Run, Wes, Run

[xkenx]

Wes Clark has been working the issues lately as a non-candidate, partly so that he is not perceived as doing so for political purposes. Today he smacked down Joe LIEberman for his bellicosity towards Iran, both on his www.securingamerica.com website and Huffington Post. So it is all over the blogs. So what! MSM is silent. They let LIEberman get away with the remarks. Clark is currently heard in very few places. But, if/when Clark runs, he will have a much broader forum. And in the 2008 election, who better to do General Smackdown of the inevitable swiftboaters on the Rethug side?
Clark has said that he has "preconditions" to running. They may be money, endorsements, status of declared candidates, or whatever. I urge General Clark to run without waiting for the preconditions. I remember the wonderful movie, "Field of Dreams." The "voice" told Kevin Costner's character, Ray Kinsella, "IF YOU BUILD IT HE WILL COME." Ray took that on faith and built the baseball field in his corn field. They most assuredly did come. Whether Wes is waiting for money, endorsements, other candidates' stumbles, or whatever, I don't care. IMO, if he declares, they will most assuredly come, for Clark is the true national security candidate, the one most equipped to flip red states by taking on the Rethugs on their turf. so, RUN, WES, RUN.

[Dinger]

1. I've Been Saving Money Since 2004, Waiting For Wes To Run

Can't say how much, since Mr. Dinger checks out DU now and then.:evilgrin:



I'm ready xkenx!
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[knight_of_the_star]

2. He will get his old activists back

Most of them anyway, he'll be able to start a campaign rather quickly this time.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. If he runs I'm there.

Just waiting, fingers crossed.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Me too. nt

[AlinPA]

7. He is my favorite candidate , but I am afraid he won't run now. The media is

setting it up for their "favorites" and I doubt that he is one of their celebrities.

[tabasco]

15. Me too!

I will get involved.

[bonito]

4. Yes

And waiting...

[wildhorses]

6. i like wes

my dream team would be a gore/clark ticket:patriot:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

19. Me too!!! Gore/Clark.

[Auntie Bush]

8. Bravo!

However, I have a feeling he doesn't want to run against Hillary as long as she it looking viable. I think he'll run if she falters (her poll numbers drop sharply or she screws up) or if the polls show she is unelectable and can't win the general election. Todays numbers are beginning to show she couldn't beat the top 3 Rethugs. I wish Clark wasn't so loyal to the Clintons. I'd be all for a Clark/Clinton ticket.
Hillary could still be the first VP and that would be a first and quite an honor and open the door for other women to hold high office. We'd also have Bill Clinton's get out the vote machine and dollars plus his world wide prestige. The world would love that ticket! But Clark has just got to get out there and run. P L E A S E run Wes run.

[xkenx]

11. I see no reason for Wes to be loyal to the Clintons.

Bill didn't even keep the saboteurs from getting Clark removed early from his SACEUR position. Hillary is nothing to Wes.

[Auntie Bush]

13. I hope you are right. Then I'll have higher hopes that he'll run.

Because it doesn't look like Hillary is going down any time soon.

Who would you like to see Wes run with?

[xkenx]

24. Hillary is going down. Watch the nervousness about her electability take hold.

Current polling of the masses is mostly name recognition. I suspect that if George Clooney were included in a Dem. poll, he'd get a big chunk of the poll vote. I think Obama has a lot of potential to grow into POTUS level. He could bring a lot to a Clark ticket. Once in office, he could help with domestic policy, work with Congress, and learn foreign policy as he goes along.

[Auntie Bush]

35. I think a large majority of voters would love that ticket.

Clark/Obama is a winner. I also don't think Obama is ready for the presidency now. With 8 more years he'll be a sure winner! We could count on 16 years of Dem. control. Now that's a happy thought and just think how we can reverse the trend of the supreme court. Dems just HAVE to WIN!

[ConsAreLiars]

17. I don't think it is a matter of being "loyal to the Clintons."

Clark understands strategy and tactics, and after 2004 has a much deeper understanding of how the political machines operate. He's often alluded to the conditions being right as a condition for him to put forth his candidacy. One factor is likely whether or not the Clinton/corporate wing would sabotage his candidacy or whether they would feel they needed to ally with him if they were to remain relevant.

The defining characteristic of the Clinton/corporate wing is opportunism, not ideology or personal loyalties, but that wing has influence/control over much of the the organizations and networks that make the Party work. Well, not "no ideology" but the belief that the greater good can come to the many by putting some conditions on the how Government actions enrich the few.

Clark, from what I can see, has no opposition to corporatism per se, but he does seem to think, like FDR, that serving the greater good is the first goal of a decent government and a necessary condition for the survival of capitalism, and understands that using the military to expand corporate domination of the world is neither just nor effective. This puts him objectively against the war machine and global corporatism. More like FDR than Jefferson (although he shares a lot of those ideals that still resonate at a mass level), but far better than the alternatives.

(In my opinion.)

[xkenx]

23. IMO Hillary will not be nominated.

Her negatives and opportunism doesn't play with the base, who are the Dem. primary voters. Generic polls are too broad, and even there, Obama is close. Clark should step in; he has nothing to fear from the Hillary machine, which has been really rough on the other candidated, especially Obama. What's she gonna do---destroy everyone who opposes her? I don't think Clark's precondition includes anything to do with HRC, other that possibly taking stock of her weaknesses. Run, Wes, Run!

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. We agree on many things

As you note, Clark thinks strategically, so of course he has to reckon with where opposition to him running would come from, exactly how it would react to his entrance into the race, and who would be willing to stand with him if he ran. I think you slightly (only slightly) overstate the direct influence the corporate wing of the Democratic Party now has on his decision. I'm sure he knows that much of it would ultimately agree, reluctantly if need be, to ally with him if his candidacy took root and grew and showed strong signs of leading to victory. I don't think Clark is seeking much encouragement if any from them in advance. But he knows he needs to have an initial flight plan sufficient to get his campaign aloft and into contention, likely in the face of, at first at least, corporate Democrat antipathy.

If Clark can find enough relatively non mainstream corporate aligned and/or progressive support to propel himself firmly into the mix, Clark knows he can start to change "facts on the ground" through changing the dynamics of the race, which would force a sufficient degree of the "opportunist wing" of our Party, as you so nicely describe it, to accommodate themselves to accepting him as our standard bearer. Oh I'm sure Clark is keeping open ties with them now, he's too good a tactician not too, so as to hopefully smooth their transition to openly supporting him later in the process, if he does run. Al Gore, and every other Democrat who is running to win rather than primarily make a statement, I'm sure does the same.

As a career military man who always took the concept of honor and service deeply to heart, Wes Clark constantly chose his personal integrity over personal wealth throughout his long military career. Sometimes we act like that is a shocking thing to find in an American leader, a sad commentary if ever there was one, but many of us are personally guided by those priorities ourselves, and career military service is not a path chosen by those who value personal wealth highly.

Col Hackworth once wrote about an interview he did with Clark that bears on this :

"It took months for Clark to get back in shape. He had the perfect excuse, but he didn’t quit the Army to scale the corporate peaks as so many of our best and brightest did back then. Instead, he took a demoralized company of short-timers at Fort Knox who were suffering from a Vietnam hangover and made them the best on post – a major challenge in 1970 when our Army was teetering on the edge of anarchy. Then he stuck around to become one of the young Turks who forged the Green Machine into the magnificent sword that Norman Schwarzkopf swung so skillfully during Round One of the Gulf War.

I asked Clark why he didn’t turn in his bloody soldier suit for Armani and the big civvy dough that was definitely his for the asking.

His response: “I wanted to serve my country.”
http://www.sftt.us/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks+Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=35&rnd=908.3537190930426

So I find it significant today that Wes Clark managed to get to a point, arguably, where he can be elected President of the United States, without either having spent a life time accumulating wealth as a key to power OR depending on those who do so to have financed his career, in multiple installments, every election cycle for decades. It's significant to me that Clark spent his life time rising to the top of an institution that did not reward the best, brightest, most lucky, and/or best connected with pay package compensation thousands of times higher than the base pay of average workers. Clark's own pay barely topped out over 100,000 a year in the final few years of his 35 year career in the Army.

Which is to say that Clark's personal expression of his own life priorities, and his subsequent life experience of working inside an institution that at least partially embraced a minimalistic base form of socialist economics (all housing, health, and education costs fully covered for those who are an active part of the organization, with meaningful - on paper anyway - retirement benefits for those who served) reinforces his vision of a society that functions best when at least the minimal needs of all of it's members are looked out for.

I accept that Clark is no intrinsic enemy of capitalism, and that he accepts that some manifestation of Corporatism is a given that will not be erased from a 21st Century World, but I think he believes unconstrained greed is a direct threat to Capitalism also, because it threatens the health of the societies that Capitalism needs to function in. In that way Clark I believe is capitalist "friendly" in a manner similar to how Teddy Roosevelt was capitalist "friendly". We can do a hell of a lot worse, and we almost always do.

[ConsAreLiars]

36. People should read your observations closely. You give a good synopsis of what drives him,

from all I know. And it is very different than what drives most people who end up in powerful positions in this society.

It makes me think a bit more about how I should understand him. I personally tend to think really fundamental changes in "how things work" are necessary if we are to survive, so I relate more to the more radical calls for change and have put my time in on promoting those voices.

But he has spent his life, not as an "advocate for change," but as one who has the responsibility for "making things change" by understanding how things are and working to effect change in that reality. The Fox job was certainly one example.

Couple that with his basic values, which I believe include peace and justice and the common good, it is quite possible that he understands the fundamentally anti-human nature of global corporatism, or not, but has a very realistic understanding of what needs to be done, and how, to limit that machine's capacity to create suffering in the world. In either case, whether he sees a need for fundamental change (possible but unlikely), or just some constraints, he likely sees both the "need" to and and the "how" to begin making progressive change a reality. I hope he has the opportunity on MSNBC to speak about more than war plans and policy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. You put your finger on exactly what drew me to Clark

You said:

"But he has spent his life, not as an "advocate for change," but as one who has the responsibility for "making things change".

For all of his intellectual firepower, Wes Clark is fundamentally a hands on guy. A good theory doesn't compare in satisfaction for him with a good outcome. And his "intellectual firepower" gives him the tools needed to understand the problems that we face, and fashion the course of action most likely to bring about concrete positive changes to a situation, given whatever circumstances are then at play, which Clark is always excellent at reading. And he is never afraid of hard work. Someone else can cite the actual details which I can't remember right now, but while Clark was already a commander, he spent a summer learning how to rebuild the engine (I think it was the engine) on his car, because he couldn't afford to pay someone else to do it for him.

This is the skill package that I think we desperately need right now, in the hands of someone who has the basic values that you list; "peace and justice and the common good". Clark combines two urgently needed abilities. One is the ability to visualize ambitious and meaningful goals, and the other is the ability to chart a course through difficult terrain capable of actually getting us from here to there. Not to mention having the toughness required to actually see that course through. For some reason, those two skills are rarely combined in the same person. Either leaders are inspirational visionaries who subsequently blow most of the details, or they are masters of the minute, able to keep a vehicle functioning smoothly as long as no efforts are made at off road trail blazing. I see Wes Clark as a rare exception, who avoids us having to chose between those two equally essential skill sets.

The Left in general has produced more than our share of good visionaries and theoreticians. Where we have been weakest is providing technicians and tacticians up to the task or building the world that we desire from the ashes we are given to work with. Seemingly we keep proving that old cliche, "you can't get there from here", and frankly not only am I tired of that but I believe we have run out of time to delay our journey any longer. So while I value Clark's vision, I value his effectiveness at realizing his vision much more.

When Wes Clark is tasked with a responsibility that calls on his honor, integrity, and ability to complete,, he always tries to move heaven and earth to do so well. His entire career record of accomplishments reflects that drive, and that ability. And he repeatedly has demonstrated the leadership skills needed to harness the abilities of those around him in those quests.

Social change, obviously, has a huge political dimension. Coalitions diverse enough to be powerful but unified enough to be viable must be created and nurtured in order for us to wield the power needed to effect meaningful changes. The Left in America today does not start out with a dominant political position in any way assured. Our strength is growing, but we are still coming from behind, and we still need to win the trust and shift the consciousness of large numbers of Americans who up until now we could not reliably count on for support to achieve our priorities.

I think Wes Clark has been masterful in reading where and why Republicans still get the support that they do, and he is constantly positioning himself to neutralize their strengths with the electorate, and doing so effectively, whether that is through going onto FOX, recruiting "Fighting Democrats" like James Webb to undercut perceptions of a Republican advantage on National Security, or helping launch VoteVets.org to undercut the influence of traditionally Republican leaning veterans groups. And always the bottom line for me is this. Wes Clark keeps making tactically brilliant moves, not just for the Democratic Party, but for a progressive agenda within the Democratic Party, while appealing directly to those who may not yet realize why that agenda should be their own.

Couple that with Clark's inherently humanistic international agenda, the values he places on protecting Constitutional rights, and his clear eyed understanding of the perils that Global Warming has in store for life as we now know it, and I think Clark is exactly the leader we need today. If we are so lucky as to get a Wesley Clark Presidency, I think that can create the conditions needed for more overtly progressive American leadership in the future, while easing human suffering both at home and abroad in the interim.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Here is an instructive case in point

taken from Clark's days at the pentagon when he was asked to look into the trouble in Rwanda when genocide there was just stating to take place. Clark knew virtually nothing about Rawanda at the time but he started pulling all nighters to find out, and he ended up presenting a plan for U.S. military intervention in Rwanda to stop the genoicide, but the Joint Chiefs and the President chose to do nothing instead. This is from an interview Dan Rather did with Wes Clark in November of 2003:

"But, Dan, I had been in the Pentagon during the summer of 1994, when 800,000 people were hacked to death by machetes in Rwanda. I was the officer responsible for doing plans and contingencies for the United Nations, and I did a number of those with my staff, and we presented them and we talked about 'em and you know, we stroked our chins and we worried about things and we thought, you know, "Is this gonna be acceptable?"

But we didn't do anything. We stood by without inserting ourselves, without asserting ourselves, and 800,000 people died. And at the time we didn't know that. All we knew is there was trouble. We didn't -- I didn't have the full feel of the scope of it.

I then went to Bosnia on the Dayton negotiations and talked to people and looked at the devastation there. And I thought, you know, when you're a senior officer, you have an obligation not just to answer the mail when somebody sends you a letter and say, "Here's the answer." But to speak up and to speak out until you're told not to any longer, until you're told, "We're just not gonna do it." And so I did--"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584554.shtml

It was in a great 3 part interview that Dan Rather did with Wes Clark, and I never thought I would have to say this, but damn, I miss Dan Rather.

Lots of amazing nuggets in that 11/2003 Three part interview, such as this one:

"We need an accounting, and it's essential function of Congress to hold the executive branch accountable. It's the basic separation of powers in the United States Constitution. And that's what's at risk in the Iraq situation."

And this one:

GENERAL CLARK ...We've had another couple of million people lose their health insurance, and the administration's proposal is ideological. It's tax cuts for the wealthy. It's trickle-down economics. It's the economics that this president's father in 1980 called “Voodoo economics.”

It's not an effective way of dealing with the problems at hand, but it is an effective way of pursuing an agenda that some right wingers call "starve the beast." That is, just keep taking money away from the federal government until it can't afford the social programs and services that Americans today consider part of their everyday life."


And this:

"The last time I checked, the Constitution didn't say that we should susspend our democracy for war. Now in Rome they did that. In ancient Rome, they appointed a dictator and they suspended democracy when the Roman Republic was in danger. And they eventually ended up with a permanent dictator through that process."

[The Count]

9. Everyone who believed in him...still does! Not many can boast that.

I was listening to Gore mumbling at the bookstore last month about not blaming the Bushes and why is it that the media is so bad? It was sould crushing. I took my Gore 2008 button off and almost shed tears for missing Wes. That's someone who can fire a crowd with his own inner fire!

[jenmarie]

10. I'm happy to wait.

Clark has spent his entire adulthood in service to this country. The oath he took to defend and protect the Constitution is still strong in him, and he knows how desperately this country needs his leadership.

My guess on the preconditions -- Iran. I think he knows if this administration attacks Iran, it could be the final straw in the destruction of our constitution and form of government in this country. The way our presidential races are, his efforts would be seen as political posturing, and this is way too important.

Yes, Clark would flip red states, and the irony is that his domestic policies are more liberal than any of the other candidates except Kucinich.

[xkenx]

12. Wes is progressive "wolf" in military sheep's uniform, which is

why he, alone, can flip red states.

[derby378]

14. Wes Clark will make an excellent Secretary of Defense...

...but I'm afraid he's not Presidential material.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Opinions will vary

Mine is that I believe you will make an excellent supporter for some other Democratic candidate, but I'm afraid you're not pundit material.

And you are free to think the same about me :)

[AtomicKitten]

18. Wes Clark would lend honor, integrity, and mad skills to any office.

We should be so lucky.

[FrenchieCat]

20. You, derby378 and Republicans are both afraid........for difference reasons maybe...

You've stated yours, but in terms of the GPO running "strong on defense" per Guliani/McCain and even Romney who will talk a lot of "strongman" shit talk......they would poop in their pants to even think of Wes Clark on that ticket. It renders their shit talk moot....and please know... that's a big giant advantage over what our very own Democratic candidate Frontrunners can do now. Winning Elections is about strategy. Clark blows the GOP strategy out of the water and leaves them with nothing.

[Dinger]

22. What Frenchie Said

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[wildhorses]

27. i understand that statement -- do you think he is good

vice president material? if not who do you want for a ticket?

[derby378]

28. I think Richardson/Clark would be something solid I'd consider

Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy. We're gonna need lots of it to help pull America out of the hole Herr Decider has thrown us into.

If Gore throws his hat into the ring, Gore/Clark would be fine, too.

[wildhorses]

29. i think --

gore/clark is a very electable ticket and, one i would be proud to support:patriot:

thanks.

[Jai4WKC08]

33. Seems to me that someone who doesn't know

That Clark is not eligible to serve as Sec of Defense doesn't know enough to have a credible opinion about what constitutes "presidential material."

[derby378]

37. Explain, please?

:shrug:

[xkenx]

38. One must be out of the military for 10 years to be able to be SECDEF

Clark won't be out 10 years until sometime in 2010 or so.

[Norrin Radd]

21. k+r

[Adelante]

25. RUN, WES, RUN

Yes, please.

[Cameron27]

30. I still think he's going to run...

and I don't mind waiting. :-)

[Adelante]

31. Me neither

Except for the ever-present butterflies in my stomach :)

[Cameron27]

32. Yes, there's always those damned butterflies lol.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

34. Besides President Gore, Wes Clark is the only person I can confidently support to lead our country.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. It's the same two men for me also. n/t

[dae]

41. I'll not commit to another till he says he's definitely out.

:dem::kick: