaccurate and misleading

:shrug: It just seems dishonest to proclaim someone has surpassed Gore in a poll when Gore wasn't even included in the poll.

on edit: Thank you for being honest even if the place you copied it from wasn't.

[NYCGirl]

12. So you might want to change the highly misleading title. OK? NT

[jenmito]

15. Done. n/t

[nickshepDEM]

4. YOUR post count is 666...

Just saying...

[jenmito]

10. I didn't notice that!...

Thanks for letting me know. :evilgrin:

[El Supremo]

5. Great. Clark is my candidate. n/t

[Mabus]

6. Check original source: Gore not listed as option on poll

http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=12345

Your subject line is just plain wrong.

[jenmito]

13. I changed it...

Sorry...I just used their title.

[NYCGirl]

Thanks! NT

[Mabus]

14. Thank you n/t

[democrank]

7. Clark is my first choice.

Proud to support him.

[ShockediSay]

9. We need a tried and tested military vet to straighten out this mess

esp one w/ successful NATO experience

esp one who has spoken out against the milking by the military contractors who hire gov types after the procurements

I expect a ton of establishment Rove dirty trix type resistance to this guy

[Bobbieo]

18. That's been my argument right along - Clark for Pres!!!

[madfloridian]

19. We do not need a military person in the white house.

Now is not the time.

[FrenchieCat]

22. No....now is the time to continue to have those who know nothing about

such matters to keep running the world into the ground! :nuke:


They can always say "sorry" after the fact! :eyes:

[madfloridian]

29. Are you implying our Democrats are not capable of leading?

Now that is just going too far. It does not take a general to put a country back in order. That is just not true.

Clark has only had experience in the military and big business. He made...what was it?....11 million from the sale of James Lee Witt last year. Need to check the details. Maybe that was total sale, he got a share. Article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011802236.html?nav=rss_business/governmentJames

He has not run even a state government, and he has not served in congress.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Going too far? Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities......

:eyes:

Clark made 11 million from the fact that he was co-chairman/founder of that firm.....a firm that examplified the fact that Wes Clark doesn't ONLY know about the military and business. Emergency preparedness is also an area that I want my commander in chief to be an expert in....so there!

In reference to "a" General, Wes Clark is not "a" General....he is Wes Clark who has hands on experience in a myriad of matters that I find fitting for the leader of this country. You can lump 'em all together and then stereotype if you want.....I choose to actually see what folks have done of worth as individuals.

So no, it doesn't necessarily only take "a" General.....but then I don't think it only takes "a" Senator or "a" governor either!

(don't put words in my mouth.....cause it ain't yours) :eyes:

[Capn Sunshine]

62. OK Frenchie, how about this:

People who believe they need a big daddy, like say, someone who was high ranking military, therefore "strict", in the White House

are wrong. WRONG. WRONG.

even though I think you're the cat's meow.
:loveya:

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. "Wrong" people vote also, ya know. Sometimes they even swing elections

But as for myself, I'm not looking for a strict "daddy", and that's sure as hell not how I see Clark. As a teacher, maybe, as a Daddy, absolutely not.

What I'm looking for is an honest, honorable, intelligent, experienced and competent person to lead our nation through the challanges we face over the next decade. I figure there have to be a number of other voters out there who are looking for the same.

[FrenchieCat]

73. OK Capn,

Please know that I certainly don't need no Big Daddy.....Cause I can take care of myself :) .... but I do want a strong (read opposite of timid), principled (read opposite of most politicians), honest (read opposite of most politicians), straight thinker (read opposite of a fence sitter), and more than anything; someone who gets it right when it comes down to "Crunch" time by knowing exactly what the Fuck they are doing (pardon my French)(instead of someone getting it all wrong and then saying Sorry)....so that I go on with my life, instead of babysitting a "boy" President! That's what I want!

Side note--Heard it through the grapevine that Capn Sunshine is a big daddy hunk! Now deny it! I dare ya! :P

[Pithy Cherub]

37. Sure it is! Clark has all of the required skills and

the important national security skill that so many are without. Those candidates without that type of national security expertise or FP portfolio in this day and age will have credibility issues as the world is a powder keg. America made many of the problems and needs to have a leader with the leadership talent, personal charisma, security skills to put America back on moral high ground. That person in my estimation is Wes Clark.

:hi:

[Cosmocat]

79. He is ABSOLUTELY the right man ...

at the right time ...

The best military/international creds of any possible candidate and a highly nuanced PROGRESSIVE ideology ... T

This next presidential election is going to be perhaps the most important in this country's history, perhaps the world ... Amazing, we were SO set up for great things in 2000, and it has come to this ... We HAVE to ace this one ...

Personally, just fromm his attitude, his personality and what he has done/said to this point, I would trust him as much as any other dem (and obviously CLEARLY ahead of any repuke) based strictly on domestic issues ... I think he would (WILL) push for a workable univeral health care system, I think he will tear down a good bit of the imperialistic presidency he would (WILL) walk into ... Those kinds of things ...

But, in light of the fact that Iraq WILL loom HEAVILY, and all the other fires internationally ... We HAVE to have a president who can get our position in the world restored/restore stability to the world ... NO ONE ... NO ONE that I can see is even close to him in this regard ...

[union_maid]

16. I voted

for Clark first and Edwards second. If only my choices worked out so well in real elections.

[madfloridian]

17. Clark always has, always will, win online polls.

Everyone knows it, but no one is supposed to say it. I just did. So bite me.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Actually you're wrong.....as Fiengold and Gore had been winning that poll

a few months back.

Maybe "it's the National Security, stupid!" afterall, isn't the world exploding as we speak? :shrug:

[madfloridian]

25. Clark is not going to rescue us from all the evils we have done.

He just is no more qualified, and maybe not as much so, than any of the others. He just is not.

[FrenchieCat]

26. You have your opinion, and I have mine.....

Obviously, they are not the same.

I say Wes Clark is more qualified than many on that list, you say he is not more so than others.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one......

[pocoloco]

30. He wins real elections also,

Won our primary!!!!!

[Donna Zen]

35. One of the contibuting factors of the latest war

Essentially one of the advocates for peaceful settlement in the ME has been Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, but when he found himself in the sequence of events leading up to the latest war, he deferred to the hawks. More knowing observers than I point to Olmert's lack of military experience. That is the way it always is when politicians get caught with a weakness.

That is why Hillary is running as a hawk, and that is why she would govern as a hawk without ever questioning one penny of the MIC budget. I know that to many this may seem like upside-down reasoning, and yet it is absolutely the way it is.

I used the example of Hillary, but there are several of the others to whom it would apply. MF as close follower of politics, I think that you have seen the evidence of this. And no one hates war more than those who have faught them.

This is not to question who you support, I have no idea about that. I do question the conclusion you have reached. For me, a very unmilitary person, a general at this time in history, is exactly what peace demands.

All I can say about the domestic problems we face is 1) we need the pork out of the Pentagon to pay for what we want and 2) we no longer live in a world where the domestic policy can be separated from foreign policy. We can yearn to help the poor all we want, but without gravitas on security issues in the bully pulpit, we are spitting in the wind.

[madfloridian]

39. Here is what bothers me, always has.

Look at the guys running in 08 (and those who ran in 06) who have been Democrats for most of their political lives, worked for the party, campaigned for office, held governor's seats or congressional seats. Good Democrats who are qualified in every way.

Yet, in the 04 primaries Bill Clinton saw fit to call behind the scenes for Clark. We know for sure he called Dean's backers, he got caught doing it. We don't know if he did it to others.

Clark is a general, a good one, I am sure. He is a military person who has been a lobbyist and worked with the companies who made the databases for CAPPS II. He is not a life long Democrat, he is no more qualified than than the others who worked hard to be Democrats.

That is what bothers me. I don't know why Bill Clinton did it, but he did it at least to Dean before Iowa. I don't know if he did it to others, but I have heard rumors. There were long time Democrats, good ones, who might have been manipulated by a former president behind the scenes to get a general in at a time of war to get the attention of people who were scared and fearful.

He gave judgment on at least Dean, saying he lost credibility to be president because he signed the civil unions bill in VT. That is just so horrible to me that a former Democratic president would do that to a good man and then endorse another who said he was pro civil unions as well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. If you have a beef with Bill Clinton, focus your anger on him

You know I felt let down personally by Al Gore in 2004, who I had worked for to become our President in 2000, when he told me that for the good of the Party I should give up supporting the person I wanted as our next President before a single Democratic party member had a chance to cast a single vote in a single Democratic Primary, and close ranks behind the man he supported instead. MF, you talk passionately about the importance of primaries in the Democratic Party, can you see how some of us felt like that was interference also? Gore was the last Democratic elected President to openly call for the Democratic Party to unite behind a Presidential candidate before the primaries even began, not Bill Clinton. For what it is worth, I have put the negative feelings that incident aroused in me about Al Gore behind me. I like Gore a lot and would be proud to work for his election if he gets the 2008 nomination. Can you try to let go of 2004 also?

And Clark is called "one of the good guys" who worked to protect our civil liberties, by the man who wrote the book on government attempts to invade our privacy; "No Place to Hide", Robert O'Harrow Jr
http://www.noplacetohide.net/

ROBERT O’HARROW:
"...There is a guy that I think many of us in the room respect and admire deeply, General Clark, and he serves as a great example of someone who was deeply involved in representing a company called Axiom. And Axiom was one of those companies that responded with – I know that from my reporting – very patriotic motives. They had a lot of that as a marketer and they shared it and they shared it to good effect; it helped. They also saw ways that they could change their business model and become part of the security industrial complex. And one of the people that was helping open doors for Axiom in Washington was General Clark. The reason I raise that is because I kept finding that General Clark got to places before I did and people spoke admiringly of his ability to say what he knew, to say what he didn’t know, to play it straight, and to in every case do it in the smart way, which is why people respect him."

[madfloridian]

46. I think you know why Gore did that.

I don't want to go into all of it, some of it is quite painful. Every single one in the Democratic leadership was going against Dean about that time. Why is it ok for Clinton to call Dean's backers to drop him and back Clark? Is that wrong? Then why would you criticize Gore? It all hurt. It hurt everyone to have Clinton interfering. He was also telling Kerry what to do as well. He should have butted out, and he still should.

Gore stepped in because of what was going on behind the scenes.

Sauce for goose is sauce for the gander.

I would vote for Gore in a heartbeat. Dean is not going to run in 08, he loves what he is doing. He thrives on it, on the competition.

But I would vote for Gore in a heartbeat. I am fine with Edwards, fine with Kerry, fine with Feingold. Not too fond of the DLC guys, but in a pinch I would vote for them. They have had a chance to speak up for their war votes...Kerry and Edwards have.

We were talking at a DFA site recently. We value what we went through. Yes, many of us were returnees to political activism, many new altogether. We learned something that is keeping us together, some lurking, some active. We learned that this bunch of leaders, both Republican and Democrat, will screw anyone who gets in the way of their planned candidates.

There are 500 new folks signing up at DFA a week now, organizing ON the ground.

I like you, Tom, and I very much respect you. I just feel that if I am required to be humiliated because I supported Dean, called names, said to be paranoid....that those who dish it out must learn to take it. You never once did that, and I appreciate it.

I do consider you a thoughtful person, and I like your posts. Not trying to make you mad. Just time to speak out. I have noticed that since 04 my hubby and I and our friends in the party and DFA here are so very much stronger. We know we have nothing to lose.

People who have nothing left to lose, who learned that the guy they came back to the party for was told he would never be president....people who have nothing to lose can be very powerful indeed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. I don't want to revisit 2004 either MF

And like I said, I can enthusiasticly support Al Gore for President should he become our nominee in 2008. I will support a lot of Dems if they get the nomination, but Gore is one of only three who I feel any enthusiasm for. But if Dean were running again, you could make that number Four, as I could enthusiasticly support him also.

I was just pointing out that there are many wounds from 2004 that many of us could nurse if we focused on them, that's all. You know how much I respect Clark, MF, but I know you have seen me on DU and elsewhere over the last two years defending Howard Dean also, I think Howard is a treasure. And while I have always respected Al Gore, he has grown a lot more on me over the last year also. The other national Democrat who gets talked about for President who I have some admiration for is Russ Feingold.

[Donna Zen]

69. Talking about other Dems.

When I mentioned that you were talking about Clark, and sensing your dislike of the man, I simply put it together with your statement:

We were talking at a DFA site recently. We value what we went through. Yes, many of us were returnees to political activism, many new altogether. We learned something that is keeping us together, some lurking, some active. We learned that this bunch of leaders, both Republican and Democrat, will screw anyone who gets in the way of their planned candidates.

that you had been 1) talking about 04 and 2) including Clark in your negative analysis. That is what your statement says.

I'll get back to you on the rest.

BTW, I noticed that you didn't have anything to add about Clark standing up for Dean when the others were beating a retreat. Oh, and I agree with you that professional politicians tend to be back-stabbers. It is also true of the rank and file.

