Why I think Clark should win the Democratic Nomination

[HootieMcBoob]

Because we don't need to just beat Bush. We need to crush him like a bug. We need a landslide victory. Not a simple victory, not even a decisive victory. We need a landslide victory. We need to win every single electoral vote.

We need a clear mandate to show the media whores and the neo-conservatives in the republican party that everything that has been done by this administration...every single thing....is reprehensible to the people of this country and is anti-american, anti-democratic, anti-everything we've always been told since we were kids, that this country is supposed to stand for. We need a victory that will bury not only the Bush administration but Fox News and Anne Coulter, and Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough and Limbaugh and the rest of the goon squad.

We also need a clear mandate for progressive ideas and programs. A simple victory will not give us that. A Clark presidency will be able to accomplish things that would be much more difficult for any other candidate.

Don't get me wrong. I like Dean, I like Kerry and Kucinich and would support them totally if they are nominated. And, I think that any of the Democratic field of contenders would run a strong campaign against Bush and would have a very good chance of beating him. But, I think with Clark as our candidate we have the opportunity to absolutely put an end to all of the insanity that has been going on in this country.

We could squash Bush and win back the White House and with Clark's coat tails, begin to work our way back to controling the house and senate as well.

I just thought I'd share that with everybody. Thanks for your time and enjoy the rest of your day. :)

[bamademo]

1. I too back Clark

I think he's the most electable because I've heard Repugs and Military personnel saying they would vote for him. I think he's our Clinton. However, I will vote for whoever the nominee is. Even :puke: Lieberman.

[Mattforclark]

2. Thanks for sharing

I'll keep that crushed bug imagery in mind for the rest of today.

[wndycty]

3. He has my endorsement

wndycty with General Clark during a fundraiser, Monday, October 27, Frankie Z's CLARK BAR in Chicago

[Clark Can WIN]

25. Hey, I got one too..............

CCW w/Clark in Ft. Dodge Iowa, at Coneys N More

[DemExpat]

60. What a great pic! Of both of you.

:kick:

:hi:

DemEx

[Clark Can WIN]

63. Thanks!

It was a good pic of him too I thought.:loveya:

[maha]

79. 'Zat you? How cute you are!

And the General, too! :yourock:

[Clark Can WIN]

80. Thanks Maha

:pals:

[slinkerwink]

64. I just don't think Clark has coattails

In my opinion, Clark has no coattails to speak of-----no past experience with helping other Dems win an office.

[Josh]

4. I tend to agree - Clark gives us coattails

And they're going to be amazingly important in the 2004 election, particularly in the Senate, where we're going to find it very hard to retake the majority (it's basically impossible in the house) and need somewhat of a miracle.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I'll Put On My Political Scientist's Hat

Elections are usually referendums on the incumbent. If voters like the job he has done they will rehire him. If they don't they will fire him....

That being said this election will largely turn on the war in Iraq , the "war on terrorism" and the economy....


It is the state of these thing which will determine if Bush wins or loses.

The candidate can make differences at the margin; whether he is a great candidate and broadly acceptable or not....

[maha]

20. Disagree.

In every presidential election in my memory, which goes back to Eisenhower, voters go for the candidate who scares them the least. Voters will go with an incumbent they are not crazy about if the challenger is too alarming.

An example is Bush-Dukakis 1988. The voters didn't like Bush all that much, but the Bush campaign was able to smear Dukakis (a perfectly respectable candidate, IMO) enough that voters were frightened into voting for Bush.

It is not true that the election will turn entirely on Bush's failures. What we're really fighting is his phony image as a leader. That's why we have to give the voters a candidate whose leadership qualities are so unmistakable Karl Rove can't spin them away.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. If You Will Reread My Post

you will see I use the word "usually"... Social science unlike the hard sciences aren't absolutely deterministic cuz we're dealing with humans... There are no element tables.....


If a plurality or majority are happy with the job Bush is doing they'll re hire him if not they will fire him....

Bush wasn't the incumbent in 88.... A quasi incumebent I guess since he was Reagan's vice pres...Expanding on that thesis if Clinton runs in 00 and Ike runs in 60 they both probably win even though their vice presidents didn't....

If the equities markets , personal income, unemployment,inflation,etcetera are moving in the right direction and Iraq doesn't totally collapse Bush will be tough to beat....

These are crappy and unpleasant facts but facts not the less...

[maha]

43. Nope. Not true.

"If a plurality or majority are happy with the job Bush is doing they'll re hire him if not they will fire him...."

No, sorry, it doesn't necessarily work that way. Given a choice between two unlikeable candidates, people will go with the incumbent nearly every time.

If the Dem nominee is someone the electorate is uncomfortable with, the law of "the devil you know is better than the one you don't" kicks in.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. I Recommend You Do A Google Search

most of the articles on Retrospective Voting are part of political science syllabuses and the articles are not printed on the net... Google just tells you where to go...

But here's a start


http://econpapers.hhs.se/paper/cltsswopa/99.htm


Perfect examples of retrospective voting are the 1932, the 1976, and the 1992 elections....

Folks thought the incumbent was doing a crappy job and threw him out....

If the fear or persoanlity factor was at play, Ronald Reagan wouldn't have won cuz of his hawk image and Clinton wouldn't have won cuz of his "bad boy" image....

Personality is a factor but it is not a primary or even a secondary factor... It's a tertiary factor...

[maha]

53. I don' need no steenking syllabus ...

I've been watching elections since Eisenhower, sonny boy, and I'm telling you that voters will vote for a guy they don't much like if they are uncomfortable enough with the alternative. And I'm not talking about personality.

Once again, when facing a choice between an incumbent they don't like and a challenger who (rightly or wrongly) is downright alarming, voters will stick with the incumbent.

[RandomUser]

66. No need to argue -- you're both right.

I think the voter will make two decisions. First, without even looking at the contending candidate, is the current guy doing a poor job and should be fired? If the answer is yes, the voter then asks is the replacement guy up to snuff (be able to cross the 9/11 security threshold)?

So the voter will first answer Democratsincebirth's question, and then proceeds to Maha's question. Only a candidate who can pass both parts will win.

[maha]

82. Yeah, that's what I'm sayin'

In the case of an incumbent, unless the incumbent has done something completely beyond the pale -- like maybe cannibalism -- it's not enough for him to be disliked to lose the election. The challenger has to be more palatable than the incumbent, or people are often inclined to keep the incumbent.

A good example might be last year's re-election of the recently unelected Gray Davis, who won re-election over a right-wing challenger. Lots of Californians really did not like Gray Davis but they found the challenger more disturbing, so they kept the devil they knew (until the recall).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. Sonny Boy-ROFTLMAO

I don't like to throw my creds around on a bulletin board but since you started this I will...

I have a B.S. in Social Science, a M.A. in Political Science, and have done post grad work in Political Science at Florida State University....

I have also taught Political Science 101 at FSU as a grad student...
Thomas R Dye (google him) was on my graduate committee at Florida State University... His textbook on introductory political science is used on campuses throughout the nation...

