Clark's first campaign ad

[Julien Sorel]

https://secure.clark04.com/indexVideo.php

Seems to be a good week for the Clark campaign, although there's a long ways to go.

[Renew Deal]

1. That's it. I am voting for him now.

:evilgrin:

[Mz Pip]

2. Nice ad

While Wes Clark was preventing genocide, GW was screwing up Texas.

MzPip
:dem:

[Julien Sorel]

3. I liked it, too, and when I was told what the theme was,

I was afraid it would be some hideous jingoistic thing, but I thought it was tasteful, and really painted him in a good light, while staying on the right side of pandering.

[RichM]

5. A few problems with your post -

You managed to make 2 major blunders in 1 poorly thought-out sentence.

1) Generals do not "prevent genocide." They merely carry out orders decided upon by the civilian leadership. They are technicians, not policy makers, thus deserve no real credit for good actions, nor particular blame for bad actions. Clark did what the Clinton admin ordered him to do -- just as General Paulus did exactly what Hitler ordered him to do.

2) The US does not "prevent genocide." You are naive & foolish to believe that military equipment & personnel are EVER sent into combat on the basis of morality & altruism. There is always a careful calculation involved, of economic & geostrategic goals, & that is always the reason military actions are taken or not taken. There are no counterexamples in US history.

[Bertrand]

10. A few problems with your post

1) by your own logic, since Clark would be carrying out the orders he would be the one carrying out the actions which would have "prevented genocide". Also, "taking orders" is a naive characterization (imo) of what a military officer does considering Clark planned and executed the logistics of the campaign, not to mention lobbying the Pentagon and the whitehouse in order to shape the agenda. All soldiers follow the civilan command, but they are the ones with the military mind and as such are depended upon by the civilan authority to advise them on the best course of action. Generals are not only Technicians, but policy makers.

2) the two (Self-interest and preventing Genocide) are not mutually exclusive.

[democratreformed]

18. Another problem with your post

If you had read "Waging Modern War" by Wesley Clark, you would realize that he was indeed very instrumental in forming policy.

[Mz Pip]

19. Sigh.

Give it up. Your condescending attempt to "educate" me on the lessons of history fall deaf on this pathetically naive and foolish Clark supporter.

Give it a rest. Just write me off as a hopeless dimwit and move on. Maybe you'll have better luck on the next guy.

MzPip
:dem:

[Kahuna]

33. LOL! Ditto for me.

Accept that I am a hopeless Clark sychophant and move on.

[mobuto]

22. Not normally

but the irony of course is that the biggest dirt the Republicans can find on Clark is that he was "fired" from his position as SACEUR. Why was he fired? Because he angered many in the Pentagon - precisely Bill Cohen and Hugh Shelton - with his eagerness to engage in public policy and lobby the Administration and NATO member countries for what he believed in. A good general would have just done what he was told. But Clark understood the immediate danger that Slobodan Milosevic presented in precisely the way his immediate superiors didn't, and he used his own initiative to do what he knew was right, even though it cost him his military career.

Clark did what the Clinton admin ordered him to do -- just as General Paulus did exactly what Hitler ordered him to do.

With all due respect, that may be the worst metaphor you could ever use, because von Paulus is most remembered to posterity for disobeying Hitler's orders. Hitler ordered von Paulus to fight to the death. He even promoted von Paulus to Field Marshall because no German Field Marshall had ever surrendered on the field. Nevertheless von Paulus, with only 91,000 of his men left alive, surrendered the Russians, and Paulus spent the rest of the war criticizing Hitler and the Nazis.

The US does not "prevent genocide." You are naive & foolish to believe that military equipment & personnel are EVER sent into combat on the basis of morality & altruism. There is always a careful calculation involved, of economic & geostrategic goals, & that is always the reason military actions are taken or not taken. There are no counterexamples in US history.

That's all well and good. And my response would be, fine. We didn't go into Kosovo only to stop the genocide, we went in to prevent the further destabalization that genocide would bring to the Balkans, an area of vital strategic interest. Milosevic came damn close to provoking a war in Macedonian and Albania in addition to Kosovo. And if that happened, what was to stop it from spreading to Greece? It is in the ultimate interest of the United States to promote democracy and ensure human rights everywhere in the world. Where human rights are endangered is where our own interests are endangered.

[RichM]

23. You are right about von Paulus; I stand corrected.

However, about this phrase here:

It is in the ultimate interest of the United States to promote democracy and ensure human rights everywhere in the world. Where human rights are endangered is where our own interests are endangered.

If that was the slightest bit true, why has the US backed death squads all over Central America? Why the support for Saddam, Mobuto (your namesake, not you!), Marcos, the Contras, Suharto, the Shah, Pinochet, the rightists in Brazil in 1964, the coup against Arbenz in 1954, etc etc? I'm surprised that someone like yourself who's read some books hasn't yet figured out that the US is actually opposed to democracy and human rights, & that it merely uses these pretty words to deceive its own gullible domestic population.

The US is interested in control. It merely postures as the defender of human rights. And indeed, it's a clever propaganda strategy - succeeding, as it does, in fooling most Americans. However, as most in the Third World have known for a long time, it's no more than a clever propaganda strategy.

