Whether he runs or not, Clark is a healing balm for the Democratic Party.

[Clarkie1]

How incredibly POWERFUL AND PREJUDICE SHATTERING it must be to those who are part of the "liberal backlash," but could be one of us if they knew the truth when a four-star, church-going general who for most of his life made less than $50,000 a year says, "I am a LIBERAL."

Whether Clark runs or not, and whether or not you would support him, that statement alone being heard loud and clear will be a healing balm for the Democratic Party.

May 12, 2005
What's the Matter with Liberals?
By Thomas Frank

"The 2004 presidential campaign provides a near-perfect demonstration of the persistent power of backlash—as well as another disheartening example of liberalism's continuing inability to confront it in an effective manner. So perfect, in fact, that it deserves to be studied by political enthusiasts for decades to come..."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17982

[punpirate]

1. That doesn't exactly explain...

... how two elitist Ivy League-powermongers such as the two Bushes managed to be elected....

Or how someone from that very elitist Hollywood managed to be elected (twice)....

When politics is reduced to image and perception management (as those with television savvy certainly can do), then message and history get distorted.

Let's not forget that Kennedy had many of the same or similar background limitations as Kerry, and won against a candidate who was just as seedy and unscrupulous and phony as Bush (and who made a point of running on his humble origins in contrast to Kennedy's patrician background).

What has changed from 1960 to now? More that the right wing has chosen to tag people with the "liberal elitist" brush than before, yes, but, then, they didn't have control of a media which would repeat that phrase over and over again, which would do their bidding without the requirement for an opposing view.

What's really changed, then? For one, the Fairness Doctrine is gone. Two, the discrimination of the press is missing. People forget that the press was a lot more critical of Kennedy than Nixon (in part because Kennedy made a conscious attempt to charm them and the press was wary of that and because Nixon was the heir apparent via eight years as Vice-President), but they gave roughly equal time to the two candidates' opinions and proposals. Three, there's been a radical change in voting processes.

Anyone who believes, sincerely, that only good ol' boys can win the presidency just isn't paying attention to the real reasons for the Democrats' losses (some of which they have brought on themselves because they have badly strayed from the core principles that were so effective--and necessary--in earlier years), nor of modern political history.

When things go bust, as surely they will given Bush's insane programs, the Democrats could run the most visible of Boston Brahmins against any Republican chosen and win, as long as he said, "we're here, just like Franklin Roosevelt, to fix the mess the Republicans have made of the country." More people are going to have suffer some pain before they stop believing the right-wing's mighty Wurlitzer.

That's the core problem--the right wing has control of the media, and with that advantage, has engaged in some important perception management. I guarantee you that if the Democrats think this is good advice and intentionally steer the nomination to a good ol' boy in 2008 (presuming no serious change in economic conditions), that the right wing will think of a way to turn that into a disadvantage--and will be able to get their message out better, more quickly, more consistently and build on it.

Cheers.

[Clarkie1]

2. Actually, it does.

Perception is everything in politics. I agree with you: the Republicans have spent billions over the past 30 years building up their own image and defining the Democratic Party and liberals as elitists out of touch with core American values and culture.

Voters don't think of Bush as an ivy-leaguer, they think of him down home on the ranch. An everyday sort of guy. That's not the reality, but it doesn't matter.

We can attempt to define their image (haven't been successful at that yet), or redefine our own image.

Or, we can do both and double our effectiveness.

[punpirate]

3. And, then...

... how do the Democrats get those redefinitions out to the people?

That's my point. That's what changed. That's why playing the image game is a waste of time....

It's about time for the Democrats to start reassessing the changes they've made in themselves as a party since Roosevelt's time, and the extent to which that has compromised their ability to provide a clear, distinct choice for the voter. Fussing with one's image is a lost cause when the right wing owns the camera.

Democrats simply can't offer that clear choice to the voters when they vote with Republicans as frequently as they do.

I'm of the opinion that this is just applying more make-up, rather than fixing the underlying diseased countenance.

Cheers.

[BootinUp]

4. Your points are not invalid

But they still have an effect on image. What part of the Dem candidate's image was most attacked? The flip floppy part which goes back to some of the problems you raise.

[Clarkie1]

5. I agree with part of what you say.

"Democrats simply can't offer that clear choice to the voters when they vote with Republicans as frequently as they do."

Clark has said much the same thing on many on occasion. For example:

"Somebody once told me in business that when you're going to negotiate a business deal, you stake out your position and stand on it! Don't go in there and ask what they want. Say, `Here's what I want!'. You've got a Republican Party under Gingrich and Tom DeLay that says, `Here's what I want' . "Then you've got the Democrats over here saying, `Yeah, ah, yeah, we could, some of what you say makes pretty good sense. The result is the American people don't see the full spectrum. Before the 2002 election there were a lot of Democratic politicians apparently who said, `I don't have the information. I can't battle with the president on the information. He's got the intelligence. What if there is a smoking gun in there? I can't fight the president in my congressional district.' What we've got to do is stake out our position. For instance on tax reform, stop saying you agree with simplification of the tax code. . . . We stand for progressive taxation. We're proud of it. If you make more, you should pay more, period!"

Who the messenger is DOES matter. Clark has said repeatedly that Demcrats must STAND for something, or people won't see the point of voting for Democrats. The right-wing media is not all-powerful, though at times it may seem to be. There are certain images (such as a four-star general saying "I am a liberal") that even they will not be able to redefine successfully. Although they will surely try.

"... how do the Democrats get those redefinitions out to the people?"

With the right messenger!

[punpirate]

8. Your devotion blinds you, I think....

... "There are certain images (such as a four-star general saying 'I am a liberal') that even they will not be able to redefine successfully."

This is not an attempt to change your mind (I'm sure I can't do that on my own :) ), but I have my reservations about Clark because he's a four-star general. Because virtually his first actions after retirement were to be placed on the boards of several corporations, because he spent many years as an integral part of a system which is effectively bankrupting the country's budget, and because he's running on his reputation as a four-star general.

What is ruining this country is its dependency on a military which is effectively offensive and which is so intimately tied to corporate interests that militarism is a national cultural fact today; I can't trust the judgment of someone who ties himself to corporations immediately after retirement, through the revolving door and expects me to believe in his liberalism when he's previously voted for highly conservative candidates who were devoted to the perpetuation of the military-industrial-Congressional complex for their own advantage. A man who does that is not, at heart, a liberal. He's a hawk--he places the interest of corporations and the military above those of the ordinary citizen.

I have spent my entire life living in the midst of the military or a military family and have spent time in the military myself. For that specific reason, I have my doubts about Clark's ability (or his intentions) to carry out the changes necessary to make the fundamental corrections in this society and this government which will lead to lasting peace and a sane budget actually focused on defense, not offense.

When Wesley Clark publicly renounces the system as it is now, in irrevocable and absolute terms and vows to smash that system which is bankrupting the country, I'll believe he's learned something from his time in the military-industrial complex, and I'll believe in his liberality.

