Gen. Clark: 'Experience Is Key'

[Alamom]

http://www.ktiv.com/News/index.php?ID=17988

Updated: October 15, 2007, 4:54 pm
Gen. Clark: 'Experience Is Key'


Former presidential candidate, General Wesley Clark, hopes Hillary Clinton will win the White House. He says it is all about experience.

>

After telling his audience that this is "no time for amateurs," Clark clarified that it wasn't a dig against any of Clinton's opponents, saying he thinks Clinton simply has far more experience than any Democrat or Republican in the race.

"She is very pragmatic, and so she will work across the aisles. She'll bring in people of all political backgrounds to help work these issues and bring them to resolution," explains Clark.

When asked whether Clinton's unpopularity amongst many republicans would ruin her chances of winning the presidency, Clark said that the "Clinton persona" is very different from the true person.

>

"I think anybody who knows the Clintons, and has any understanding of Hillary Clinton understands she's gonna be the president. President Clinton will be, I think Bill Clinton will be you know, he'll be a great teammate and support," Clark explained.

[ShortnFiery]

1. Well you know what they say in The Post 9-11 World?

Authoritarians Know Best! :scared:

What America truly needs is an iron lady with a general as her running mate (errand boy?). :shrug:

[oasis]

4. Truth be told, America would sleep better with Clinton/Clark at the helm. (eom)

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skipos]

20. Many people were bought the "Gore=Bush" lie in 2000

and we all learned the hard way on that one. I am 100% that no matter who the Dem nominee is, there will be a bunch of people selling the same "the Dem candidate=the Repub candidate" lie again. I hope we don't have to learn the hard way on that one too.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Too cute! It's the "blame Nader first" crowd. It's so much easier than to consider that Gore

just may have picked a crappy running mate as well as ran a lack-luster campaign.

Yeah, I wish, the way fate twisted it - that Nader would not have ran - but he's not the ONLY reason Gore/Lieberman lost in 2000.

I thought Nader was f**king crazy when he said that there was very little difference in the corruption of both parties in 2000. Now, I'm considering the possiblility that Ralph may, at least in today's America, have made an correct analysis seven years too early. :shrug:

[skipos]

27. Too cute! Another condescending & misinformed post from you!

I never said Nader was the reason Gore lost. I blame Nader for being TOTALLY WRONG about their Gore=Bush lie. Unless you think Gore would have had us in Iraq, played guitar while thousands died in New Orleans, appointed justices like Alito and Roberts, given us NCLB and Clear SKies and all that garbage... you can probably admit how wrong he was.

Nader said Gore=Bush, not just Dems=Repubs.

E: You said during your campaign that it didn't really matter if Al Gore or George W. Bush won the election.
Nader: That's right.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?696

Martin was especially struck by a Portland speech where Nader said that Gore was "more reprehensible" than Bush because Gore "knows so much and refuses to act on his knowledge."
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html

Nader says Gore would have had us in Iraq...
Nader said that a Gore presidency "wouldn't have been any different in terms of military and foreign policy."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4304155/

Nader on Gore's environmentalism...
"In one area after another, he has betrayed the environmental movement."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/103000-03.htm

[ShortnFiery]

30. No, I didn't buy into the meme "Gore=Bush" in 2000, but I see overwhelming cronyism and

corruption today. Today, the DLC is the right wing of the Democratic Party. IMO, our party can NOT thrive with both "The DLC" and "The liberals" within even THIS big tent.

It's going to get real interesting when all that intimidation and "join the bandwagon" ploys fall on deaf ears. I'm hoping that we can forgo that by nominating someone who's NOT a DLCer for a change? :shrug:

[skipos]

37. HRC is my last choice for 08

for many reasons. However, I won't blame the DLC when Kucinich comes in near the bottom in Iowa, NH and beyond. People could be sending him more money, and they don't. Ron Paul was every bit as ignored as Kucinich in the MSM, and Paul has raised 10 times the money. Another thing is, I can admit that HRC has her genuine supporters. Look at this new poll...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2007-10-15-poll.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Hillary has her usual so-so fav/unfavs, but she leads the pack as far as enthusiasm. You can blame the big money donors for supporting her, you can blame the MSM for giving her more attention than the other Dems, but at the end of the day, it is primary voters who will decide.

I still think there is a chance for a big surprise in Iowa. If we end up with a HRC nomination, I won't be happy about it. But there is no way I could live with myself if I sat on my hands and let President Romney/ Thompson, etc happen. The SC appointments alone would be horrific for America. About 1/3 of DUers claimed they would not vote for Kerry after he was nominated, so I am well aware that many DUers will disagree with my feelings.

[ShortnFiery]

46. That's IMO, a thoughtful, well considered viewpoint.

No, I can't disagree with the feasibility of your thoughts and predictions.
Best to you & sorry to have jumped to the wrong conclusion that you were a Nader Hater. :blush:
:hi: SnF

[skipos]

47. Back at you! nt

:hi:

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. but, Gore won the popular vote

remember?

[ShortnFiery]

29. That is true.

But the SC gave the election to Bush/Cheney. :(

Don't get your hopes up that a triangulating iron lady will nominate anyone who will counterbalance "the fix" of John Robert's corporate ADORING SC. :shrug:

[BootinUp]

24. Seconded. n/t

[Schema Thing]

56. I really believe it

A lot of people tried to tell me that Kerry and Bush were pretty much the same in 2004, too (so why not go with the one you'd rather have a beer with, and besides, you don't change horsemen in the middle of an apocalypse).

Sorry, I just don't see it. I think Hillary (just as Kerry) is radically different from Bush, and for that matter, from all of the Republicans running.

[ShortnFiery]

65. What about Kyl-Lieberman and continuation of NAFTA unfettered.

My Gawd! IMO, the assurances of perpetual war and a gutted middle class are not improvements upon a republican administration, even if, the fascism is controlled by the velvet glove of an iron lady President. :cry: :(

[Schema Thing]

68. I do not believe Clinton wants "perpetual war" nor

a "gutted middle class".

If America attacks Iran, it will not be because of the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution regarding the IRGuard.

