Gore, Clark, Kos, and the 2008 Election

[Tom Rinaldo]

For readers of tea leaves, the omens have not been favorable lately for a 2008 Gore Presidential run. For one thing, the man himself still sounds decidedly less than enthusiastic about the prospect, and there are those supposed semi-insider leaks that say Gore spoke more positively in private about the prospect two months ago than he has of late. Jimmy Carter seems convinced that Gore won’t run despite having personally urged Al to throw his hat into the ring. Now there is a report quoting his daughter Kristen saying at a book signing for her second novel that; “He's really not going to get in the race.”

We have come to the near end of a dramatic run of events that have deservedly kept Al Gore’s name (and his mission) centered in the public eye. Starting with the release of “An Inconvenient Truth”, furthered by a campaign that organized many hundreds of simultaneous nation wide viewing parties, followed by “An Inconvenient Truth” winning the Academy Award for Best Documentary, Al Gore has been on a deeply meaningful and productive roll.

Al Gore then published a high profile political book offering his unvarnished take on what is wrong with America; The Assault on Reason, which led to high profile book promotion opportunities both in the media and in person. Most recently Al Gore produced and hosted the world wide series of concerts, “Live Earth”, which highlighted the global environmental crisis facing all of us, which also spawned hundreds of viewing parties all across the nation. Finally, the Draft Gore movement capped all of this off with the delivery of 100,000 signatures on a petition to Al Gore, urging him to run for President. The buildup has reached a climax, the stage is set, but Al Gore isn’t seen standing in the wings, adjusting his bow tie, waiting for the curtains to open on a spot lit podium with a microphone pre- adjusted to his height.

There are no clues leaking regarding an important pending announcement concerning Al Gore’s political plans, though now is the time when I would expect to start seeing them. Instead the few clues scattered like wayward bread crumbs tend to be discouraging. Does this prove that Al Gore won’t run in the primaries as a Democratic candidate for President? Obviously it does not. Even if Al Gore’s current thinking leads him away from that choice, that could still change in time for him to make a run of it.

Over the late spring and into summer, national polls have been tracking Al Gore’s support among Democrats for a Presidential run. The results seem to indicate that Gore is clearly competitive, but they don’t show Al Gore leaping easily to the front of the pack. And after an initial pattern of rapidly rising polling numbers, more recently Gore’s support seems to be stabilizing, somewhere in the thick of the upper tier of candidates. To me that indicates that the Democratic nomination will not be handed to Al Gore on a silver platter, he will have to fight for it. If Gore wants to fight for it, I think that he can win. But does he want to fight for it, at this stage in his career, given the crucial mission Al Gore already has underway, one that frequently transcends partisan politics? Only he can answer that question.

As those who know me already already know about me, I remain a strong supporter of Wes Clark for President, though obviously it is far from certain that he will run in 2008 either. People differ on how far from certain a Clark candidacy is. On one end of the spectrum some believe the word remote doesn’t begin to describe how likely the chances are Wes Clark will still announce for President. Others feel the stage is now set for Clark to enter the race, and that the moment is rapidly approaching for Wes Clark to make his final decision. Time will tell soon enough. To me it has long been obvious that if Al Gore wanted into this race the space for him to enter it has clearly been reserved. Al Gore earned every one of the hundred thousand signatures on the Draft Gore petitions that recently got turned in.

To be blunt, there hasn’t really been room for more than one shadow candidate to haunt the current Democratic field, and given Al Gore’s deserved current high profile, it is he who casts the longest shadow. So it is natural that Gore’s name immediately comes up whenever speculation about another Democrat entering the race breaks out. Personally I would be glad to support Al Gore for President in 2008. I think Gore would make both a great candidate and great President. But what if he really doesn’t run?

For those who have read my Diaries in the past, you know I have frequently promoted Wes Clark for President, but have you noticed that I’ve refrained a little from doing so lately? My reasons are actually explained above. I felt the opening to run was Al Gore’s to seize now if he wanted it, and I have been holding back, waiting for his thinking on that choice to become a little clearer. Up until now I felt confident there was ample time for events to play out as they may, time enough for Wes Clark still to declare if Al Gore decided not to. Now however, that time is growing shorter. How much shorter is another matter open to debate, but I suggest that the Labor Day weekend is the essential end point for Clark to clearly signal, at least informally, that he intends to be a candidate for President in 2008. Al Gore has the option to enter the Presidential race later, whether or not Wes Clark also declares; Gore is the man who won the popular vote in 2000, and by now most Americans know he is the man who should have been sitting in the White House for the last seven years. Wes Clark however, can’t wait much longer.

The title of this Diary invokes Gore, Clark, and the 2008 election, but also Kos, so maybe it’s time for me to explain why I included Kos. I think the Yearly Kos Convention that is about to happen is a crucial moment for Wes Clark and any chance that he will run for President in 2008. Most if not all readers of this Diary know that Wes Clark will deliver the Keynote address to Yearly Kos on Friday morning, the first full day of activist business there. No I don’t expect Wes Clark to then make his presidential plans known one way or the other, but it will be a significant moment regardless. During that weekend in Chicago, dozens of the most influential bloggers in America will gather together, listen to, and meet in person most, if not all, of the Democrats actually running for President. They will be joined there by many hundreds more committed political grassroots activists drawn from every movement and all corners of our nation.

The impression of Wes Clark that Yearly Kos attendees leave Chicago with may well factor into Clark’s ultimate decision. For the first time since the DNC Winter meeting, Wes Clark will share the same political spotlight with the Democratic men and woman who are already running for President. Will you be attending yearly Kos in Chicago? If not, will you be one of many thousands more who tune into what takes place there through the internet from afar? If so I ask one thing of you, especially if you have not already committed to one Democratic candidate, body heart and soul. Focus closely on what Wes Clark has to say at Yearly Kos, focus closely on how Wes Clark is received by fellow Democratic activists at Yearly Kos.

Here is why I ask. If there is one moment in time when some words of encouragement to Clark from us, some expression of appreciation to him for the service he has given and continues to give to America, might in some small way influence Wes Clark’s final decision, it will be in the weeks immediately following Yearly Kos. I address this especially to those of you who still hope Al Gore will yet enter the race for President. Gore very well may, but he very well may not also. It is accurate to say that Al Gore has not yet locked the door and thrown away the key to a possible 2008 run for President. But it is accurate to say that Wes Clark has intentionally left that same door wide open. Of the two men, Al Gore and Wes Clark, Clark is now the one more likely to actually run.

Some Democrats are quite content with the current field of Presidential candidates. Others are not. Clearly those of us still urging either Al Gore and/or Wes Clark to enter the race fall into the latter category. I believe we do so for many of the same reasons. I view both Al Gore and Wes Clark as seasoned, visionary leaders and statesmen. I view both men as true patriots willing to say what must be said, and do what must be done, to bring about core essential changes to the course America is now on at the expense of their own careers if need be, and that is the type leadership I think America and the world needs today, and that is the type of leadership that can carry the Democratic Party to an historic sweeping electoral victory in 2008.

So I would not ask any supporter of Al Gore to turn away from your dream of him becoming our President in 2008. It still may come to pass. Given Al Gore’s standing in the Democratic Party he could enter a crowded field late and still emerge as victor. If Wes Clark enters the race soon that would not kill Al Gore’s chance to enter the race later with a good chance of still winning. But now is the time, for those who are so inclined, to encourage Wes Clark to declare his candidacy for President, if you believe it is important that at least one of these men run in 2008. I honestly now doubt that Al Gore will run. I am more than open to being proved wrong, and I am not convinced that he won’t run. Al Gore still has ample time to decide. Wes Clark does not, and in his own words he “thinks about it every day”. No doubt Wes Clark will be thinking about the decision to run for President in the days that immediately follow Yearly Kos. If you want Wes Clark in the race, now is the time to let him know. If you are not yet sure, now is the time to pause and consider Wes Clark seriously, and Yearly Kos is as good a place to do so as any you can find.

After Clark delivers his speech to Yearly Kos my plan is to start a Diary over at the blogging area of Wes Clark's own web site; Clark Community Network. That Diary will be very short, so short in fact that I can already tell you what it will say. It will ask "Why do you want Wes Clark to run for President?" I hope to see many of you over there then.

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. Does anyone take issue with the following observation?

Even if you are enthusiastic about one or more candidates in the current announced Democratic Field for president, Al Gore and/or Wes Clark would strengthen both our field and our message. They are both thoughtful experienced leaders who have shown courage in fighting for their ideals, and they both remain attentive to the opinions and concerns of grassroots voters. Over the next eight months the center of political discussion in America will revolve around the Presidential races in both parties. It would be good for the Democratic Party, and good for America, if Al Gore and/or Wes Clark were full participants in that discussion.

[FrenchieCat]

2. I'd love Wes to run.......

as that would shut Rootie Pootie up for good, if for no other reason!

As you know I strongly believe that both Gore and Clark should run, but I also know that the Corporate media will not allow it. That Corporate media has already decided on the three that they consider Top Tier (Clinton, Obama and Edwards), and they will not back away from their mission. As much as some posters want to believe that John Edwards is feared and ignored by the Corporate Media, I do not believe this to be the case.....or else John Edwards would not be heard from period.

Also, I find it extremely "odd" that during the 2004 primaries, in particular after Clark got into the race and was polling 2nd to Howard Dean (which was from September to January), there was only a "Tier" of one (Dean) according to the Corporate media although there were 9 candidates. Funny how that works! :shrug:

Thanks for your OP...... :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Well I would love to see these guys out on the campaign trail

talking to people in cities and towns across America. Local media, newspapers, radio, and television also, often throw some coverage of matters of substance into their daily mix, more so it seems than 24 hour cable news networks much of the time. When a Wes Clark or an Al Gore comes to town as a Presidential candidate, some people at least will have the chance to hear what they are thinking. And at this point I thank god for minor blessings, so I hope that can still come to pass

[AndreaCG]

4. There's no way the Coporte Media could stop a Gore run

Clark , maybe. Too many people who voted for Bush or Nader in 2000 regret their votes and would support Gore this time. Plus he's energized young people, new potential voters, with his Live Earth concerts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. I don't disagree with you

I wrote that if Gore is willing to fight for the nomination that I think that he can win. I also wrote to the effect that Al Gore's space in the race has a RESERVED sign sitting on it, Gore can take his seat at the table any time he wants within reason - which if I had to guess I would say would be sometime by mid to late October. The only question in my mind is will Al Gore claim his seat at the table? He has time to if he wants to, but no one can be absolutely confident at this point that he will. Personally, and I am only speaking personally now, I am begining to doubt that he will, but even if he's thinking "no" now maybe he'll start thinking "yes" again tomorrow.

My point is that it isn't money in the bank that Gore will run, and as you point out indirectly, Wes Clark can't afford to wait as long as Al Gore can to make a decision. He needs to get up and running sooner than Al Gore would have to. I would be happy if both of them declared, but now is the time to encourage Clark because he must decide within the next six weeks or so. With Gore's final decision uncertain at best, if there is anything I can do to encourage Clark to run now I will.

[Totally Committed]

5. I would love to one or both of them get into this race!

The Al Gore that wrote "Assault on Reason" is the one I want to see in the race, though.

I learned a long time ago that Wes is Wes, so however he enters, as you said, it'll be a stronger race for it.

Another name I'd love to see on Primary ballots is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I believe his anti-corruption message is one voters of BOTH Parties need to hear.

I hope they all enter ASAP!

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. I too love RFK Jr.

If I had to pick who I think would make the ideal protest candidate, one who would actually make a huge difference by having his message out there even if the odds were stacked so high against him that it is unlikely he would have a chance to win (at least in his first attempt), it would be Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

[Totally Committed]

12. My thoughts too.

His "message" is magic to me. Both Parties have let us down so badly.

I'd love to see him run, along with Wes and Al. At least, then we'd have three relative non-corporatists. This buch we have running right now is Corporate America's wet dream.

TC

[Alexander]

6. This reminds me of the hype over John Kerry's running mate.

For weeks, DU and the country kept gossiping over who Kerry's VP choice was going to be, even though the decision was pretty obvious to the political junkies.

I'm giving Gore until the end of October. Bill Clinton announced in October and I'll hold out for Gore until then.

Not a single vote will have been cast by that point, so I'll still have plenty of time to make up my mind if he stays out.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. If the only guy you believe would strengthen this field is Gore

than yes, your choice is a simple one. Encourage Gore to run and hope that he does. I am first and foremost a supporter of Wes Clark, but I gladly acknowledge that I believe Al Gore is a far superior choice to any of the Democrats currently running for President. So, in a hypothetical inverted scenario, if I felt that Gore had to decide in the next few weeks, while Clark had the luxury of another few months to decide, I would push for Gore to enter now because my bottom line is that I want the chance to voter for one of these two men, and as matters now stand I am afraid that I won't get the chance to vote for either of them.

[Alexander]

18. I agree with you - Clark would also strengthen the field.

Al Gore is my #1 choice, but if he doesn't run I will have no problem voting for General Clark.

[MasonJar]

9. If Al Gore decides to run, the corporate media will have nothing to say

about it. We will not allow him to be crucified again. I am a Gore gal all the way, but I do not think that he will run. He seems too wary of today's means of electing a pres. I have seen him mention several times that he does not appeal in this forum...which is of course untrue, but he obviously feels it. He may run later, but this year feels unlikely. As to Wes, he waited too long last time and I am afraid he has again. I would love to see Wes as VP or as Sec of State.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. In some ways it is a relief to have the timeline for Clark to decide so compressed

I know that a lot of people share your suspicion that it is too late now for Clark to have a chance to win. I disagree about that, and I've given it a lot of thought, but we are at the point that we either will soon find out if he can, or we will soon find out that it isn't going to happen. So I'm relaxed about that point.

The biggest problem Clark faced for 2004 was not a late entry. A late entry in 2004 merely highlighted his real problem, which was that, as a total rookie in politics, he was woefully unprepared to launch a Presidential campaign. And not only because of his own lack of experience in the political arena, though that certainly factored into it. Clark didn't have the independent contacts he needed when he announced, he didn't have staff who he knew and trusted and who were familiar with how he thought and how he operated. Clark didn't have policy papers and positions prepared on many of the issues the election would be fought on, he didn't have extensive donar or volunteer lists, he didn't have a group of supporters who knew how to defend him either. Heck, Clark didn't even have the public totally convinced that he was a Democrat when he announced his bid for the Presidency in September of 2003.

Had Clark entered a lot earlier, maybe he would have had time to make up for some of those deficiencies, but it was the deficiencies more than the late entry which I believe had him playing catch up from day one. Clark is in a far better place now than he was in 2003. He actually has been around the block once, he's polished his sound bite speaking skills, unlike in 2004 he can start out strong from day one.

But again we are in a time will soon tell situation. That is one reason why I urge people to pay attention to how Clark effects those in attendence at Yearly Kos. I think he has the capacity to really shake things up but the proof as always will be in the proverbial pudding.

[R_M]

17. Gore is still my first choice.

[Cameron27]

10. When you start the diary,

don't forget to post the link here Tom.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Count on it, seasonedblue. I'll be at Yearly Kos

and I'll have my laptop with me. So I'm sure that I'll post something from there to DU in addition to starting that diary at CCN.

[janx]

14. Good points, Tom.

:hi:

I leave the tea leaf reading to the yahoos in the media, but I haven't counted Gore out yet. The main reason for this is that he knows that many people want him to run for president again, and he knows what the current field is like. The last time that he opted out of running, he came out and told people so, officially. He hasn't done that--yet--this time.

