Do all these DU polls on the 08 nominee mean we need a tough guy nominee?

[Jersey Devil]

I dunno. I keep reading how the DLC is the devil and how we shouldn't (never, ever) pick anyone as a nominee who is "Republican-Lite". Then I see all these polls all over DU about who should be the Dem nominee in 2008 and Wes Clark wins every single one of them.

Well, yes, I know he isn't "Republican-Lite" in the sense that he was against starting the war in Iraq and liberal on most issues that are important to Democrats (though his positions on a few need some fleshing out). But isn't the reason he keeps winning all these DU polls based on some kind of tough guy image as a former military officer? Heck, in the past few days I've even seen some "Hackett for Prez" posts based on that as well. Isn't that, in other words, the very image that Bush has been portraying, the strutting, chest inflated, tough cowboy image? Is that what is needed to beat a Republican, a tough guy?

In another way, isn't that exactly what Kerry tried to do and Bayh is trying to do and to a certain extent Hillary and all the other Dem contenders? It seems to me they all want to swagger up to the podium just like Bush and say, "I'm one tough sonofabitch and if you put me in charge of the damned war I'd win it." Hell, even Dean says that.

Just my guess but I am thinking that is the reason Clark seems to win all the polls here.

Now myself, personally, I'd rather find someone who wants to walk up to the podium and say, "This war is nuts and let's get the hell out of there."

Now can anyone tell me who I can turn to to say just that except Dennis Kucinich, who I truly like but unfortunately don't think can win, mainly due to the fact that hardly anyone outside of DU has any clue who he is.

Now if Wes Clark is saying that then he's my guy. Somebody fill me in. What IS he saying about Iraq that is so different than the rest of them that makes him the frontrunner at DU?

[formerrepuke]

1. Clark is unassailable (not that RWers wouldn't try). Kucinich, for that

matter,is a bit of a flake (and I've voted for him all along- he's my rep); he's been married 3 times and wants to establish a 'Department of Peace'.. those things don't bother me, personally, but they have permanently boxed him out of serious viability among voters nationwide.

[Jersey Devil]

2. Why is Clark "unassailable"?

Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike the guy. But he first introduced himself as a Democrat in 2004. Frankly I never heard of him before that despite the fact that I know now what he did in the military.

I frankly know very little about him except that he says he was against going into Iraq, which is important, but when did he first say that? Did he announce his opposition before the war or afterwards? Other than the war issue is he really that much different then any of the others?

Again, I have nothing against him, but all I know is that his popularity seems to stem from his being a General during Kosovo. Sure that was a big win and well done, but hey, it wasn't Ike as Supreme Allied Commander during WWII. Everyone knew who Ike was. How many people outside of DU could tell you who Wesley Clark was?

I don't buy the argument that he will somehow fool all the southerners into voting for him because he is former military so if you are trying to convince me he is the best I'd like to know the reason why. Hunches don't count.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. He doesn't have a long record of stances on issues to attack

Those who have held elected office, especially those in the legislative branch, usually have a long , and sometimes inconsistent record on various issues.

[Jersey Devil]

7. Yes, I understand that and that's why a Senator has a tough time

of it. But there is another side the the coin. Having someone with no record run for president would lead many to conclude that he is too inexperienced and that there is a possibility he could be making stuff up on the fly since he has no record to pin him down on the issues.

That's why I asked if Clark ever came out against the Iraq war before it was started. How do I know Clark isn't just bullshitting me?

[Reg NYC]

16. Clark's testimony before the HASC, 09/26/02

"Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as "preemptive.' "

He outlined a whole series of things that should be done before force is used.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

He adds:
"The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere."

He also says that if force is necessary it should be a NATO force, not just a US force.

[Jersey Devil]

21. Thank you - you answered an important question for me

That statement would, imo, prevent anyone from claiming he is a Johnny Come Lately who invented his opposition to the war after it had already gone sour. This would be very important in a campaign for prez.

[newyawker99]

40. Hi Reg NYC!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DanCa]

65. Go wes (nt)

[formerrepuke]

6. Performance seems to matter less to many people than personal

characteristics.. and Clark graduated 1st in his class at West Point; has been married to the same woman forever- and he really did serve with distinction. To (too many) people, this stuff matters more than policy and opinions- after all, what did anyone know about GWB prior to 1999-2000 except who his father was? In short, Clark's opinions will meet with approval with most Democrats- and many moderates from both sides. That, and the 'military thing' give him a viability-edge over other Democratic candidates: He's a Centrist. And yes, I agree he should promote himself beyond the military service.

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm#Health%20Care%20and%20Education:

[Jersey Devil]

8. Thanks for the link

I have to bone up on Clark after frankly not having given him much attention last time around.

[ICantBelieve]

19. You're asking legit questions

Most of us have known and followed Clark for so long now that we just assume everyone knows these things.

If you're really interested, come on over to www.forclark.com to the general discussion area and we'll answer all your questions. We're convinced that to know Wes Clark is to love him, so we'll everything we can to insure that you know all that we do.

Now, for some of your more basic questions.

Wes Clark testified in front of the House Armed Services Committee in 2002 that time was on our side and we did not have to jump into a war with Iraq. Richard Perle testified for the Republicans. At the time, Perle was making fun of General Clark, calling him a kooky old general or something. This year they testified again and everyone agreed (except Perle of course) that Wes was right and Perle was wrong. There's a nice article on it in the Washington Post that I can dig up for you if you're interested.

About experience, Wes has a lot. It's not "elective" experience per se, but it's definitely executive experience. I guess a lot of people hear "general" and think of a Patton-like character moving model tanks around on a desktop battlefield. But that's not what Clark did. Clark was SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander of Europe). This is the same job that Eisenhower had--although Eisenhower's tenure was during WWII, so it's not completely fair to compare it. Anyway, Wes's job was to hold together the 19 nations in NATO during the war(s) in the Balkans. It was very much a job of convincing people that they wanted to do what we wanted them to do. At the same time, he was responsible for all the soldiers over there--making sure they had healthcare, there kids had schools, their housing was OK, etc. I forget the number of soldiers we're talking about, but I think it's on par with being the mayor of a small city. So, foreign policywise, his job was just below that of the Secretary of State. Domestic policywise, he was the mayor of a small town. Add these up, and on the whole, it's about the same experience as any senator or governor has--senators have no executive experience and governors have no foreign policy experience, so it kind of evens out.

Another question about Clark is whether he can handle civilian duties--i.e. the kind of position where people aren't REQUIRED to follow your orders. If you listen to Clark talk, you'll hear him quote Eisenhower (who I think essentially stole this from Truman) that "the ART of leadership is the ability to make the other guy WANT to do what you want him to do." Clark says this ALL THE TIME--almost every time he opens his mouth. They taught him that at West Point. And if you're wondering if he's all talk on that point, you could ask Eric Massa. Eric worked as his executive officer for 4 years. He said Wes only ever gave him one direct order and that was to go see the doctor because Eric's wife had called Wes and was greatly concerned. (It turned out Eric had stage 4 cancer and getting to a doctor saved his life; Eric is now running for Congress in the 29th district of NY.) You could also ask those of us who have supported him. He's really good at getting us to WANT to do what he wants us to do. He's great at it, actually.

OK, I've rambled enough. I hope this helps. Please come on over to forclark.com if you'd like to get more in depth. We can answer more questions here, if you like, but you'll have a greater pool of people who have been following Wes for a long time if you pop over there.

[ICantBelieve]

20. OH... and I never answered your original question...

You are right that Clark is not saying "Let's just get the hell out of Iraq." He's saying that things would look very different over there if they were being handled correctly.

Remember, Clark, Hackett, Massa, none of them thought we should go in. But they all think that now that we're there, we shouldn't just walk away because it will deteriorate into an unthinkably bad situation. (You can disagree with that... just hold that thought for a minute.)

The real issue, I think, though, is that the current administration is so BAD... so so so BAD... that we have no idea what good we could still do over there. So arguing over whether it's best to pull out immediately or to try to fix things while the current administration is in power is just completely academic and silly.

They've totally fouled it up. They're totally incompetent. Yes, if this administration is in charge and they don't have a serious attitude adjustment, we're better off getting the H*LL out of there. But they're not going to do that. So, what point does it serve for us to argue amongst ourselves about whether the right thing to do NOW, with this administration in power, is to get out or to try to fix things?

The only thing we really can logically argue about is what we would do if we could control things--because that's what we're looking for, a leader who would be able to change things. Clark thinks that if we had real leadership in Washington, things would look completely different in Iraq. We could work with the other countries in the region to stop them from feeding the insurgency. Clark believes that these countries are feeding the insurgency because they think they'll be invaded once the US has Iraq under control.

So, the bottom line is, that the reason you may disagree with Clark on Iraq is probably not because you actually have a different philosophy. It's probably because you are comparing apples and oranges. Ask yourself, if Clark is right about how the situation would be completely different and actually FIXABLE with a decent administration, would you then think it was OK to stay until things were under control? If you think that would be OK, then the only disagreement you have with Clark is whether it would be completely different. Nobody can really know the answer to that question until we try it. Given Clark's vast experience with these kinds of situations, I think he's probably right. I hope that you'll get to know Wes better and come to your own conclusions on whether to trust his judgement on that or not.

[Jersey Devil]

24. Thanks for the thoughtful responses & I am bookmarking your link

I want to find out more before committing myself this time around.

[helderheid]

37. It's too bad "Department of Peace" brings up hippie dippy images

as the actual legislation is really important and good. *sigh*

http://www.dopcampaign.org/read_bill.htm

[eridani]

52. Was George Washington a flake also?

He considered establishing a Department of Peace.

[Comandante_Subzero]

58. How Far We Have Come (?)

Imagine what "they" would have done to Jefferson today - cutting up the Bible & all that. The Founders were mostly Deists & would be unelectable in the current climate - such is progress...

[sandnsea]

3. oh owie

You're thinking way too hard.

(Kerry wanted a smarter foreign policy, not a bigger bully one)

[Jersey Devil]

4. I supported Kerry fully, but did he not say that he would have

won the war if he had been the leader of the US?

Tell me when he ever said that we should get the hell out of Iraq.

Your dismissive reply only tells me you have nothing to say.

[sandnsea]

12. Begin withdrawal this summer

That was his plan. Better than anybody else had or has. NOBODY has a plan for immediate troop withdrawal, NOBODY.

[Jersey Devil]

26. Funny, I don't remember that

I am not saying he didn't say it, but he sure didn't emphasize any withdrawal of troops by this summer or I would have. Unfortunately he was too busy defending himself from the swiftboating and other bogus allegations and much of what he had to say did not register, even with someone like me who was going to vote for him come hell or high water anyway.

I like Kerry very much and think he would have made an excellent President.

[MH1]

48. Yeah, he did.

Point 4 of the 4 point plan. Start withdrawing troops this June (as in 2 months ago).

I thought he emphasized it. Of course you had to listen to him over the media screams of Mary Cheney Mary Cheney did he really earn his medals Mary Cheney Mary Cheney...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Let's hope not. We've got a "tough guy" now.

I'd prefer a humanitarian who actually believes that people are more than votes and tools to be used to enrich the wealthy.

[Jersey Devil]

10. That's what troubles me about all the candidates

They all say Iraq was a mistake but not a damned one of them says the obvious, that we should get out. They all want to do the politically correct thing by saying since we are there we have to win.

So for people who are sick and tired of this war how does voting for any democrat bring them any closer to ending the war?

[ICantBelieve]

22. Actually...

They don't all say the war was a mistake. Many of them voted for it. I think Biden still says that going in was right. I think Edwards does too. And perhaps Hillary Clinton.

You can also check out Clark's current position on Iraq from his letter to the editor of the WSJ. It's posted on the home page of www.securingamerica.com.

[sybil]

11. If you really need to familiarize yourself with WKC...

He's not going to say what you want him to say, but for a sane view please read:

snip>>> The people on the Left have to admit, they made a huge mistake by falling in behind John "I'm for and against the Iraq War" Kerry, and what's more, they need to own up to their failure to see General Clark, for what he really was. And what Clark was and is, is a "real" Democrat that probably could have -- with a little work -- beaten Bush.

Still to this day, while supposed "real" Democrats can't yet bring themselves to calling out Bush and Republicans on their failed military policy, Clark is leading the charge. At a recent fundraiser he said, "We have to make our legislators and president understand we believe in a volunteer force, and we expect him to have the leadership to guide our country in the right way in foreign affairs without wrecking the military institutions that keep us safe." But General Clark didn't stop there, because he also -- unlike supposed "real" Democrats -- called out Bush on one very important point, "(Bush) used fear, the fear of the American people to take us into a war that was purely elective." <<<

Perhaps it really is time that the Left in America admitted they were wrong -- Very, very wrong about General Wesley Clark.

http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/commentary.php?id=627

And much more importantly, you may want to read the transcript of General Wesley Clark's statement before the House Armed Services Committee on September 26, 2002, 6 months before the unilateral invasion, wherein he advised against invading Iraq. http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

Sybil Liberty, proud to be a Wes Clark supporter.

[DaveJ]

13. Mispost -- sorry n/t

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

14. Yes General Clark spoke

against the war before it began.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPreparedstatements/sasc-092302.htm

SASC: Hearing on US Policy toward Iraq-9-23-02.

Read the testimony and learn a great deal about Wes Clark's views on Iraq.

[chaska]

15. If you don't get your answers in this thread, contact....

Frenchiecat. She is the DU authority on Clark.

I'd say that Clark is a real liberal and that more importantly he, like Clinton, believes that your direction should be determined by the evidence instead of how the Pugs do it, by ideology. He's capable of changing course if a course change is required.

I believe he did oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, but I can't remember. Be that as it may, he can and has changed. And you can rely of his honesty.

[DaveJ]

17. As far as I'm conerned a Dem can say anything...

A Democrat can run saying they're pro war and not mean it for all I care. Only Shrub and a few Repugs are evil enough to keep this going as long as he has, and no Democrats. So a Dem can get up ane lie for all I care and say they support the war, as long as (s)he gets elected, and I trust that anyone with human decency would actually do something to end it.

[JNelson6563]

18. I think you are missing something

It's been shown that few can pad polls like the Clarkies. ;-)

Additionally, like Kucinich, few in the real world have much idea who Clark is outside of his run for the nomination last year. As I talk to people in all 14 of my counties, the rare occassion I hear speculation on 08 I virtually *never* hear mention of Clark.

Clark supporters are some of the most zealous there ever were. The fact that they've over-run an on-line forum or two hardly makes Clark a "frontrunner" for the nomination of 08. "Winning" polls on those over-run forums doesn't make it so either.

Frankly I think everyone should put 08 way on the back burner of the political stove and start thinking a little longer term. Let's find some raw talent, run them in local and state races and get them experienced for future, national level races. Let's help our Dem governors and hinder the Rethug ones by sending as many Dems to state legislatures as possible.

Of course all this requires money and raising money is a lot of work. Lots of grassroots work there and that can be a real time incinerator. Takes creativity, high energy and many thankless tasks. If the energy devoted to all the arguments and slavish promotion of personal favorites (a charge that fits many groups, not singling out Clarkies on this issue) were applied to the more mundane but crucial party building, fundraising and candidate grooming/training we'd be better off.

Julie

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

23. Ah...the heady aroma

of sour grapes on a Friday in August.

Did it ever cross your mind that no "padding" is needed on these boards?

No?

Mmmm.

Sour grapes turn to vinegar by the way...not to most folks taste.

:)

[ICantBelieve]

25. Padding???

Otherwise known as "getting out the vote." Hmm... seems like a good quality to have in your supporters, doesn't it? Just ask Paul Hackett. He almost won a district that went 72-28 in 2004. And it was all due to getting out the vote. A lot of us Clarkies (and some other people's supporters as well) went to Ohio to help with that. Like I said, getting out the vote is handy.

But can you please stop perpetuating this myth that Clarkies freep polls? We don't. Period. Someone tried to prove it once and made an ass of himself because it just isn't true.

And, no, you won't hear Clark mentioned much off the Internet. You won't hear really anyone but Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or John Edwards. It's all name recognition at this point.

[Jersey Devil]

27. "my counties"?

That implies you are either a state/district office holder or some kind of state/district political leader. At the same time you are telling me that polls by "Clarkies" are suspect you are telling me that I should listen to you because you have some kind of influential (though undisclosed)position in the Democratic Party.

I am not swayed by these DU polls but they do make me want to know more about why some people are so gung ho for Clark. I think that is natural and something we all should do.

I am asking legit questions here and have no axe to grind against Clark or any other Dem candidate.

[sybil]

30. Yes you are...

...asking legitimate questions and that's all anyone can ask. :applause:

"padding polls"..."my counties", heh!

[JNelson6563]

46. Um, I think you missed the point

due to a desire to make it personal. I saw no questions directed at me. I believe the "questions" referred to are the ones in the original post.

As to the burning questions that weren't asked:

Padding polls: Did you miss the drama/trauma back a while here at DU in the now non-existent Ask The Administrators forum? Yeah, it got ugly. Ask around. The term "caught red-handed" is applicable. It's a shame that is the comment being focused on. Seems to me there are more salient points in my post. Perhaps those do not draw your interest as they aren't very controversial and, in fact, are rather constructive. Anything of interest to you in that? If so, let's dialogue!

My position: I am a District chair, my Congressional District consists of 14 counties.

Cheers-
Julie

[sybil]

49. Yes I was here.

Yes, it was ugly and it was also unwarranted. Even administrators make mistakes but I guess you could say that's a matter of opinion. You're entitled to yours.

Furthermore, I did reply directly to your "salient" points but of course that, you chose to ignore.

Cheers!
Sybil

[JNelson6563]

53. Then why play dumb?

Why'd you claim clueless on the padding polls item? You were here, you saw the evidence posted and you are claiming the Admins made a mistake? Perhaps you missed the evidence that was posted by the Admins here and are unaware of various dust-ups elsewhere around the net over that very same tactic.....

On to the salient points....

Here are what I considered them to be:

Frankly I think everyone should put 08 way on the back burner of the political stove and start thinking a little longer term. Let's find some raw talent, run them in local and state races and get them experienced for future, national level races. Let's help our Dem governors and hinder the Rethug ones by sending as many Dems to state legislatures as possible.

Of course all this requires money and raising money is a lot of work. Lots of grassroots work there and that can be a real time incinerator. Takes creativity, high energy and many thankless tasks. If the energy devoted to all the arguments and slavish promotion of personal favorites (a charge that fits many groups, not singling out Clarkies on this issue) were applied to the more mundane but crucial party building, fundraising and candidate grooming/training we'd be better off.

Apparently you claiming to have "addressed them" with this(?):

...you just don't give us Clark supporters the credit we deserve. In fact, we do see the whole picture. Party-building, fundraising and candidate-grooming is what we do.

That's uh, real impressive. Your compelling argument so outweighs all the evidence posted daily on DU that indicates much time wasting, poll posting/padding and various other efforts to keep your hero relevent. Not.

Anyone can claim to do stuff. Offering up some personal experience is always more convincing than a generalized statement of assertion. I could say a certain group does lots of stuff. It'd be more convincing if I related experiences and their subsequent results, no?

Compare:

A. The Dems in my county are making a lot of progress.

B. The Dems in my county are making a lot of progress, we recently had a fundraiser that raised $xxxx.xx., signed on xxx new members and got 2 candidates elected to county commission seats.

Which is more convincing to you?

Julie

[ICantBelieve]

55. ???

I don't know what you're talking about? The rift with Skinner? Skinner was wrong. That's all there is to that. Many Clarkies cancelled their memberships here over it. The FACTS are that Clark wins polls because Clarkies vote. Period. You don't like it? Well, then get your candidate's supporters to vote.

Furthermore, you never answered MY question about YOUR activities. I was in Ohio last week? Were you? I was part of an effort that turned a 72-28 outcome in 2004 into a 52-48 outcome in 2005. Hackett's campaign raised $450,000 through the net. Were you a part of that? Clarkies were. Clarkies went to Cincinnati to help walk the beat. Did you? Clarkies made phone calls from home to help get out the vote. Did you? Thanks to people like Clarkies, over 60% of the Dems who voted in the regular election in 2004 voted in the special election in 2005, while the Republicans only got out about 25% of their vote. (Don't misunderstand, LOTS of people were involved with Hackett... mostly Kos and swingstate people. But Clarkies jumped right on it and hopped right on board with those people.)

So, yes, we do things. And we have results. And we don't cheat. We get out the vote. Just like we helped do with Hackett. So why don't you take your own advice, and stop wasting precious effort on sour grapes, and use that time for something useful instead?

[JNelson6563]

68. Now that the spotlight is gone

and the election is over, what are you doing? Or do you still await orders?

As to the cheating, yeah, it was proven on two sites that I know of. I'll never forget laughing hysterically when I saw the Admins of TWO sites posted scads of evidence. Many of us knew it all along but when proof was posted for all to see, ah what a knee slapper.


Oh and since I am busy helping with party building and building a support system for candidates from the city/county level on up I don't have "a candidate" for 08. Way too much groundwork to do before than.

So again, the Hackett thing is over, whatcha doin' now?

Julie

[sybil]

57. "dumb"?

Well as a matter of fact Julie, to sit here and play straight man to your self-glorifying-aggrandizements would be dumb, wouldn't it? You "talk a good job" but you aren't really specific either. As you can see, I don't post regularly at D.U. I have neither the time, nor the inclination. Personally, I don't much care for the one-upmanship indulged so often by regulars like you. Too clever by half.

Skinner was simply wrong - it happens, human frailties and faulty intelligence. I had no need to participate in D.U. "dust-ups" over something I knew to be untrue.

As far as Clarksters putting their money where there mouths are, see ICan'tBelieve's post for an eye-witness account of boots on the ground for the party.

Sybil

[sybil]

28. aww Julie...

...you just don't give us Clark supporters the credit we deserve. In fact, we do see the whole picture. Party-building, fundraising and candidate-grooming is what we do.

http://securingamerica.com/mission

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

29. And we do it well! n/t

[julialnyc]

31. well all the polls have Hillary as an unstoppable force

to win the democratic primary............. that isn't the feeling you see here at DU.

DUers have always been big fans of Clark and Dean........... that hasn't changed.

[julialnyc]

34. also where I come from

NYC (and now CT) people are very fond of Wesley Clark. Also, he was very popular with my brother's friends (he goes to college in Boston)


and I never hear people saying Hillary should be the nominee (although she leads the polls)

[ICantBelieve]

47. So...

Were you in Ohio last week? The Clarkies were.

[JNelson6563]

54. Why no I was in Michigan

I played a crucial role in our Dem candidate being the top vote getter in our city commission primary last Tuesday, went on the reich-wing talk radio station on Wednesday (to endure an hour of crap from neo-cons and still try to make our side look good), had an interview with a columnist on Thursday and also met with aforementioned candidate (with a couple of other key players) to discuss next steps of that campaign. Met yesterday with organizer from state party who is going to help me with efforts in organizing the counties in my district (this opens up a much broader world of resources for this important work). Oh yes, also sent out 4 personalized thank you letters to the latest donors of my current fundraising effort, asking everyone for $100 and have made arrangements to produce and fund a membership mailing for the fall for three (so far) counties in district.

So while I wasn't in Ohio I sure as heck don't feel bad about that. I work full time, all the time, for the cause.

BTW, glad you left behind a contigent for the important work of on-line "activism". ;-)

Julie

[ICantBelieve]

56. Again...

You missed the point, didn't you? You accused US of not doing anything and I just proved that we did, didn't I?

So, take your own advice, get off of DU and go out and write your precious thank you letters.

Or, even better, go spend all your time on a wild goose chase trying to prove that Clarkies cheat. Have a good time. Knock yourself out. Go ahead and spend all the time your pretty little mind can spare on it. You're not going to find anything. Because we don't cheat.

And, yes, I'm happy we left people "behind" to practice online activism. It was online activism that helped Paul Hackett do as well as he did. AND, it wasn't just people we "left behind" doing that activism. DUH! This is 2005. We had our laptops with us. Damn good thing too because the mapping software comes in handy when you're out of town.

[Jai4WKC08]

59. I bet "it's hard work" too

LOL.

[JNelson6563]

67. No it isn't.

Maybe if you tried it sometime you'd already know that. ;-)

[jenforclark]

32. this is a good piece

written by Michael Moore who I thank for turning me on to General Clark back in Fall '03. Once I read up on him and heard him speak a few times, I've never looked back! (Was registered Green up to that point.) And it is true, to know him is to love him. That's why his supporters are so dedicated and motivated.

I'll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush by Michael Moore


Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!

-cont.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-01-14

[julialnyc]

38. That is what got my little bro

and his friends into Clark

[donjo]

33. Swagger?

To insinuate that Clark "swaggers" indicates that JD really doesn't know much about Wes. However, if anyone has earned the right to "swagger," it's Wes Clark. I think JD will change his mind after a little bit of research. Here's an example (and one of my favorite Wes Clark quotes) from the Seton Hall address to graduating seniors:
"You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His Name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences."

[ArkySue]

35. Here's Wes Clark's stand on various issues...

From the Clark04 website. www.clark04.com/issues
Also see Wes Clark's 100 Year Vision here: http://securingamerica.com/vision
I think you'll like what you see!

[julialnyc]

36. This is what Samantha Powers said about Wes

(she endorsed him)

This is about clark being one of the biggest voices to get involved in Rwanda:

"The mark of leadership is not to stand up when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing."

[in_cog_ni_to]

39. He was against the war in Iraq and still is and wants us out of there ASAP

Here's why I LOVE Wes Clark. He's not only BRILLIANT, he's kind, compassionate, caring, repected around the world and knows foreign policy inside out.


How does General Wesley Clark compare to legendary West Point Generals? See for yourself.

1. General Robert E. Lee - Class of 1829 #2 in class of 46
(Civil War)
2. General Ulysses S. Grant - Class of 1843 #21 in class of 39
(Civil War)
3. General John J. Pershing - Class of 1886 #30 in class of 76
(World War I)
4. General Douglas MacArthur - Class of 1903 #1 in class of 94
(World War II + Korea)
5. General George S. Patton -Class of 1909 #46 in class of 153
(World War II)
6. General Dwight Eisenhower - Class of 1915 #61 in class of 164
(World War II)
7. General William Westmoreland - Class of 1936 #112 in class of 276
(Vietnam)
8. General Norman Schwarzkopf - Class of 1956 #43 in class of 480
(Dessert Storm)
9. General Wesley Clark - Class of 1966 #1 in class of 579
(NATO/Kosovo)

Definitely one of the smartest generals in U.S. history.


General Wesley K. Clark
• West Point Valedictorian
• Oxford University Masters Degree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics
• Rhodes Scholar
• Vietnam Veteran
• Four Star General
• NATO Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR) - Kosovo
• Board Chairman Wavecrest
Technologies
• CNN Analyst
• Author



ALL of these Ambassadors endorsed the man.

Little Rock - Fifty-five former U.S. ambassadors and diplomats, women and men who have served in some 36 countries during the last four administrations, believe that Wesley K. Clark is the right choice to lead America at this critical time in the world.

"Serving as representatives of the United States has allowed each of us to meet with world leaders and see what terrific leadership looks like," said Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to theNetherlands and co-chair of Ambassadors for Clark. "We know that the world is more interconnected than ever before, and so the impact of good and bad leadership impacts America and the world more than ever before. Wes Clark appreciates that and ambassadors understand the interconnectedness of the world and the critical need for a new leader to repair and strengthen our global ties."

"I am thrilled by the endorsement of those that have the respect of world leaders on every continent," Wesley Clark said. "They understand the importance of rebuilding America's alliances and restoring our country to a position of leadership based on cooperation and respect."


Ambassadors and Diplomats for Clark grew out of the unique phenomena of the Draft Wesley Clark movement. Not only did Wes Clark receive encouragement to run from thousands of individuals from across the U.S., the letters of support came from people, both U.S. citizens and citizens of many other nations, who understand that Wes Clark is the person we need to lead America at this crucial moment in history. The full list of ambassadors and diplomats is below.

Morton Abramowitz, Ambassador to Turkey and Thailand, Assistant Secretary of State
Brady Anderson, Ambassador to Tanzania.
Christopher Ashby, Ambassador to Uruguay.
Jeff Bader, Ambassador to Namibia, Senior Director National Security Agency
Robert Barry, Administrator, Agency for International Development; Head, OSCE
J.D. Bindenagel, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues.
Donald Blinken, Ambassador to Hungary
Amy Bondurant, Ambassador to OECD
Avis Bohlen, Ambassador to Bulgaria, Assistant Secretary of State
George Bruno, Ambassador to Belize
Paul Cejas, Ambassador to Belgium
Tim Chorba, Ambassador to Singapore
Bonnie Cohen, Under Secretary of State
Nancy Ely-Raphel, Ambassador to Slovenia
Ralph Earle, Deputy Director of State, Chief U.S. Negotiator, SALT II Treaty
Thomas H. Fox, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
Mary Mel French, Chief of Protocol
Edward Gabriel, Ambassador to Morocco
Richard Gardner, Ambassador to Italy & Spain
Robert Gelbard, Ambassador to Indonesia & Bolivia, Assistant Secretary of State
Gordon Giffin, Ambassador to Canada
Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador to Brazil, Assistant Secretary of State
Anthony Harrington, Ambassador to Brazil
John Holum, Under Secretary of State
William J. Hughes, Ambassador to Panama
Swanee Hunt, Ambassador to Austria
James Joseph, Ambassador to South Africa
Rodney Minott, Ambassador to Sweden
John McDonald, Ambassador to the United Nations
Stan McLelland, Ambassador to Jamaica
Gerald McGowan, Ambassador to Portugal
Arthur Mudge, Mission Director for Agency for International Development
Lyndon Olson, Ambassador to Sweden
Donald Petterson, Ambassador to the Sudan, Tanzania & Somalia
Kathryn Proffitt, Ambassador to Malta
Edward Romero, Ambassador to Spain & Andorra
James Rosapepe, Ambassador to Romania
Nancy Rubin, United Nations Commission on Human Rights
James Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State
David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary of State
Howard Schaffer, Ambassador to Bangladesh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
Teresita Schaffer, Ambassador to Sri Lanka & Maldives
David Scheffer, Ambassador at Large for War Crimes
Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to the Netherlands.
Derek Shearer, Ambassador to Finland
Richard Schifter, Assistant Secretary of State
Thomas Siebert, Ambassador to Sweden
Richard Sklar, Ambassador to the United Nations
Peter Tarnoff, Under Secretary of State
Peter Tufo, Ambassador to Hungary
Arturo Valenzuela, Senior Director, National Security Council
William Walker, Ambassador to El Salvador & Argentina, Head, Kosovo VerificationMission
Vernon Weaver, Ambassador to the European Union
Phoebe L. Yang, Special Coordinator for China Rule of Law, State Department
Andrew Young, Ambassador to the United Nations http://clark04.com/press/release/221 /