I imagine some poli sci majors on this board have used his textbook...

All I am saying is I stand by the simple proposition that elections are u-s-u-a-l-l-y referendums on the incumbent. If they think he has done a good job they will return him. If they think he has done a crappy job they will fire him....

Of course the challenger is important but as is often the case a poor job by the incumbent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the challenger to succede....

If the incumbent is doing a great job and I realize that those types of characterizations are highy subjective it's hard to think of a scenario where he can be defeated....

You made me work too hard...

I feel like I'm back in school...

[maha]

106. So you got a bunch of degrees.

I'm a cranky old lady. That trumps everything.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. K

-:)


btw- Clark is my candidate too.


I'm just saying this election will turn on the economy and the war.......

[wildmanj]

6. Clark

got my vote but unless we first crush the judicial system that made it all possible--giving clark the job won't make a tinker's damn

[Kimber Scott]

7. Clark gives me someone to vote FOR,

not just against!

I used to be an "anybody but Bush" person, but now I'm a "Clark" person. Of course, I will still support whoever wins the Democratic nomination, but with Clark in the running, I now feel like I can actually vote for who I think is the best person for the job, not just who is NOT Bush.

GO CLARK!!!

:bounce:

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Absolutely!

More and more I'm seeing Clark as a breath of fresh air and just the sort of honesty and genuine leadership we need right now.

As a Quaker, I have problems enough dealing with supporting a retired general, but, like Lee and Eisenhower, the warrior often knows best the true cost of war and treasure of peace.

"President Clark"-- it sounds good.

[RandomUser]

16. I agree

Before Clark entered, I was a Dean backer, because I thought he had the best chance (I still think Dean has the most polished and best run campaign). It was a purely ABB decision to pick who had the best shot. But with Clark, I'm actually inspired and see someone whom I'm not just seeing as the best ABB, but wanting to vote FOR.

It's like that Salon article on Clark said. Many came to him for the ABB, but stayed for the person. He'll be one of the best presidents in history, but I'm admittedly biased. :)

[Demoiselle]

56. You said it, Kimber!

There are several perfectly respectable people running for the nomination,and I will vociferously support the Democratic nominee, whoever... but Clark is the first to come along who really really makes me rejoice. It isn't just his very special military record--although that virtually inoculates him from rightwing attacks on patriotism--but his demeanor, and the fact that, as far as I can tell, he is able to present nuanced positions on our problems that make me believe he is an extremely bright realist. He's Clinton with a hero's war record. Wow.

[Kahuna]

8. Another plus for Clark is likeability. Likeability is..

very imporatant in a presidential election. A large percentage of voters vote on likeability alone. I promise you that Clark can motivate black and minority voters to turn out in 1998 and 2000 numbers. If you nominate a candidate that these constiuents don't like, the turnout numbers won't be as good. Without very motivated Democratic voters we will lose. After for more years of George count on 8 years of Jeb.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. I'm Sorry But No Dem Will Have A Mandate

After Bush's TV ads start kicking in. It's going to be a close race with anyone unless they are a fiery anti-war candidate from a state with a population of 608,000 people and civil unions.

[DemExpat]

10. I totally agree with you, Hootie

Clark's candidacy gives me hope again for real change - let's work to get him nominated!

Go Clark! :kick:

DemEx

[liberalmike27]

11. I've got an idea

Why don't we get Tom Delay to run. Then just like Clark, we'd have a chance to win, and if we do what will we have. A Republican in office.

I want to beat Bush as badly as anyone, but really, don't you think it is better to try to beat him with a Democrat, than a guy who was Republican until Bush wouldn't give him a job? This isn't manufactured stuff, I've seen two separate video's of him kissing up to Bush and his boys, and talking about how great they are.

Sorry, if I wanted to vote for a Republican, I'd have registered as a republican. Sure he's smooth, and he's coopted almost all of Dean's positions, but I'm sticking with Dean. If someone is going to continue to screw up the US, I'd just as soon it be Bush, who is a Republican by name. That way, he can take the blame, instead of a Republican under a Democratic name, like Clark.

Wake up folks, a win perhaps (not even certain) but at what cost?

[wndycty]

12. Please explain how Clark is a Republican?

Also tell me one thing that Clark has done for the Republicans that he has not done for the Democrats?

[HootieMcBoob]

13. get hip dude

read over the information on the link i'm providing. that's all i'm saying. http://www.clark04.com/

[DemExpat]

14. Clark is the best Dem candidate......trust me.....

:D

Dean I will vote for if he gets the nomination, but Clark is by far the best Presidential material IMO.

:kick:

DemEx

[Starpass]

17. Something interesting on C-Span WJ this a.m.

Editor of Washington Monthly on. Talked about how Stars and Stripes has gone around Iraq and talked to the troops. Says that majority of them are not happy with Bush, find themselves ill-equipped for this mission, don't know what the hell we are doing there, etc. This editor was there to explain how the military "thing" is starting to fall apart for the repukes and that all we need to do is reach like 3-4% more people and the political landscape will change dramatically not just in presidential race but in a lot of other races. He said that it's not just the couple million active military personnel, or the couple million reservist, or the millions of vets, but that the vast majority of Americans (be they Dem or Repuke) want people who they feel support our troops and support the idea of defending this nation. He said over the last couple decades the Dems just have not been able to speak the language of the military. Someone called and asked how Dean could reach out to the military. The guy didn't give a real direct answer but in essence, he said that Dean's message will be perceived as "passifist", etc. And then he kinda urged that this election is "doable" if we can bridge this gap since the gap is just out there ripe and waiting for us. I think he might have been saying, "don't blow it and give the voters the wrong man". I think this is something that has to sink into the active Dem members. Clark is the link----perhaps even Kerry. But these other guys put us in that "same old mold" and we WILL lose...we will. Like this guy was talking about---if we can make a push and inroads this time on this issue, it could, in essence, bury this goddamn repukes once and for all. We are seen as strong on economic/people issues BUT we have to firmly get our hands on this one and then they are history.

[maha]

18. I like the "bug" metaphor.

Stomp! Stomp! Stomp!

[Ficus]

19. I used to like him

until he decided to skip my state. He can go to hell.

:dem: :dem:

[maha]

23. Time for the Big Picture

The fact is that Clark had to choose between campaigning in Iowa or New Hampshire, and New Hampshire is a real primary. For practical reasons he couldn't campaign effectively in both places.

I am reminded of Nixon-McGovern 1972. I was a student at the University of Missouri at the time. McGovern chose a Missouri politician, Tom Eagleton, as his running mate and then "unchose" him. (The official reason was that Eagleton had a history as a mental patient. The real reason was that Eagleton had a future as a mental patient. But let's go on ...)

Lots of McGovern supporters ripped the McGovern buttons off their army fatique jackets (the "in" garment at the time) and proclaimed they wouldn't vote for McGovern. But ... hello? ... the alternative was Nixon.

That election wasn't about Tom Eagleton, and the election to come isn't about the Iowa Caucuses.

