The Donkey In The Room: Wes Clark 2008

[Tom Rinaldo]

Tradition says an elephant in the room doesn’t get talked about, but tradition’s just another word for conventional wisdom, and CW until a few months ago said the U.S. Senate would stay under Republican control and George Allen was running for President. The elephant in the room can wait, let’s focus on an underreported donkey; General Wesley Clark.

Political pundits seem determined to talk right past Clark until he rears up and kicks them in the teeth. The beltway crowd is more tightly scripted than a corporate radio play list: “We’re about to play some back to back Spice Girl Hillary hits, but first here’s an Oldie but Goodie from Joe Biden, and don’t dare touch that dial , we’ll have some of that hot new Obama sound coming up for you shortly also!” Poor John Edwards isn’t the freshest face on the block anymore.

That beltway only recognizes early momentum when they manufacture it themselves, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they fail to recognize Wes Clark; after all they didn’t “manufacture” him. Clark’s sheer talent and ability always wins him some friends in high places, but the tail wind pushing Clark on essentially comes from the roots. At least that was true for most of two years since the 2004 Presidential Elections, but that now is changing, and that too is underreported. Wes Clark scrambles media signals. They can’t really get a handle on General Clark because he doesn’t fit neatly into the holes they already have pegged for Democratic Presidential candidates. It’s amusing to watch them fumble pegging Clark when they do try; until I remember that “talking heads” still speak for real power in America. Then it stops being funny.

There’s a lot to be said about the fallacy of political pundits and conventional wisdom about Wes Clark, too much in fact. So I’ll narrow my focus to an almost startling disconnect that the pundits themselves make in those rare instances when they find themselves compelled to comment on Clark’s possible presidential candidacy. They just can’t make up their minds where Wes Clark’s strongest support comes from. They are down right schizophrenic about it. Actually it’s worse than that even, because they are also in denial about their illness. The blocks Clark draws support from are not that hard to assemble into a complete picture. It’s not like one of those marathon jig saw puzzles that take over the dining room table while you try to sort it out. Basically, Wes Clark appeals to liberal Americans, Wes Clark appeals to moderate Americans, and Wes Clark appeals to conservative Americans. That about covers it, and the thing is, the pundits already know it. They know all of it, but somehow they just can’t hold those pieces of information together in their heads, not all at the same time.

I believe the last time Chris Cillizza from the Washington Post’s “The Fix” column actually mentioned Wes Clark as a Presidential contender was way back in December 2005, when he wrote: “Clark replaces Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold as the wildcard in the field, thanks to the fervor and energy for him among some in the party's liberal base, particularly Internet activists” Chris also said this then about Clark “On paper, Clark's resume is unmatched if defense and foreign policy issues are still dominating the national landscape in three years time. “ That is increasingly looking like a safe bet Chris.

More recently, on October 12th, Chuck Todd in the National Journal wrote a few words about Wes Clark’s potential 2008 chances: “He's tried to become the surrogate/endorser/fundraiser-in-chief for military vet candidates. We're not sure it's worked.” Well I beg to differ with Chuck, but with hindsight now available after the mid term elections, he may differ also. Todd wrote that before General Clark’s featured role in “Because of Iraq”, VoteVets powerful national 2006 campaign ad. And of course Wes Clark was the first National Democrat to strongly back Jim Webb in Virginia, back when Webb was considered a long shot to even win the Democratic Primary. Plus Clark worked hard for Democratic Vets Joe Sestak, and Patrick Murphy, and Chris Carney in Pennsylvania, who all took seats away from Republican incumbents in the House of Representatives. Even when Democratic Vets supported by Clark lost, like Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, or Eric Massa in Western New York, the races were tight, and the Democratic Party came out of them all stronger than they have been in years.

So I want to get back to that “startling disconnect” I mention above. Don’t any of these pundits wonder what is right (as opposed to wrong) with this picture? The same beltway pundits who are so eager to consign the netroots to a separate, but unequal, political basement waiting room, for being too leftist for the mainstream Democratic Party, are well aware of Wes Clark’s support from that activist constituency. They are also well aware of Wes Clark’s support for and from America’s military Veterans, a constituency typically thought to be significantly more conservative and less Democratic as a group than most. These pundits watched Wes Clark welcomed by Ned Lamont’s campaign for the United States Senate on one day, and welcomed by Harold Ford’s campaign for the United States Senate on the next day, but none of them can add two plus two together?

Meanwhile tired conventional wisdom continues to be spun. Anna Quindlen, in the October 30th issue of Newsweek, makes the case for Hillary Clinton in 2008 while conceding: “the biggest problem Senator Clinton may have is with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party”. According to Quindlen, that’s because, among other idealistic liberal litmus tests for winning their support, Hillary flunks on Iraq. When describing what Democratic Liberals yearn for in 2008 Quindlen has this to say: “Right now that means a candidate who did not vote for the Iraq war.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15362334/site/newsweek

I can think of a Democratic General who not only didn’t vote for the Iraq war, he warned Congress against it before Congress ever voted. That could be one of the reasons why Wesley Clark consistently wins far greater respect and support at universally regarded as liberal Democratic activist sites like Daily Kos and Democratic Underground than does Hillary Clinton. While on one hand Quindlen frets about Hillary Clinton’s tepid support from liberals, she argues for her electability by pointing out: “She only has to take the states that John Kerry took, and then one more”. Funny, weren’t they saying the same thing about John Kerry in 2004? He only has to take the same states that Al Gore took, and then one more? Rounding down, that’s closer to a 15 state strategy than a 50 state strategy (Kerry actually took 19 Sates and the District of Columbia) and to my mind it’s a tacit acknowledgment that Hillary Clinton’s hoped for path to victory is to hold onto her own base, despite tepid support from liberal activists, while trying to pick off a couple of the Republican States that Democrats have failed to win in over a decade. That strategy of course opens the door for Republicans, under McCain, to take almost all of their own States for granted while they sail off to go raiding in bluer waters.