In any case, it all boils down to time. Labor Day is just around the corner. The end of October is just three months away. We won't have to wait much longer.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. There is absolutely no reason to count Gore out yet

We agree. And Thanks, good to run into you here :)

[OneBlueSky]

19. if Gore doesn't run, I'll be hugely disappointed . . .

but I am not about to back any of the current crop of candidates . . . I'd support Dennis Kucinich if I thought he had a prayer, but he doesn't . . . so Al Gore not running will leave a big void for me . . .

since I haven't followed Wes Clark very closely, I'm not all that familiar with his positions . . . but I'll certainly give him a close look . . .

as for Gore, I believe that a decision not to run will be a huge mistake on his part . . . not only for himself, but for the nation and the planet . . .

[nickgutierrez]

20. Is there any good reason...

...for Al Gore to be in the race at this point in time? We know who he is, and the more he distances himself from the fray right now, the more popular he becomes, and the better he starts to look compared to the other candidates. Why would he let himself get kicked around in the debates, and on the campaign trail, when he's doing such an effective job of crafting a message while not on the campaign?

Jumping in early makes sense for a fairly unknown commodity like Obama, or somebody that everybody knew was running anyway, like Hillary. For Gore, who already has name recognition and ownership of a major issue, why jump in now? Or anytime before September or October, for that matter?

On Clark, I have to be honest - I don't see the appeal. What does he bring to the table that the others don't?

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Actually Clark brings a lot to the table that is missing there now.

First, other than Bill Richardson, all of our current candidates have a Congressional background. That has been problematic in the past for Presidential politics. Clark, like a Governor running for President, is not identified with "inside the beltway politics". Clark, like a Governor running for President, has extensive exectutive experience. But unlike most Democratic politicians, Wes Clark has extensive hands on experience in the international arena. He is well known in Europe and the Middle East, with numerous contacts in Asia and South America also. Clark is even tuned into Africa, having been the officer who prepared plans that were never used to send American troops into Rwanda to stop genocide there, and Clark has been a leading voice raising the crisis in Darfur for three years now. Clark travels overseas extensively, and he knows world leaders personally.

But that of course misses the obvious, which is Wes Clarks national security credentials which are unmatched by anyone else in the Democratic Party. Republicans would attack girl scouts selling cookies if they thought those girl scouts stood in the way of their gaining power, but Clark is by far the hardest Democrat for them to tag as being soft on protecting America, after Clark devoted 34 years of his life to protecting our nation wearing the uniform of our military. Clark speaks with authority on national security matters and national security matters will not recede into the background again like they did for most of Bill Clinton's presidency.

Then factor in that unlike Clinton or Edwards or Biden or Dodd, Wes Clark doesn't have to explain away a vote in favor of the IWR. Factor in also that Clark has roots in South and popularity in the South West, as evidenced by his primary results from 2004. We have no Democrats running this year who are active duty military veterans. Dodd comes closest having served in the reserves I think it was, but certainly not in war, and of course Dodd is not now a major candidate. Wes Clark has cultivated the veterans community. He was the initial force behind VoteVets.org, he was Jim Webb's first major backer when Webb considered running for Senate.

Wes Clark has an appeal that crosses the political spectrum. He was the only national Democrat that Jon Tester invited into Montana to campaign for him, but he was also standing close by Ned Lamont's side in CT. Moderate centrist Democratics like Senator Baucus in Montana endorsed Clark in 2004, but so did George McGovern and Michael Moore. Clark does commentary on MSNBC now, but for two years he showed up on the FOX network, which still has the most overall news viewers, and Clark defused a lot of knee jerk conservative opposition to him by being a voice of reason on that network whose predictions about Iraq time after time always came true. Do Clark has a leg up on other Democrats in appealing to disaffected Republicans and Independents in the General Election.

Essentially, Clark has the well earned gravitas that Obama and Edwards lack, which Hillary Clionton has been using to score points as the most seasoned candidate of the upper tier. Clark takes that advantage away from her. Clark, like Bill Clinton actually, can speak off the cuff in a town hall meeting about any topic and do so in incredibly cohesive logical and incisive full sentances and paragraghs. He is impressively articulate on a broad range of issues.

And Wes Clark is progressive. He calls for single payer health insurance, he embraces progressive income taxes, and stongley supports public education and one man/woman one vote, and a woman's right to choose, and Clark is passionate about environmental issues. He also took on the administration early and hard about their use of torture and their undermining of the constitution. Clark is fearless in defending his views. He did so face to face live on the air with the blowhards at FOX and never backed down an inch.

I think Wes Clark potentially brings a great deal to the table, including attributes rarely found in a Democratic candidate which can help lead our party to a smashing victory in November 2008, rather tham a less conclusive narrow victory.

[Blue Belle]

34. Bill Richardson has a Congressional background as well...

He was elected in 1982 for New Mexico's 3rd District. He spent 14 years in Congress and sat on the Interior Committee, and the House Select Committee on Intelligence. He was Chair of the Hispanic Caucus, and was picked for Chief Deputy Whip.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/about_bill?id=0005

There really isn't anything Richardson hasn't done yet besides serving as President. He has a pretty impressive resume.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. Richardson has a very impressive resume

which is why I think he is the guy who has moved up some, not Biden or Dodd. But dispite his resume, many find something lacking in Richardson. And some have concerns about some of his prior stands, such as his long defense of Attorney General Gonzalez for one. But for whatever reason Richardson has not been able to compete with Obama or Edwards as an inspirational candidate, or with Clinton as a perceived rock solid experienced candidate. Maybe that will yet change.

[Blue Belle]

45. He's not a mainstream media darling...

In fact, the Media breathes a collective sigh for any candidate other than the top tier group. I think Richardson has an excellent chance of getting the Vice President nod (ideally for Gore or Clark).

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. I think your observations are pretty solid

Although I personally doubt very, very much that either will enter the race.

Al Gore would really upset the apple cart of current political expectations should he enter. But, I do not believe that is going to happen baring an unforeseen turn of events. My impression is that he just doesn't want to; especially if it means mixing it up with the current top three contenders.

Outside of the netroot community I sense that a possible General Clark candidacy is generating less real interest than it did in 2004. I think he realizes that should he enter he might have to really fight hard just to be considered a top-tier candidate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Back in 2003 there wasn't a great deal of interest in Clark outside...

...of the Draft Clark community either, untill it began looking probable that he was about to announce for President. At that point Clark became something new and different and that gave him an initial burst of Widespread but shallow popularity, since few really knew much about him then. It wasn't until December/January that Clark began building a real base of support and rising to second in the polls behind Dean at that time, after tumbling off of his instant celebrity short lived initial high. In 2006 it was Barack Obama who got that explosive initial burst as someone new and different, but he got that burst will a monsoon tail wind of media hoopla pushing him along, and since the Obama boom came well before the serious sparring of the primary debates season, he did not have to fend off immediate attacks on him in the wake of all of that attention.

I don't think you can compare 2004 and 2008 as a gauge of how much potential interest Clark can generate. In 2003 there hadn't even been any Presidential debates at this point in the cycle. Clark can't generate much real interest now as a non declared candidate. Public and media attention is fixated on the three Democrats who the media annointed as the serious candiates back in December. And as I said in my piece, Al Gore is an unusually high profile public figure to have standing in the wings as an unannounced possible candidate for President. If there was going to be much specualtion about any Democrat beyond the current field, it was going to be Gore. Clark can only generate public attention and interest by becoming a declared candidate for President, by showing up at the debates and impressing people with his depth and mastery of the issues. Clark would not have a real opening left if Al Gore enters the race. But if Gore stays out, and it starts becoming clear that Al Gore will not run, then Clark's support has room to grow.

You are right that Clark will have to fight to be considered a top-tier candidate, and initially I have no doubt that he won't be by many. But the same thing would have happened in today's media environment had he declared months ago. The media long ago told the public who was serious and who wasn't, and untill after Labor Day, when the campaign season begins to heat up, no one else has a chance to crack that set up except Gore. People really do forget that Clark was essentially written off by late November 2003, after he made some rookie gaffes and the Shelton smear was launchedagainst him, and other candidates including Dean, Kerry, and Lieberman settled into a pattern of questioning whether Clark was even a Democrat. Clark had dropped to single digit support and he climbed back by campaigning hard and effectively in NH where he was poised to take the lead until the storm of media coverage from Iowa where Clark did not compete set hold.

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. I think there were two very important factors working for Gen. Clark in 2003/2004

which simply are not factors this time around.

In late 2003 and early 2004 most Democrats and most Americans simply did not believe that we could win. Especially with the country still in the grips of post 9/11 trauma most Democrats did not believe we could we win with someone who was enough of a dove to satisfy the anti-war or at least war-skeptic majority of the Democratic Party. General Clark looked like someone with the right security credentials who was enough of an opponent of the War and enough of a critic of military adventurism to inspire the doves that not only might we be able to win, we might be able to win with someone who was at least enough of a dove. That is where endorsements from the likes of Michael Moore and George McGovern were coming from. And those endorsements were symptomatic of a whole tendency of the party who might have liked what Gov. Dean was saying but did not believe the Governor could actually win. And whether they admitted it or not most Democrats including many doves themselves feared that given the post 911 political climate at that time -- the nomination of someone seen as too much of a dove could lead to 1972/1984 landslide debacle.

Another factor in 2004 was the lack of inspiring candidates. With the exception of Governor Dean and I suppose Congressman Kucinich most Democrats did not "love" their candidates. Most Democrats were in fact pretty blase about the candidates with the exception of two candidates that most Democrats and most Americans believed would lose and lose big in the general election. Frankly at that time I myself kind of drifted from supporting Gov. Dean to supporting Gen. Clark exactly because of those reasons.

This time around those factors could not be more different. Most Democrats and most Americans and even the mainstream media seems to almost take it for granted that the Democratic nominee will be the next President. And most or at least a significant number of Democrats seem to really adore their candidates and are really inspired by the notion that if their candidates can just prevail in the primaries and the nomination process, their candidate will be inaugurated as President of the United States come January 2009.

.

[Eurobabe]

33. Let's not forget this ramped up primary calendar

that will shake some things up too. We didn't have that in '04. That's how we got Kerry in the GE. :eyes:

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. True. Again this is why I ask readers to key in on Clark at Kos

I start with the presumption that Clark is a candidate who can strongly connect with Democratic activists and primary voters. I think he is the type of straight forward truth to power leader that our voters will be looking for. In other words I think Clark can get on a roll and keep building strength once he starts. But I ask you to see for yourself how he is received at Yearly Kos.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. Some agreement - Some disagreement

I pretty much agree with you about things that Wes Clark had going for him in 2004, and a lot of that does not apply, or does not apply in the same way, now. Of course there were also some huge obstacles to Clark winning in 2004 that do not apply, or apply in the same way now also. So the entire 2004 equation would have to be re-looked at. Clark is no longer a rank electoral politics rookie, many of his misteps early in the 04 race can be chalked up to that. Most important of all though, Clark no longer has to introduce himself from scratch to the left leaning base of Democratic Primary voters.

It perhaps is easy to forget now but the campaigns of Kerry, Dean, and Lieberman overtly questioned whether Wes Clark was even a Democrat, let alone one worthy of electing President. In fact during those early debates which were both crowded and critical to Clark, who was introducing himself through them to a national audiance for the first time, each candidate only got a few questions directed toward him or her, and Clark almost always had to answer one question about proving he was a Democrat along with another about the Shelton smear of him. Meanwhile a boatload of Clark hit pieces got published in September and October of 2003 designed to play on misgivings liberal Democrats might have about voting for a General. That type of baggage against Clark now has been sharply reduced if not eliminated completely

In the December 2006 Kos poll, Clark had the support of 24% of kos voters compared to 26% for both Edwards and Obama, who each were blessed with far more extensive media coverage than Clark, who barely got mentioned at all in the MSM. When Clark showed no active intention of joining the race, his active support went into decline, but my point is that Wes Clark has now shown that for many Democratic activists, he has become one of our inspirational leaders, rather than representing some pragmatic compromise as might have been more the case in 2004. In that way if Clark enters the 2008 race he immediately vaults past Richardson, Biden, and Dodd. Clark has been cheered on numerous times in the blogosphere over the last few years when he has taken it to the Bush Administration over one issue or another. He now taps into an enthusiastic base of support that is already in place.

Regarding how enthusiastic Democrats are now with their choice of candidates, there I differ significantly with you. Yes there is obviously some satisfaction, but in many cases it doesn't run deep or it doesn't cross over to more than one or two candidates per Democrat. For example, Many Clinton supporters are only excited about Clinton who they see as the only strong candidate with the experience needed to be President. Conversely, many other Democrats have serious misgivings about Hillary, and they are looking for someone who can beat her. If it starts to appear that neither Obama or Edwards can, count on overall misgivings about the field Democratic field of candidates shooting up among that segment of voters.

And I think your description of the support for our current field is far overstated. Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse, and Huckleberry Hound could be running as the candidates for President on both the Republican and Democratic lines and Democrats would be far more satisfied than Republicans about their choices BECAUSE Democrats are excited about their chances in 2008 while Republicans are worried sick. Democrats tend to think we will win with whoever we nominate and Republicans are afraid that they will lose with whoever they nominate, so of course they aren't going to feel content with their choices compared to how we feel. We are optimistic and they are depressed. What do you expect? I think it is significant under the circumstances that a clear majority of Democrats can't muster up more enthusiasm than "somewhat satisfied".

See this poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_072307.html

Look for question #30

I think 50% feeling "Somewhat satisfied" with another 16% feeling somewhat or very disatisfied falls short of your description: "And most or at least a significant number of Democrats seem to really adore their candidates..." Of course once Wes Clark entered the field he too would be "one of our candidates" who most Democrats would be confident could win the General Election.

Here is where I see Clark's opening. He is a principled Democratic progressive voice who this time around starts out with those credentials largely in place AND he is a seasoned leader with the gravitas to take on Hillary Clinton over her claim to be the most experienced and steady handed future Commander in Chief in the field. The latter is the archilles heel that both Edwards and Obama have to somehow get around. Clark starts out strong in that regard, he does not start out on the defensive to anyone in regards to experience and ability to lead the U.s. through a time of international tensions, conflicts, terrorism and the like. If Obama and Edwards can not blunt Hillary's perceived experience advantages in those areas, either an Al Gore or a Wes Clark would be all that would stand between her and the nomination. If Gore doesn't run that leaves Clark. If events move in the way I described, I think Clark will draw strength from many quarters.

[Douglas Carpenter]

38. I see your point -- but the bottom line remains will he (or Mr. Gore) run?

In the case of the former Vice President I think the question is essentially a personal question. I certainly cannot pretend to see inside his psyche. But I cannot help but feel that on a purely personal level he feels at least slightly relieved (again on a purely personal level)that he did not end up being inaugurated as President in January 2001. He knows as we all do that the embittered and untamed Republicans would have unleashed venom against his Presidency and his ability to govern that would have made their vitriol against President Clinton look like a love affair; aided and abetted by a corrupt and equally hostile and vitriolic media. And if the events of 9/11 had occurred under President Gore we all know that there would have been no talk about uniting together in the nations hour of need. It would have been "all his (and President Clinton's) fault". All in all it may have been better for the country and the world; but a living hell for President Gore. I cannot help but feel that Mr. Gore has made peace with the notion that he is the man who should have been President. And he feels quite personally liberated to speak and write without the restraints of someone in office or seeking office. He certainly looks like a much happier man to me.

For the General I think it is a pragmatic question. At the time he entered the race in late 2003 his chances looked pretty damn good. Until the campaign process and media scrutiny took its toll he seemed however briefly like the perfect candidate with a slot in the top-tier practically ready made for him; a tough military man with impeccable security credentials who was at least enough of a liberal and enough of a dove to satisfy most Democrats; and one who could actually win. Along with that there was a whole slew of top Clinton era pros who were both willing and able to get on board. Now most of that lot have already picked their candidates.

At the time General Clark entered the race in late 2003 he faced a down hill battle. Should General Clark enter the race now he knows that even though he would likely vault ahead of the likes of Biden, Dodd and Richardson, he faces a very difficult challenge to make it into the top three.

I frankly would be more than a little surprised if either Mr. Gore or Gen. Clark decides to run. Although either of those two certainly have a lot more interesting things to say than the current top contenders. But perhaps, just perhaps that is due in part that as non (or at least not yet) candidates they are liberated from not having to manicure and vet every word they say to protect themselves from endless pedantic scrutiny.

[Eurobabe]

40. Oh hell Tom ,I have my chapter chair of DemsAbroad STILL

questioning whether Clark is a) a Democrat and b) if he was a plant from the Clinton camp to take down Dean!! It's pissed me off so much that this guy cannot be objective (he's a total know it all anyhow) in his position that I stopped attending the meetings. Real shame after all Wes Clark has done for progressive Dems. :eyes:

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. There will always be some like that

but their numbers are so reduced now compared to all the doubters that Clark had to face when he first entered politics. Even Amy Goodman and Wes Clark had a positive interaction when I saw her interview the General in NYC. That doesn't mean that they now are on the same page about all things, but the old page has been turned and the new one has a respectful relationship on it.

I'm sure there are some who hold a grudge against Gore for one reason or another also. Gore has always been a good man but he has not always been as progressive as he is today.

[Eurobabe]

63. Yes, but having a person in a postion of influence for

this group abroad makes me hot under the collar. He has spewed his poison in the group meetings and on the listserv more than once. I think it is a disgrace.

[Clark2008]

80. I don't believe we can win now - not with our current crop.

Sorry. I live in a purple state and I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

[Yukari Yakumo]

22. I think it's too late for Clark

If he intended to run and win, he should've announced in January. If he jumps in now, he'll be relegated to Dodd-Kucinich-Biden country.

If Gore wants in, he will have to fight for it. Question is, is his heart into it? Considering there has been no exploratory committees or infrastructure, I'm leaning no at this time.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. I obviously disagre about the timing issue

The "race" "began" ridiculously early this year. Clark saved himself having to tap into about 20 million dollars of donor money by staying out this long, and their wasn't enough real attention being paid to politics before about now for any other candidate to break into the media sanctified ranks of upper tier promotion before now. Even someone with some unique potential advantages like Bill Richardson was barely able to minimally break through, while old pros like Biden and Dodd have nothing to show for their early time and effort, except now well established tags as non serious candidates. Clark avoided that fate, when he enters he will be fresh without that stigma.

The Republican side of the race is as hotly contested as the Democratic side. Fred Thompson is not exactly a political titan but he didn't need to be on the stump for the last 6 months to be seen as a serious contender now. And yes of course I know the differences between the Democratic Race and the Republican Race; Thompson can enter now as the favorite and if Clark enters now he will be viewed initially as a dark horse at best. But, honestly, I don't buy the conventional wisdom that the door closed in January for Democrats.

One thing I will agree with you on. By staying out of the race this long Wes Clark has no chance of gaining enough traction to be competitive now if Al Gore does decide to enter the race. Had Clark entered in January he would already be established, for better or worse, in the field by now. As it currently is either Al Gore or Wes Clark can be the one to claim a slot as the fresh but experienced new blood in the Democratic field, and that slot is Al Gore's for the taking if he wants it. Even if Clark announces first, I think if Gore came in later that would cut off any chance Clark has to build his base enough to be competitive.

But like I said above, I now suspect Al Gore won't enter the race. He can still prove me wrong, he has the time and opportunity to do so, but if Wes Clark decides to run and Al Gore doesn't, in my opinion Wes Clark still has a real shot at winning.

[Norrin Radd]

23. k+r

[Dinger]

25. K & R Tom.

America needs Wes Clark, and they don't even know it.

[Eurobabe]

27. As a draft Clarkie from 2003, I don't see Clark running

in 2008. Just my gut. I don't see how he can compete against Hillary or Obama, money-wise. Not that $$ are everything, but you do have to have some dough to run a campaign. And it's getting late again. Where's the ground game?

Sadly, I think his time came and went with 2004. He is a very smart man, but I think he is destined to serve in a cabinet position, not as President. Don't get me wrong, I love Wes Clark, hell I have two license plates to prove it -- but the way the media works, a Clark presidency will never happen.

Bummer, huh.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. I figure we all will know very soon either way

First off, Clark won't run if he doesn't think he can avail himself of sufficient funds to do so, but I am confident that Clark can raise at least as much money as John Edwards can, and unlike Obama I don't think Clark has to compensate for an experience gap with a huge campaign war chest.

Like I noted above, though most donors don't tap out their annual legal donation limit to a candidate by writing them one big check, there are many who do. Wes Clark hasn't collected a single check from anyone for a presidential run yet. He can hit up people who are favorabley inclined toward him for the first time in the 4th quarter, something none of the current announced candidates can do any longer. That can help him report some healthy numbers which I think will blow past people's expectations of what Clark can raise.

Clark has a unique network of supporters that he has cultivated for the last four years in the veterans community which kind of flies below most political radar. That would be put into play if he runs. Clark is much better known by far greater numbers of Democrats now than he was when he announced in 2004, and he knows the ropes now. He's been through all this once before. I think ground operations can be up and running quickly if Clark declares. And issues of National security are not going away. It seems that both the media and the candidates themselves are fixating on the answers that Obama and Clinton gave to a question regarding meetings with the leaders of Iran and Syria etc. Clark is a master in that realm. Tensions with Iran are high, terror fears keep being recyled. Once Clark is in the race and speaking out regularly, I think support will find it's way to him. Some of the support he can count on winning I suspect is currently holding back for Al Gore. If Al Gore stays out, Clark can tap into that.

[Totally Committed]

30. Sadly, I have to agree with you, but....

it could happen, I guess.

But, each day I do lose more and more expectation that he'll run, I have to admit.

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Something I just posted at Clark Community Network:

We are simply not privy to his inner thoughts on this. So I keep reverting back to that old political truism: "Keep it simple, stupid". Clark still pointedly keeps repeating "I haven't said I won't run", which I've finally concluded means that he hasn't said he won't run.

I can't think of any reason why the Wes Clark who I have come to know could have reached a final conclusion not to run for President in 2008 and witheld that decision from us for more than a week max. I can't think of any reason why Wes Clark would toy with us, all the while knowing that he definately won't run but he just hasn't said so yet, making his repeated phrase technically true but misleading as all hell.

I can think of reasons why some other people in politics might do that to a community of people who have stood together with him fighting for a common cause for four long years, but I can't think of any reason why Wes Clark would do that.

So the simple answer is Wes Clark still may run, however likely or unlikely that may be, it is still a possibility. There's nowhere else I have to be so I'll just keep waiting here

[Yukari Yakumo]

55. SecDef, perhaps? {nt}

[Clark2008]

81. He can't be Secretary of Defense

Federal statute requires the Def. Sec. to be retired from the military for at least 10 years. Clark retired in 2000, making a 2008 Def. Sec. position impossible unless Congress passes a special waiver as they did during WWII. I don't see that happening again.

[welshTerrier2]

39. reading the tea leaves

well, i've been squinting way down into the bottom of my tea cup, and here's what I see.

I've been hearing sort of a very faint drumbeat that argues that "the people have to lead if we want real change." i've been hearing that we cannot expect a knight on a white horse to come riding in to save us. i just saw Howard Zinn on one of those Book TV segments and that was his essential message.

and so, I've reasoned that perhaps that faint drumbeat was somehow instructive about the possibility of a Gore candidacy. perhaps that's the "common wisdom" Al, with his very well tuned ears, has been hearing. perhaps Al sees himself already tapping into a kind of people-driven global power.

the theme is a potent one. I respect it. I also think it can be carried too far. All great movements have their leaders. Some are politicians. Some are community organizers. Some are writers and critics who prophecize with their pens. But make no mistake about it: while mass people power may be the engine, some kind of spark and a steady hand at the wheel are still required.

so, what read, then, can our tea leaves provide? do we measure by the calendar itself? do we reason: it's pretty much too late? surely Labor Day provides a sharper distinction to that yardstick than some middle-of-July amorphous date does. so, at least in my tea leaves, calendars are not yet in play.

do we look behind the words of friends and family and even Gore himself? this measure, too, is shaky at best. it's clear, or at least it appears to be clear, that Gore himself is conflicted on this issue. can those around him know the answer when he, himself, may not? again, more time is needed before this yardstick can cast a shadow.

and, so, finally, we ask what MAY be "the decider": does Gore believe he has a realistic chance of winning and, if so, would this be the most effective position for him to advance the cause he has been fighting for so heroically? there's no question a Gore candidacy would be viable. a guarantee? not at all. but strong and viable to be sure. And then, the final question: would this be the more effective position for Gore to wage the battle he's fighting against global warming. My view is an unqualified, unhesitant: absolutely.

we must be clear that in any of the great causes, and I include global warming, peace, and health care near the top of my list, radical change is needed. All causes are blocked by the corporatocracy. Anyone truly mounting a challenge to the entrenched power structure needs to clearly understand exactly who the enemy is. Silly people think all we need do is rid ourselves of bush or even republicans. But Gore has fought in the trenches and knows the truth. The changes we need cannot possibly come about without taking on the powers that be. Could a mass movement of awakened citizens achieve victory? Perhaps in time they could but not in the little time we have left. And so, if Gore were to honestly answer the question about how he could serve most effectively, the only answer would have to be in the White House. We should not lose sight of the idea that the White House could be an effective bully pulpit to rally the masses. It's not a choice between being an outside "awaken the masses" educator and motivator versus being "just a politician." From the White House, both roles could and should be effectively served.

thus, my tea leaves, if I were to put my greatest emphasis on the final yardstick, i.e. the yardstick of maximum effectiveness, would lead me to conclude that Gore will run. in my best O'Henry ending, however, I'm nevertheless very slightly skeptical that he will. i hope to find a different result with my next cup of tea. It's called Gore's Glacial Melt.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. Well spoken WT2. I stayed with you line for line all the way

and what you said made sense to me from start to finish. We differ some in that I have a deeper sense of confidence in Wes Clark than you do, but I don't disagree with anything that you said about Al Gore. People power or whatever we want to lable it is growing, but a condusive climate emminating from the head of the Democratic ticket now, and from the White House soon thereafter, would make our journey forward much easier.

I am skeptical that Al Gore will run but I can still easily visualize him doing so. But I certainly can't in good conscience say that I am confident that he will. I want Wes Clark's voice in the middle of the public debate that the next 8 months will bring, and the only way realistically that will happen is if he enters the race relatively soon. I also want him as President, but even for those who differ with me on that, I hope most will agree that it will enrich the discussion of the important issues facing America in the world today if Wes Clark participates in it. Al Gore has a little more time than Clark to decide, and I want his voice to be loudly heard as well. At the end of the day I will have nary a negative thought should Al Gore emerge as our candidate. That too would thrill me under the circumstances we now collectively face.

[welshTerrier2]

47. re: Wes Clark

btw, I thought your OP was excellent especially wrt the excellent tightrope you walked regarding Gore's possible candidacy.

As for Wes Clark, here's where I'm at: I desperately hope he decides to run. The quality of the discourse thus far has been disquieting to say the least. It's been nearly treasonous to say the most. The American people deserve real democracy and not dog and pony marketing campaigns. I'm confident Clark's presence would enrich the process.

Having said that, and with great respect for Clark's integrity, I continue to focus on issues of corporatism, the big money corruption of our democracy and our imperial foreign policy. I was impressed by information someone gave me recently (maybe WesDem or Donna Zen?) that Clark had previously called for significant cuts in the defense budget. That's a good sign; a very good sign. Is that still his position? To me, recognizing that good defense should not be measured by the volume of corporate giveaways is a great place to start. We should have all the defense we need and not all the defense we don't need.

Also, it's about time we started viewing our foreign policy as creating much greater risks to the country. And we should see that our foreign policy does not reflect the values we as Americans hold dear. We cannot continue to steal oil and topple governments and bully weaker third world countries. It's immoral and it's terrible global citizenship. I'm just not sure I can find a way to stretch my views across the great divide to what I hear from Clark. Always open; not even close right now.

I understand Clark emphasizes the importance of diplomacy. So do I. I'm not clear, though, whether he sees the same immorality in US foreign policy that I see. For example, the dunderheads are now running around calling for sanctions on Iran. Did we learn nothing from the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis (or perhaps more than a million) that Bill Clinton and bush I were responsible for killing with the sanctions they imposed????? The best studies seem to indicate that between 250,000 and 350,000 of those Iraqis were children. Children !!!!!!!! What kind of nation are we ????????

What did Clark say about those sanctions? What does he say about sanctions on Iran? What does he say NOW about getting the troops out of Iraq? What does he say about the Iraqi Oil Law? There are millions and millions of these questions ... they're all the same, really ... Will our foreign policy, and our domestic policy too, be run for the immoral greed of the multi-nationals absent any sign of a conscience or will what we do as a nation reflect the values of right and wrong that many of us were taught as school children?

Integrity is an essential component; so is defining our national policies based on our values. I'm confident of Clark's qualities as to the former; less so on the latter.

[frogcycle]

50. you ask a lot of questions

I expect you will find the answers, and more, on General Clark's excellent site:

http://securingamerica.com/

[welshTerrier2]

52. hard to find things there

i wish the site had an "issues" tab where I could research individual issues. for example, i tried to enter "Iraqi Oil Law" in the search box but found no results at all.

for those not interested in reading every article or listening to every speech, perhaps a more user friendly organization might be helpful. just my two cents ...

[Clark2008]

82. It probably would if he were running.

His 2004 site did.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. This is sort of a place holder post WT2. I am writing you a real reply

But I fear dinner will interrupt me before I finish it. Since my reply will mostly focus on Clark, maybe I can use this post to ask a question of you. You seem to be coming around to a place of relative comfort with Al Gore, and as you know I am already there myself. Al Gore has been in politics a long time. He was a major player in Bill Clinton's Administration for one thing. Does your comfort with Al Gore now reflect your sense of him as a man and what you believe now motivates him, or is it also rooted in specific answers that he has given to the types of questions you ask about Wes Clark above? Obviously Al Gore played a key role in passing the N.A.F.T.A. agreements for example, and the Clinton Administration enforced sanctions against Iraq for another example. I think you get where I am heading. I trust Al Gore's integrity and agree that integrity is an essential component. I suppose I am asking to what extent you are making an eyes open partially informed and calculated leap of faith with Gore, given your overall feelings about our need to have national policies based on our values, and to what extent has Gore clarified his stands on the types of issues you mention above in ways that line up closely with your beliefs and answer your specific concerns?

[welshTerrier2]

54. not sold on Gore yet

I just started reading Gore's book yesterday. I also assist with a documentary series / discussion group at my local library; I have plenty to say and it often gets a wee bit animated. Last night we showed "An Inconvenient Truth." I admire Al Gore very much. I think his global warming efforts have been heroic and there are signs he deeply understands our corporate constipation. I hated his views on NAFTA the last time I heard him express them and I have no idea where he stands on getting the troops out of Iraq or on sanctions against Iran.

The bottom line is that he isn't going to get a free pass. I think the man was deeply changed by what he went through in 2000. I believe there really is an Al Gore 2.0. I have hope that I'll be able to support him should he run. What I believe you're hearing is a message of hope rather than any kind of endorsement. I am definitely not there yet.

On the other hand, I would greatly welcome a Gore candidacy just as I would welcome a Clark candidacy. What's going on right now is a national, and international, tragedy. We won't have many more chances to get it right.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Don't know how I'll structure this answer but here goes

Hopefully I can keep it coherent and of less than essay length. Maybe I'll start with your question about military spending. Nothing that I have heard or seen or found out about Wes Clark gives me the slightest reason to to question that he still feels the same way that he did earlier about cutting real waste out of the pentagon budget. By that I mean what you said here:
"recognizing that good defense should not be measured by the volume of corporate giveaways". I know that Clark still feels that way. He always has and always will. Clark has never been under the spell of the military industrial complex.

This is from a September 2003 interview that Col Hackworth did with Wes Clark:

"Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn’t get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.

Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army’s most distinguished war heroes, says: “Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn’t stop fighting. He stayed on the field till his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned ‘em.”

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

And the following extract from a radio interview Clark did with Laura Kinoy on NPR was probably part of the information you were given by one DU's Clark supporters so I will truncate the quote to the section on Clark's attitude only, but in this interview Clark also says that "We need to put all the government spending programs on the table, including the military programs." :

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

Part of my problem in documenting stuff for you WT2 is that in some cases I was present when Clark commented on a matter that is of concern to you and I directly heard what he said but I don't have a transcript or exact quote to link to for you. I remember at a couple of appearances in New Hampshire where I saw Clark that he riffed on a basic difference between Democrats and Republicans, he said that Republicans are in love with large complex cutting edge multi faceted big ticket weapons systems while Democrats tend to focus much more on the needs of the men and women who serve in uniform,; from getting them the equipment they actually need to stay safe and fight battles effectively, to making sure their basic human needs are met, both while and after they are in active service. The context made it clear that Clark feels comfortable being a Democrat, which is not to say that he would not support this or that major weapons system, but they have to be fully warrented.

Clark does not believe in giving major military contractors gift contracts. He is infinately more concerned that America's veterans get the medical treatment they need than whether a defence contractor gets a big new contract to keep their profits up. And Clark is passionate about education and the need for America to make sure that all of our youth get the education they will need in order for America to be competitive in the 21st century. When I heard him speak a few months ago at a campus in upstate New York, Clark said that the current fight against terrorism was a side show to the real major challanges facing our nation, which mostly involve rising economic competition from asia (in addition to protecting our constitution and our environment). Clark literally views that as a major national security issue, educating our youth so that America can stay economically viable. He feels we are falling woefully short there and to change that will take a real investment of resourses, both fiscal and human. So when Clark sees money wasted on literally overkill weapons systems, he knows that is taking away from our capacity to addresse real national security concerns instead. And the thing is Clark knows how the system works, he knows how people move from the military dircctly to work for contractors, he knows how military budgets get put together and lobbied for. If there is anyone who we can elect who knows how to trim the Pentagon's budget without endangering national security it is Wes Clark.

Yikes, that part was long already. I think I'll post this and then start writing another reply.

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. Regarding foreign policy

A simple but very true quote I have heard Clark make on more than one occaision regarding America's security is "We need more friends in the world and fewer enemies". When he says that it covers a lot of ground because Clark believes that the current struggle we are in with some elements of radical extremist Islam is primarily at root a war of ideas, and it is at that level that we either will win or lose.

I did record Clark saying the following in October and made my own transcript of it which fortunately I blogged over at Clark Community Network so I can retrieve it now:

"Whatever the NSA is doing tapping telephones and monitoring conversations is illegal and we ought to stop it until it's put under the rule of Law. And the same thing with the military commisions act which is allowing the President to suspend the habeas corpus. That's illegal, it's beyond the law. So I don't believe that law enforcement should have unimpeded access to libraries and stuff like that. I think it's baloney, but more than that it's dangerous.

If you're going to win the war against Terror the most important weapon you have is what you stand for as a nation, because it's a battle of ideas. Terrorists aren't born that way, they have an image of who we are. To win we have to make them see who we really are. Three million Muslims have moved to America in the last 50 tyears because they like who we are. We can't give that up.

What George Bush is doing by trying to accumulate executive powers, he's taking away the most important weapon we have in winning the war on terror, which is the weapon of the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and we can't let him have it!"

But I have heard Clark make the same type of argument as one of the several powerful objections he raises to the United States using torture against detainees and not providing basic legal rights to so called enemy combatents at Gitmo. He opposes torture and lack of fair legal process on moral grounds also, but he always points out that by not living up to our own ideals we are throwing away the best things about America that ultimately set us apart from the behavior of some who we now call our enemies, and we throw away the most powerful arguments we have to combating those who show disregard to human life and human rights.

This is too hard to try to wander through my own files and across the net to pull together illuminating source quotes while also trying to maintain a coherent narrative while writing, so for awhile I am just going to cut and past a few of the things that I am coming across while looking for stuff for you:

"In the twilight of World War II we recognized the need for allies. We understood the need to prevent conflict, not just fight it, and we affirmed the idea that we must banish from the world what Truman, addressing the founding of the UN, called "the fundamental philosophy of our enemies, namely, that 'might makes right.'" Truman went on to say that we must "prove by our acts that right makes might."
Source: Washington Monthly, "An Army of One?" by Wesley Clark Sep 1, 2002


"What I learned during my time in Europe was that in much of the world, freedom, human rights, international law, and the opportunity to `be all that you can be' are strongest force in the world today. For the most part, these are our own American values.
Because we live and extol these values, the US enjoys a solid ethical basis for its power, a supportive community of like-minded nations and international institutions, and a moral force that extends our influence. Preserving these ideas & projecting our values should therefore be ranked among the most important of American interests.

Living up to our values will cost resources that could always be used elsewhere. We can't do everything. But these burdens we must carry, if we expect to maintain the benefits we currently enjoy. They provide hope for others, and a purpose beyond our own prosperity. `Shared risks, shared burdens, shared benefits'-it's not only a good motto for NATO, it's also a good prescription for America's role in the world."
Source: Waging Modern War, p. 461 Jul 15, 2001


"I know that the worst-case analysis of the International Criminal Court is that American soldiers could be subject to whimsical or politically motivated charges, but the US intends to operate under international law. We helped build international law, we need international law. And we've got to find a way to work with this court and bring it around and make whatever modifications need to be made to it. I was subjected to a war crimes investigation in my role as NATO commander. It didn't bother me a bit."
Source: CNN Late Edition interview with Wolf Blitzer Jul 7, 2002


"Q: Would you change the embargo against Cuba?
A: When you isolate a country, you strengthen the dictators in it. If you want to change the dictators, you've got to open it up so ordinary people in those countries can see what they're missing in the rest of the world, and gain strength and ideas from everybody else. And they'll take control of their future. We're not going to reward Castro, but to make sure that Cubans have a democracy and they have the same rights as everybody else on this planet."
Source: CNN "Rock The Vote" Democratic Debate Nov 5, 2003


"The solution to terrorism is not going to be found in bullets. It's not going to be found in precision ordnance or targeted strikes. It's really going to be found in changing the conditions. It's going to be found in establishing a global safety net that starts with security and goes to economic development and political development and the kinds of modernization which let others enjoy the fruits of modernization that we as Americans enjoy.
Our best protection is not going to build a wall around America. It's not going to be to create a missile-defense impenetrable shield. It's going to be, instead, to create a community of common values and shared responsibilities and shared interests in which nations and people get along. That really is ultimately the only protection."
Source: Speech at Temple University, "America's Global Strategy" Oct 17, 2001


From Clark's 2004 Campaign Web Site:

Wes Clark's Global AIDS Security Strategy

The world desperately needs real American leadership to fight the rising tide of AIDS, a key part of Wes Clark's strategy of using preventive engagement to rebuild alliances and enhance American security. Although AIDS is a preventable and treatable disease, in 2003, 5 million people worldwide were newly infected with HIV and a record 3 million people died of AIDS-more than all the deaths from wars and terrorism in the world combined. There are 40 million people living with HIV/AIDS today and more than 23 million have already died. If nothing is done, the best projections suggest that an additional 45 million people will become infected with HIV by 2010. Sub-Saharan Africa is by far the worst-affected region in the world, with 27 million people living with AIDS. In Botswana and Swaziland - the hardest hit countries - as much as 40 percent of the population lives with this disease that will kill them if they are not helped. AIDS kills people in their most productive years, striking across all of society to wipe out an entire generation of parents, farmers, doctors and leaders, leaving 11 million children orphaned in Africa, undermining civil society, destabilizing governments, and wrecking economies. The second wave of the AIDS crisis is threatening India, China, Russia, and other countries throughout the world, raising the specter of increased instability and more support for terrorism. A key part of Wes Clark's strategy of preventive engagement is leading the world to confront the AIDS crisis, turning it from a major threat to global security to an opportunity to demonstrate America's moral leadership...

... Wes Clark promises to keep our commitment to fight AIDS worldwide - doubling funding to $30 billion by 2008. Wes Clark pledges to provide $30 billion from 2004-08 for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria - one-third of the total amount needed to combat these diseases worldwide. This funding would not only be allocated to programs and services but also toward creating the infrastructure that is necessary to ensure that services reach those who need them...

...Addressing global AIDS as part of global development. Global AIDS can only be addressed as part of the broader challenge of global development. Without adequate nutrition, clean water, and adequate general health care, people living with AIDS will not benefit from comprehensive prevention, care and treatment services. And moving towards universal childhood education - in addition to it's many other benefits - has a demonstrated effect on increasing awareness of HIV/AIDS and reducing the transmission of the disease. That is why Wes Clark's Global AIDS Security Strategy would increase funding for other development goals (such as the internationally adopted Millennium Development Goals) - we cannot tackle global AIDS and the broader health and development challenges just by shifting money from one priority to another...

... Addressing global AIDS as a national security issue. By destroying governments and hollowing out entire societies, the AIDS pandemic nurtures terrorist movements that thrive in chaos and misery. Soldiers in Sub-Saharan Africa have higher prevalence rates of HIV - as high as perhaps 40 to 60 percent in Angola and Congo according to a U.S. National Intelligence Council study. This means that soldiers are literally dying in full companies from AIDS, not combat. And AIDS, like poverty, makes wars in Africa vastly more lethal, as in Congo. Conversely, if America leads in the struggle against AIDS, then it will win the deep gratitude of millions of people across the world...

... Multilateralism works for America. American leadership on global AIDS demonstrates American character and our shared humanitarian values. This creates goodwill overseas, strengthens our existing alliances and encourages new ones, and makes it easier for America to negotiate with foreign governments over core national security issues like nonproliferation and terrorism. Wes Clark has the experience to know that there is more to foreign policy than just bullying.
http://www.clark04.com/issues/aids_global/



Taken from:
General Wesley Clark
Remarks On Twenty Year Vision For America
(As prepared for delivery)
Manchester, NH
January 10, 2004

..."Today, vast segments of the developing world's population are struggling, desperate for America's engagement, understanding and assistance. Right now, more than half the world's population is struggling to survive on less than $2 a day, and nearly 1 billion live in chronic hunger. More than one billion of the world's adults cannot read, three-quarters of them women. And half the children in the poorest countries are not in school. Malaria, tuberculosis and diarrhea alone kill 8 million people a year under the age of 15. And already in South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe, half of all the 15-year-olds are expected to die of AIDS. We cannot - we must not - allow this to go on.

But that's just what we're doing. For too long now, America has failed to live up to its awesome responsibilities on the world stage. We are the richest nation in education, health care, science, and bottom line dollar wealth. Yet, more often than not, we turn a blind eye to developing nations around the world, those which desperately need our help. More often than not we put the bottom line first.

America's wealth, strength, and character provides us with great power -- but they also confer great obligations. And we must fulfill them in ways that build converging interests and create shared values in an ever shrinking world. This begins with communications and commerce, with cultural exchanges and exchange students. It leads to trade and investments, the creation of capital, the promotion of development, the emergence of human rights and democracy. And it is up to us to begin this process -- to live up to our obligations as a world leader - not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it's the smart thing to do.

We can drive out HIV-AIDS and malaria, reduce the incidence of poverty, spread knowledge, and, through technology, spread real human understanding.

We'll still need our armed forces and we'll take every necessary action to make America safe - but we'll gain that safety not by force of arms, but by who we are and what we represent. For we should be an America not puffed up by pride in our own power, but rather an America humbled by the recognition of our common humanity. We must make sure that globalization helps people around the world, raising living standards and improving the environment everywhere - rather than leading a race to the bottom.

Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law - not the rule of force - governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again.

As with science and technology, there could be a dark side of globalization, in which progress for some means poverty for others, as jobs and opportunities ebb and flow, securities and currencies fluctuate in value, and the tension between private profit and public good persists. But surely these are risks that we can manage in a world with an America more attuned to its larger purpose and responsibilities."
http://www.ontheissues.org/Wesley_Clark.htm


OK, gonna get this one posted now also and figure out what to write about next

[welshTerrier2]

59. my turn for a placeholder ...

i'm way too tired to make much of a coherent response right now ...

let me give you a couple of quick concerns from my perusal of your post ... i haven't read the whole thing yet ...

1. Three million Muslims have moved to America in the last 50 years because they like who we are.

Could it be that the Muslims who moved here came because we propped up dictators in their home countries and exploited their countrys' economic resources? I have to tell you I'm extremely uncomfortable with this sort of nationalism. It waves the American flag just a little too high and a little too proudly. Maybe if the Halliburton company flag flew just a bit higher than your own country's flag, things might seem a bit hopeless to you to.

2. Because we live and extol these values, the US enjoys a solid ethical basis for its power, a supportive community of like-minded nations and international institutions, and a moral force that extends our influence.

What we live and extol is raw power ... raw corporate power. The US does NOT enjoy a "solid ethical basis for its power." And we certainly are not a "moral force that extends our influence." I couldn't disagree more. If we were talking about projecting the heart and soul of the American people and the ideals on which the country was founded, no problem. But I can't accept anything even remotely close to "we live and extol these values." I see nothing but hypocrisy in the lying and cheating conduct of our government. The projection of American power is an obscenity. We are among the very worst global citizens. We sell our killing machines without conscience - only profits matter. We invade; we overthrow; we bankrupt and blackmail - only profits matter.

It seems I am greatly at odds with how Clark sees the world.

I'll take a fresh look as this in the morning and give both of your last two posts a more thorough read. For now, this is a first pass. BTW, thanks for all the details you've included in your responses. I have great respect for you, Tom. In response to an earlier statement you made that some of what you know you've heard at speeches but can't provide links, that's not a problem at all. Your word is good enough for me.

Talk to you tomorrow.

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. Good enough WT2

but this harkens to the discussion we were part of on another thread. The psychology of a call to greatness, the power of positive myths to uplift standards of behavior.

Clark by no means invented America nor is he even remotely single handedly responsible for what America has been in the world. He never reached a level of final policy making, that was denied to those who served in the military, so he isn't personally at fault for the evils you decry. You may remember that Ho Chi Minh as a young adult was deeply effected by his then idealistic image of America which served as an early inspiration for his political activism. The Chinese student pro democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square made a Goddess of Democracy statue modeled after the Statue of Liberty which inspired them. Germany is today overall a more progressive and democratic nation than the U.S., and the strongest influence behind that development was an idealized image of America.

Martin Luther King Jr. called upon the Christian faith of Southern Whites to recognize God's will to love all of God's children. He did so knowing full well that many southern white churches of the time were bastions of racial hatred and that the members of those congregations where hypocrits at best and total frauds at worse when it came to following the dictates of the religion that they professed. Still he summoned them to follow in the foot steps of their own professed calling, and that becomes a powerful force.

Wes Clark wraps his statements in patriotic American language, but look closer at the policies he uses that language to support. In one of the quotes I posted Clark talked about his comfort with having an American military commander, himself, go before an international court for investigation of possible war crimes. He argues for dropping the blockade on Cuba. He argues for massive increases of American aid to Africa to fight disease. He calls it Un-American to threaten to bomb someone who you refuse to even talk to (he says that about U.S. policy toward Iran). You might not consider that contrary to the very flawed Amnerica that you know of. You might not think it Anti-American at all, rather you may call it a consistent extension of Americas worst values. But condeming a rush to war as anti-American carries a certain power to it. It elevates a value that should be central to Americas relations to the world to the space that it should occupy, even if in reality it currently does not occupy that space.

You asked above: "Will our foreign policy, and our domestic policy too, be run for the immoral greed of the multi-nationals absent any sign of a conscience or will what we do as a nation reflect the values of right and wrong that many of us were taught as school children?"

What you are looking for from Clark is an indictment of the America that emerged in the 20th century that fell far short of those values. But that America emerged from the America of the 19th Century which also fell far short of those values, and that America emerged from the American Revolution that fell far short of the values of the Declaration of Independence, with slavery legal. A case can be made that that America never existed. And yet you point with implied pride to the teaching we received in public school about the values of right and wrong for America that many of us were taught as children. Can you see the contradiction? A strong case can be made that those values didn't really exist in the America that you grew up in. We supported a dictator in Cuba, and we overthrew a government in Iran. But by invoking those mythic American values you were called toward a belief in justice and fair play. The truth of course is that the reality of those values did exist both then and now, but they never have conquored the opposing values of greed and self serving power that we now have eyes opened wide enough to recongnize constantly in play all around us.

Yet the power of that positive teaching, of that idealized American myth profoundly influenced your own concept of right and wrong and shaped how you believe America should behave in the world. It helped shape who you are today. I know that it helped shape who I am today. That myth often touches people before they become radicalized. In fact some might say that the standard embedded in that myth forms the basis upon which radicalization builds. Not all nations hold dear the same myth. Many nations celebrate a myth of dominant superiority instead. The American myth of individual freedom, of opportunity, of liberty and justice for all, of all men are created equal, has always been a powerful myth that historically has resonated internationally, far beyond our borders.

I think Clark is doing the equivelent of preaching to those pre civil rights white southern churches about the faith that they profess and the power and beauty of that faith, calling on them to live it even if they never have before. Time after time I see that the policies that Clark actually advocates for with his call to Americas highest values are all turns toward a better path from the one we are on now.

Clark is actualy asking that "what we do as a nation reflect the values of right and wrong that many of us were taught as school children" He just does so by pointing to who we like to think we are as American and asking us to live up to that behavior which we then feel like it is naturally within us to achieve. He isn't using patriotism to shield imperialism. He is using patriotism to change the course from imperialism and by so doing he connects with a broad enough range of people to create the potential for a coalition powerful enough to actually pull that off.

[welshTerrier2]

65. the Iraqi Oil Law is screaming for specificity

He is using patriotism to change the course from imperialism and by so doing he connects with a broad enough range of people to create the potential for a coalition powerful enough to actually pull that off.

Heh ... that sort of gets right down to the bottom line. You have faith that Clark sees this; I don't.

For some time now, because of its current prominence, I have focused on the Iraqi Oil Law. This law, in my view, separates the good guys from the bad guys. To be sure, there are many other yardsticks we could use but this one is especially important. In my view, it is the great big WHY of why we're in Iraq. The Oil Law, according to articles I've read, could procure for Big Oil as much as 87% of Iraq's oil revenues for the next 30 years or perhaps even longer. In this game, I'm passing out white hats and black hats. Those without hats get a black hat. Hundreds of billions of dollars, thousand of American lives, tens of thousands of American wounded including wounded families, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis if not millions, and the total loss of American stature in the world and all they want is their damned Oil Law. Well, no candidate I can support can escape a loud and clear statement of their position. On this one, you're either going to stand and be discounted or you'll be discounted entirely.

If Clark is truly "using patriotism to change the course from imperialism", then NOW is the time to stand and be counted. The Oil Law is the biggest grab in history. The Oil Law has the whole world watching. The Oil Law sells out American values and America to private, corporate interests. To speak of values and the power and beauty of faith and the essence of America but fail to lead at this time on this critical issue cannot, and perhaps should not, be seen as credible arguments absent the deeds needed to empower them.

Can you see the contradiction? A strong case can be made that those values didn't really exist in the America that you grew up in.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, that is always my theme. When I asked "will what we do as a nation reflect the values of right and wrong that many of us were taught as school children?", I was not suggesting we ever lived those values but rather that we were taught them. And I fully grasp the points you've raised about the "power of myth." But, on this very point, let's never forget that most of those who promulgated that myth did not honor its essence. And therein lies the rub. Each in a disturbingly long parade has preached the gospel but used it more to exploit than to empower the common man. And our votes were given with such hope for a better world. So, I say, it's time to demand a clear statement of the rules. Where do American interests end and imperialism begin? What is the national interest and how is it separate from the interests of a narrow few? What will you do to change the current paradigm and restore real power to real people? We've had far too many pretty words; and we've suffered for believing them ...

on edit, I just saw in one of your other posts that you included a Clark's comment on "Iraqi oil should belong to the Iraqi people." I think that's a great start but still think a specific comment on the Oil Law is required. I guess the specific question would be: "Does the Iraqi Oil being demanded by the US comply with Clark's statement that Iraqi oil should belong to the Iraqi people?" If not, he should speak out against pressuring the Iraqis into "privatizing" their oil. This is especially true while the US remains in occupation and maintains almost total control over the Maliki government.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. Might as well start at the bottom line as you say...

"TR: He is using patriotism to change the course from imperialism and by so doing he connects with a broad enough range of people to create the potential for a coalition powerful enough to actually pull that off.

WT2: Heh ... that sort of gets right down to the bottom line. You have faith that Clark sees this; I don't."


Clark clearly does sees at least some of it WT2. It's obvious in this speech which I think I skillfully edited to preserve orginal context and flow while presenting the relevent comments:

"...I don't have to site the poll after poll after poll over the last five years. You see them - the Pew polls, the BBC polls, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs polls. They show that, here's one in- published in March, "The United States is viewed more as negative than in positive in world Affairs" - 51 percent of the people. In 27- 28,000 people in 27 countries view the United States as a more negative than positive force in world affairs. We're ranked lower than North Korea. Ten out of fifteen countries in a Chicago Council of Global Affairs poll show that the most common view is the United States cannot be trusted to act responsibly in world affairs...

... Now, some among us have been outraged by this response. They cite the terrible attacks on America of 9/11, our response, what we've given, what we've paid, the losses, the hundreds of billions of dollars, the diversion of efforts, our lofty aims, and they ask, 'Where is the gratitude for what America has done that others could not do?' I've asked those questions too, and I've asked them to people in the region.

But the truth is that anger at other's opinions is not an adequate response. We must somehow regain legitimacy of purpose and method which provide the bedrock for our successful foreign policy and successful strategy and for winning the war on terror. And to do that, we must understand what's gone wrong. It's not enough to say, 'We're into Iraq now. Let's figure out what to do and how to get out of it or how to move ahead.' We've got to understand what happened...

...How did we lose legitimacy?

First of all, we distorted, overplayed, exaggerated the threat. This was not a defensive war. It was an elective war. America chose to go to war when any reasonable look at the intelligence, even at the time, would've said, 'This is not a necessary war.' Then in our haste to go to war, we didn't even go to war as a last resort. We pushed it. We didn't allow time for the completion of the inspections. We didn't ask for and demand a second UN Security Council resolution. We pushed it. We had a timeline in mind.

When we went to war, we used a terrible terminology for this. "Shock and Awe," coupled by a statement by an American General that "we don't count Iraqi casualties" - what, they're not people? They don't count? The thin veneer of the UN resolution that we had may have provided an element of legality, but it did not provide legitimacy.

After we reached Baghdad, we failed to take due care to protect noncombatants and property. As the insurgency began, we didn't protect the civilian population. We pressured the civilian population. When we took detainees in and had them under our control. We apparently did some things that we should never have done, and when it came out at Abu Ghraib, instead of cutting to the quick of it and ending it, we dissimulated and dallied when urgent action to the very source of that unacceptable conduct was required.

We were unable to even follow through on the original purposes of the operation except insofar as removing Saddam Hussein from power. We lost all sense of proportion between ends and means, and even today we're engaged in a military surge that the administration would like to see an open ended commitment, which as actually a participation in an ongoing Iraqi civil conflict.

We violated virtually every principle of Just War doctrine. It's in Christian thought. It's in Islamic thought. And it's in the common sense of ordinary people all around the world, and we violated that...

...I know there's a realist critique of this position. I can hear them now. Many of them were my friends. They're defending our actions, 'Well, you know, international law, international opinion, I mean, what's really there?' And, 'We can't allow these sort of opinion polls to stand in the way of doing what we really need to do for America's security.' Or I hear it occasionally from questions from the audiences when I speak. They say, 'How are we going to get them to talk to us if we don't rough them up?' Or that famous statement that 'The Geneva Convention is an anachronism.'

But I've traveled around the world. I've talked to governments in Latin America and Eastern Europe and the Middle East. I've talked to the people who lived through repressive regimes. None of these realist critiques are unique. They're not original. They're old, tired, hackneyed excuses that other governments have trotted out time and again to serve their own purposes.

To be fair, the Bush administration wasn't the first to trim around the edges of U.S. compliance with the principles of international law and the requirements for legitimacy. you can look back over the Cold War and find our exceptions, but you can't take much pride in it. The coups that we fomented, the politicians we attempted to pay off, the efforts that we made in covert action, our occasional support of expediency over principles - most of them came to a bad end.

They don't justify the realist critique. They help condemn it. And in the light of history, they stand not out- they stand out not just as aberrations, but as mistakes. They're just of a lesser magnitude than the kind of mistake we made with the invasion of Iraq.

You can go back and trace these uneasy compromises we've made where we had to sacrifice our adherence to international law and international standards when it's suited our realist aims. You can trace it back. But by and large, in the court of public opinion, we got away with them in the Cold War. Our adversaries were much worse, and we were on the right side of the equation of history and human judgment in the most part.

By and large, we escaped with our reputation mostly intact, but this time, this time, we've gone too far.

The administration's approach is robbing every American of the legitimacy of aim and method which once made our nation the unquestionable leader of choice for mankind and which helped make every American safer and more secure."
http://securingamerica.com/node/2425


OK, I'll say it before you do. The main missing link here is that Clark did not talk about the economic forces of entrenched self serving capital that often were the prime movers behind many of the worst American transgressions that he made brief note of, including Iraq. Why not is a fair question to ask, and I can only speculate. Focus and strategy come to mind. By focus I mean the previous focus of Clark's adult life, which started out with him focused on the study of military techniques, widened into broader leadership skills associated with achieving pre-established goals, broadened further into strategic long term planning regarding countering possible threats associated with the Soviet Union, and matured much further into a study of how wars can be avoided through international cooperation, and efforts to understand and reconcile competing interests through negotiated agreements that address the core needs of all parties involved, utilizing strengthened international institutions, agreements, and codes of conduct consistent with our most positive national values.

America’s image in the world, and what affected that image, both how and why, became essential for Clark to thoroughly understand, as he was constantly called on to act as a representative of America in international settings as his arena of assigned responsibilities became increasingly global. The American military has a deeply engrained system of values which teaches officers not to challenge the authority or goals of civilian leadership other than to provide counsel on how those goals can best be achieved. In statements like this and others Clark has made, I see aspects of his deepest counsel to America about how we must behave in the world today in order to advance our most fundamental (as in shared by all of our citizens) national goal of enjoying peace, security, and prosperity. I think Wes Clark is a true visionary in this regard. He is drawing on his life time of experience when he advances this vision, and road map, of America's ideal role in the world. However Clark has not yet articulated in public the same level of finely nuanced analysis of the internal economic dynamics that have impeded America's progress toward acting consistently in line with that ideal. That is what you want from Clark that you haven't been sufficiently hearing WT2.

I can guess why that may be, but I am only guessing. For one thing I see Clark continually pushing the envelope of broad public debate as it is, to include a far reaching serious open discussion of what our role in the world should be. He already is cramming far more real content into the mainstream medium allocation for mass public discussion of issues in Amreica than our current political culture supports. Of course when one steps outside of the mainstream, suddenly near infinite opportunities exist for discourse, and the limits on debate fall away, but so does the audiance for it. Amy Goodman remains free to explore any issue she wants in whatever depth she chooses, but our system keeps her inpact confined to the relative fringes.

So while most politicians running for office speak about Iran, for example, in short tough sound bites, Wes Clark attempts to shoe horn the actual complexity of the situation into the 45 second packages of attention span that he is given to work with. Given that, he not only touches on the need to talk with people we disagree with, he brings in the fact that U.S. intentions toward Iran remain hostile and we engage in a strategy of regime change toward both that nation and the region. He brings in that the issues in the middle east are interlocking and that concerns for or about Iraq, or Iran, or Israel can't be broken out and dealt with seperately sucessfully, and he brings in the reality that Iran has historically always been a major regional power and it is not realistic to believe that their influence either can or even should be contained to within Iran's borders. Can he really get away with talking that much actual substance?

Obviously he is trying though, so why not priotize including a short sound bite about imperialism, or failing that, why not focus on the recent obvious instance of it with Iraq's oil, that has caused so much suffering to so many people, Americans included? I'll continue to speculate, and speculation is all that it is, I admit WT2. For one thing Clark has tenuous control over his access to main stream media at best. If he breeches an explosive issue, he has no recourse for effectively combatting how his words get mocked, spun, taken out of context, or otherwise used against him to destroy either him or his perceived credibility. His air time, his access to major jounals can be cut off at any time. But I don't think the threat of something like that explains everything.

I think Clark is continuing to find his public voice, and by that I don't mean on a simple level, I mean on a profound one. He is still exploring how to talk in a simple language about things that are important that bypasses much of the broad public's instant rejection screen out buttons, and instead instinctively connects with people's positive self images about themselves, their neighbors, and their nation. Clark, I am sure, is aware of the many knowledgable critics of the way multi-national corporations rent services from our government as needed, and he sees where their message to date has resonated and why, and where it hasn't, and why. I can say that with conficence because Wes Clark is a man who has Noam Chompsky on the small book shelf in his office. I konw, I was there and I saw it. But that's just an easy example. Scratch the surface and you will quickly see how well read Clark is.

Wes Clark set his sites at the top, the place where he could have maximum influence on changing American policy and priorities, both at home and abroad. But seeking the Presidency, running to win, is a political process, and there is an extensive historic track record to study of who has won in the past and why, and who has lost in the past, and why. America has not elected a President who even hinted at being an economic radical since FDR during the Depression, if you will grant him that status. Even when Democrats have run as populists, they most often have lost, which could be more a factor of the deck being stacked against them rather than their message not resonating. Still Democrats have won running on a populist platform such as John Edwards is doing now. It is risky but it can pay off also.

But the type of populism that National Democrats embrace remains neutered. Multi-National Corporations are blasted for outsourcing, and for walking away from their pension plans. Energy companies are blasted for raking in obscene profits while many Americans have trouble making ends meet. CEO's are blasted for accepting lucrative bonus packages while they lay emplyees off. All of this could be called just sniping arond the edges though, I think you will agree. The fundemental nature of our system, to date, is never really challenged by those running to be President who hold out any hope of actually winning that office. That of course is the historic template that history has given Wes Clark to study. For Clark, it is never enough to be right if being right produces no improved outcome. Clark was right about Rwanda and 800,000 people died because he couldn't convince the people he needed to that they should intervene to stop that genocide. Wes Clark takes no comfort from having been right, those deaths still occurred. The correct critiques on American Imperialism have already been published but that form of Imperialism continues, suffering little or no negative effects to date by way of consequence.

So Wes Clark I believe is focused on bringing about a slow but meaningful transformation of the power dynamics in this nation, starting with removing the impediment of Republican majorities in Congress and then moving forward to reducing strong obstructionist Republican minorities as well. To achieve that the Democratic Party has to find a message that will sell in Montana, Colorado, Arizona, Virginia and Missouri as well as in New York and California, because electing strong majorities to Congress depends on electing Democrats in large numbers form those states also. There is potentially a fine needle to be threaded in exactly how populist a Democrat can now be.

All of this of course is changing, and so in a way is Wes Clark. He has only been in public life for about six years now, previously it was inappropriate for him in his career to challenge the mega thrust of U.S. policy. Clark publicly states that Senior Officers in the military have a duty to resign if their fundamental opposition to what they are being ordered to do runs so deep as to make it totally unconscionable for them to implement those policies. Short of that however their role is to advise but then implement civilian directives once decisions have been made. So freed from his constitutional obligation to obey his civilian leaders from whatever political party the voters elect to office, Wes Clark continues in my mind to come into his own voice and power, and I expect him to keep evolving in that role as he tests the limits of what can be pushed and what happens when you do.

But there is another what I think is critical factor that constrains Wes Clark now in regards to his comments on U.S. policy toward the middle east. He honestly fears that the Bush Administration may start a new war with Iran before America has time for it's next national election. If the matter of war and peace will be decided with the current office holders in Congress and the White House locked in place, then Wes Clark, I believe, feels he needs to choose his message carefully. He needs to remain a credible voice to Senator Lugar, and Senator Warner, and even to Defense Secretary Gates and Condi Rice, who scandalously represents the pole of moderation in the Bush-Cheney government currently. I repeat for emphasis: Wes Clark thinks there is a real chance that a new war will break out within 18 months, and unlike delusional neocons, he feels the consequences of that war have the potential of making the consequences of the U.S. invading Iraq pale by way of comparison. I dunno WT2, maybe that is why Wes Clark is not being more explicit about the issue of Iraq's oil right now (and I'm not sure what the excuse for other Democrats might be).

But I will say this, speaking strictly for myself. After the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, leaving no permanent bases behind if Wes Clark has anything to do about it, and if fate graces the people of Iraq any mercy and allows a semblence of stability to then return to that nation, laws that were passed, and contracts that were signed by a weakened Iraqi government under duress and coersion can be wripped up and declared null and void. It has happened before, with mixed results but by no means exclusively negative ones. Some nations do succeed at liberating themselves without having their government overthrown, usually in those cases with some fig leave face saving renegotiations of terms. If we can free Iraq from a permanent American occupation, and change the balence of power here inside America, then this ugly chapter in Iraq's impaired sovereignty may yet be revisited and rewritten to the satisfaction of all except the major energy related consortiums who have their thumb prints all over the necks of Iraq'a current parliment.

What I do not believe however, is that Wes Clark feels like he owes any personal alliegence to America's mulit-national corporations beyond what is common sense justifiable were they simply fair minded economic players through which America's citizens appropriately participated in the World's economy. I'll try to explain why I feel that way in another post.

[welshTerrier2]

75. in search of corporate-free candidates

So much of my focus is on foreign policy. It's sort of where my political roots have come from; I'm a child of the 60's and the Vietnam protests.

But we need not be so narrow in looking at the corporatocracy. Thus far, I've put a huge focus on the Iraqi Oil Law. I think it's a great indicator to know who stands where. How tragic is it, and tragic is the perfect word, to see almost every Democrat cowering in the corner refusing to even address the issue? If they're for the law, they should say so and they should say why. Instead, we get nothing. We get no leadership. We get no expression of their values. We get no democracy. It is truly an obscenity.

There are numerous other prominent indicators we can use in the absence of clearly stated positions on the oil law. I offer the following three "pillars" for analysis:

HEALTH CARE
Most notably, especially since Sicko hit the theaters, is health care and the role of for-profit companies in the mix. To speak of universal health care under the jurisdiction of for-profit companies is sort of like inviting turkeys to celebrate Thanksgiving dinner with you. Or is that too oddly obscure? What is Clark's position on solving the health care crisis? The arguments for single payer are plentiful and potent. Arguments that retain the power and profits of insurance companies seem unpersuasive. Should anyone with a commercial interest have jurisdiction over whether any of us lives or dies? What kind of "universal care" is that?

EDUCATION
Local cities and towns are dying. There are huge budget shortfalls. This is where some of the key programs and policies that affect the lives of the American people are decided but yet, far too often, the direction is set by money concerns rather than effective policy considerations. It's hard not to "look up the pipeline" to see that the defense budget is draining available resources. On the top rung of this local policy ladder is education. We fight for funding locally; it affects the country, even our national security, globally. Class size, teacher pay, resources like the school buildings themselves and teaching tools like computers are all victims of underfunding. To speak of eliminating wasteful defense programs is a great place to start; it doesn't go far enough though. The real national discussion needs to weigh competing budget priorities. It's time for those at the top, and those at the bottom too, to stop putting defense spending, even useful defense spending, on a pedestal. It's too easy to say "if we don't defend the country, we could lose everything." That's the famous one-percent solution. If there's a one percent chance something might happen, we should do whatever it takes, and spend whatever it takes, to prevent it. Well, no. Why? Because all budget priorities are interrelated. If we had infinite resources, protecting the country against any and all risks no matter what the cost might make sense. We don't have infinite resources. Thus, the right process does not measure solely one factor, i.e. defense, but measures all factors in relation to each other. Getting the defense budget right, like any other spending category, must be properly prioritized and not viewed in a vacuum.

DEMOCRACY
Putting this as simply as I can, we cannot survive as a nation given the current poisoning of our democratic institutions by big money. This money comes via the super-wealthy and it comes from corporations. I start with the fundamental premise of one man one vote. While admittedly an ideal, each citizen should have equal access to and influence on the policies of their government. To allow a wealthy citizen greater access is something other than democracy under my definition. To go further, allowing corporations to petition the government as citizens and, worse yet, privileged citizens, is an obscenity. As you're aware, I believe our entire foreign policy and most of our domestic policies are controlled by corporate interests. While token gestures may be offered to the American people, e.g. pollution laws, OSHA restrictions, product safety and labeling requirements, these are mere appeasements. That which truly threatens the underlying profit-focussed infrastructure will never see the light of day. I'm not in the camp that says "business is evil or profits are evil." Commerce and wealth are appropriate societal goals but must never be given the power to corrupt the democratic processes. While "free market" is often seen as a republican mantra, I'm afraid the infestation has spread deep into the controlling powers in the Democratic Party as well. We cannot survive with a corporate-controlled two party system. The alternatives, by necessity, call for either a revolution within the Democratic Party (e.g. PDA) or the nurturing, however distant, of a third party movement. Today's reality gives us a realistic choice between corporate right and corporate left. We cannot survive as a nation when all roads lead to the bottom line. So, democracy then becomes the third pillar I use as a yardstick to measure a candidate's poisoning by the corporatocracy.

Perhaps some will say my emphasis on corporate control is far too narrow. Perhaps some will argue these things need not be as black and white as I make them out to be. Nevertheless, it is this issue more than any other that shapes my view of what our country needs and on how I should vote. In the end, I believe that no candidate for office nor anyone elected can serve two masters with vastly different objectives. One master demands adherence to the bottom line; the other demands adherence to the best interests of the American people. The two are rarely compatible.

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. Have to be brief tonight WT2, but...

One of the last times I heard Clark speak, a central theme was the biggest real challanges facing the U.S. in the 21st century - the context was that "a war on Terrorism" did not qualify as one of the actual major challanges that America needed to confront. Making sure that all of our youth are provided quality affordable opportunities for public education through College or the equivelent, was one of them, because Clark said the U.S. could not remain competitive in the world if we continued to waste the human potential of all of our citizens. And Clark noted that success had to be measured by our ability to graduate almost all of our youth from such programs, that the barriers that keep youth from finishing school had to be overcome. There is much more from Clark on the theme of education but like I said I'm tired. However you may be interested in the transcript of this part of Clark's exchange with Charlie Rose last night:

Charlie Rose: What's the defining struggle of our time?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I, I think the defining struggle in America right now, in America, is the question of the distribution of income and whether we're going to keep the doors of opportunity open for all Americans regardless of what their family income status is, whether there's still a chance for ordinary Americans to make it to the top, or whether the screening process starts early with admission to preschool and, you know, and which elementary school you've gone to to determine-

Charlie Rose: Yeah.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -whether you're going to make the scores to get to Harvard, to get to Harvard Business School to end up at some elite financial institution or whatever.

Charlie Rose: The kind you consult with.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: The, the kind that I'm very familiar with.

Charlie Rose: (laughs)

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And, you know, right now those institutions are filled with a bunch of really ordinary Americans, people who come from all across, with all kinds of family backgrounds. America is a wide open society. I hope it'll continue to be that in the future.

Charlie Rose: Mm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think that's the immediate issue really facing this country.
http://securingamerica.com/node/2579



Wes Clark is on public record stating that the United States needs to move to Single Payer health care in order to solve the health care/insurance crisis we face today. He said this on January 6,2006:

"We need to harness the innovation of our biotech, pharmaceutical, and health insurance industries better to serve the public good, not just the private gain of shareholders. No child in America should grow up without regular medical check-ups and care — or regular exercise and physical fitness - and every adult should be provided access to the kinds of diagnostic testing and preventive treatments which can slow the onset of aging diseases like diabetes, atherosclerosis, and Alzheimer's. Additional insurance coverage should be directed to catastrophic illness and injuries, the kind that wreck families and shatter productive lives.

And inevitably this will mean transitioning over time from a work place centered, private payer system toward greater reliance on some form of single-payer system to ease administrative burdens and reduce costs."
http://securingamerica.com/node/560

Somewhere else I saw him explain at significant length why single payer could not be implemented overnight for daunting logistical reasons unrelated to politics, but he was clear that that was where we needed to go to solve the crisis. Can't look for it now, maybe some other time.


On Democracy - this is what initially convinced me that Clark was a man who I could actually wholeheartedly support. For one thing he said that the two most important things we could leave for our grandchildren was the environment and our constitutional system of government. When I know that he and I were on the same page was when I heard him say the following during an interview on National Public Radio:

"I think we're at a time in American history that's probably analogous to, maybe, Rome before the first emperors, when the Republic started to fall... I think if you look at the pattern of events, if you look at the disputed election of 2000, can you imagine? In America, people are trying to recount ballots and a partisan mob is pounding on the glass and threatening the counters? Can you imagine that? Can you imagine a political party which does its best to keep any representatives from another party — who've even been affiliated with another party — from getting a business job in the nation's capital? Can you imagine a political party that wants to redistrict so that its opponents can be driven out entirely?...it's a different time in America and the Republic is - this election is about a lot more than jobs. I'm not sure everybody in America sees it right now. But I see it, I feel it."
http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

Clark issued a position paper in early January 2004 that is archived on his old campaign site. I urge you to read all of it because it is quite detailed, but here are some selected pieces:


Securing Voters' Rights
Nearly four decades after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, America is still battling to protect and preserve the right to vote for all our citizens, especially minorities who are still being systematically disenfranchised in some areas. The 2000 election focused national attention on the widespread and systemic problems with our voting system. Millions of Americans cast votes that were not counted. The Florida Recount highlighted problems that exist nationwide including: antiquated voting machines, outdated voter registration databases, tabulation problems, unclear ballots, and discriminatory practices that disenfranchised many voters. Nearly four years later many necessary reforms are not in place. Voter intimidation tactics still prevent people from casting their vote. Wes Clark will take real steps to ensure that all Americans have their votes counted. He will:



Stand up for all voters in November 2004

Vigorously enforce civil rights laws

Strengthen election reforms


STAND UP FOR ALL VOTERS IN NOVEMBER 2004
Since the 2000 election, significant Republican efforts around the country to suppress minority voter turnout have been documented by the media. In 2002, suppression tactics were reported in Louisiana, New Jersey, South Carolina, Arkansas, and several other states. For example, Republican poll watchers in Arkansas reportedly drove away voters in predominantly black precincts by taking photos and improperly demanding identification during pre-election day balloting in 2002. Wes Clark will stand up for voters rights in November. He will:



Identify and target hot spots where there are recurrent voting problems. Wes Clark will send teams of volunteers to places where African-American and other minorities were illegally turned away from the polls on election day 2000 and 2002.

Conduct voter education. The Clark Campaign will train campaign volunteers across the nation to ensure that voters are aware of their rights, are registered, can get to the polls, and are allowed to cast their votes and have those votes counted.

Appoint a legal team to monitor the 2004 election. Wes Clark will appoint a legal team to monitor the elections and push for prosecution of those who intimidate voters or wrongfully turn them away from the polls....


STRENGTHEN ELECTION REFORMS

...Increase security of electronic voting machines. To protect against computer malfunction, hacking or other irregularity, Wes Clark would require all voting machines to produce a paper record of each vote and a mechanism for voter-verification of results for individuals with disabilities that does not require the use of paper so that the ability of people with disabilities to cast private, independent ballots is not infringed. He would direct the Election Assistance Commission to study and develop best practices to enhance accessibility and voter-verification mechanisms for disabled voters. Finally, to test reliability of electronic voting machines, Wes Clark would ask the EAC to conduct surprise recounts in some precincts and publish results.

Work to extend the franchise. Wes Clark believes that too many people, especially African American men, have lost their right to vote because of prior felony convictions, including such minor offenses as writing a bad check. In Florida and Alabama, 31 percent of African American men are permanently barred from voting because of a prior felony conviction. As President, Wes Clark would encourage states to look at laws that permanently strip voting rights from those who have served their time and extend the franchise to more Americans.

I find it interesting that Clark included concerns about electronic voting back in January 2004. I'm sure if this were written today the content would be stronger. One of the most comprehensive reports on the dangers of electronic voting that I have seen was prepared by one of Clark's supporters with his approval and broadcast in two parts in Clark's series of pod casts (called "Clarkcasts"):

August 20, 2006
ClarkCast 022 - The Security Of Our Elections, Part II
(Click to listen or download)
In this edition of the ClarkCast, we finish our two-part series on the importance of election security. In a roundtable format, Clark supporter MSinLA probes deeper into the current state of US elections with Dr. David Dill, Mark Crispin Miller, and California State Senator Debra Bowen -- candidate for California Secretary of State. Listen, then share your thoughts with the Clark Community at http://securingamerica.com/ccn.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 15, 2006
ClarkCast 021 - The Security Of Our Elections
(Click to listen or download)
In the first of a two-part series, Clark supporter MSinLA interviews noted experts on the topic of elections and election security. In discussing a broad range of potential voting inaccuracies, these interviews tell us much about our current system and how it might be subverted.


With the 2006 mid-term elections less than three months away, the integrity of our voting process is a crucial matter. We hope these interviews will motivate you to take action in your state to protect the integrity of our election system. Listen, then share your thoughts with the Clark Community at http://securingamerica.com/ccn.
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/22


Sorry that this was all fast and dirty cut and paste, but it is the best that I can muster right now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. Just had a 15 second power outage take out 45 mins spent on a post. Aaargh

So though I wrote you that I would add some additional comments, that's gonna have to wait. I'm too frustrated to start over right now.

One of the things I was going to reference was Clark's appearance on the Charlie Rose show last night, and suggest that you view it yourself. So as not to totally waste a post, here is a link to where you can find a video of it at Clark Community Network:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12794

[welshTerrier2]

64. reply #2

yikes ... the posts are so long and there are so many of them it's hard to know where to respond. I'll start by adding this response to the one I made above. I'll also respond to your response to my "placeholder" after I finish this post.

If you're going to win the war against Terror the most important weapon you have is what you stand for as a nation, because it's a battle of ideas. <skip>

What George Bush is doing by trying to accumulate executive powers, he's taking away the most important weapon we have in winning the war on terror, which is the weapon of the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and we can't let him have it!"

Well, I certainly agree with the idea that projecting goodness as a nation is better than projecting badness. And I certainly agree that honoring the values embodied in the founding of the country, specifically, respect for the individual and respect for the rule of law, are key components of those values. Nevertheless, it seems more important, at least with a focus on foreign terrorist movements, to project our values overseas compared to projected them at home. It's hard to see unlawful wiretapping in the US and FISA violations being a strong motivating force for terrorism. In the other hand, propping up the Shah of Iran or empowering the House of Saud might help with enlistments. Placing sanctions on Iraq or saber rattling against Iran might help meet a few quotas. And oil grabs coupled with the occupation of American troops in the Middle East? That's a biggie. So, while I strongly agree with the idea that "they hate us for our values and our actions," it's the actions we impose on them directly that are most relevant. Also, as a separate point, emphasizing diplomacy is all well and good but it cannot succeed in the face of corporate-driven, profit-motivated imperialism.

"Q: Would you change the embargo against Cuba?
A: When you isolate a country, you strengthen the dictators in it. If you want to change the dictators, you've got to open it up so ordinary people in those countries can see what they're missing in the rest of the world, and gain strength and ideas from everybody else. And they'll take control of their future. We're not going to reward Castro, but to make sure that Cubans have a democracy and they have the same rights as everybody else on this planet."
Source: CNN "Rock The Vote" Democratic Debate Nov 5, 2003


"The solution to terrorism is not going to be found in bullets. It's not going to be found in precision ordnance or targeted strikes. It's really going to be found in changing the conditions. It's going to be found in establishing a global safety net that starts with security and goes to economic development and political development and the kinds of modernization which let others enjoy the fruits of modernization that we as Americans enjoy.
Our best protection is not going to build a wall around America. It's not going to be to create a missile-defense impenetrable shield. It's going to be, instead, to create a community of common values and shared responsibilities and shared interests in which nations and people get along. That really is ultimately the only protection."
Source: Speech at Temple University, "America's Global Strategy" Oct 17, 2001

Well, these statements I like very much as far as they go. The statement on a Cuba embargo, while it should go further to talk about the devastation harsh sanctions bring on innocent civilians, is very much a view I hold myself.

And the second statement is very good as well. It's great to see a mature understanding that the current strategy of "the punishments will continue until morale improves" cannot possibly be effective. Only through a search for shared values can we find friends, or at least peace, with our current enemies.

Again, however, when Clark talks about economic development and the fruits of modernization, our track record is a very, very greedy one. As highlighted in Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, the playing field between massive American corporate power and most third world nations is not level to say the least. It is far too easy to threaten foreign leaders with assassination or political opposition or other threats. It is far too easy to forgive loans from the World Bank if they'll just play ball. The old saying that "if you want peace, work for justice" is crying out here. Everything Clark is saying is fine but the core of the problem needs to be highlighted. At some point, with someone running the show, we need to have the kind of leadership that knows the difference between selfish American interests and good global citizenship. What I look for, and still can't hear in Clark's words, is someone who will clearly distinguish between the two.

Put more simply, what are the rules? Should our conduct be absolutely "fair" or should we try to maximize American interests or worse yet, American corporate interests? Candidates that either don't see what all the fuss is about in the first place or who are unwilling to spell out how they'll play the game concern me. What course am I voting for? The "leap of faith, look at the whole person" isn't quite good enough because the way they see our role in the world isn't quite clear enough.

I hope I was clear in trying to express this point. OK, that's enough for here. I'm off to your previous response.

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. An attempt at a wrap up

More so than any other Democrat running for President or considering it, Clark actually talks about the nuts and bolts of making diplomacy work, and in the process he sets a very different tone than the jingoistic one I am hearing everyone else slip into which essentially is a varient on "Diplomacy is war by other means". I can't tell you how sick I am of hearing Democrats pronounce that we need to talk with Iran and then proceed to lay out the lecture that they think America should give Iran during those talks, intersperced with all of our demands on them. Every time Clark speaks about Iran he includes commentary on how the world, and the U.S. government, looks from an Iranian perspective. He acknowledges that other nations, even nations that we currently have adversarial relations with, have legitimate issues and concerns of their own that deserve to be on the table for discussion as well as our own. And Clark usually is prepared to discuss in some detail the types of incentives he feels America needs to offer other nations in return for better relations.

So to be honest WT2, I don't know what role Clark sees ecomomic sanctions possibly playing in U.S. foreign policy, but I know that he far prefers negotiating mutually satisfactory accomodations with other nations rather than punishing them into submission. Do you know how other candidates would respond to this question? Just like he never completely rules out the use of force in dire circumstances as a last resort, I am pretty sure Clark does not totally rule out economic sanctions either, as an alternate step short of military conflict when legitimate security concerns are at stake. North Korea is probably a good example because they have actually been aggressive toward South Korea and Japan both at times over the last couple of decades. Clark would not rule out threatening economic sanctions but he understands that in general North Korea does not respond well to threats, so he always advocated keeping open bilateral lines of communication with that regime and a willingness to discuss all outstanding issues between our two nations. He never advocated using sanctions to bring North Korea to the bargaining table on U.S. terms. And I seem to recall Clark saying it was backwards trying to use the U.N. to tighten sanctions on Iran before the U.S. was even willing to engage in open ended negotiations with that nation, that it tended to further polorize positions without a likilihood of progress being achieved.

Clark's most recent comments on Iraq are up at Securing America from his recent Congressional testimony, and there was a thread here up at DU with dozens of reccomendations that discussed that at length. You were there:

"I've never seen Clark look so concerned"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3382045

Clark thinks the U.S. should without hesitation unambiguously renounce any attempt to maintain a permanent presense in Iraq. He is on record saying Iraq's oil belongs to the people of Iraq. He explicitly rejects U.S. attempts to militarily acquire oil resourses, and he says we should buy the oil we need on the open market. Clark thinks some removal of troops should begin immediately in any case, and if the Bush Administration continues to refuse to engage in a strategy of meaningful regional diplomacy, then there is little the U.S. military can accomplish, so in that case it should trigger an accelerated pull out of our forces. Conversely, in the unlikely event that Bush agrees to a significant diplomatic regional intitiative that included ongoing direct contacts with nations like Syria and Iran with no preconditions to negotiations, Clark would slow down withdrawal of U.S. forces because with the active cooperation of Iraq's neighbors, progress inside Iraq to resolve the civil war may actually be possible, and there may be a transition role the U.S. could play.

But above all else Clark thinks the public debate is focused on the wrong issue. The problems in the middle east are not confinced to inside Iraq and they can not be solved inside Iraq. He still fears a drift toward a much larger war and until the U.S. is willing to engage in a process during which all the main players in that region are able to addresse their own security concerns, chances for a further break out of violence that would likely spread is high.

I heard Clark remark that the U.S. has no business trying to use the C.I.A, to create governments to our liking during a question and answer period during a speech this Spring/Early summer at a University.

Here is the thing though (I really have to break for the night now). I will say this in straight forward simple words. I have come to know Wes Clark by now and he is a good man. Human suffering disturbs him and he is motivated to act, within his power and within the limits that a situation presents, to lessen that suffering. It is part of who he is, it goes deeper than mere political ideology. It is a manner of basic humanity and honor to him. It is part of that question of basic integrity that we both place high value on from a potential leader. As a soldier he knows that all suffering can't be avoided. He's suffered personally from war, he was shot several times. War is not an abstraction to him, and when there is something that can be attempted to prevent that type of violence from being unleashed, Clark believes in attempting it. I touched on some of this in a blog entry I did called "The Pain That Chicken Hawks Don't Feel": http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2006/12/the_pain_that_chicken_hawks_do.html#more

In that blog I skimmed quickly past the story he told the vets he was speaking to that day about the very mild case of post traumatic stress he returned from war with. I told a different powerful story there instead from the Kosovo war which I really urge you to read if you haven't yet. The PTS story was how every year on the anniversary of the day when he was shot in combat Clark recalled the moment and felt bitterness at the Viet Cong soldier who shot him down and wounded him seriously. He felt bitter because that was done to him and he was not able to retaliate, and after the fact it seemed likely that the Viet Cong who shot him managed to escape and Clark thought why did he get away while I had fight long and hard to regain my health? Clark told the veterans that (I think it was) 8 years after that attack he was standing at the mirror shaving and feeling that bitterness when he realized that he just had to let it go. He had to stop hating the man who shot him and realize that guy was just another young man doing what he felt he had to do then also.

Clark supports sending U.S. troops to Darfur to help stop the genocide there because he believes it is the right thing to do, not because of any geo-political strategic considerations. He supported sending troops into Rwanda during the genocide there also because we could have stopped the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians had we done so, not because of geo-political considerations. When Dan Rather interviewed Wes Clark for 60 minutes in 2003, Clark choked up showing Dan Rather photos of an Albanian child who froze to death in the mountains of Kosovo when his family was trying to flee from Serbian death squads:


(CLARK)...And in the mountains, this is what you saw. This is a five-week-old baby who's died of exposure. And the family's preparing him for burial. When you can stop something like this, you should.

DAN RATHER: ...Hearing you speak of this is the first time I've seen you speak with real emotion.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Yeah.

DAN RATHER: Deep-seated emotion. Tell me why that is?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Why? Because you're dealing with people's lives when you're dealing with things like this, Dan. This is about life and death. It's about the difference between academic theories and discussions of deterrence and prevention and preemption, and what the real impact is on the ground of U.S. actions.

And I don't think you can be a real statesman or a real leader and be-- can connect the two. Lots of people go to school and they study it. Lots of people on the ground. But there aren't enough linkages. It's easy when you're in the United States to depersonalize all that's happening over there.

And so we don't have an interest in it. You know, there were people in this case who said, "We don't have any interest here. I mean there's no oil. If there were oil here, we'd stop this." So we'd rather fight for oil than to save lives. I don't think so. I don't think that's what this country really believes or what we stand for. So I do get emotional about this. Because when you can do good, you should."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584555.shtml

Wes Clark is a self made man WT2, he came from a very modest background after his Dad died suddenly when he was young. With the natural gifts Clark possesses he could have opted for a life time of wealth but instead he opted for a life time of service in an institution that paid him middle class wages even as he rose to the top levels of management in it. The Army reenforced his idealistic notions of inclusion, of team work, of leaving no one behind, of shared sacrifices and buredens. When he was a base commander all of his dependent families had fully paid for health care and education and housing was provided. That is what feels natural to Clark, not the obscene world of the hyper wealthy making a thousand times more than line workers in the firms they run for their own self interests. Not the corporate world where people are laid off before they can collect a pension, where people can't work more than 30 hours a week to make sure that they don't qualify for health care benefits. Clark didn't have to siddle up to big monied interests every two to four years for decades to finance his political campaigns so he could remain in office. He is remarkably independent from that entire scene, which I believe has a lot to do with why Wes Clark does not get political support thrown at him the way some other candidates do. He is a perfect candidate for Democrats to groom for the Presidency, but instead they stick with the tried and true more conventional suspects.

I got to get some sleep but I'll close with a very recent linked report from the Young Democrats of America Convention that Clark attended 7/20:

"...Clark also hit on the theme that "we should be proud to be Democrats." He riffed on some Dem box checking issues like Medicare and Social Security and whole section progressive taxation that garnered strong applause. Wait, what-now?! Clark talked about the inequity of flat taxation and lambasted Bush's vow to veto the proposed cigarette tax that would fund S-CHIP. You don't often hear prominent Dems stumping on progressive taxation. My friend Mark proposed that Clark is and old-school, even New Dealish, Democrat, way more economically liberal that many of our leaders today. Wouldn't that be something on the national stump?"
http://samofleisure.blogspot.com/2007/07/clark-be-national-security-democrat.html

[welshTerrier2]

66. just a quick comment on Darfur

for some time now, I've called for ground troops in Darfur. I don't know if it could be done with a joint effort of US (or NATO) and UN troops but that would be my preference. I'm very, very concerned about giving bush a shiny new military escapade. There's oil in Sudan and I worry about what the US objectives would really be there. The geo-politics of going into Darfur are not simple.

Nevertheless, the current situation, regardless of consequences, is unconscionable and untenable. Even with a schmuck like bush in the WH, we have to act. Clark supports it; so do I.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. I fear, lacking either Gore or Clark entering this race...

...that the odds are increasingly favoring Hillary winning. Her strongest suit isn't pink, it's her ability to come off as the most experienced significant challenger on the debate stage.

[Catchawave]

41. Tom....?

Will you be at Yearly Kos ? I will :)

And looking forward to the General's keynote :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Yes indeed Catchawave.

That's great that you can make it also. In my case, while as you can guess I am looking forward to Clark's keynote, I have had the chance to see him speak on a number of occaisions already. But I haven't seen any of our current candidates live and I am looking forward to that part a great deal, especially Edwards and Obama and Howard Dean (even though he's not running this time).

I really do look like an old hippie though I only act that way part of the time. I hope we get a chance to meet. PM me if you have access to a computer while you are at Yearly Kos and we should be able to pull it off.

[Catchawave]

46. Here's to old hippies :)

:toast: and Go Dems :hi:

I'll be here on YK-eve: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/24/7592/08620

Hope you'll stop by.

I am so looking forward to seeing/meeting all our fabulous Dem leaders, I'll be at Clark's keynote as well.

[frogcycle]

49. Hi Tom

Excellent piece. You and I are of like mind. Only I am a Gore fan, and if not Gore, Clark.

I suppose I am really fickle. I'd jump on a Clark candidacy in a heartbeat, and then from it to a Gore candidacy just as fast.

My dream ticket is Gore/Clark.

One of the great things about both of these men is we could truly benefit from the best both have to offer regardless of who was #1. Clinton allowed Gore a higher profile that previous presidents did their VP, but Gore, I am confident, would out do that in spades. So the General's intelligence, experience, and insight in matters of international diplomacy and conflict would be brought fully to bear even if he were in the #2 spot. I hope he would consider it.

As I said, if Gore does not enter, I rank Clark above all the current field. I've replayed that speech he gave in Iowa several times. Sends chills down my spine every time. If he is "on" like he was then, the keynote will be a stunner.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. I fully respect your "fickle" position

And we are of a like mind on this. You get that the deadline for Clark comes sooner than the deadline for Gore. I welcome whatever support you can give to efforts to encourage Clark to run. If Clark does run, and then Gore decides to enter the race after that point, I see absolutely no inconsistency or betrayal if Gore supporters such as yourself jump ship back to your first true love. I would expect that. Bottom line; none of can be sure how the primaries will turn out and most of us, just looking at the numbers, are going to end up with a nominee who is not our first choice. That's just the way it almost always works. But if that nominee turns out to be either Al Gore or Wes Clark, I don't think either one of us would do much complaining.

[AtomicKitten]

57. Gore's non-campaign has been spectacular.

I believe it is his for the taking, if he wants it.

I gladly supported Wes Clark in 2004.

Either of these men entering the race would have a huge impact and would shift the dynamics.

[David Zephyr]

60. Tom, it is always a joy to read your posts.

And you are so consistent, too.

Wes is a great guy. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

67. True dat, David Zephyr!

Tom is an excellent analyst on today's politics.

[PurityOfEssence]

71. But isn't Clark still against gay marriage?

Last I heard he was, and I can't find ANYTHING about it on his website. I thought this was a litmus test for you.

Maybe he's changed his mind, but if he has, he certainly doesn't seem to be standing up and doing so publicly.

Then again, if he has changed his mind or ever does come out in support of it, I'm sure it'll be like his opposition to school vouchers: he was always against them, even though he repeatedly said that they were a good idea.

Tactical maneuvering to enter races at an advantageous time is sometimes good politics, but it also smacks of evasiveness: one ducks much of the furore and attempts to take over by bold strokes. To the weak and powerless, this is awe-inspiring, but to many people it just seems like flim-flamming and grandstanding.

No major Democratic candidate has been caught in as many flagrant lies about his own positions and his opponents' actions, and yet he's a god to the stalwarts. It's a riveting phenomenon, and bespeaks volumes about human character.

Okay, I've broken one of my chief tenets: to not be negative on a pro-Clark thread. Sorry everybody, and I'll try to behave myself in the future.

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. Well thanks for the kick anyway P.O.E.

I will say that I am torn. Part of me thinks; well if you are going to make sweeping damning charges against someone, which I think you did here by accusing Clark of being caught in more flagrant lies etc. than any other major candidate, then make your detailed case (which in this instance would need to be extensive since you are not only seemingly challanging Clark on multiple instances, but also arguing that all of the other candidates come off smelling sweeter in this regard - that's a lot of ground to cover) and be prepared to defend it, both regarding Clark and the other candidates.

But that is my internal minority position. I think it better to accept your apology and reward and re-enforce your resolve to do better at holding to one of your chief tenets.

So apology accepted by me at least, and to show that I am not just posturing by saying that, I will not further open a potentially ugly can of worms for all involved. I will say nothing negative here about other candidates, including yours, and I won't write a post refuting the allegation you made.

You are right that Clark never said he backed Gay marriages, he said he supported full civil rights for G&L couples including all of the legal rights granted to married couples, and he said it was a matter to be left to states and "churches" whether the term marriage would be applied to legally recognized G&L relationships. And like Edward and other Democrats, Clark has spoken supportively of the contributions of the Gay and Lesbian communities to America.

Let's attempt to leave this at that.

[PurityOfEssence]

74. As I've said before, you're one of the good guys

(If that sounds like the flimsy disclaimer of the bigot that "why, some of my best friends are blankety-blanks", then I fully admit the validity of that feeling: the extremist Clarkies have gotten way under my skin, and it's plain to see.)

The Clark-Edwards feud is tiresome, and I know I'm a part of the problem. Many of us get bent out of shape due to the seriousness of the situation: the reactionaries have had a temporary setback in their 27 year run of atavistic control, but they're far from out of commission. Couple the perceived direness of the situation with the hopes we partisans have for our respective champions, and things can get very nasty. It's human nature.

My missive was directed at David, since he doesn't seem to want to respond to direct questions from me on a thread he started; he's been traditionally VERY rough on Edwards, and to go into a flamboyantly dramatic screed of personal betrayal, accusing Edwards of opportunism and callousness to the literal agonizing deaths of the innocents got my dander up. The fact that he also gushes praise for Clark--whose stance on the issue and willingness to even stand up and be counted on this issue is MARKEDLY WORSE THAN EDWARDS'--is ridiculous. Obviously, there's more at play here, or he wouldn't shriek with the wounds of the deeply wronged about the transgression of someone who's more of an ally on this critical issue than his own champion is or has been.

In the endless struggle with the extremists of the Clark camp, I've always tried to express it as such: the problem is the extremists of his supporters. Yes, I DO have many problems with him, but the scorched-earth zeal of the most combative is my real problem.

I'll stand by my statement about his lies, and I'd like to hear some kind of response. To date, you're one of only two that I've seen who have admitted that his deliberate lie about Kerry's and Edwards' votes on the Bush tax cuts was just that: a calculated and deliberate lie. His statements about school vouchers are also well documented, as are his statements about how he would have voted on the IWR and his counseling of another politician on how she should vote if given the chance. The distortion of Edwards' voting record when being asked to apologize for the tax vote lie is another good example.

For all of the slagging that went on in the '03-'04 primary season, there were very few outright and provable lies; the only other one that really comes to mind would be Dean's distortion about the tax cut votes, and it should be pointed out that he got called out on this in a big way. Thus, not only was Clark's rehashing of the same lie an obvious lie, it was an idiotic tactic in light of Dean's having been found out. One problem with very smart people is that they often overestimate the stupidity of others, and among the traits necessary for a good president is TACTICAL SENSE.

Couple all this with the lavish praising of the Bush Administration's foreign policy that Clark made in a very important speech early in '01, and there's a lot of explaining that needs to be done. Remember: by the time that he spoke praising Junior, Dick, Colin and Donnie, they had already shown their true colors in an obvious and imperious way.

I'll give Clark a few breaks along the lines of having seen the error of his ways and having realized where he wanted to be in the political spectrum, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and presume that these are sincere, but it's tiresome in the face of extremist and confrontational acolytes who demand a MUCH higher standard of consistency and morality from everyone else than their chosen champion.

Hero worship annoys me, and there's a cult aspect to his appeal that is unmistakable; I'm hardly the only one who sees this.

Backing off for a second, I will say this: if he's going to run, he'd better do so immediately. The blush of the newfound savior is gone; that trick only works once, and he misplayed it the last time. To jump into a race after many have been standing up and taking the hits smacks of a bit of unfairness, and whether that's fair or not to say (politics is a nasty business, after all) many others will feel the same way.

Playing the fad/star card is risky, and time works against it. This is happening to Obama as we speak, and it'll be interesting to see if he's got the staying power.

Much of Clark's appeal was that he was OUR military guy, thus dispelling the fear that we were all too weak to deal with international war. Well, that time is past: people are weary of the war and wary of the war-makers; there's really no need to be "tougher" than them. All of the masculine puffery that brought us "For a Stronger America" and Kerry's "reporting for duty" are relics of a time when the war wasn't such an albatross.

Personally, I'm very worried that the Hillary bandwagon is just going to steamroller us all and give us her as a candidate; I truly believe that, barring some kind of extreme circumstance, she's unelectable. Clark entering the race now would probably splinter the factions supporting her chief viable rivals, and I think that's a terrible thing.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, and thanks for being able to chide and still keep the channels open; in a black and white world, some thoughtful greyness is much valued.

(edited for punctuation and diction)

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. You can't have it both ways P.O.E

You can't come onto a Clark thread that really had nary a nasty thing said about any of our current candidates, your's included, in order to dump your anger over how another Clark supporter trashed your guy, and while blasting him for doing that go ahead and do the same thing to Clark here twice, where I have already made an effort to turn the cheek once.

Geeze, P.O.E. I appreciate the kind words you direct toward me but then how does that explain why you stalked another poster back onto MY thread - an innocent of your charges thread written by someone you call one of the good ones, and use his short post, written only to compliment ME on my writing, as a launching pad to attack Clark? Can't you see how these cycles of bitterness towards each other get fed? I could be reacting now as if you were one big flaming asshole, but I see no good point in that.

I really don't want to turn this thread into a back and forth escalating series of posts attacking and defending, attacking and defending, but you make it hard not to, don't you see that?

I would probalbly want to dispute your assertion that Clark's policies toward Gays and Lesbians were MARKEDLY WORSE THAN EDWARDS for example, but I really would rather not start on that. And you know, I do remember conceding some point or points to you about comments Clark made during the campaign, but I am sure that your memory over states what I conceded, and I made whatever concession that I made within a larger context that seemed appropriate to me at the time which your summary has stripped completely away. But you just got a chance to rant a little on that again, so how about I leave you with the final detailed word on that and we quit while we are still on relatively good terms with that, OK? Is that being gracious enough?

This however I call bullshit on, and I wonder if you will insist that we go into extended conflict over it on my thread that you chose to dump it on:

"Couple all this with the lavish praising of the Bush Administration's foreign policy that Clark made in a very important speech early in '01, and there's a lot of explaining that needs to be done. Remember: by the time that he spoke praising Junior, Dick, Colin and Donnie, they had already shown their true colors in an obvious and imperious way."

It's that Republican fund raiser again that Clark spoke at in his home town a week before he spoke at a Democratic fund raiser in his home town. Clark's warm up comments were made less than 90 days after Bush took office, in the exact same time frame as all those warm glowing words said by virtually all leading Democrats trying to establish a positive tone in relations with the new President after one of the most bitterly contested elections in American history.

Remember it was Vice President Gore who set the example he wanted Democrats to take when he said in his December 13th 2000 concession speech:

"President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities.

I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done."

This was the period when George Bush was still getting many of his high level appointments approved by the U.S. Senate, and almost all of them received overwhelming votes of approval with ample kind words and very little flak except for Attorney General John Ashcroft who many Democrats did oppose and who, you will note, Wes Clark gave no praise to. Actually Clark's remarks that night praised Bush's team, not Bush. And Clark could not possibly have been praising Bush's foreign policy because there was barely any sign that he had one yet at that point, beyond what he promised in his campaign; to be humble in our dealings with other nations. Clark didn't praise Bush's policy, only some compliments were given to members of Bush's team who later proved unworthy of any compliments. But the speech Clark actually gave that night after the opening remarks was an appeal for a foreign policy very different than the one that George Bush finally settled on.

[PurityOfEssence]

78. A hundred and eleven days into Bush's administration...

May 11, 2001, in a speech for a Republican Party Fundraiser, General Clark had this to say:

Clark: "If you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe." Sloppy though the delivery is here, he's praising Junior, not only for his fine choices in personnel, but personally. The point of "looking around the world" and naming the Secretaries of State, Defense and Treasury along with the V.P. and National Security Advisor means he's praising their worldview and actions.

The following is a list of a few foreign policy, economic and domestic policy moves made up to this time. Although I only brought up the issue of public foreign policy ugliness in the previous post, I've included some domestic transgressions since he's praising this "great team" in general, including the Secretary of the Treasury.

==Jan.20 > Bush inaugurated.

==Jan.22 > The president bans US aid to any overseas organization that gives women information on abortions. This is the first clear indication that Bush, who ran as a moderate conservative, intends to govern from the far right.

==Jan.28 > In a major policy initiative, the Bush administration seeks to provide public funds for religious groups that offer social services. The plan eventually fizzles out.

==Feb.08 > The administration abandons Clinton’s Middle East peace plan - the US largely disengages from the Middle East until after 9/11.

==Feb.17 > Bush issues four Executive Orders: Revocation of Executive Order and Presidential Memorandum Concerning Labor-Management Partnerships, Revocation of Executive Order on Nondisplacement
of Qualified Workers Under Certain Contracts, Notification of Employee Rights Concerning
Payment of Union Dues or Fees and Preservation of Open Competition and Government Neutrality Towards Government Contractors' Labor Relations on Federal and Federally Funded Construction Projects. (My note: didn't even take a month to use imperial power to crush unions in government contracts.)

==Feb.27 > Bush introduces his budget, which includes a $1.6 trillion tax cut.

==Mar.02 > Paul Wolfowitz is sworn in as Deputy Secretary of Defense. (My note: he was already very well known as an extreme hawk.)

==Mar.07 > The Bush administration breaks off talks with North Korea, abandoning Clinton’s attempt to normalize relations. US relations with South Korea begin to deteriorate.

==Mar.20 > Bush meets with Sharon - they show no interest in the possibility of peace talks.

==Mar.22 > The Bush administration abruptly ends the tradition of independent evaluations of judicial nominees by the American Bar Association.

==Mar.30 > The Bush administration abandons the Kyoto Global-Warming Treaty, provoking international outrage.

==Mar.--- > The Russian UN mission submits an “unprecedentedly detailed report” to the UN Security Council on bin Laden’s whereabouts, al-Qaeda’s organization, and Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan. The US evidently does nothing with the intelligence.

==Apr.02 > A US Navy spy plane collides with a Chinese fighter off the coast of China. The fighter crashes, and the damaged American plane lands at a Chinese air base where it is detained with its crew. The incident touches off a sharp American-Chinese crisis. After an initially tough reaction, the administration follows Secretary of State Powell’s advice and turns conciliatory. The US crew is released Apr.12. (My note: okay, they got this one right, but only by leverage against Junior's bellicose childishness.)

==Apr.02 > Egyptian President Mubarak urges the US to become more involved in the growing crisis In the Middle East. He is ignored.

==May.01 > Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz orders the destruction of 600,000 military berets because they were made in China. (My note: ah yes, just another day at the grownups' table...)

==May.02 > Bush issues Executive Order to establish a commission to "strengthen social security."

==May.07-09 > Bush appoints strongly pro-business figures to head the SEC and several key environmental agencies.

==May.10 > Congress approves Bush’s immense tax cut.

==May.11 > John Bolton is sworn in as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Bolton is a protégé of Jesse Helms and a fervent opponent of multilateralism.

==May.11 > General Clark praises the architects of this fine new world-to-be in an attempt to help them raise money.

Yep, all in all a fine bunch of folks there. A mere three and a half months into their multi-year reich and they'd really hit the ground running.

Look, Tom, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it: "Everyone's entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Your contention that little had been done by these primitive world-vandals simply doesn't hold up. They jumped out of the starting-gate as if they had a real mandate to take us back to the 1880s, and this is just what was obviously out there for all to see.

Credit where credit's due: much of this was taken from here:

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/Backg/Backg4.htm

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. Fine, you nailed me by three weeks. Congrats

That's a great laundry list P.O.E. but many of the items on it were not readily apparent at the time to someone outside of government, nor to many inside of it.

A good case in point:

==Mar.--- > The Russian UN mission submits an “unprecedentedly detailed report” to the UN Security Council on bin Laden’s whereabouts, al-Qaeda’s organization, and Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan. The US evidently does nothing with the intelligence.

Others clearly were, but the full implications were not always as obvious in real time as they are in hind sight, while some were clear early black marks against the Bush Administration. A mixed bag from the perspective of anyone who was not paying close day to day attention to the full scope of the new Bush Administration at the time. And quite a few of those items were domestic in focus at at time when Clark was only recently aclimating to living out of the service back in the United States.

Good cases in point:

==May.02 > Bush issues Executive Order to establish a commission to "strengthen social security."

==May.07-09 > Bush appoints strongly pro-business figures to head the SEC and several key environmental agencies.

==May.10 > Congress approves Bush’s immense tax cut.

But to me the real point is how tortured the effort seems to me to build this comment by Clark, in the context of where and when it was delivered, into some terribly damning indictment of him as some kind of accomplice to all the terrible things the Bush Administration is now known to be responsible for (or even to some to the things that could have been knowable then):

"If you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe."

Ooooh, evil. Did you ever read that comment in the original immediate context? Here it is again:

"You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.

We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans where we've still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United Sates and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest."

That's Clark arguing for closer ties with what later derisively was called "Old Europe" by Donald Rumsfeld. He is defending our ties with N.A.T.O. which it turns out George Bush preferred to work around by forming a new "coalition of the willing" drawn mostly from nations outside of Western Europe with the exception of Britain, Italy, and Spain.

But fine, if you think those 40 words or so from Clark are such a great example of how foolishly a seemingly intelligent man could be misled six plus years ago, I can dig up at least 40 words from a Democratic Senator written five years ago that George Bush proudly featured on his White House web site in support of his policy to aggressively confront the gathering threat posed the United States by Saddam Hussein. But I am not the one who is pushing this type of exchange, you are.

[sarcasmo]

68. IMHO, GORE/CLARK is a slam dunk winner.

[Dinger]

70. Slam Dunk, Sure Thing, Hope For Our Future Ticket

I would break my back for that ticket!:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: