Why CLARK '08. It's all about flipping red states.

[xkenx]

As much as I respect Hillary Clinton, I would suggest that, in 2008, we need a candidate who can actually win the general election. Otherwise we have another Rethug in the White House. Are there ANY Republican names out there that we would feel comfortable with as POTUS? I have two basic questions for HRC supporters: (Unfortunately, Obama and Edwards fall into this category as well, for lack of international experience and/or prejudice)
1. Can you please name two red states she can flip?
2. Why?
(This assumes she can hold all blue states; anyone want to bet on PA, NH, WI?)
To the answer of the names of a couple of red states, I would then ask why couldn't Gore and Kerry, two white male Vietnam vets, win those states? Well they are where white males vote big Republican and their wives follow their men. Hillary is a walking $100M of free advertising for Rethugs to get out their vote, and vote they will--she is despised among them (don't say it's unfair--so what?). And don't say "Things are different; people hate Bush--they'll now vote Dem." Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents will look for a reason to vote Republican. The 2008 Rethug nominee will give it to them. He will run away from Bush. He will say the he will return the Republican Party to its' roots, to true conservatism, to fiscal responsibility, and he will provide national security in the true Republican tradition, not the mismanaged Iraq effort. And the Republican and half the Indie masses will eat that up. So red states don't flip for Hillary. Can you just see HRC and Chuck Hagel in a debate? Hagel (wounded/decorated Vietnem vet) says " I called out Bush early on for his foulup of Iraq and urged exit, while you Mrs. Clinton backed Bush all the way, until 2007 when it was safe to do so, to pacify your base, F-L-I-P-F-L-O-P-P-E-R!" "I, Chuck Hagel will protect America in the true tradition of Ronald Reagan who won the Cold War." (Never mind that a lot of that is bullshit, the masses will buy it.)


2008 is all about flipping a few red states into our column. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone. And if Wes Clark debates a Chuck Hagel, he can say, "You voted for IWR to give Bush a blank check to go to war with Iraq. You may have gotten religion belatedly, but I knew what was going on beforehand and testified to Congress before the IWR against such a blank check. In fact I was chastised by neocons for being so cautious. My whole professional life has been about a multi-faceted approach to international relations, with war only, only, only as a last resort." THIS, FOLKS, IS THE DEMOCRAT WHO CAN TAKE IT TO THE RETHUGS ON THEIR TURF, AND WHUP THEIR ASSES.

[Clark2008]

1. Very true.

None of the current "front runners" can garner the swing-Bubba vote (white males in the South and mid-West - their votes are NECESSARY in order to swing some red/purple states).

[jcrew2001]

22. i just don't think Clark wants to run this time

unless something happens to hillary, he's going to stay on the sidelines.

[xkenx]

30. Clark has the hunger; from his comments and hints, he will be running.

And Hillary will have nothing to do with the decision.

[Cameron27]

104. I've had a change of heart about this.

I've felt pretty certain that the republican party was so damaged that nothing would revive it, but now I'm not so sure. I'm beginning to think you're absolutely right about the south.

The Fred Thompson phenomenom that came out of nowhere, makes me think that enough voters in swing states are so unsatisfied with our front runners that they'll be easy pickings whether Thompson jumps in or not.

We'll have to see how this plays out, but right now I'm only seeing Clark, (maybe Gore) changing that.

[The Count]

2. IT's why MSM is wilfully ignoring him

real threat.

[WI_DEM]

3. I'm not sure they are ignoring him, it's just that he's not (yet) a candidate

[Clark2008]

5. True - but read my post just below.

It's been an on-going hypocricy within the media establishment - since the 2004 election. That's what the problem is.

[jcrew2001]

24. The MSM doesn't owe Clark any coverage

because Clark is not an elected official and never was. He's not a candidate, he's not going to announce any time soon.

I just don't understand all the crying over Clark. If Clark ran in Iowa in 2004, he might have gotten more coverage, but Edwards got 2nd in Iowa - and then the media went to Kerry.

Oklahoma is just scraps and by that time Kerry had it wrapped up. Its time to realize that the media gravitates towards the actual winners, and by OK it was really too late for Clark to do anything.

I mean what else could he have won after OK that would have beaten Kerry. I just think its delusional to blame the media on Clark's 2004 failure.

[Clark2008]

49. And I think you're delusional if you don't see how they ignore him.

Look, they're covering Newt and Thompson and Gore, and none of them are running. And none of them hold an office.

What's the difference?

Did you know that Clark BEAT Edwards in five of the nine primaries in which they both ran? Probably not, because the media never pointed that out - it was all Kerry v Edwards and Iowa does not a country make (no offense Iowans - I just mean there are other states and tastes).

[jcrew2001]

73. Crying over spilled milk

I think Clark made the dumbest decision to skip Iowa, and that's why Kerry and Edwards got all the attention.

After NH, no one cared and Kerry was going against Edwards/Dean.

Kerry crushed Clark, so don't re-write the past and think it was Clark vs. Edwards. If you're going to blame anyone for Clark's 2004 defeat, blame Kerry.

[xkenx]

83. You didn't read what clark2008 wrote.

Yes, Clark was harmed by skipping Iowa. Clark 2008 pointed out that in primaries which included both Clark and Edwards, Clark got more votes than Edwards 5 out of 9, nothing to do with Kerry. Yet MSM made it out to be a Kerry-Edwards race. That's all. Of course, once Kerry got the big mo, he swept by everyone. Please don't distort history here.

[jcrew2001]

92. Kerry won Iowa, Edwards finished 2nd

and that was all the media wrote. After Iowa, Kerry steamrolled the nom, but Edwards got the 2nd place 'spoiler' momentum.

Where was Clark's "media momentum" after Iowa - Kerry got momentum, Edwards got spoiler momentum, Dean got loser momentum, Clark got the leftover/non-existent coverage after his 3rd place finish in NH.

After NH, Kerry already won - so the Media coverage ALL WENT TO KERRY.

Are you Seriously saying that Clark was a spoiler threat to Kerry and could have won 2004 Democratic nomination if he had more media coverage?

No one, and especially not the media cares about who got more 2nd place finishes after NH - maybe if Clark was picked as VP - someone would have cared.

[xkenx]

99. Huh? Now you make no sense at all.

Edwards gets the spoiler "mo" after 2nd in Iowa?? How so if Clark was the 3rd place finisher in NH after Kerry and Dean? Facts were that head- to-head, Clark got higher finishes than Edwards. And, after Iowa, Kerry stomped them and everyone else. In your ongoing attempt to belittle Clark, you have become incoherent. But again, I was wondering who would keep this pro-Clark thread going, and you didn't let me down. Thanks for your help. This will carry over well into Sunday, in time for another group of readers.

[jcrew2001]

100. In your blind support for Clark you don't realize

that there were other contenders taking up media space vs Kerry.

It was:
Kerry vs. Dean (Dean lost and got lots of Scream coverage)
Kerry vs. Edwards (after the Iowa results)

Yes, Edwards was tagged the official second place spoiler after Iowa based on the "Results" - something you don't give credit for.

Clark does not need me to belittle him, he did that to himself and made himself a non-factor in 2004.

The media did not cover him after his 3rd place finish in NH because he was no where close to Kerry. Why would the media care about Clark if he had no chance at beating Kerry?

My point is that Kerry crushed Clark - and that is what the Media cares about.

As a current non-candidate, the media is not interested in bringing up Clark's 2nd place finishes in 2004. Its sad but true.

The reason that the MSM is continuing to talk about Edwards because he is the only candidate from 2004, that is STILL RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008.

Until Clark announces, the media will continue to ignore him as a non-candidate.

The thing with the News is - You have to make News to be in the News

If Clark wants to run in 2008, he needs to act and talk like he wants to run in 2008 - its a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What is Clark's image now? He's the Anti-war General, its sounds like an Oxymoron. Obama is currently the anti-war candidate, there might be room for one more.

In the past, Gen Eisenhower ran on a strong military record and promised a new plan for KOREA, and Nixon promised a new plan for Vietnam. There are lots of Dems promising a new plan for Iraq, so Clark's image is being suffocated.

[xkenx]

102. Kerry crushed Clark; Clark edged Edwards; therefore Kerry crushed Edwards--QED

But thanks again.

[jcrew2001]

75. Newt, Thompson, and Gore have all held

elected office and have won elections. They are winners and served in govt.

Clark ran in 2004 and is a loser, he lost the 2004 nomination.

Clark doesn't want the media attention so why are you crying over it. If Clark ran or held a previous elected position, he would get more coverage.

[Clark2008]

4. There was a time when I thought that maybe he actually

DIDN'T have much traction - and then there was the OK win.

When the media failed to cover the fact that he'd won Oklahoma, failed to cover the fact that he had beaten John Edwards in most of the serious races that they had both competed in so far, failed to cover his campaign donations, how well he was actually doing despite only having been in the race for four months - I knew they were willfully ignoring him.

It was so obvious and still is.

[jcrew2001]

23. i think he's a bit of an unknown quantity in terms

of living a public life - and never holding any public offices that makes it difficult for him to get out there when he's never been out there to begin with. He's not a public official, so what is there to cover?

[xkenx]

29. I think the comments here are remembering the MSM's effort to ignore Clark on '04.

You may be right about this year so far.

[jcrew2001]

80. Clark quit Iowa in 2004 and the MSM ignored him

he shot his own foot off, so to speak.

[Jai4WKC08]

47. You do realize the military is "public office" don't you?

Clark has 34 years in public office, and during that time, he accomplished far more than ANY of the other candidates. He's also been doing more than his share to influence Congressional action on this war. So there's plenty to cover and no "unknown quantity" about it.

Ya know, Clark is not even running yet, and he frequently polls better than the so-called 2nd and 3rd tier candidates. Theoretically, he should get at least as much coverage as those others. Not that it would be much, because no one but the top three gets much air-time, but it would be more than he gets now.

[xkenx]

52. Jai, that is a great point about Clark's 34 years in public office!

Of course! His tenure as a top military and diplomatic leader was public service of the highest order. Thanks for that post. I'm going to include that point in my future comments.

[jcrew2001]

79. Elected officials have showed they can get voters

Clark tried to get votes in 2004 and he lost big-time to Kerry. You can't be president if no one votes for you. Maybe in second life on the internets, but I just don't think Clark wants to be a politician, no offense. He can stick to fox news, etc.

[Adelante]

81. Everybody lost big time to Kerry

Everybody other than Clark who lost to Kerry were elected officials, except for Sharpton and even he was a politician since he was a teenager. They all lost to Kerry.

[jcrew2001]

93. Yes but Edwards is still running for president and

Clark isn't. Clark might run later, and he'll get the media attention then, but for right now, why does he care about media attention.

Gore can have hollywood, Fred can have law and order, Newt's been running for prez since 1994.

Clark doesn't need the media.

[Clark2008]

51. He's a retired general who was in charge of the Northern Fly Zone

in Iraq during the time Hussein was allegedly amassming wmds and Clark knows there weren't any.

He's no more or less of a public official than Gore, Newt and Thompson, who are all being covered.

So, I really don't see the difference, other than the fact that they are ignoring him. They don't want a candidate who wants to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine.

They made dean out to be insane and they ignored Clark - the only two 2004 primary candidates who were for re-instating the Fairness Doctrine.

Pretty simple deduction with no tin foil if you ask me.

[jcrew2001]

78. Who said clark was a candidate?

I don't think anyone has said Clark is a candidate - you are putting words into his mouth.

Newt and Thompson have openly stated their interest in runninng. Clark has not said anything.

Clark quit/lost 2004 by skipping Iowa - he's a quitter, stop saying he could have won.

[Jai4WKC08]

90. Clark has expressed interest in being a candidate

Every bit as much as Newt, more than Gore, and more than Thompson until very recently. If you haven't heard him, it's either because you aren't paying attention, or because you choose to ignore the facts.

As for skipping Iowa, you should ask a grown-up for a little history. Many national candidates have chosen to skip Iowa. Until 2004, it made no difference. So skipping Iowa is no indication of being a quitter. That's just insulting, which is no doubt what you intended. But it's also uninformed, and really kind of stupid.

And no, no one has to stop saying he could have won. It happens to be my opinion that he could have, and I have every right to say it. Grow up and realize you don't give orders here.

But hey, didn't you say farther up that Clark can't get votes? Then why are you bothering with him at all? If he can't get votes, then he won't be a factor in the 08 primaries, whether he decides to run or not. On the other hand, if you're wrong and he can get votes (and actually, the 04 primaries prove he can), then it won't matter whether he was ever elected to office before.

Personally, I prefer a candidate who earned his public offices by competence and character, rather than those who got there because he or she can run a good PR campaign. But I'll grant you the PR campaign is important. I think he can run one, and I think he proved it last time. If you don't, you have a right to express that opinion. But I doubt you really do, or else he wouldn't worry you so much that you haunt all the DU threads about him, saying essentially the same thing over and over again.

[jcrew2001]

91. Some have skipped Iowa when Harkin ran and

Clark could make a case for skipping Iowa again if Vilsack stayed in. But Clark lost to Kerry, not to Edwards - so you should gripe about Clark losing to Kerry and ask why he lost to Kerry. Did Clark really think he had a chance in NH with Kerry's volunteers from mass?

I've heard Clarkites being wishy washy and giving excuses for him. 1) He's not a politician and is focused on stopping the Iran war - okay he can do that, but that doesn't make him a candidate, and politicians win elections and meet with voters, something Clark is choosing not to do at this time. 2) Clark gets no media attention - well he would get media attention if he announced his candidacy, that is a way to get media attention, if he wanted it. 3) Clark doesn' want to be VP because he doesn't want to legislate - sounds like sour grapes cuz everyone else would jump at a chance to be VP.

Elected Officials have an advantage over Clark because they have been ELECTED - and they have a base of voters who have voted for him/her, they are legitamate legislators.

I don't know anything about what Clark wants or why he wants to be president; or even if he cares about being president. Its a double-edged sword being a politician, you get the media attention, but you have a history with voters - something that Clark lacks.

[Clark2008]

98. A quitter?

He got into the race too late to run in Iowa. That's not quitting. It was a mistake not to compete there - and he fully admits that - but it's not quitting.

[jcrew2001]

101. It sounds like an excuse for stupidity

You can make an excuse for Clark's political mistakes and bad decisions and political inexperience and poor tactics.

He lost 2004 to Kerry, he skipped Iowa. He finished 3rd in New Hampshire. He didn't gain any traction until Oklahoma and by then the race was over.

I agree to all these points.

Clark defeated himself, you can't blame the media, you can't blame Edwards, you can't blame Kerry.

[CarolNYC]

103. Since you seem to have missed the question the first time, I'll ask again....

Why are you so obsessed with Clark? Why do you spend so much time and energy trying to convince people that he won't or shouldn't run? And why does it freak you out so much that there are people who hope he does?

[subterranean]

7. Is Wes Clark doing anything to get more media coverage?

I hope he runs, too, but until he declares his candidacy, or at least expresses strong interest, what is there for the MSM to ignore?

[Clark2008]

9. He's doing plenty - and has been - but the media absolutely

REFUSES to cover him.

There was a list as long as this page currently regarding all that Clark was doing - not a word covered by anyone but the local media at all the whistle stops.

[jcrew2001]

21. I just don't think anyone cares because Clark

is not a candidate. Its really a non-issue.

[Clark2008]

53. So why do they care about Gore and Newt and Thompson?

None of them are candidates.

[jcrew2001]

76. i'll tell you why

Gore has made a movie and is all over the media giving interviews solely about the movie and the awards - this gives him a platform and profile for critics to say he should run for prez.

Thompson is a well known actor on Law and order which is on 24/7 in cable re-runs.

Newt has had a high national profile for the past 15 years since 1994 - He was the face of teh Republican party during the Clinton administration. Critics take a Newt run for prez very seriously due to his past experience and profile.

Clark has never had a national audience - he might get one, but its almost too late for that.

[Clark2008]

97. And Clark won a war with no American casualities.

If no one knows this - why is that? Um... the media.

[krkaufman]

10. Agreed. Wes Clark and Al Gore are my two favorite possibles...

... giving every indication that they're not running. (Though Al, at least, is getting coverage.)

[jcrew2001]

20. He should announce he's running to get more media

coverage. I agree with your point.

The media is ignoring him because he is not a candidate. You can ignore someone who wants to be ignored. He doesn't want the attention anyways.

[skipos]

6. Hillary is still showing primary strength and general election weakness

despite all her money and name recognition. Clark would be great.

[progressoid]

8. I like the General but he needs to step up to the plate pretty damn soon.

I wish the campaigning hadn't started so soon but he's going to have to do something to stay in the limelight.

And Hagel? I doubt he would get enough Rs to vote for him to get the nomination.

[xkenx]

12. I think Hagel would be our most difficult opponent--solid conservative,

anti-Iraq.

[Jai4WKC08]

48. I think Fred Thompson is a bigger threat

Mostly because I don't think Hagel can get the Repub nomination.

But Thompson can. He already had the name recognition factor that's so important to winning primaries.

And he is every bit as conservative in a traditional sense as anyone running on their side. I don't know exactly where he stands on the war, but I have no reason to think he would change course significantly. He strikes me as a Duncan Hunter type.

But the worst of it is that average Americans hold a general impression of Thompson like the characters he's played. I don't watch Law & Order, but my understanding is that his character is strong, competent and likable in a gruff sort of way, which seems to be what a lot of Americans want more than any particular position on issues (because so many of them don't know anything about issues). If that's the impression he has left, well, it's hard to dislodge a first impression, and most voters will never learn much more about him than that anyway.

[xkenx]

50. Could be, but not if he ties himself to Bush in any way.

[Jai4WKC08]

57. Oh, Thompson won't do that

Even if he agreed with Bush 100% (which I don't think he does -- I think he's LOTS more conservative, scary as that is), he wouldn't let people think so. There's no advantage for any Repub in being tied to Bush, and Thompson isn't stupid.

His biggest problem will be convincing evangelicals he's right-wing enough on their issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc... basically, the disintegration of church/state separation). For one, he comes out of Hollywood. For another, Dobson attacked him just th'other day for not being a Christian (altho Dobson later said that by Christian, he means evangelical Christian). But compared to Giuliani, McCain, and Romney, I don't think they'll have a major problem with him being from a mainstream church. Afterall, Bush is technically a Methodist, and his parents were Episcopalians. Bush fakes being a Jesus freak and they all fall in line. Thompson will do it too and it'll sell, especially if he gets chummy with a Brownback or Huckabee and makes it look like he might pick one of those two for a VP.

[Adelante]

82. I've been saying that all day

Thompson is the threat. He would give any one of the current leading Dems a tremendous challenge.

[PhilipShore]

11. If Gore does not run -- I would vote for General Clark

[jen4clark]

13. You're absolutely right, xkenx!

K & R!
:kick:

email from General Clark today:

Last Friday, Iranian military forces seized 15 British sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf. Some believe this is an act of aggression by Iran and should be met with a commensurate military response.

I do not.

I believe it shows that the Bush Administration's current policy with Iran is not working. For the sake of stability in the Middle East, it's time for direct diplomacy with Iran -- now more than ever.

Today, we're launching our third video blog for StopIranWar.com. I'm joined by Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org and Clark Community blogger Reg to discuss how President Bush's get tough policy with Iran is undermining the security of our most reliable ally in the region, Israel.

Watch today's video blog to understand why George Bush's policy of confronting Iran hurts the Israelis, our strongest allies in this volatile region.

We need to be shaping a new vision for the Middle East. Peace won't come through saber rattling and threats -- it will come through dialogue, negotiation and the hard work of diplomacy. While I would never rule out military action against Iran if necessary to preserve stability, protect Israel and defend America's national security, it just doesn't make sense in our current circumstances.

In fact, attacking Iran now would simply derail the Middle East peace process, further radicalize Israel's enemies, and put our friend and ally at risk. Years of diplomacy aimed at laying the groundwork for peace will be lost.

We must give the people of this region cause for hope -- not just the threat of the Sixth Fleet lurking off their shore. It's time to let the diplomats do their job.

