Okay, Clarkies, what's the story?

[cali]

Is there a time frame in which the General is going to make an announcement? Are you pretty sure he's going to run? Last time he got into the race late, I'm sure he won't make the same mistake twice, and he'll announce one way or the other sometime within the next few months. Anyone got any info on this?

[David Dunham]

1. Clark's likely a no-go for 08. It's Hillary v. Obama v. Edwards and maybe Gore

[shireen]

4. i hope it's fewer candidates this time around ...

last year, there were too many candidates. The debates were useless. The press was spread too thin (and i'm still pissed off over how they ignored Clark). And out of that chaos emerged John Kerry. :shrug:

[Sparkly]

9. Something I hope about debates, especially if Clark runs,

is that they ask them all the same or similar questions. The moderators could lead a discussion on a given topic, for example -- having them each add their thoughts on it. I couldn't stand it when substantive questions were asked of everybody and then they confronted Clark stupid non-questions, sometimes the same one twice in one "debate!"

[loyalsister]

30. I agree

Especially about the press being spread to thin.
The numbers are also ridulously spread when you get too many candidates.

[IA_Seth]

68. And you know this how?

[shireen]

2. only the general knows ...

he's publicly said that he's thinking about it. You're right, if he decides to do it, he should make an announcement sometime in early '07.

[Totallybushed]

3. Got no info, but

I sure to hell hope it's soon. Can't wait to get started on the campaign.

[quinnox]

5. Clark is stalled

There isn't enough oxygen or money in the room with all the big names running. Clark may get a spot in the next Democratic administration however.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. I am not buying this so called conventional wisdom.

I think we'll know if he's running soon, and Clark will not have trouble competing if he does. Actually I'm writing a blog entry on this theme right now, I just took a break to scan DU's front page. I'll link you to it when it's done.

[Eurobabe]

12. As a Clark04 supporter, I don't think he is going to run

Just my gut feeling. Can't tell you why, maybe I'm wrong. I do know someone who was high up in his campaign that said Wes would "probably" run again in '08, but I haven't been able to get in touch with this person lately.

[cadmium]

17. He reinforced his position with Wes Pak

and all the campaigning he did. If I were Clark I would come out now and say that overlapping campaigns and people declaring too soon are destructive to the political process. We have gone from a constant election cycle, which was bad enough, to overlapping election cycles. If I was king I would make it illegal to declare before April 15 or some arbitrary spring date.

[renie408]

59. I agree. There has got to be some kind of intelligent campaign reform.

As it is now, the races too often go to the richest and once they are elected, they can't do the stuff they said they would because they spend all their time running for the NEXT election.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Part One of my blog entry is posted now

If you are curious, click on the link to A Left Turn for Clark in my signature line. I will write Part Two today.

[Auntie Bush]

32. Just read your blog. Thanks for explaining Wes Clark's position

so brilliantly. I hope many people read that post. After reading it and getting to know what Wes stands for...I can't for the life of me understand why 90% of our Dems aren't for Clark. I give the other 10% as relatives or personal friends etc. Good job Tom...well done!

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. Thanks. I just updated it with Part II n/t

[jen4clark]

35. Thank you, Tom Rinaldo!

You're another reason I'm proud to be a Clarkie.

It's baffling to me how the netroots for the most part distrusts the Corporate Press, yet so far many are willing to buy the hype they're feeding us about not enough oxygen for anyone but the candidates they want to see go up against the Repubs. If we once again allow Corporate Press to choose our nominee, we deserve whatever we get.

Looking forward to Part Two!

[Adelante]

6. I'm giving him until Spring

In my own head. Nobody here knows what his decision will be, but if he decides to run, he won't be late again. He has said that much.

[Sparkly]

7. That makes sense.

:hi:

[Ninja Jordan]

8. I don't think he's going to run (nm)

[Clarkie1]

10. In Clark's own words.

General Wesley Clark on Your World with Neil Cavuto
December 28, 2006
transcript by Reg NYC

Stuart Varney: John Edwards announced his candidacy for the Presidency on '08 as of today, made the announcement in New Orleans. Any comment from you as a former Democrat Presidential candidate?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I like John Edwards. I think he has to be taken in as a very serious contender for the Presidency in 2008. He's a man who is clearly shown his motivation and his determination and, and one of the things that I think all Americans want and I think people all over the world want is they want the American President to be fully committed, his whole life, being and essence to the job and the public responsibilities that come with the office of the Presidency.

Stuart Varney:: Are you going to run again?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I haven't said I won't.

