Do you support Clark because he is a military man?

[funkyflathead]

Is his military service/record a major reason you are supporting the good general?

[alcuno]

1. He is totally hot.

So's Dean. Kerry and Gephardt are not.

[prolesunited]

5. That is actually the basis

for your vote?

[neuvocat]

2. That's got a lot to do with it.

But speaking out on Selection 2k was what did it for me.

[billbuckhead]

8. A true working class hero.An economics professor.Threatened to shootRusski

Looks like a movie star. Doesn't seem cynical. Wounded in action. Plays well with Euros. Already has worked in the White House, knows where all the secret doors are. Mostly I like how he inspires his supporters to improve themselves as to not embarrass the General.

[KittyWampus]

3. Only Insofar As It Castrates Junior

in the General Election

P.S. And gives him the capacity to cut Pentagon Funding without being labelled Weak on Defense.

[funkyflathead]

6. You make some good points n/t

[Mz Pip]

4. No

I knew nothing about Clark when I first heard him on MTP last June. I didn't follow his CNN work at all.

I heard him talk about the war and how he felt about it and I checked into the Draft Clark campaign. I read a lot about him. I was initially a Dean supporter, but Clark got to me with his calm forceful demeanor. When I listened to Dean I felt like I was sitting in a 3rd grade classroom. I guess I don't like being lectured to.

His military credentials are certainly a plus when we are dealing with the likes of Awol George, but it's not just that.

Clark has so much International experience. I think he can put credibility back in our foreign policy and that he will work well with other leaders. He will be an asset rather than an ass.

MzPip
:dem:

[Dr Fate]

7. I think DEMS need to win back military votes...

...the RW and the media have painted DEMS as "anti-troops"- It certainly does not hurt to have the likes of Clark & Kerry out there dispelling those myths...

[billbuckhead]

9. Courting the military is the honorable way to win in the South.

The military is a great testiment to integration.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I like him for all of the reasons given above

and because he can beat Bush.....and the others can't.

[L.A.dweller]

11. Same here

except his military record does not interest me but i know that other voters are going to take interest in him just for that. Clark is the one that can beat bush and we all know that that is the most important thing.
I saw an interview with Dean on CSPAN and he responses were not inspirational. What is the best advice that your parents gave you?
"Oh i don't know, you have to ask them."
What did your parents say when you told them that you were going to run for president? "They said that it is expensive to run for president."

[TLM]

12. In fact that's a reason I do not support him...

I think we need less militarism in the white house, not more.

[Mattforclark]

13. What a soundbite..........

Ya think Clarkie is more militaristic than Bushie, do ya?

[Pastiche423]

16. Well...

It is all that he's done in his adult life.

I do not want a president that looks at the citizens of the United States through military eyes.

I do not want a president that thinks in military analogies.

And, I do not want a president that spoke at the graduation of the School of Americas and applauded them!

His military career is all be has and that is not near enough to be president of our country.

[TLM]

18. without a doubt Clark is more militaristic...

Bush is a little piss ant playing cowboy compared to Clark.

That's what scares me about Clark… he’s a real experienced military authoritarian.

[globoll]

40. well

we have a wannabe in the White House
go figure

[Mattforclark]

14. I support him

Because of his intelligence (and knowledge) and his positions, which I tend to strongly agree with. And the fact that he seems to think over the long term, which is something notoriously lacking in US politics and politics in general.

As for being a general, by all accounts experiencing war first hand makes one less likely to start wars and helps one to understand that life and death/war and peace actually are serious things that should not be tossed around like a bouncy ball. That applies to other veterans as well, like Kerry, but even more so to Clark.

Oh yeah, and Clark opposed invading Iraq for the same reason as me - cuz it was a bad idea. Did I mention that he is intelligent?

[FrenchieCat]

15. LOL

But did you know he was intelligent and gooooodddd looookkkkinnngg?

[Mattforclark]

28. I'm a straight male, but

I'll let you have that :)

[jumptheshadow]

17. Nope

I'll confess, sometimes his old career stories are a little off-putting to me, although I do think that many Americans will relate to them. I include veterans, military families and anybody who remembers how their families sacrificed during World War II in that equation.

I support Wes Clark for the following reasons:

1) I was against this war and his commentaries were a rare, courageous voice of reason leading up to the war. I believe strongly that he would he made very different and much better decisions than the Bush administration after 9/11.

(Yes, early in the war, he supported the troops and this nation, but, put in context with other remarks, it was always clear that he would have taken a different path than Bush.)