Watch our new video blog today, and then sign our petition to President Bush asking him to pursue diplomacy with Iran -- not more military confrontation.

It's time for the United States to be a beacon of hope and the voice of reason in the Middle East. President Bush's policy of military confrontation has done enough harm. Please, help me change his course by inviting your friends and family to sign our petition at StopIranWar.com today.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

[earthlover]

14. Clark!

I believe Clark would be a marvelous President. Supported him in 04.

I have been trying to support Obama. I am pretty luke-warm on the others in the race.

I believe nominating Hillary would be an exercise in denial....and an especially cruel form of denial because it would deny the Dems a Presidency and gains in the Congress during a time when Dems should have both. Sorry, but it is not because she is a woman. It is because she is the epitome of the "politician." People don't like politicians. Even if they are female, and...for some....especially if they are female. Either way, we lose.

I liked Edwards' speech but wished he could write a few more during the 04 campaign. I was very disappointed in his debate performance against Darth Cheney. I admire his family's facing cancer head-on but I am afraid that this will have more of an effect on the general election than it will have in the primaries.....and, as with Hillary, we need to look forward to the general election.

Obama I think has the potential to go all the way. I also believe..at least want to believe...his heart is in the right place. So, among the announced contenders, I am leaning towards Obama. I think he has a definate chance to win the nomination, and I base this on his apparent political instincts as much as on anything. I also believe he would win in November.

Gore I would support without hesitation. I admire his stand on global warming. I must admit that I was frustrated by his condescending sighs during the debates...which I believe cost him the election as much as Florida-Gate. But, even so, I would not hesitate to support Gore and I believe he would do better this time around.

What I think we have to face up to is that George Bush is not running in 08 and that the Republican nominee is gonna put miles of distance from Bush. So it won't do to run against Bush, although that might be tempting. Recent polls have Guilliani and even McCain doing well against Clinton and Obama....so we could be making a Titanic mistake to disregard the potential for defeat in 08. Remember, the Titanic sunk because the crew thought it was unsinkable.

Right now, I don't have a lot of confidence in Clark deciding to run. If he ran, he would have an uphill battle for the nomination because Dems are naturally suspicious of the military and because the media has shown in the past and will continue to ignore Clark, and/or spread memes that he is not Democratic enough, is too militaristic, etc knowing that this might be enough to scare some Dems away from him. In spite of the fact that he is more progressive than most and, more than most, believes that war is only a last, last, last possible resort.

I hope I am proven wrong about this. In any case, this year there are three potential nominees I could support with enthusiasm...too bad only one of them is running.

[xkenx]

16. Here's the answer to that one!

This is for any Dems. who may have trouble with a former general as POTUS. I posted this last week.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You woulda thunk that after all the information about Wes Clark, at least here and @ DKOS, that folks would know that Clark, in his essential being, is an antiwar progressive. But I keep seeing comments about "warlike mentality, rigid authoritarian, MIC-lover, doesn't know domestic policy, inexperienced, etc." So let's see if I, as an antiwar liberal whose hero was Bobby Kennedy, can shed some important light on this--maybe convince a few that Wes Clark is a gift to the Democratic Party who can flip red states and whup any Rethug they can put up.

THE "DUCK PRINCIPLE"
Ducks don't wear signs labeling them ducks. If it has a ducksbill, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then you know it's a duck.
Wes Clark is one of the Democratic Party's foremost progressives by virtue of his actions over the years, not by any labels that people want to throw at him simply because he had a career in the military.
It is time to appreciate just how lucky we are to have this national treasure. Just a few items:

--Clark was always butting heads with the stereotypical "macho" military Neanderthals because he saw the horrors of war firsthand in Vietnam and always espoused "diplomacy first."
--Clark was one of the leaders of the all-volunteer Army created after the Vietnam debacle. To keep personnel in you had to do a good job of providing for their family needs, health, education, equal opportunity.
--Clark actually won environmental awards at bases under his command.
--When Clark was working at the Pentagon in the mid-90s, he was virtually the only voice crying out to intervene in Rwanda.
--It was Clark's voice, along with Madeline Albright, who persuaded the Clinton Admin., over the objections of the Pentagon, to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Tell the Kosovar Albanians that Wes Clark isn't a liberal, progressive, humanitarian.
--It was Wes Clark's voice prior to the Iraq invasion who urged that we exhaust all possible diplomatic means before any military action, including in testimony to Congress.
--It was Wes Clark who filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the University
of Michigan affirmative action case.
--It was Wes Clark who committed the act of political courage by appearing on the cover of the Advocate (gay rights magazine)during the '04 primaries.

Since when is it some kind of a black mark for someone to give to his country by serving in the military if he does so in a principled manner? Wes Clark felt that he could make the most impact by providing a progressive voice to that institution.


.

[earthlover]

17. Great response!

...I might also add that it was Wes Clark who proposed the most progressive reform of the IRS in decades during 04, taxing the very rich to allow families of 4 under $50,000 not to have to pay ANY federal tax...or even file! And it it Clark who is speaking about involving the entire Middle East in discussions and in opposing war in IRAN.

I think a lot of Clark supporters are RFK admirers. Me too!

[xkenx]

33. Not since Bobby Kennedy have I been so inspired as I have been inspired by Wes Clark.

BTW, Clark's 2004 platform for no tax for those under $50K was paid for, not by a tax increase, but by a restoration of the taxes on the rich that Bush misguidedly reduced in 2001.

[Dinger]

15. Clark Is What A President Should Be

A leader, a diplomat, intelligent, experienced in foreign affairs, has been in the line of fire & therefore knows first hand the cost of war, etc., etc. I hope he runs, but it is oh so hard waiting.
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[rinsd]

18. Y aknow I think its telling you can't promote your candidate without bashing another

And this is by no means telling of Clark the candidate but you the supporter.

"
1. Can you please name two red states she can flip?"

You have been given a dozens or so states in at least two other threads. But yet you repeat this.


"2. Why?
(This assumes she can hold all blue states; anyone want to bet on PA, NH, WI?)
To the answer of the names of a couple of red states, I would then ask why couldn't Gore and Kerry, two white male Vietnam vets, win those states?"

Only white male Vietnam vets can win red states?

"Well they are where white males vote big Republican and their wives follow their men."

How insulting can you get to people living in red states.

"Hillary is a walking $100M of free advertising for Rethugs to get out their vote, and vote they will--she is despised among them (don't say it's unfair--so what?)."

So what is she's despised by them. Any nominee we would have is going to be despised.

"And don't say "Things are different; people hate Bush--they'll now vote Dem."

Fuynny how you reserve the right to make unsubstantiated claims only to yourself.

"Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents will look for a reason to vote Republican. The 2008 Rethug nominee will give it to them. He will run away from Bush. He will say the he will return the Republican Party to its' roots, to true conservatism, to fiscal responsibility, and he will provide national security in the true Republican tradition, not the mismanaged Iraq effort. And the Republican and half the Indie masses will eat that up."

So if this is true, how does ANY Democratic candidate stand a chance in red states?

"So red states don't flip for Hillary. Can you just see HRC and Chuck Hagel in a debate? Hagel (wounded/decorated Vietnem vet) says " I called out Bush early on for his foulup of Iraq and urged exit, while you Mrs. Clinton backed Bush all the way, until 2007 when it was safe to do so, to pacify your base, F-L-I-P-F-L-O-P-P-E-R!" "I, Chuck Hagel will protect America in the true tradition of Ronald Reagan who won the Cold War." (Never mind that a lot of that is bullshit, the masses will buy it.)"

Chuck Hagel can't even make up his mind to run, you think he has the campaign smarts to beat Rudy and McCain? You think the media is gonna give an anti-war candidate a fair shot?

Wes Clark is a good man (I think he should run for the Senate) but a suupporter does him no favors by making up bullshit about other Democrats.

[earthlover]

19. ok...for the sake of those of us who didn't read your previous post....

1) what ARE the Red states that Hillary can flip....sorry, I didn't read your post

2) how do you explain that both McCain and Guiliani beat Hillary in recent polls?

3) why did Hillary feel the need to say she was "in it to win"? Follow up: wasn't that a red flag to her own weakness? As in....who isn't in it to win? DuH!

[rinsd]

26. Responses

1) what ARE the Red states that Hillary can flip....sorry, I didn't read your post

OH, NM, AK, possibly CO and NV.

2) how do you explain that both McCain and Guiliani beat Hillary in recent polls?

Well it is still early and in many of the state head to head polls Clinton holds her own if not beating both.

The only polliing I;ve seen comparing Clark with field has him getting his ass handed to him by double digits.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/McCainvs.KerryClark.htm

"3) why did Hillary feel the need to say she was "in it to win"?"

Every candidate says the same thing. How about Wes Clark his NY money people comment? Basically handed the state to Guiliani.

[earthlover]

27. not convinced

1) You didn't say WHY Hillary can take these states, nor why she would be more likely than any other Dem to take these states. Anyone can name states.

2) As to the polls, of course they are early....but one of the big arguements of the Hillary candidacy is that she is in it to WIN. ANd Obama seems to do better than Hillary in these polls. And in others. So what happened to the inevitability factor?

3) Of course every candidate is in it to win! Which was exactly my point!! But isn't it a bit of a let down when a major candidate has her announcement as a platform to pronounce her reason for entering and all she could say she was in it to win? Sorry for being underwhelmed.
Yes, even Bush was in it to win. So was Atilla the Hun, for that matter. So winning is the definition? OMG.

[rinsd]

28. I would say 3 or 4 of our candidates in the field could take those states

Do you want specifics on the states and why I think they are all trending Democratic irregardless of candidates or do you want specific #'s involving trial heats within those states? I can only do so much with the latter as the polling hasn't been done for all of those states.

"2) As to the polls, of course they are early....but one of the big arguements of the Hillary candidacy is that she is in it to WIN. ANd Obama seems to do better than Hillary in these polls. And in others. So what happened to the inevitability factor?"

Where has Obama been doing better? Almost all national heat trials show Clinton or Guiliani winning with McCain and Obama on the 2nd tier.,

"3) Of course every candidate is in it to win! Which was exactly my point!! But isn't it a bit of a let down when a major candidate has her announcement as a platform to pronounce her reason for entering and all she could say she was in it to win? Sorry for being underwhelmed. "

Well that wasn't all she had to say. Do youself a favor and actually view her annoucement video.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/2.aspx

And stop talking trash about a Democratic candidate when you are uninformed about it.

[earthlover]

37. here's where...

the general election! Several polls show including today's Time poll show Obama doing better than Hillary when compared to Guiliani or McCain. Hillary is ahead in polls of Democrats for the nomination, but she is consistently further behind the Reps than Obama with regard to the general election. Further, this will likely change in Obama's favor with time, since most people already know Clinton and Obama is still unfamiliar to many.

If you would prefer to just call others uninformed, that is your choice. But I would prefer it if you spent the time to inform yourself of the recent polls regarding Clinton vs Reps before you get so hot and bothered.

[rinsd]

63. You are uninformed

You claimed her announcement was little more than I';m in it to win it.

I showed her actual annoucnement in whcih she laid out her plans.

Instead of admitting your error, you change subjects.

"Hillary is ahead in polls of Democrats for the nomination, but she is consistently further behind the Reps than Obama with regard to the general election."

Show me where Obama is consistently closer than Clinton to the GOP. If its the TIME pol you are relying on I suggest you look further down this post.

"Further, this will likely change in Obama's favor with time, since most people already know Clinton and Obama is still unfamiliar to many. "

When name recognition rises, so do negatives.

"If you would prefer to just call others uninformed, that is your choice."

You are obviously uninformed.

"But I would prefer it if you spent the time to inform yourself of the recent polls regarding Clinton vs Reps before you get so hot and bothered."

Yes it helps to be informed

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1594847,00.html

"In a general election, the poll showed that a Clinton versus McCain contest would be a virtual dead heat, while she would lose to Giuliani by 3%. Obama, according to the poll, would beat McCain by 4 points; but would trail Giuliani by 5"

[Jai4WKC08]

72. Your data is old

The Time poll released yesterday says:

"In our poll, Hillary Clinton loses to John McCain, 42%-48%, and to Rudy Giuliani 41%-50%. Even though Clinton maintains a 7% edge over Obama among Democratic respondents, Obama fares better in the general election matchups. It's so close that it's a statistical dead heat, but Obama still loses: 43%-45% to McCain, 44%-45% to Giuliani."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1604469,00.html

You're also off base in your implication that Clinton only has high unfavorability because she has high name recognition. Her unfavorability percentage is significantly disproportionate to her name recognition. In fact, in the latest Rassmussen data (which is a lot more charitable to Clinton than other polls I've seen), her favorability is 50% and her unfavorability is 48%, a statistically insignificant difference between the two. Compare that to Obama (54/36) or Clark (39/28), both who have a significantly greater percentage of people who view them favorably.

http://rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Favorables/Favorables.htm

Fwiw, the Rassmussen data at that link also shows Clinton losing worse to Giuliani or McCain than Obama does, altho the difference is at the very edge of statistical significance.

[FrenchieCat]

36. How about Wes Clark his NY money people comment? Basically handed the state to Guiliani?

you said!

:wtf:

YOU ARE UNINFORMED IN REGARDS TO THIS!

If you think Jewish people will vote for Guiliani because of what Wes Clark said, you are really underestimating Jewish people, and playing into the monoliphique stereotype that non-Jews have about Jews. I pray that you are not Jewish.....and if you are, you obviously didn't understand what came of that entire incident. It actually was a very good thing!

Bloggers vs. the Lobby
Israel’s propaganda fortress faces a surprising new challenge.

That’s why the truth defense floated on behalf of Wes Clark was important, and that’s why the mockery that has greeted the AJC’s claim that Jews who criticize Israel are “anti-Semites” are such hopeful signs: they offer the possibility of a movement rising that could save the United States from compounding the errors it has already made.
March 12, 2007 Issue
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/article.html

March 19, 2007
Iraq, Iran, and the Lobby

With the Democrats in control of Congress – and, in my view at least, more than likely to regain the White House – the Israelis are rightly concerned that their future is not so bright. Israel is finally getting its fair share of criticism of late, and a new boldness in Democratic Party circles – as well as among Republican "realists" – in calling the "special relationship" into question does not augur well for Tel Aviv.
snip
The big problem for the Lobby is that their power, and willingness to wield it, is no longer a forbidden subject. Increasingly, there is an open discussion of AIPAC's role as the War Party's nerve center and its effective control over the foreign policy agendas of both parties. It is therefore necessary for the Lobby to ratchet up the rhetoric, whip dissidents into line, and keep any potential waverers from breaking ranks.
snip
It is absolutely astonishing that all of the major Democratic candidates for the White House proclaim their willingness to go to war with Iran if "diplomacy," meaning a relentless barrage of threats, fails to work. Not a single one dares critique our Israel-centered foreign policy
snip
Using the mechanisms of democracy,a small but passionate minority can successfully impose its will on the largely apathetic majority – and it doesn't hurt, as Wesley Clark pointed out, that many of the Democratic Party's major donors have made fealty to Israeli interests a litmus test for candidates.

Speaker Pelosi, who was a Democratic fundraiser long before she was promoted to Congress, knows this all too well, as her actions on the Iran matter dramatically confirm. After all, George W. Bush will veto the appropriations bill if it comes with what he considers extraneous and unacceptable riders, such as restrictions on funding that impede the surge – so why not submit it to the floor with the Iran provision intact just to make a point?

The Democrats backed down, and fast, so our future is all mapped out for us.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10697

Wes Clark and the New York Money People - Why those who condemn Clark for his comment are reinforcing a stereotype and distracting from warnings on Iran!
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/wes_clark_and_the_new_york_mon.html

Note, only Jonah Goldberg and his co-horts are unhappy about what Wes Clark said....
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/02/the_new_york_sun_confirms_it_j.html

[rinsd]

64. You're citing the American Conservative & Raimando?

You have to be kidding me.

The point is that clip of him saying NY money people will be played on endless loop.

The phrase NY money people is often code for Jewish people, it does not matter what Clark intended to say or meant. He's on tape saying it. He will be attacked for it. Its his Macaca whether he intended offense or not.

[FrenchieCat]

67. Yes, and Alterman, Media Matters, The Prospect, Iglesias, Jewschool, Reasons, The Forward, etc....

SO No it isn't.......Clark's Macaca moment.......

New York Money people aren't necessarily Jewish, to begin with. 22 billion of New York money is generated by non jews. That's a large portion of it.
Clark clearly made a statement that the Jewish community was divided on the issue of Iran, and that is the case. That is part of that same sentence.....

If you believe that Jewish voters are that gullible, you are in for a rude awakening, and indeed, you seem to be the one who would like to stereotype Jews, Not Wes Clark!

How could this be? After all, if you believe the recent $1 million ad campaign put on by the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), the Democratic Party is led by a bunch of anti-Israel lunatics.

It turns out, American Jews aren’t buying into the RJC’s propaganda. Despite this last minute flurry of negative advertising by desperate Republicans, Jewish voters are highly educated about the issues and they know quite precisely where the two parties and the their candidates stand.
http://www.njdc.org/issues/detail.php?id=632

Eric Alterman on Clark and this "Much you make".....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nch43wy8Zb8&mode=related&search=

And, you obviously didn't read all of the many other links provided at the Rapid-Fire site which gave many more links than the two you mentioned (which I provided separately because they were the newest)--
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118265.html
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html
http://jewschool.com/2007/01/08/mishegaas-20/
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/117680.html
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12394
http://www.nysun.com/article/47843
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=77751
http://jewschool.com/2007/02/05/running-with-the-nuclear-football/
http://www.forward.com/articles/groups-fear-public-backlash-over-iran/
http://www.njdc.org/newsdigest/detail.php?id=655


And since the two links that I provided but that you decried provided a similar perspective from both the Left AND the Right, it actually makes my point; that what Clark said was not offensive, but rather was the unpleasant truth.... which makes him courageous and honest....which does NOT equal a Macaca moment (as you refer to it) no matter how much you wish that to be the case!

[Jai4WKC08]

74. There is no clip to replay

And there really is no problem. It's pretty much only Republicans who have tried to use it against Clark, for rather obvious reasons. Most of the rest of us know what he was talking about, and it wasn't "code" for Jews.

You should try reading some of the documentation Frenchie provided links to. But heck, why let facts get in the way a perfectly good smear against another Democrat?

[Clark2008]

54. No she can't.

Sorry - don't buy that a one of those red states will vote for her.

~ blue voter in a red state

[xkenx]

32. Some of you Hillaryistas are mighty thin-skinned! You mistake a

comparison of candidates' ability to take on Rethugs and win the General Election with smearing. I like Hillary; I love her as a Senator; I can't see her winning the GE (and acknowledge that a lot of the stuff thrown at her is crap or made up--but perception is reality to lots of voters--unfortunate but true). So I will stand by my OP. You cannot alter the state of political life by attacking this messenger. You cannot get Hillary to win states merely by naming them. And I believe I'm doing Wes Clark lots of favors by pointing out his assets; Clarkies would have to do less of that if the media gave him a fraction of the "inevitibility" that it gives Hillary. I've learned from the James Carville/Bill Clinton school of politics. Someone attacks me or my candidate gratuitously, not a fraction of a news cycle will go by without a response. Hillary plays hardball; I hope she and her supporters can take as good as they can give.

[rinsd]

34. "state of political life by attacking this messenger"

When the message is pulled from Inner Rectum News I can.

"
You cannot get Hillary to win states merely by naming them"

Yet you can actually assign her defeat by naming some close states in which Democrats won(ie: your wanna bet BS).

"And I believe I'm doing Wes Clark lots of favors by pointing out his assets"

What assets? You set up some strawmen and knocked them down.

"
Clarkies would have to do less of that if the media gave him a fraction of the "inevitibility" that it gives Hillary"

Why in the world would they give such coverage to a candidate that placed 4th last time around and hasn't even announced for this coming election?

[xkenx]

35. You should have actually read my posts. I won't be replying to you any more.

And I thought I'd display my other avatar.