[madfloridian]

71. It was nice of Clark to stand up for Dean that time you mentioned.

No, we just talk in general. Most of the talk is about Dean's goals for the party now. He is making them more clear as time goes on. As I say, real change happens when people have nothing to lose, and he doesn't, and we don't.

But mostly we have candidates speak, do petition cards, work with the DEC itself.

Once a person has been told over and over he can't be president (by his own party leaders)....it gives a sense of freedom and it gives the ability to accomplish more.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Oh.....AND,

Carter called Wes Clark.....not Bill Clinton.....so go figure (I recall Dean attempting to get Carter's endorsement, meeting with him during a photo op.....but it "fell" through)--But what-E-ver!

Dean and Wes will be together soon working for the good of the Democratic party.....

maybe we can all rejoice in that, hey?
http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/state/15075491.htm

In addition, Wes Clark has spent a lifetime working for the good of our country and for many parts of the world......so whether he didn't do what you felt he should have specifically for the Democratic party for as long as you would have liked to see, I agree with the sentiments; Country before Party...and humanity before ideology.

Actually, that's the kind of President I would prefer! :patriot:

[madfloridian]

47. There was interference in that Carter deal.

Sorry, but them are the facts.

[FrenchieCat]

49. Like....Well, yea-ah!? first and foremost, from Jimmy Carter!

:rofl:

[madfloridian]

50. Clinton.

nuff said.

He needs to get his butt out of our races.

[FrenchieCat]

51. I'm yawning.....Clinton tells Carter what to do now.....

Would Carter appreciate that implication? Don't think so!

What about Gore? Did he keep his nose out of the 2004 elections, or did he endorse a primary candidate. If so (and Gore did)......why aren't you up in arms about that one? Sounds hypocritical that you want Clinton out of it.....and yet Gore is A-OK? Maybe Clinton wasn't on Howard Dean's side. Clinton still endorsed no one, whatever the book you read said.....Gore did. Gore was "compelled" I'm sure you'll say....however, I guess he could have "worked behind the scenes" too...but I'm sure you'll say objectional behavior can only be countered with the same objectional behavior; but I guess that's principle's for ya'!

But apart from that old everything is "it's the Clenis' fault" familiar lament....is there anything positive for you want to discuss? How about that article on the Young Democrat's convention. Any comments?




.........Didn't think so.

[madfloridian]

53. Did you read my post above at all?

I covered all of that.

[FrenchieCat]

54. Which one....the one that makes Gore's action justifiable.....

and Clinton's indefensible?


Yeah....I read that post.

and since it's not the first time you have posted all of that stuff, I've even seen it even before today!

[madfloridian]

55. SO...why is one ok and not the other?

I never had an answer.

[FrenchieCat]

56. No one is whining about this other than you......

If you need an answer, ask yourself.

[madfloridian]

57. I did.

And I think that Clinton and others were interfering behind the scenes, Gore decided what he needed to do and did it.

What is ok for one is ok for the other. That was my answer to myself.

How dare Clinton tell people Dean lost credibility to be president by signing a civil unions bill. How dare no one else be upset by this in a prez primary.

I find it truly alarming that a man was told he could never be president. Hell, no wonder he had that pep rally in Iowa that some call the scream. I don't blame him.

Maybe someday, since there has not been a person grab the party reins after being told that....maybe someday things will be different.

[FrenchieCat]

58. Jeeze.... does someone have to paint you a picture?

This is old. No one cares so much what you say clinton, Carter or Gore did back in 2004. Howard Dean is doing other things. Wes Clark is there in for the long haul as well.

as far as your theory.... :boring:

[madfloridian]

60. Go ahead and paint the picture, Frenchie Cat.

If it will make you feel better. I have been called such things here by people because I do not support Clark...that there is just not much left to do to me or left to call me.

There is little I have not been called.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Double.....

:boring: :boring:

[Texas_Kat]

74. Just so you know

Carter called Clark before he got into the race to ask him to run back in the summer 2003. The Dean/Carter photo op was in January 2004. No one interfered with anything Trippi may have imagined he had planned.

Jimmy Carter, DraftClark '03.

[madfloridian]

76. In light of other things that happened, that does not matter.

It really doesn't. Things happened during the primaries. Ugly things. This has nothing to do with Trippi, not this part anyway. It was done to embarrass Dean, and there was no need.

If you think Clark was actually drafted, I have swamp land for you. It looked like it, sure.

But enough said about 04. Don't you think?

The party leaders did NOT want Dean as president. He was not the one. They took care of it.

It does not matter really that much. It is just that so many of us had our eyes truly open to the lies, the backstabbing, etc that are done.

Actually, it gives impetus to what needs to be done to change things.

Carter is a good man, but that is not the whole story.

[Texas_Kat]

77. Drafted? Yeah, he really was

It was a rollercoaster and seldom 'sweetness and light' but it was also amazing. I was there almost from the beginning.

"Lies, the backstabbing....", you say.

Yeah, that's what 'typical' politicians learn to do.

I'll be forever grateful that Clark isn't a typical, career politician. He learned in a more dangerous arena (long ago) that lies have consequences. He's never sold his integrity for expediencey and he doesn't put personal political gain above the truth.

If you have a problem with 'typical politicians' I'd suggest your target should be a 'typical politician'.

[Donna Zen]

63. Difficult to know where to begin:

Bill Clinton is first and foremost a politician. If he wanted Clark, then he surely has an odd way of showing it. I remember Clinton during the primaries telling the press that generals are thinned skinned. And Clinton's surrogates: Begala, Carville, and McAuliffe didn't do Clark any favors. Quite the opposite.

Does Clinton like General Clark? That is an interesting question; however, Clark saved Bill's bacon in Kosova. They do go back a long way. Certainly longer than anyone else who was running in 04. So, I suppose one could safely say that Clinton appreciates exactly who Clark is.

CAPPS II: Having sat on a board of company and having any involvement in CAPPS II are two very different things. Wes was gone from Acxion long before CAPPS II. At some point Wes did register as a lobbyist. First, because he had been working for months without any pay and second, because his nebuous status was limiting his access to the discussions. What he advocated for at that table was the involvement of ACLU and other civil rights people to participate in any discussions. I appreciate knowing that a defender of my rights and yours was speaking up. I also do not put down people with inaccurate inferences who busted their butt to defend my rights. I would hope MF that you are better than that.

As far as being a good Democrat, well, many of those who would fall into that category failed to defend Dean early in his tenure at the DNC. Remember? Edwards and the lot of them were saying that Dean didn't speak for them. What did Clark do? He went to NH on flag day and said: Howard Dean is doing a great job! Oh...how soon we forget the good deeds as we hold on to half-truths? Eli Segel ran Clark's campaign. Ya think he might have asked Clinton to make some calls? Who do you think was putting out all of those flyers dissing Clark in NH? Dean's campaign. Do I think that makes Dean unfit to represent me? No. Because that was then, and this is now.