Maybe Hillary can pull it off, maybe, if you like to gamble, but I don’t like the odds. Call me odd I know, but somehow the idea of running a candidate who didn’t vote for the Iraq War, who motivates a strong element of the Democratic activist base, and who appeals to veterans and military voters, has a certain compelling logic to it. John Kerry defined himself as a Vietnam Veteran, some are likely to say, and look where it got him. True, but John Kerry was defined by his opponent as an elite, rich, liberal Massachusetts former war protester, which kind of watered down Kerry’s appeal to that relevant constituency in conservative states. Consider these comments from the November 11th Arkansas Times:

“Now that the 2006 elections are over, Gen. Wesley Clark is turning his attention toward deciding to run for president. Sources tell the Arkansas Times that Clark has said he will make his decision within the next two months.

Clark’s spokesman, Erick Mullen, said, “That’s true, but we don’t have a timeline for when a decision will be made just yet.”

Mullen added, “All options are on the table. Gen. Clark was the number-one requested surrogate, especially in red states and swing states during this cycle.”
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=6112230d-32a5-4169-9fd8-004c3b4a70dc

One might think that political pundits would at least be interested in talking about the prospects of a potential Democratic Presidential Candidate who opposed the War in Iraq AND has strong National Security credentials; who has substantial liberal activist support AND is requested by Democrats to campaign in the most conservative districts in the nation. One would think so, but first you have to find such a Presidential candidate, which is pretty damn hard to do if you refuse to look at the Donkey in the room.

Wesley Clark for President 2008.


edited to fill in one word missing from the original text.

[pstans]

1. With Feingold out, Clark is one that I am seriously looking at

Clark definitely deserves a spot on the ticket, if not at the top then as VP or in the cabinet.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. Kerry/Clark '04 would've won

I'd support Gore/Clark in '08

[The Count]

12. Dem ticket WON in 2004 but didn't have the guts to fight for it

I want to hope that Clark wouldn't have agreed to the cover-up of the theft. I also won't vote again for Dems who supported this war.

[indepat]

56. If not on ticket, Clark for Secretary of Defense, but Dems must first win and Clark

on ticket would be hard to beat.

[BlueIris]

65. I'm now pulling for a Kerry/Clark '08 ticket.

Kerry and General Clark would be a tough fit indeed, I think, but it's the only one I can come up with that makes that ticket solidly electable, hard-for-MSM-to-spin-as-a-"defeat," and effective after inauguration.

[notadmblnd]

3. Clark would be my pick

Him and Edwards. Clark for his strength and leadership and Edwards to add the human touch. I think it would appeal to a lot of people.

[JNelson6563]

4. Gore/Clark

That would more than remedy Clark's lack of electoral experience.

Just sayin'.

Julie

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. True, but it would keep him out of the oval office for a long while

I take your suggestion in a positive light Julie. As you know I think we will all be fortunate indeed if either of these men get elected President in 2008. Right now Clark is the guy I want in charge in 2008, and you want Gore. It's all good. (Just sayin', lol).

If they both decide to run we will have our respectful debates about it, but one or both may not so there is no need for that now. I encourage both Gore and Clark to run.

[Divine Discontent]

64. oh how you know what I feel...

I used to have a Clark avatar in 04! and I support his big time (even more) this time round!


www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <--- look!

[OKNancy]

5. Tom, I don't think Clark could have a better

advocate than you. I enjoyed this post very much. It will be Clark for me again this time!

[Sparkly]

6. So true, Tom!

Many of the early polls, which heavily rely on name recognition, don't even include Clark -- which makes them akin to push polls, in my view, as they foster even more name recognition of the usual few.

A couple of thoughts... One is the notion of "President School." It's long past time, I think, to get over the notion that being governor or senator is THE one and only, automatic "President School." This is a time to elect a president for his role as Commander in Chief.

Tucker Carlson is one example of those who discount General Clark. At every opportunity, he says the General "looked great on paper" but was "horrible" in the campaign. Of course that's ridiculous -- Clark did very well, as well or better than others who stayed in the race longer. The fact that he saw the writing on the wall for Kerry and got out early is now cast as "he was a bad campaigner." It's patent nonsense.

Finally, if Clark was inexperienced at the "retail" side of politics, I think he's honed his skills over the past years. He strikes me as an incredibly self-disciplined man. In the past, when the debate buzzer went off, he'd stop mid-sentence, while others kept going to get out the last words; when asked a trick question (or defend against an accusation, as he had to do so many times in those debates) he'd keep his reply focused only on the question rather than "answering the question you want to answer" as experienced politicians did. Now, having gone up against the worst shills in the media on Fox, he says what he wants to say, he deftly handles the twisted questions and accusations, he doesn't allow himself to be interrupted, he makes the points he wants to make, and he does it calmly and clearly.

I think he's ready. I HOPE he decides to go for it!!!

[notadmblnd]

7. Oh yeah, his background alone tells us he's a strong leader

and is capable of diplomacy. What he isn't is a politician , and that appeals to me emensely. It's also why I like Edwards, why clark is working on foreign policy, Edwards can do a lot to heal this nation from the inside out.

[renate]

57. Clark's learning curve was practically vertical, he picked things up so fast

Did Tucker Carlson mean that Wes was "horrible" in the campaign as a tactician or as a speaker and campaigner? At the beginning of Clark's campaign I would absolutely bristle at any suggestion that he wasn't a good speaker, but you know what? I have some of his early campaign appearances still stored on my TiVo, and I have to admit even I can see that he really is much better now than he was. I was just so bowled over by his lightning-fast mind and detailed answers, and I loved everything he had to say so much, that I simply didn't see how someone who wasn't already a supporter could help but be bowled over too. However, comparing his very first appearances with the ones just a couple of months further into the campaign, I can see now where the idea that he wasn't a natural campaigner got started. (Although I'd like to see anybody else who'd never been through the scrutiny of a political campaign do a tenth as well!) And now... well, now he can get an audience on their feet at the drop of a hat.

I hope that anybody who ever thought of him in 2003/2004 as not a great campaigner gives him a look-see now. He is absolutely magnetic.

[democrank]

8. Somehow Clark and netroots supporters

must overcome the Beltway Media`s blackout. Everything Clark stands for rips to shreds the media`s rat-a-tat-tat about the netroots and who, in Clark`s case, they support.