Stuart Varney: Would you ever consider a Vice-Presidential spot?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I'm not going to speculate on that. Right now, I'm in the business community, and I'm really working the strategic issues, and I think that just way too much to talk about.

Stuart Varney: What would get you in?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, there are a lot of different personal factors that have to be weighed on this as well as the, the issues of where the country is and what the country needs and-

Stuart Varney: Could you get the money?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So- I, you know, those are issues that I'm have, I've had some discussions about. Maybe there'll be some more discussions. I haven't got a timeline. I haven't made a decision, and I think, you know, in the interest of good decision-making and protecting people's privacy, I just have to, (laughs) I just have to beg off. (laughs)

Stuart Varney: Okay, General. (laughs) Got it. Thank you, sir.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you.

http://securingamerica.com/printready/transcript_061228.htm

[JNelson6563]

13. My question is....

If Clark doesn't run, what will the DU Clarkies do? Especially those who have remained since 04 for the sake of promoting him for 08.

Julie

[xkenx]

14. If Clark doesn't run, I'll support a draft Gore movement in a flash.

But I'm expecting Wes to run. He has said that his decision would be based on his assesment of where the country is, what is needed, and what he could bring. Well, he must be temporarily restraining himself from making a premature announcement, seeing the messes in this country! Clark is all about duty, honor, country. As much as running would be a monumental effort and difficult on his family, I believe the old soldier in him is prepared to mount another brilliant campaign to provide us with the leadership so lacking.
BTW Julie, since you've been so snarky about Clark and Clarkies in so many posts here, I'm crediting you with a genuine question this time, as opposed to suggesting that DU Clarkies do not have true interest in Dem. politics or good government, that we're only here for Clark. Sometimes we Clarkies show really thin skins because Clark routinely gets ignored or trashed by the media, trashed by other Dems who somehow think neither Clark nor his supporters are legitimate. I truly think many are actually envious of the depth of support Clark receives. In my own case, my support is for this reason---not since Bobby Kennedy have I been so inspired by a public figure as I have been inspired by Wes Clark.

[Dinger]

15. Me Too (nt)

[Auntie Bush]

31. Clark is the only one that truly interested me in politics.

I loved Clinton and Gore and they got me listening. But, Clark is the FIRST politician to EVER receive a donation on my part. He's also the only one I actively worked for. I went out in -20 degree weather to collect names to get him on the State ballot. I know that's not so much but it was for a person who was never interested in politics. Clark is my one and only inspirational candidate. I'm sorry I can't say I'd do the same for another candidate if they won the nomination. I donated to Kerry/Edwards because Wes asked us to and I'll do it again, including Obama or Hillary or Edwards or whomever, if Wes makes that request. I'm sorry...but I don't think anyone else could win the general election...so I find it difficult to get Gung Ho for someone else. Who knows...maybe I will...if and when the time comes. But, right now Wes gets ALL my attention and heart and energy. :loveya:

[jen4clark]

34. Me Three!!

2008 = President Clark.

[JNelson6563]

60. So many points.....

BTW Julie, since you've been so snarky about Clark and Clarkies in so many posts here, I'm crediting you with a genuine question this time,

Well thank you for believing me to be sincere. You will note I was referring to not all Clark supporters but just those whose only purpose on DU (since primary 04) is to promote him. Not all.

as opposed to suggesting that DU Clarkies do not have true interest in Dem. politics or good government, that we're only here for Clark.

Some of you are and those who are have made it very clear who they are.

Sometimes we Clarkies show really thin skins because Clark routinely gets ignored or trashed by the media, trashed by other Dems who somehow think neither Clark nor his supporters are legitimate.

Indeed, and this makes me wonder why, considering your statement here and assuming most Clarkies share your view, several of your group go out of your way to attack John Edwards at every turn. Heck one even recently informed me she intented to do so at every opportunity and I have no doubt she will. Much complaining and cries of persecution from Clarkies yet I've not seen any of you try to reign in the regular participants of the Trash Edwards Brigade from the Clarkie ranks. Interesting.


I truly think many are actually envious of the depth of support Clark receives.

Um, seriously?? I really don't see that. I think it really goes back to the viciousness from 04 coupled with the new, improved viciousness we've been treated to for 08 and have been promised a great deal more of.

I guess we will see how serious some of you are about serious Democratic dialogue. Will you actually see the nastiness that some Clarkies thrive on or will you claim they're just being "thinned skinned" when they are on the attack because they are so persecuted? Will those who ask the more vicious among you to knock it off be credited with wanting improved dialogue or will they be counted as "snarky" cause they are "jealous"?

We shall see, won't we?

Julie

[xkenx]

64. No, I didn't believe your question to be sincere, I just temporarily

gave you the benefit of the doubt. My instincts were correct. You go out of your way to trash Clark and Clarkies.

[JNelson6563]

71. Provide link or be known as a liar

Substantiate your claims or be known as a liar. You can have the utmost faith that I will persist in requiring proof of this charge for as long as it takes to get evidence of your claims.

Julie

[Jai4WKC08]

74. Here are three

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3036175&mesg_id=3036827
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3036175&mesg_id=3037523
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3036175&mesg_id=3037514

Every one of these attacks Clarkies: all in generalities, all without any evidence that any significant number of Clarkies are guilty of the transgressions alleged, all ignoring any offensive behavior by anyone other than Clarkies not to mention offensive behavior directed against Clark and Clarkies.

If you want more, just do an author search for JNelson563. I wonder if you'll find much of anything else.

[high density]

16. Yeah, cuz we care nothing about any other Democrats beyond Wes Clark

:eyes:

Come on.

Are you the same person that posted this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3036584#3036798

[bobthedrummer]

39. For the record, I hope that we all learned from what got so bad

that Admin. of this great political website took on a leadership role in building trust.

I know I have, and many Clark supporters have too-so just chill.

"Let's continue our discussion about building trust among primary partisans" started by Skinner 5-11-05
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1776768#top

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. Nice post Bob. Agreed. n/t

[JNelson6563]

61. Excellent comprehension skills!

As I had to point out to another in this thread, you may note that my post refereed to only those whose sole purpose is to promote Clark for 08, not all Clarkies.

Maybe if some of you read more carefully there would be less flame wars involving you all.

Just sayin'

Julie

[high density]

69. You seem to be the one trying to start the flame war...

Sorry for interpreting "DU Clarkie" to mean "A fan of Wes Clark on DU." I guess I'm just stupid.

:wtf: :silly: :argh:

[Cameron27]

18. Hmmm,

Foam at the mouth & pull our hair out by the roots I suppose :eyes:

I'll support Gore in the primaries, and if he doesn't run, then Obama. I'll hold my nose and back any Democrat who runs in the general.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. I also would support Draft Gore at that point

But it's shallow to presume that people promote someone simply for the sake of promoting them . I support someone who shares my values and the vast majority of my positions on issues that I care very deeply about. I support someone who I believe will be able to deliver on the promises he makes in his policy statements (which I agree with) because A) I think he says what he means and means what he says. B) I think he has the ability to implement ideas, not just articulate them and C) I think he can produce a broad winning national coalition for Democrats that will strengthen our ticket nation wide, delivering the type of virtually veto proof majorities that we will need in order to radically alter the direction that our nation is heading.

Anyone can differ with me on agreeing with Clark or on my reasons for thinking he can deliver on what I care about. But if you willing to be charitable enough to take me at my word, then why on earth would I not spend time here supporting the person that I do? It is completely consistent with me trying to realize Democratic progressive goals that this message board is dedicated to. I often post about Clark, but I do not only post about Clark. I also engage in numerous other discussions on Democratic Underground. However when I do post about Clark I am always ready and willing to get into a substantive discussion of real issues. I am always willing to explain my positions, and explain what it is about Clark's positions that resonate with me personally. I think that adds to the quality of discussion here, and I think my participation on Democratic Underground is as valid as anyone else's here.

[Sparkly]

20. Well said, Tom! nt

[capi888]

27. Kudos Tom

I might add to all you said, that my support WKC, is also predicated on the fact that he is the ONLY one that has the international respect of the ME & EU leaders, who can help resolve the Iraqi War. Without the War being resolved, the Economy, jobs, security in the US, etc. cannot be handled with our War debt....we are facing bankruptcy in the US! Osama wants to Kill the US finacially...thats the next attack..

[JNelson6563]

62. *sigh* You disappoint me Tom

But it's shallow to presume that people promote someone simply for the sake of promoting them .

And it is interesting that you write that since I did not even suggest anyone promotes anyone for the sake of promotion. I was referring to that handful of posters who have remained at DU for the sole purpose of promoting Clark for an 08 run. I did not touch on why they want that, however did you read that into what I said Tom?

I support someone who shares my values and the vast majority of my positions on issues that I care very deeply about. I support someone who I believe will be able to deliver on the promises he makes in his policy statements (which I agree with) because A) I think he says what he means and means what he says. B) I think he has the ability to implement ideas, not just articulate them and C) I think he can produce a broad winning national coalition for Democrats that will strengthen our ticket nation wide, delivering the type of virtually veto proof majorities that we will need in order to radically alter the direction that our nation is heading.

Most excellent soap-box routine Tom but nobody questioned anybody's reasons for supporting Clark. As you know (but seems to be lost on many of your commrades) I really don't have any issues with Clark myself. The question was not about why anyone could support Clark.

Anyone can differ with me on agreeing with Clark or on my reasons for thinking he can deliver on what I care about. But if you willing to be charitable enough to take me at my word, then why on earth would I not spend time here supporting the person that I do? It is completely consistent with me trying to realize Democratic progressive goals that this message board is dedicated to. I often post about Clark, but I do not only post about Clark. I also engage in numerous other discussions on Democratic Underground. However when I do post about Clark I am always ready and willing to get into a substantive discussion of real issues. I am always willing to explain my positions, and explain what it is about Clark's positions that resonate with me personally. I think that adds to the quality of discussion here, and I think my participation on Democratic Underground is as valid as anyone else's here.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much Tom. I am surprised to see you consider yourself to be in the group I referred to (surely you didn't miss the fact I was referring to some, not all). While I have never seen you in other discussions I surely don't question it as I miss many of the discussions here. Besides Tom, rational and civil dialogue is not at question here, no matter how repetitive, persecuted (imagined or otherwise) or overly verbose.

What I wondered about, that seems to have been actually forgotten by you while penning your very lengthy, almost relevent reply was: what will those whose only purpose on DU has been to promote a Clark fun for 08 do if Clark does not run? If this does not apply to you then I reckon you don't know the answer. I wish someone it does apply to would just answer the question but I am beginning to believe there is none honest enough to actually admit that is their one and only reason for being here.

Ah well, it was worth a shot anyhow. I can guess at the answers.....only so many possible out comes. The first is they'd stop posting here if Clark doesn't run. The second is they stay and harrass supporters of others cause they're pissed their guy's out. They cold either tire of this can eventually quit posting or the mods/admins could grow weary of it and TS the offender(s).

I guess we can just wait and see since no forthright answer seems to be forthcoming from those that my original question applies to.

Julie

[xkenx]

65. Good grief, Julie! When you attack Tom, who is the most reasoned Clarkie,

it makes me wonder if this is all an attention-getting need on your part. We all might be better off if you left your personal insecurities outside the DU doorstep. But then flame away; it keeps this mostly pro-Clark thread going, and I suspect that newcomers reading all this might figure out the weaknesses of so many of the attacks on Clark and Clarkies.

[Tom Rinaldo]

66. *sigh* Mutual Julie.

The first thing I did with my post is answer your question simply and to the point. In fact several Clark supporters did that. The one thing I find lacking in your post is any acknowledgment that people actually answered your question. That might be because of the interesting way in which you framed your question. You only asked people who have no other purpose in coming to DU other than to support Wes Clark to answer you, so therefor you can claim that anyone who can give you a reasonable answer must be someone who you weren't talking to, and therefor their answer doesn't count.

Julie when I write on DU I am not only writing to the person who my reply is addressed to. I am writing to that person, but not ONLY to that person. So yes I was writing to you, and I answered your question, but I spoke to a larger audience, because there always IS a larger audience on Democratic Underground Julie. All you have to do is look at that new fangled hit counter that Skinner added in order to confirm that. What I said is "But it's shallow to presume that people promote someone simply for the sake of promoting them". I did not write that it was shallow of you to presume that I promote someone simply for the sake of promoting them.

Obviously it's a case by case matter, right? You do not believe that every person on DU who supports Clark would have no other reason to be on DU if Clark doesn't run, right? If you want to personalize this further you could say that I was expressing an opinion that it is dangerous to make assumptions about people that you don't know, you here meant in both the singular and plural usages. I suspect Julie that were it worth our while, and were it allowed on DU, that you could reel off a small list of Clark supporters who you claim have no other purpose being on DU than to promote Wes Clark, and I would dispute your contention on most if not all of the names you would pick.

That's the danger is posing an abstract question the way that you did. You can always claim that you weren't talking to me, Julie, you were talking to those nameless others who fit your description, and then discard the replies of me or anyone else who seriously answered your question in the first place for not being on point. But if I in any way challenge the basis of the point you wanted to make, then you answer me with a *sigh*. Your mind is already made up. If your definition for what qualifies as a forthright answer to your question follows along the lines of what you guess one could possibly be, then I have to take it that your original question was completely rhetorical, and then what was the point in asking it other than to land another dig at supporters of Wes Clark?

I will concede one point to you. I would be surprised if some members of Democratic Underground who strongly support one or another Democrat for President in 2008 don't lose interest in posting here, at least temporarily, if that person withdraws from consideration. I include "Clarkies" in that, but not ONLY "Clarkies", and it has been a minor source of irritation for me to our otherwise positive online relationship that you almost always single out Clark supporters to blast for behavior that is being shown by supporters of every Democrat ever mentioned as a possible future President.

You say you don't see me posting on subjects other than Clark, but will accept my word, and I thank you for that. Lately upward of two thirds of my posts relate to Clark, but prior to the Midterms elections that percentage was a lot lower, and even that proportion is misleading because many of my Clark related posts are like the ones on this thread, where I respond to someone asking for a Clarkie to explain something. I just had an exchange with WelshTerrier2 like that a couple of days ago also, where he asked for a Clark supporter to explain something.

So do you want to tell me that you also at least criticize supporters of all of the other candidates combined, other than Clark, for the type of negative things you have to say about Clark supporters, say at least once for every two complaints about Clark supporters that you register on DU? If so I haven't seen it, but I will take your word on that if you give it. Do you ever wonder what some of the Edwards or Kerry or Gore or Kucinich etc. supporters will do if it became clear that their guy was out of it for 2008? Do you think each and everyone of those candidate supporters, unlike the many Clark supporters who you seem so willing to assume are here for one and one reason only, will stick around if their guy is out?

[Jai4WKC08]

73. I don't see anything wrong

In being at DU just to promote and defend Clark. I frequently post on other subjects, but that's not why I came here and it's not why I stay. Who the fuck are you to say my reasons are less worthy than any other DUer?

I've found that a lot of people at DU have some favorite Democrat or pet cause about which all or most of their posting is centered. I also know we have seen posters who ONLY posted to attack Clark (some of them have been obsessed, some were just sockies, at least one turned out to be a freeper plant). I even know of one who spends the majority of her posting activity attacking Clarkies and we all have got to wonder what motivates her. I don't think I've ever seen her attack any other individual or group for the exact same behavior she claims is so abhorent.

[Clarkie1]

26. Well, I intend to stay and help keep Clark's voice heard no matter what.

I'm certainly not here just because of Clark, but I think it's important that his ideas and opinions reach as wide an audience as possible.

[alfredo]

44. He is an important voice for the Democrats.

No matter what he does, I will support him.

[Jai4WKC08]

29. Will you rejoice

If a lot of Clarkies leave DU? Who will you slam at every opportunity if we do?

[seabeyond]

21. if kerry isnt running, i really wanted clark. i will be disappointed

if he doesnt.

[mtnsnake]

23. I don't think Clark will run for two reasons

even though I would love nothing more than to see this guy as President.

1) He's a realist and he knows that his chances look slim to win the Primary.

2) If he doesn't run in the primaries, I think it increases his chances tremendously to be invited on the winning ticket as the VP. General Clark as Vice President makes perfect sense and would complement any Democratic ticket nicely, especially in terms of national security. With Clark as the VP candidate, the Repubs wouldn't be able to use that security fear factor as much against us as they usually do.

[Adelante]

25. I never understand that point, mtnsnake

A VP should be a legislator, IMO, barrel-assing the administration's bills through congress. If Wes isn't president, it makes more sense to me he be SoS than VP.

[Auntie Bush]

33. That makes good sense Wes. I'd love to see

traveling around the world negotiating with other world leaders and doing more than his part in bringing about world peace. If anyone can do it...Wes can! There is no other candidate that has his expertise...we, the Dems, our country and the world need him.

[CTyankee]

36. But would it be with Hillary or Obama?

And is there any way that Clark could emerge as the survivor of the Hillary/Obama struggle?

[mtnsnake]

37. I think he would be a better complement to an Obama ticket

not to take anything awaw from Hillary, though.

If Obama is perceived as being a little slight in the "security" end of things, Clark would help alleviate any of those concerns by being his VP running mate.

[CTyankee]

38. Yeah, it would take away some Southern "discomfort" with Obama,

that's for sure.

I dunno, I think all this "It's only about Obama and Hillary" talk is premature. Somebody could emerge that we haven't even thought of yet. Remember Clinton? He came from nowhere.

But I too would like to see Wes Clark as president. If only...

[karynnj]

41. I disagree on number 2

For 2 reasons:
1) I don't think he is aiming for VP. General Clark has had a long career and is in his early 60s. Most people really running for VP have short resumees and are younger (so they are likely to run for President after 8 years.) The rumour was he wasn't interested in 2004.