But let me make this perfectly clear, except for Gore and Feingold, I'd take one team playing general to 1,000,000 of those back-stabbing wishy-washy useless so-called good Dems. Leadership. Leadership is worth more to me than how many campaign schmoozes that a person has under their belt.

So you can diss Clark at DFA all you want, because you are own master. And I will continue to say good things about Dean because I want to look toward the future with an open mind.

[madfloridian]

65. Nowhere did say we diss Clark at DFA. I did not say that.

We don't even talk about him. We are working on local candidates, doing what we can to at least get some folks running next time.

About the flyers, come on. That was a campaign. That is what people do. But seldom if ever have I heard of a president who claims to respect the rights of others make calls saying the leading candidate lacks credibility because he signed a civil unions bill. He happened to call someone who a gay backer of Dean. Not good.

I am not dissing anyone, I am presenting my arguments clearly. Don't tell me Clark was not at Acxiom during Capps II. That is not true. Read this. I only present it because I feel he has profited from so many government things, like the Lousiana work with Katrina. There is nothing wrong or illegal, but it bothers me.

No one is perfect, none of them. He is a good man. I just think Clinton should have worked for some others who had made their creds as Democrats.

If I am wrong about CAPPS II, show me. But first read this.

"Mr. Vice President, we know you only have a short time, and we have some very important matters to discuss," Clark said, according to a person who attended the session. "So if you don't mind, I'd like to just jump into the meeting." Cheney nodded, and Clark raced through a 10-minute summation of what Acxiom, a Little Rock firm that collects and sorts detailed consumer data on virtually every American, could do to aid the war on terrorism.

Cheney digested the presentation, which focused on verifying the identities of airline passengers, then peppered Clark and Acxiom lead executive Charles D. Morgan with questions about how to use the data without infringing on consumer privacy rules.

Seven months later, Acxiom won a Department of Homeland Security subcontract to help create CAPPS II, a passenger-screening database considered one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised. The government has delayed implementing CAPPS II, in part because of privacy concerns, but the contract was Clark's biggest success in his brief career as a Washington lobbyist.

Clark's lobbying was one of many business activities that, by his account, boosted his income almost 20-fold in the 42 months between his resignation from the Army and the start of his presidential campaign last September."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58300-2004Jan28.html

And one more paragraph which sort of seals the Capps II deal being done then:

"In addition to meeting Cheney, for example, Clark helped Acxiom get in the door at the Justice Department, the Department of Transportation, the Transportation Security Administration and FinCEN, a Treasury Department agency responsible for financial intelligence. The firm was awarded the subcontract by Lockheed Martin Corp. in competitive bidding."


If I am wrong, I will apologize. Clark is a good man, I just disagree on wanting him for president. I have stood up about that though I have had tactics of humiliation used against me. You and Tom R do not, and I appreciate it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. Here MF, Clark from the same conference I quoted from above

After he was introduced by Robert O'Harrow Jr, who praised Clark's concerns over civil liberties and data collection:

"...Can I just say one more thing about this impulse to privacy that you’ve mentioned, Bob, because when I was doing this – and I want to say this because Nuala is here, because when the government starts working programs and it does know where they go and where they going they are always cautious because everybody knows that these programs that do data are very sensitive. Before the government could even get a grip on some of these programs, when the word comes out on them they are blasted before people even understand it. So on the one hand, I understand exactly why there is an impulse for privacy. People – companies like Axiom were told, “Look, you just can’t compete for this contract if you talk about this to the press because we don’t know what the program is and we want to have – we want to be able to –“ this is – I’m speaking for the government – “We want to be able to see what data you have available. We want to figure out if we can use it, and we don’t want to have to answer a million inquiries from the press about it until we get it done. Then we’ll run it through.

You know, my instinct on it was a little bit different than the government’s, but I didn’t have any influence on them. I mean, my instinct would have to bring in the ACLU and to say, “Please create a group that’s sort of like a trusted group that we can bounce ideas off of and we want to run these ideas by you. And if you have strong objections, we want to hear them. We want to hear them right upfront. What we ask is that you will work with us in a collaborative sense so that – you know, you tell us before you run out to the Washington Post the next day and we have got (unintelligible.)” So, you know, we are just exploring ideas. We want to try to put this together and I do think there is a need for that. There is a need for enough privacy in governmental decision-making that the government can come out with programs and then have a chance to explain them, not to take anything away from the press because that balance is a dynamic balance. It’s fought by and maintained by hardworking reporters who make a lot of phone calls and get turned down a lot, but it’s a very important public duty.

So I am not sure if the balance is right is what I am saying. I don’t know if it’s right and that is one of issues we ought to explore..."


I don't know your situation MF, but I am self employed and fly a lot on business. I was there at the airports after 9/11 waiting in line with people to get onto planes, and people were scared stiff back then. Planes left half full because people were afraid to get on them and it was killing small businesses all over the country that depend on providing services to travelers. 98% per cent of the public want to have passengers boarding air planes screened for possible terrorist connections, and I am firmly in that 98%. I just want it done right, with adequate sensitivity to civil liberties, and that always was and remains Clark's position. During the time period cited in your story, almost all leading Democrats were meeting with and cooperating with Bush Administration officials including the VP to work together to provide security inside America from further attacks which most people then believed would soon be coming.

[Jai4WKC08]

84. The way I see it...

You aren't accusing Bill Clinton of doing anything that you or I or any other Democrat isn't free to do.

You say Clinton called behind the scenes for Clark. I don't know that he did (since the sources of that info are hardly impartial); but if he did, so what? Why can't any Democrat call up his friends and/or associates and try to talk them into supporting someone he or she prefers? Can you tell me you didn't try to do that for Dean?

Fact is, if Clinton made any calls, I tend to think he did it because he didn't want Dean to get the nomination, not because he wanted Clark. That he is reported to have been calling behind the scenes in Iowa sort of proves it, since Clark wasn't contesting Iowa. If anything, Clark's NH strategy pretty much counted on Dean winning Iowa (or coming in second behind Gephardt), so whatever Clinton may have done there worked AGAINST Clark, intentionally or otherwise.