2) Clark is right on almost all of the issues. If he is given a proper forum, he will make common sense, convincing arguments that may help save some of our most cherished American freedoms and programs.

In this polarized nation, where the right-wing seems so intent on hijacking our rights and savaging the middle class and the poor, it makes sense to me that somebody who feels as truly patriotic as Clark would make a considered decision to bolster the opposition party.

3) Clark clearly pictures himself as a public servant. I think he can tap into an American idealism we haven't seen since the Kennedy administration.

4) Clark understands international diplomacy and can help repair the damage that has been done by Bush. He is an intelligent man who clearly is capable of great personal growth. He worked his way up from the lower middle class and, like Clinton, he is an antidote to the pampered cluelessness of the Bush family.

5) Clark will clobber Bush.

[KT2000]

19. I support Clark

because he has a clue about what leadership is.
When he speaks, he seeks to lift up and inspire, like JFK - something this country really needs right now. He became the person he is while serving in the military but he knows of what Eisenhower warned about the military/industrial complex.

He would be much more judicious in using the military than Bush has been.

[Pastiche423]

21. He may know how to lead soldiers

but he knows jack shit about leading citizens. No history of that at all.

[jumptheshadow]

27. Your candidate

What are his foreign policy credentials?

[Pastiche423]

31. What are clark's

besides bombing the fuck out of another country's schools, churches, hospitals and tv stations? And let's not forget dropping depleted uranium and cluster bombs on innocent men, women and children!

Is that what you mean by general "Already the scent of victory is in the air" clark having foreign policy credentials?

I believe in diplomacy, not killing.

[Shakespeare]

32. Clark, hero of the Dayton Accords

That, Pastiche, was diplomacy. You're absolutely entitled to dislike any military action at all, but please don't be dishonest about the entirety of Clark's accomplishments.

[jumptheshadow]

34. Well, we agree there

I believe in diplomacy rather than killing, too. And I think that a sensitive and intelligent person who has first-hand experience with the life and death decisions made during war will be more reluctant to pull the trigger on "optional" wars like the one in Iraq.

Clark has had to work with the leaders and the commanders of dozens of countries during his career. The man has a wealth of knowledge about nations, international cultures and geopolitics.

Now, pledge to me that your candidate will 1) Never launch a war, and, 2) Will never participate in a war that causes civilian casualties. Swear to me that your candidate is a diplomat who will 1) Not react emotionally to volatile international situations, and, 2) Will parse his words carefully before making public statements about sensitive international politics.

[Pastiche423]

38. The candidate that I support

does not have the blood of thousands of innocent men, women and children on his hands.

Believe it or not, there are billions of people on this planet we call earth, that do not condone the killing of innocents.

[jumptheshadow]

42. You didn't answer my question

Will you swear that if your candidate is elected president he will launch no wars that kill innocent civilians?

Has your candidate ever supported any wars that killed innocent civilians?

[Pastiche423]

49. I cannot predict the future

I can only examine the past.

In order to select a DEMOCRATIC candidate we want to support, we examine what each candidate has done, on record.

clark's *only record is his military career. The only record he has, that can be examined, is of killing innocent men, women and children.

My candidate has never killed innocent men, women and children. My candidate has a clear and proud record of governing, a record we can examine.

IRT issues, clark is nothing more than a pig in a poke. He, at this point, is all talk, and no walk.

It is important to me, to know what my vote is "buying". W/my candidate, I can see, w/my own eyes what he has done, for years, for the DEMOCRATIC Party.

W/clark, a vote would be a blind vote. There is nothing to trust there. Nothing.


*only:

W/exception of his job as a lobbyist for Acxiom, a Big Brother privacy invader.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[jumptheshadow]

58. I agree with every word you've said

And you've said it well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. Should have been addressed to Pastiche423

I apologize for directing the "are you nuts?" comment at you. Got caught skimming the thread in a rush! We do have a similiar opinion on this one. Thanks for taking the case of mistaken identidy gracefully.

[teevee]

48. so what would your candidate

have done in general clark's position? gently whisper in milosovic's ear that rape and torture and ethnic cleansing are naughty?

leaders have to react to tyranny.

that's why Clark is running:)


who's your candidate again?
shoo..shoo....

[tokenlib]

20. Who better than a general to finally deal with defense spending..,

General Clark has already pointed out that Republicans like weapons systems a lot more than people. He has also said that a billion dollar budget item will not be safe from scrutiny just because someone has placed a "secret" stamp on it.

The Pentagon has gotten blank checks for military contractors, ships the Navy did not want, artillery the Army did not want, waste and corruption. If democrats got too critical--they were weak on defense. Clark could do a lot of good.

And he is sufficiently progressive on domestic issues--

[Donna Zen]

22. Why oh why oh why-o

First the stars: military doesn't do it for me....except, there was one day during the 2000 long count that scared the devil out of me. That was the day that James Baker the III played the military card. Remember? We have been drifting. The military is a wing of the GOP and that should be of great concern to all of us. Oh sure some rank and file vote Democratic, but fewer and fewer every year. This to me is the most dangerous developement in the universe. It threatens everything. I want those Four Stars with a D beside them.

And Wesley Clark plays the piano and sings. Yep. And he can do it in four languages.

He reads three books a week.

He came out against the so-called partial birth abortion bill. He came out against the Cuban sanctions. He is proud to have taken the fight for better education, better housing, and better working conditions for the Army to the congress. And, he won. He takes the environmental melt down we are facing very seriously. That fabulous French ambassador (you know the one.) said Clark should move to France after NATO. He cares about the Constitution! He is not afraid of Tom DeLay or any other republican. He knows where the Pentagon money is stashed. He is against the 3 strikes law. He hates the Patriot Act because he is All Patriot, No Act.

He is a liberal, he just doesn't pretend to be one in the Senate as the minority leader.

And finally...he can get us out of Iraq! He can...oh yes sweet thing, he can.

Beyond that, well...I'll get back to you.

Things I disagree with him about: Mountain Dew, those marshmallow easter peeps, and the flag-burner thingy. However, I'm kinda tired of the repubs calling us flag-burners anyway, And since they will never do squat about it, because they just want the issue they don't want the grief, I ain't worried. Besides it is a legislative issue not a presidential one. The president has zero to say about it.

[Doomsayer13]

23. it helps

in cold political terms, we need a military man on the ticket to balance out the national security weaknesses Democrats usually have.

Clark's military stature and experience in dealing with foreign countries make him ideal for that balance.

[Silverhair]

24. What's wrong with that?

I support him for many reasons. He is brilliant, has good international credentials, isn't an extremist, etc. That he has served our nation with a military career helps a lot.

Think about this: Anybody that is sharp enough to have had the military career that Clark has had, could have been a multi-millionaire in private business. But he chose to serve the country.

[Palacsinta]

25. Feminine intuition

He hit my mother/grandmother brain stem survival cells or whatever. I know that sounds emotional and unscientific etc. But, I swear that's what happpened the first time I heard him speak. And Clark being a military man was a HUGE part of it. He's the right man for THESE times for all the reasons up above.

[DemCam]

62. Hit me hard, too...

And shocked the caca out of me....always ranted against the military. But this guy talks about the America that I want...and dimly remember.

And everyonceinawhile...his smile knocks my socks off! So did JFK's and Bill's. It ain't a bad thing. It's chemistry.

[mmonk]

26. Part of it

I wouldn't vote for a military man who had no problems with current US policy. But mostly I support him in his world view of international co-operation in addressing world problems. He has worked with and knows world leaders. His outlook is progressive (21st century that is). And on Bush's main strength (the perception Bush is a strong leader that makes us and the world safer), he is the best to dismantle that myth.

[Scott Lee]

29. Clark's not evil, but I oppose more military men in power

Call it a gut instinct, but one of the main reasons we are in this worsening mess is the over militarization of our national doctrines and policies. And of course, the nagging reminder that such militarization and glorification of the military is a factor in the quickening of fascist regimes.

I don't like what it indicates.

[SahaleArm]

30. The military industrial complex.

Is being driven by chickenhawk government officials, Bush, Cheany, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Kristol. In fact, you'll notice that none of the above has any 'miltary' experience. On the other hand, the person that warned America about the dangers of such a complex was a General.

[Scott Lee]

51. Best bit of advice Eisenhower ever gave

But unfortunately he went on to soil his own good words by allowing the US military to be used to prop up profits for United Fruit Company by overthrowing Guatemala's elected government.

Oh well.

[SahaleArm]

65. Every president since WW-II...

has been guilty of propping up banana republics.

[Scott Lee]

68. True - which means it's high time to put a stop to it

Or even past time. This is why I rail so much against the rotten Monroe Doctrine, which is the keystone of our military-imperialist tendencies.

[cally]

33. NO...it's why it took me so long to support him

I don't like Washington insiders and all those who just want power for powers sake. I want an outsider. * is so much a inside elite that a good candidate will destroy him on this issue. That left me with Dean, Edwards, or Clark. I initially supported Kerry for his long history of supporting progressive causes. I like Dean but I don't think he has a populist message. He came from money, doesn't have much experience with those in need and just seems aloof. I like Edwards but some of his positions scare me. So, I support Clark. I watch him interact and he seems to get it. His positions are great. He is military but understands that the military is there to protect our rights. After years in the military, he is not isolated like the elite from real folks. I believe that it will take a military man (I meant man not woman) to really address the problems in the military/industrial complex. I still don't like the military focus in his speeches but I believe he is running for President to serve. So it's time for a change. A liberal military man that will win. Let's take on the common ideas about the party loyalties and make a stand.

[vision]

35. I don't "support" him necessary

Right now my choice is Kucinich. If he does not last to be the Presidental candidate I would seriously consider Clark. He has some excellant things and has attack Bush. So I certianly think that he would be an acceptible choice.

His military experience has little impact on my choice.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Don't forget that to date,

he is the only speaking out and calling PNAC, well PNAC. The Right is calling him crazy for it.....but he's not backing down.

[democratreformed]

36. I guess in a round about way.

I don't necessarily support him just because he is a military man. It just so happens that being a military man has led him to situations where he has worked with other world leaders. Because those leaders have a respectful relationship with him, I feel that he has an important advantage over the other candidates when it comes to sorting through our current foreign policy mess.

I realize that there are other important issues facing our country, but, I don't feel that these can be worked on until we fix our current situation with the rest of the world. This war, along with the attitudes that were conveyed before and during the war, have affected our country in numerous ways - only one of which is the economy. I have never been so embarrased to be an American in all my life. Isn't that sad?

[LoneStarLiberal]

39. Partially, But That's Not The Deciding Factor

His military record is a positive thing in my opinion.

His leadership experience both in the Army and as NATO commander are more important to me than his military service per se.

I've always liked his message as opposed to other candidates' anger, even before he was "draftable" and before he was an official candidate.

His leadership experience was the deciding factor for me.

[globoll]

41. no

He has what it takes to beat Bush :)

[Pastiche423]

43. What EXACTLY

is it that he has that would beat whistle ass, other than his uniform?

[bowens43]

44. As far as I'm concerned it's reason NOT to support him.

I don't believe that someone accustomed to issuing orders and having them followed without question can function in a civilian leadership role.

[teevee]

46. Then Vote me for Prez next year!

I've never been in charge or given orders to anyone.

That's horrible logic.
so you mean that anyone that's ever been in charge of others is capable of being a president? Well, then let's posthumously impeach Washington thru Nixon. We'll wait till the others die to do the rest.

clark is my candidate because he's intellectually fair minded and he has the best chance against Bush in 2004.
And he can lead us into 2012, when he'll endorse me for President, since I'll still have no responsibility or leadership experience!
(p.s. this isn't china. he wasn't "ordering" people to kill their newborn daughters.)

[Scott Lee]

69. The military should be kept like your pitbull

On a tight leash, in a fenced yard. If he gets out and has the run of the neighborhood, there'll be hell to pay.

[mlawson]

45. No, because I think he has the best chance to beat bush.

And due to the urgency of that happening, that is my ONLY criterion this time.

IMO, Clark can win a large part of the military vote; 'white males' can bring themselves to vote for a Dem, if it's him; the media whores will have a hell of a time turning his image negative. Yes, part of this is because he is ex-military, but I can see him picking up a lot of this support, regardless of his military background.

[Selwynn]

47. No (well I'm still undecided but I like Clark)

I lean towards clark because I like what he says, and I like how he says it, and I like the way he expresses his vision of ideal america - its something that I share. His speeches and chosen way of expressing his message resonates with me more strongly than that of other candidates. The only exception is Kucinich - his message IS my message. If he gets the nomination, which I know he won't, I would vote for him eagerly. But if not him then I do like what Clark has to say a lot.

[andym]

50. He could break apart the Republican party

He could break apart their entire coalition by
siphoning off the patriotic and the military vote that
has not been with the Democrats since Nixon and Vietnam.

If this happened (that is, they lose the "patriotic" citizens), the tensions in their coalition
may cause the Republican party to splinter:
economic conservatives versus the religious right
neocons versus isolationists

[Pastiche423]

52. ...at the same time, losing the liberal base

[andym]

60. He won't lose the liberal contigent

I disagree.

I don't believe that he will lose very much of the liberal contigent of the Democratic party.

1) His positions are all within the spectrum
of the current candidates for the nomination.
With his overall positions being most close to
Howard Dean, a moderate with good liberal support.

His on-the-issues, has him as a liberal,
http://www.ontheissues.org/Wesley_Clark.htm
though it has not been updated to take into account his
most recent positions.


2) While his military background and flag burning
amendment may lose a few liberals* (and libertarians),
most "liberals" are by definition open-minded and will
seriously consider him. Judging by DU, he does have
liberal support. He may very well have more liberal support in
the general election than Gore, who lost some of this sector to Nader.

*Pure pacifists are unlikely to support a military man (or actually
any of the candidates that supported any recent war, like Afganistan),
but these liberals usually can't support the Democratic nominee anyway, given their dedication to absolute non-violent means of
persuasion.

3) His post military career, and paid talk at an Arkansas
republican party dinner in 2001 in which in he said some nice things about Bush and the neocons will turn off some liberals, but most
will appreciate that he has now called out these same neocons as
dangerous people who are leading this nation astray and
given that he actually knows these people, his words are a powerful
indictment of their intentions.


4) Many liberals will vote for and support any nominee who opposes Bush from the left or center.


5) Most importantly, his history in the military and personal
demeanor, suggest that he is honest. He was not from the
Special services or military intelligence, where he might have
had practice in "undercover" activities. He worked in a branch
of the military where one must be straightforward with one's
colleagues in order to be successful and advance. This was probably even more true in Clark's case since he was something of a maverick in his opinions. He even put himself in personal danger to try to save some negotiaters whose vehicle plunged down a cliff in Bosnia in 1995, which demonstrates that he acts on his convictions.

[CWebster]

53. What else is there?

?

[joshan361]

54. i support Clark because

He is a man of great intellect and strength but the biggest reason is his deep compassion for our country and what we should stand for!

[Ksec]

55. Me

I support him because of his Integrity. Media is tryin their asses off to diss him any way they can.

[theboss]

57. It's a tie-breaker for me

If two candidates are even in my mind, I'll vote for the veteran. It tends to show that they are serious about "service" (or at least they were at one time in their lives).

[CWebster]

59. That depends

If the candidate uses his service to say in so many words--"Look at me, I am a big strong man and have these medals and I want all you kids to think about joining up and serving your county to be patriotic heros in the fight of good against evil"...Then he can shove it. Unfortunately, that is what is usually shoveled and the naive lap it up. OTOH, if someone came along and said, "Yeah, I was a hotdog when I joined up and I fell for all the rhetoric, but I found out that war is killing and maiming and death and destruction and it turns good and decent people into animals and you generals can take these medals and shove them"....well that man gets my vote.

[Myra]

63. It's one significant factor, yes

Along with the other impressive
accomplishments on his resume, both
academic and military, most of which
everyone knows by now so I won't list here.

[TexasPatriot]

64. nope

3 things:
i support him because, somehow, i sense that he's a guy that is really honestly trying to help.
i support him because he's certainly one of the brightest candidates.
and i support him because he feels like someone that knows how to win.

[union_maid]

66. No, but it doesn't hurt at the moment

If Clark was a different sort of military person, I wouldn't be backing him. It's not just a matter of anyone with military credentials. It's the fact that his rank of four star general came at the height of a career that started out impressive in high school and continued that way right up to today. It's his brain that I support. Well, brain combined with personal courage and integrity wrapped up in a very attractive persona. That's a powerful combination and exactly what you want in a candidate. Before Clark got in I watched the candidates, trying to see them with the detached eye of a swing voter and I felt that they all came across as not really presidential candidate material - which in this day and age is not the same as presidential material, unfortunately. Gore had finally seemed to grow into that stature and now he wasn't running. Clark seemed to have it ready made and yes, that does make all the difference. I also agree with Dean about wanting those votes of low and moderate income people who vote Republican against their own best interests. I just don't think that Dean is the best person to accomplish that. I think Clark would be better at it.

[DemExpat]

67. No, but because of his achievements and experience in the military

especially his international experience and non-partisan mentality, I think he'd be a kick-ass President.
Wes.....:yourock:

His intelligence, integrity, likeability and good looks are icing on the cake. :loveya:

Dean may be his VP if he wants to.......:D

:kick:
DemEx