Wouldn`t it be something if the media, in response to any of Clark`s powerful populist themes, actually had to deal with some facts on homelessness, the rise in home foreclosures, the chasm between rich and poor, the trade imbalance, loss of our manufacturing base, health care, prison overcrowding, on and on and on.

How could they call him a "flip-flopper" since he was against the war from the beginning. How could they present serious international issues in asinine black or white terms since Clark has an outstanding grasp of international complexities? How could they say he doesn`t support the troops since he has not only commanded them but he also has always been active in veteran`s affairs? The media are certainly not going to be able to preach to Clark about war and sacrifice, since he has forgotten more than they know.

Clark is a Rhodes Scholar who speaks several languages. His military record is beyond just honorable. He has seen combat. His is a heartwarming rags-to-riches story that would set a sterling example to all Americans.Clark is a fresh voice, a welcome change from standard Senate Speak. I hope he`s our nominee.

[tblue37]

18. He also heroically tried to save passengers from a fiery wreck in Yugoslavia.

This is part of an article and press release in which Pulitzer Prize winner Samantha Power endorses Clark's presidential run in 2004. I have bolded the story about how he risked his life to try to save passengers in a military vehicle that ran off the side of a mountain road:

WASHINGTON, DC - Pulitzer Prize Winning author, human rights advocate, and international law scholar Samantha Power - a powerful voice for U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide - today called on Armenian Americans to support Democratic presidential candidate General Wesley Clark as the individual who, if elected, will "end nearly a century of denial of the Armenian genocide by the U.S. Government," reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).

<snip>

Samantha Power is a Lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Her recent book, "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide, was awarded the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction, the 2003 National Book Critics Circle Award for general non-fiction, and the Council on Foreign Relations' Arthur Ross Prize for the best book in U.S. foreign policy. Power was the founding executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy (1998-2002). From 1993-1996, Power covered the wars in the former Yugoslavia as a reporter for the U.S. News and World Report, the Boston Globe, and the Economist. A graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School, she moved to the United States from Ireland at the age of nine.

<snip>

I met Wes Clark in 1995, while he served as the U.S. military representative on a high-level negotiating team attempting to bring peace to Bosnia. We met just hours before he and his colleagues were setting out for the Bosnian capitol city of Sarajevo via a treacherous mountain road. In the hopes of evading hostile fire, the convoy raced around the steep curves, and the lead vehicle tumbled off the road into a ravine. Clark – who had already received a Purple Heart in Vietnam – risked his life to try to rescue his colleagues. He tied a rope around his waist, and repelled down the side of the mountain laced with landmines toward the burning vehicle. Three Americans lost their lives that day.

[Greyhound]

9. Shh, let them keep ignoring him. It's way too early and there is nothing to win yet.

So if we let them, they will continue to ignore him until he becomes "the darkhorse candidate that springs from nowhere and takes everyone by surprises".

[The Count]

11. But they keep building clunkers like Warner, Obama, Biden etc

and when the race starts they'll go: Clark who?
When he won Oklahoma, CNN kept it "unofficial" for a week. Just so it didn't have to report it in the headlines. They made it all about Edwards that night, week....

[dmosh42]

14. Depends on the internt'l situation in '08

If the world situation is still in turmoil with Iraq and the other 'evil' players in the middle east, I don't think any other candidate will have the credibility that the country will want. Clark will be the man!

[Greyhound]

19. I know it is a detriment here on DU, but he does have a great deal

of cross-party appeal, even more than McCain had before he decided to be idiot frat boy's lap dog.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. That will help Clark get elected as the next Democratic President

Ultimately that is the goal, to actually elect our nominee for President.

[Greyhound]

21. Oh definitely, his biggest challenge will be to get through the Democratic

Power Brokers, I don't think any of them like him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Pelosi and Reid like him. That's a start n/t

[Greyhound]

25. That's good, they have both shown their willingness to buck the authority

to do what they believe to be right in the past.

Clark has been my first choice since before the '04 primaries.

[robbedvoter]

47. Can you imagine GOP not making nat'l security an issue....EVER?

And, I am pretty sure, Iraq war will still be on by then as W promissed. :cry:

[elleng]

66. Hi!

(((ROBBED)))

[guruoo]

59. One of my favorite quotes....

Do you know who said this?

"If you reveal your location,
all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings".

[Pithy Cherub]

13. CW is changed by the obvious,

never the subtle. CW is also not an inutitive bunch as much as a herd propping up the one opinion. The change of the CW for Clark centers around money - would he be able to raise $20,000,000 or more in the next 6 months is the question that moves him into serious contention in the not critical thinkers club. Money is the 2007 primary the CW is basing their usually badly out of touch collective non-wisdom on.

That is why my support of Clark continues to grow as he always leading from an internal truth guide and not advancing CW as his prevailing thoughts. Most politicians ascribe to CW as their guide, but Clark is innovative and brilliant on a wide range of issues both foreign and domestic. Key to Clark's presidential aspiration is increasing the voting public's awareness of his magnificent leadership talent, successful national security credibility and spirited championing of Democratic principles.

Excellent piece Tom!:appaluse:

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. This is a darn good read on how CW functions here, Pithy

I agree with you. And you are right that Clark acts consistent with his core values and beliefs, and only then tries to determine how best to "package them" so others will understand.

[The Count]

43. Dec 2003- he outdid Dean & all in fund raising - they stopped reporting it

Just like they stopped measuring hunger, they stopped measuring chances of a candidate of beating W by ability to fundraise the moment Clark got it.
Just as, when he won a state it wasn't reported (since it wasn't "certified)

[Dinger]

97. I Remember That!

Even now, I drool at the thought of Clark debating/wiping the floor with *

[Gregorian]

15. Clark's lack of electoral experience is his advantage.

That's only a blurt off the top of my head.

Clark has something that no other runner has. It's hands-on experience with running the troops. And by troops I don't mean military as much as "running things" in general. No pun intended.

He's a philosopher. A good one. Oh dear, I'm veering off topic.