But whatever. There's nothing mysterious, nefarious or even unethical about it. The reason Clinton may have made those calls is rather obvious--Clinton simply didn't think Dean could beat Bush. He said as much, and claimed it was because of the civil union law... I suspect he was just being nice, but it really doesn't matter why he thought Dean couldn't win. The fact is he didn't, and Clinton of all people is a pretty damn good judge. Nor was he unique in that belief. I'd say most Democrats who opposed Dean (as opposed to preferring someone else) did so because they just didn't think he could win. That's why there was so much talk about electability. And why Dean's support in NH evaporated when Kerry came out of Iowa a winner. Clark's support too, for that matter, since he lost those who supported him for being more electable than Dean. EVERY Democrat wanted (and still wants) Bush out more than anything. Clinton was no different.

As for your other objections to Clark, well... you're just mistaken about CAPPS II, as others have explained above. But I think you knew that before; it's been discussed often enough.

I really don't care whether Clark is "a life long Democrat" and will never cease to be amazed at how many Dems like yourself can't see what an advantage it is that he isn't. And I certainly disagree that he "is no more qualified than the others." Clark is emminently more qualified. It's sad that you can't see it, but ultimately says more about you than about him.

Finally, I am sort of sick of the Deanie-delusion that there was no Draft Clark movement. Those of us who were part of it get mighty tired of being called liars.

[madfloridian]

90. I posted the article above about Clark's meeting with Cheney..

as a lobbyist for Acxiom. Talk to the WP if need be, it is their article.

Clinton had the nerve to say that a man could not be president because he signed a civil unions bill. That is very serious stuff there. He was deciding who could be president. He was judging a good man when he had his own warts.

I am surprised you keep defending Clark's lobbying for several companies. Nothing illegal, just that he was way into the Homeland Security databases. I said that bothers me...it does.

If you wish to defend someone running for president after lobbying for homeland security contracts and Katrina projects making huge profits, if you wish to defend a man who used to be president who judged one and said he could never be president.....then go ahead.

I don't call you guys Clarkies, it is demeaning. I don't mind Deaniac, but Deanie implies teeny bopper which I am not.

Clinton hurt us by his affair/affairs in office, yet he judged Dean as unfit for signing a civil unions bill.

If you don't see what is wrong with that picture, I am sorry.

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. MF, did you read the information I gave you...

...on "No Place To Hide", Robert O'Harrow Jr., and the Center for Investigative Reporting? Here is the web site again:
http://www.noplacetohide.net/

Here is the intro blurb for the web site:

"When you go to work, stop at the store, fly in a plane, or surf the web, you are being watched. They know where you live, the value of your home, the names of your friends and family, in some cases even what you read. Where the data revolution meets the needs of national security, there is no place to hide."

Robert O'Harrow is a leading national expert on the data revolution and the loss of our privacy.

Here is a review of "No Place To Hide":

"This surveillance state is not a futuristic place conjured in a Philip K. Dick novel or 'Matrix'-esque sci-fi thriller. It is post-9/11 America, as described in Robert O'Harrow Jr.'s unnerving new book, No Place to Hide - an America where citizens' 'right to be let alone,' as Justice Louis Brandeis of the Supreme Court once put it, is increasingly imperiled, where more and more components of our daily lives are routinely monitored, recorded and analyzed."

- Michiko Kakutani, The New York Times


I think he O'Harrow knows more about this threat than you and I put together with all of our friends MF, and HERE AGAIN IS WHAT ROBERT O'HARROW JR HAD TO SAY ABOUT WES CLARK'S ROLE:

ROBERT O’HARROW:
"...There is a guy that I think many of us in the room respect and admire deeply, General Clark, and he serves as a great example of someone who was deeply involved in representing a company called Axiom. And Axiom was one of those companies that responded with – I know that from my reporting – very patriotic motives. They had a lot of that as a marketer and they shared it and they shared it to good effect; it helped. They also saw ways that they could change their business model and become part of the security industrial complex. And one of the people that was helping open doors for Axiom in Washington was General Clark. The reason I raise that is because I kept finding that General Clark got to places before I did and people spoke admiringly of his ability to say what he knew, to say what he didn’t know, to play it straight, and to in every case do it in the smart way, which is why people respect him."

And about this comment of yours MF:

"If you wish to defend someone running for president after lobbying for homeland security contracts and Katrina projects making huge profits... then go ahead".

Yeah, I'll take that on, because I think it is a low blow. Clark at first volunteered to help Axiom offer it's technology to the government, and only after it became clear that Clark's involvement would span more than a few meetings, yes he then registered as a lobbyist and got paid. And he did a damn good job and I wish there were more people like Wes Clark involved back then, more people who like Clark would win the admiration of someone like Robert O'Harrow Jr., more people like Wes Clark who believed that the ACLU should have been brought into the loop for consultations about civil liberties implications from day one. I'm glad Clark was involved MF, and I'm proud of the importance he paid then and now to protecting American's civil liberties.

Do you know what Clark's net worth was when he declared as a Presidential Candidate for the 2004 race? Between $3 million and $3.5 million, according to public records his campaign released. Do you know what John Kerry's was? According to reporting done by the Center for Public Integrity in January 2003; "Kerry, a democratic presidential candidate, has listed assets worth between $165 and $626 million on his latest financial disclosure forms." How about John Edwards? From the same source; "Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., ($8.7 million)". And Howard Dean? Again; "former Gov. Howard Dean, D-Vt., ($3.9 million)".
http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=1


The difference between Wes Clark and these other men is that Clark waited much later in life to prioritize achieving financial security for his extended family. Except for Clark's last few years in in the Army, his pay never hit six figures a year, for over half of his career it was under $50,000 a year. As the number One ranking officer to graduate from his class at West Point, as the most decorated American General since Eisenhower, the Military Industrial Complex constantly attempted to lure Clark into the private sector working on their behalf for very lucrative returns, but Clark always refused. And when Clark finally did retire from the military he made a conscious decision not to work for any weapon manufacturers. The issue isn't how Clark was able to accumulate some personal wealth after he left the military, the issue is why Clark never took the route of easy earlier money, though it was constantly available to a man of his talent and standing.

Clark did well with Witt Associates because Witt Associates had the talent and skills needed to do effective emergency response work, and Gulf region states and local government knew that was true. Clark did not join the firm to get money from Hurricane Katrina, he joined before then. Clark offered his skills in strategic analysis, logistical planning, and large scale operations management to his friend Witt, the former F.E.M.A. director under Bill Clinton, when F.E.M.A. still knew how to respond effectively to a crisis. It is no wonder they got contracts in the wake of Katrina, unlike the Federal government they knew what they were talking about. Most of the money Clark got from that business came from the later sale of his ownership stake in that business, not from contracts it won to do work in the wake of Katrina.

Clark is no richer now than other Democratic politicians who are routinely honored and supported at DU, and he got that money the hard way, he earned it. He earned it by risking his life for his nation, he earned it after moving his family 31 times in 38 years to serve his nation where it asked him to when it asked him to. He earned if for being good at what he does, just like John Edwards earned his millions, and I assume Howard Dean, though I'm not sure how much of his money came down through his family. MF, if you or anyone else wants to question the value of the services that Clark provided America either in or out of uniform, please do so directly. But I resent any inference that Clark is an opportunist who got rich off improper lobbying over national security and human suffering. His deeds stand fully on their merit.

[Jai4WKC08]

98. You may have posted it, but you obviously either didn't read it

Or didn't understand what you were reading. Or had already made up your mind what it meant. Or are purposely misconstruing what it said.

There is NOTHING in that article about "Clark's lobbying for several companies" (only one -- Acxiom), nor anything that says "he was way into the Homeland Security databases" (which is completely untrue). The article also implies (and it can be verified by what others here have posted) that CAPPSII was developed well after Clark left Acxiom. It also clearly states that Clark was a lobbyist for a very short time.

Ya know, it's kind of funny. If Clark worked like most people in his position (a very senior retired official with many contacts thru numerous branches of govt), you would never know he'd done any lobbying for Acxiom, because he never would have bothered to register.

I can't even believe you are holding Clark's work for James Lee Witt's company against him. Witt LLC was the outfit representing the state of Louisianna after Katrina hit, hired by the governor, to help make Homeland Security and FEMA do their jobs properly. Sounds to me like you're grasping at straws on this one too. And very low to imply that there was any lobbying involved.

As for Clinton... I still don't see what he may or may not have done to Dean has to do with Clark. But I do defend his right to politic for or against any candidate he wishes. And while I don't know what you think Clinton actually said (you provide no quote -- was it just rumor?), there's a big difference between saying Dean is "unfit" for the presidency, and saying he couldn't win the presidency. Which is, I think you'll find, what Clinton is alleged to have said.

But hey, if you want to think it was all a big plot that bring down Dean, instead of his own failings, I can't stop you. Poor, pitiful Dean.... (except there's really nothing pitiful about him... just some of his supporters).

Sorry about the Deanie thing. I thought most Dean supporters prefer "Deanie," since "Deaniac" is sort of derived from "maniac." And Deanie is more like Clarkie, which I'll admit I didn't like for a long time, but have come to accept. Whatever.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Those First four should be who runs, IYAM.....

Obviously those who vote MYDD follow politics closely......while those who were polled in the Gallup poll...not so much!

I still see the next two elections as "it's the National security, stupid"....as were elections 2002 and 2004.

If peace breaks out all over the globe though, ask me again! I'll tell you then that if there is peace, Bush will given the credit, and if so....then the GOP wins anyways! :shrug:

[Clarkansas]

23. Clark or Warner for me!

[Totally Committed]

24. Doesn't matter -- Hillary's got all the $$$$$$$$$....

They are going to try and shove her down our throats. Just wait and see.

(Pssssssst......We can't let that happen!)

TC

[Sam Odom]

27. Clark is no Eisenhower therefore

he needs to be elected to be electable. Let him get elected to congress 1st. Although I think he could be a viable VP

[FrenchieCat]

28. Did someone say that Clark was Eisenhower?

In reference to being elected to congress first.......why? Just curious.

[Sam Odom]

31. Ok

Name a person in modern history elected to Prez, OTHER THAN IKE, without winning a lesser political office?

[FrenchieCat]

33. Name a person in modern history elected to Prez,

Other than Bill Clinton, who was a governor of Arkansas.

History might be a guide....but it ain't the boss of me.

[Sam Odom]

34. You're being specious

Best of luck

[FrenchieCat]

36. Perhaps.....

However, to counter your original comment about Clark not being "electable" because he has never held lesser office.......and since he's not Eisenhower (who is the only one who has), Wes should hang it up....I will leave you with these thoughts for your reading:

When I look at history, what I see are Presidents that were elected Not because of what they had done in a previous office, as much as what they had to offer in personal character, style, temperament and life experience. Also, the issues they raise, the time in history, the way their campaign was ran, and the media’s own influence. Those are the major factors used to win elections.

President Kennedy didn’t get elected because he was an experienced senator, as much as because he had a compelling life story with his PT109 heroism and his personal charm and demeanor. Reagan was elected because of his affable great one liners and his rethorics (I can make us great again) and his movie star persona. He certainly did not become President because of his Governor’s record in California. President Carter won because he appeared honest, thoughtful and was literally an unknown to most. Voters, not what great things he did for Georgia.

John Kerry didn’t run in ‘04 based on the fact that he had accomplished great things in the office that he has held for over 20 years. Rather, he chose to run on his personal story of 35 years prior and the current issues. Most voters really don’t have a real clue has to what Kerry had achieved in office all of these years, because that is not what he chose to highlight.

So if I was asked why Wes Clark, it would be because of his personal life story and achievements. Maybe the fact that he has never held office is a minus, but remember that to some, it’s a plus. So it can be said that the issue of holding an elected office may be more of a mixed bag than you give it credit.

You were right on the fact are that Clark has not held any elected office, and is not per se a professional politician. However, is not a bad thing as far as I am concerned.....because I believe that it is his executive experience, character, leadership abilities and courage do make Clark “elect able”, because it is what Presidents need more so than anything else; Clark has these traits, IMO, although not via an elected position.

Bush Jr. had elective office experience, and worked with legislatures....and IMO, that did nothing for how well he has performed on the job. I disagree that what this nation is in need of right now....or possibly in 2008 is another professional elected politician.

a very simple job description for POTUS from Scholastic:
The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.

As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/presres/prsnapsh.htm

----------
Some will stay thinking in the box that we have been put in....and when thinking "President"...will only think about what the CW will push.....celebrities politicians (Hillary and Edwards) and Senators (Biden, Kerry, Bayh, Feingold and Boxer)and Governors (Warner, Richardson and Vilsack), and that's OK. But if you look at what this country needs right now - a leader with courage, and determination to do the right thing, those other candidates pale in comparison to Wes Clark, IMO.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1548301

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1517151

Some surely say that Wes Clark has no legislative or policy accomplishments at this point, and to that I will disagree because it depends on what you would label as "policy accomplishments".

Clark, a Rhodes scholar with advanced degrees from Oxford in Economics, Political Science and Economics was also a White House Fellow and served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He taught economics, and social science at West Point. He has worked as an Investment Banker since his retirement in 2000. So Clark is intelligent, experienced and qualified to deal with more than just National Defense and Foreign policy.