Looking ahead 100 years...

by Wesley K. Clark
Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by our environment, both our physical environment and our legal, Constitutional environment. America needs to remain the most desirable country in the world, attracting talent and investment with the best physical and institutional environment in the world. But achieving our goals in these areas means we need to begin now. Environmentally, it means that we must do more to protect our natural resources, enabling us to extend their economic value indefinitely through wise natural resource extraction policies that protect the beauty and diversity of our American ecosystems - our seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, rain forests, alpine meadows, original timberlands and open prairies. We must balance carefully the short- term needs for commercial exploitation with longer-term respect for the natural gifts our country has received. We may also have to assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act.

Institutionally, our Constitution remains the wellspring of American freedom and prosperity. We must retain a pluralistic democracy, with institutional checks and balances that reflect the will of the majority while safeguarding the rights of the minority. We will seek to maximize the opportunities for private gain, consistent with concern for the public good. And the Clark administration will institute a culture of transparency and accountability, in which we set the world standard for good government. As new areas of concern arise - in the areas of intellectual property, bioethics, and other civil areas - we will assure continued access to the courts, as well as to the other branches of government, and a vibrant competitive media that informs our people and enables their effective participation in civic life. And even more importantly, we will assure in meeting the near term challenges of the day - whether they be terrorism or something else - that, we don't compromise the freedoms and rights which are the very essence of the America we are protecting.

If we are to remain competitive we will have to do more to develop our "human potential." To put it in a more familiar way, we should help every American to "be all he or she can be." For some this means only providing a framework of opportunities - for others it means more direct assistance in areas such as education, health care, and retirement security. And these are thirty year challenges - educating young people from preschool until they are at their most productive, helping adults transition from job to job and profession to profession during their adult lives; promoting physical vigor and good health through public health measures, improved diagnostics, preventive health, and continuing health care to extend longevity and productivity to our natural limits; and strengthening retirement security, simply because it is right; first for our society to assure that all its members who have contributed throughout their lifetimes are assured a minimal standard of living, and secondly to free the American worker and family to concentrate on the challenges of today. Such long-term challenges must be addressed right away, with a new urgency.

We have a solid foundation for meeting these challenges in many of the principles and programs already present today. They need not be enumerated here, except to argue for giving them the necessary priorities and resources. We can never ensure that every one has the same education, or health care, or retirement security, nor would we want to do so. But all Americans are better off when we ensure that each American will have fundamental educational skills and access to further educational development throughout their lives; that each American will have access to the diagnostic, preventive and acute health care and medicines needed for productive life, as well as some basic level of financial security in his or her retirement.

To do this we will have to get the resources and responsibilities right. In the first place, this means allocating responsibilities properly between public and private entities. Neither government nor "the market" is a universal tool - each must be used appropriately, whether the issues are in security, education, health or retirement. Then we must reexamine private versus public revenues and expenditures. We need to return to the aims of the 1990's when we sought to balance our federal budget and reduce the long- term public debt. Finally, it means properly allocating public responsibilities to regulate, outsource, or operate. This means retaining government regulation where necessary to meet public needs, and balancing the federal government's strengths of standardization and progressive financing with greater insights into the particular needs and challenges that State and local authorities bring.

As we work on education, health care, and retirement security we must also improve the business climate in the United States. This is not simply a matter of reducing interest rates and stimulating demand. Every year, this economy must create more than a million new jobs, just to maintain the same levels of employment, and to reduce unemployment to the levels achieved in the Clinton Administration, we must do much more immediately. This is in part a matter of smoothing the business cycle, with traditional monetary and fiscal tools, but as we improve communications and empower more international trade and finance, firms will naturally shift production and services to areas where the costs are lower. In the near term we should aim to create in America the best business environment in the world - using a variety of positive incentives to keep American jobs and businesses here, attract business from abroad, and to encourage the creation of new jobs, principally through the efforts of small business. These are not new concerns, but they must be addressed and resourced with a new urgency in facing the increasing challenges of technology and free trade. And labor must assist, promoting the attitudes, skills, education and labor mobility to enable long overdue hikes in the minimum wage in this country.




An Agenda for Women

My commitment to addressing women's concerns

Throughout my career, I have worked hard to recruit and promote successful women in businesses and in our armed forces. I was proud to see more and more women take on leadership positions - because the wider the military opened its doors, the stronger it became. We all benefit when women are fully empowered to act with authority - it's right, it's sensible, and it's about time. That's why I will strive to expand the number of businesses owned by women, break through the remaining glass ceilings, and eliminate the pay gap between men and women. And I will lead by example, by ensuring that women take on leadership roles in my own Administration.

I care deeply about issues of concern to many women. I believe in protecting a woman's access to the job market and her opportunity to advance on equal terms. I believe in protecting the dignity of a woman's person and the well-being of her family. And I believe that a leader committed to women's issues can make a difference. In particular, as President, I would press for:


Equal economic opportunity. Opportunity starts with jobs-which is why I want to repeal Bush's tax giveaways for the wealthy and invest $100 billion in a job creation plan. But we also need to take proactive steps to ensure that women have equal opportunities in the workplace. As a start, we need to eliminate the pay gap. Until women in this country earn 100 cents on the dollar, all of us are being shortchanged.




Protection for families. Americans, women and men, are the most dedicated workers in the world-and it seems like we're working longer and longer hours. I understand the pressure that puts on families. During my time in the Army, I learned that a soldier, woman or man, didn't perform to his or her full potential when they were worried about their family or kids. That's why I am going to work with employers and employees to make sure that American workers have the flexibility they need-including child care, paid leave to take care of sick loved ones, and elder care-to be productive and take care of their families.


Reproductive freedom. Every woman deserves complete information about and access to birth control so that families can be planned and so that every child is a wanted child. I will oppose measures that interfere with the ability of a woman and her doctors to make choices about her reproductive health.


Affordable health care. My health care plan would make insurance for everyone more affordable, and help families provide their children, up to age 22, with high quality coverage.


Education. We need to invest in the education of our children. To truly leave no child behind, we've got to put our money where our mouth is. This includes full funding of past commitments like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but it also goes further. Real education reform would ensure that educational options are available from pre-school through retirement, to respond to the needs of a lifetime.


Means to fight violence against women. We must significantly ramp up our efforts to end violence against women. Sexual assault and domestic violence are human rights violations, plain and simple. I stood up for human rights in Bosnia. I stood up for human rights in Kosovo. And I'll stand up for human rights here in the United States of America.


Michael Moore on Wes Clark:

Many months ago in the days leading up to the iraq invasion, i was flipping through the channels and i came across a general talking on CNN. Assuming this was just another one of those talking ex-military heads who had sprung up all over our networks, I was ready to keep flipping. But he said something that caught my ear, and I continued to listen. he was actually questioning the wisdom of Bush attacking Iraq. Long before it came out that Bush & Co were purposefully decieving the American people about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in iraq, he was questioning whether, in fact, Iraq was a true threat to the United States. who was this guy?
His name was Wesley Clark. Gen. Wesley Clark. First in his class at West point, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, and a registered Democrat from Arkansas. I started checking him out. And here is what I discovered.


He is Pro Choice and a stong advocate for women's rights. Asked on Crossfire if he thought abortion should remain legal, he answered simply and to the point "I am pro-choice"


He is against the Bush tax cut. Here is what he says "I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it's not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don't have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries....One of the luxuries and one of the priveleges we enjoy is living in this great country. So I think the tax cuts were unfair"


He is against Patriot Act II and wants the first one re-examined. Here's what he said: "One of the risks you have in this operation is that you're giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice. liberty and the rule of law. I think you've got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists.


He is for Gun Control. Says Clark: "In general, I have got twenty some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grwn up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons- they should join the United States Army, we have them"


He is for affirmative action. Speaking at the brief he filed with the Supreme Court to support the University of Michigan in it's efforts to have affirmative action, he said, "I'm in favor of the principle of affirmative action.... what you can't have is, you can't have a society in which we're not acknowledging that there is a problem in this society with racial discrimination.... We saw the benefits of affirmative action in the United States armed forces. It was essential in restoring the integrity and the effectiveness of the armed forces"


He is not for sending the troops into Iran or continuing with this axis of evil nonsense "Number one is that we need to use multilateralism for what it can do" says Clark. "Multilateralism, if you use it effectively, can put a lot of economic pressure and diplomatic pressure to bear. Number two, I think we need to be very careful about jumping to a military option too quickly, especially in the case of Iran, because we can overturn the government there, perhaps, we could certainly blow up some facilities. but that doesn't necessarily solve the problem"


He is pro-environment: "Human beings do affect the environment and all you have to do is fly along the Andes and look at the disappearing glaciers down there and you recognize that there is something called global warming and it's just started as China and India modernize"


He favors working with allies instead of pissing them off: " an administration which really hasn't respected our allies....If you really want allies, got to listen to their opinions, you've got to take them seriously, you've got to work with their issues"

So, here's my question to the lame-o Democrats: Why the hell aren't you running this guy? Is it because he might WIN? Yeah, how bizarre would that be-a winner! Don't want to try that, do you? Well, if I were looking for a stradegy to beat Bush the deserter, I'd run a friggin' four star general against him! Bush wouldn't stand a chance. This may be the only way to beat Bush, beat him at his own game. Bush's political strategist, Karl Rove, will try to convince the American people that this is a wartime election - and you don't change presidents during wartime. That's what they're counting on-scaring the American people into four more years of BushII. If they've succeeded in frightening voters into believing that there really is some enemy threat out there, it may not be possible for us to undo that kind of damage. Instead, why don't we just roll with it and tell the American people, well, yes there is a threat out there- and who would you rather have protecting you: a guy who ran and hid in Omaha, or one of the top generals in the land? Clark has been awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, and the presidential Medal of Freedom. Thanks to the british and the Dutch, he's also got a couple honorary Knighthoods! I know this will some as a shock to many of you. "Mike, how could you be for a general?!"
Well, first of all, as I write this, I'not endorsing anyone ( except Oprah. Run, Oprah, Run!). This is how I see it. I had four years to help build a Green party or some independent alternative. I didn't do it. No One did it. Sure, I made my contributions, but it wasn't enough. As I sit here typing these words, the green party still is not on a majority of ballots in this country. And now we have an even greater task in front of us- stopping George W. Bush from totally dismantling our Constitution and the freedoms we so dearly cherish. We're stuck in a dilema, and sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures.
If it takes a pro-choice, pro-environment general who believes in universal health care and who thinks war is never the first answer to a conflict, if that is what it takes to remove these bastards and do the job the Democrats should have done in 2000-then that is what I am prepared to do. This involves a huge compromise on my part-will the losers who run the Democratic Party be willing to admit their mistakes and meet the millions like me halfway?

[goodhue]

41. I'm with you.

The tough guy strength thing works well for Republicans but we are not going to get a Democratic president going that route. We need a candidate who can connect with working people because he understands working people. Might makes right is silly transparent posturing. Reporting for duty makes me ill.

[ICantBelieve]

43. Exactly!

You sound just like Wes Clark!

[ken-in-seattle]

42. This is the first thing that got me.

I am a liberal. We live in a liberal democracy.

That’s what we created in this country. That’s in our Constitution. ... I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn’t founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We’ve got to get it back.
-- Wes Clark - September 5, 2003

I am surrounded by timid "progressives" who have the most warped view of the military as some monolithic machine. If the neocons and the theocons have their way it will become that someday. But there are incredibly smart and courageous people who make it to the top of the chain without joining the cowboy factions within the military. If you ever get a chance to listen to General Zinni you will note that he shows up with no notes and speaks on whatever the topic might be for as long as he needs to. Wes has done this too but now crafts a little more carefully after the reporters ambush in 2003. The hours of questions from the floor during the cspan broadcasted NH primary speeches are marvels of wide ranging straight talk directly to the questions asked.

A "classic" politician is not the mold he came from or will ever fit. But the statesman mold that has been unused for so long would be a perfect fit.

He also will never fit into the DLC corporate booster mold even though they will try to claim him when their corporate candidates tank.

[ICantBelieve]

44. Don't mean to hog the thread...

(OK, I do.)

But I met Hackett too. He doesn't strut. He's a sweetheart. I called him "sir" and he said, "Please don't call me that!"

And then there's the story that Wes Jr likes to tell about Wes. Wes was gone a lot when they were living in Europe and little Wes (I think he was around 8 at the time) said, "Why do you have to be gone all the time? Why can't we just blow up the Russians and go back home?" Wes Jr said his dad picked him up, put him on his knee, and said, "Because somewhere over in Russian there's a little boy just like you. And we can't do anything that would hurt him."

George W. Bush has convinced a lot of people that being strong means being mean. And it doesn't. People like Wes Clark and Paul Hackett are very good at demonstrating that. (That's not to say that other liberals aren't both strong and nice...)

[Jai4WKC08]

45. I don't support Clark because he's a "tough guy"

Altho I'm glad he is tough. Politics today it not for the feint-hearted. And if the tough-guy image can help him beat the Repubs (and I think it can), then it's a good thing. But it's not why I support him.

I support Clark because he tells the truth. Unashamedly and at all times. And because he cares, truly cares, about our democracy. And about people. Not only Americans but people everywhere. And because he's about as capable a person as you could ever imagine. Intelligent, educated, informed, and incredibly hard-working.

So, I'm sorry to dissappoint. Clark doesn't believe we should beat feet out of Iraq. He never thought we should have gone in, but now that we're there, he doesn't think we can leave. Not right away.

But unlike some others, it's not because Clark thinks he has to prove he's tough. He knows he's tough, and he knows others know he's tough. Instead he thinks we need to stay a while longer because he understands the dynamics of the region, and what would probably happen within the region if we were to leave right now.

In fact, Clark hasn't been saying he could win it better militarily (altho it wasn't so long ago just about anybody could have). He has always maintained the Bushies put too much burden on the military, expecting them to more than they're not capable of. Clark's solution isn't primarily a military one, but relies on diplomacy and politics to find a regional solution, one that involves all the neighboring states. Even Syria and Iran--the guys the Bushies won't even talk to, but the very ones who, thanks to neo-con rhetoric, have every reason to see us tied up indefinitely in Iraq so we won't come after them.

[FrenchieCat]

50. A Democratic Swagger in ‘08; good or not?

Your question is worthy, and so I will tell you how I see it.

Wes Clark doesn’t walk with a swagger, nor does he try to give the impression that he has one. Wes Clark was a General and in the Armed Forces for 34 years. Clark doesn’t need to play the tough guy, because he was one. He doesn’t have to talk the talk, because he walked the walk (without swagger).

So then the questions becomes; didn’t we do this in 2004 already? John Kerry, a valiant and loyal Democrat parlayed his Vietnam service to project a tough guy image during the 2004 election. But did it work? Kerry is not president today, so we can assume that it did not. But why not? Kerry was touted as both “electable” and a hero. Why bother with that stuff again, when the GOP will take a hero’s story and trash it to kingdom come?

My suspicion is that Kerry’s service was too little, too long ago. Kerry’s detractors were able to caricature’s Kerry’s heroism because the Kerry campaign highlighted it over all of Kerry’s other numerous accomplishments. Maybe it’s because it served him well in Iowa and N.H. during the primaries. The problem started when his relatively short stint in Vietnam from 35 years ago became the only thing that people learned about John Kerry’s life, while the rest was left on the cutting room floor, for the most part. The rest of what John Kerry represented came from RNC talking points and the infamous Tidy Bowl Vets.

On the other hand, Wes Clark did not highlight his Vietnam service during the ’04 primaries. Sure he had a Vietnam story to tell, in where he had been shot 4 times in an ambush and still managed to command his troops to safety. He nearly lost his life that day, but that is not what makes Wes Clark the leader that some people see. Sure, he has the same medals has Kerry does (without the controversy of how they were earned and without the medal toss aftermath) and then some, but Wes Clark is better known for planning, leading and winning the last Noble War (as the late Pope termed it) the U.S. fought. A war fought on humanitarian grounds. This war was fought six years ago….so there is no overwhelming time warp one must travel to appreciate his accomplishment.

Wes Clark was not only first in his Class at West Point, he also was a Rhodes Scholar who received an Oxford Masters in Economics, Politics, and Philosophy. It’s important to take note on those disciplines, as they are the best subjects for a President to know about, IMO.

Now some want to say that Clark Supporters only support Wes Clark because he is a General. Legend has it that we are blinded by the shine of the 4 stars. I would argue, that in this time of war, it would be a good thing to be led by a man who knew what he was doing. But I wouldn’t be doing justice to the complexity of man, nor his supporters, if I left it at that.

What Clark offers the Democratic Party in 2008 is a self-made, nation-first, intellectual thoughtful telegenic honest old fashion Democrat who understands National Security and Foreign policy, has done executive experience, has no voting record to distort, and is not afraid to do and say what it takes to defeat the enemy (GOP). A man who is so honest he will reveal whom he voted for to his detriment. A man who says that he will kick the shit out of those who attempt to defame him (heard of Shelton lately….got mum pretty quickly and attributed is nasty comments to Wes to “just politics” when called upon). A man who moved his family 31 times across the US and the world in order to perform his duties. A man who lived on less than $50,000 per year until he achieved the rank of General, and then never made more than $86,000 until the day of his retirement. A man who moved his family 31 times across the US and the world in order to perform his duties. Now, this is not because he couldn’t have made more—an Oxford Masters via a Rhodes scholarship is a valuable asset to list on one’s resume; but that is not what he chose. So those who call him an opportunist have no idea of what they speak.

He cannot be characterized as being “power” hungry either. The man was retired early and created controversy battling the pentagon and their inability to commit troops on the ground and Apache Helicopters to minimize civilian casualties that one can expect with High altitude bombing. Considering this was at a time that Clinton could not afford any US Casualties in this conflict (due to the blue dress and Somalia), the administration stood firmly behind the Republican ran Pentagon (Sec of Defense, Cohen). Had Clark been motivated by power, he would have played the good soldier knowing what rewards awaited him for a job well done. In other words, he could have chosen to command without comments; civilians be damned. He held a 19 nations coalition during the entire NATO operation while battling Washington. In the end, there were approximately 500 civilian deaths attributed to the bombings......a relatively low number (for 79 days of non stop bombing, and certainly compared to what we face these days), but Wes Clark, to this day, believes that the casualty number could have been lower. It is not hard to figure out why. Wes Clark had been in charge of other people’s lives for a long time, as a commander is responsible for the well being of his troops. Caring for those he lead has always been one of his virtue, which is what we want in a President.

I didn’t mean to write a book…but you had an OP with a question at the end, and so I answered. Be grateful, it could have been much longer. The man is complex and there is a lot to know about him. He is formidable, which is why you can find Hacksites littering the Internet with their lame attempts to attack.

The Corporate media doesn’t cover him much. I wonder why? http://www.soonerthought.com/archives/000280.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=310182

I’ll leave you with some interesting reading that might flesh out the reasons that some of us support General Wes Clark. These are not issue papers, but articles and editorials on the take of the writers.
Domestic policies:
Taxes- http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html
Immigration- http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/metro/4890.php
Early Education – http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/12/03/clark_to_announce_education_program/
Environment - http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/12/09/clark_says_environment_plan_would_prevent_100000_deaths/
Science - http://www.greenspeed.us/wesley_clark.htm
Affirmative Action- http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eclark24_20031024.htm

Opinions of Clark
Col. Hackworth’s change of heart on the Perfumed Prince - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738
Esquire/The General - http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_1.html
Waiting for the General - http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
The Unappreciated General/written in 2000 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true
Boy from Little Rock chooses military path
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/11/16/boy_from_little_rock_chooses_military_path/
Debating - http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/12/10/clark_makes_the_most_of_the_moment/
The Deserter comment from MM and Clark’s bad press on it - http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/01/waldman-p-01-26.html
Attacks on Wesley Clark are laughable at best - http://aggressive-voice.com/zz585.html
Clark’s call to Rove debunked - http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016c.html
Clark and Pristina Airfield – WWIII attack
http://antidotal.blogspot.com/2003_09_14_antidotal_archive.html#1063645172520309%5C
Saddam’s capture doesn’t sway Clark - http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/12/17/capture_doesnt_sway_clark/
Mark Kleiman – Clark ’04 Campaign to 2005 - http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/cat_wesley_clark.html

Endorsement by the Washington Blade (largest Gay Newspaper) - http://www.aegis.com/news/wb/2004/WB040109.html
Endorsement by the Native American Times (largest American Indian Publication) http://www.nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=3440
Endorsement by Ambassador at the Arab American Institute - http://www.aaiusa.org/gabriel.htm
African Americans for Democratic Leadership http://www.democrats.us/editorial/aadl092203.shtml
Muslim Albanian introduction http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/account_from_a_.html
Other newslinks - http://www.texasforclark.com/hot.htm
Listing of Awards - http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/awards.htm

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

60. Once again

I stand in awe!

FrenchieCat you truly are The Cat's Meow.

:pals:

[FrenchieCat]

51. Oh yeah....and here's is Clark's Iraq Plan...

I think it makes a whole lot of sense considering the mess!

A Real Plan for Success in Iraq

When the President flew out to the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and posed under the banner that read: "Mission Accomplished," he made it clear he did not understand the scope of the mission. We need a success strategy. Only success can honor the sacrifice of so many American men and women; it is only success that will allow Iraq to stand on its own; and it is only success that will allow our soldiers to come home. Early exit means retreat or defeat. Wes Clark has a plan to internationalize the reconstruction, counter the terrorists' guerilla war more effectively, and give Iraqis a greater stake in our own success.

What Do We Do Now?

Wes Clark believes we need to clearly define our mission in Iraq by deciding what constitutes success. Our mission is to create a secure, stable Iraq with a representative government. Only this will make America more secure and enable our troops to come home. Success means that Iraq is strong enough to sustain itself without outside forces but is no longer a threat to its neighbors; that representative government has taken root so Iraq can be a model for democratic hope in the Middle East; and that Iraqi society and the Iraqi economy are healthy enough so that Al Qaeda cannot recruit there.

Wes Clark's strategy for Iraq is guided by the following principles:

1. End the American monopoly. From the beginning, the Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the Iraqi reconstruction and occupation. This has cost us the financial and military support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. Ending the American monopoly will change the way this enterprise is viewed -- in Iraq and throughout the world.

* Re-incorporate our allies. Fixing the Administration's missteps will require skilled diplomacy at the highest levels. Wes Clark recommends calling a summit of leaders from Europe, the United Nations, Japan and the Arab world to launch a new, internationalized effort in Iraq. They will be more willing to help if America works with them on issues they care about: climate change, the International Criminal Court and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

* Transform the military operation into a NATO operation. General Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, would remain in charge of the operation, but he would report to the NATO Council, as General Clark did as commander of NATO forces in Kosovo. With NATO support and U.N. endorsement, we can also expect some Arab countries to step in. Their presence would prove that this is not an American occupation, but an international and regional effort to stabilize Iraq.

2. Adjust the force mix. The Bush Administration has failed to formulate an effective tactical plan. No such plan will be viable without substantial contributions from military leaders on the ground. Still, Wes Clark would approach the problem as follows:

* Consider adding troops. Wes Clark believes we should look at whether adding forces will help the effort in Iraq. He would not measure success in Iraq by a reduction in troops or failure by an increase. It's more important to do the job right so all the troops can come home sooner.

* Adapt to guerilla war. One mistake in Vietnam was trying to use conventional forces to fight an unconventional war. The more unarmored humvees we have, the greater our vulnerability to roadside bombs. We have suffered more losses in routine patrolling and transit than in active counter-insurgency efforts. We need to ensure the right mix of forces to fight a classic guerrilla war. That means more Special Forces and other light forces better suited for counter-insurgency.

* Better use of intelligence resources. To protect our soldiers we must do all we can to find out who's attacking our soldiers. That means better intelligence work and improved relations with the civilian population. Yet intelligence specialists and people who can speak to Iraqis in their own language are scarce. We need to take the linguists and intelligence specialists now involved in the search for WMDs and assign them to our military counter-insurgency efforts. International inspectors are willing and able to take over this mission. We must also augment our intelligence capability with new technologies and better recruitment in the Arab-American community.

* Train Iraqi security forces, freeing up U.S. troops. We need to empower Iraqis to provide routine security so American soldiers can focus on urgent tasks like counter-insurgency. Wes Clark would implement a comprehensive two-tier plan: train police first, then military.

o Summon the old Iraqi army for duty at the local level. We need more Iraqi paramilitary units and police at the local level. General Clark will use thorough background checks, generous pay rates, and real political control for Iraqis -- as well as appealing to Iraqis' sense of nationality -- to put Iraqis in charge of basic security, freeing up US soldiers to focus on our most urgent tasks, including counter-insurgency.

o Reconstitute the Iraqi Army so that it eventually can do the work the occupation force now does - guarding Iraqi borders, keeping order, and fighting insurgents. It will take considerable time to have an Iraqi Army trained enough and integrated enough to do the job.

* Engage neighbors for better border security. Iraq is now a magnet for every jihadist in the Middle East. Closing the borders requires cooperation from the countries bordering Iraq. But currently, Syria and Iran don't want us to succeed because they fear they are next on our invasion list. Wes Clark recommends engaging Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia with both carrots and sticks. We have serious issues with each of these countries, but closing those borders is the most urgent priority right now. We must show Iraq's neighbors that cooperation with us is in their interest and will help their region.

* Secure ammunition. Today, hundreds of thousands of tons of ammunition from Saddam's arsenal have yet to be secured, and thousands of shoulder-fired missiles remain at large. Terrorists have used these stockpiles to attack our forces. We should destroy that ammunition immediately or else secure it with surveillance technology and troops from other countries willing to come to Iraq.

3. Promote information exchange to advance civil society. To encourage the growth of civic organizations, media, neighborhood groups -- and promote reconstruction -- we should open the West to Iraq for exchange programs so that Iraqis who have been isolated for years can see the what the rest of the world does with its economy, schools, health care, media and government.

Preventing Foreign Misadventures Going Forward


* Promote security through multilateralism. No nation will ever have veto power over our security. But turning our back on our allies makes it harder to protect ourselves and our interests. Despite our overwhelming military, economic and political strength, we cannot pursue Arab-Israeli peace, support reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, deal with the challenges of North Korea, track down Osama bin Laden, fight the global war against terrorism, face the problem of Iran, and return to prosperity in this country, unless we have allies to help us.

* Modernize international institutions to combat new threats. Wes Clark recommends pursuing a new Atlantic Charter to repair and modernize our security partnership with Europe. The Charter that will define the threats we face in common and demand action from our allies to meet them while offering a promise to act together.

* Create a new agency for international assistance. Wes Clark believes America should lead the world in addressing the causes of human misery by attacking the problems of poverty, disease, and ethnic conflict with the same energy and skill we have brought to the challenge of warfare. A new agency would combine the existing development efforts of our government with a real budget for research and development, planning and the ability to draw on the new national Civilian Reserves that Wes Clark proposed in his campaign last October. These efforts will reduce the anger and alienation that gives rise to terrorism, and win us more friends and partners around the world. It will be far easier to ask gain international support for our concerns when other countries see us helping them on theirs.

http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

[Mr_Spock]

61. Kick ass and take names

I'm for that.

[Sparkly]

62. I don't like any of these labels.

Sounds like you want a candidate who'd make an immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Fine.

But I think the labels about "tough-guy" and "military" and "Republican Lite" etc. go right along with the 3-decade GOP campaign to divide the parties along those very lines: They're the John Waynes, we're the Alan Aldas.

Let's not play into that.

Btw, Husb just posted something different about "tough guys" here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1990900

[Stinky The Clown]

63. I'll answer your question a different way ... rather than talk about

Wesley Clark, let's just talk about what it means to be a tough guy.

Bush likes to play tough guy ... but he's not. He's a spoiled rich guy who has spent his whole life as a front man (puppet) for others. Sorta like a former ballplayer who gets a job as a glad-hander for some Las Vegas casino. Sad ......

Tough guys are 'guys' like Cindy Sheehan. No chest popping swagger from that tough 'guy' ...... just speaking truth to power. **That's** what real tough guys do. No need to take on affectations.

You want to know who was a tough guy? George McGovern was a tough guy. he strapped a bomber to his ass 26 time during WWII. He flew that bomber over occupied Europe at a time when half those who did it the day before never came home again. He never talked about it much. He went on to oppose the war in Vietnam .... and was branded a wimp for it. But we know who the **real** tough guy was. Who can fail to admire such toughness?

My father was a tough guy. A lowly corporal in Patton's army in North Africa and Europe, he left my mother to fight that war, came home and went on with his life. Never asked for anything except his GI Bill loan to buy the house in which he raised me and my brother. That's what tough guys do. They live quiet lives and give to others. And, like my Dad, they vote for Democrats and avoid bullshit.

Howard dean's a tough guy. Look what's he's done since leaping onto the national political scene. he's a tough guy in the best sense of the word.

Mike Moore's a tough guy. Think about it.

Look for the **real** fucking tough guys.

They're all DEMOCRATS.

Not all Democrats are tough guys, to be sure ..... but most tough guys are Democrats.

See my post here and name **your** tough guy .....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1990900

On edit ...... tough guys .... real tough guys ..... you'll know them by watching. They're the ones who stand up for what's **right**.

[FrenchieCat]

64. Ding, ding, ding......

"real tough guys ..... you'll know them by watching. They're the ones who stand up for what's **right**.

BINGO

[Liberal In Texas]

66. Love that sig photo! I stole it.