There are no candidates who can hold their own like this man. I was totally awed by his ability. And I sum it up to his experience running the show. I often asked myself if that could be a negative. After all, Bush wants to run the show. But Clark appears to be beneficent, if that word works. He knows people.

With a head like a brick, aching and tired, I'm not sure this makes much sense. But Clark can't be beat. Bottom line.

I'll vote for him again. And that's coming from someone who...well, look at my sig line.

[Auntie Bush]

32. I hope your aching head and body are feeling better now.

I wouldn't want any fellow Clarkie to be feeling badly.

What everyone here has already said is so true. Clark is the diamond in our (war) chest! We are so fortunate to have him on our side.

[Gregorian]

36. Thanks, Auntie!

I don't know. Yes, I do feel better. I never had a headache in my life until about the time Bush got in office. Now I think I might have some kind of sleep disorder that is resulting in what appear to be migraines. It's agony. I'm really pretty upset by it. It also has an added benefit of depression. I'm keeping diaries, and getting ready to start spending time at the doctors office.

After about 48 hours of hell, I'm now back to life again.

Hey, I like your little dog mention in your profile. Very cool little doggies. I think my cats are bigger than them. :)

I hope we're on our way to a more sane and intelligent world! Happy thoughts.

[Auntie Bush]

55. I'm sorry to hear about your migrains...I'm lucky I never had one. However,

I agree with you about the fact that what goes on in the WORLD (not just our personal bodies and life) can and does effect us physically and emotionally. On the Friday after Katrina and listening and watching the horror for days and nights on end made me cry like a baby in a public place. I was mortified! When someone asked me why I was crying I said,"I don't know!" Then someone on DU posted that they found themselves in tears because of Katrina...I then realized that is why I had cried.

Yes, all the many things George bush* has wrought upon us has probably effected the health of many Democrats...and they don't even realize it!
Maybe he's one of the many reasons so many people have sleep problems. lol or maybe not lol. I hope now that the Dems have congress...your migraines and sleep problems will go away. If all this is true...don't buy stock with whomever manufactures Ambien because a lot's people are going to sleep a lot better in 2007+. On second thought, that isn't true because many Rethugs are going to need it when we put Clark in office and he puts Georgie in his place...hopefully the Hague!

[tblue37]

16. I would love to see Clark as our nominee. (eom)

[understandinglife]

17. Superb analysis, cogent presentation.

Recommended.

Thank you,
Bob

[wilt the stilt]

22. Go Duncan Hunter

oops wrong website- really Clark would win going away

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. LOL n/t

[FrenchieCat]

26. Now why would Democrats go against the corporate Pundits' described

Conventional Wisdom of who Democratic voters are and what Democratic voters think?

Why would Democrats be so silly as to think "out of the box" beyond the choices that they are given by the grand wizards of talking heads knowledge?

and why would predictable and pliable Democrats support a Progressive Plato Quotin' schomsky readin' Rhode Scholar Soros Friendly Red State stompin' Southern 4 star General who has shown prescience time and time again?

I mean who does this individual think he is? Brokering lasting peace, and planning, leading and winning a war without a soldier dying is just not a requirement these days, doncha know? Having the experience as Head of State for three years and communicating with the heads of states of 37 other countries while commanding the forces of 19 of them is not as valuable as a great speech! What makes you think that his kind of accomplishments is now what this country needs? :eyes:

Come on now.....Why on earth would Democrats want to have on a presidential ticket a guy who has taught BOTH philosophy and economics and lived in England, Belgium and South America and speaks 4 languages to even be mentioned as "presidential"?

Who needs an expert in Emergency preparedness to boot! I mean 9/11 and Katrina were so well handled, expertise couldn't have made a difference, could they have?

For even a few Democrats to start thinking that someone respected all over the world and who the most decorated officer since Einsenhower could be considered in the same breath as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards for a spot on the Democratic presidential ticket is just way too insane! :crazy:

To think that these same weird ass Democrats would be so bold as to believe that coming from an imporverished single mother background and realizing the American Dream all the while serving their country with Duty and Honor would be a compelling story to average day Americans is really a weird thought.

Whomever heard of someone smart enough to rebuild a motor (cause he had to), who talks about science without notes or consultation, and who understands the hazards of the media well enough to have already lined up a team to combat Swiftboating early should be considered by Democrats at all is almost unbelievable.

The Pundits understand that it would be totally useless for them to discuss a contender who seems to still be out there as a viable Democratic choice for the presidency, no matter that the press rarely speaks his name, while providing others with enough free publicity coverage for writing books about themselves.

So why would the media promote an off the wall candidate like that on the Democratic side? What would be the upside of that?

Could it be that they are too busy promoting the GOP's Maverick Vietnam POW war Hero McCain and Rudy of "9/11" hero fame Giuliani?

Come on Tom, even you know that there can only be so many "heroes" that they promote at one time! I thought you were sophisticated enough to know this. I'm a bit disappointed in you for having even thought about this Tom.....but nevertheless, loved your piece! :sarcasm:

What will you think of next? That we could be energy dependent and at peace by voting for a leader that leads from the front instead of from the rear in hindsight? Getta of here, Tom...that would be just too much! :wow:

[loyalsister]

67. Why can't Democrats let go of

the conventional wisdom that says a uniform is an automatic win.
It makes some people familiar with military culture cringe.

[FrenchieCat]

73. Actually, wearing a uniform and winning hasn't been a CW since

Einsenhower......although he did win. If you're talking about John Kerry, his uniform was that of a Senators, since his military uniform hadn't been worn in almost 35 years! So I'm not even sure how you are backing up what the CW is on that........ In fact, the last "uniform" running in a time of war was a retired General, but he was a Republican and he did win.

So actually you are wrong on two fronts; Cause you are also wrong that people familiar with the military culture "cringe". I believe that it is those unfamiliar with the military culture and who buy into the "they are all order taking warmongers" that is the CW that exists, on the Democratic side anyways.

Further, Clark has done much more than worn a uniform....which is why I will have to place you in the CW that I mentioned; it is those unfamiliar with the military culture and who buy into the "they are all order taking warmongers" CW. Thanks for backing up my point, gringer!