Did his "policy accomplishments" take place in an office? The answer is No.
Clark action on Affirmative Action article originall printed in the Detroit Free Press
http://www.clark04.com/articles/010/
Success of military diversity proves affirmative action works
Snip
In the University of Michigan affirmative action case this year, I joined military and political leaders in an amicus brief affirming my deeply held belief that policies combating discrimination are essential to good order, combat readiness and military effectiveness. As a result of these policies, the military is one of the most integrated institutions in America. And our country is safer today because it is defended by a diverse, integrated, talented military that is the envy of the world.

Testifying against a war before both houses of congress when you don't have to, counts as an accomplishment in my book.
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

Is standing up to the Pentagon and trying to get done “what’s right” an accomplishment? I think so.

Clark policy action on Genocide which eventually led to his "early retirement"
b]Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.
Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006054164...
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details.
General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.
She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .
He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).
According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.
She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."
".....Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."

Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .
"...I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."
http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/the_subtle_ar...
---------------
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html
http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/11/26/how_i_beca.php
--------------
When to this one adds that he did "effect" some who voted NO on the infamous IWR back in 2002, I think he has been very effective considering that he holds and has never held elective office.

Wellstone, Kennedy and Levin all quoted Wes Clark in their senate floor speech they gave prior to voting "NO".

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King a couple of months ago....

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

and Sen. Levin....here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

Paul Wellstone in his 2002 speech before voting NO on the IWR....
"But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/archive/article_detail.aspx?itemID=5423&catID=3605

In reference to your comment that the GOP has already "blown" their credibility on National Security.....don't be so sure and speak too fast......cause they blew it a long time ago, and yet, it doesn't seem to have helped Democrats regain any power to date. Plus, guess they could always say "sorry"...right?

Personally, I think that the below Awards speak volumes of Clark's policy accomplishments...although they may not have been for being the Governor of a small state...
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/awards.htm
General Wesley K. Clark USA (ret.) is the nation's most highly decorated officer since Dwight Eisenhower. Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards); Distinguished Service Medal (two awards); Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards); Bronze Star Medal (two awards); Purple Heart; Meritorious Service Medal (two awards); Army Commendation Medal (two awards); NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to Kosovo, NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Legacy of Leadership and Lady Liberty(TM) Award.
His Foreign awards include the Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom); Commander of the Legion of Honor (France); Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany; Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands); Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy; Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal); The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland; Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain); The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium); Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic); Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic; Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia; Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria); Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defense of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia); First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania); Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia); The Skandeberg Medal (Albania); Order of Merit of Morocco; Order of Merit of Argentina; The Grade of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia) and the Military Service Cross of Canada.
(Central Europe Sep. 8, 2000, U.S. State Department Oct. 2, 1999, http://Individual.com)
Going back when the Medal of Freedom meant something!
Jesse Jackson, Gen. Clark Awarded Medal of Freedom With 13 Others
Washington - An emotional President Bill Clinton praised the "keen intellect and loving heart" of sometime political rival Rev. Jesse Jackson, and the leadership of the iconoclastic general who disagreed with his strategy during the Kosovo air war, as he bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom .....
-------


and Good luck to you too! :hi:

[Dinger]

45. Dayum Frenchie! You Don't Screw Around, Do You?

Excellent, excellent post!:patriot:

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Ike, Powell and Clark are the modern Generals with Presidential ambitions.

I think they make a distinguished grouping, and collectively carry on the 18th and 19th century American tradition of our greatest military leaders being considered for the highest public office. In the last 50 years very few non career politicians have actually run for President, so of course there are no Presidents since Ike who attained the Presidency from anything other than a career in politics. And of course all of the politicians who became President had each won some prior offices first, because no one will ever get elected President who chose politics as their life profession but lost all of their previous attempts to win an elected office. They would be viewed as failures.

The last General who ran on a major ticket for President won, and that was Ike. Had Colin Powell run for President in 1996 or 2000, many believe he would have won also. What we do have though is an amazing recent record of all kinds of people with careers no more distinguished than having been a B Movie actor or Professional Wrestler running for Governor and winning at their first attempt in politics. Throw in former Astronauts, former comedians, former quarterbacks and former football coaches, former major league pitchers, all running for and getting elected to be either a Governor or Senator, not to mention self made millionaires and trial lawyers.

You can argue that a U.S. Senator, or a Governor of a State, is a lesser post to aspire to than being President, sure you can. And I can argue that a Four Star General Former NATO Supreme Commander, who held Head of State status in Europe and who led and won a war is light years more qualified for leadership than a movie actor, astronaut, wrestler or quarterback. Serving one or two terms in public office does not by itself qualify anyone with otherwise insufficient experience from being thought of as "Presidential material", but try telling that to America. If Schwarzenegger the Terminator had been born in America rather than Austria the hype to elect him President would have begun within months of his California election, in fact it still did with all that talk about changing the Constitution to let him run.

Nowadays sufficient celebrity buzz and/or money can get someone elected to anything, and you don't even have to do a decent job in the office you were first elected to in order to then run for President, look at George W. He rode his Daddy's name to power in Texas then rode it into Washington. Sure, he got "elected Governor", big deal. John Edwards, who is ten times more talented than George W. Bush could ever dream to be, used his skills gained working Juries in closing statements, his money, and his good looks to win a Senate Seat in North Carolina. Yes Edwards is intelligent also, but like Clark he "had no political record" when he ran for Senate. And then Edwards never had time to distinguish himself in the United States Senate. He was a freshman who almost became Gore's Vice Presidential nominee with two years experience as a Junior Senator. Edwards never faced the voters in North Carolina again after winning that single election, he never had to stand on his record representing them as their Senator, so how do we know they approved? Does simply sitting in the U.S. Senate for 5 years (take out one year for running for President) make someone qualified to be President? Want to run down the list of current Senators? How much importance as a Presidential prerequisite do you want to assign getting elected to a major office, after watching Reagan and Ventura and Schwarzenegger all pole vault into national prominence based on their celebrity wins?

Politics moves in cycles and for a half century professional politicians dominated National politics, but that has been cracking recently. That's why Reagan got elected Governor of California, that's why Perot was taken seriously as a third Party candidate, that's why Jessie Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota AND taken seriously, the same for Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that's why most seasoned observers of American politics thought that General Colin Powell could have won the Presidency if his wife had agreed to let him run for it. That's why more and more men and women are moving directly from business careers into State House capitals and the U.S. Senate. Simply ENTERING the Senate qualifies one to be considered for President under conventional wisdom (look at Obama on the Democratic side), and being rich and famous "qualifies" one to enter the Senate. Call me old fashioned but I think rising to the level of NATO Supreme Commander carries more intrinsic real leadership weight than winning one modern election.

If you go back to earlier cycles in American History, a distinguished career in the military was one of the surest paths to the White House. And it used to be that actors were more likely to assassinate a President than become one.

[Jai4WKC08]

99. That's not the point from my perspective

It's not about "WINNING a lesser political office," it's about HOLDING a lesser political office. Ike held many lesser offices and so has Clark. They both worked their way up to the level just short of the presidency/vice presidency... every bit as much as any governor or congressman. Many people don't think of senior military leaders in that way anymore, but it a fairly recent change and imo just reflects how far our civilian society and military have diverged culturally.

As far as I can tell, the only difference between military and other government officials is that the military is a meritocracy, so the incumbents are usually competent to execute the duties of their office. It's kind of a shame that elected officials can't say the same.

People who don't like Clark are mighty quick to say he's no Ike. And it's obviously a true statement. Even if Clark were as well known as Eisenhower was, which he isn't of course, he still wouldn't be the same guy with the same attributes. But in many ways, Clark brings more to the table than Ike did. He's smarter, better educated, with far broader experience in government overall. He's a better public speaker who has taught himself to deal with a media that Ike never even dreamed of. He's better looking and more charismatic. He has strong liberal values. But mostly, the NATO which Clark oversaw is a far more complex beast, with far more political and diplomatic challenges, and an infrastructure of support functions for families and civilians for which Ike never had to plan, budget or administer as its commander.

None of which may be relevant. Ike could succeed as president because he was a proven leader who could manage all the many parts of government that had no counterparts in the military of his day. In that one sense, Clark is exactly the same. What he doesn't know, he can learn, because he knows how to put it all together to make an organization work to achieve its goals.

But I hear you asking: can Clark "WIN" political office if he's never had to? Let's face it, most of Ike's politicking was done for him. He was essentially handed the nomination (it was all taken care of in backrooms back then), and the general election wasn't much tougher. Well, all I can say is, assuming Clark runs in 2008, I guess we'll see, won't we? Until then, it's kind of a silly argument against him. Because if he can't win the nomination, you have no reason to worry, do you? And if he can, he'll have proven himself as least as well as any other contender, because he will have beat them all.

[lojasmo]

40. Statistical anomaly from a nonscientific (self selecting) poll

Utter hogwash.

[FrenchieCat]

41. as they are all......

But since others get touted.....this one can as well.

But thank you for your excellent contribution! It was worth the wait, I tell ya! :rofl:

[Mz Pip]

44. Oooh snap!

:thumbsup:

Well said.

:hi:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Kahuna]

48. Hmm. Billary only gets 2%.

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

66. Wes Clark will NOT get my vote, no war monger will. eom

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. Uh, huh. So who on this list passes your purity test then?

Throw Gore in too. Who of these Democrats didn't support the first Gulf War? Who else, like Clark, is pushing for direct negotiations with both North Korea and Iran? Who didn't vote for the IWR? Who on this list thinks we should immediately stop trying to "train" Iraq troops to help stabalize Iraq, and that we should instead pull all of our own troops out of Iraq now?

Got any candidates in mind free of pesky war mongering taints?

[ShortnFiery]

72. No, those former STARS don't blind me to a man who is overly

ambitious. No way do I trust Clark. He's a player, not a true representative.

I'd vote for Dennis Kucinich in a heartbeat. Thanks for asking. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

75. Those stars were earned and not meant to blind you.....

and that cliche is tired, btw!

[ShortnFiery]

78. Clark is a part of the War Machine, he's no IKE by a long shot eom

[Adelante]

81. People who say Clark is no Ike agree with Clark

who says himself he is no Ike. :shrug:

He is nobody but Wes Clark, so I wonder why the cries of "He's no Ike"? Kucinich, and I love the guy, is no FDR. So what?

[FrenchieCat]

83. Clark has heard and heeds Ike's warning....clearly!

But I wonder if many of today's lifetime politicians have the courage that it would take to actually do something about Ike's warning?

http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339
"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."

Clark: Don't spare Pentagon
"We need to put all the government spending programs on the table, including the military programs," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/elec04.prez.debate/

[zulchzulu]

67. Real polls have a MOE + or -... does this one have one?

Go Dodd go!

[oc2002]

80. Clark would be a better choice, maybe Fiengold as VP.

anyway. that is assuming that any election is going to have the votes counted right anyway.

[jenmito]

85. Sounds good to me...

And I HOPE the Dems. watch the votes like hawks this time-even and especially the tabulations.

[adwon]

82. Cool

He's my number 2 choice, but the difference between my 1 and 2 isn't that big anyway. :P

[jenmito]

86. Who IS your first choice?

[adwon]

87. Edwards

[jenmito]

88. Oh. Thanks for the reply...

I don't like Edwards. He seems to "polished" to me. It seems like he was coached on how to make gestures to get people to look at him/listen to him. It just really bugged me to watch him speak. I'd always say to my husband, "Watch him touch his face with his forefinger in a second," and he would. Same with some other things he did. I just think he's a one issue candidate. Sorry-that's just my opinion, obviously. But I'd still vote for him if he was the nominee. No hard feelings, I hope. :hi:

[adwon]

89. None taken :p

He's an extremely skilled trial lawyer. Some people just don't like folksy.

[jenmito]

91. Thanks :p

But I guess I don't believe he IS "folksy." Polished yes. Folksy no. JMO again. Still no hard feelings? O8)

[adwon]

97. Still none :P

He's our hero in my litigation skills class. :P

[madmunchie]

92. I agree with you and then some.

Edwards never even finished out 1 term in the Senate before he was running for POTUS! He has actively been campaigning for himself since then. I don't think he has the qualifications, the integrity or the respect to be our candidate. He needs to do something besides run for Senator and then run for President. He needs to SERVE the people in an office for awhile. So far, he seems to be serving his bank account and his ego.

The problems right now are so complex and important that a newbie to the international world is not needed or appreciated. I have very little respect for Edwards. He cannot serve this country and do it justice, especially in the shape that we are in now.

I say Gore, Clark, Finegold are the top guys for this job, these are the type of candidate that we need. We could be proud of voting for any one of them, or any combination of the two. Let Edwards get over himself already.

[jenmito]

94. I agree with YOU and then some...

You're right on all counts. I also like Feingold and Gore (but Clark with his military experience is my first choice). :toast:

[imlost]

95. Clark can win it for us! n/t

[nealmhughes]

96. I've been a-tellin y'all all along: Americans like Wes and JE...

While I love Dennis, I am pragmatic. Wes Clark has a head on his shoulders, and is a statesman. JE has compassion and intelligence...

They make wonderful candidates.

Sorry Mrs. Clinton, guess you DO need to pay a bit more attention to NYS...you may be there for a spell...