How does Wes Clark announcing "Clark '08" help our nation?

[ZootSuitGringo]

I am very happy that Wes Clark has (more or less) announced his candidacy for Prez in '08.

Since I have heard this, I have been wondering how this helps our nation and the Democratic party?

Here are my thoughts:
Clark is talking "real" christian values and how "the Christian Right is wrong"; Election day as a national holiday; Dems as strong on national security; and Iraqi and MiddleEastern democracy being nothing for BushCo. and the GOP to crow about (and they are crowing loudly).

These are the issues that defeated Democrats in both 2002 and 2004: Values, national security and the voting apparatus in this country.

In a long run, Clark and his creds running early for '08 will allow the Democratic Party to better frame and control the GOP message and the GOP primaries:

The GOP may be forced to back a GOP candidate who has National Security creds, which could be a nightmare for the likes of Frist, Santorum, Jebbie and Newt--leaving more attractive moderates such as Hagel and McCain to gain some juice and to splinter the GOP party that much more.

It may force Bush to consider pulling our troups from Iraq that much earlier, so that the Iraq War is not an issue by 2006 and 2008. That can only be a good thing.

It may keep a lid on Bush's saber rattling at Iran and Syria, considering that GOP building on this issue as a way of playing their national security trump card as an election issue becomes just a little bit more difficult. And we know that the GOP will use a war to win an election, don't we?

Clark announcing early also helps build the Dems reputation on National Security EARLY. We need to work on the Dems' image as one that can keep Americans secure. Starting this early can only be another good thing. Getting rid of the meme( Dem weak on defense) can be achieved over time. It can start now (not later) with Wes in the race.

Clark talking christianity and the Religious Right being wrong should and can become a part of the American dialogue on values....now, rather than later. We have to get christians to understand that Republicans are not the moral ones. They are not God's chosen people. A nice consistent drum beat with this message can start to sip into the conscience of moderate voters.

And yes, we need a National Holiday on election day. If a voter has to stand in line for 7 fucking hours to vote, he/she shouldn't have to go to work afterwards. A holiday was a cry that we heard right after election 2000, and election 2004, and then the idea just disappeared and nothing changed. We need all Dems pushing this initiative now. It is an idea who's time has come, and all Americans should want this. There really is no rational for NOT having this holiday. Let the Republicans try to explain themselves for being against such a day. They will try to discourage it, but their explanations may make them look as anti-democratic as they really are.

Your thoughts?

[ZootSuitGringo]

1. I will also add

that Clark in the race allows Dems to keep up the criticism on Bush and the mishandling of the war, and the disappearance of Bin Laden, all issues the Bush admin would prefer we all forget.

When Clark called Bush "your President" on Bill Mahr, that was a low blow on Bush. Clark was offered the chance to correct himself. He didn't.

I see that as a plus. Keeps the current politicos from being accused of Bush Bashing, because it's Clark doing the bashing; a 4 star General who won the last "just" war fought by America.

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. If Clark wants to start a discussion, that's great.

I don't think declaring himself as a candidate 3 years early is really all that wise, however. Why give the Pukes (i.e. Rove) a target to focus on?

Hopefully the General will focus his message on why it's crucial to change Congress in 2006, and leave 2008 out of it, for now.

[Pepperbelly]

25. I expect that he knows EXACTLY what he's doing.

He has been through a national campaign now, both as a candidate and as a candidate surrogate on the stump. He has seen what these sociopaths do in the process. He has now been up close and personal with he precise nature of gop sausage making.

Maybe he's smoking them out way before anyone else is paying attention. Maybe he knows precisely how he intends to win.

[w13rd0]

45. I like the pukes....

...having a target to focus on. They air so many scandals, several a day, we never get a target to focus on, that's why so much of our angst is aimed at Bush. But we always have to take these detours too, because they are important (Bolton, DeLay, etc). Giving them a target to focus CAN let us channel their energy off and dissipate it.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

89. Rove has already targeted Clark

Scallywag that a Rove be,... he's already used MSM and Congress to subvert Clark's message of Bush's administrative failures and lies regarding Iraq, imo. I don't doubt that the Neocons have already presumed that Clark will run.

In fact, Victor Yurschenko's (Ukraine) speech before Congress on April 6, 2005 at 11am, was not coincidental, when scheduled subsequent to Clark's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee at the same time. Yurschenko could have esily given his statement during primetime the night before.

However, "who" wanted to hear HASC members admonished Perle and the PNAC'kleheads for providing misinformation about Iraq ina broadcast before the American public.

--------------------------------------------------------

"Were we 'suckered' into Iraq?" -

Rep Jones (NC) directed this question directly to Perle, in reference to a statement made by one of Generals Keane who said we were suckered. Jones wanted to know what role Perle's 2202 statement was in was involved with Policy Council headed by David Wormser and Office of (? - ineligible) by Douglas Feith, and the "misinformation" they may provided. Jones stated how conflicted by how Congress was told to get after Saddam, with poor evidence and yet no WMD. Jones further added that he was frustrated at this (written) statement (by Perle). He mentioned that he attended a funeral recently, and had written over 900 letters to families of service men and women who had been killed in Iraq, and said he will write all the families as well.

Perle countered coldly, "I do not understand the source of your frustration" then stated that there were actually multiple reasons to go after Saddam, (even though this was not articulated in his 2002 report?) and he again went back to blaming the intelligence agencies.

Rep. Jones frustration immediately deepened when he charged Perle that he wished, "...someone in this administration would just apologize"!

Acknowledging Jones, Clark agreed that policy makers must be held accountable and that they should have known that "intelligence" of this nature should had been given a very "wide margin" of doubt. Clark defended the commitment of all those in intelligence agency, and mentioned that they must be recognized only for their abilities, but "....although they were wrong, no one ever said, that they were always going to be right!"

source: http://knightrider.forclark.com/story/2005/4/6/181535/9339

Of course,... while MSM focussed their camera's on Yurschenko's speech - live,... who really cared watching at 11am?, ...on a work week?, ... employees of our Federal Gov't?

[Adelante]

3. I must be in the minority

But I don't think Clark did "announce." It seems blown out of proportion to me. I think he's a whole lot more concerned about the issues you show in your post than about what he's doing in '08. And I think they are what he wants us to be concerned with, as well.

And, yes, all of it is good for the Dems. All of it is great for the Dems.



Don't shoot me, Clarkies :grouphug:

[Sparkly]

5. I know what you mean -- it was more an indication than an Announcement

with a capital "A," which would come later.

But it's a signal of intent, at least, and a rallying call to his supporters, seems to me. What do you think? :hug:

[Adelante]

10. I hope somebody comes up with a video

I would like to hear it, see it. But from what I've read around the various blogs, it seemed slipped in there somewhere in the middle, not an intentional statement, while the whole rest of the speech was about the critical stuff Zoot has in the OP. "Signal of intent" -- yes, I believe so, but not different in substance from what he's been saying. The part about the draft is compelling, but DTH says it was more in a joking manner, while others took it rock serious. Clark's staff says it was not. So......

We have to hear more from Wes. For all we know, he may not want us getting carried away with all this at this time, but want our focus where his is.