[loyalsister]

83. Not so unfamiliar....

I grew up with a former army sergeant and live among vets. The values are entrenched. A belief in a ranking system, and standards\benchmarks for success that are related to "victory." Victory usually means that an "opponent" must be identified. I don't like that mentality.

The history of military service pairs a uniform with the candidate. The pictures of the young soldiers always roll out.
I think the attachment people have to the idea that a person ever having worn one strengthens their character is a little creepy.

[FrenchieCat]

85. I believe that wearing a uniform and going into combat DOES make

one much more thoughtful about the ideas of War and Peace.......

needless to repeat, I still don't find what you say to be the CW, which is why Bush won against John Kerry....cause many didn't think that Kerry wearing the uniform would make him a better President than Bush (when the opposite is likely true from where I sit).

Regardless of who you grew up with and lived amongs, it appears that it is your own value that is entrenched, as you are willing to stereotype the whole based on the few that you yourself personally judged.

So for me, what's creepy is your stereotypical conclusion that all military personnel are alike.

[loyalsister]

91. Sorry you thought I overgeneralized, but

There are very few people who won't acknowledge the military brainwashing required to get people to form extreme nationalistic loyalty and discard civil morals under war conditions. And the fact that it has lasting effects on most people.

One reason people didn't elect Kerry was because they were convinced that he "disrespected the uniform" by throwing medals away.
And don't forget, Bush dressed himself up in a flight uniform and people bought it as a uniform.

I think it's possible that Clark could be thoughtful about war and peace, but military culture and mentality is not something that can be easily discarded when a person spent a lifetime as a part of that institution.

[Jai4WKC08]

102. What blatant bigotry

I don't care if you did grow up in a military home and live among vets now. It's still just anecdotal evidenct == exposure to a mere handful of people. Perhaps even people who have more in common than just their prior military service that causes them to have similar values and attitudes. Or not... maybe you don't know them all as well as you think you do.

If you haven't been in the military, you have no idea what "military culture and mentality" is all about. Fact is, there is NO military mentality. We are all individuals and we all have different talents and personalities. No different than any other profession in that respect.

Sorry, but I am a liberal. I believe it's immoral to judge someone based on an experience with others who happen to share some common characteristic.

[smoothdaddyk]

27. My first post ever...

My first post. Wish I could K&R, but I've been telling people for a while now Gore/Clark '08.

---StevieK

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. This is an honor then! Welcome to DU

Don't worry, I think you will find near infinite opportunities to K&R threads for both Clark and Gore here in the future once you get that status.

[NMDemDist2]

30. welcome to DU stevie!!!

:hi:

[Auntie Bush]

33. WELCOME! WELCOME! WELCOME! to DU!

:hi: Welcome aboard to a fellow Clarkie. :bounce: :hi:

[demokitty]

37. Excellent points, Tom. Clark is my choice. n/t

[youthere]

93. Welcome to DU Smoothdaddyk.

[NMDemDist2]

29. i like Clark and i think he's our only hope against McCain

he's the only one who can go toe to toe with McCain on "Vet creds"

I was pleased to see Wes campaigning like a mad dog the last year, it's taught him a lot about retail politics. he wasn't ready for prime time in '04 but I expect that has now changed

I love Gore and Kerry, but the pragmatic side of me says "All the Way with Wes!"

[rocktivity]

31. Works for me.

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[w4rma]

34. Gore, Clark and Edwards are my top picks. Any of those three would make me happy. (nt)

[The Count]

44. Edwards would have invaded Iraq. Only anti-war candidates for me, than you

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295 /

[jen4clark]

35. Great piece, Tom!

Thank you for a great Sunday afternoon read!

Can you imagine the Corpress daring to inform the public about such a one as General Clark? Sort of akin to shooting themselves in the foot. No -- IF General Clark decides to throw his hat in the ring, they will give him the coverage they must for the announcement, then it will be back to all Hillary/McCain/Obama/Giuliani all the time. Once again it will be up to US, the netroots/grassroots to inform and educate people about this brilliant man.

I for one, am ready! Actually have never stopped, but ready to kick it in to high gear if General Clark gives us the word!

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

38. Wes Clark has my vote

And my time and any money I can muster.

Waiting for an announcement is killing me. Ok, ok, not literally.

[LWolf]

40. I have no interest in discussing his prospects.

I heard all about it in the '04 primaries. I don't need to do it again.

:shrug:

Of course, I'm not a political pundit. Just a voter.

[Adelante]

41. Why are you in this thread?

Just asking :shrug:

[LWolf]

49. See # 48. n/t

[Adelante]

72. No disrespect intended, LWolf

There are hundreds of threads I have no interest in that I do not bother to enter, even less go to the trouble of deliberately saying I have no interest or exhibiting some other rudeness.

Now I've been known to exhibit rudeness when I do have an interest :D

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

42. So you came to this thread, why?

Don't notice to many pundits around here so guess you're just another one of us.:dem:

[LWolf]

48. I am just another DUer.

I guess because I log in and hope to find an interesting discussion to join, and I find the front page filled with posts about potential candidates that don't interest me, and other topics about tv/media stuff that I would actually have to have watched at some point to understand. Since I don't have any interest in turning on the tv or radio to listen to talking heads dictate the conversation, I think about what is presented to me, and give my response.

That's the point of starting a thread; to get people's responses. So I gave mine.

[robbedvoter]

45. Then wait until it's voting time.

[LWolf]

50. Wait for what?

Wait to find someone I'm interested in discussing, until after all the candidates have declared? Wait to log on to DU at all? Wait to respond to posts on message boards that I disagree with?

I believe that when you start a thread on a message board, it is inviting response, whether the responder agrees with you or not.

[FrenchieCat]

52. You are correct, and so therefore, I disagree with you.

There, it had to be said! :)

[LWolf]

53. Heh.

:hi:

The best discussions are when disagreements can be discussed without animosity. In my opinion, of course, lol.

[fuzzyball]

109. You are correct and therefore I agree with you...eom

[Auntie Bush]

76. Well some people here are new and they might be interested in discussing and learning

about General Clark. Try the lounge or your candidates site and you may find something that interests you. Democratic Underground is for discussing politics. Duh!

[LWolf]

80. Right. Democratic Underground is not for group think,

as far as I know. I believe that starting a thread at DU is an open invitation for anyone to respond, in agreement or dissent. I don't think, at this point, I need any redirection or help finding my way around, thank you. DU is about politics, and politics is about joining the discussion, not avoiding it just because there are groupies who would rather that you didn't. If everybody agreed, what would be the point of politics at all? If people want to complain about their favorite flavor of the season not getting as much attention as they would like by starting a thread about it, it's perfectly logical for those who aren't giving General Clark the demanded attention to step in and say why.

Duh. :eyes:

[Auntie Bush]

81. Funny how different people are. Most people post in a thread

to make a point...pro or against. I've never known anyone to post a comment just to say they aren't interested in the thread. Now, that is truly weird and a waste of time! "

You say..."I have no interest in discussing his prospects" Then don't! Start your own thread. You ought to be interested in that and maybe we'll be interested too and join in on the discussion. If I'm not
interested...I won't be there....but I might surprise you!

[LWolf]

87. I'll try to explain this one last time:

If one starts a post complaining about why Wes Clark isn't getting more attention, and I explain one of the reasons, that is not posting a comment just to say I'm not interested in the thread. It is responding to the complaint of the OP. You can infer that, if I'm not interested, perhaps there are others who are not interested as well. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. Of course, having nothing to do with the general himself, the media is good at ignoring all but those their corporate owners want noticed. That's been clear for awhile now. I'm sure that is a factor, as well.

I start threads every once in awhile, if I think there are a few people at DU who might be remotely interested in my pov. They are usually about issues, rather than candidates or elections, especially issues that directly affect my profession or my life. You are welcome to check them out if you are that interested. Here are a few; you won't be able to respond to those archived, though:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/LWolf/179

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2601134

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=219&topic_id=5939

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=219&topic_id=5539

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=219&topic_id=5038

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=219&topic_id=4723

[Auntie Bush]

90. Very impressive writing!

" What has this nation become? We are so addicted to fighting that we eagerly look for an opening in any conversation? Is there a way to express concern or disagreement with some fundamental respect?"

Looks like we both failed that lesson on this post. I'll keep it in mind.


"Thank you, Mr. Falker." "Mr. Falker," by the way, is an autobiographical story about the teacher who recognized her learning disability and helped her learn "

I'll try to check out that book as it hits close to home in our family.
And I'm very interested in children's books and have written a few (just for fun) for my children and now my grandchildren.


"You may or may not be surprised to hear me say that No Child Left Behind is an educational train wreck."

I agree with you 100% on NCLB. It's one of the most destructive pieces of legislation/crap ever passed and I certainly hope we Democrats can do something to correct or destroy that outrageous law.

[LWolf]

92. That's the place to start

if we want to work together; to find our commonalities. Thank you for that, and for the reminder, too, lol.

[fuzzyball]

110. Does Clark belong to the mormon faith? If he does then

perhaps it would make sense to nominate him in case
Mitt Romney gets nominated.

Typo's fixed on edit.

[Clark2008]

46. And the media doesn't like to mention him because he's for restoring

the Fairness Doctrine, which would make their roles less that of a corporate whore and more that of informational teacher, which is what the NEWS media is SUPPOSED to be.

[wiley]

51. Wes Clark is currently the only one I trust

not to completely prostitute his ethics, morals or beliefs to be President. I hope he runs in 2008. And I desperately hope the Republicans nominate McCain or Giuliani. McCain because he's a pandering liar who has made himself the doormat of American politics; Giuliani because close inspection of his record and his connections will make people want to shower. As I mentioned before,look for a Romney/Jeb Bush like fusion ticket.

But Clark/Obama would still beat any Republican ticket, as would Clark with any number of VP candidates.

[dae]

89. I agree with what you say about Clark. I am not as

passionate about any VP pick. Clark in the first slot and I'll trust him to make the right choice for number 2.

[Babel_17]

54. Clark won't fumble the ball

We, the democratic party, are on the offense now and imo Clark has amply demonstrated his reliability.

As president he'd be great. As a key player in any administration he'd be great.

Our base will support him and if associated with our ticket he'll enable us to credibly campaign in red states that would otherwise look to be leaning solidly republican.

[Rowdyboy]

58. Very good piece.....I intend to be in the earliest wave of new volunteers

for Clark 2008.

[eridani]

60. We probably can't get a real non-corporate, non-imperial candidate

--nominated. I don't like it that he is willing to use force to impose "free" market corporate hegemony on the rest of the world. (No, not counting Darfur there. That's an entirely different case which I think he's right about.) However, given his other redeeming features, particularly on the fairness doctrine (which is probably why the MSM would rather not talk about him), I'm considering supporting him. Depends on who else winds up running.

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. Clark wouldn't exactly describe his position that way, lol, but...

...I think I get where you are coming from, and you are right. By the standards I think you are applying here, we are extremely unlikely to get anyone nominated who you would consider a real non-corporate, non-imperial candidate. Clark is acutally much more restrained about the actual use of force than most every politician to the Right of Kucinich, and unlike a lot of elected Democrats, he's not afraid to urge diplomacy rather than resort to force against nations like North Korea and Iran who so many attempt to demonize, in order to look tough domestically if nothing else. That's a big part of how we ended up in Iraq, Democrats wanting to look tough before the 2002 mid term elections.

[stillrockin]

61. He's my pick, too--

I supported him in 2004 and would do so again. I also like Edwards.

[vikegirl]

63. !!!!

:kick: & R!! :-)

[StClone]

68. The General

Was my pick last time and I supported Kerry when things turned his way. I's say Gore or Wes now. He is an awesome man and just needs Americans to realize it!

We need to discuss his positions more as they are quite acceptable to Dems.

[Kolesar]

69. This thread is largely about electability. To his credit, Clark speaks about climate protection

DUers have put a few video segments up here.

[conning]

70. He has the courage

to confront the issues of global warming and peak oil and the demonstrated leadership skills to help others summon the courage to do so.

[caseycoon]

71. Thanks to all

The more I learn about Clark, the better I like him!
We need a really strong candidate & he seems to be just that... on all the issues. I also think the general public will LIKE the fact that he isn't a politician. We're pretty tired of them!

I just have to say this... Self discipline in politics? What a concept!
:sarcasm:
We sure haven't seen much of that in recent years.

[Infinite Hope]

74. He will be a very strong candidate...

and Hillary, in my mind, may opt to run as VP under him. Clark and the Clinton's are very close and Hillary may decide to slowly ease the public into the idea of a woman president. Her war chest would be obviously appealing to Clark. If Hillary opts not to run and Clark wins, Hillary will be the VP candidate, I guarantee it.

[FrenchieCat]

75. Each and every post dealing with Clark go on to say......Clark and

the Clintons are "awfully" close (so if they are that soooo "Close" why didn't either Hillary or Bill endorse Clark in 2004 during the primaries? Because Whatever "they" did was not enough to be noticed by the general population.....so I'm not so sure of how "close" they are beyond your short on detail speculations). Sure they know each other and respect each other, but that could be said about many of the politicians....and then you go on to Guarantee your speculations which you really can't guarantee! WHy?

Chelsea, is that you?

[Auntie Bush]

78. What an asset for our country, our world prestige and our piece

of mind to have Clark and Bill campaigning for us Democrats and have those two brilliant minds meshing ideas! Too good to be true? If anyone can find a way out of this mess...they can! If n ot...they'll find the best way out...even if it's utter failure for us. So be it! They can't make a gold bar out of a banana.

[Dinger]

77. I Will Be Proud To Vote For Wes Again In 2008!

Thanks for posting Tom!:patriot:

[Cameron27]

79. Great post as usual Tom!

Fingers crossed & impatiently waiting for him to declare.
:)

[Vorta]

82. Talk about Christmas decorations before Hallowe'en

[Tom Rinaldo]

86. Just counted 13 front page threads w/ 9 of the first 20 here about 2008 race

Are you making this observation on all of them?

[Vorta]

88. Yeah, this is just the one I landed on eom

[David Zephyr]

84. You are one of the DU's best writers, Tom.

As always, I greatly enjoy reading your thoughtful posts. :thumbsup:

[youthere]

94. Couldn't agree more...

Clark is the only candidate for me at this point. I'm a staunch supporter and I plan to bust my butt to help him get the nom.

[Donna Zen]

95. Did you miss it?

A couple of days ago CNN in an effort to look hip did a segment on 2008 and the internet. The piece opened with a screen shot of a Kos poll showing Feingold in first place with Clark as a close second. The narrator mentioned Feingold had declared himself as not running. Then the image on the screen moved to the candidate that CNN considers an internet/netroots favorite. Clark? Nope. The rest of the piece was all about Vilsack. Now Vilsack may be a very good person, and is now heading up the DLC, but a netroots favorite.

I caught this CNN pronouncement. Did you miss it? One thing is certain, CNN missed the boat.

[annarbor]

96. I'm hoping for a....

Clark/Obama ticket in 2008.
I think that General Clark NEEDS to be on the ticket to pull in the voters who would otherwise vote for McCain because of his prior military experience.

I doubt that issues with Iraq will be resolve within the next two years. We need someone who has experience in resolving complex military matters. I think tha Clark could do it.

Ann Arbor

[benEzra]

98. Clark would polarize the gun issue...

unless he gets better informed on civilian firearms and Federal firearms law. He made a few comments about civilian guns during the '04 campaign that could REALLY come back to hurt him unless he revisits the topic, IMHOAAGO (In My Humble Opinion As A Gun Owner).

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[FrenchieCat]

99. Clark owns guns, and knows darn well how to use them.....

I'm sure that he will be Ok on this issue, regardless!

Wesley Clark spent his weekends fishing and hunting, learning to shoot a gun by age 7. Picnics were usually punctuated by a session of target practice using beer and soda cans. Victor Clark carried in his tackle box a .22 caliber gun, which he used to kill loggerhead turtles unfortunate enough to get tangled up in his fishing lines.
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/profile.htm

He was also shot at, and hit 4 times at age 25 while serving in Vietnam.

[benEzra]

100. I'm aware of that...

but he was quoted in 2004 as supporting a ban on non-automatic civilian firearms with protruding handgrips, thinking the legislation in question covered military automatic weapons (which are already very tightly controlled in the U.S. by the National Firearms Act). He also seemed to be under the impression that most civilian gun owners in the U.S. are hunters, when in fact ~4 out of 5 aren't.

That position was the same one that helped cost the House and Senate after the Feinstein ban passed in '94, that helped cost Gore the presidency in '00 (by losing TN and WV), and that badly hurt the Kerry/Edwards ticket in '04.

The party leadership has abandoned the Protruding Handgrip Ban since '04, and I hope Clark has done the same.

I wrote the following after the '04 loss, and I think a lot of it has been vindicated by the '06 results. I think it may help you understand the gun issue a bit better.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (2004)

[FrenchieCat]

101. Well, it's never too late for him to "Bone" up.....

Out of the lot of them, I believe that the 4 star General would be the least of them to have a problem in clarifying his view as it stands currently.

Plus I'll send WesPac the info you provided. :)

[benEzra]

103. Thank you...

Plus I'll send WesPac the info you provided. :)

Thank you, I appreciate that. I'm not down on Clark at all, just the Brady/Feinstein bait-and-switch. There are a lot more important issues on the table than banning rifle stocks with handgrips that stick out.

Out of the lot of them, I believe that the 4 star General would be the least of them to have a problem in clarifying his view as it stands currently.

If the topic were military automatic weapons, that'd definitely be the case--but possession of one of those by a civilian is already a 10-year Federal felony unless you have proper authorization (BATFE Form 4). The Feinstein bait-and-switch was, and is, about popular civilian guns, not military weapons.

[KT2000]

104. Clark at the top of the ticket!!

Wesley Clark for president 2008!!!

[Julien Sorel]

105. Clark has a few problems.

First and foremost is fundraising. Much of his donor base came from the Clinton network, and that's probably going to be tied up this time around. This could be overcome if the people who supported Dean in '04 jump on the Clark bandwagon, but that brings up another problem: those people bring a lot of baggage with them along with their money. Let's just say they aren't the kind of people mainstream America wants to see on their TV screens in the evening, and their track record of picking winning candidates leaves a little to be desired. Third, the media seems to dislike him. You say they don't know what to make of him, but I wonder if it's not really a case of ignoring him in the hopes that he'll go away. I remember when he made the cover of Newsweek, and it wasn't all that flattering an article, particularly in comparison to the coverage some other candidates got. Remember all that talk about Clark being "the DLC's candidate," a "stealth Republican" and all that nonsensical shit? This time he'll be running against the DLC and its machinery, which will be in the Hillary camp, plus that wing of the party that is reflexively anti-military. That means the fringe publications like Counterpunch and so on will be running their "Clark war criminal" stories, while the New Republic-types will be hacking away at him to bolster Hillary. And I still remember some truly revolting hack jobs that came from The Nation and the New Yorker, and those are supposed to be "liberal" publications. All it will take is a few hack jobs from center-left media sources, Clark being tied to the McGovern wing of the party, and he will be ripe for a Goring in the mainstream media. He's got a lot of strengths as well, but he's probably thinking long and hard about those issues. If he decides to run, I'm looking at him again, because I'm beginning to think he's the best person for the job: an intelligent, patriotic outsider who is relatively honest but shrewd. He's kind of like Jimmy Carter but a little bit shrewder and less idealistic, and I think that's about what we need right now. Unfortunately, being the right guy for the job doesn't mean you'll get the job. It's difficult to imagine someone less suitable for the presidency that Bush, and look where he is.

[Hippo_Tron]

106. All good points, but I think that Clark can build a network of support

Last time he got the endorsement of people as far left as George McGovern and Michael Moore and also people as far right as Congressman Gene Taylor.

Clark is, in my view, a consensus candidate. He's a candidate that both liberals and moderates can get excited about and that is going to be key. His source of funding won't come from a specific faction of the party, it will come from several members of the various factions who like him and think that he will make a good President.

Remember, in 1992 Clinton had Paul Tsongas running to the right of him and Jerry Brown running to the left of him.

[FrenchieCat]

107. And also keep in mind that Wes Clark really did help an awful lot

of the Newbies in congress who ran and won....Newbies who are going to be much more thoughtful as to what allegiances they will pledge. Sen. Reid was hugging Wes Clark after one of their Press presentation on Iraq. Clark was their "Go to Guy" during the election....that means Pelosi and Reid. Clark's the one that got Webb in the race and provided ground troops for his initial run during the primaries. Tester requested only Wes Clark as the Democrat to come to Montana and appear with him on the stage, while at the same time, Clark made the commercial to benefit "Against the War" Lamont.

I say all of that to say that Wes Clark is very diverse when it comes to whom may come out to support him. He doesn't fit in a nitch as much as some might want him to.

In terms of the possible smears and swiftboating, I believe that if Clark decides to run, he will not be caught unaware. He was deeply involved in the VoteVets Organization from the start. They were very effective in staying on the offense as opposed to even having to defend those they were supporting. Clark's stint at Fox has also allowed the Right Wingers to see him for themselves, and know that he's been right all along. That experience has also provided him with combat experience at dealing with these dickhead reporters and saying a lot in a few minutes....which will help him immensely in debate forums.

Personally, if he decides to run again, it will because he really believes that he can win. If one looks at his history, losing is not something that he's used to. I hope no one underestimates what a determined soldier can do when he's fighting for his country.

And yes, the media and the GOP has been hoping that he'd fade away, hence the lack of coverage. They were, I'm sure, in fact shocked about how much he is still talked about three years after the thought they had "faded him away".

We'll soon see what happens, but IF he chooses to run, he will definitely have a well thought out strategy, as that is his forte...and politics these days is truly war. When one can win a state (Oklahoma) when one is getting absolutely no free publicity and others are, it is a good sign that if one gets even a little, one will be kicking some serious ass.

[PBass]

108. I am strongly favoring Clark at the moment...

he's not a perfect candidate, but who is? That perfect person doesn't exist.

Clark's apparent strengths seem to coincide very well with what the nation seems to want in a candidate, not just in general but especially now and in 2008 (mid-war and post-Bush's ineptness).

I am not a Clark expert so I expect to learn more about him, but at this point he is the frontrunner as far as I'm concerned.

[Dinger]

111. I Gave Clark A Mention On Wash. Journal This Morning

They read my e-mail. Made me day:)

[noamnety]

112. Clark says keep the troops in Iraq.

lwfern says to hell with Clark.

I don't care if he warned against the war a few years ago. Right now, today, he supports leaving our troops in Iraq, no timetable for withdrawal, no troop reductions. That's a pro-war position and he could dance naked across Michigan spewing gold coins from his ass and I wouldn't vote for the man.

When he starts talking about piling troops on airplanes and ships and bringing them home, I'll take a look at the rest of his record.

[Jai4WKC08]

115. That is of course completely false

As we are discussing in another thread.

You know, tt's sort of tacky to litter the whole message board with essentially the same message. Kinda like spam.

[DeIndoctrinator]

113. Hey Tom, Opednews.com wants to publish

I sent your article to OpEdNews.com and they want to publish. Your permission is required... If you respond here I'll forward it along otherwise you can email Rob at - rob(at)opednews.com

subject Permission to publish "The Donkey In The Room: Wes Clark 2008"

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. Thank you for taking that initiative.

Yes, of course. I just sent an affirmative email of my own, but feel free to pass along my permission also, in case for some reason my email gets lost.

[DeIndoctrinator]

116. Cool

Done,
Opednews is always lookin' for fresh original material. I had to contact Rob for backstory on a pre-election issue and he ended up recruiting me for his site (actually tried to snake me away from dems.com), where I occasionally contribute now under another pseudonym...

[DeIndoctrinator]

117. Tom, OpEdNews has published...

FYI, it's online at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_tom_rina_061122_the_donkey_in_the_ro.htm

[NV1962]

118. Good job, Tom.

My sentiments exactly: U Wes A.

[FrenchieCat]

119. Yes....very cool!

Ode to Tom! :headbang: