Why this fascination with Clark, is it because he projects

a so-called middle of the road.
While his military record is superb, I have not seen any eludication on any number of issues.

Have not heard or seen his position on Medicare.
Have not seen or read where he stands on Social Security.
Have not heard or read his position on the looming deficit.
So please, would someone explain to me, why would anyone suggest Clark when he has expressed no opinion on the bread and butter issues facing the country.

The only thing I see in the middle of the road is road kill.

I do think people are looking at him because he will be solid on foreign policy. There's a concern with Dumbo's invasion and all of his other messes that have made the world a less safe place that people will be looking for a person who seems solid in interntional/national security affairs.

and he is SOLIDLY in the progressive camp, based on his responses in interviews and such ....

I dont have the information on hand this moment, but I will persoanlly attest: .. there is VALID reason for progressives to consider a Clark candidacy ....

Im sure another will come along soon and post the information ...

nt

...in regard to his distinguished record of military service.

It allows some highly favorable compare-and-contrast with Dress-em-up Dubya in his flight suit and Chickenhawk Cheney to have someone on our side with some actual military credentials.

I'd like to see him in the race, but I worry that it's too late for him to run for president. Maybe as a running mate?

You're right--it is too late to make a successful run. If he were paired with Dean, that would blunt the critics who say Dean lacks foreign policy experience. Not that I'm saying he does, but people (ie, the lying media scum talking heads) will be sure to point this out.

in 1991. More front-loading now notwithstanding, he'll either take wing and fly or not, but I cannot see how it's too late.

"Running" for VP also makes no sense to me. Lately it is rare for a VP nominee to come from the candidates, which is more from the ancient days of convention politics.

Although there is the very slight chance the D's may see convention politics next year, Clark would enter the fray aiming for the top slot.

n/t

DraftWesleyClark's issues site is a pretty good one, but it doesn't cover a lot of the issues that he's commented on. I have heard him talk a lot about Medicare (opposed Bush's Medicare proposal, calling it bizaare and full of holes) and the deficit (obviously critical, supports balancing the budget), but there really isn't a good place to find a definitive collection of his stances on the issues. It's not because he hasn't talked about virtually every issue, it's just because a compilation hasn't been made. I've long been upset with the major draft sites for not attempting to work harder on this front.

Anyway, the appeal of Clark is simple- He's articulate, inspiring, telegenic, incredibly intelligent (Rhodes Scholar), an invesmtent banker who majored in Economics at Oxford, and has as great or greater national security credentials than any other politician in the country, both Democratic and Republican. On top of it all, he's a southern Democrat. It's a combination of credibility, electability, and likeability.

This talk of his being Dean's running mate, or anyone else's is silly. Wesley Clark has all the ingredients to make an excellent President. He's also ELECTABLE. That may be the key to his support.
Clark has a book coming out within a month, where he is expected to spell out his positions on various social and economic policies.
His military record is superb. Bush fired him, because he feared General Clark was becoming a force to be reckoned with. Bush's worst nightmare just might come true.
The best thing Clark can bring to our party is his military record. All the polls showed that we got our butts kicked at the polls in 2002 because of America's fear of terrorism. The voters didn't feel a Democrat could adequately defend our people. I don't think too many of the current nine candidates can change that image. Also, it wasn't the white male voters that beat us at the polls in 2002, it was the FEMALE voters.
We can't win anything without the women's votes. Clark can bring them back to the Democratic party, where they belong.
Do all of us Democrats realize that it was the security issue that beat us in 2002? Which of the current nine candidates do you feel can convince the voters that he/she can keep us safe against terrorism? I'm guessing that very few of the current nine can accomplish that. That's why I want Clark to run.

Have to disagree--it was the Dems' pathetic lack of a cohesive message. Dumbo and his evil cohorts used it as a wedge issue, and the Dems couldn't articulate a response, like they couldn't say anything about the economy. Remember all those Dems who lost because they ran on the platform that they SUPPORTED the Spawn of Satan's tax cut?????????