2) If he were interested, the biggest concern was how he would do as a candidate, not as a President. So, if the concern is that he is not a good candidate - running in the primary is the best way to disprove this.

[xultar]

58. Correct. Clark won't be running. So I have to find someone to support.

I think I'm goin to the Edwards until Obama decides. If Obama is runnin then I'm all about him.

[youthere]

75. Interesting..

I hear a LOT about Clark in my little Iowa town. He's the candidate being discussed at the coffee shop and the local gas station. Not Hilary (at least not in a good way),and not Obama. Clark.
Even my stepfather (a life long conservative) has said he's willing to give Clark an ear.
You may be right that his chances are slim...but around here he's being talked about- A LOT.

[DaveinMD]

24. I think he doesn't run

but is on a ticket in the VP slot.

[Donna Zen]

40. Nope

I hope Wes Clark stays away from people who have refused articulate a clear policy and spend all of their energy triangulating. I would vote for Obama, after all, although he lacks experience and has no executive experience, he was enough of a leader to come out against the war, but the thought of Wes Clark being used to fill someone else holes, smacks of his being used. Why would the more qualified candidate be on the bottom of the ticket?

Anyway, Washington doesn't work that way. It's all about the cliques and who owes who what.

Our system is broken.

[Auntie Bush]

45. That's what I was thinking... Why would Clark

who has the most experience and knowledge of world problems be at the bottom of the ticket and have the young inexperienced Obama telling him what to do and how it should be done. Obama the C-i-C while Clark watches on? No way! Obama needs many more years of domestic and military experience and grooming in preparation for the office of the President. Frankly, at the thoughts of alienating many here...I think Hilary would make a much better president or VP than Obama. I don't think Obama could be harsh enough on the Republicans to be a good VP.

It's funny how Clark would make the best VP because he could give the Rethgugs such a good a**kicken yet he's too much of a leader and knowledgeable to answer to anything except, Mr. President.

God...I hope and pray he becomes known as the forty third President!
I cant think of a better gift for America.

[robcon]

47. I don't agree that Clark has experience.

He's never held an elected position in a government, never created a bill, never argued/debated/compromised in a session. I don't think Clark's first political position should be president.

[FrenchieCat]

48. And that is fine for you to say this, and others may agree......

however, I do not understand why "creating" a bill, or doing something in "session" means anything at all! These are bureaucratic activities that have very little to do with governing. Fortunately, negotiation, debating, and compromise are not actions than can only be seen in the halls of congress or the state houses, and to think so is a convenient mindset.

One of Clark's many political positions was as NATO Commander in where he regularily argued/debated/compromised with 19 country head of states prior to making moves during the Kosovo War. Another of his political position was as head negotiator of the Dayton Accord Peace treaty, in where he negotiated peace that is still intact after 10 years; of course this took negotiations, debate and compromise. Clark also took a position/stand on Affirmative Action and was involved in writing and submitting a brief to the Supreme Court which helped shape the decision that came out affirmative on supporting the U. of Michigan's pro-affirmative action stance. As the "go-to" foreign policy expert of the Democratic leadership during the period prior to elections 2006, Clark also maneuvered compromises via negotiations....and in fact the Iraq position that many in congress took in order to win those elections was successful. http://securingamerica.com/node/1471 ,


http://securingamerica.com/node/1420
http://securingamerica.com/node/1426
http://securingamerica.com/node/1233

Although Clark never "Created" a bill, he has allowed his views to shape how many might "vote" on certain issues. To me "how" Clark has used his microphone to influence other who would vote is just as effective as "creating" a bill.

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

You see oftentimes it is not the office you hold as much as whether your ideas are adopted that counts. Wes Clark has led in areas such as the subject of Darfur (now very "popular"), the fact that Bush should be held accountable for what happened during 9/11, and other ideas as well (including denouncing torture, etc...)


In fact it is a testament to Wes Clark effective; how he has been able to affect the dialogue of this country without his holding an office, and I dare want to think that he would be that much more effective if he held one as President. If folks who have done less important negotiating, debating and compromising than he has done (as most that he has done are on the issues of war and peace/life and death) allows them to be qualified to run for the highest office in the land, I'm not quite sure why all that he has accomplished should somehow be brushed aside simply because he hasn't held elected office. The requirements to run for President make no such distinction and in fact he would not be the first in history to become President without having held elected office.

[Auntie Bush]

50. Thanks Frenchie Cat...I needed that!

I was hoping you or Tom were around to put that into accurate context.

[jen4clark]

52. You ROCK FrenchieCat!

Thank you for your tireless work in spreading truth and fact re: General Clark. I know General Clark must be so proud of you! You and Rinaldo are just amazing. Thank you.

Wishing you and your family a healthy, prosperous, full of love and light New Year!

[wiley]

54. *

[Clarkie1]

49. A President does none of the things you listed. nt

[Donna Zen]

55. The executive branch

As we all know, the executive branch is the home of the presidency, and that means people with that experience have in their history a time when they ran large organizations. Thus, governors are often better suited for the presidency than legislators. Actually, the president of the USA has 1,250,000 people who work for him/her. The entire legislative branch has a total of about 35,000 people employed. So the real question is, does the person running for the presidency have a resume that includes executive experience? What have they run?

(Forget bush, the Texas Lt. governor does the heavy lifting. Each state has different set ups.)

Actually, while you think generals have no experience dealing with bills, etc., the people associated with the military that have benefitted from the legislative bills regarding education, benefits, housing, policy, and working conditions changes would beg to differ with you. General Clark has gone before congress many times on behalf of his constituency, and he has been very instrumental in getting those bills written and passed. That was part of his job. He knows a great deal more than how to polish his boots.

[FrenchieCat]

56. Here's one example of Wes Clark testifying before congress on Education

Clark's testimony before a House subcommittee on education reform, from back in 2001, a little over a year after he retired and well before he was considering any sort of political career. Just the formal statement, not the question and answer session that I suspect followed. http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/107th/edr/impaid110801/clark.htm

***************
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Education Reform
Committee on Education and the Workforce
United States House of Representatives
November 8, 2001

General Wesley K. Clark
United States Army, Retired

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.

Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the critically important subject of impact aid and the education of the young people in the military family. Let me commend you for holding this hearing, and for your willingness to address this issue.

Put simply, the quality of youth education remains a key factor in the retention and recruitment of personnel in the Armed Forces. Beyond mere expedience, our nation must assure that the children of its Armed Forces personnel are provided a top quality education. The United States' military force is highly educated and its members hold the same expectations for their children's education. More of our men and women are basing their decisions to enter or leave the military on perceptions of the quality of education their children will receive. It is significant that as the ranks of our Armed Services have fallen, funding for impact aid has fallen short of the level needed by our children's schools. If we want strong, educated, committed men and women in our Armed Services, then we must provide for their families well being.

Currently, there are approximately a half million military dependants who attend school in districts surrounding military bases. Less than 15% of military children are in DoD schools; the rest attend public and private schools off-post. In my home state of Arkansas, in the vicinity of Little Rock Air Force Base, there are approximately 2500 students who attend school off post. The three school districts are eligible to receive assistance under the federal impact aid program. However, the impact aid program is funded nationally at only around the 60% level. What does this mean for Little Rock? This means that the three school districts in Little Rock bear a great burden in meeting the educational requirements of each child, both military and civilian. Currently, the three districts receive $575,000 in federal impact aid. If the program were fully funded, the school districts would receive somewhere around $3.8 million.

This significant shortfall translates into a decrease in the number and quality of academic and extracurricular programs the schools can provide to its military and civilian children. It also means a decrease in armed forces retention and recruitment, which is cause for great concern. We do not want to see our military children losing out on the quality education they deserve and their parents expect. Impact aid was designed to reimburse public school districts the full cost of educating the military child attending public or private school off post. In 1950, the Congress recognized that the loss of traditional revenue sources like property and personal income taxes negatively impacted the local school districts. Traditionally these types of taxes have accounted for a significant portion of the local school district's annual budget. However, military students can negatively impact the district's financial resources because their parents do not pay such things as income taxes, license fees, and property taxes. While the nominal cost of educating one student varies from district to district across the United States, one thing remains clear, the federal government must do more to fund the education of our military children. The federal government must live up to its promise to care for its military family by fully funding the impact aid program. If we want to retain and recruit the best men and women, we must provide for their families and this means making an extra effort.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while much has been done in recent years to strengthen accountability and decentralize responsibility and authority in the DoD school system, off-post schools remain beyond the control of the military and DoD leadership. However well-meaning the off post school leadership and staff may be, these schools face particular challenges as I observed in my assignments at Ft. Irwin, Ft. Carson, CO and Ft. Hood, TX. Such schools tend to suffer from restricted funding and higher than average per pupil cost due to the turnover of students associated with military reassignments. In normal communities, the public schools draw on a diverse tax base and enjoy a relatively stable student population. This stability reduces school stress, disciplinary problems, and the general frictions that are inevitable at the beginning of each school year. Civilian schools with substantial population of military families often suffer from reduced tax base as well as extraordinarily high turn over of students even during the school year.