Until then, he's just offering up more smoke and mirrors to the voting public. Militarism, and the imperial ambitions it fosters, will be the demise of this country. Nothing Clark has said convinces me he understands that, or wishes to change it in any fundamental way.

You seem to want to relate all Democratic issues in terms of Clark's ability to narrow the margin of the middle, undecided voters. Have you thought about Clark's ability or desire to fix the real problems, such as this country's irrational belief in its own manifest destiny to rule the world through military force?

Cheers.

[Clarkie1]

9. Your post is long on prejudicial assumptions and short on facts.

"Have you thought about Clark's ability or desire to fix the real problems, such as this country's irrational belief in its own manifest destiny to rule the world through military force?"

Yes, I have very much.

An excerpt:
(As prepared for delivery)
Manchester, NH
January 10, 2004:


“Today, vast segments of the developing world's population are struggling, desperate for America's engagement, understanding and assistance. Right now, more than half the world's population is struggling to survive on less than $2 a day, and nearly 1 billion live in chronic hunger. More than one billion of the world's adults cannot read, three-quarters of them women. And half the children in the poorest countries are not in school. Malaria, tuberculosis and diarrhea alone kill 8 million people a year under the age of 15. And already in South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe, half of all the 15-year-olds are expected to die of AIDS. We cannot - we must not - allow this to go on.

But that's just what we're doing. For too long now, America has failed to live up to its awesome responsibilities on the world stage. We are the richest nation in education, health care, science, and bottom line dollar wealth. Yet, more often than not, we turn a blind eye to developing nations around the world, those which desperately need our help. More often than not we put the bottom line first.

America's wealth, strength, and character provides us with great power -- but they also confer great obligations...

...We'll still need our armed forces and we'll take every necessary action to make America safe - but we'll gain that safety not by force of arms, but by who we are and what we represent. For we should be an America not puffed up by pride in our own power, but rather an America humbled by the recognition of our common humanity. We must make sure that globalization helps people around the world, raising living standards and improving the environment everywhere - rather than leading a race to the bottom. Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law - not the rule of force - governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again."

Wesley Clark
http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=taxonomy/term/5
(scroll down to "remarks on 20-year vision for America)

"There are a lot of good Democrats in this race, but Wes Clark is the best Democrat." - Sen. George McGovern

Your prejudice against all leaders of the armed forces blinds you to an objective evaluation on the merits.

[punpirate]

10. Be specific then, please.

I haven't heard anything from Clark which would suggest a retraction of forces from around the world and a concentration on territorial defense.

I'd appreciate links.

And, I'd appreciate some specificity about what you describe as "disinformation." When Clark announced his candidacy for the 2004 election, I looked for his association with corporations, and found four, myself. His votes in the past, I believe, are on the record, by his own testament.

What, exactly, is the disinformation?

Cheers.

[Clarkie1]

11. What do you mean by a "retraction of forces from around the world

and a concentration on territorial defense?"

Please be specific. I don't believe I have heard any democrat use such language.

[punpirate]

14. Do you understand the terms...

... "imperialism" and "projection of force?"

You haven't heard any (capital D) Democrat use the terms I suggest because none really understand the intentions of the founders when it comes to the military.

You may get some sense of that in reading Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, or, failing that, read:

The Sorrows of Empire
Chalmers Johnson

Military Expansion, Economic Decline
Robert W. DeGrasse, Jr.

Corporate Warriors
P.W. Singer

Dreaming War
Gore Vidal

The True Believer
Eric Hoffer

The Forging of the American Empire
Sidney Lens

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
John Perkins

The Iron Triangle
Dan Briody

... and any number of other texts on the subject of American military expansion and its relation to corporate and conservative interests.

Your favorite general is not going to fix the system--he's part of the system.

And, you didn't refute, with links, my previous assertions.

Look, you may love the guy, and you don't need to explain why. But, your defense of him as if he's the messiah of the Democrats and the nation ought to be backed up with not words, but actions in the capacity he's occupied for the last couple of decades--and I don't see them.

I don't see them because they aren't there.

Cheers.

[Clarkie1]

15. Who do you think is going to fix the system?

I agree with Eisenhower (a 5-star general) that the the military-industrial complex is a blight on Democracy.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

[Clarkie1]

19. Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, ect. are all "part of the system."

It's politicans who vote for and make war, not generals.

[punpirate]

25. Your history might use some refresher courses....

I'm not just talking about war. I'm referring to the expansion of American influence, military and economic, throughout the world by use of both overt and covert military action, and the pressure applied on that process by the corporations in the military-industrial complex.

If you don't believe that generals influence war and/or imperial ambition, you should have a closer look at Eisenhower's use of covert paramilitary action during his tenure as president, to include the overthrow of governments, the use of the military and the CIA to thwart elections in foreign countries and to further the economic ambitions of American multinationals.

If you don't believe that generals influence the political process, you need to review the political careers, inside and outside of the military, of Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, Gen. Edwin Walker and others and their associations with the John Birch Society, the propaganda outlets of industrialists such as H.L. Hunt and the support of large corporations for right-wing causes.

After WWII, Gen. Douglas MacArthur openly challenged the civilian government about the invasion of China on behalf of Chiang Kai-Shek's warlords and on the use of nuclear weapons in Korea.

In the early `60s, a series of very highly-placed generals sought to invade Cuba by any means, including proposing plans to plant terrorist attacks on the eastern coast of the US, in order to blame those attacks on Cuba, as a means of generating public support for an attack on Cuba.

Later, did soldiers such as Gen. William Westmoreland not try to influence war policy by giving interviews to the press demanding several hundred thousand more soldiers in the Vietnam war, a war in which Westmoreland himself had hidden evidence of its futility?

More recently, you need to review the number of former military and intelligence general and flag officers who occupy the boards of large defense corporations in this country. They number in the thousands.

It's a pernicious problem. Clark is a minor part of it, and he's not making definitive statements about the ways in which to correct that problem. I asked you for evidence of such, and I've yet to see evidence of such from you.

You're entitled to believe. You're entitled to your own opinions, but as Daniel Patrick Moynihan has said, you're not entitled to your own facts.

Cheers.

[Clarkie1]

12. Are you against all corporations? Please be specific.

[punpirate]

32. I'm against all corporations...

... which use fear and manipulation and/or the insider expertise of government officials, military and otherwise, to gain profit. Period.

Those are the leeches on the budget.

[Clarkie1]

13. Of course his votes are on the record, what is your point?

[punpirate]

17. That his opinions now...

... don't conform to his behavior in the past. That inconsistency is suspect when political ambition is involved.

[Clarkie1]

18. Clark has not been inconsistent.

Again, please be specific and back up your assertions with facts.

[punpirate]

22. Umm, sorry...

... you're Clark's defender. It's up to you to provide me with facts and links which refute the specific assertions I've made.

I've provided specifics which you have not refuted with facts. Do so or go on being a true believer.

Please understand. I'm acting as a skeptic. You say, for example, that Clark's voting is a matter of record, but you quickly and not very adroitly sidestep the issue I present about his voting record, which is, quite simply, his voting record doesn't indicate that he was much of a liberal in the past.

What, exactly, prompted his conversion?

Cheers.

[Clarkie1]

24. Your statement is false.

"his voting record doesn't indicate that he was much of a liberal in the past."

That is simply not true. Please explain what you mean by "conversion."

Do you mean Clark's conversion from being a registered independent like 96% of Arkansas residents to a member of the Democratic Party?

Do only the 2.6% of Arkansas residents who are registered Democrats qualify as being "liberal" enough for you?

I prefer to judge people their actions, not their labels.

[punpirate]

26. If it's false...

... prove it.

You refer to Clark's actions. What are those actions (not words, but actions)?

[Clarkie1]

27. The facts speak for themselves.

Clark is a liberal who supported a strong national defense during the Cold War. He also disliked seeing soldiers spit on, and it was clear back then what political party was doing the spitting (we do, as Clark says, "have to get over Vietnam.") Clark voted for Clinton and Gore, and the only political party he has ever been a member of is the Democratic Party.

Reagan, in contrast WAS an active member of the Democratic Party before he became a member of the Republican party. Aparently he passed the Republican purity test, though.

Clark gave non-partisan speeches on foreign policy (as would befit the retired Supreme Allied Commander of NATO) at both Democratic and Republican events preceeding 9/11.

After 9/11, of course, the whole world changed.

The facts speak for themselves. Check them out.

http://www.factcheck.org/article97.html

[punpirate]

30. This link merely confirms that he voted for and...

... praised the worst examples in our political system, and has now changed his mind when running for president, exactly what I suggested.

The facts do, indeed, speak for themselves.

Cheers.

[Clarkie1]

31. He did not "change his mind when running for president."

That event was pre-9/11, and at that time these people had not yet proven themselves to be "the worst examples of our political system." It was a time for at least an attempt at healing after a very divisive election (in which Clark had voted for the other guy).

Nobody was heaping criticism on that "team" back then for their foreign policy, and there was no compelling reason for Clark to either if he hoped to influence the direction of foreign policy early on in the administration pre-9/11. Clark also attended Democratic events; he was giving non-partisan commentary on foreign policy and trying to influence it for the better. He was continuing to serve his country.

Then 9/11 happened, and Clark was was one of the very first to criticize the neo-con Middle East policy long before he was running for president.

I prefer leaders who make up their minds according to FACTS and judge people by their ACTIONS. Clark has always acted on what he felt to be the in the best interests of the country at the time, not blind political partisanship.

That's my definition of leadership, what's yours?

"I was never partisan in the military. I served under Democratic presidents, I served under Republican presidents. But as I looked at this country and looked which way we were headed, I knew that I needed to speak out. And when I needed to speak out, there was only party to come to.

I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I'm pro-environment, pro-health. I believe the United States should engage with allies. We should be a good player in the international community. And we should use force only as a last resort. That's why I'm proud to be a Democrat." -Wes Clark

[punpirate]

33. Yes, I read it...

... and here's what I glean from what you say are the facts, absent any hysteria about 9/11:

"Soon after Clark emerged as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, the Republican National Committee released a videotape and transcript of a speech Clark had given May 11, 2001 for the Pulaski County Republican Party in Arkansas. Most of Clark’s address was a nonpartisan discussion of foreign policy, but Clark did say this:

'If you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.'"

That's praise for some of the worst examples in our political system.

"Clark says he voted for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan out of concern for national security during the Vietnam and Cold War years. But he says later he found Republicans to be “shrill” and “isolationist.” And so he says he voted for fellow Arkansas resident Bill Clinton and most recently for Al Gore, both Democrats. Clark changed his voter registration to Democrat only after retiring from the Army in 2000 and declaring himself a candidate for the party’s nomination late in September, 2003."

As I said, after his decision to run as a Democrat.

Now, I am only a couple of years older than Wesley Clark, and have an education barely roughly equal to his, but I knew Richard Nixon was an evil bastard long before the 1968 and 1972 elections and I didn't vote for him then. I knew that Ronald Reagan had lied to California voters and raped the California college system and thoroughly hidden his far right-wing views from the American public and I didn't vote for Reagan either time. I didn't vote for George H. W. Bush, either, because I knew him to be in it for his own profit.

Clark has said, earlier, that he "probably" would have voted for the Iraq war resolution if he were in Congress. I knew, well beforehand, that it was a put-up job based on lies. Why didn't Wesley Clark figure that out if I could--and, before you argue about that--what were the eventual facts? This man praised evil people because of 9/11. He should have been condemning them because of 9/11. Why didn't he?

Why? I don't think he's answered those questions very well at all.

Look, as I said, you can believe in him. It's your right. But, you haven't actually presented any facts which solidly convince me that he's what he says he is. The examples you offer, such as the link to factcheck.org even suggest otherwise.

Cheers.

[FrenchieCat]

16. I still say that it's the civilians leaders doing the wheeling and dealing

with the defense contractors. It's our civilians that are making the millions on the Military Industrial Complex.

This is not written to change YOUR mind....but I believe that you are looking at the entire issue of the military and it's affect on our nation upside down and wrong side out.

Personally, I actually trust the military more than I trust our politicians. Why? Because it is the civilian politicians that make the policies, set the budgets and the appropriations, and declare war or give authorization to do so. It's the civilians politicians that appoint and confirm the head of the Defense Department....an individual who must have been retired at least 10 years from the military to qualify. The military may follow the orders.....but the policies are not those of the military, they are those of our civilian leadership.

that's what Wes Clark was talking about when he said very recently...."we have to get over Vietnam". Not "forget Vietnam" (which is different)....but to stop blaming the military, when it is the civilian leadership that made and still make the policies.

That's the real dilemna that the Democrats rank and file have, and why they appear weak on the issue of defense. That is, they continue to abhor what the military stands for; the SYMBOL (you say you find meaningless...yet, that's exactly the place that you yourself are at)....the perception and the image of the military, and that it is somehow "at fault" for the Military Industrial Complex....when they really are not the ones responsible.

That is why those voters concerned with National Security and American soldiers and their families tend to vote Republican. Of course they are voting against their own interest....But then Democrats are not any smarter, because they label the military the "bad guys" and literally take the civilian leaders off the hook. Can you say Dumb and Dumber? Just cause the Right may be wrong...doesn't make the other side any "righter".

Are you questioning your Democratic congresspeople who GAVE Bush authorization for Iraq, or did we end up nominating and voting for one?

Who is responsible for the Iraq War? The military? I don't think so.

Who is, therefore, responsible for the treasures that the United States has lost just in this war; the human lives and the 300 billion? You'd say the military? Are they really the ones you want to point your finger at? As a result of our civilian leaders, we have a treasury now so broke that it is all of us who suffer.

For instances, I read that some former Democratic politicians are working on Poverty and such issues...and that is all good. But it would be the irony of all irony if these were the same politicians who had also given authorization for Bush to go to war in Iraq. As Kucinich said, this war is linked directly to our domestic policies. So those same politicians....now that we are poorer because of that particular vote..... work on the poverty issue. Appropos: Round and round we go, where it stops, no one knows.

To lay the "it's all because of the military" quote that you do at Clark's feet is really just a symbolistic myopic AND superficial manner of approaching the entire issue of the success of our Military Industrial Complex. At least, if no one else, President Eisenhower understood this very well, and warned us long ago.....but what did that former General know? Obviously he should have looked at himself in the mirror instead of making that statement to the nation. But then he was a military...

A REQUEST.....

Please name the board of the Corporations that Clark immediately joined after retiring. Please let me know how they are connected to the Military industrial Complex.

Thank you.

[punpirate]

21. Okay, Kat...

... that's very true... that's why I say "military-industrial-Congressional complex."

But I haven't heard Clark say anything about breaking down that relationship. No one has provided me a direct quote in which he determines to do that.

As for directorships:

http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=2312&DisplayID=18

Clark resigns from Acxiom due to demands of run for presidency (10/9/03)

A month before:

http://www.directmag.com/ar/marketing_wesley_clark_keeps/

Acxiom had business with the government regarding security:

http://www.trinidadandtobagonews.com/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/1343

http://www.entrust.com/news/files/archive2003_5557.htm

Entrust had business with the government regarding security.

Other firms:

http://littlerock.about.com/cs/politics/p/aawesleyclark.htm

Messer-Griesheim is a foreign strategic minerals and industrial gases firm.

He has his own firm, Wesley K. Clark and Associates, described as a strategic advisory and consulting firm. Read: lobbying on security.

Upon his retirement, he became: an investment banker at Stephens Inc. in Arkansas. He was, also: Managing Director - Merchant Banking, in Arkansas.

[FrenchieCat]

23. So.....

Let me understand this.....

Clark sat on many corporate boards upon his retirement, you said....and that makes him guilty of??? supporting the industrial complex?

You list 3 (I don't count his own company, cause that's a ridiculous one to include)...and I don't count him WORKING as an investment banker.

So I guess because Clark sat on BOARD OF CORPORATION THAT DIDN'T SELL WEAPONS AND ARMS (you forgot to make that point......but ok), you have conveniently enlarged the military industrial complex to now include information business too...I reckon.

Well, I can tell you that Axxiom (based in Arkansas) did get a contract with the government, right after 9/11, in reference to information gathering purposes. Some folks were incensed at Clark for the appearance that he was, I guess, profiting on that tragedy. But I don't believe that Clark's intent were nefarious.....

READ THIS PIECE.....
http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/2003/09/28.html
Following 9/11, Congress voted away citizens' rights and passed the PATRIOT Act, which was ostensibly for fighting terrorism but in reality has often been applied to non-terrorist crimes, like drug trafficking, insider trading, and blackmail. Terrorism prevention was a ruse to convince lawmakers to broaden the government's powers to invade the privacy of its citizens at will with little oversight.

Some may argue that any tool that helps catch any kind of criminal is worthwhile, but it should be acknowledged that not everyone investigated, arrested, charged or even convicted of a crime is guilty. Thanks to advances in DNA technology, many innocent people have been released from our prisons. But what about those cases that do not involve DNA? It is statistically unlikely that false convictions are only made in cases involving DNA.

Clark, as he did while lobbying on behalf of Acxiom, stresses the need to balance citizens' reasonable expectations of privacy against the needs of the government to derail terrorism. He has called for a halt on any effort to expand the Patriot Act and believes the act itself it requires a complete review.
-----
We have to be very careful of the PATRIOT Act. It was passed at a time of enormous perception of threat in this country. It was passed without full legislative analysis and review. It’s been in place, a number of people have been arrested, a number of people have been deported. I think the PATRIOT Act needs a good, open air, public review, in the sunshine, before we retain it or modify it, or add to it.

...one of the risks you have in this operation is that you’re giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law. I think you’ve got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists--Wes Clark

Also an in-dept article on Clark's business endeavors once he retired from the military....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58300-2004Jan28.html

AND YOU FORGOT ONE....
http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/wavecrestlabs/10740/
WaveCrest Laboratories is a Dulles, Va.-based technology company that has developed a breakthrough electric propulsion system that transforms electrical energy into mechanical motion - and vice versa - with exceptional power and efficiency. The WaveCrest Adaptive MotorÔ system has a wide range of transportation, energy and commercial applications, including light transportation vehicles, wheelchairs, windmills, mass transit and automobiles.

[punpirate]

29. You asked for four instances, and I provided you with four...

... though you claim I offered only three. Axciom, Entrust, others, and yes, I forgot WaveCrest. I am recalling this from more than a year ago.

So, what's your point? Clark isn't entirely altruistic in this--his stipends from these firms amounted to several hundred thousand dollars a year, and few, if any, of those enterprises depended upon his particular business and technical skills for their success, but having a four-star general on the board helped marketing and acquisition of capital funding, and in the case of a couple of firms, might well have helped with government security contracts.

That's exactly the problem with the system as it is now.

As I've said, Clark is part of a system that's ultimately doing damage to the country. He is not outside of and separate from it. He's an integral part of it.

Everyone's entitled to make a buck. That doesn't mean they'll make a good president. And, I'm not limiting that complaint to Clark. There are a host of Democratic presidential hopefuls who haven't exactly lived up to democratic ideals.

In short, you believe in the man. That's fine. I don't. I've spent fifteen months researching the military-industrial complex and have found very, very little to commend anyone associated with it--especially to commend them for the presidency.

Cheers.

[FrenchieCat]

28. You say...I haven't heard Clark say anything about breaking down that

that relationship with military-industrial-Congressional complex."

I HAVE.....
This globalist/nationalist split is also present within the military/industrial complex. The presidential campaign of General Wesley Clark clearly reflected this conflict as he emerged as a representative of the globalist military sector and their alliance with broader political and economic forces inside and outside the US. This sector argues that a balance between political, cultural, economic and military power builds a more secure environment for global capitalism and necessitates peacekeeping and nation building. These policies are best carried out through multilateral coordination and structures, and they specifically criticize a unilateral hegemonic policy as dangerous, costly and arrogant. (Harris, 2) Clark, as well as other military globalists, has consistently called for a common international effort based in multilateral institutions. In fact, Clark lays much of the failure in the Middle East on the political and economic influence of the military-industrial complex that by its very nature sees peacekeeping as unprofitable.
http://www.net4dem.org/cyrev/archive/editorials/Jerry/Dialectics2.htm

.... He says Eisenhower was correct to "beware the military-industrial complex," and would reduce the defense budget by one quarter. He is an internationalist humanitarian who believes diplomacy leveraged with military strength is the best national defense. Like any good commander of force, he views it as the very last resort.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/01/19_clark.html

A Warrior for Peace
By Robert Scheer, Salon
http://eyetrack.morris.com/story_pages/3_a/01.shtml

Clark's fast political learning curve
By Liz Marlantes | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1212/p01s03-uspo.html
He casts himself as a modern-day Eisenhower, promising to go to Iraq and get America out of the mess with honor. He also stresses his belief that force should be a last resort. "You don't really solve problems by war," he tells voters in a small banquet room at the Manchester Alpine Club. "It's very hard to change people's minds after you've killed their relatives."

To many, it's a winning message. "I like his attitude when he said we don't need war," says George Forrest, a retired transit worker with a "Veterans for Clark" button. "I love that kind of thinking."

But others are more skeptical, exhibiting the distrust many liberals have held for military leaders since Vietnam. At an event in Nashua, one woman asks Clark if he is "of, by, and for the military-industrial complex." (He is not, he assures her, adding, "Are you kidding?"

[bobthedrummer]

6. I've carefully read this entire thread and all I perceive is an agreement

with pun pirate, with whom I concur. Maybe I'm old school and want substance over packaging. That will most likely happen after we've all experienced a lot more discomfort due to these fascists currently in power.

As I've stated before, General Clark would make a great asset in a Democratic administration, but not a great President.

We should find more things that we can agree upon even when our particular possible candidate's are argued against. We've got to look at 2006 first, and demand serious action from Congress on all these other BFEE machinations daily.

Bolton, PATRIOT ACT, De Lay, Frist-there's many things that we should be united on regardless of our personal support of possible candidates.

[Clarkie1]

7. Why not substance AND packaging?

Substance of course is paramount, but I disagree completely if you are implying that the image the messenger projects is not important.

Substance didn't win the last election.

I agree we have to concentrate on 06'. That is what I spend the majority of my politically active time doing.

[FrenchieCat]

20. So you , Bobthedrummer also "perceives" ,as does Pun Pirate

the "symbolistic" but erroneous "image" laid on the military by many in our rank and file (Democrats) in making them the ones responsible for the Military Industrial Complex....

or do you agree that it's the Civilian leadership that calls the shots as to what has been and what will be?

[bobthedrummer]

57. Small b in bobthedrummer, you got my username spelled wrong

FrenchieCat. You also fail in trying to frame my posts, imho.

Bye for now,:hi: I just wanted to let you know how to spell my username correctly.

[FrenchieCat]

60. Sorry about the mispell,

When Pun Pirate called me "Kat" in a post above, I still responded to the issue he raised. But, oh, well......OK.

[sandnsea]

34. Brand Loyalty

We have the product features and quality, all the polls show that.

The perception of our brand is tattered. Company brand matters because it makes new products easier to sell. General Clark would be like Dave of Wendy's. Not a good idea because Wendy's always falters without Dave.

I think the party expected Murphy Brown to be our brand. High achievers, independent, altruistic. The party didn't count on all of them becoming born-agains and/or going nutty after 9/11. Or voting on tax cuts.

As the party shifted to the Murphy Browns, the Roseanne's of the US got offended. Murphy Brown's look down their noses at them.

So we lost both groups of people.

And we keep depending on a Dave, when we ought to be taking a thorough look at the party and seeing what we do differently to meet people's needs and making a brand around it.

[jfenway]

36. Your reasons..

Are exactly why we need a Dave, or more Dave's of the world.

The Democratic party by its nature is a more inclusive group - which means we come from much more diverse belief systems and backgrounds. We will always squabble more amongst ourselves compare to the Republicans. Without strong leader(s), we will never have a coherent message.

We must have leaders that preach fairness, tolerance, equality, and compassion. In this day and age, we must also have leaders that can stand up to the bullies and speak up for those that are disfranchised, even if there are no political gains.

In 2008, I hope that all Americans will pick a candidate that appeals to their hope, decency, and INCLUSIVENESS as envisioned by the founders, instead of one that thrives on their fears.

J.

[MollyStark]

37. Strong leaders

I don't see Clark as a strong leader. I see him as a military leader which makes him unsuitable for civilian leadership. His military experience makes him suited to lead people who take orders and who can be dealt with in terms of military punishment. Not only don't I think military leadership is a good qualification for the Presidency, I think it is a dangerous counter-indicator. It's not 1956 anymore.

In addition, he disappeared into the wall paper during the debates. He couldn't get media coverage because he was not interesting to people. That's not going to change in 2008. We can't afford to run such a weak personality for the Presidency. He won't win in my opinion and he won't be good for the down ticket. We need a home run, I don't think Clark can deliver it.

[jfenway]

39. Errr..

Did the word Clark appear anywhere in my post?

But since you seem to have this Clark fixation, let's talk about Clark.

First, Clark was a military AND political leader as the NATO commander. If you think coordinating commanders and heads of states from 18 nations doesn't take real political and leadership skills, well, you would be in the minority and in the wrong. As far as whether you think military leadership is a good qualification or not - please tell somebody who cares. When you stop your silly hit and run routine in all the Clark threads, perhaps I will consider your opinions. Until then, stick to the facts, please.

I have nothing to say about your second argument other than that if Clark was so weak, why do you feel the desire to come into every Clark topic and post about it? You are entitled to your opinions and frankly I don't care if you want to vote for Clark or not. I will only tell you that I disagree.

J.

[FourStarDemocrat]

46. A 'Clark fixation' is an understatement, more like an obsession n/t

[bobthedrummer]

53. A Clark supporter started a thread about myself and several other long

time DUers possibly being neo-conservative operatives. That thread was locked.

A Clark supporter went to ATA about a thread in which I stated that I feel he has marginalized himself as a possible Presidential candidate despite the robust Clark support here that used to skew the polls.

That thread stayed open.

"Clark fixation", jfenway?

Molly is not alone here, although she is also an army of one.

[jfenway]

67. I fail to see a point..

in your post.

If you have a problem with a specific Clark supporter, take it up with him or her. Going around and being negative in all Clark threads because you didn't like a few Clark supporters is, well, incredibly juvenile.

None of us speak for Clark. If you want to bash Clark supporters, take it up individually. If you want to bash Clark, stick to the F-word - FACTS!

J.

[bobthedrummer]

71. Glad I got your attention and that you understand nothing..

You've been here since 2003 and so you know the Rules.
Bye, bye.:hi:

[jfenway]

72. Blah blah blah....

J.

[bobthedrummer]

73. I guess you just aren't typical of Clark supporters, are you?

[jfenway]

74. I am me..

just me. I speak for no one else and represent no one else.

When you start to say something coherent, perhaps I will grace your presence with a response again.

J.

[Clark2008]

45. Funny, he was interesting to people when they actually HEARD

about him. I STILL get people coming up to me wanting to find out more about him and wanting to know why the media stopped covering him.
And, I know now that you've never paid any attention to him or even been in the same room with him if you think he has a "weak" personality.
The man commands a room when he enters.
But, alas, your fixation is coming from that of an admirer of fake accents and hairspray.
We do need a homerun and I'm betting a liberal general can deliver it more than a lawyer.
Sorry you have such disdain for all things military. It's not healthy.

[jfenway]

70. Every thinking and decent person..

I knew during the primaries ended up supporting Clark. None were hardcore Democrats or Republicans - we were mostly independent free thinkers that had voted Republican (an atheist too!), Green, Libertarian, and of course Democrat in 2000.

Dean was a close second to some, and a few considered Edwards. We all liked Sharpton because he spoke his mind and was funny as during the debates.

Of course, we never even got to vote in the primaries.

Nobody could get excited about Kerry. There was a collective groan when he became the nominee. I warmed up to him later on and of course we all voted for him anyway.

Just the experiences from my little world.

J.

[dogman]

47. There are natural born leaders and Clark is one.

Leaders like you describe exist both in the military and civilian realm. They are leaders because they are put in that position, not because they have led. Others have personal traits and attributes that influence people to follow their lead. Clark is a person that inspires people through his honesty and integrity. He has an ability to analyze and solve problems while communicating the solutions to others in a way they understand and he can motivate them to enact solutions. He hardly disappeared in the debates. The Des Moines Register felt he won the first Iowa debate. Because he felt he could not compete in Iowa at that late date he did not participate in the remaining Iowa debates. This fact is readily recognized as the downfall of his campaign. Clark has gone on to campaign effectively for other Democratic candidates and will continue to do so. A number of Congressional candidates he supported are serving their first term right now.

[sandnsea]

41. leaders aren't brands

All companies have to have strong leaders. Iacocca was a strong leader. But GM didn't build the brand around him. They used him as an interim tool to remind people about the brand. That would be fine with someone like Clark, but we've got no brand to remind people about.

The people I just talked about do not see the Democratic Party as fair, tolerant or equitable anymore. They see the Party as putting ideology first, at the expense of security, jobs, wealth building and family and community values. They think they're reality based and we're utopian based. We have to change that perception or it won't matter what face we put on the party every 4 years, it'll always be a battle.

[NMDemDist2]

51. OT-- Lee Iaccoca never worked for GM -- He was a Ford guy most

of his career until he was tapped to run Chrysler

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

63. Oh you got me

I meant Chrysler, as if it has all that much to do with the point.

[FrenchieCat]

75. Clark is not a brand......

Clark is a leader. And he can be our leader.

[sandnsea]

79. What if he dies?

Then what happens to the Democratic Party? You can't base a party on one person.

[jfenway]

81. I don't believe anybody's advocating that..

Being a leader is only that - to lead. By your argument, we shouldn't have a DNC chair or Senate minority leader either - because what happens if they die?

Other than hoping Clark to be the 2008 nominee, I haven't seen anybody advocating him to be the One True Leader for the Democratic Party (and frankly, if there is to be one, it is Howard Dean anyway just from being DNC Chair) - so I really don't know what your fixation is.

J.

[NMDemDist2]

76. may I remind you, my post was labeled as "OT" (off topic) n/t

[sandnsea]

77. Okay

Truce

[jfenway]

68. I agree mostly..

But I see the party as putting ideology LAST, which is why we are failing. Where is the passion and inspiration?

J.

[sandnsea]

78. Perception

You don't see the perception of ideology because you don't look at the party through the eyes of people who aren't voting for the party, but used to. Perception.

I think there's plenty of passion and inspiration about this country and where the fundies and neocons want to take it. I think there's plenty of passion about what America means, in direct contrast to those fundies and neocons.

What we don't have is a brand that encompasses the passion and policies. Courage in a Complex Time or something. Because complexity is the problem. People feel abandoned because of outsourcing, people also feel angry at global poverty and environmental assault. The answers to the latter, contribute to the former. Complex. Throw in terrorism, and it's more complex. So the Democratic Party is left battling policy, and you feel uninspired when you're not given a simple slogan to cling to. Seems to me anyway.

[jfenway]

80. Errrr..

No. And please don't tell me how I feel or which perspective I have. You don't know me and don't presume that you do.

I do not feel uninspired. I am uninspired by the Democratic Party for the most part, although I think it's moving in the right direction. That says nothing about my inspiration for political movement or other public policy and I do not have any superiority/inferiority complex to have the desire to talk about that here.

I disagree about your brand idea. Most people do not trust a "brand" - they look for leadership they can believe in. By and large, there isn't any single and dominant brand in America. For every Coke there is a Pepsi. For every Yahoo there is a Google. And guess what, for every Republican there is a Democrat. You might get some residual effects if a "brand" is really strong for awhile, but eventually each brand is lost in its own ego/power trip that they don't know what hit them when they fall from the top. History is full of examples of this for both parties.

What we don't have is more people like Gavin Newson, Barbara Boxer, John Coyers, Howard Dean, or Wesley Clark that is not afraid to speak from their fundamental beliefs despite the political consequences. The average voter is much smarter than you think - while they might not understand this "complexity" you speak of - they know a fake one when they see it. And the bottom line is - a simpleton's vote is as good as a sophisticate one's - to win and to lead, you must appeal to the majority (not the same as catering to the majority). Isn't America great?

J.

[sandnsea]

82. Every successful product...

has a brand. A perception. Cheapness. Quality. Popularity. Americana. Sophistication. Brand perception. The Republican and Green and Libertarian Parties all have brands. Democrats, right now, don't.

What you're advocating is a brand. "not afraid to speak their belief regardless of consequences". That's branding. Over the course of 50 years you could stick any Democrat into the Presidential ticket and the first thing people would think is "not afraid to speak their beliefs". That's the brand you're looking for.

I think John Kerry did speak his beliefs, more so than alot of people think, because I think he did just that on the IWR and the $87 billion and Tora Bora, etc.

But because you think that is not the Democratic Party brand, you didn't believe it. HUGE hurdle for a candidate to get over every 4 years.

See?

[jfenway]

83. When there is only one winner allowed..

I am not sure the concept of brands make sense. Coke and Pepsi are both successful because there can be more than one winner. In the presidential election, there is only one. Congressional and local elections are a different story, of course.

And no, I don't consider what I am advocating a brand - it's simply about the Democratic Party going back to its roots. We can probably agree to disagree on that instead of further boring the other readers here.

I don't doubt that John Kerry spoke his beliefs. I don't believe, however, that he was very effective in both spreading those beliefs and convincing people of those beliefs.

J.

[sandnsea]

84. What roots?

"going back to its roots"

What do you see as the Democratic Party's roots?

How did changing to appeal to the Murphy Brown type of voter take the party away from those roots?

Do you not see that ONE person cannot spread beliefs and convince people of beliefs in 6 months? If there's no basic preconceived idea of Democratic beliefs, a strong perception, each Presidential candidate is starting from scratch.

In fact, each Presidential candidate not only has to try to convince people of a set of beliefs, he/she has to break through the brand that has been heaped on us. Weak interest group panderers who will tax you to give to the interest group - from the right; and corporate suckups who don't mean what they say - from the left. We're branded for sure, like it or not. We have to change the perception of the party and that is called branding. But a brand has to be based on the real qualities of a product, or it ends up being snake oil sales. As Seen On TV is a brand - weird products that may or may not work, but I'll throw some money away on them anyway. Not what we're after. Branding isn't phony gimmicking, it's very serious work.

I don't think anybody is all that interested in reading what we're saying, so not too worried about boring anybody.

[kevsand]

93. I think you guys are probably more in agreement

than this thread might indicate. The semantics of what constitutes a "brand" seem to be getting in the way. Everyone would probably admit to the power of images in a modern campaign, as well as the necessity for compelling substance.

And there's no question that the Dem Party has been uninspiring for quite some time. Why and how that is true will differ from one individual to another, but surely we can agree that the party must come to stand for something, and that people will respond to that if it's communicated well.

We need both strong leaders and a favorably defined environment for them to function in.

[jfenway]

35. "perceive agreement"?

I sure don't see that. Most Clarkies are just being polite in their disagreement.

I, on the other hand, am not known for my politeness. Clark is not going to dismantle the "military industrial complex". He'll work from within the system, reinforce the positive aspects, and make America powerful AND respected again - just like he has done his whole military career. He believes in the military, not against it. He learned the importance of providing education, healthcare, and EQUALITY from his experiences in the military and has stated time and time again that he'll apply those lessons as President. Most important of all, he has demonstrated his ability to accomplish his goals both from a political and executive perspective.

And if you had bothered to read of Clark's military and corporate associations, he has been careful to only be involved with responsible agencies. He is not perfect and perhaps has made some not so prudent choices, but to complain about ANY association at all is simply ludicrous.

And give me a break about 2006 already. If you really do care about 2006, according to your theory, you wouldn't be wasting time telling us to NOT talk about Clark. Afterall, if talking UP about Clark is a distraction, so is talking it DOWN. Most of us, however, can chew gum and walk at the same time and has no trouble keeping up with the 2008 nominee guessing game AND dealing with 2006.

J.

[MollyStark]

38. I'm Queen of England

There, I said it and it still isn't so.
Taking the world liberal and translating it into unqualifed support for the MIC, lobbying for WWTCC (world wide corporate terrorism industry)which is a scam agaist american taxpayers, is sickening.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[dogman]

85. What does that all have to do with a post about Wes Clark?

He sure has not done that. He is one of the few who doesn't run from the liberal label with the "progressive" dodge.

[CJCRANE]

42. To be honest

I think you need a monk at the forefront of the Democratic Party. Anyone with any connections to politics, the military or capitalism is obviously far too corrupt.

But seriously, Clark provides a good centrist image which is likely to appeal to the mainstream. People on the far-left and far-right are gonna hate him though.

[JNelson6563]

44. His supporters should follow suit

Imagine!

[dogman]

48. It's hard to promote healing when some one keeps digging at the scab.

But some are into self-mutilation and have no desire to be healed.

[JNelson6563]

49. Amen, as recent ATA activity shows

Ugh.

[dogman]

50. If you think that's bad

you should see some other web sites. They would like to change things for the worse.

[JNelson6563]

55. Really?

Well yes, I suppose you're right. I saw where the same activity was carried over elsewhere. Counterproductive stuff, no?

Good thing many of us are focused on actually getting stuff done instead of pissing contests on obscure DBs, eh?

Julie

[dogman]

56. Yeah, between bashing Clarkies and Skinner it's hard to believe

they get anything done.

[JNelson6563]

58. Not sure who "they" are

But besides folks being thoroughly disgusted with the counter-productive elements of our party (which I am too) I am basically too busy in RL political efforts to give a flying whatever about such nonsense. As I have said before, I am just glad that the cultists and other dead weight usually limit their "activism" to the internets cause it keeps 'em out of the way of us adults with much to do.

I'm sure you would agree.

I'd love to continue this chat but I have a speech to give tonight that I must put the finishing touches on. I'm sure you are also too busy with real world efforts to continue as well.

:toast:

Julie

[dogman]

59. They are the people referred to in post #50.

As we know it's not acceptable to go beyond that in this forum. My county meeting was Thursday night and I'm taking a break from that and my RL job this morning. I'll let you go though since you are on a tighter schedule today. I enjoy visiting a number of sites related to Dem politics as they help me with our communications project in the county.

[QC]

54. Oh the irony! n/t

[MoonRiver]

52. My opinion is that everything Clark touches becomes better

from contact with him. He is a truly great man. He's strong and fearless, but also kind and considerate. He shows sincere respect for everyone even when they are attacking him. This probably cost him in the last election, as he wasn't used to dealing with political and media sleaze balls. But I believe he's learned well and won't fall into the bottom feeders' traps next time.

I desperately hope he runs in 2008. We so need him to win the presidency and restore honor, dignity, and prosperity to our savaged nation.

[donsu]

61. healing balm? the Dems don't need 'healed' they need fueled

with the passion to save our country.

[Clarkie1]

65. I agree with you.

My choice of words was clumsy. I only meant healing in relation to the distorted image of the Democratic Party some voters hold.

[welshTerrier2]

62. no, at least not right now ...

what is truly sad is that the "healing balm" will not be found with any individual ... in fact, those who see the path to healing in one candidate or another frankly seem to be making things more divisive ...

perhaps, when the next election season arrives, Clark will be a unifying force ... did he pull us all together last year during the primaries? did anyone? ... i really think the primary process widens rifts; it doesn't heal them ... it's not a knock on Clark at all; it's the failure of the Party's infrastructure and its processes ...

the "healing balm" lies in allowing all Democrats to know their voices are being heard and heeded ... perhaps what we need is more "heeded" arguments instead of "heated" arguments ... we have little or no dialog in the Party ... it seems decisions are increasingly made from the top ... all this talk about empowering the grassroots seems like just a ruse to squeeze more time and money from them; their opinions are not being actively sought and are certainly not driving policy ... and it's not just "the grassroots" either ... there are tens of millions of Americans who no longer vote at all ... they do not believe either Party, or any party, represents them ... none of these people will return to the process to support General Clark or anybody else until they believe in the process of democracy ... they see a system that exploits their vote and doesn't give a damn about them ...

the "healing balm" is respect, inclusion and democracy ... real leadership would entail major changes to our Party's methods ... town hall meetings where every voter and non-voter was regularly encouraged to participate in democracy with the knowledge their ideas would be heard is what is needed ...

and I'm not hearing too many Party insiders calling for that ... our democracy is circling the drain ... democracy is THE ISSUE ... but instead, we're offered more candidates with more ideas ... the ideas may be fine but they won't address the central problem ... we need to transcend candidates right now and re-empower the citizenry with a renewal of our democracry ...

[Clarkie1]

64. I agree with you.

"the "healing balm" is respect, inclusion and democracy ... real leadership would entail major changes to our Party's methods ... town hall meetings where every voter and non-voter was regularly encouraged to participate in democracy with the knowledge their ideas would be heard is what is needed ...

and I'm not hearing too many Party insiders calling for that ... our democracy is circling the drain ... democracy is THE ISSUE ... but instead, we're offered more candidates with more ideas ... the ideas may be fine but they won't address the central problem ... we need to transcend candidates right now and re-empower the citizenry with a renewal of our democracry ..."

My wording of the OP was not the best, in retrospect. I do not think any one candidate is the answer. My original OP was simply the article by Franks which linked, because I had just read it (it is rather lengthy) and found it very insightful. Then, I hastily added some thoughts about how Clark could help redifine the image of the party for some voters, because I saw how that fit into the argument the article was making. I don't even in retrospect like the word "balm," and I never meant to imply (although I probably did) that Clark was some sort of one and only cure-all. I was just thinking about what Clark brings to the party in relation to the points the article was raising, whether he runs or not.

[welshTerrier2]

66. fighting for reform

so many are investing so much effort into one candidate or another and so few are demanding of the Party the necessary reforms ... all candidates will be weaker because they will not be able to truly connect with the voters; the Party will formulate its message based on perceived political pragmatism; and the nation will be much weaker because the voices of so many are not heard ...

if with each endorsement of any candidate, proponents could also demand a greater voice and fight as hard for reform as they do for any individual, perhaps real progress could occur ...

[Clarkie1]

69. I agree.

I would like to see the Party making more of an effort to promote "town-hall" meetings, where all voices can be heard, and I would like to see potential primary candidates for all races sharing their thoughts and having meaningful discussion with all voters in a respectful way with the focus not on individuals, but on coming to a consensus on our values and priorities.

We have to stand up for the things we believe in, and we have to speak clearly with one voice.

We need more participation and more voter engagement, and I am hopeful that is what Dean will effectively promote, but really it has to happen at each local level with the grassroots with the DNC providing the experience and resources in a strategic way.

In my district in California is the best chance of unseating a Republican incumbent. I canvassed for months before in 04' for the Democratic candidate here. I am writing also writing letters to the editor (which are getting published) bringing attention to what our current "representative" is doing. I also intend to become more involved in the local Democratic Party here.

We all have to do what we can. My focus is on 06', while at the same time thinking strategically and long-term what is in the best interests of the Party. We need to give America clear choices, and we need to be a "full-service" party.

[bobthedrummer]

86. I'd like to see the same type of effort that the Democratic Party put into

the Civil Rights battle, which I participated in, in the 1960's.
It became a great unifying force for different Americans.
We need organization like that again.
We need a real opposition party.

[Clarkie1]

87. I agree with you;what battle do you see as a potential unifying force now?

I don't think there is one, and I think that is part of the problem.

The Democratic Party needs to speak loud and clear with a vision - not just alternative shades of gray.

I would like to see much more emphasis on election reform, media reform, campaign finance reform, and a national voting holiday. I think the party should be screaming those issues from the rooftops. It would differentiate us from the Republicans. We need to OWN our issues and we need a great cause to rally around.

We need to be less reactive and more proactive. Counter Republican proposals with our own proposals instead of giving in to more palatable versions of the Republican proposals.

We may not gain much in the short run in terms of legislation passed, but we will win in the long run. When the American people see that the Democratic Party truly stands for something, and stands for it STRONGLY, they will listen and they will join us. We have an image of weakness; the Republicans have an image of strength. It is only when we defend and stand up for our beliefs strongly enough and with enough conviction that enough Americans will believe that we are a party that will defend America and begin respecting our values as American values.

[kevsand]

88. I would love to see that, too.

But part of the reason that the organization and passion were there for the civil rights movement, and later the anti-war efforts, was that these had relatively simple, obvious, singular goals. The other side seems to have more of those now than we do, which is why the fundies are perceived to have an intensity that transcends their numbers.

Somehow I'm not sure that things like the economy are direct enough as an issue. What do you think might be the simple, obvious, singular issues that we can inspire people to organize around for 2006?

[bobthedrummer]

89. Like Clarkie1 and yourself-I don't have just one, it would have to be a

consensus imo. But I know the potential is vast once we get that issue defined!

Getting rid of Republicans in 2006. Getting the best candidates from a great pool of people that need to be fired up.

[kevsand]

90. It may need to be more than just one.

But they need to each be powerful in and of themselves. You're absolutely right about the potential. Maybe we should be brainstorming this while the candidate recruitment for the mid-term elections in 2006 moves forward this year.

I predicted a year in advance that the repubs would try to make the 2004 election about gay marriage and the Pledge of Allegiance. Sadly, I wasn't that far off, but that was actually a pretty obvious guess given their track record over the last twenty years. My crystal ball is much fuzzier right now, but I'm sure we'll think of the perfect issue(s) to galvanize our organizing if we all put our hearts and minds to it in earnest.

[Clarkie1]

91. I want to clarify my intentions in my opening post.

Let's take Clark out of the picture for a moment. Because what I was trying to get across in my opening post is bigger than Clark. It goes to the heart, I believe, of a wound the Democratic Party must heal. That wound opened up during Vietnam, and the aftermath of Vietnam, when soldiers were spat upon by Americans everyone knew were no Republicans, but the wound has festered far beyond that receeding tragedy. It is not an issue of the rightness or wrongness of the Vietnam war, or whether the Vietnam war had anything at all to do with defending America; it is an issue of whether Americans believe the Democratic Party can defend America now if necessary. That is what is meant by "getting over Vietnam."

I began the OP originally by posting a link to an article which I thought was very insightful in regards to the "image problem" of the Democratic Party. The article is very lengthy, but it perhaps can be summed up this way:

We are perceived as a party of weakness and fuzzy values; The Republicans are perceived as a party of strength and clear values.

The reasons for this are multiple, complex, and operate on many levels. They have to do with history as well as the billions of dollars spent on Republican think-tanks over the past three decades and manipulation of the media. Contrary to what some on this site seem to believe, however, the Republican propaganda machine has an achilles heel.

The achilles heel is this: it has to be able to manipulate the American people's perception of reality to fit its own twisted vision of reality. They can do that by defining McCain (during the Republican primary) as unstable because of his time spent in a prisoner of war camp. They can do it with a war-hero who protested the war by defining him as wishy-washy and a traitor. They can do it on many levels, in many ways.

But I don't believe they can do it with Clark, however much they try. I know Clark's history. I have studied it for over a year. I know what they will try, and I believe Clark will, as he put it, "beat the shit out of them."

Clark has gravitas and credentials that I am convinced are too much for the Republican propaganda machine to handle. When Americans think of a general, they think of a Democrat as much as they do as when they see an American flag on a pickup truck.

Clark changes that, and that will change the way Americans think about the Democratic Party and what we stand for: not preemtive war and going it alone in the world, but capable leadership that works with the world and knows how to truly defend America AND American values. I am grateful for all our Democratic leaders. But as for Clark, I am specifically grateful for that. He is a truly unique asset for our cause.

[bobthedrummer]

92. They don't think of General McPeak, even though he spoke for a lot of

active duty folks last year.

Then there are the spooks in VIPS, they prefer to remain nameless, but they are a force too.

Instead we see things like the brass closing ranks to cover their corrupt asses in the Abu Ghraib military investigations, conveniently announced on a weekend-and they try to pin it all on a woman, Karpinski- not Sanchez and Miller, not Titan and CACI, not Rumsfeld, not Cheney, and not The War President.