[Blue_Roses]

26. the guy got laryngitus fo God's sake

n/t

[Clark Can WIN]

29. So you're a prima donna cry baby then?

It's called stra - tee - ger - ee. Don't be a stereotypical Iowa "diva".

He's trying to win, and it was too late to get organized in Iowa where with that funky Caucus system and the others have been on the ground for almost a year already.

It was just a matter of facing reality in Iowa, it's not like he took a dump on your lawn.

[Ficus]

32. fair enough

I understand his not having time to campaign here - that's cool. I just can't support someone who won't try to earn my vote. That's all.

It's actually kinda silly, since he would have done pretty well here, and a #3 showing, which he clearly could have done, would have knocked someone like Kerry from the race. Kerry is the one who he has the most in common with and could really benefit him from him getting out.

:dem: :dem:

[Renew Deal]

38. He is trying, but on a small scale.

Clark has some scheduled says in Iowa. Some meaning very few. He also has volunteers there that will participate. Clark's strategy is partly to make a name for himself from afar. If he can do that, he can make a suprising finish in Iowa. And if not, he never tried. Also you can volunteer in MN and other neighbor states.

[Ficus]

42. a REAL small scale

I don't know of anything here in Des Moines for Clark volunteers besides meetups.

I don't mean to be an Iowa diva - you see I was glad to see Joe L. skip our state (actually he tried and pulled out) but very disappointed to see Clark do it. I was interested in him for quite a while. His decision to run a national campaign during the primaries clearly shows his and his staffs lack of understanding of the Democratic nominating process.

at this time, my democratic voting heart belongs to Dennis K. anyways.

:dem: :dem:

[Clark Can WIN]

40. He is still going to set up offices in Iowa

And he will still be making campaign appearances as well, along with the Jefferson Jackson dinner on the 15th.

So he is still trying to earn your vote. Like I said. Sra - tee - ger - eee. The reality on the ground was that it was more advantagous to hit NH and start working on SC and such than to sink enormous effort into a sure-to-lose situation in Iowa. There will still be a campaign presence in Iowa, he didn't tell you to go to hell so maybe you could return the courtesy.

[Ficus]

45. I'll check him out then

I'll be at the J-J dinner. I listened to him at the Harkin Forum, but he was new and really didn't say much other than big generalities.

I do however, think that Iowa was not a sure to lose situation for him. 3rd in Iowa is winning, if you are not Dean or Gephardt.

[Clark Can WIN]

65. Great! I'll see you there

Look for me.

[Ficus]

72. Alright

I'll keep my eye open to say hey

[HootieMcBoob]

70. I can relate

I live in New York and I have NEVER had a chance to vote for the candidate of my choice in the primary because by the time our turn comes around, states like Iowa, New Hampshire and everybody else under the sun have already decided for me! :nopity:

Hopefully, this time around the candidate I like best will still be in the race when it's our turn to vote.

[Clark Can WIN]

21. This is exactly what I have been saying

We need a pounding, not a squeaker. Clark is the only one who can deliver on that imo.

[MadHound]

22. Piffle

Clark is nothing but another neo-Dem in the mold of Clinton. We need a real change in this country, not just a change in the tempature we're being boiled at. Another Dem corporate whore we do not need, and that is what Clark is going to be. Don't let your desparation blind you to what the reality of Clark is. Do you like NAFTA? Do you like the monopolizing of our media? Do you like welfare "reform"? Do you wish to remain bogged down in Iraq? Do you wish for ever more encroachments upon your God given right ala the Patriot Act and the WOD? All this and more is what is in store if Clark is put into office. Yes, he may be talking a good game now, but once he is in office, his corporate masters will put him on the short leash and just like his sponsor and mentor Clinton, all of his promises will be for naught.

There is only one true Democrat who is not beholden to corporate interests, and that is Kucinich. If you wish for real change for the better in the upcoming years, Kucinich is the one you should vote for. Yes, yes, I know. Everybody says they love what he stands for, but he is unelectable. Well, damn, if everybody who was repeating that mantra would actually vote for Kucinich, voila, he would be elected. You folks are pretty damn smart and don't buy into what the corporate media tells you most of the time. Why are you doing it in this instance. Don't let your desparation and fear of Bush blind you to the realities of the situation that faces us.

[maha]

24. Do you like BUSH?

President Clark will, I think, surprise you.

[Nashyra]

27. I agree

We need a candidate that will win so big that they can not possibly steal the vote like they did in 2000. With a squeaker of an election they can too easily manipulate the vote. I like the "Silver Star vs "The Silver Spoon" motto . Also as a mother who would have a draft age son whose college would be interupted I tell every repuke that my reasoning for supporting Clark is that he is the only candidate that can "prevent" the draft because of his experience and "real" concern for the troops. Their is no arguing Democratic ideals with repukes and I feel like I need a shower after I talk to them, but if I can convince 1 person a day to vote for Clark instead of * it is worth it. There will be time for principle after we get a Dem in the WH, and no offense to Dean or the others but with the money machine that the Repugs have there has to be a candidate who can beat * on "war president" campaign issue, and the scare tactic issue. Clark/Dean Clark/Edwards Clark/Kerry any of those would be a formidable opponet for * and *.

It's time for the rest of the field to get out so that the Dems can start rallying around the candidates who will do the best against *. I have my flame retardent cape on so flame away, I can take anything but an * re election.

[MadHound]

34. How very democratic of you Nashyra

NOT!! We haven't even had one single primary yet, and here you are wanting the other candidates to get out of the race.
What do you fear so much? That your bully boy Clark will actually lose in the primaries? I'm sorry, you very well could be quite a nice person, but I find such undemocratic sentiments, especially expressed this early in the campaign cycle, to be disingenous and disgusting.

Why not just wait until we get a few primaries under our belts before you start calling for candidates to drop out. It won't make any difference in the end and all of the candidates have some good points to put before the public. That's what primary season is for anyway.

[Nashyra]

46. I'm not afraid of anything but * being re elected

and we have a very crowded field, considering the fact that there are a few candidates that virtually have no chance against the Repuke machine I am merely being what some would call pragmatic. Edwards is not a top tier candidate but has appeal to the south. As much as I like and respect all the candidates there are too many, and I don't recall calling any of the candidates names. Do I think Clark is perfect, absolutely not, but I feel that he has the most wide appeal to the general public whether he is on the top or bottm of the ticket. Even though some are saying it is too early in the primary season to ask that some drop out why the big commotion over the "it's too late for Clark to get in". Call me disingenous or disgusting I don't care, anything but being called "loser" in 2004. Right now most the candidates in the lower tier are only hurting the Dem party by promoting themselves, and there is one or two in the top tier that are doing the same thing. And by the way I am a nice person and my greatest reason for wanting Clark is I feel that he would be the best candidate to keep us out of wars. Most veterans that I know my husband and dad included are of the school of thought that having been exposed to war is the greatest reason not for going to war, hence the reason for a military candidate Clark or Kerry and a non military cnadidate Dean.

[MadHound]

30. How typical, how dishearteningly unoriginal, how disappointing

I bring up the realities of what we as a country are facing, propose a solution that, while it would work, bucks the conventional thinking, and somebody thinks that I really want Bush in office. How predictable, how tiresome.

Let me set you straight on a few things. Clark is taking lots of campaign cash, modeling himself on Clinton, in fact is counting on people like you to have waxed nostalgic about Clinton enough to vote for him. Yet though everybody goes on and on about the "peace and prosperity" of the Clinton years, you tend to forget the downsides. Like how our standard of living went down 3.1% APR, how the gap between the rich and everybody else widened to historically record highs. Other things like Clinton's illegal and unconstitutional creation of the whole "soft money" method of campaign fundraising. How under Clinton well paying manufacturing jobs fled this country at an ever accelarating rate, only to replaced by McJobs. How we first became concious of the concept of working poor. Clinton talked a good progressive game, but was completely a tool of the coroporate establishment. Clark is following right along down this path. Sorry, but as the saying goes, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice. . . " I will not follow that pied piper again.

Kucinich is the only Dem candidate who has a truly progressive agenda, and is not beholden to corporate donors. We need in this country a President who will truly represent we the people. A President who is beholden to his corporate masters will continue following the path that leads over the cliff edge, albeit at a slightly slower pace.

No Clark will not suprise me, but I think you will be in for a rude awakening if he does obtain office

[Ficus]

37. right on

"I would rather vote for something I want and not get it rather than vote for something I don't want and get it."

Eugene Debs

:dem: :dem:

[maha]

41. So, either you are a Kucinich supporter

or you've been brainwashed. Is that your argument? It's not real compelling.

I've actually spent a lot of time on the candidates' web pages, including Clark's and Kucnich's, and I've looked into their backgrounds. Clark impresses me a great deal. Do I think he's perfect? No, because he's human. But this charge that he's some kind of Clinton clone is just nuts. (A career military officer a Clinton clone? Puh-leeze...) I don't see anything about his background, character, or policies that would make me think he's a Clinton clone.

Kucinich is probably a nice enough fella but IMO his ideas are impractical and his resume just doesn't cut it for the job as president. And yes, I know, neither did George Bush's. To which I say, see? We're got to hire somebody for this job who is actually qualified for the job. Even if we could get Kucnich elected, if he flames out the GOP will be back in force in 2008.

Further, I've been watching presidential races since Eisenhower ran for re-election in '56. And I've seen lots of good, decent candidates -- candidates I worked for and supported -- go down in flames because they lacked the quality that makes a guy "electable." McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis -- all good guys. Wiped out. We can't afford to take chances this time.

[MadHound]

50. Qualified?! Hah, that's a laugher!

How do you figure that a man who was a career military man, a general, used to top down mode of command, can be qualified for the rough and tumble free for all that is our democracy in action? One rarely has to compromise in the military, you either recieve and follow orders or you give orders. You don't hash and rehash a decision until everybody is at least a bit satisfied. Qualified, puhleeeze!

And no, I'm not saying that Clark supporters are brainwashed. I don't know where you got that from, but you're being a bit disingenous with that charge. What I am saying is that Clark supporters aren't looking at the reality of the situation. While Clark isn't a Clinton clone, he is modeling his campaign and his image after Clinton's. He is getting backing and support from the Clinton camp. He is getting cash from the same sources as Clinton did. He is taking the same positions that Clinton did. It is only logical to infer that he would act like Clinton if he ever got into office, ie another coporate whore who will mouth pious platitudes while stabbing the average working stiff in the back. No thank you, we don't need anymore of that.

[RandomUser]

51. You seem to be under a misconception

That Clark has never had to negotiate and compromise in the "rough and tumble free for all." You seem to believe the only two things a military person knows is "yes, sir" and "no, sir." I would suggest that you read Clark's books.

It's very clear that he was extremely involved in the diplomatic negotiations and political wranglings with NATO, Milosevich, and other areas. He had to. It was part of his job. And his position as SACEUR meant he had to reconcil his two loyalties -- his responsibility to the US chain of command, and his responsibility to the NATO chain of command. This meant he had a degree of independence and autonomy from both. He had to use the US forces as a bargaining chip to get NATO to listen, and he had to use the NATO structure as a bargaining chip to get the US to listen. Until you read the book, you won't understand the unique position of SACEUR and how it's extremely different from any other military position. He literatally was part of two absolutely different chains of command, dual chains up and down, with him as one of the only points where the two chains of US and NATO intersected. He reported to two different superiors, one American and one European, and had two different sets of underlings.

He met with US Congress delegations, state department staffers, as well as the Pentagon. He met with NATO Secretary General, as well as the Chiefs of Defense (the European nation's equivalents of Secretary of Defense) of the various European nations, and ambassadors and generals of varying nations with different interest. He had to understand them and exert his influence on all of them to keep them together and nudge them into doing what he wanted. There is a heck of a lot of politics and negotiations and compromises that goes with SACEUR.

SACEUR is not one job, but two. He even had two different offices and two different staffs. There is no other like it in the entire military. What Clark had to do was absolutely politics, and he succeeded admirably.

[RandomUser]

52. And regarding your statement

One rarely has to compromise in the military, you either recieve and follow orders or you give orders. You don't hash and rehash a decision until everybody is at least a bit satisfied.

Your wrong about the SACEUR. Clark gives numerous examples in his books where he does hash and rehash agreements until he is able to create consensus amongst the various nations, each wanting something different from him. SACEUR is one of the most politically challenging positions in the world and would eat any inept politician alive. It takes really leadership to negotiate and keep the various nations together.

[MadHound]

59. More of a laugher are your replies

Here you are, recommending a book to show me how skilled Clark is in the arts of compromise and diplomacy. And yet that is a book written by Clark himself! Don't you think the book might just be a wee bit self-serving? Thanks for the reccomendation, but I think I'll stick to more objective sources.

[RandomUser]

61. If you're going to denigrate a candidate

Shouldn't you try to see what he's written first?

[RandomUser]

62. And the book

was written before he entered the race. And I don't think the accounts are fabricated. Or do you dispute the description of SACEUR, which is certainly not something that you need to take Clark's word for?

[RandomUser]

68. Check out the Esquire article

by Tom Junod. He recounts how Clark could have made himself look good in his book by relating the heroic story of saving people from a burning truck. But he didn't, and chose to gloss over it in his book, with a short mention, never acknowledging his role in the rescue. It was only when Holbrooke, who was there, mentioned it, that people learned of it. Does this sound like Clark is writing a self-serving book to make himself look good?

[MadHound]

75. When I take any candidate under consideration . . .

I want to be as objective as possible. Any autobiography is going to be inherently self-serving. While it might shed enlightenment on a person's motivations, and is valuable from a historical perspective, it is not a piece of work on which to base one's presidential choice on. It is much more logical to get your information from less interested, more objective sources, which I have done. Besides, how do you know that Clark isn't having his books ghostwritten for him?