Federal impact aid was created to address these problems. It is a matter of money but it is not a hand out. These additional resources are very much needed. The federal government impacts school districts and our government should do its part. I know that the Committee has worked hard on behalf of our military family to provide the best possible education for our children. This is an important issue to me and I commend the Committee for it.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would
be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[Donna Zen]

53. Hillary???

Too long with her finger in the wind, and no leadership. Would you like to see Wes Clark defending the war? I wouldn't. Besides, a vp for Hillary would be tightly controlled and focused grouped. I've heard that she will be running with Richardson.

[abburdlen]

28. if he announces...

it won't be until after the State of the Union on January 23rd.
Just my guess.

[LittleClarkie]

42. Why the urgency? Most possibles have NOT announced yet

Why the fixation on Clark?

[Clarkie1]

46. Good point.

Assuming hypothetically that Clark does decide to run, why would he announce now?

Last time he announced, if memory serves me correctly, a few months before the Iowa caucus. Granted, it would not be in any candidates best interest to wait that long, but we are now more than ONE YEAR from the Iowa caucus.

All in good time.

[Auntie Bush]

51. "Why the fixation on Clark?"

It's not really a fixation. It's more like being anxious. Guess I can't stand the suspense anymore...however after Rosebud's post I'm mush less worried.

I'm personally in a hurry for him to announce because so many Dems are jumping aboard the Obama and Edward's ship. I don't want them to sail off into the horizon/sunset with the hearts and minds of too many Dems and it seems as if everyone is jumping aboard. Once one gets their heart and emotions tied to a certain candidate...it becomes very hard to pry them apart. Isn't that what happened to the 33% bush* supporters? They know he isn't good for America...that he has lied to them to get us into this God forsaken war, etc...yet they can't be unfaithful to him.

I just want Clark to announce before that happens. However, I guess I'm being selfish because I'd really like for him and his family to relax, enjoy privacy and enjoy life as long as possible before he jumps into the snake pit with his eyes wide open. Gert must be so worried!
Now that I'm pretty sure he'll run I'll definitely become less "fixated". How's that for a compromise? See...Wes is a good teacher.

[Clarkie1]

57. There is no need or reason for Clark to go chasing after Edwards and Obama.

If he runs, he's not going to let others define a timeline for him.

[JNelson6563]

72. Plenty of Clark supporters for that.

In fact, I have the assurances of one that she will be doing just that at every opportunity--hammering at Edwards. The real question will be, How long will DU put up with it? Not that TSing ever managed to stop sockies from sprouting up but hey, one can hope there is an effort at keeping the dialogue productive, in spite of the intentions of some posters.

Julie

[karynnj]

63. I wouldn't worry about too many Democrats

committing solidly to anyone this early. Even when the real primary seasons start, there are often major swings of people between candidates. 2004, was atypical in that once the primaries actually started the momentum never went to anyone but Kerry, though the media would have loved it if it had. Switches in the lead are the fun part of reading about campaigns.

Most people in the general population are not thinking seriously about who should be President. In conversations, and especially to pollsters, when asked most will make a choice because we are a culture that finds it worse to say "I don't know" than to be wrong. (If you don't believe this ask directions in most major cities.) This likely means that an early state the person currently getting the most positive coverage (if the difference is big) will be pretty overstated. People here are atypical because the very nature of the forum is more comfortable for those in one camp or another. Leaving a camp is harder because of the bonds with your friends.

But, that simply isn't true in the real world. If Clark announces in - say, May, that he is running and reaches people with this announcement, he will pick up many people who were waiting for him -like you, some who had not seriously committed to anyone and some who had picked someone else, but have either seen clay feet in their candidate or something to inspire them in Clark. Although I wrote this for Clark, it is true for any candidate - Edwards, Obama, Hillary, Kerry etc. Go to pollingreport.com and look at the 2004 preferences over 2003 - they changed constantly.

The 2 bigger issues for getting in now are - top campaign strategists and money. When Warner and Bayh pulled out, the other potential candidates were almost like vultures trying to pick up key people committed to work for them. The question here is when people who would have wanted to lead a Clark campaign would sign on with an alternative candidate to be on the ground floor. The other question is money - someone on TV (I was not watching closely enough to know who) put this in perspective. He said that it is likely that a successful primary canddiate will need to raise at least $50 million dollars. If they start now, that is $1 million a week. If they wait till June, it is $2 million a week. This is likely simplistic - the most money doesn't always win (ask Dean) and a considerable amount of the money will be raised while the primaries happen - but there has to be a nugget of truth.

[Clarkie1]

70. Good points. nt