[jcrew2001]

25. when is he going to announce?

n/t

[xkenx]

31. Dunno; I'm just a volunteer, but here's my take.

Clark needs to announce substantially earlier than last time, and before the start of the 3rd quarter fundraising cycle to gain fundraising traction. So either sometime before Memorial Day or at Memorial Day to remind folks of the disaster that was Iraq which Clark argued against from the beginning.

[w4rma]

38. He's in my top 3, but I no longer think he will announce. He can't wait all year like Gore can. (nt)

[jcrew2001]

77. Clark is quite sad, its really pathetic

almost - that all his supporters are crying about Clark.

He doesn't look good waffling.

if or when he announces around memorial day - he might be able to make up ground, but I think the support isn't there for the dem nom.

I really think he would have a better shot at a 3rd party or Unity 2008. It would be scummy though.

[xkenx]

84. jcrew, you always get around to showing your true colors about Clark.

But thanks to you also for helping keep a positive thread about Clark going.

[CarolNYC]

86. Just wondering...

Why are you so obsessed with Clark? Why do you spend so much time and energy trying to convince people that he won't or shouldn't run? And why does it freak you out so much that there are people who hope he does?

[eridani]

39. Four questions for Clark

1. What does having 700+ military bases all around the world have to do with defending the US and its citizens?

2. The US demanded of Serbia, as conditions for not destroying its infrastructure, the military occupation of Serbia by NATO and the selling off of state and worker owned industries to foreign investors. What did those two demands have to do with stopping ethnic cleansing?

3. If unsuccessful ethnic cleansing of Kosovo by Serbia was bad, why was the successful ethnic cleansing of the Krajina by Croatia with the aid of US mercenaries good? Why didn't you intervene then?

4. Will you close the School of the Americas for good? (His tenure at Southcom was only a year, not enough time to move on this. Being president would be different.)

[xkenx]

40. You need to ask the first 3 questions of the civilian policy-makers.

As SACEUR, any of Clark's actions were as a result of negotiations among the 19 member nations of NATO, both diplomatically and militarily. Clark's action role was to carry out the military portion of the policy decided upon. As for SOA, my understanding is that the excesses occurred before Clark's watch. Clark has since said that he would never allow those kind of excesses to take place. That doesn't mean SOA should be shut down. Do we shut down DOJ because of Alberto Gonzalez and Karl Rove's abuses?

[eridani]

42. Well, if Clark runs, a civilian policy maker is what he will be

So I'd like to know what his answers to those questions are.

The Justice Department has a worthy purpose which Gonzo et al have corrupted. The SOA was founded specifically to teach Latin American elites how to keep their people impoverished and powerless by using military forces against civilian populations. That is a really vile and unworthy goal right from the start, and somewhat less vicious methods of achieving it are the equivalent of putting the proverbial lipstick on the proverbial pig.

Can I add a fifth question? What does General Clark think of General Smedley Butler?

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0911-Racket.html

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. . . .

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. . . .

[xkenx]

46. So now Clark is a corporate racketeer because he was a military leader?

You are exactly the reason why I posted #16. I hope you aren't one of the dedicated career civil servants in the Department of Justice, because I might smear you by association with Gonzo. You clearly have a hatred for all things military. I remind you again that the military in this country is an instrument of civilian policy. Try reading the Constitution. Go talk to present and past Presidents and Congresses. They're the ones in bed with corporate racketeers. At least Wes Clark, by his knowledge of the system, will be in a position to effect meaningful changes to it. But thanks for keeping this very pro-Clark thread going. More and more folks have an opportunity to get educated about Clark. I've always said that to know Wes Clark is to become a dedicated Clarkie.

[eridani]

68. Smedley Butler didn't hate all things military, and neither do I

I am merely asserting, as he did, that military force ought to be used only in self-defense, and not for kicking the shit out of other countries and taking their stuff. I know that the military is an instrument of civilian policy, which is why I want to know what Clark's civilian policies are going to be. What are his answers to the questions I posed? Why not quit dodging and take a shot at answering? If I thought that Clark was another Smedley Butler, I'd be on board instantly.

Did the Democratic Party hate the military in 1900?
http://janda.org/politxts/PartyPlatforms/Democratic/dem.900.html

We declare again that all governments instituted among men derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that any government not based upon the consent of the governed is a tyranny, and that to impose upon any people a government of force is to substitute the methods of imperialism for those of a republic. We hold that the Constitution follows the flag, and denounce the doctrine that an Executive or Congress deriving their existence and their powers from the Constitution can exercise lawful authority beyond it or in violation of it. We assert that no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home.

<snip>

We are in favor of extending the Republic's influence among the nations, but we believe that that influence should be extended not by force and violence, but through the persuasive power of a high and honorable example.

<snip>

We oppose militarism. It means conquest abroad and intimidation and oppression at home. It means the strong arm which has ever been fatal to free institutions. It is what millions of our citizens have fled from in Europe. It will impose upon our peace loving people a large standing army and unnecessary burden of taxation, and will be a constant menace to their liberties.

Did our Founding Fathers hate the military?

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/fathers.htm
http://en.thinkexist.com/keyword/standing_army

Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:
"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

- James Madison, Fourth Annual Message, November 4, 1812-- large and permanent military establishments which are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.

-- "A Framer," in the Independent Gazetteer, 1791 Whenever people . . . entrust the defense of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.

Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826) "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army"

James Madison quotes (American 4th US president (1809-17), and one of the founding fathers of his country. 1751-1836) A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.

[xkenx]

69. OK, since you insist, I'll take a stab at answering for Clark.

"When I am President, I will, as the civilian Commander-in-Chief, help restore America to its' position as a moral leader in the world community, a world leader which does not impose its' will on others by force, but which leads by its' ideals, its' values, and its' actions to respect others' rights. My America will act militarily only in self defense, and only, only, only as a last resort." (actually I didn't make that up; I paraphrased that which Wes Clark has been saying/writing/testifying all along).
BTW, if you are supporting a particular candidate, can you unequivocally state that that candidate will be able to rein in the military-industrial complex better than Wes Clark?
To give you an example of Wes Clark's personal morals and political courage, when Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace ripped gays in the military and the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy just a couple weeks ago, it was Clark who ripped Pace and stated that it was time to change the policy, that anyone patriotic enough to volunteer to serve and put him/her self in harm's way, was welcome to serve in HIS military. This is the former military man who committed one of the ultimate acts of political courage by appearing on the cover of the Advocate (gay/lesbian rights magazine) in a T-shirt and motorcycle jacket IN THE MIDST OF THE 2004 PRIMARY CAMPAIGN. Contrast this with Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's "deer-in-the-headlights" non-answers when questioned about Pace's remarks. Wes Clark is anti-war activists' best hope for peace in our future.