I suggest you clear your head of all of the Clark worship you've been engaging in and take a long hard look at your candidate. He is modeling himself off of Clinton, which isn't good. Clinton may have been the best Republican President we've ever had, but he certainly isn't a model for a candidate who is as progressive as Clark is supposed to be.

[RandomUser]

81. And yet you've not addressed

the substance of my contention regarding the role of SACEUR.

[Clark Can WIN]

89. Your (factual) basis for these presumptions?

" He is modeling himself off of Clinton, which isn't good. Clinton may have been the best Republican President we've ever had, but he certainly isn't a model for a candidate who is as progressive as Clark is supposed to be. "

If you think BC was a Republican, well I'm not going to dump on your belief systems but I will say you are wrong about BC.

I'll also say that you will never be happy and get your way in this country. This country will never be far enough left for you. It's just not going to happen any more than some of the hard extreme right crazy freepers are going to get their way and get the country that far to the right either.

Most people are centrists and start to freak if the country gets pulled to far in either direction. This country is getting a little antzy because it has gone too far towards the right wing idealoges now and Clark is the right man to pull us back to the left without freaking everyone out in the process.

[MadHound]

96. One reply for two posts

What do you wish me to address about Clark's status as SACEUR. Clark self promotes in his book, you seem to think he was a god over there, others are a little less enthusiatic, and still more said it was something of a SNAFU. I suspect that it was somewhere between heaven and hell, ie human. I still think that Clark's experience as a career military man, SACEUR or no, doesn't qualify him for high office. Witness our other career military officers who gained the presidency. They either wound up being figureheads for the powers behind them, complete fuck-ups, or just simply overwhelmed by a situation they couldn't understand. This history does not bode well for Clark's chances once in office, and frankly I don't wish to place that kind of long shot bet on him.

And if you think that I'm wrong on Clinton, let me ask you this. Do you think a real Democrat would push through legislation that benefits big business and the rich while screwing the poor and the working man as Clinton did? Remember, this is the same Clinton who pushed through NAFTA, '96 Telecom Act, welfare "reform", WTO, FTAA, soft money campaign contributions, H-1B visas and much much more. If you honestly think that these are the actions of a true Democratic president, then I feel sorry for you. Forty years ago, it was that rabid right-winger who was running on a pro-business platform that wouldn't have hurt us any more than Clinton's did.

And about your conventional wisdom about centerists. You know, they said the same thing about FDR, that he was going to make those "centerists" nervous. Well, four terms and many, many very progressive programs later, I guess those centerists were finally proven right. The country just couldn't handle those radical ideas like "Social Security", or "overtime". Then I wonder why they're still around?

[RandomUser]

97. My contention

was that SACEUR requires one to be involved in achieving political consensus and thus the use of political skills of negotiation and diplomacy.

Do you deny that Clark needed to negotiate and use diplomacy? Do you still maintain that he has only ever needed to accept and issue orders and never negotiate with others to attain consensus?

[MadHound]

102. Yes, to be SACEUR forces you to use negotiation and diplomacy

Whether Clark did that effectively and skillfully is the point of contention. You, using Clark's autobiography, think that he did. I, using more objective sources, think that your conclusion is open to debate. Some sources said he did a great job. Others think he did a horrible job. As I said before, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I am still quite wary of him due to his record, the fact that he was career military(notoriously bad presidents), and the fact that he has deep ties to the Clinton machine.

[RandomUser]

110. Your words

were "One rarely has to compromise in the military, you either recieve and follow orders or you give orders. You don't hash and rehash a decision until everybody is at least a bit satisfied."

And my contention was that as SACEUR, he clearly had to use negotiation, diplomacy, and political skills (whether you think he was adept at them or not). Hence, this portray of him as taking and giving orders and not negotiating much is false.

[MadHound]

112. How many career military people do you know?

I've known quite a few, some grunts, others generals. And from all of my conversations with them it is a well known fact that the military is a top down organization. You either follow them or give them. This is drilled into your head from day one. Yes, once you obtain top positions or special assignments you are allowed some latitude and normalcy. This still doesn't mitigate the fact that Clark is used to dealing with a top down organization. This is what he is most used to dealing with, this is how he is going to approach politics. Generals cum Presidents have done it before him, they will do it after him. It is the nature of the military mind. Bottom up dissension or orders are simply a concept that has become unfamiliar to him. This can be eased somewhat by his handlers and advisors, but the man is still going to be out of his depth in this matter. Not a liability that we need at this point in our history.

[RandomUser]

114. Were they SACEUR?

Do I deny that the military is a top down organization? No. Just as I don't deny there are many republicans in the military. Does that necesarily mean Clark is just like all those people you know? Or that he's a republican? Just because many of them were? Hardly.

The position of SACEUR requires the exercise of political skills, (whether you think him adept at it or not, and thus requires him to operate outside of the top down, no negotiations mindset. The grunts and generals you've known may not have been in such a position, and the demands of SACEUR give considerable latitude and autonomy, since the job description is to act as a diplomatic bridge between the two separate chains of command of NATO and US.

At best, your argument is seems to be based on questionable logic, that Clark's mindset must be the same as that of your friends.

Does being SACEUR mean Clark is perfect? Of course not. All the candidates have flaws as well as good qualities. But to say that someone who has had to play politics as SACEUR would then not be able to understand that one must be able to negotiate and accept differences of opinion is absurd.

Bottom up dissension or orders are simply a concept that has become unfamiliar to him.

[Blue_Roses]

118. Clinton "best Republican President"

this is so absurd that I'm laughing under the table. What is Bush then? our best Democratic president...awwwww..this isn't worth my time

[Justice]

84. Here are More Objective Sources......

This is a list of Commendations and Medals received by Wesley Clark from the USA and from other countries -- mighty impressive


Army Commendation Medal (two awards)
Commander of the Legion of Honor (France)
Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia
Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia)
Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic)
Defense Distinguished Service Medal (5 awards)
First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania)
Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal)
Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany
Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain)
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy
Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom)
Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands)
Legion of Merit (four awards)
Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria)
Meritorious Service Medal (two awards)
Military Service Cross of Canada
NATO Medal for Service (2 awards)
Order of Merit of Argentina
Order of Merit of Morocco

[MadHound]

101. Those medals and ribbons are nice, probably look good on his chest

However the only qualifications that they point out is that he is fit to be a four-star general, not a president. And it is a known fact that most career military men who become president are one-termers, totally inept, or figureheads for those pulling the strings behind the scenes

[Justice]

117. Medals Symbolize The High Regard That Countries Have for Clark

You are changing the subject. I offered several objective examples supporting Clark's character. Clark's role at NATO was military and diplomatic. These medals symbolize the world's view of Clark. The world views Clark very favorably.

Clark is not "most career military men" - THAT'S THE POINT. He doesn't need anybody to pull no stinkin' strings behind the scenes. I believe you are thinking about our current president on that one.

[maha]

54. A four-star general has to deal with politics every minute.

Given Clark's resume and the challenges he's faced, he's better qualified to handle foreign policy than anyone else in the field. Plus, he's a skilled administrator. There are question marks about domestic policy, but he's filling them in day by day.

Your opinions of Clark are based on nothing but your own prejudices and are not worth answering.

[MadHound]

69. As if your opinions aren't subjective?

Here are some different points of view for you

<http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/063003G.shtml>
<http://www.nhprimary.com/stories/09-2003/092003-clintonclark.htm>
<http://stacks.msnbc.com:80/news/969033.asp?0bl=-0>

Looking at all of the former Clinton administrators and campaign advisors in Clark's camp, looking at Clark's positions, looking at all of the sources of campaign cash that Clark is getting(same ones that supported Clinton), you've got to admit that Clinton is throwing a very long shadow on Clark's campaign.

And seeing as you are not wanting or are not able to refute the idea that Clinton wasn't all that great for our society, that in fact he was a corporate whore, what makes you think that Clark isn't going to do the same?

No, my opinions aren't based on my own prejudices. I form my opinions after doing much research and thought, using as objective a process as I can. It is a cold, cruel calculus, but it keeps me from jumping blindly on a bandwagon and then later wondering where it is taking me.

But hey, I don't know you, perhaps you've done the same. Perhaps you liked the Clinton years with the shrinking standard of living, the heartless welfare "reform", the exporting of jobs and US sovereignty via NAFTA, and so forth. If so, then by all means, Clark is your man. I just hope you've gotten on that bandwagon with your eyes open, because if Clark is elected it is going to be a bumpy ride for all of us.

[maha]

77. I got this email from a guy who knows Clark

Mr. Arango is a sometime lurker on DU who gave me permission to use this, so here 'tis.

The reason for this note is to share with you some perceptions of Wes Clark ... I was in the West Point class behind Wes at West Point (class of 1967); we both taught in the Social Science department at West Point and overlapped one year. I took over Wes’ class in political philosophy after he left in 1974 (yes, he taught Political Philosophy, not economics).

Unlike Hugh Shelton, I have the highest regard for Wes’ character and honesty -- If Wes said he never smoked dope, take that to the bank. Wes is an outstanding intellect who has a remarkable ability to place events in a broader context. I imagine that folks like Hugh Shelton (good ole boy, special operations types) were very wary of someone like Wes. Bottom line: I don’t believe Wes has any negative character or integrity issues, and if Gen Shelton has some, he should make them public.

That being said, yes it's true that General Clark has taken on some old Clinton campaign staffers to run his campaign. He's also hired some Bob Graham people who became available when Graham dropped out. He needed qualified people who could put a campaign together fast and he got people who were available. Whether these people will run his campaign well remains to be seen. But this only disqualifies him from being president in a mind that is already absolutely closed to the idea. I assure you that less rabidly biased people do not see the significance of his campaign staff choices that you do.

This statement absolutely floored me:

"Perhaps you liked the Clinton years with the shrinking standard of living,"

Hello? Hello? Are we living on the same planet? Hello?

I weep for the fact that the Clinton economy is no more, and it is not likely to return in my lifetime. Never have so many had such good jobs. Only someone utterly blinded by ideology cannot see that. There were some parts of Clinton's policies I might have changed, but you are NOT going to tell me that the Clinton economy was "bad." Unlike you, I am not brainwashed. I actually remember what happened, not what I'm told.

As for the rest of your statement, you make a huge leap of logic that because the General has some Clinton campaign staffers running his campaign, this means he will copy Clinton policies.

Clark is famous for being an independent thinker, and if elected he'll do what he'll do, and frankly there's no way to predict what situations might arise or how he will face them. But he's a man of experience, intelligence, integrity, and character, and with liberal values. That's about all one can hope for in the real world.

[MadHound]

95. Endorsements from a friend are nice

And go to show up Clark's integrity and character. That still doesn't negate the fact that Clark is being led blithely down the primrose path of Clinton's platform. And it just isn't "some" advisors, it is many and powerful, heavy hitters like Mickey Kantor, James Carville, Paul Begala, Mike McCurry, John Podesta, Bruce Lindsey and on and on. I calls them like I sees them, and this looks like a Clinton campaign redux.

And while you may weep for the Clinton economy that is no more, I've already wept for the Clinton economy that was. You know, the one where we experienced a 3.1% decline in our standard of living each and every year, the one where the gap between rich and poor grew to record proportions, the one where the term "working poor" not only came into being, but became commonplace, the one where thank's to Clinton's NAFTA we exchanged well paying manufacturing jobs for shit paying McJobs, the one where monopolistic practices were not just allowed, but were encouraged. Don't you get it? We're living in the new Gilded Age here, wake up!. It no longer matters whether somebody is a Dem or 'Pug, for the big thing is virtually all candidates are in the back pocket of big business. And you can thank Clinton for sealing that deal with his wonderful innovation, soft money campaign contributions.

If you thought the Clinton economy was wonderful, then you weren't paying attention. It was an economy based on the smoke and mirrors of the financial markets, and it benifitted mainly big business and the rich. They only difference between Clinton's economy and Bushes is the matter of degree and speed. Either way we're still going off the cliff.
If you want some more perspective on this, I suggest you check out Kevin Phillip's "Wealth and Democracy". Its an eye opener

[maha]

107. Waste of time.

"That still doesn't negate the fact that Clark is being led blithely down the primrose path of Clinton's platform."

Goodbye. Enjoy your fantasies.

[MadHound]

111. Buh-Bye!

At least my fantasies have more grounding in facts than Clark groupies' "reality"

Thanks for playing today's show "Defending the Indefensible", on tommorow's show we'll take on John "The Heinz" Kerry!

Good night everybody:hi:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

120. I'm a Kucinich supporter, but I think you're (partially) wrong here

I think DK is the best person for the job of president, and I like both his positions and I trust him because of his proven record. If I think DK can get 15% of my state, enough to send delegates to the convention, he's got my vote.

"How do you figure that a man who was a career military man, a general, used to top down mode of command, can be qualified for the rough and tumble free for all that is our democracy in action?"

Your right that our civilian democracy and the military are quite different, thankfully so. But don't kid yourself - being a general is being a politican.

I've been disappointed with Clark on economic issues - he's just following the standard Kerry line - better than Republicans, but not by much. Personally, I think more highly of Clark than Kerry or Dean, because Clark has proven something - he's a regular middle class American that through smarts, work, and a lot of luck, made it far.

Is Clark a corporate whore? Except for Kucinich and Sharpton, who isn't? I guess I'd rather be in the Working Families party than the Democrats, but I'm willing to compromise to get Bush out, and an establishment liberal government would be better than the outright criminal fascists we have right now.

I need some questions answered about Clark, but I think it's important that Kucinich people, and "lefties" in general, at least have some dialog with him. He's well positioned to win. He'd a million times better than Bush.

[jonnyblitz]

104. another good post by madhound

:hi:

[MadHound]

108. Thanks JB, nice to see reality getting through to somebody

:hi:

[Pastiche423]

113. Reality is getting through

to somebodies!

Thank you for your posts.

Having to outsource for a Democratic candidate saddens and enrages me.

[Clark Can WIN]

31. I like Kucinch as a person but many of his policies would

be a freakin' disaster. He would set the whole Dem party back by decades. No. He's unelectable because he should be.

[aldian159]

86. amen

Clark's a very very close second behind Kerry in my book.

If we lose this election it will set civil liberties back a generation. Clark and/or Kerry can win, Dean, maybe. Dennis is not gonna win, as nice as it would be.

[Mz Pip]

36. I heard Clark speak yesterday

He ripped Ashcroft and the Patriot Act. Wants the damn thing suspended. Lambasted Bush on Iraq, wants the US out and a multinational force in. Says we need to send Bremer back to his counsulting firm and Hallibuton back to Texas.

There is nothing about this that leads me to believe that this would be at all the same with Clark. If you want to make some stuff up about Clark, at least supply some evidence to back up your claims.

MzPip
:dem:

[HFishbine]

74. Clark on Patriot Act and Civil Liberties

"Wants the damn thing suspended."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Clark wanted to take the Patriot Act on a tour of the country so we could talk about it. "In a bookmobile" I believe he said.

I'd really like to be wrong about this, but it's what I remember of his take on the Patriot Act and it's part of my larger concern with Clark and civil liberties.

This concerns me too:

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A7380-2003Sep26¬Found=true

[returnable]

87. The bookmobile

What Clark said was that the vast majority of Americans have no idea what's actually in the Patriot Act. Even people that complain about it haven't read it. Shoot, even the people who voted for it hadn't read it :)

[Clark Can WIN]

91. The bookmobile was a literary device?

It was a way of illustrating the point. He really wants to scrap the whole thing, but would give it all a fair hearing first and air the whole thing out in public.

Then he would scrap it. This way he can't be slapped with the "reactionary" label. Thinking 8 moves ahead.

[Justice]

88. Wrong

What Clark has said is he wants to lay out the Patriot Act in public and see what provisions have been used by the government in prosecuting the war on terror and why -- and whether any provisions duplicate other laws that exist and can be enforced today. He wants to get rid of all of the unused provisions, and all of the duplicate provision (duplicating other laws) -- and for the remaining provisions, the ones used but not replicated - to the extent there are any - question whether they are really necessary, is the enforcement action legitimate and needed. In the end, Clark is saying there would be no provisions left.

[HFishbine]

94. Wish You Could be a Little More Pursuasive

You guys seem pretty convinced Clark wants to scrap the Patriot Act, but I'd be more convinced if you could provide a quote of his views instead of your opinions.

When I look for what Clark has actually said on the matter, I find something a little less demonstrative than what his supporters say:

" I think the Patriot Act needs a good, open air, public review, in the sunshine, before we retain it or modify it, or add to it."

http://www.women4clark.com/transcripts/ndnspeech.htm

"When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review."

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index_np.html

And this, which is the most promising, and which every Clark supporter should have at their disposal (come on guys, do you homework):

"I call on Congress to review the Patriot Act, to assess what works and what needs to be changed. We should immediately suspend the provisions that allow searches and seizure without subpoenas and warrants. Until we know more about any possible abuses of the Act, I would limit the Justice Department's use of its powers to the prevention and prosecution of terrorism.

http://clark04.com/press/release/039/

[Justice]

119. Watch His New Hampshire Town Meeting

from Concord, or the Iowa Town Meeting with Senator Harkin. He said it during both occasions.

[RandomUser]

49. Hardly

Clark won't be responding to corporate "masters" or "masters" of any kind.

If you'll read his book, you'll see it's clear he always tries to do the right thing even when it's not the most personally advantageous thing for himself. Like when he was in charge of NATO. He tried to hold NATO together and do the best to successfully fullfill his mission of stopping the genocide, even when it costs him personally.

He didn't toady up to his republican "masters" at the Pentagon, but pushed for what he believed to be right, knowing fully well that it would damage his relationship with his republican "masters" Cohen and Shelton. He tried to fullfill the charge they gave him, even when he knew fullfilling that charge in the best way possible meant offending his "masters" and would damage him personally.

[HFishbine]

76. Like

when he was a paid lobbyist for Acxiom?

[RandomUser]

83. We've discussed this before, Fishbine

We don't see eye to eye on Acxiom. I don't see it as a nefarious company, but one that does things like compiling phone books. Pepperbelly's girlfriend works for Acxiom, as a matter of fact and has stated as much, I believe. Nor do I believe improving airport security to be a bad thing. I do believe the Patriot Act and the infringement of civil liberties is a problem. But I don't think that we should go back to airport security as it was pre-911, nor would most Americans want us to.

I'm sure you can find all the threads where the Acxiom thing has been hashed and rehashed. It's been resolved to my satisfaction, if not yours.

If you're concerned about data mining, you would be more apt if you were to attack credit card companies and the cookies on your computer.

I don't mean to disparage your concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and data mining. But I don't share your concerns regarding Acxiom.

As a matter of fact, Clark's involvement was partly to ride herd on Acxiom to make sure they properly balanced privacy with security, if I'm not mistaken.

[HFishbine]

98. Yes, we've discussed it before

and each time, you fail to see the point. Let's try again.

"I don't see it as a nefarious company..."

Fine. I don't have an opinion one way or another. The issue is not Acxiom.

"Nor do I believe improving airport security to be a bad thing."

Fine. Nor do I. Please quit setting up a flase choice between airport security good or bad. That's not the issue, and I believe you know that by now.

"If you're concerned about data mining, you would be more apt if you were to attack credit card companies and the cookies on your computer."

Data mining is not the issue and I surf with cookies turned off, thank you.

"But I don't share your concerns regarding Acxiom."

That much is understood. However, that's not a pursuasive argument. It certainly explains your position, but it does zero to convince someone that Clark is not insensitive to the Bill of Rights.

Once again, here is my concern. In an effort to increase airport security, the government, through the TSA seeks to compile, from commercial and public sources, tracking dossiers on its citizens. The underlying problems with this are twofold:

1) The government has never before compiled for survelience purposes, such an extensive collection of data on each of its citizens. Make the argument that the times demand it, if you will. But please accept the fact that this is unprecedented and please recognize that because it is for the purpose of "predictive" law enforcement, there exists a substantative distincction between this and data mining for marketing purposes.

2) Once this database is established, it will be used to conduct a type of high-tech profiling for the purpose of pre-emptive detention. This means we will no longer have the protection of probable cause.

Until the terra boogie man took hold of our collective psyche, law enforcement could execute a search or a detention through one of two ways. Either they could take their evidence to judge (or magistrate) who would evaluate whether the suspicions are valid, or there had to be reasonable prima facia evidence that a crime was being committed or public safety was in jeopardy -- the smell of pot in the air, a driver weaving erratically, or a man walking through the mall carrying an axe.

Under the TSA's plan, there would be no prior judicial review and instead of reasonable evidence of a crime committed or an immenent criminal act about to be committed, one could be detained for having some similarities to a "terrorist profile."

It is a stretch to imagine in the first place that an accurate terrorist profile could be created to begin with -- are we going to build a profile based on Saudi hijackers, Timothy McVei, The Earth Liberation Front, abortion doctor killers, or the box cutter sneak, Nat Heatwole?

Such a system could never be effective. It will result in the detention of people who are not terrorists, but who are from the "wrong" city, subscribe to the "wrong" publications, rent the "wrong" kind of car, have moved the "wrong" number of times, or bought the "wrong" kind of boots.

It will also fail to catch a careful sleeper agent who has lived the "perfect" life but is recruited or, for his own reasons, commits to terrorism. Look at Nat Heatwole, the guy who snuck box cutter on board a couple of Soutwest planes -- all-American college student with good grades. Would such a sytem have flagged him? Not without flagging every other college junior. And now that we know what he did, would we add college students to the "list;" or just students who attend colleges with Quaker tradidions; or just students from Guilford College?

The bottom line is that the TSA's plans for such a system bear too great a cost, in money and, most importantly, in civil liberties. Clark is going to come up against this issue sooner or later. He needs a good explaination. My hope is it will be one that repudiates the notion all together, just as his supporters expect him to defend civil liberties by repudiating the Patriot Act. And tuley, it is a genuine hope because I like him for many other things, but this issue is a real stumbling block for this voter.

[RandomUser]

99. Ask Clark right now -- live chat

http://www.clark04.com/chat/

Ask him yourself, live right now.

[HFishbine]

103. Thanks!

I did. Waiting for an answer now.

on edit: too late. Thanks for letting me know though.

[MadHound]

105. Aah, but in the military you don't have to toady up

But politics is a different game entirely. He is taking massive coporate donations, and those corporations don't pony up the big bucks unless they are certain that their boy will do as he is told. He may have been clean as a whistle while in the military, but once he starts taking that corporate lucre, well he just became a bought and paid for corporate whore.

[Blue_Roses]

28. I watched him speak in New Hampshire

and he is clearly the best candidate we have to beat Bush. I was a Dean supporter and even up till last week was still uncertain between him and Clark, but I have now made my mind up and I have joined Clark's campaign to help in any way I can.

I was so impressed as he spoke with a reporter off the cuff after his speech about this war. He is very knowledgeable and I like his humble nature.

I like Dean, but I just don't think he can carry ANY of the south and the south needs to "worked" and drawn into this race. Big time.

However, I will support whoever gets the nomination.

[Clark Can WIN]

35. Welcome to the Clark collective :-)

no, seriously. After you see the guy in person you just can't help it really. He's amazing to watch in personal interaction.

He got the "it" factor big time.

[knick4life]

44. Edwards & the South

If you're a Democrat concerned about the South, and you should be, than John Edwards is your man. He has a great policy platform and the charisma to take the Dems to victory in '04. Clark doesn't even sound Southern.

[returnable]

48. Clark is cleaning Edwards' clock in SC

And all the other candidates', for that matter.

Edwards isn't even getting traction in his own backyard. Why is that?

[maha]

55. Um, Clark grew up in Arkansas ...

My bro' in Georgia thinks Clark is the only candidate who has a chance in the South.

[Blue_Roses]

115. I like Edwards

and I think he has alot going on for him. IN the very very beginning of this thing, I thought he would be the one for me. But I just don't think he has enough "weight" to carry him. Maybe he just hasn't had enough "air" time with everyone talking over each other. Who knows but I do think he is a viable candidate and would support him if he won the nomination.

[VermontDem2004]

33. Nothing but "I think's"

Unless someone can give me their crystal ball and show me which candidate will beat Bush in a landslide I will get behind him/her immediately unless that same crystal ball shows me that Dean is the President I will stay behind him. But I am glad you support a democrat instead of Bush.

[HootieMcBoob]

67. I purchased a cryastal ball online recently

unfortunately it's on backorder and won't be here for another month at least. Until then the best I can do is offer my heartfelt opinion.

[ElementaryPenguin]

57. I agree. And I also like/admire Dean!

But Clark will absolutely beat the shit out of the Evil War Chimp - and THAT is what's paramount!!

[janekat]

58. Agreed - Clark is our best candidate. (Then Kerry or Edwards)

n/t

[chaska]

71. Weighing in.

Goofy observation du moment: Hegellian philosophy (in a nutshell, that history moves from thesis to antithesis to synthesis) would indicate that because Bush is an exceptional figure in history we will likely move to his polar opposite, should we choose not to re-hire him. And Bush IS an exceptional figure. Never have we had a dumber, less articulate, less accomplished president.

General Clark is Bush's polar opposite. He is not just exceptionally gifted intellectually; his personality - and I'm sure his policies will reflect this - is big, positive, and generous. He will lead us out of the fearmongering and negativity of the Bush presidency. To see the general in a personal appearance, where he is able to speak at length (distinct from the debates, which are a very bad joke) is to realize (if you have an open mind) that for this man not to be president would be utterly criminal. He is simply the best candidate we have, and by no small margin.

[Mz Pip]

73. Big, positive and generous

It was Clark's positive approach that attracted me to him in the first place. I am so sick of the fearmongering and negativity, not just from Bush, but from the other Dem candidates.

Clark sets himself apart by refusing to get baited into going negative against the other Dems. His focus is on Bush, his policies, his cabinet, his agenda. He smiles when he speaks about his vision. His warmth is contageous and real.

MzPip
:dem:

[maha]

78. "General Clark is Bush's polar opposite."

I agree.

[FrenchieCat]

90. Amen.....

A Clark presidency gives one something to look foward to.

Do Dems need gravitas? Yes...then give us Clark or Kerry

Do Dems need Moxie? Yes...the give us Clark, Edwards and Dean

Do Dems need Charisma? Yes.....then give us Clark or Edwards

Do Dems need the "IT" factor? Yes.... then there is only Clark

Do Dems need someone who can steamroll Bush in the category that repugs think Bush has it going on? YES!

LEADERSHIP = CLARK AND HIS VISION FOR AMERICA

"IT'S YOUR ECONOMY AND YOUR WAR, STUPID!"
A REAL MILITARY HERO TELLS A GENUINE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

[Clark Can WIN]

93. Truer words ever spoken? I don't think so...........

" General Clark is Bush's polar opposite"

That is priceless

[West Coast Democrat]

85. I Too Am Leaning Toward Clark

I've been undecided and leaning toward Kerry or Dean, but now Clark is very appealing. I will vote for whomever the Dem nominee is.

[javadu]

92. I'm Supporting Clark

Electability is one of the reasons, but not the only reason I am supporting General Clark. I like his policy positions, and I can't wait to see him debating Shrub. I would love for Shrub to attend the debate wearing the flight suit. It will never happen, but it makes me smile to think about it.

[genius]

116. I'm not voting for him. However, if he were the nominee, he would

likely have the backing of the military in evicting the thief.