I am totally onside with Lefty's support of Clark, so I want to give this person props right there. But a couple of notes:

Bush didn't fire Clark, the Joint Chiefs under Clinton did--just a couple of months before his term of duty would have run out anyway (although there was the possibility of an extension or promotion). Clinton, I think, now realizes that he got totally worked on this, since Clark's views were probably way more in line with his than just about anyone else in the Pentagon, but, as was typical, he didn't have (or didn't he had) enough leverage vis-a-vis the Pentagon to stop it. And I'm pretty sure that Clinton and Clark are now currently on good terms (the Big Dog probably feels a little guilty)...

I also respectfully disagree that the best thing Clark brings is his military record--although that helps a ton. The best thing Clark brings is his ability to articulate in intelligent, comprehensible terms, a critique of Bush's foreign policy that has a clear and concrete alternative as its punchline. The military experience helps to lend credibility to the message--but I don't think that Clark would say that these experiences, in themselves, are his best attribute.

I agree with everything else Lefty says--we lefties, whatever candidate we support, would be making a horrible mistake in underestimating the importance of foreign policy and security in the next election.

P.S.: On the retired generals bit--I think that quote was uttered by the same fellow who coined the phrase "military-industrial complex"...and he didn't view it in complementary terms...ah, remember when Republicans were sane?

...including being against the Iraq war. But the best part for me is that the pundits don't know it. His positions have been posted many times on this forum, and yet, he is labled moderate. Great! He also takes security off of the table. What's Rove gonna run on? The environment? The economy?

Clark is concerned about "Constitutional Legitimacy." IOW, we've permitted the Constitutional checks and balances which result in accountablity, and our freedoms to be eroded. Without checks and balances, the congress isn't accountable.

Used against BushCo, they could be cut to slivers. I salivate at the coming revelations of "rogue elements" at Pentagon a la IranContra, etc., not to mention their dissembling over Iraq.

Used in office, if Clark made our government more accountable to the people and responsible in the world, he would win re-election.

... a fresh face who may have one of the best chances to beat Bush.
I'm still not decided. Yes, electablity is a big issue. I have great respect for all of the declared candidates, but I just think it is very important for us to get it right.

No closed mind here. But I've examined Clark a bit.

From his draftclark2004 site:

See where he stands on:

Affirmative Action | The Environment |Gays in the Military | Guns | Health Care and Education | Immigration | National Security, 9/11, and The Patriot Act | Taxes and the Economy | Women’s Issues



Affirmative Action: Clark is a strong proponent and supporter of affirmative action, diversity, and multiculturalism:

“I’m in favor of the principle of affirmative action… what you can’t have is you can’t have a society in which we’re not acknowledging that there is a problem in this society with racial discrimination.” Meet The Press
"I saw first hand the racial prejudice, the civil disobedience, the intolerance… I've often gone back to that experience. It's something I've related to." Waging Modern War by Wesley Clark
Clark was recently one of several former military men to file a pro-affirmative action "friend of the court" brief on behalf of the University of Michigan in their battle against the Bush Administration efforts to dismantle Michigan's admissions policy. Clark said he was "surprised and dismayed" by the president's decision. (Read the consolidated brief (PDF) of retired military leaders (including Wesley Clark) in support of University of Michigan's affirmative action program.)

The Environment: Environmental protections appear to be part of Clark’s overall global and progressive vision for America.

"Human beings do affect the environment and all you have to do is fly along the Andes and look at the disappearing glaciers down there and you recognize that there is something called global warming and it's just getting started as China and India modernize." (source – speech at the Council on Foreign Relations)
"100 years out, the only things we leave behind that will matter are the environment and constitutional legitimacy."
Opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the grounds that "the gains in terms of US energy independence are relatively marginal" The Diane Rehm Show
Gays in the Military: "But essentially we’ve got a lot of gay people in the armed forces, always have had, always will have. And I think that, you know, we should welcome people that want to serve." Meet The Press

Guns: Clark has implied that gun ownership is primarily a local issue. He also believes that assault weapons should be banned for the general public, stating, "people who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them." (CNN's Crossfire, 06/25/03)

Health Care and Education: Clark is a strong supporter of a social safety net, including effective and well-supported systems of education and health care:

"I grew up in an armed forces that treated everyone as a valued member of the team. Everyone got healthcare, and the army cared about the education of everyone's family members. It wasn't the attitude that you find in some places, where people are fending for themselves and the safety net doesn't work." (Source: Waging Modern War)

Immigration: "We’re a nation of immigrants. We should be encouraging every person from the Indian Institute of Technology that comes to this country to stay in this country. Become an American citizen. Join with us. Make a great company. Let’s all be wealthy and prosperous and happy together. Immigration has a vital part to play in that process." (Source: New Democrat Network speech)

National Security, 9/11, and The Patriot Act: Clark is wary of trading off individual rights that allow the government to escape accountability. Clark supports a review of the Patriot Act to assess its effectiveness and potential damage to individual rights. He has also called for more accountability surrounding 9/11 so we know what went wrong and how to prevent these attacks in the future.

“I think 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. So I think that needs to be carefully looked at.” Meet The Press
"One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended habeas corpus. Which is something that's only been done once in American history and then only for a very brief period. When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review.” (source – Salon.com interview)
“We’ve got a set of hearings that need to be conducted to look at what happened that caused 9/11. That really hasn’t been done yet. You know, a basic principle of military operations is you conduct an after-action review. When the action’s over you bring people together. The commander, the subordinates, the staff members. You ask yourself what happened, why, and how do we fix it the next time? As far as I know, this has never been done about the essential failure at 9/11. Then moving beyond that, it needs to be looked at in terms of the whole intelligence effort and how it’s connected to the policy effort. And these are matters that probably cannot be aired fully in public but I think that the American people and their representatives have to be involved in this. This is essential in terms of the legitimacy and trust in our elected leadership and our way of government.” Meet The Press

Taxes and the Economy: Clark favors a responsible and progressive taxation system that creates jobs and doesn’t put this country into ruinous financial shape with gaping deficits. Clark, who at one point taught economics at West Point, was against Bush’s tax changes because they don’t effectively create jobs, they are unfair, and they imperil our nation’s fiscal health.

“Taxes are something that you want to have as little of as possible, but you need as much revenue as necessary to meet people’s needs for services.” Meet The Press
“ were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs.” Meet The Press
“The tax cuts weren’t fair… the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it’s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don’t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should—one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.” Meet The Press
“I mean, you look at the long-run health of the country and the size of the deficit that we’ve incurred and a substantial part of that deficit is result of the tax cuts. You have to ask: “Is this wise, long-run policy?” I think the answer is no.” Meet The Press

bets until all the horses are at the gate...

:toast:

What his platform is, is another matter. One problem with the platforms that the most progressive candidates offer is that even if they were elected they couldn't get them done, so they're kind of moot. What we need is to see how he'll weave his opinions into doable initiatives. I'm interested and hope he'll get into it soon.

Clark is the next JFK, and will be our greatest American President. He is a liberal even if he does not say so. Sort of like with Gore. Gore campaigned as a moderate Republican Democrat, but most knew that when he got in office he would be more liberal then even Nader could imagine. Think about it someone that wrote a book called Earth in the Balance, that is about as liberal as you can get.

Clark does not have to define a platform. Why? Our country has no platform; all our policies are made in the interests of overseas interests and media companies. Our House and Senate don't even discuss issues that affect the American people as part their work. If they had we would not of seen things like Enron and the stealing of the 2000 election. Now we are being laughed at around the world. Clark can bring our democracy back from the dead.

In short America was sold out years ago. Democracy is dead.

Clark just has to do what he is doing which is to be open to progressive issues. That is his appeal to liberals such as myself.

http://antiwarmonger.com

Certainly more progressive than Edwards, Lieberman, or Graham, and probably comparable to Dean on many issues.

Also, Clark TORE into Dubya for the carrier landing. He was classy about it, but, dude, he hit very hard.

Basically said prancing around on an aircraft carrier was not compatible with the gravitas of the office. He used the word "prancing." Damn, he sure got that right.

MzPip
:dem: