Have you noticed something RE: Clark, the right never brings him up

Have you noticed that the right loves, to bring up Al Gore and Hillary Clinton as potential candidates, even thought there are not closer to running than Clark. They never ever bring him up. . .do you think they might be a little scared?

noticed.

Gore and Hillary are known possibilities, Clark isn't

Rush, Hannity, Novak, Carlson, et al they know and the will not bring him up until they absolutely have to. Correct me if I am wrong but Gore and Clinton are long shots to join the campaign compared to Clark.

Clark doesn't have great name recognition yet as a partisan. His name recognition, period, is not bad, considering he has yet to declare.

So the rank-and-file of the right aren't aware of him as a threat.

But surely, the higher ups, the literati right (if we can call them) that--the Goldbergs, the Roves, and so on, have surely noticed. And it is unlikely that they are unprepared--I have no doubt that they have at least a few things on Gen. Clark. But that they haven't started even a whispering campaign against him yet, given that he presents a very clear and present danger as at least a VP candidate, I think could indicate that it will be tough to target him.

Then again, it's also very early. Perhaps teh conservatives are sensibly thinking that they might as well the opposition go at each other by themselves for awhile.

because they give less than a shit...as do I

call me when Clark RUNS

Expect a call from me around Labor Day.

then I'll considewr him when he runs...like everybody else

As it stands right now, I have to see what he thinks about EVERYTHING ELSE BESIDES WAR AND THE MILITARY. Frankly, his position there is clear. His other positions are on the wind.

From: http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm

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



Women’s Issues: Clark is a strong supporter of women’s rights. Bluntly stating on CNN's Crossfire "I am pro-choice." He is pro-choice, supporting the rights of women to make these decisions outside of governmental regulation (Source – The American Prospect), and in the early 1980s, he proactively tackled spousal abuse as an army commander with a forward-thinking assessment of the demands of the modern family. (source - War in a Time of Peace, by David Halberstam)

Way to spread the word! Although you must be getting tired of posting that link. Funny, I could SWEAR that certain folks have seen it before. ;-)

DTH

:kick:

He is their worst nightmare, because no matter what anyone here thinks about a Clark candidacy, Clark will cream * in any military/national security debates and those are the "issues" that they want to stress for monkeypants, with Clark running they can't even bring up the "war time" president buzz words. They know that it would make chimpy look like the dufus monkey he is. Clark is Rove's worst nightmare, whether he gets the nomination or not, just running brings the issue of * AWOL to the forefront.

whether it's true or not.

And it isn't

:kick:

To actually think that the right wing doesn't consider him a threat is pure denial. They are trying to ignore him and it is just not working. The guy has said that he will declare by mid August to Labor Day weekend, why get all over the guy because he has a plan and is sticking to it. He is getting free press and is appealing to a wide expanse of voters, it is a known fact that you don't introduce anything new in August and if you want the public to ignore something you let the cat out of the bag in August. For those Americans that can afford vacation that is where they are and getting kids ready to go back to school. He is smart to wait. While I'm anxious here I also respect the fact that he can stick to a game plan.

and he's not.

And the idea is to beat Bush.

On edit...I should add that he may be a terrific general, but he knows nothing about national politics. It's a specialized field ya know?

And the days of Americans being willing to vote for a general as president, are no doubt long over.

*Esquire (August 2003) THE ONE MAN THAT CAN BEAT GEORGE W. BUSH, IF HE REALLY WANTS TO

*Virginia Pilot/Tallassee Democrat (August 9,2003) GOP SHOULD FEAR WESLEY CLARK

*Gusto (July 28, 2003) KARL ROVE'S WORST NIGHTMARE

*New York Observer (June 23, 2003) TRY TELLING CLARK HE IS NOT A PATRIOT

*The Atlantic (July 9, 2003) THE IDEAL CANDIDATE

*The Daily Texan (July 7, 2003) DEMOCRATS LIKE DEAN BUT SHOULD THINK ABOUT CLARK

*National Journal Group (June 26, 2003) COULD A SOLDIER JUST BE THE TICKET

*Fort Worth Star Telegram (June 20, 2003)WESLEY CLARK: THE BEST CANDIDATE NOT RUNNING

The higher ranks in the military are anything but specialized fields anymore. The Branches of the Services have opened up opportunities for post graduate degrees that were never dreamed of 20 years ago. While the primary job of the military commander is to prepare for war, when said war is not on the table, these men and women take a phenominawll amount of courses, b oth for personal knowledge, and to expand their careers.

An old Infantry Captain that had few chances to move into the higher staff ranks, would now have opportunities that would make WWII and Korean war vets drool with envy. When you add to this equation that Clark was #1 in his class at W. Pt., (so you know he has brains and motivation), I'm sure he took advantage of many courses that offered degrees.

This man is not neanderthal.

:kick:

I believe I could trust this man, and I support Dennis Kucinich. Of course, America would vote for a general. For God's sake, they voted for a nothing. The unknown is just how effective a campaigner he is. Also, I keep asking, is there a Mrs. General. What would she bring to his candidacy? So far, I know nothing about his family, except that I think there is a son who is in the military.

Here's what I've found out about her so far: she appears to be a homemaker. She's also the honorary president of AMADE (translates roughly to the World Association of Friends of Childhood), an NGO that works for global childrens' rights and she received a reward along with Wesley for her contributions during the Kosovo conflict.

As for their son, Wes Jr., I think he may be both an academic as well as, at some point, a screenwriter.

For those interested:



She's the one on the right (obviously). :)

Clark's DU detractors often say we do not know where he stands on the issues. As always I post direct quotes on many issues and I never get a response. . .why is that?

no matter how often you provide them. That's why I never bother. They will not run me ragged. I know that routine from dealing with repukes on message boards.

I already know where he stands on the issues. I've known for a while, as anyone who reads and keeps up with the news does. I think he would be a very good candidate and very good for the democrats image, and we do have to look at image. Where we are the weakest, even if we don't believe it's true, is on defense issues. Also, let's not forget that this man is no lightweight in the brains department. I believe there will be many people who want that kind of brain again. Enough with the "even dumb people can be President crap."

The problem here is that we have already picked our candidates, and some do not even want to think about directing all of that energy into someone else. I believe Gore would have the same problem. Once people have made up their minds, they are loathe (sp.?) to change them.

edited: for spelling

And please be specific.

P.S. You are not allowed to use any RW talking points.

which in a democracy is practically paramount.

James Carville--who blamed the Dems' loss in 2002 for their failure to "stand for something; I don't care if it's to the left or right"--did some recent polling that showed that the public trusts the Republicans more than Democrats on defense by something like a 30 to 40 point margin (!).

This is partially deserved. The Democrats always seem to be on the reactive. Some Democrats are pretty good at making criticisms, but these criticisms aren't always in the same direction and don't culminate in much of a positive message. PNAC is definitely ridiculous, but most average people don't know that. What they do know is that all of the neocons are confident and present a unified and confident message. And that the Republicans seem proactive and resolute.

Progressives need to counter the neocon crap with a reasonably unified coherent and workable foreign policy and defense message that serves as a critical alternative to what Bush has been doing. Because we're on the correct side, we'll actually have the balance of fact on our side. But it's also important we can present it to the people so that it rings true.

The great thing about Clark is that he has been advancing such a message consistently since Iraq appeared on the radar. It is true that he doesn't have the same thing going with domestic policy--although he has a lot of vision. But I think that it is fair to say that the current Democratic candidates' foreign policy/defense plans when placed alongside Clark's are comparable to Clark's domestic plans when placed alongside those of the declared candidates.

And don't want to call any more attention to him than necessary. This will change if it appears that Clark will run, in which case they'll shift into attack/lie mode.

I think they're scared of the "Clark was getting shot in Vietnam while Smirk was getting bombed in Texas" line (I just love that line!)

Bake

a bona fide hero; #1 in his class at West Point; Rhodes scholar; has the calmness and dignity of a diplomat....there is, at this point, nothing to scrap his bid for the nomination.

IMHO, I beleive that Clark would get into the WH without so much as a
squeak from the bushista's.

I actually have fantasies about the debates that would ensue if Clark had to meet bush on the stage! A highly articulate man, with dignity and poise, meeting a blathering moron that can't find his way out of Crawford; oh PLEASE LET THIS HAPPEN!

:bounce:

bloody fiasco of the Serbian war

This comment alone throws the entire critique into disrepute, IMO. It makes the whole thing sound like sour grapes.

As for the OPFOR critique, even if true (which I dispute), those things are always slanted one way or the other, and I can't really get myself too exercised over something like this.

DTH

and he isn't an elected official , he was never a political leader. Why would they mention him?

So tell me that no one considers him a Democrat?

Do you want transcripts from:
Crossfire
Meet The Press
Buchanan & Press
The TODAY SHOW
Good Morning America
The Washington Post
Esquire

just yesterday Tweety. . .said he believes Clark is running. So tell me again who does not consider Clark to be a candidate.

So tell me again. . .who does not consider Clark to be a candidate

beat is degrading this message board; it's as though the Clark peddlers have hired a PR firm to advise them in their cheap mindless propagandizing. Apparently, they think the best strategy is flooding the whole DU board with huge quantities of pea-brain commentary.

Yours is an excellent example of this: "do you think they might be a little scared?..." Or: "General Clark is Karl Rove's worst nightmare."

Note how all this is pure crap, with nothing to it except an appeal to some sort of macho "kicking ass." Why don't you go sit in a corner and meditate for a while, about this: selecting a political leader should be based PRIMARILY on the ideas the leader articulates & has represented in his life -- NOT mainly on what his prior job was. You Clark peddlers only want him because he was a general. If he wasn't a general, you wouldn't look at him twice. This is a laughable & ludicrous basis on which to be hyping someone for president.

:kick:

and first president was a general? What do you have against generals rich? It's not like we've never had former generals for president before. We've had plenty.

You need to go sit in a corner and meditate. No matter what you do, no matter how Clark does, Kucinich is still only gonna get 1 maybe 2% of the primary vote. Attacking Clark and his supporters won't change that.

friend of his. And let Rich tell you (he's told you everything else): Wesley Clark is no George Washington.

You go, Billy! Here is one area where we can agree whole-heartedly.

DTH

frankly...war is insane...insane...if your first, second, or 50th choice is war, then you're not an evolved human being.

War is the coawrds way out of reforming the world.

One guy assures me that the only reason anyone supports Clark is because he was a general, as if there aren't hundreds of other generals out there to support, and now you give me this naive polemic disguised as history (Zinn himself described it as such) and paraphrase from it as if it's the wisdom of the ages. If that's the best you can do as an attack on Clark, the election will be a walkover.

was president 214 years ago?

Admit it, what you really like about Clark is his gun.

I frankly like him for his brain. His smile also gets me. I do believe he is sincere and honest.

I have openly been supportive of Dennis Kucinich. But, this does not make me denigrate other candidates. I am proud of all of our candidates, with one exception. They appear to be very fine people.

Admit it, what you really like about Clark is his gun.

Nothing personal, Pastiche, but the above comment has to be one of the silliest things I've ever read on this board. And DAMN, that's saying something.

DTH

and his interviews. Also all his accomplishments are not only military based but you do not want to take the time to do the research. He is an electable candidate and the only pea brain commentary is what I just read above. It is still early and the primaries have not started, personally I welcome any one in the race that has the guts to oust * and whether you like it or not he can BEAT * at what the media is trying to push down our throats as his greatest strength, National Security. I don't notice too many Clark peddlers bashing the other candidates, only making known the facts that we have so far about the candidate we would like to see run. You certainly don't do your candidate any favors with your attitude. Be patient, give the guy a chance in Sept. This is about beating the *.

but I don't think he has nearly the chance to win that someone like Clark would (if he runs). And I like the views you and wndycty posted. What I think would be worth asking Clark (but maybe it would be impolitic before the election) are his views on the military and America's place in the world. As with Nixon going to China, Clark could just be the person who could get America to rethink its commitment to having a military that is a million times bigger and stronger than that of any other country on earth. Given the prejudices in this country, I believe only a military leader could lead us away from our current folly. If Clark is not a hawk, I could easily support him--but not if he's anything like Biden (who thank goodness isn't running).

ON EDIT--I wonder if some of the hostility expressed towards Clark may not come from wondering if he might be someone the DLC is ready to endorse (if Lieberman falters). Does anyone know who in the Democratic Party supports his candidacy? I'd like it better if he were completely outside the DLC struggle to control the party, but I'm definitely ABB, and figure the struggle won't be over in 2004 even if the Dems win, but at least there will be hope.

...if they like Clark does that make him bad? I think the DLC is total bullshit, but it does yield some power so I cannot imagine that their support of a particular candidate would be bad. I think the objective is of any candidate is to get the support of ALL Democrats so that you can win the nomination. Then going forward in the general election your goal would be to get as many votes from as many Americans as possible. If Clark connects with the base, the DLC's support can only help, right?

to latch onto him, because they are getting desperate.

Unless Graham catches fire, the only other choice is Kerry, who is significantly to the left of the DLC on everything except for foreign policy.

Clark would accept, I think, but he would be at a massive position of strength. There's almost no way that he would shift his scathing critique of Bush's war, because that's his biggest advantage. In effect, he would be the one with the bargaining power in the relationship, not the DLC. And as he is a moderate progressive on economic issues with a sustainability/environmentalism bent, I think you're right, wndycty, that he'd be able to reconnect the DLC with the base.

The think about Clark is that he is a "plus, plus" guy and that is why I like him.

What do I mean?

People look at Clark's military resume and believe that we might have to sacrifice some core Democratic positions if we support him. But early indications are that he is progressive on issues that have historically defined the Democratic party. At this point there are very few, if any, "I like him but, he is . . ." comments out there.

What is the title of this thread, Rich? What are you even doing in here? I don't go into Kucinich threads and trash him. What is your problem? Do you have nothing better to do than pick fights with members of your own party? Go bother the pugs. Geez! Why are you so bitter?

That explains a lot.

:eyes:

DTH

From what I read so far Arnold Schwarzenegger does not even have a platform (ideas), and he is the unofficial winner.

Politics is more about perception then ideas.

I think you are exactly right that people are only looking at Clark because they are scared of the Republicans and think a "general" title will protect them from GOP attacks.

Well, a losing three limbs in 'Nam didn't save Max Cleland.

Clark may be an excellent candidate (we haven't even seen him go through a meat-grinder campaign yet), but the truth is he would not even be considered at this point in time if he were not a General.

Hell, he won't even call himself a Democrat.

So what's your point?

Max Clelland didn't get to craft the Democratic Party's platform on foreign policy and defense, which is what cost him. And if there's one thing that I think just about everyone in the Democratic Party can agree on right now, it's that the Dems should have done much more to build a coherent and reasonably unified position on defense and foreign policy in '02.

The PR drum beat is degrading this message board;

You think THIS is degrading the board? Goddamn, you have got to be kidding me. Take a stroll through the Lounge on certain days, or in here for the flamefest of the hour, THEN you'll see degrading.

it's as though the Clark peddlers have hired a PR firm to advise them in their cheap mindless propagandizing.

I imagine the thing that may be frightening to you is that it's NOT cheap, mindless propagandizing, just real enthusiasm from a broad cross-section of our society.

DTH

When they're really hard up for material (quite often) they always pull out Clinton and Gore, as if it's some sort of rallying cry.

I'm not sure what the Reptilicans have in store should Gen. Clark throw his hat in the ring, but if they ever run out of material, there's always, 'Bill, Al and Hillary'.

That gives the dittoheads wet dreams.

Clark is a viable option for liberals

What I think would be worth asking Clark (but maybe it would be impolitic before the election) are his views on the military and America's place in the world. As with Nixon going to China, Clark could just be the person who could get America to rethink its commitment to having a military that is a million times bigger and stronger than that of any other country on earth.

Agreed. Many candidates that I favor (ABB) are sincere in moving this country away from PNAC, but with the crazies in charge, who would have the credibility to pull it off? Who would have the necessary connections? Who can not only assend to the White House, but can also deliver a major body blow to the likes of Tom Delay? After all, if you get there, you must govern.

First, yes Clark is the in a position to question military spending; if President Clark needed to reorder spending, he will have both the knowledge of where the bodies are buried, and the top brass friends to help him out. If any of what we want to happen, ie healthcare reform, it is going to require money. Second, Clark discusses most of his views in "Waging Modern War," and repeatedly identifies war as a failure of diplomacy (pg 456-457):

"Nations use diplomacy as a means to advance their interest. But when the interests are significant enough, when dialogue, negotiation, and compromise can't gain traction, and when nations believe their military advantage insufficient, they will again employ 'threat' to provide additional leverage...This suggests that if coercive diplomacy is to succeed at the lowest possible cost, greater emphasis must be placed on the diplomacy at the outset."

BTW, he has a new book coming out the first week in September; I would assume, it will be a major foreign policy statement.

. . ."Winning Modern War" which will no doubt bother those on this board who think he is just some stupid general. But as you pointed out he believes in diplomacy and I bet this book has a lot more to with that than dropping bombs.

a democrat?

:kick:

He has stumped for Dems in the past. Also, he father was a Dem councilman.

You know, my Dad was registered repub. because otherwise in his company he would have been past over for promotion. With dreams for your kids, one might have to think about things like money. My Dad never ever voted for a republican; ever. It is my understanding that military brass who need to court both sides of the aisle, often are registered as independents. Is Colin Iran-Contrapowell a repub.?

We are the party...not the DLC or the DNC. Without us there is no party...zip! If Clark wants to join us, I say "Bring 'em on!"

but in Arkansas you may choose to vote in either party's primary even if you are not registered with that party.

Against the Bush tax cut

Pro-choice

Supports affirmative action

Sounds like a Democrat to me.

No way he would run as a Republican. Wouldn't stand a chance. Bush is too powerful in the party. Rove would arrange to have him dumped in a lake. Plus his platform is too liberal.

Would he run as an independent? Doubtful. He seems to agree that the best shot is with either of the two main parties. And it takes a maverick type of personality to run on a third party ticket (eg., Nader, Perot, Wallace). A true outsider.

Clark seems connected with Democrats. He has campaigned for a few. he has met with Democratic officials. And the race is far from decided. This would be his best shot.

As far as being too late to the dance, I don't see that. Join now or before, and get lost in a sea of ten candidates. Join in the immediate future, and he is seen as a fresh face.

Plus, everyone now is talking ad nauseum about Schwarzenegger and the California recall (zzzzzzzzz....). If Clark joined the fray now, he'd get lost. Plus, the old saying about introducing a new product in August.

The information about where he stands is just a taste. Why give away the whole store so soon? He's giving out just enough to pique curiosity and get people talking. After all, he does consider campaigning to be an important way to get ideas out in the open, and stir up discussion. And it seems to be working so far.

I think his approach so far is ingenious. This is great strategy coming from a man known for strategic planning.

I think Clark would beat Bush despite Bush's money and all his cronies in the media. The cards would be stacked against Clark just like any of our other candidates, but he has the ability to fight back. I hope he runs. :)

I got this from LBN, it looks like more people are talking about his run. Especially as a DEMOCRAT!!!!!!

Clark seen planning Democratic nomination bid

By Bryan Bender, Globe Correspondent, 8/12/2003

WASHINGTON -- In the strongest signal yet that retired US Army General Wesley K. Clark, the former NATO commander, is planning to join the Democratic presidential race, Clark told volunteers last week to step up their efforts and prepare for an announcement on Labor Day.
ADVERTISEMENT

If Clark, 58, does take on the nine announced Democratic candidates, supporters say he would offer a strong voice on national security issues and sell himself as a newcomer untainted by the political process.

The grass-roots movement to draft the West Point graduate remains a campaign without a candidate. The Draft Clark Campaign 2004, which has no formal ties with Clark, has received pledges of nearly $500,000 and now has 98 chapters in 42 states.
-snip-

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2003/08/12/clark_seen_planning_democratic_nomination_bid