[Sparkly]

11. Hmm...

I didn't know his staff said it wasn't serious... Wasn't there a post (on Kos maybe) where somebody said they were sitting right next to his media rep or something, who'd essentially confirmed the substance but didn't want it said too pointedly now?

I do know what you're saying. I'm scared to get my hopes up, but it's hard not to get them up!!

[Adelante]

124. Sorry, I missed this

"Wasn't there a post (on Kos maybe) where somebody said they were sitting right next to his media rep or something, who'd essentially confirmed the substance"

The opposite, Sparkly. Erick Mullen, Wes's press guy, was trying to tell the kos guy not to publish it because it was inaccurate, but the kos guy went ahead and did it. Not that I blame him. I don't blame anybody for taking away the impresssion Wes had announced. It seems most people did. But it was a packed room with everyone screaming, roaring, and probably nobody could actually hear every word or intonation.

Go ahead with your high hopes, because he is going to run. I feel certain of it, it's just that right now he's more interested in the Democratic Party and getting Democrats elected in 06 than he is in himself. No surprise there, though, that's just Wes.

[Clark2008]

46. Well, it was certainly more than, "I'm not ruling it out"

and a call to action for his supporters.

[Adelante]

71. Yeah, it's up a notch, for sure

I'm holding back to see his follow-through. I'm just not sure from what I've read so far that this is where his focus is or where he wants ours to be: Right now in the process. What the call to action actually is in *his* mind, as opposed to ours, may be two different things. But we'll see. I may be wrong and you all may be right.

As I've said, I do believe he will run, and God knows, I want it like life.

I'm not sure this is the way in which he meant for it to be "announced." I'm not even sure what he said, since there are at least two versions from eyewitnesses. I'm not sure publicizing of what he said to his supporters in a private setting is the right thing. I am sure two staff members of WesPAC are refuting the interpretation bloggers are bringing to Wes's remark (whatever it was).

So, I wait.

[ZootSuitGringo]

7. I understand what you are saying,

but I doubt that Wes would want us to take his statement as ambigeous. He is setting the stage for a run. He certainly isn't saying "I'm not running".

I want to hear the media continue to ignore Clark's statements and continue to only push Hillary. When they do this, it will become obvious that Hillary in '08 is much more of a media creation than anything.

Let's watch the media's response to Clark's words. Bet we won't hear much. But the question will now be, "why not?"

[Sparkly]

8. "Setting the Stage"

That's a good way to put it! :thumbsup:

[Adelante]

24. He certainly isn't saying "I'm not running".

Yes, that is certainly true and I think he is going to run, I just don't think he's said anything certain, even last night, and maybe we should give him the time he needs to start his campaign in the way he wants. He will know when the right time is better than we do.

[jen4clark]

112. I'm with you on that

I didn't read any of the accounts of the event as him announcing either.

But! a couple people who were there said there was concensus in the roomful of people that it was obvious he intends to run. I think it was a way of letting his supporters know he will be there for us, but to keep in mind there's way too much to do between now and '08 to make a "formal announcement" and suddenly have his and our efforts thrown into "campaign" mode. (hope that makes sense?!)

[Adelante]

127. It makes sense

And I think it's what happened. And I do think he intends to run. And there is too much to be done along the way. And Wes would never draw attention away from the Democrats in the course of a convention. That was the first tipoff. It just wasn't him. Yet I do see how it all spun out after the kos post. I had to calm my nerves for about an hour and then go back and look at everything posted all over again. :D

[Crunchy Frog]

164. I agree with you on that WesDem.

I think he's sending out some promising signals to his supporters, but this is a far cry from any sort of formal announcement. But I guess it's too much to hope people will chill out a little.

[mikehiggins]

4. Now, not later

THis ties in with what Dean sent out regarding building the party in four states, starting now.

There is a whole "opposition party" to build and, beleive me, three years is none too long for a task like that. First we have to take back the house in 2006, which an active Clark candidacy can help out with quite a lot.

Where is OUR "Contract with America"? Gingroach is back, and making moves towards 2008 on his own behalf. Like him or not (and I don't) you have to grant him credit for being smarter than the average GOPuke, and a man with a solid understanding of how to frame issues without the deceit and treachery typical of the Rovians.

Clark is an intellectual, as well as a man of action (Ayn Rand might even have liked him, even though he is self-described as a liberal) and he is smart enough to surround himself with people even smarter than he is, at least in specific arenas. 2008 will be a battle of ideas rather than personalities, as the US decides on the question of returning to pro-people progressiveness or an even further return to pre-FDR economic Darwinism. All this played out on a stage ever more dominated by others (the China/India/Russia combine for one instance; a growing EU for another) where the ability to walk in the front door and be welcomed as an equal will become increasingly vital.

I'm rambling, I know, but I am really enthused by Clark's words. And on the darker side, I suggest we start contributing money right now to finance the hiring of some top security firm (NOT Halliburton or anyone connected with Bernie Kerik) to provide personal security for the Clark family as soon as possible. Just because he is running doesn't mean he gets Secret Service protection, and there are a whole lot of whackoes out there. Hell, Reagan had 23/7/365 protection and he still caught a bullet. An itinerant businessman/politician who might well threaten the GOPuke hegemony will be right out there on the open stage, just like RFK.

We know how THAT worked out for us. Let's not let that happen again.

[LandOLincoln]

15. You're absolutely right about security

and as deliriously happy as I am that he's made his intentions clear, the considerable downside is that once again I have to be afraid for him. My one consolation when he dropped out of the primary race was that I didn't need to be so afraid for him after that.

Until now...

Maybe he'll hire some of his (now retired) security team from the SACEUR days.

[jen4clark]

113. As far as security

I'm way more concerned with the crime family currently in power than some random wack job!

[LandOLincoln]

6. I think your analysis is spot on, and I thank you for making some

excellent points.

Also suspect that Wes Clark--master of strategery that he is--had all of that in mind when he made his 2008 intentions clear.

Finally, I'm assuming the good doctor is fully on board, and that he and Wes may well have discussed/planned this "announcement" last weekend in Little Rock. In fact--and I don't have time to verify my impression at the moment--but IIRC while the WesPAC event itself was announced some time ago, it wasn't clear that the Clarks themselves would be in attendance until last week. (After the confab in Little Rock, in other words.)


(edit for clarity)

[sendero]

9. Clark is...

.. the GOP's worst nightmare. He will not stand by and let them define him. He will not let them frame the debate for every issue, they'll be scrambling to counter his frames.

When they try to twist his career achievements, he won't wait for it to blow over, he'll counter it.

He'll dispense with the stupid arguments of his opponents with the same ease and aplomb he's showing in his dispatch of talk-show thugs right now.

And most of all, he can do it with rhetoric that everyone can understand.

As you can tell, I think Clark is going to change things for the Dems, and it couldn't happen a minute too soon.

[jen4clark]

115. Only problem is

the GOP has the media to report the lies and smears - we have <u>US</u> to counter. Nothing Clark says defending his career achievements or debunking lies will make it into the MSM.

[sendero]

141. Not true..

.... he will get his talk show time, trust me.

And he makes better use of it than any of his contemporaries.

[tallahasseedem]

166. Well said!

:applause:

[janx]

12. It doesn't.

Starting early is fine and good, but taking momentum away from the midterm elections is not.

One of the biggest (if not the the biggest) Dem conventions is going on, a huge part of getting the country organized for the 2006 elections, and Clark is on a tangent for WesPac, announcing he's going to run for president.

What on earth?

And to make matters worse, a woman who was an organizer of the event defined it as "Clark versus Dean":

Clark v. Dean, Redux

We're gearing up for the California Democratic Party convention this coming weekend in Los Angeles, and I've just received word through the grapevine that "General Clark is scheduled to speak." However, there's nothing official yet from the CDP.

What is official, though, is that Los Angeles supporters, the 4-Star Democratic Club of Los Angeles and SoCal Grassroots, have put together a reception for Wes Clark to take place at the same time that Howard Dean is keynoting the Saturday night dinner. For Clarkies it's a no-brainer. Of course we'll be there. My inbox is already vibrating with excited e-mails. There is no question that the good General still commands the loyalty of his troops.

Permalink
by Ellen Dana Nagler

http://www.bopnews.com/archives/003161.html#3161

[madfloridian]

14. Thanks, janx.

I just posted on that topic below. :hi:

[ZootSuitGringo]

23. Yes thanks Janx and MF

for seeing the glass 1/2 empty.

So reliable and consistent are the naysayers, one could almost know what they would say ahead of time.

Bah Humbug!

[janx]

27. This is the first time I have ever criticized anything regarding

Wes Clark or his campaign on this board, except once when I said that I thought he received bad advice the last time he ran.

He has evidently received bad advice again. Take off the blinders.

[madfloridian]

28. Clark declared 3 years ahead of time...don't blame us.

Don't put the blame on us when he declared at such a suspect time.

[ZootSuitGringo]

32. Like I said,

no matter how you attempt to couch it and clean it up, your comments still only read as: "Bah Humbug"!

Too bad the part about a voting holiday is not even worth a positive comment.

Keep in mind that it's what you don't say that's telling the story.

[madfloridian]

87. I did not attempt to "clean up" my comments.

What is it I am not saying? I posted nothing but truth. What did I forget?

[Clark2008]

60. That's unfortunate - but the majority of Clarkies wouldn't

make it about Clark v. Dean.
In fact, the majority of Clarkies really don't consider Dean when making plans at all.

[janx]

97. So it was just the organizer of the announcement event

who decided to title it that way?

[Clark2008]

102. I would guess so.

When I was organizing events for Clark, locally, the only thing I did was make sure there was not Univ. of Tennessee sporting events going on. I certainly didn't worry about what other candidates were doing.


P.S. I realize Dean isn't a candidate anymore - I was just commenting on a time in which he was.

[Clark2008]

105. I would guess so.

When I was organizing events for Clark, locally, the only thing I did was make sure there was not Univ. of Tennessee sporting events going on. I certainly didn't worry about what other candidates were doing.

[madfloridian]

67. Janx, I see they are not addressing the issues we raised...

Just criticizing us for raising the issues. I am sorry we are thought of as the enemy of all things Clark, and it should not be that way. But so be it.

[LandOLincoln]

70. But you, of course, have thoroughly addressed the issues I've raised.

Just not on this thread, apparently.

[dogman]

121. Get a clue.

A group of Clark supporters has maintained their grassroots organization and arranged for a get together with Clark and his supporters. There are a number of functions that take place at these events. It is my understanding that the events were rearranged after this post you cite. It is meant for Clark supporters and as the author notes, it is a no-brainer where a Clark supporter will be, given the choice. Clark spoke at his event in support of the Dem party and it's goals in '06. He did the same thing during his Presidential run in '04. He ran but also expressed the need for electing a Dem legislature to help what ever candidate won. After he dropped out he traveled the country in support of Kerry-Edwards and a number of Dem candidates for other offices. This is not a one dimensional world. Clark understands this and so should you. If Clark is speaking at a Clark group, he is not taking away from the Dem Party. Did he drag the press away from any other events by leaking ahead of time that he was making an announcement? No. Were Clarkies in attendance excited that he acknowledged them and their efforts? Yes. Did they then spread the world in the grassroots world of the Internet? Yes. Big Deal. If you are not interested in the topic, you are free to move along. I don't see Clark supporters entering your threads with Dean announcements and criticize that this publicity is taking form Clark. This is all about the Dem Party and both men are out advocating to raise its' profile and strengthen its' message. Isn't that what is important?

[janx]

133. My threads?

There's some real division going on here, and the "Clark versus Dean Redux" is not helping.

But if that's the way it's going to go, okay. That's just the way it is. I'll accept that.

[dogman]

139. Is this yours?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1728652
The point I am making is that it doesn't have to be about Clark v. Dean. It should be about the positive effects both men are having in stimulating the Dem party. I'm glad to see what Dean and Clark and all the rest are doing to advance the Dem Party message. It seems there have been posts about Edwards in N.H., Feingold in AL., and H Clinton in MN. It seems a lot of positioning for '08 is going on. It also seems the only one attacked for it is Clark. During the Primary race in "04 Clark spent the majority of his time and money attacking B$$$CO, not other Dems. I say that it is all going to the same cause therefore, and is all good.

[janx]

150. That was *not* the point you were making.

This is what you said: "I don't see Clark supporters entering your threads with Dean announcements and criticize that this publicity is taking form Clark."

And I did *not* assert that the publicity was taking away from Dean. It isn't about Dean. It's about the DNC and getting the party together enough to make a difference. Pitting Clark against Dean or anyone else who is working for the greater good is not the way to do that.

Frankly, I've had it with this divisiveness and piss matching. You have my word that I will never post in a "Clark thread" again on DU.

You also have my word that I won't vote for him.

[dogman]

159. Well I didn't have you here to tell me what I'm saying.

Darn if I didn't know what I meant. If you don't want a pissing match why would you come to piss on a Clark thread with a memo that is on another subject? If you choose not to vote for Clark, that is your business. Just don't come back with posts on what we should do for the Dem Party since you have your own agenda. I voted for Kerry and I would have voted for any other Dem candidate who was our Party's nominee. I didn't see the OP mention Dean. I have no problem with Dean. I like many other candidates' supporters signed a petition asking Dean to run for DNC chair because I liked the spirit I felt he would bring to the job.

[Crunchy Frog]

168. She later made a follow up post that puts things

into a little more perspective:

Apr 14 , 12:03 AM
Follow-up to My Post re Clark
by Ellen Dana Nagler

Commenters on my previous post: chill out, please. I don't think anyone meant disrespect to the Chair of the DNC, least of all General Clark. Lord knows I didn't. (And yes, my titling tongue was in my cheek.) I was (am) as eager as anyone to hear what Dr. Dean has to say. And I don't see the two gentlemen as competitors. How could they be? Dean has said he won't run for president in 2008.

Scheduling at a jam-packed event like a state party convention is tricky. But in fact the party for Clark now appears to be re-scheduled so that those of us who want to can attend both the Clark reception and the Dean dinner.

But here's the thing (by analogy). I grew up in Brooklyn in the heyday of the Dodgers, and I was a rabid fan. They left town and some of the thrill of baseball went with them. I stopped following the game. Then one day after I moved to California I went to a game at Dodger Stadium. As for rooting, I was agnostic.

And remained so — for the first half of the first inning. But when the Dodgers came up to bat, something changed. With the first Dodger base hit I found myself cheering. Without intending to, without even being aware of it, I cheered. Pure instinct. Or something in the DNA. I'm a Dodger fan and that's that.

And that's how it is with Wes Clark, for me and a myriad of other supporters. Say he's going to be on television, and we try to catch the show. Say he's coming to town, and, well, we're gonna want to be there. He calls forth something in us, something more than just loyalty. I think he makes us feel the honor in ourselves, and in America.

That's what Dean does too, for his supporters. That's what these two men do. I'm glad that in the final analysis I don't have to make a choice between them.


Permalink
by Ellen Dana Nagler

http://www.bopnews.com/archives/003174.html#3174

I think there can sometimes be a tendency to overinterpret and read to much into every little thing. At any rate, I'm sorry that a few people are choosing to see this through a Dean vs. Clark lens. I certainly don't see it that way.

[madfloridian]

13. I can tell you exactly what it means.

Since Howard Dean is not going to run, I can say this objectively.

It means that all attention will be off building the party structure and directed to Wesley Clark's candidacy. It means that the others thinking about running will have to start in as well, making the 2006 elections practically moot.

It means that Wesley Clark declared his candidacy in the same city at about the same time that the chair of the party was speaking to the state party. It was an event planned by his supporters. Why not Arkansas to declare? The event had been scheduled at the exact same time as Dean's speech, but they moved it up a little so as not to look bad.

This mean Hilary and anyone else who is running will have to start making plans sooner, raising money quicker, and taking away support that the party needs to rebuild. I wonder why anyone would declare so very early?

9/11 was not a national security problem. It was a domestic security failure. Using it to build on the public fears, vote for me, I will make you safe....is just as wrong when Democrats do it as when Republicans do it.

[Totally Committed]

17. Horse-Hockey!

How does his being out there calling for unity and talking about religion, guns, social justice, and "values" hurt this Party?????

Honestly! Sometimes I think there are people who will say or do anything to make Wes look bad.

TC

[MollyStark]

56. It really doesn't take a lot of effort to make him look bad.

I tend to agree with the other poster who said he took bad advice from an advisor.
He should not be talking of running before the midterms.
I predict that he will burn out and not even make it to the first primary.

[Clark2008]

76. .

:eyes:

[janx]

88. Clark is not a stupid man.

He knows what overcompensation is. Why would he do this?

[FourStarDemocrat]

131. It's nothing but early organizing...gathering enthusiam among supporters

I don't see how this is so difficult to understand. A Presidential campaign takes a lot more than two years nowadays to get off the ground. The demands are greater than ever, and our opposition (the RNC) are more ruthless and more organized than ever before. That's your answer right there.

[LandOLincoln]

107. In your dreams,

Ches. In your dreams...

[madfloridian]

61. Did you even read my post at all?

You guys are so used to thinking of me as the enemy, that you never read what I write. This was a deliberate act, this announcing, done at an odd time. Done way way too early on.

[FourStarDemocrat]

129. It was a signal of intention to his supporters...

to get them revved up and ready in the event of his likely run. It was not at a public press conference meant to take attention away from everything else on the democratic party's table. It was at a room filled with a couple of hundred Clark supporters. Not odd at all if you want to begin lining up volunteers and coordination for future run.

[high density]

160. I'm a Clark supporter and I don't think he "announced"

From what I've read, it's clear that he's building up the infrastructure for a run, but I think the Clarkies (and others) who think he's running already are getting ahead of themselves and Wes Clark.

[ZootSuitGringo]

18. Some people look at things and see the potential positives and

say Why not?

Some people look at things and see only the potential negatives and ask WTF?

According to you it's better for the talking media hoes to continueously push "Hillary in 2008", cause THAT'S ALL that is happening anyway. Dem issues are not really being discussed in the corporate media forum.

Howard Dean's message isn't being allowed to get through. Only "Hillary in '08".

Is that what you want to see continue? Because that's the only thing that we've heard so far.

[madfloridian]

22. Read my post again. Read what janx posted. Think.

Stop attacking me long enough to size up the whole picture. It is fun to go after MF, but this is a serious thing.

[ZootSuitGringo]

26. Too bad that you are so busy defending yourself,

you didn't bother to respond to what I stated. I'll say it just a little bit louder:

"Hillary in 2008" is all that is being discussed by the corporate media forum.

Howard Dean's message isn't being allowed to get through. Only "Hillary in '08".

[janx]

31. The DNC has been very busy on the state level.

It decided to work with local media for awhile and to avoid the lens of the cable channels and network TV. That's about to change, but it was a deliberate decision.

[ZootSuitGringo]

35. So are you saying,

one thing at a time?

Gee, I believe in fighting on many different fronts.

I think what the DNC is doing is great. I sent them some money last Wednesday.

But come-on, fighting to restore democracy in our country cannot be a matter of "mother may I?" type of activity.

[janx]

39. Of course that's not what I'm saying. n/t

[madfloridian]

34. Dean stifled his voice for a few months.

He refused to go on national interviews. Just local. But now this sort of changes everything.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Totally Committed]

48. OMG... where go you get this stuff? (n/t)

TC

[madfloridian]

49. He has said it to groups often. That's where I get "this stuff"

.

[tishaLA]

158. What changes everything?

That is a confusing post.

[LandOLincoln]

20. It means nothing of the kind.

Besides, what makes you so sure Howard Dean isn't totally on board with this (Clark making his 2008 intentions clear)? What makes you so sure Dean and Clark didn't plan this last weekend in Little Rock?

Please re-read ZootSuitGringo's post above, and reconsider.

[madfloridian]

30. That is not true.

That does not even make sense. Why are you so mad at me because I questioned the fact that it will take attention off the party rebuilding? Look how the announcement was handled. That was not Dean's doing.

[LandOLincoln]

47. "That was not Dean's doing."

And you know this how?

[madfloridian]

51. I am sure Dean told Clark to announce at the reception during his speech.

Oh, yeah.

[x_y_no]

54. I doubt Dean "told Clark" to do anything ...

But that doesn't mean they haven't discussed strategy. And it doesn't mean they aren't working cooperatively.

[LandOLincoln]

58. So you've talked to Dr. Dean and you know how he felt? n/t

[madfloridian]

68. Don't take this to a silly level.

It is silly to think that they got together in Arkansas, and Clark told him about the 4 star reception during Dean's speech...and Dean gave his blessing. That is just silly.

If you read Janx's post above, this was a deliberate thing. It was not necessary.

[LandOLincoln]

Please re-read my posts, MF. I agree with you that it was

deliberate. I also believe Dean was fully on board, and ask once again what makes you so sure he wasn't?

Also, I'm wondering what you make of Clark's call for Democrats to stop attacking other Democrats and focus on the real enemy?

[madfloridian]

82. You think Dean was on board for Clark's early announcement?

Is that what you mean? Announcing in CA about the time of his speech? Announcing this far ahead of time?

I can not see where you would think that. He is focused on 2006.

[Totally Committed]

64. Since when does Wes have to get Howard's permission to do anything?

Geez, Louise!

TC

[madfloridian]

72. The poster said they planned the 4 star reception together.

I said they most likely did not. That was just silly.

[Sparkly]

162. The events were not simultaneous, apparently

From the Kos diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/16/23109/8313

Clark event - 5:30P to 7:00P
Dean speech - 7:00P to 9:00P

Also, Clark didn't "announce," it seems.

[x_y_no]

53. Far from detracting from rebuilding the party ...

It seems to me this is an opportunity to get the media off of the "Hillary in '08" focus.

[Jim Sagle]

62. Party rebuilding doesn't NEED public attention. The less attention, the

better. As a confirmed Dean guy, I say, it's all good.

[madfloridian]

75. Party rebuilding needs money.

It needs people working together. I don't see that the way the announcement was planned. Do you?

I see announcing 3 years ahead of time as trying to push everyone else to the limit.

[Jim Sagle]

108. I think Clark is shoring up the party, yes. And I suspect he and Dean are

working together.

[Clark2008]

86. Because it WON'T take attention off the party

One of the reasons that Clark sent his supporters this call to action is because the national media will absolutely refuse to cover it in any heated fashion.
They will continue to yell about Hillary in 2008, about Dean's scream, about how the Dems are an opposition party, only, and offer no solutions and all the other garbage they heap on the Party. They aren't covering Dean's initiatives and, when they do, it's with some snide "you're listening to the screamer?" attitude.
Clark can rally his base and have us grow his support in three years WITHOUT the media's notice because they simply don't want to pay attention: having someone from outside the Beltway isn't in their best interests as corporations.
And, if you don't think that Edwards' blabbing about national security (as if :eyes:) and Kerry's emailed initiatives and Hillary's move to the right aren't "announcing," then you need to get out of politics. The only difference between those politicians and Clark is that Clark isn't playing the game.

[Pepperbelly]

29. LOL ... everyone knows that the attention should be on Dr. Dean! nt

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[janx]

36. Please, PB, don't morph this into a pissing contest.

That's not at all what this is about. Dean and Clark are not rivals. Dean is not running for anything.

If we don't get things together via the states for the midterms, no Dem is going to have a chance in 2008.

I mean this sincerely.

[Pepperbelly]

42. it seems to me as though ...

some people show up regularly on the Clark threads to piss on his leg for no particular reason. I am not supporting a Clark run in 08 but that doesn't mean I can't call shenanigans when I see them.

And I will continue to do so.

[janx]

50. Well I certainly don't.

But this situation wasn't smart. Not smart at all.

And I also think that some people get overly defensive for no reason, construing disagreement as "attack."

[madfloridian]

55. Exactly right.

This is not about Wesley Clark until after 2006. And if others declare now and up the ante of pressure, it will just about assure that we won't win in 2006.

Wesley Clark made it about himself. Dean is making it about the party. He does not care if anyone likes him or not. He worries about perception for about a minute, then does what needs to be done.

[x_y_no]

66. I'll agree with one point ...

"This is not about Wesley Clark until after 2006."

That's absolutely true. But if this gets Clark a little more exposure in the media to talk about real Democratic values, and to challenge the phonies on the other side, then it's all to the good as far as promoting our chances in the midterms.

I don't know why you guys think you can't do both. As someone else pointed out, the Democratic message is barely given lip service in the media right now, it's all about Hillary in '08 as far as they're concerned. One would think you would be all for another strong progressive voice getting heard.

[madfloridian]

77. See, it is about Hillary. Two of you on this thread have said so.

The Clintons backed Clark in 04. Now Clark is getting a jump start on Hillary because she gets more attention.

That is a crying shame, my friend.

But that's politics.

[x_y_no]

98. That is *NOT* what I was saying ...

Nor was the other poster saying that.

The point is that the MSM is focussed on Hillary. If Wes gets some more coverage as a result of this, he will use that to promote the general Democratic message - not just his own. That's all to the good.

[LandOLincoln]

37. Once again--what makes the hardcore partisans on both sides of the

Dean vs. Clark nonsense so sure that Dean isn't fully on board with Wes's statement of intention? Furthermore, how can they be sure the doctor and the general didn't plan this "statement of intention" last weekend in Little Rock?

[Pepperbelly]

43. I am not on board for Clark in 08.

I am noticing patterns and I shall point them out.

[janx]

44. What "sides"?

The only "sides" I see are from the woman who organized the event.
It doesn't bother you that she essentially defined the thing as "Clark versus the DNC"?!

[LandOLincoln]

57. Oh please....

this disingenuous pose--for that is exactly what it seems to be--does none of us any good.

I have no reason to believe Clark and Dean are not in total accord on this course of action, and so far no one has shown me anything to oppose my belief except more tired rehashing of the primary battles.

[janx]

69. I'm not rehashing anything--only talking about the here and now.

Why did the event organizer title it that way?

[LandOLincoln]

81. She's a Clark partisan, you're a Dean partisan. What does any

of this silly crap have to do with the OP?

Or with my continued assertion that Dean and Clark (unlike a very vocal minority of their supporters) are grownups who've made common cause for the common good?

[janx]

91. One more time:

Dean is not running for anything. Therefore, there are no Dean partisans.

Why is that so difficult for some people to grasp? Why try to make trouble where none exists?

Why?

Is this really an anti-DNC effort? Is that what it is?

[LandOLincoln]

109. "Why make trouble where none exists?"

That's an excellent question, Janx. I'm waiting for your answer.

[tishaLA]

128. Since these events were not at the same time

How is it making trouble? Initially, as I understand it, there was a scheduling conflict. Then there wasn't. So where is this trouble? And how are events that don't conflict anti-DNC?

[janx]

136. What was the name of the event as advertised by the

4-star Dem I quoted above?

[tishaLA]

143. I don't believe that was the official name of the event

But I could be wrong. After all, I'm only a Clark supporter and I only live in Los Angeles and I only had to skip the event because of a prior commitment.

People often write things on blogs simply to be provocative. You'll also notice that the person who posted that title, Ellen Dana Nagler, was not the organizer of the event: as she writes in the comments section of the blog: I had nothing to do with the scheduling, and was as surprised as anyone when I got the e-mail invitation. There had been no intimation that Clark would be in LA at the time of, much less for, the convention.

So she didn't organize the event, she didn't sent out the invitations to the event, she didn't even know Clark would be in L.A. until 4 days before the event when she posted the blog entry with a bad title.

It seems to me that some people are looking to blame Clark for something a blogger did and play guilt by association. It's unfortunate because I think we should be celebrating the Democratic voices that are still working hard to fight against this administration.

[x_y_no]

146. I believe the name of the event ...

was "WesPAC Reception."

I could be wrong, but that's how it was billed on his site.

You have some objection to that?

[tishaLA]

151. Of course that's how it was billed

But when a Clark supporter writes something in a blog it MUST be just a ventriloquist's rendition of Clark. :eyes:

I swear that some must yearn for Clark to be a demon when instead he has been a strong assertive proactive voice for Democrats and the Democratic party.