[mobuto]

30. I would argue that when we have backed

such regimes it has almost always proved harmful to American interests. I'm not saying we shouldn't or won't be pragmatic in formulating foreign policy, but that pragmatism and idealism frequently mesh when we think hard enough - it is possible to do well by doing good.

I think the examples you presented show how supporting these kinds of people out of expediency almost never wind up to be in America's long term national interest.

How are we better off for having propped up Saddam?

What did Mobuto ever do for us than take our billions for his own personal enjoyment? Its not like American corporations were ever able to invest in Zaire, and Mobuto's legacy is a mess so muddled and bloody that it crosses borders to confoud every legitimate US policy objective in Central Africa.

Its in response to Marcos that the Phillipines is host to a number of terrorist groups, one of which is tied to Al Qaeda, and several of which have attacked, kidnapped or killed Americans.

I could go on (and if you want, I will). I'm no starry-eyed idealist. But time and time again you get back to the same equation: it is in America's interests to promote democracy and human rights. When we act expediently to support regimes that run counter to our ideals as a nation, we almost always wind up confounding the very policy objectives we're trying to reach. Are there exceptions? Sure. I'd say support for Stalin in the Second World War was necessary, and I could probably think up a few more. But they are the exception, rather than the rule.

[BootinUp]

28. Not that this will sway you...

because you seem to be closed minded with regard to Clark.

but...check out this recent video where Clark talks about the subject of his service in Bosnia and Kosovo to get another view of the man that is not just another General.

http://real.usatoday-na-central.speedera.net/ramgen/real.usatoday-na-central/031117_clark2.rm

[Spazito]

4. Good first ad!

It starts with his strength in national security but also touches on the domestic issues. Well done!

[Ksec]

6. Reagan was allowing genocide

while Clark was fightin for his country.

[oxymoron]

7. Very well done...

great for a first ad.

[SayitAintSo]

8. That was great !

Made me have to go and donate a few bucks to his campaign....

[ShaneGR]

9. Very nice.... I like the tone and the music.....

Great job.

[dobak]

11. 4 languages?

anyone think that might be a stab at Bush's problems with speaking English?

Great ad!

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. I can't connect! :( Anyone else having trouble connecting? n/t

[unfrigginreal]

13. With the Ad or the General?

:evilgrin:

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. I WISH!

:loveya: LOL! ~~~~~~~~~~swooning~~~~~~~~~~



The video. :(

[RandomUser]

35. If you're in IE

right click and choose to "save target as" on the format you want. It will download the file and then you can view it.

[Skwmom]

14. That ad is awesome!

I will have to donate again.

[Langis]

15. I loved it

Notice how he didn't attack any of the other candidates. You won't see that from anyone else.

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. Oh my!

He looks REALLY GOOD in black and white! :7 That was a wonderful ad. He makes the current midget minded prez look even worse than before. My G-D! There's NO comparison to be made between the shrub and this brilliant man! NONE! Great ad. Watch the campign supporters balloon! :bounce:

[Kahuna]

36. I took some black and white shots of Clark at some rallies...

Now I can't wait to get them developed. :7

BTW, I have been using B&W film exclusively for the past 5 years. I love B&W photos. They're more artistic looking.

[DemCam]

20. Beautiful...style and

substance. Well-done...and I will proudly send it out.

I was worried abut too much fatigues...but no.

All in good taste.

[Tatiana]

24. Agreed.

He's classy and he's got the style plus the substance.

Very tasteful ad.

[retyred]

21. NICE!!!!

Real Nice!!!!!



Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

[Clark Can WIN]

25. Is it ok to cry?

I loved that thing. Wow. That was exactly what we need.

[DemCam]

27. I keep tearing up.

Thank goodness I didn't do it when he came swinging out of the hotel yesterday coming straight to me. I'm sure everyone of us there felt that he was coming just "to me."

But we know he's coming for all of us.

Oh, my...I sometimes embarrass myself. But he does create a powerful emotional connection and this ad shows that.

[DemExpat]

26. That ought to win some votes!

Great first ad.....and he will make an extraordinary President!

:kick:

DemEx

[chaska]

29. I think even Gee Dubyah would have to admit...

that the black and white was "fabulous".

[DoveTurnedHawk]

31. SUPPORT CLARK'S NEW AD CAMPAIGN HERE

The Clark campaign (as opposed to the blog) is promoting its first "official" online fundraiser with an actual goal: $220,000! If you like the ad, please help keep it on the air by donating here:

https://secure.clark04.com/indexVideo.php

DTH

[Kahuna]

32. Okay. I'm biased. But I think the ad is absolutely beautiful..

and well done. When I heard the ad would tout his military career, I thought I would be "hokey." This ad is beautiful. The black and white photography throughout is stunning. The shots selected are stunning and photogenic. The last shot with that beautiful boyish smile is stunning. This ad gave me the "warm and fuzzies." If it makes others feel warm and fuzzy like it did to me he will get a positive response from voters. Voters want to feel warm and fuzzy about a presidential candidate.

[Kool Kitty]

34. I'm biased, too.

Loved it!