[eridani]

85. Good answer

Now, 700+ military bases around the world are not necessary for our self-defense. For the last 100 or so years, our entire military policy has consisted almost entirely of imposing our imperial will on others by force, with the exceptions of the two world wars, which pitted imperial powers against each other. (That really was self defense--I don't like the idea of being ruled directly or indirectly by some other imperial power any better than other people like getting that from us.)

Each and every candidate will have a very hard time turning our military-based economy around before we get to the point where we can't make anything at all, only beat the living shit out of other countries and take their stuff, put each other in jail and sell each other cheap Chinese crap. It's like trying to turn a battleship around with an outboard motor. What I'd like to see at a bare minimum is a basic acknowledgement that this is actually a problem, which only Kucinich seems to get. Not that he'd necessarily have any better luck actually solving the battlehip/outboard motor quandary--but you can't begin to solve a problem unless you first recognize it and define it.

On LGBT and other issues, Clark is definitely less poll-driven and spineless than some of the other candidates, which is a definite plus.

[xkenx]

88. Agree with your assessment, but Clark recognizes it also, and is the one equipped to deal with it.

Clark has often spoken about military spending overhaul and the need to get cracking on our education, healthcare, so we can compete in the global economy.

[tom_paine]

41. Clark '08 would be just fine with me!

[NMDemDist2]

43. He's running now?

cool!

[colorado_ufo]

44. Clark is simply an incredible man.

Super POTUS material. I would love to have his high IQ, rational personality, and guts at the helm, but if not, he would be the best possible pick for VP that ANY of the current candidates could have. If Gore ran again, with Clark as his VP, it would be all over but the crying for the far-right group. Gore with the special expertise of domestic issues and environmental overview, Clark with unexcelled international and security experience, both men with highest marks for diplomacy.

Very simply, all voters, of any stripe, could feel secure with Gore/Clark in the leadership role. Imagine what 9/11 would have been like, with such a team to lead? Oh wait - it probably would never have happened.

[bonito]

45. K&R n/t

[loudsue]

55. Clark or Gore are the only two I see who could turn this country around.

They are the only two strong enough, mentally and politically, who could do what needs to be done. I'd vote and WORK HARD for either one of them.

The media is going to do their petty, catty talking points on any Dem that is running, and they'll give the republican a pass on everything... no matter who the candidates are. WE KNOW THIS, BECAUSE WE KNOW WHO OWNS THE MEDIA...THE REPUBLICAN CORPORATISTS.

Unless congress acts NOW to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, we are going to have to put up with the same shit from the press that we've been putting up with since Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine.

But if anyone would be able to straighten this country out, Clark or Gore could do it. I like John Edwards very much, but I'm afraid the republicans would be able to "Jimmy Carter" Edwards, and tie his hands on everything...he's still relatively inexperienced with the evil that lurks in the halls of power (in all countries, not just our own).

:kick::kick::kick:

[KingFlorez]

56. There's no guarantee that he could flip states

Just because he's a veteran doesn't mean he can flip states. Flipping states is about strategy, not one particular candidate.

[Jai4WKC08]

58. It has very little to do with his being a veteran

It has everything to do with who he really is.

Altho Clark is a compassionate man with liberal ideals, he's also a tough "man's man" from the South about whom no one can question that he knows how to defend America if necessary. He appeals to people from rural areas, which is really the main difference between red and blue states. Urban areas in red states tend to vote blue, and rural areas in blue states tend to vote red.

Maybe being a veteran and a retired general (actually quite a different thing) is part of all that, but it's not the important part.

[xkenx]

59. Clark can't flip MANY red states; they are solidly R. My point is he is the best equipped to flip

a few; that's all that counts. And the strategy is useless w/o the right candidate.

[sellitman]

60. Clark will make a great VP or Sec Of State.

For Al Gore.


Oops....that's right...they both aren't running yet.


Back to the drawing board.

[xkenx]

61. I really like Gore, but his negatives are nearly as high as HRC's, and I cannot understand why.

[Jai4WKC08]

62. Because people remember how they thought about him back in 2000

And Gore ran a shitty campaign while the GOP and corporate media conspired to convince America he was a habitual liar and a little bit loony.

The typical voter hasn't seen Gore since then. Oh some of them, a minute percentage, have caught some of the publicity from his movie, but with rare exception not enough to change their minds.

People are funny. Once they get an idea in their heads, it takes moving heaven and earth to dislodge it. It's like people here who are convinced Wes Clark is a war-monger and/or a Republican. Their minds are made up, so don't confuse them with facts.

[Cosmocat]

65. It is a CRYING shame ...

Gore is an intelligent and decent man ... But, the republican meme was that he was an arrogant, lying geek ... Better to vote for the guy you would want to have a beer with than an arrogant, lying geek ...

Sorry, I hate to say it, but this country got what it deserved ...

[sellitman]

66. If he runs...

His recent positives will crush all that Fox News BS. Besides Al actually won the popular vote and the election didn't he? Your announcement that he ran a "shitty campaign" is a little hollow if you ask me. As I re-read your post I think you are either a plant or you have been drinking a little too much Right wing Kool-Aid.

[xkenx]

70. I was bemoaning that Gore has high negatives in polling (nothing to do with FAUX News)

And as much as I like Gore, I agree with JAI (who is most assuredly NOT a plant) that Gore ran a shitty campaign. In trying to run away from Bill Clinton, he ran away from Clinton's (and his) record which should have swamped GWB, so that we wouldn't have Ralph Nader or Rethugs or anyone else to blame.

[Jai4WKC08]

71. It ain't right wing kool-ade

I like Gore, and always have. But anyone who doesn't see what a lousy campaign he ran is way into seeing only what he/she wants to see. Hell, even Gore admits he ran a lousy campaign. And the fact is he polls with unfavorable ratings almost as high as Hillary Clinton. Now, that might be because the pollsters are right-leaning, or it might be because that's the way people really see him, or it might be a little of both. I don't know for sure, but it's pure wishful thinking to imagine that the way those of us in the left wing base adore Gore now bears any relationship to the way average voters view him.

[sellitman]

87. If winning the popular vote & the election is considered "shitty" then

I hope our next nominee does equally shitty.

[xkenx]

89. Geeeez! Shitty is relative. 2000 should not have been close. Shitty campaign made it close enough to

be stolen. And there B**h sits in the Oval Office.

[Jai4WKC08]

96. You want an election where a large number of liberals

Vote third party because they can't see the difference between Gore and a guy like Bush? Which resulted in the vote in FL being close enough to steal, so that the Supreme Court (which is more Republican now than it was in 2000) could just give it away?

No thanks.

[roseBudd]

94. Wes Clark is Jim Webb on steriods, he has the GOP sweating bullets, praying for HC

to win the nom.

[earthlover]

95. speaking of Webb...

...It was Clark who encouraged him to run in the first place! Thanks, Clark!