[madfloridian]

116. It is NOT election time. Why are there partisans?

Good Lord, what have we become.

[LittleClarkie]

135. I, on the other hand, am a Kerry non-partisan :D

Dem Party Back Watch: Activate!

I'm glad to see these guys working together. Clark and Kerry this last week. Kerry giving money to the DNC to welcome Dean. Clinton, Boxer and Kerry on election reform. It's all good.

I may have my favorite, but that doesn't mean I'm going to piss in the Wheaties of any of the others.

Criticism being a different story, of course. Nothing wrong with healthy criticism. But I will not needlessly bash any of my fellow Dems.

I do think that partisanship has the potential to splinter a party that needs desperately to be unified.

Those who still identify themselves with one pol or another may need to realize that their favorite may not be running next time. I may have to let loose of Kerry at some point and look at the actual field. Feingold has some possibilities, for instance.

We need to be entirely more positive then we are sometimes. And if folks can't be positive in one party, then they need to find a party where they can work for positive action. Each party is only going to bend so far.

Gads. I seem to have preachified. Eh, it's Sunday. Whatcha gonna do.

[madfloridian]

79. I disagree.

Dean's mind is totally set on 2006. That is his target, and it should be the target of all of us. Even Clark people.

2008 just won't happen for Democrats unless we win back some seats in 2006.

And you have still not addressed the way and place and time this was announced. Clark is making it about himself way too early.

[LandOLincoln]

90. Yes, I'm sure Dean's mind IS thoroughly set on 2006.

And the original post made it clear how Clark's "announcement" is completely in aid of that intent.

Clark and Dean are the two rock stars of the party currently, and it's obvious to me that they've made common cause for the good of all Democrats. It's sad that there are some who're too busy nursing their own grudges to do the same.

[madfloridian]

95. Did you read Janx's post by a 4 star democrat?

Who is nursing grudges?

[LandOLincoln]

103. I said "some" are nursing grudges.

Take a look at my post on the blog/thread you and Janx are on about:

"Let's see--Clark and Dean were together just last weekend in Little Rock, and Dean had high praise for Clark's evisceration of Perle during the HASC hearings a week ago.

Do you think it's possible--especially given the information from Ellen Nagler that 'The Dean dinner is expensive; not all delegates can afford it or have chosen to go. In fact, there are a number of other gatherings scheduled for Saturday evening.'--that Dean is fine with this arrangement? That perhaps he might even have encouraged 'a number of other gatherings scheduled at the same time,' because the more big-name Dems headlining events--especially if those events cover a range of pocketbooks, so to speak--the bigger the turnout, and the better for us all?

That said, I do agree the title of this thread is unfortunate--even if it was meant to be tongue in cheek.

Posted by: Janet in NM at April 13, 2005 09:48 PM"


... and Ellen Nagler's follow up on 4/14/05:

Follow-up to My Post re Clark
by Ellen Dana Nagler

"Commenters on my previous post: chill out, please. I don't think anyone meant disrespect to the Chair of the DNC, least of all General Clark. Lord knows I didn't. (And yes, my titling tongue was in my cheek.) I was (am) as eager as anyone to hear what Dr. Dean has to say. And I don't see the two gentlemen as competitors. How could they be? Dean has said he won't run for president in 2008.

Scheduling at a jam-packed event like a state party convention is tricky. But in fact the party for Clark now appears to be re-scheduled so that those of us who want to can attend both the Clark reception and the Dean dinner."

[Auntie Bush]

137. Thanks LandO...for clearing up a lot of confusion.

That should set the record straight for everyone.

[Pepperbelly]

123. there you go again ...

:eyes:

[tishaLA]

96. Dean was on our Air America station last night

and someone asked him why the DNC website seemed to be set up to do only two things: criticize republicans and promote Dean himself. The caller said that the first thing was OK--we have to hit the republicons hard and often, the caller said--but that the site should promote other democrats besides Dean who are offering visions and policies for the party. As it is set up now, according to the caller, it just looks like a PR firm for Dean. (If you want to test that theory, do a search for on the DNC site for any prominent Democrat and then do one for Dean.)

I'm not sure how I feel about those comments but I thought they were interesting.

[janx]

110. Maybe that is because he was recently elected Chair of the DNC.

I could be wrong, but it's possible! ;-)

[madfloridian]

114. Quotes from Dean at the DNC website. OMG

That is so funny. BTW, just FYI, they are hoping to get the DNC website updated and changed to be more interactive soon.

Did it occur to you that the DNC is really about being critical of Republicans?

Guess who's on the phone on AAR. How did Dean answer, and could you give a link?

[tishaLA]

117. Apparently you misunderstood

I reported what someone said on the radio. A link? You want one to KTLK's website (that's the L.A. Air America station)? A simple Google search can solve that problem for you.

Yes, I understand the DNC site is about being critical of Republicans and creating a proactive vision for the Democratic party. Did something I wrote in my post seem to say otherwise?

The caller seemed to think that the site should work at presenting the ideas/policies of Democratic elected officials and candidates at the local, state, and federal levels. I'm not sure how that's a bad thing.

[madfloridian]

118. It will when it gets "fixed."

They are working on it.

[tishaLA]

120. I'm glad you and the caller agree then

that the DNC website should promote Democratic candidates, policies, and ideas instead of being just a set of PR announcements.

[madfloridian]

152. Not necessarily promote certain candidates.

I think the announcements are a great idea actually. I just don't like the website that much. It is not complete enough. It should link to state groups more efficiently, and have more of an outreach. It used to be better, more efficient, but it was changed a year or so ago. I don't know why.

[tishaLA]

157. Huh?

Of course the DNC website should promote Democratic candidates. That's the reason for the DNC--to get Democrats elected. Wow.

[madfloridian]

161. Not until the primaries are over.

Think about it.

[LandOLincoln]

163. The poster clearly meant Democratic candidates

IN GENERAL, not simply presidential candidates.

[tishaLA]

165. Precisely

Like most Democrats, I think of more than just Prsidential candidates when I talk about supporting candidates.

[madfloridian]

167. There are primaries for other races as well.

I don't think the party should be pushing a preferred candidate in the primary as they have tried to do in several states now.

[Clarkie1]

106. Clark did not announce.

He said he will have to "take your advice on that," which indicates a willingness to run if called again to serve in that role.

This is raising the ante from "rule nothing out," which he has said before.

Clark's focus is on doing everything he can to help HELP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOW AND O6'.

Unlike most career politicans, Clark is being straightforward to his supporters that is preparing to run in order to be fully prepared if called to run.

[Totoro]

154. Could the fact that.....

His son, daughter-in-law and grandson live in LA have something to do with his place and time?

[saltpoint]

16. Clark would likely mop the floor with THE CAT BUTCHER

-- or Brownback or Barbour or Newt or Jeb. McCain and Hagel would be tougher competition.

My take is that ANY public figure who is as influential as General Clark and who calls the Christian Nutcase Right to task, has already performed a valuable service.

[Sparkly]

19. Yup -- and as I see it, that is GOOD for all Democrats (including in 2006)

He's fighting for our party right now, he'll fight for our party in 2006, and whoever gets the nomination I have NO doubt he'll fight for our party in 2008.

[merci_me]

21. National Holiday voting day

I've been a Clark supporter since Feb 2003, so of course, everything you say about Clark is exactly right in my book.

I want to add my thoughts on the national holiday for voting. I've thought this for many years, however, I would add a few requirements....

It should be on a Wednesday. If it was any other day, it would become a long holiday weekend and people would use it to go away on a vacation. For instance, if it remained on Tuesday, people with "normal" work schedules would only need to take one vacation day on Monday and they'd have from after work Friday through the weekend, Monday and Tuesday to hit the road, making the holiday a net negative for getting people to vote.

Polls would be open for 24 hours, opening at the same moment from Hawaii to Maine, so there would be no polls closing and effecting voting in later time zones.

Another plus for the polls being open 24 hours is that no matter if it's a holiday or not, hundreds of thousands of people will have to work. Think of where you go on Sundays and look around. Firefighters, police, hotels, hospitals, restaurants, most retail are still fully staffed. If, for example the polls in your state were open 3am to 3am, you'd be able to get your work day and commute and voting into the time. If fact, 24 hour polling could be used instead of a national holiday. That would stop any negatives from businesses who plead broke. The only thing is, we'd need more of us (that means you and me) to volunteer to work the polls for a shift.

Finally, no "sales". I get furious at businesses who are so "patriotic" that they use voting and the flag to promote special sales events on election day. Like yeah, voters need one more thing to squeeze into the day. "Should I go to the polls after work or go to Sears and buy that refrigerator I've been eying." We need to make it totally UNpatriotic to use an election day to promote a business.

Just my thoughts. Oh yeah, GO WES!!!!

Mary

[CrispyQ]

38. Good ideas

Especially the Wednesday thing - lol! We love extended weekends in this country.

[Pilgrim4Progress]

52. Positive for all Dems

By declaring his intentions early, the opponents will be the Radical Right and Neocons, not other Dems.

And his higher profile will give more exposure to the 2006 candidates he supports. He'll be very persuasive in drawing out more supporters for local parties and candidates.

I think this is an example of leadership. He's going to lead the charge and raise others up with him. It gets the nagging question "Are you going to run?" out of the way, and permits focus on the message going forward.

And from the dKos post:

He says that the place to start is with this thought: Americans will believe that a Democratic CinC will defend them when they first become convinced that " Democrats will defend other Democrats."

[madfloridian]

59. He is "leading the charge" to get a jump on other Democrats....

Who then must stop what they are doing to work on their campaigns.

Rebuilding the party infrastructure will suffer.

[ZootSuitGringo]

65. Bah Humbug!

Same song sang by the same artists; same record player skipping on the same scratch.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

80. Don't insult my intelligence. He is "getting the jump."

There is a difference, much more than nuance. Apology accepted. Insulting my intelligence is not acceptable.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[tishaLA]

130. Do you really think only one thing

can be accomplished at a time? I think Wesley Clark can put out feelers about the Presidency/run for President while he helps Democrats across the nation. That's what he's done since he left the presidential race: work to help Democrats across the country. He did that before this non-announcement and I have every reason to believe he will do it in the months and years to come. That is indeed working at the level of the party infrastructure.

Strong, assertive Democratic voices in the public debate is something we should hope for, not something we should excoriate because of some phantasmatic possibility.

[FourStarDemocrat]

138. Rebuilding the party structure has little to do with other potential

candidates. All can and still will be done to rebuild the party. it is needed from the grassroots and local level on up, beginning with local county boards, state legislatures, recruiting local Dems for congress. One can vounteer for both, and in fact many Clark supporters have been incredibly active in their states at the local level and will continue to be. All of this has little to do with Wes Clark enthusing his own supporters and laying the groundwork for a future run.

[ZootSuitGringo]

63. I have decided to reword my opening OP, for those peeps who

want to go out in left field and forget about the issues that we are truly talking about. If you count them, there are less than three, but WTH!

1. Do you consider Clark promoting "Dems are strong on National Security" as a positive or a negative development for the Democratic party?

2. Do you consider Clark promoting a "national voting holiday" as a positive or negative development for the Democratic party and, by extension, the American voters?

3. Do you consider Clark promoting "Christian Right as wrong" a good thing or a bad one for the Democratic Party, and by extension, true Christians?

4. Do you consider Clark throwing in his hat in a ring where the Corporate MSM only see Hillary's hat, a positive or a negative development for the Democratic party?

5. Do you consider Clark stating that Bush "should not be crowing about the Sunrise" in context to counter the Current GOP message that Bush's war was worth it, cause look at what's happening now to be good method of fighting GOP PR bullshit or a wrong method?

[Adelante]

73. That's right, Zoot, those are the issues

The rest of this is clouding the air. This is where Clark stands and what is important for the Democratic Party.

[LandOLincoln]

78. This should be a new thread--and the old one should probably

be locked before it gets hijacked any further.

[madfloridian]

84. Hijacked? The OP asked for opinions.

We gave them.

[kerrygoddess]

83. What about...

Healthcare
The Environment
Education
Social Security
The Economy

[madfloridian]

85. You guys are against Hillary also?

Against Edwards, against Dean except for chair. It is so early to be so anti-everyone.

[Clark2008]

92. I'm not anit-everyone, but I AM anti Hillary and Edwards

:puke:

Feingold is interesting, Warner is interesting, but the two mentioned in your post need to be kept in the stable: a Beltway, pandering politician and a FP/NS amatuer. Neither of them interest me at all.

[Adelante]

93. I'm not against Hillary

Some people are and some people aren't, just like any other group.

[dxstone]

99. for some of us, it's later than you think...

I'm amazed I made it thru the first term here; not at all sure I'll be able to hold on til 2008. What with unattended dental work alone, by that time I'll need to have my whole head replaced.



And btw, what the hell happened to Clark last time? He looked pretty good for a time there, and then a good stiff wind came along, and well, the rest is NOT history.
There is no history anymore. Now it's all mystery.
9/11 changed EVERYTHING.
D

[Totally Committed]

111. At this point, I am not anti-anyone...

I am PRO-CLARK.

TC

[FourStarDemocrat]

140. I am open to most of the others, particularly Feingold.

I think Hillary would make a great president, but I worry about her chances as a Northeastern Senator. I like Boxer, I'm taking a look at Schweitzer. But the potential candidate that impresses me most is Clark.

[wabranty]

94. Below the radar - why it doesn't matter if MSM isn't paying attention

Right now at least. The GOP rebuilding was under the radar when it was building its network. It takes time to build the base and put the structure in place so it is to our advantage that things are being pursued behind the scenes. Dean and Clark know what they are doing in keeping it low-key especially while the Republicans are imploding at the moment.

[Jim Sagle]

104. If Clark were attacking other Democrats, his early candidacy would be a

problem. But he defends other Democrats and attacks Republicans.

It's all good.

[hlthe2b]

119. I think it may also help keep the DLC in check...

last I noted, Clark is no fan of the Frums of the world....

[JohnOneillsMemory]

122. This helps the Military Industrial Complex that owns both parties.

General Clark would be the perfect candidate to quell the re-inflammation of American's aversion to war crimes known as 'Vietnam Syndrome.' There is a very long occupation of the middle east to be sold for the next 20 years. Public opinion needs a recharge badly to get recruiting back up without a draft.

What better way to combine the eloquence of Bill Clinton with the militarism of Dick Cheney and give the 'electorate' both a professional warrior that conservatives can love endowed with the rhetorical skills to preach 'human rights and democracy' that liberals love.

A General Clark presidency would not see one penny moved from the War Department, currently half our national budget, to the desperate needs of the American people who are being downsized from their own country.

Clark pushed for full financing of the Pentagon's massive Total Spectrum Dominance weapons program when he played his part as the 'un-Perle' for the House Armed Services Committee hearing on 4/6/05.

He also opined that the US was doing the right thing in the occupation of Iraq and that "General Casey did the right thing in shutting down Najaf and Fallujah in...all that action that occurred in the fall."

Hmm. War crimes? What war crimes? Just occupational strategy in a tough situation. You know, 'hard work.'

General Clark has a record not too different from any Weapons Industry Manager for the most psycopathic corporation on the planet, USA Inc. He uses the same cover vocabulary of "democracy" and "human rights" when discussing destabilizing countries to install US corporate-friendly regimes.

He slipped up in front of the HASC when advising that Iran and Syria should be "infiltrated...infiltrated with human rights workers and democracy advocates..."

oops! Yup, the National Endowment for Democracy (where he shares the board with the Carlyle Group's Frank Carlucci) is a CIA front group for "infiltrating," destabilizing, and conquering the uncooperative who don't understand the good intentions of The Great White Father, the American way for 400 years.

Much of the CIA's covert work came above ground in the 1980s as front groups that you can look up at the very progressive www.SourceWatch.org, formerly Disinfopedia.com.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Endowment_for_Democracy



General Clark's unforgivable defense of the School of the Americas with the same "few bad apples"-meme that was used to dismiss Abu Ghraib should give you a clear idea of where his loyalties lie and his embrace of US military dominance over poor people in Cental and South America along withe the myth of American Virtue as World Cop.
http://www.soaw.org/new/search/search.php?q=wesley+clark&q2.x=6&q2.y=5&q2=q
(School of the Americas Watch, General Wesely Clark articles)

Independent unembedded British war correspondent Robert Fisk has this to say about General Clark's NATO bombing of the Balkans in 1999 because he was there and counted the bodies:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/18/1757243

>snip<

Amy Goodman: Robert Fisk, we'll get your comment at the beginning, hearing that Wesley Clark is now running for president as the antiwar warrior. Then we'd like to get your observations of what's happening right now on the ground in Iraq.

ROBERT FISK: I have to say first of all about General Clark, that I was on the ground in Serbia in Kosovo when he ran the war there. He didn't seem to be very antiwar at the time. I had as one of my tasks to go out over and over again to look at the civilian casualties of that have war.

At one point NATO bombed the hospital in which Yugoslav soldiers, against the rules of war, were hiding along with the patients and almost all the patients were killed.

This was the war, remember, where the first attack was made on a radio station, the Serb Radio and Television building. Since then we've had attacks twice on the Al Jazeera television station. First of all in Afghanistan in 2001, then killing their chief correspondent, and again in Baghdad, this year.

This was a general who I remember bombed series of bridges, in one of which an aircraft bombed the train and after, he'd seen the train and had come to a stop, the pilot bombed the bridge again.

I saw one occasion when a plane came in, bombed a bridge over a river in Serbia proper, as we like to call it, and after about 12 minutes when rescuers arrived, a bridge too narrow even for tanks, bombed the rescuers.

I remember General Clark telling us that more than 100 Yugoslav tanks had been destroyed in the weeks of that war. And when the war came to an end, we discovered number of Yugoslav tanks destroyed were 11. 100 indeed.

So this was not a man, frankly whom, if I were an American, would vote for, but not being an American, I don't have to.

>snip<

General Clark has shared America's wealth of depleted uranium and cluster bombs with the grateful civilians of the world and, given the chance, will do so again when Freedom calls for American ordinance to be delivered. Let freedom rain...

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

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

[JohnOneillsMemory]

149. My 'one trick' is to prevent embracing more Pentagon candidates.

I spent hours listening to Clark/Perle at the HASC.
I spent hours reading the UN Office of the Prosecutor Final Report on NATO in the Balkans to see what reason they gave for declining to investigate.

I learned a lot.

They gave up because NATO stiffed them and didn't cooperate. Did you know that? But some like to crow that NATO was exonerated. Nope.

Bush** is said to not read for nuance, either. I don't recommend that approach. Look what it has done for this country.

[Pepperbelly]

155. Bullshit ...

Wesley submitted himself to the judgement of the Hague after the operation was over.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

147. Bush and his cronies should be in Abu Ghraib, naked. with dogs.

I try to see a bigger picture than red vs blue. Things you have called 'bi-partisan' I have called 'co-conspiracy.'

Let me ask you a question. Lord knows I get enough of them.

What do you see as the reason for the White House hijackers every move? is it:
a) Republican victory?
b) Military Industrial Complex victory?

[tishaLA]

126. That is fascinating information I have never seen before

thanks for sharing it with us, JOM! :eyes:

[JohnOneillsMemory]

145. I like your sig quote. Keep it...n/t

[Clarkie1]

132. You never answered my questions.

So I see no point in responding to the same old discredited spew.

[Auntie Bush]

144. Ooooh NOoooooooooo...Yooou'rrrrrrrr baaaaaaack!

I knew this thread was to good to be true. All the time I was reading it I was wondering where the hell JOM was. I was hoping maybe he was taking a nap!

[x_y_no]

148. He was off ...

... composing answers to the myriad questions he's said were "great questions but no time to answer right now - bookmark this thread I'll answer tomorrow."

I'm sure we'll be seeing those answers any month now.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

153. Thank you, thank you all for the warm reception, fellow Americans.

It's great to see you all at the never-ending Clark parade, too!
I remeber General Clark touting dissent as a virtue, something I can appreciate and thank him for. Yup, I like his words, just not his deeds.

The marketing of the Wall Street, Big Brother, Militarist 'liberal' general continues at democraticunderground and I'm sure will through 2008.

Aren't there any more anti-militarists out there? General Smedley Butler is spinning in his grave. If I could afford it, I'd buy all Clark supporters a copy of General Butler's essay 'War is a Racket.'

Peace.

[Pepperbelly]

156. Why?

I've read it and embrace Butler's analysis. I think Wesley does as well. What do you want?

:shrug:

[Clark2008]

169. Would it amaze you that most people who are Clark supporters

also agree that war is a racket and that we want to support someone who actually understands the military industrial complex and what needs to be done to trump it?

Clark gets that. Why don't you get that he does?

[Cuban_Liberal]

142. Yes, it will make the blind see and the lame walk.

Hallelujiah! *rattles tambourine*

:sarcasm:

[dogman]

170. We'll leave that to JPII.

:sarcasm:

[Moderator]

171. Locking

flame war