[ShortnFiery]

69. Then consider going to the DLC's web site, noting that her and Bill are Leaders.

And just READ about their goals and principles?

The DLC is pro-corporations all the way and nothing's better for BUSINESS than perpetual war.

[Schema Thing]

77. You've taken a logical leap there, and landed very short, imo

I'm very pro-business, but I'm very anti-war. I'm also pro-labor and pro-individual. I believe there are win/win solutions to most problems facing our country and the world. I don't believe all of those solutions are simple or easy to get agreement on, however.

Clark has spent 5 years famously saying "war should only be used as a last, last, last resort". In the past 6 months, a handful of national politicians have mimicked him on that. Last week, I could swear I heard Hillary mimic him on that.

In any case, I agree with it.

[Tellurian]

70. Out of the mouths of Achtung Babes...

[oasis]

79. It's a no-brainer that the General would pick the Clinton team. He knows that Hillary is quite

capable of assembling some of the best minds on the planet to move America forward.

[BootinUp]

80. I like the way you think. n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

11. Absolutely! Kerry/Clark sure would've been a winner!

Kerry's goofy choice for runnning mate last time added absolutely nothing to the ticket.

[ShortnFiery]

14. Nope, Clark may have even encouraged John to withdraw earlier in the evening ...

heaven forbid that a former general endorse a f**king leftist war hero. :eyes:

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BootinUp]

105. Makes sense to me. n/t

[Submariner]

2. "She is very pragmatic, and so she will work across the aisles"

With all due respect General Clark, whoever gets in should not work across the aisles. I smell a lot more House and Senate seats coming our way, and I want to see Clinton, Obama, Edwards, whoever, CRUSH the hopes and dreams of the f*cking repukes. IT'S PAYBACK TIME!

I want to see the Democratic party make life miserable and unbearable for the GOP perves. I want to see their pain. No more of this hokey bi-partisanship. The repukes suk, and I want them to know it, as that yellow belly coward Cheney would say...BIGTIME!

[ShortnFiery]

3. "Democratic party make life miserable and unbearable for the GOP perves."

That won't happen if HRC allows their (her and Bill's) covet DLC to, once again, take over The Unitary Executive. Why? They are part of the plutocracy that we now know as The United States of America.

It's all a big *waltz* for Congress critters who belittle us "chattering classes" at cocktail parties while their true interest lie in bucking up The Corporations whom comprise The Military Industrial Complex.

Yes, we need to be scared ... real scared for far too many of our democratic representatives are complicit with corporate rule while only feigning resistance as "an loyal opposition party." :(

No continued respect for retired general Clark. IMO the ONCE respectable Clark has morphed into "an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill." :thumbsdown:

[sundancekid]

5. Agreed. My, how the mighty have fallen ... I lost respect 4 Clark

many, many months ago - and this from a Clarkie 04 person! His diddling of the Clarkies related to his entering or not entering the presidential race, his throwing in (or is it throwing out?) his "political fortune" with the Clintons, his alleged work to "stop the Iran war" ------ oh, let me count the ways in which, IMHO, Clark has become a shill (if not a caricature) of his "former" self. PITY!

[ShortnFiery]

7. It is a pity, because I "really liked and admired" Clark not that far back also.

The more I look at the putrid underbelly that is "the true character" of the politicos within the beltway, the more I'm profoundly saddened and simultaneously CREEPED OUT. :wow: :(

[BootinUp]

25. This is the type of rhetoric that will help in the GE

:sarcasm:

[MethuenProgressive]

8. Wes Clark, still the smartest guy in the room.

:kick:

[ShortnFiery]

9. Yeah, that trait makes him so damn lovable?

:eyes:

[MethuenProgressive]

10. No, silly. It makes him the smartest man in the room.

Some of us want highly intelligent leaders. Some want twitchy nutjobs.

[Tellurian]

12. The Clark naysayers are upset because he refuses to carry their water for them..

I'm glad Gen Clark is a man of his own principles and convictions. A man who refuses to bend to the simpering attacks of the Left Wing Nuts! Those who once were the fawning Left now have become the incensed enmity, precisely that which they purported to eliminate under the leadership of Gen Clark. :crazy:

GO CLARK!...GO HILLARY!

[guruoo]

78. Exactly.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[ShortnFiery]

13. Yeah, to hell with their morals or ulterior motives to feed the beastie that is

The Military Industrial Complex. We want our women leaders intelligent and swaggering iron ladies; and our men Militaristic sycophants of the political ruling classes.

Bravo, Intelligence and Crony Networks trumps all in Amerikkka, The Corporate Mecca. :puke:

[geek tragedy]

26. Still a Clinton flunky. eom

[gorekerrydreamticket]

52. Must be an empty room.....

n/m

[BeyondGeography]

15. This ex-Clarkie would respectfully like to tell the General to piss off

Hillary's "experience advantage" consists of living in the White House for eight years and watching her husband be President. Besides that, she has held elected office for all of seven years (less than Obama, not to mention many other more experienced candidates in the race). Her tenure as First Lady is not nearly so significant as to make other people in the race "amateurs" in comparison. He disavows that term in relation to other candidates, but why use it in the first place then?

Put the pom-poms away, General, you're embarassing yourself.

[geek tragedy]

31. I can't believe I supported this Clinton ass-kisser.

He's getting his talking points handed to him by Mark Penn.

[NewHampster]

16. For some reason I trust the General

and I don't trust many people

[Tellurian]

17. Yes, and this thread deserves a BIG "R" as well..

[ShortnFiery]

18. "I trust the General"

IMO, "the General(s) don't, by default, deserve the average American's reverence nor trust. When I was on AD, I saluted "the RANK" not the individual until I fully knew what he/she was all about.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZCMQy7VgL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

Considering how Clark has shamelessly spun HRC's Kyl-Lieberman "hell yes for war!" vote, do you really TRUST this retired GENERAL? :shrug:

[Tellurian]

19. Yes, and about time you give the General his due. Please "R" this thread..

[ShortnFiery]

21. I have to admit, I know that former AD regular military officers can use their rank in their title.

Perhaps since you LOVE to use the title "General" when you refer to Clark, you may wish to call this former regular army officer L T (elle tee)? :eyes:

Seriously, you folks who constantly gush "The General" type accolades are creeping me out! I was living in Singapore when there was an uprising in 1964 and Martial Law was declared. We lived under this fearful and oppressive MILITARY rule until we were spirited back to the USA approximately six weeks later.

I've experienced totalitarian rule and I've honorably served my country in the active duty military. That's PRECISELY why I'm here to tell you, be wary of men/women who exude militaristic paternalism. Regardless of their laudable high intelligence and perhaps, in an understandable effort to feel "cared for" ... placing General Officer's viewpoints as "manna from Heaven" is DANGEROUS for any hope of saving any semblance of our democratic republic.

Yes, although it's OK and many people refer to former General Officers with their active duty military rank, they are RETIRED Generals who have entered the *political* world with all it's seaminess and corruption. Please don't ever forget that foregoing fact? :hi:

[Texas_Kat]

83. Your claims get stranger and stranger

In another thread, you mentioned that you were "I was a lowly cadet in R.O.T.C. (yeah yeah - snicker). However, twenty years later, I am less hopeful."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3608404&mesg_id=3609529

So you were in college ROTC 20 years ago (no one comes out of High School ROTC as an officer)... that would have been about 1987, but you then said "I served four years AD in the 1980s."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3608404#3609401

Even though that's doesn't really add up, I'll give you some looseness with your 'dates".

So by your claims, you would have been around 22 in the mid-late 80's ....

It means that (1985-22 years) is early-mid 60's.... so you must have been an infant if you were in Singapore in 1964. It's really amazing that you recall all this detail. A prodigy, in fact!

[Tellurian]

93. I hope you don't mind if I bookmark your handiwork..

when we again face the old reality vs wishful thinking paradox..:)

[Name removed]

102. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

103. p.s. I should have typed 30 vice 20 years since I was in ROTC ...

not that it is TRULY any of your FUCKING BUSINESS! :grr: :nuke:

[ShortnFiery]

114. to clarify 1981 to 2007 is exactly 26 years.

I hope this makes you feel better because I feel really creeped out? :scared:

[ShortnFiery]

116. I was in first grade and attended an "America's school" in 1964.

My older brother, in high school had to kidnap a cab driver to get us back to our Compound.

BTW I request that you stop monitoring my personal behavior because that is against the rules of this message board?

You can choose to believe I'm lying but you have no right to personally attack me nor monitor my behavior on this board.

Thanks in advance for being somewhat considerate. :hi:

[Clark2008]

85. A lot more than I trust anyone here, that's for damn sure.

[geek tragedy]

32. Even when he lies his ass off?

Tell me how Clinton has 'far more experience' than Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. Or John McCain. Or even Mitt Romney.

[ShortnFiery]

34. Yes, those statements are kind of glaring LIES from such an intelligent man ...

Perhaps there's an hidden agenda? or two? ... :shrug:

[geek tragedy]

35. He's a wholly owned subsidiary of

Clinton Inc.

Nothing he says is trustworthy.

Kyl-Lieberman was a good bill that encourages diplomacy.

Hillary Clinton has far more experience than Bill Richardson and Joe Biden.

I regret ever supporting you, Wes.

[ShortnFiery]

39. It breaks my heart but it's not unlike my experience when I

"grew up" and discovered that *politics* often ruled, not only The General Officer, but also The Field Grade and Company Grade Officer ranks too. I was just 21 y.o. and that sure busted my idealism bubble.

Don't get me wrong, I've served under some wonderful senior officers, men and women. But the spring butt ass-kissing, brown nosers were USUALLY the ones who were promoted beyond Full Bull Colonel (O-6).

IMO, ask a full bird AD (non-promotable status) Colonel what "the situation is" and you can depend on a genuine, down to earth response. I've known many men and women who SHOULD HAVE been General Officers but alas, they were not good enough politicians. A few like General Anthony Zinni can thrive with "no nonsense" straight talk, but those men/women are few and far between.

[geek tragedy]

40. Wes is much more of a politician than we gave him 'credit' for. n/t

[Clark2008]

86. I regret that some people here can't seem to think for themselves.

I'm still a Clarkie, even though I don't agree with Clark on his endorsement (hell, I don't like ANY of the candidates, really).

I don't regret that I supported him and wished he was running again - but what good would that do him? The media would ignore him, Clinton would still be the vaccum and Clark's reasonable voice would not be heard.

Sorry you can't seem to separate your beliefs from others while still realizing they can be good people.

[incapsulated]

108. I dunno..

He was President of the United States for 2 terms?

Nah, that's too common.

[Tamburlaine]

22. She has FAR more experience than any candidate?

Really?

Now, I like Senator Clinton, and would have little problem with her as the nominee, but this statement seems, on the face of it, a little odd.

May I respectfully submit the names of Senator Chris Dodd, Governor Bill Richardson and Senator Joe Biden.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

84. What the heck...If you're going to lie, may as well make it a whopper....n/m

[Totally Committed]

33. There is a perfect explanation for this. Irrefutable, in fact.

And, as a former Clark supporter, I believe I have the responsibility to tell you:

It was a dark and sultry summer night in Arkansas, and Wes was out in his backyard, watching fireflies. Then, it happened... A bright flash of light, and the hum of an engine overhead. Gert heard him call out, but then, silence.

She ran to his side as quickly as she could. When she reached him, he sat there, no memory of calling out to her, with a big smile on his face. She kissed him on top of his head, and went back inside.

"Wes" looked to the skies and bade goodbye to his friends on the spaceship as it sped away with the real Wes inside. It would have been years before the switch was noticed, except "Wes" endorsed Hillary Clinton, backed all her cockamamie schemes for war and DLC takeover of the Democratic Party, boosting her for the Presidency obediently every chance he got.

Slowly, his once faithful group of "Clarkies" began to notice, but, only one would speak out unafraid about what she believes really happened to Wes that night. No one will believe her, and others will charge her with disloyalty and keep what they think to themselves.

Think of what I say whenever "Wes" speaks out in support of Hillary. Remember that when "Wes" completely goes back on everything the real Wes promised his own supporters over the years. And, remember.... you heard it here first.

TC

[ShortnFiery]

36. What an excellent parable!

IMO, you've really nailed it with this charming story. ;)

"... all our heroes, with feet of clay, whose mighty ships have sprung a leak."
Don Henley

[Totally Committed]

38. Thanks. This is not the Wes I knew and supported. It just isn't.

So, either he lied and betrayed us, or he sold out his own values, or aliens have got him.

I prefer to think aliens have got him.

TC

[ShortnFiery]

41. I'm with you buddy, my disappointment with Clark's recent behavior is profound.

:shrug: :hi:

[Stinky The Clown]

42. It was aliens

It had to be aliens.

I supported a guy who looked a lot like him. I shook his hand and gave him money. I suported thjose whjo he said needed my help.

I don't know this new guy.

I want the old guy back.

It was either aliens or I was stupid.

[Totally Committed]

45. You and I -- stupid???? Never.

It was aliens.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

TC

[Schema Thing]

57. you disappoint me.

General Clark has not changed one iota.

It certainly wasn't aliens.

[Totally Committed]

59. So, the Clark we both supported would have supported the Kyl-Lieberman

Bill, and HRC's vote for it? (As one example)

I don't think so.

TC

[Schema Thing]

72. At the time he said he was "uncomfortable" with it.

Does it matter?

Apparently, he got more information (perhaps from talking to Hillary?). Perhaps that goes both ways, and perhaps it was Clark's influence that got Hillary to sign onto the Webb ammendment (forcing the president to come to congress, as opposed to a resolution asking the administration to designate the IRG as terrorist).


In any case, what Clark is doing is supporting Hillary's choices. He hasn't said "this is exactly how I would have played this".

He thinks she'll be a good president. Compared to any other president we've had in my 44 years on earth, I don't see how anyone can argue passionately (with any honesty) otherwise. That she isn't my ideal is no reason to demonize her. That would just be silly.


If you hadn't noticed, Kucinich is not going to be our next president.

[Stinky The Clown]

88. I've known (of) Clark a lot longer than many of his other supporters

I actually first heard of him in the mid/late 90s and got turned on to him by some European friends who knew him from Bosnia. He never failed to impress me since then.

So here's the thing. He didn't **need** to endorse anyone. I had hopes of him as veep if not the top of the ticket. He is still my overwhelming favorite for president. Oh sure, I'll vote for HRC, but she is not even in my top three. I also think it is possible that this endorsement may hurt him in terms of being on some other candidate's short list for veep or even a cabinet seat.

I don't get what's in it for Clark to have endorsed her. His endorsement of her almost seems to me to put him on two sides of several issues and that just isn't possible.

Kyl-Lieberfucker is but one example.

[Totally Committed]

90. Thanks, Stinky.

If he had endorsed her after she had won the nomination, I could have found a way to be at peace with that decision.

But, as things stand now, he just looks like he's trying to be on every side of every issue, and those of us who supported him for his integrity, and his anti-war and Liberal social stances feel betrayed.

Thanks again for explaining that better than I could.

*m-wah!*

TC

[Schema Thing]

97. not to me

"he just looks like he's trying to be on every side of every issue"


Anything but, to me. His proactive statements show me that he is convinced Hillary should win, and he is "walking point" for her.

I guess I understand (a little) your "every side of every issue" comment, but I've seen him do this before (think Dave Patreus and MoveOn, for one example). These issues simply are not black and white.

So people can paint a vote, a choice, a statement from an interview, in black and white terms if they insist, but...

The politicians themselves have no such luxury.

[BootinUp]

100. well said. n/t

[CarolNYC]

133. Speak for yourself sweetheart...

I "supported him for his integrity, and his anti-war and Liberal social stances" and I don't feel betrayed..or are you going to tell me I didn't support him for those things?????????

[dogman]

91. Maybe by "experience" he means his own.

Look at the candidates and the teams they will assemble if elected. It stands to reason, for me, that he is more comfortable with the Clinton team as he perceives it will be assembled. He was part of that team before and much of that team was also supporting Kerry, his choice the last primary. It just might not be that complicated. Factoring what he knows, while not necessarily the choices he would make, his judgment is that this is the best possible outcome. Obama has reportedly consulted with Colin Powell. I've forgotten Edwards' latest adviser, the last being Shelton along with others. Maybe Clark does not view their choices in a good light and defers to Clinton by default. Default is how a number of Clarkies will choose, we just have our own parameters. Clark had policies and issues that I was not 100% in agreement with, but he still led the field for me. That's politics and Clark is not prepared to be a bystander.

[BootinUp]

92. While Clark has gained support

from the Progressive community because he believes in progressive issues, he is also very pragmatic, sees a goal and figures out how he thinks is the way to get there. He has studied politics, and the way to start moving in the right direction by his estimation was this endorsement. I agree. For all the good political activism can do, there is much it cannot do without more numbers of Americans in it. To me Clark's message of its up to us was never focused on beating up Democrats that don't do as activists want them to, its about getting your fellow Americans on board with the right vision for the future. Communicating it to our neighbors and friends.

For Clark the goal is to make something happen. You can believe that. Or not. But I think you do.

[Schema Thing]

99. I'm with you on all of that,

It didn't come naturally, as I was disposed to disdain Clinton (probably irrationally, at least to some extent).

But the simple truth is, America is not going to have a Dennis Kucinich presidency this time around. And if somehow we did, I'm not at all sure he could govern effectively. I say that last w/o a trace of put down for Mr. Kucinich, btw.

[incapsulated]

109. I choose stupid

Anyone who loses their shit over him endorsing a completely qualified candidate, who is totally stunned to realize people make compromises in politics, and can't differentiate between Clark and who he endorses, is simply too stupid for words.

[CarolNYC]

135. I agree....

I choose stupid as well....

[Tinksrival]

43. Wow

Being one of the members to General Clark's original CCN in '03 and knowing your history as a Clark supporter I am really sad to see you post such crap.
You may have part ways but he still deserves respect. :(
I have always read your posts interested in your point of view, I think you have it in you to respectfully disagree and not resort to this garbage.

[Totally Committed]

49. Oh, for goodness' sake... It was supposed to be funny!

Have we lost all ability to joke about something as sad as this?

Like Stinky just said... He wants the "old" Wes back. How is that any less "disrespectful" than what I just wrote? Answer: Neither is "disrespectful".

Get over this, and move on. That seems to be Wes's message to all of us, doesn't it? I'm tired of crying over this and feeling "taken"... time to laugh about it, and move the hell on.

TC

[Tinksrival]

60. Clark is an alien was a freeper meme.

I've been left scratching my head at all the photoshop jobs done morphing Clark into ET. Maybe it was a knee jerk reaction at your attempt at humor.

Peace TC..................carry on I guess. I wish you well.

[Totally Committed]

62. Never mind. You don't get it.

Peace to you, too, Tink.

And to Achtung, too.

We each must move on in our own ways, I guess.

TC

[incapsulated]

110. Speaking of "moving on"...I thought you were leaving DU

Because it was such a bastion of right wing fascism.

[Totally Committed]

111. ???

What have I done to you, exactly?

I don't remember attacking you or insulting you. Is it just that we no longer agree 100%, politically? That's some pretty big chip on your shoulder. I remember doing anything besides disagreeing with you, to have put it there.

What's up with these posts? Just put me on ignore if you dislike what I write so much.

TC

[incapsulated]

112. Good question

What's up with these posts?

You have been hell bent on trashing the party, the "sellouts", the less than pure and now Clark.

And then moaned you were leaving DU to the sellouts on Sparkly's thread because you weren't welcome here.

Go then.

[Totally Committed]

113. I complained on Sparkly's thread....

I asked what I did to YOU.

For the record, I wasn't "trashing" Wes. The story was meant to be funny. You know... "this isn't the REAL Wes...." I am disappointed in his choices, but I wouldn't "trash" him. And criticism is not "trashing" anyway. Only on DU is criticism equated with "trashing". I "trash" the DLC. I "trash" DINO's, blue dogs, Bush dogs, and weak-ass Congressional Dems. If I was "trashing" Wes, you'd know it. I am not, and I will not. But, I reserve my right to criticize his decisions.

I am expressing my own opinion. Like I said, the "IGNORE" function is your friend until it's time for me to leave. If what I wrote got your undies in a twist (it has a few other Clarkies as well), I will tell you and them this "short story" was meant to provide levity, not insult. But, seeing that you are not willing to take my word for that, you can just back the hell off, and put me on "ignore". I have never done anything TO YOU that warrants this outrage in my direction.

Thanks, and PEACE, fercripessake.

TC

[Jai4WKC08]

118. Oh fer God's sake

Be honest enough to admit you're trashing Clark when you do it and quit making excuses.

Sheesh.

Your hate for the DLC has apparently overwhelmed anything you ever felt for any of us.

[ShortnFiery]

63. No, the parable has Wes being abducted by aliens ...

who set out to fully reprogram / assimilate his thoughts and feeling with that of the DLC Clintonian Collective. :shrug:

[Schema Thing]

58. It's painful to watch, isn't it?

God forbid Clark had had a rapprochement with Edwards! lol!

[Totally Committed]

61. Please... lighten up about this, or we'll all go insane

from the tragedy. We need to move on. And, I need humor to do that.

If you find that disappointing, you should have been in front of MY computer screen when he endorsed the war harpie, and then defended her vote for Kyl-Lieberman. I cried for hours.

I'm done crying now. I have to laugh.

TC

[Schema Thing]

74. Peace....

I shed a tear too. But not nearly as much as 2004, and not because of his support for Hillary, but rather just because it was clear he wasn't running.


Hillary will work for peace. She'll have Clark and Holbrooke and Bill et al helping her.

[Dinger]

121. TC, That Reply Deserves It's Own Thread

Makes perfect sense too. I'm praying Al Gore runs for re-election!
I still can't believe Wes did what he did.

[Totally Committed]

122. Yeah... because it went over so well the first time...

:sarcasm:

You got what I was saying, didn't you, Dinger? A few, like you, "got" it, and the rest have damned me to hell... like they don't even know me.

Thanks, anyway, Ding. I appreciate it. You are a real gentleman.

TC

[Dinger]

123. Gentlewoman Actually

:)

You get it TC. By the way, I've joined th Al Gore '08 Group. I'm slackin' on my donating, so I'll send one in today, so I can post in the group:)

[Dinger]

124. The first time?

I must have missed it. I'm using another computer now. My old one died about 2 months ago, and it'll be about 3 months till I get a new one.:-(
Therefore, my time here will be limited.

[mtnsnake]

44. Powerful words from an amazing man

The Goddess of Peace and The General. Imagine that.

Glad to recommend

[ShortnFiery]

48. I only hope Clark doesn't have skid marks on his a** from that 180 degree viewpoint turn.

One word: Duplicitous

[Tamburlaine]

51. Hmmmmm

Amazing man? Undoubtedly.

Powerful words? They carry some clout.

Accurate words? I really don't think so, no matter which angle I look at this from.

Perhaps Clark was only referring to the fabled 'top tier' candidates, the frontrunners, because the words become absolutely puzzling when Richardson, Dodd and Biden are thrown into the equation.

The frontrunners (and good for them) have the money, the media exposure, the strong poll numbers, but, in all honesty, the more impressive record of experience lies with those in the lower tiers.

Lets be blunt here:

Hillary Clinton (who I am convinced will be President) DOES NOT have "far more experience" than Joe Biden. Or Chris Dodd. Or Bill Richardson. Any attempt to claim otherwise seems puzzling at best, and rather insulting at worst.

But, again, Clark might have been referring only to the frontrunners.

But that's a whole different debate.....

[mtnsnake]

66. Good point about the experience factor

I agree that Biden and Richardson have ample experience, too, and possibly as much or arguably more than Hillary. However, when you factor in her 8 years of experience in the Bill Clinton White House, on top of the amazing amount of experience she's gained in a relatively short time as Senator, she's not looking too shabby. If there's one thing that people from either side can't criticize her for, it's for lack of experience.

[ShortnFiery]

67. So now us women can freely put "married to the boss" on our future resumes?

"8 years of experience in the Bill Clinton White House"

Gee, my husband was a commander of a Marine detachment, can I put that on my resume and then take over a Company of Jarheads? :crazy:

[mtnsnake]

71. So are you implying that her 8 years as First Lady doesn't count for anything??

It'a amazing how far so many of you will reach to diminish just how much this brilliant lady has to offer.

[Ethelk2044]

73. Yes, 8 years as First Lady Qualifies Barbara Bush and Laura Bush

That does not qualify her to run for the Office of the Presidency.

[mtnsnake]

76. Whoa. I didn't say it qualifies her. I implied it helps with her overall experience

Nice try.

[rAVES]

50. Al Gore A Gore Al Gore A Gore Al Gore A Gore Al Gore A Gore

ect...

[NewHampster]

53. Al Who?

[Totally Committed]

54. LOL!

Okay... THAT was funny.

Al who?..... just nutty. :rofl:

TC

[oasis]

81. Should Al Gore also endorse the Hillary team, DU's Ultra Lefties will tear him to shreds. (eom)

[Totally Committed]

89. Not me! Should he endorse Hillary, I'll already know what happened.

The aliens will have him, too.

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

136. TC - I'm writing from the road with very little time

If you want to PM around the middle of next week I would be willing to have a longer exchange with you.

Advocacy is the art of bringing pressure to bear to influence events.

Politics is the art of effecting results.

Advocates don't really win or lose, struggles have no end point, tides can always turn. Politicians win or lose, votes get taken, language gets decided on, specific actions get taken or not.

Most of my life has been spent in the realm of advocacy and not politics. I am more at home there, but when I enter into the realm of politics I do so factoring in the rules that govern that arena. In general I would rather put time and energy into fighting for a cause than fighting for a candidate. The networks that can be forged between people fighting together on issues can last decades while the networks that form around fighting for a candidate tend to be much mcuh more fleeting. The battle for the truth is ongoing. The battle for a political office is time date stamped.

There is an end of the day in politics. At the end of a very long "day" it was George W. Bush sitting in the oval office and not Al Gore after the 2000 elections. The fact that Gore would have made an infinately better President was irrelevent to how the powers of that office got wielded by the person who secured them, and the powers of that office are immense.

I backed Wes Clark for President for two related but different sets of reasons. One was my read on him as a person and one was my read on the politics of America and what type person could succeed in carrying a progressive agenda into power and not just put it into print. If he could have gotten the Democratic Party nomination I was convinced that a sizable majority of Americans would have been comfortable supporting Clark's vision for America - and therefor I thought it actually could move forward rather than simply be talked about. That was reason enough for me to divert my personal energy into electoral politics rather than issue advocacy. But I am under no illusions about politics - it involves compromises because the end result of politics isn't the perfect position paper, it is whatever actions get taken, whatever laws get passed etc., by whatever people get themselves in position to have a say in it.

Back in 2004 I remember writing a piece here called "It's the War, Stupid" back when the raging debate was whether John Kerry should pick John Edwards or Wes Clark to be his running mate. At the time there were many here at DU who were convinced that economic issues would be the Democratic party's meal ticket to victory in 2004 - but I never doubted that the campaign would be dominated by issues of national security. My experience at DU has shown me that most Democratic party activists are only really passionaltely at home when talking either about domestic economic issues or stopping a war, viewing poliitics and the relative strength of candidates through that prism. I have no problem with those priorities, but I do have a problem with losing elections.

For much of the last year I have been making the case here that the negatives of perceived inexperience in a Demcoratic Party candidate for President would out weigh the assets of either a hopeful message or a populist appeal that one could bring to the table. That was one reason I have long beleived that Hillary Clinton would likely end up our nominee if her major opponents turned out to be Barack Obama and John Edwards. I thought Wes Clark could have stopped her or Al Gore if either of them had run with sufficient resourses. The latter proved a problem for Clark and Gore still is on the sidelines. I would gladly support Gore if he still decides to run, but I don't think he will.

There is very little glory in losing in politics. The next President of the United States will almost certainly be either Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, or a Republican other than Ron Paul. When I chose to devote my energy to electoral politics it was with the clear understanding that I was putting organizing time into a medium (and implicitly removing it from others) that has clear winners and losers - with very little positive return for losing. It doesn't matter how close we came to stopping George W. Bush from becoming President in 2000 - he did and we got a war in Iraq as a result.

Of the Democrats I mentioned above, Hillary Clinton is the candidate of experience. Wes Clark is absolutely correct in that regard. For anyone to attempt to compare Hillary Clinton's time in the White House with Laura Bush is laughable. How much that matters is up to everyone to decide, but everyone is not confined to DU members, it includes Democratic Party primary voters. Yesterday somoeone posted a quote by Russ Feinglod here at DU which I saved:

"Hillary Clinton's ability to stand right into the job and being ready for the job is appealing to people. I think Barack Obama's ability to inspire all kinds of people is his strongest suit. They both have strong advantages."
- Russ Feingold interviewed on Mic 92.1 Air America/10.15.07

Feingold nailed it, at least in terms of comparing Clinton and Obama. Like I said above, I always believed that experience would matter this year and I did what I could to get a candiate with the experience I wanted into the race, but failed. Hillary Clinton was never my favorite person to support in 2008. One of the reasons why I did work for Jonathan Tasini in the 2006 NY Senate Primary race was to send Hillary a message that there were a lot of Democrats in the Party like me who were not rooting for her to become our Presidential nominee.

Having said that politics is essentially a binary form of combat - on/off win/lose. The goal line is the 2008 Presidential Election. One party, either the Democrats or the Republicans, will end up controlling the executive branch and which ever does will make many thousands of important political appointments and nominations - including those for our judicial branch. My bottm line goal has always been to have the best Democrat possible become President - and if that person is one who I ranked low on my personal pecking order but who becomes our nominee nonetheless, than my goal is to have that person become President.

Hillary Clinton is not who I chose to support but I can support her. I am working in the realm of politics playing by the rules of politics. I do not want a Republican in the White House in 2008. You are free to hope that another Democrat can still win the nomination, and you are free to conclude that you will have nothing to do with an effort to help Hillary win if she is our nominee. I have little expectation that another Democrat will become our nominee, and none of those still seriously opposing Hillary now have the credentials that I think are important. I would much much rather have Hillary Clinton become President than any of the Republicans we may be running against in 2008.

Frankly speaking I think a lot of Democratic activists put their money on the wrong horses this time around, not because of matters of policy, but because if we didn't want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee than we needed to find a credible alternative to her. When push comes to shove I don't think that we did. and I think that is reflected in the polling that shows Hillary gaining rather than losing support with the public. And for those who disagree with what I just wrote, I expect that many will because we do not all have the same opinions. What I just wrote happens to be mine.

You or others can say anything you want about Wes Clark, but it can be no surprise that he values executive and foreign policy experience. When Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John Edwards moves into the White House (if one of them is so fortunate)they will move in surrounded by a core of "loyalists" - which typically is defined as those who fought with them to help them get to that place, and those people will get to work tackling all of the issues big and small facing the United States in the 21st Century. If a Republican moves in he too will bring his own team.

If you saw things the way that I do, not with the rose colored glasses of my choice but in the harsh light of current political reality, the team that will almost certainly move into the White House in early 2009 will either be Hillary Clinton's or a Republican's. And I fully expect that at least 80% of the people on DU who now are saying the harshest things about Hillary Clinton will be saying far harsher things about whatever Republican she likely will be running against in 2008, while defending Hillary from the G.O.P. slme machine. Wes Clark got on board a little earlier and for that he now shares in Hillary's current negative treatment by many activists. By doing so yes, it is more than likely Clark secured a spot on her White House team, as if that is somehome a BAD thing - as if we would rather she filled those spots if elected with people of a lower caliber than Wes Clark.

There is an irony in this. If Clark did not swing into campaign mode for Hillary Clinton now he almost certainly would end up with less influence over her future policy decisions than his current access gives him. If people are less than pleased with the direction Hillary Clinton has taken to date, how would that be helpful in changing that for the future? Unless one takes the position that Wes Clark will influence Hillary Clinton to make worse decisions than she otherwise would have, nothing is gained by Clark being on the outside. And should most current indications prove correct that Hillary will be the nominee, come July when most of us here are defending Hillary against the Republicans ourselves - along side Democrats like John Edwards and Barack Obama, who will then hold a grudge against Clark for having begun doing so now, and why? Would people rather that Clinton form a future Administration without Clark in it?

It is politics TC. There is much that I do not like about politics but I have no illusions about it. If I don't like the rules of combat I can refuse to play. If I play then playing to win makes a degree of sense.

[BootinUp]

140. Tom, this needs to be an OP.

with regards to TC of course.

[Tom Rinaldo]

142. I don't have time now Jim, but I think these themes...

...will still be timely in another week or so when I do. I am stealing moments off a work project to post here at all right now. I'll try to work something up when I return home.

[BootinUp]

143. Have a good

trip, see you when you return.

[rAVES]

96. I myself would be horribly dissapointed.

[Ethelk2044]

55. In which Hillary does not have more than Edwards or Obama

[Catchawave]

64. Experience is helpful, but

how did it work out with those Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld resumes?

[Ninja Jordan]

75. Unfuckingbelievable.

[Clark2008]

82. Yeah - he should be running, but the media would

just ignore him, as they do all real populists.

[high density]

87. That's why Clark needs to run.

Oh, wait. :eyes:

Maybe Al will run.

[Capn Sunshine]

107. Run away , yes

before he loses the last shred of integrity he has.

[BootinUp]

94. He's basically saying

Clinton has the political moxy and the record to prove it, that will make good shit happen.

[FrenchieCat]

95. Anyone attempting to believe that Hillary living in the WH for eight years......

Doesn't amount to anything are fucking unbelievable!

The hard fact is.....short of Al Gore running, Bill Richardson and Hillary have the most executive experience of all of the candidates, period.

Richardson ran the department of energy and is a Governor, so he most likely has the most experience yet not a prayer to win (unfortunately some things about him makes him very unpresidential, to me anyways).

Other president's wives may not have been as hands-on as Hillary was.....and so those who keep trumpeting that being married to the President doesn't equate experience are attaching the wrong scenario to Hillary and want to believe that she had nothing to do with anything that was happening for those eight years (I worked for my husband in his business for 10 years but was not paid....and I worked harder than anyone who had a title...and knew more about his business than anyone else including him a lot of the time!)

Add to this that Hillary will have the additional advantage of understanding what kind of team to bring onboard (because her husband is not dead, so yes, he will have plenty to do with a Presidency, thank GOD!)from the onset...this is a LARGE Advantage!

Dodd, Biden may have Legislative Experience (which doesn't take the place of executive experience), but that ain't the same!

Edwards and Obama have the least experience, period.

Hillary is NOT my candidate, but I am not going to become delussional just to be "RIGHT".

Hillary towers over all of the candidates in experience except one....and that's just the way it is!

[BeyondGeography]

106. Even if you believe all of that, who is the "amateur" in the race?

That's an over-the-top line, designed for the reddest of the red meat Hillbot crowd. I'm sorry, but Wes is making an ass of himself with his obsequiousness toward Hillary.

[BootinUp]

127. Its clearly the other way around

check a mirror.

[BeyondGeography]

128. What was that, Jim4HillShill?

[BootinUp]

129. Heres my take

You never got anything he said, or believed in the example he set. Its that simple.

[BeyondGeography]

130. Oh really? How about we start with his opposition to IWR and the invasion of Iraq

which was the source of much if not most of his support in 2004, and which his newfound political love (you know, the frontrunner with all of the EXPERIENCE) wholeheartedly endorsed.

[BootinUp]

131. Do you really want to

get into a discussion, or just hurl more insults? If the former then PM me.

[FrenchieCat]

146. The disrespect is chilling.......

Too bad that "some" Democrats turn into name calling hacks and ridicule those who have done all that they could for same party and for this country.

It is unfortunate that the keyboard brigade who's most courageous activity is to post insults on a political board don't have a clue about agreeing to disagree! I pity that kind of passion as it is destructive.

I prefer Obama over Hillary for the most part, but I don't understand the hate, and I certainly would'nt turn my back on Obama if he chose to endorse....say..... Lieberman over Lieberman's opponent in a senate primary race! But then, that's just me.


Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

[Capn Sunshine]

98. Ok, let me get this straight: Edwards and Obama each have one senate term; Hillary 1.3

Previous to that, John Edwards clerked for a federal judge in the late 70's, then spent the next twenty years in legal practice, becoming nationally renowned for his victories against corporate malfeasance. Then he served one term as a US Senator before entering presidential politics.

Obama was Harvard Law Review, then after turning down multiple corporate law jobs, worked as a community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer before running for public office. He served in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004, launching his campaign for U.S. Senate in 2003. He delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention while still an Illinois state legislator. He went on to win election to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 with a landslide 70% of the vote in an election year marked by Republican gains. As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, he co-sponsored the enactment of conventional weapons control and transparency legislation, and made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In the 110th Congress, he has sponsored legislation on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.

Hillary Yale Law School in 1973, moving to Arkansas and marrying Bill Clinton in 1975, following her career as a Congressional legal counsel; she was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979 and was listed as one of the one hundred most influential lawyers in America in 1988 and 1991. She served as the First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992, was active in a number of organizations concerned with the welfare of children, and was on the Wal-Mart and several other corporate boards.

As First Lady of the United States, she took a more prominent position in policy matters than almost any before her. Her major initiative, the Clinton health care plan, failed to gain approval by the U.S. Congress in 1994, but she helped establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program and other legislation, most notably the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997 which was part of the First Lady's adoption reform. Clinton also served as her husband's ambassador abroad to over eighty nations and the United Nations.

Frankly, I don't see a lot of difference in experience here. If anything Hillary's advocates seem to want to count First Lady (of both Ark and the US) as experience. If that logic follows, then Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama are equally qualified to run for President.

[dogman]

115. You honestly don't see a difference?

Given the level of involvement in politics and being part of an eight year Presidency, can't you see that your logic isn't quite logical? What White House teams have EE or MO worked with?

[zulchzulu]

101. Whatever respect I had for Clark has just flushed down the toilet

Experience? More? Clinton dynasty?

Bill must be handing Wes some of his extra K-Y.

:puke:

[dogman]

117. Colin Powell is the go to, right?

Vote yes for Condi because she was qualified?

[calteacherguy]

119. Clinton/Clark! nt

[Adelante]

120. To all the Ex-Clarkies in this thread

Who now see clear to disrespecting General Clark.

Including those of you who have been friends in the past.

And all the Obama supporters along for the ride.

SCREW ALL OF YOU, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU

[denem]

125. Amen

General Clark is a patriot in days when the word has lost it's meaning.

[CarolNYC]

132. Amen, WesDem...

You speak for me...Screw 'em all....every single one of them.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Cameron27]

134. I'm with you.

Screw em.

:toast:

[Sparkly]

137. You mean it's possible to disagree with somebody and still respect them?

You must not see all the different shades of black and white! There's black.... and there's white! Up and down, good and bad, yes and no, love and hate! Get your boxes straight!! :sarcasm:

[BootinUp]

138. But free speech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you heretic! /sarcasm


hi sparkly.

[Tom Rinaldo]

139. I gave TC the courtesy of what ended up a long reply...

...it is #136 above and addressed to her but it could be addressed to all the people you are speaking about WesDem. And though it goes against my personal style to put it as bluntly as you did here - Yes.

I made an effort above to reason. For those who supported Clark in the past, who insist on being more than disappointed with his recent choices - that I can respect, but move far beyond that to complete disrespect, who can see not reason it to any other conclusion than to completely trash Clark now: Screw you. Someone doesn't have to be perfect to be good. Clark doesn't have to meet your full approval all the time to be worthy of your respect. If you can turn so harsly on him now after having seen him work for us this long, I wonder what you will have to say for yourself come September when you most likely will be fighting hard to help Clinton defeat a Republican for the White House.

[Texas_Kat]

141. Wheat from chaff....

Politics always sorts em out. Thank you, Wes Dem!

[illinoisprogressive]

126. But, Obama has 8 years in the state senate that is always being overlooked.

Aside from that and for the sake of argument:
Say Hillary has more in the US Senate than Obama but, less than Biden, Dodd or Richardson.
So, wouldn't those 3 then, be better qualified as they have more experience than Hillary????

[dogman]

145. I repeat myself.

This is Clark's decision based on his experience also. He has worked with the Clinton's and their team. He has served as a member of that team. He sees her as the most qualified candidate. Why is this so difficult to understand? While the State Senate is good experience it doesn't come close to administrating from the White House. Each individual must set their own requisites and determine who meets them best. While I am not convinced Hillary is the best for me, I respect Clark's opinion and take that into account as another factor in making my decision. You have found a candidate who has met your expectations and that is fine. It does not make you a traitor to your cause, a shill, or a number of other things Clark has been called. It simply makes him an advocates for his choice, just as you are for yours. At the present time, I prefer to keep Obama as my US Senator. He has not been everything I had hoped for and I would like to see further progress before he goes to the White House. On the other hand, the Illinois primary is far enough away that circumstances might change my mind.

[ginchinchili]

147. In a word, yes!

Experience isn't everything, but it's very important, especially while the country is at war. Hillary doesn't have enough of that experience nor is she one who can pull people together to get things done. I think she's smart, but very uninspiring. After weighing all the pros and cons of the candidates I finally sided with Joe Biden, and now I'm convinced more than ever that he is the best choice for these dangerously turbulent times.

[ginchinchili]

144. It's true! Experience is key. Give Joe Biden the support we so desperately need!

Compared to Biden, Hillary Clinton is an amateur.