Wesley Clark: Too good to be true?

Now, before you Clark supporters get all worked up, I promise this is not a bash post, just a thread to gauge if anyone else feels the same way I do about Clark. Since he became an entity in the field, I've listened to most of his speeches, or at least read transcripts, and on the surface, he looks like the exact polar opposite of Dubya, and as such, I can understand why some people feel so passionately about the prospect of him entering the field. But doesn't it seem like he's almost too strong of a candidate? Military man, moderate Democrat, photogenic, confident, and actually, quite a captivating speaker.

But that's what scares me the most: He's too perfect. He's got the military cred of Kerry, without the troublesome war vote, he's got the crossover appeal of Dean, without the question of experience or the civil unions problem, and he's got the moderate, working class appeal of Gephardt, without, well, being Dick Gephardt.

I want to believe that Wesley Clark is going to run, get the nomination, and trounce Bush because he's a good Democrat and he feels its his duty, but I keep getting this nagging feeling in the back of my mind that I shouldn't trust his outward appearances.

That if something is too good to be true, it probably is.

The Naderites in the 2000 election said they will never vote for Gore because he is just like Clinton, but most knew though he was saying he was a Republican Democrat that he would of been liberal once he was elected.

It's all about perception who gets elected into office. Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger he does not even have a platform and he is the unofficial winner.

Myself I think that because he is a scholar he we define his platform once he is elected our next great president. He will be elected president.The best thing for the other 9 to do is drop out, and put their support behind our next great president General Clark.

What appeals to me with Clark is that he will be open to progressive ideas, that is good enough for me.

I know you all have put a ton of work behind the 9 Democrats but you need to get over it they will not win. You can hear the bad news from me first a liberal or you can hear it from the Republicans in 2004.

http//antiwarmonger.com

I'll continue to support my favorite candidate until, or if Wesley Clark officially joins the fray and wins the nomination. There are some excellent candidates among the nine. Why should they just throw up their hands and quit?

and he's smart.
I can respect that even if I don't agree with everything he believes.
If he can rationalize his position without lies, ridiculous sound bites, and intimidation, I could support him even if he were a republican.

For the record, I currently support Dean.

Undoubtedly there will be skeletons. You never EVER make it to the level of Presidential consideration without having some baggage. Yes, it has happened on rare occasions, but for the most part candidates all have baggage.

The first point on which Clark will be hit is Serbia and the bombing campaign that took Serbian lives.

I'm certain there is more. But I do not feel that any of this is criticism that Clark cannot handle and explain. He's an intelligent guy and my gut feeling is that he knows what he is getting into if he declares.

...and he served two terms. I'll bet Clark has a lot less baggage and hope that he, too, will serve two terms.

...and it makes me very, very happy. My dream is of the carnage of a series of Presidential debates between Clark and Bush. HA!

That's some verbal abuse I look forward to hearing!

the press will say that Clark's articulateness and obvious superiority alienates mainstream voters, and Bush's stumbles, charming difficulties with the language, and utterly flimsy grasp of any idea of substance endear him to the mainstream voters... :eyes:

I've heard he is smart and articulate without looking like an egghead. That was how Bush was able to do that to Gore in 2000. He won't be able to do that to Clark.

run for mayor or something else first. Being a General is the opposite of governing in a democracy.

others since. A lot of people like myself believe that being a general is as good preperation for being president as being a congressman or senator.

truthful. There is/was a well known policy in the military called CYA ~ Cover Your Ass ~ It meant falsifying data or stealing equipment or whatever it took to pass Inspections. No Officer wanted to have a failed inspection on their record no matter what. If the motor pool was short three tires we would be sent out to "procure" the needed items. IMHO Most officers lack the honesty trait. There are some officers that have the title because of their unique job class, Pilot, Doctor, etc. These officers usually didn't command troops so were not in the position of having to pass muster. It is the commanders I am referring to. And one doesn't get to be a General without commanding some troops.

"Most officers lack the honesty trait."

"...didn't command troops so were not in the position of having to pass muster."

Dude, my retired USAF LtCol father would like to have a word with you out back. STAT!

I was there and that was my experience. Virtually every officer I encountered was a LIAR and a THIEF. Maybe I just met all the bad ones.:shrug:

"Officers" and "Military" with "CEO" and "Corp. America".
Point is, you can say that about all people and positions of power.
It's not limited to the military.

I don't think so?

I can live with it.

getouttahere

Rest assured that if there is anything negative in Clark's background, the GOP "Opposition Research" folks already have it reduced to talking point and ready for leaking to friendly media outlets.

true patriot concerned about the direction of our country under the bush junta.

He said on his first Tim Russert appearance that he was concerned about the direction of the country. And that if he thinks there is something he can do about it like running for president, he'd have to seriously consider it.

I'm sorry, I just can't take anything any of the candidates say at face value, even the one I'm supporting (Dean). What really sways me is their record in whatever elected office they held previously, and Clark didn't have one, so I'm inclined to not be as trusting of him.

The truth is, I don't fully even trust my candidate, nor do I fully trust any politician. And the fact that Wesley Clark hasn't shown me any weaknesses yet makes me wary.

I'm just concerned that some Clark supporters are drinking the Kool-Aid before they know what's in it, based solely on the fact that he's military, is if that should somehow magically engender my trusting him.

Right now we're concerned with getting him to run so that we can see if he's too good to be true. :D

Once he declares, though, I'll be doing my damnedest to see who his biggest contributors are.

:D

Too perfect? Can we just for one moment celebrate that we may well have a guy that is moderate, brilliant, very articulate, thinks incredibly fast on his feet, and above all, has a military record that essentially renders pointless any Republican attacks about him being weak and inexperienced in national defense issues?

Of course he has some chinks in his armor that we haven't seen yet. He's not perfect. But he's potentially a great candidate and one that I pray, yes pray, gets in the race.

I got a piece of mail from Howard Dean yesterday. I'm sorry, guys. I've tried to see it, to believe in his electability, but there's nothing I can find to hang that hope on.

So, go Clark!

Nov. '04 if Clark isn't the candidate. I don't want a squeaker like with Gore. I don't want a landslide win for the repukes like with Mondale, McGovern and Dukakis.

I'm not a Clark supporter, yet, but I've no reason to think he's not what he appears to be. If there's evidence that he's faking something, present it. Just saying "he's too perfect" seems baseless.

Didn't you read my original post fully? I'm just wondering if anyone else gets the same vibe I do, not trying to plant some nagging doubt in the minds of Clark supporters. I'm glad these people have found a candidate to support, particularly one who is probably going to run.

So Clark supporters, please don't feel the need to defend your candidate or try and sway me on this, because I'm not bashing, and I'm not in the market for a new candidate to support. This thread is solely to see if I'm the only one who's looking at the guy with a jaundiced eye.

are getting the opposite vibe.

We, the opposition, have been beaten down by the BFEE for so long that when a retired General enters the picture, we hoist him up onto our shoulders and parade him around as our knight in shining armor. There's just something a little too deus ex machina about this scenario for me to embrace it on its surface.

People seem to think that Dean supporters have been tricked into supporting him by his "pretending" to lean to the left, but I knew what the guy was when I sent that first 25 bucks: a centrist. And while I'm miles more left thatn Dean will ever be, I don't expect him to start leaning my way once he gets elected. I have no fantasies of him bringing forth a progressive utopia, because I'm a realist first and a progressive second, and I know that he's going to have to make a lot of compromises just to get us back to where we were before Bush, and that's just on the economy.

I know exactly what Howard Dean is, and I have no qualms about it. I can't say the same for Clark, and that's why I'm worried.

trying to replace their failed Messiah with his polar opposite. Call me a tin-foiler if you must, but that's just how I feel.

The BFEE is truly dastardly and evil, but I can't shake the feeling that they're not the highest men on the totem pole.

Currently I think that Dean, Kerry, or Clark (if he runs) all have a good chance of beating Bush. Why is it that being a veteran seems to be the only thing that people claim can beat Bush? Instead of trying to trump Bush on the defense issue, why don't we just promote the truth about how Bush is weak on defense and that his policies are making us less safe? By insisting on a veteran as our candidate, aren't we continuing to promote the lie that "Bush is strong on defense", which we know to be completely false? Why are we handicapping ourselves by giving him credibility on the issue?

we wouldn't have a "man's man" as a candidate!

:silly:

we do not know if Clark has the goods yet. Just because he is reasonably liberal and has a cute title does not imply he can rumble with heavyweights like Kerry, Dean, and Gephardt.

Not to run off base and start something here, but what is his "cute title"?

General? That's not cute, that's honorable!

Having the title "General" doesn't always make you honorable.

There's a big difference between these two men. Don't you think that Clark has had the opportunity to whore himself if he wanted to?

Clark, in opposing the war, has shown himself to be a bit of a maverick as far as former military personnel go. My point wasn't that all Generals should be suspected, rather that having said title doesn't automatically make you "honorable".

I hope Clark is, though, because he and Dean are the only candidates I could actually see decisively beating Bush.

makes one "honorable." Under normal circumstances I would be leery of a military person running for president too. At least initially. I understand your concerns. But, you can't paint Clark with a broad brush without any evidence that he is not honorable or anything other than what he presents himself to be. Be leery by all means. But keep an open mind at least until you have a reason to suspect his motives.

1.) I've read that he's not well-liked among his former military peers. I honestly don't know why, but I think they might have had problems with his leadership. This is actually something I've been meaning to investigate (maybe somewhere here could help?).

2.) He's never held political office. Now, you and I can see the obvious hypocrisy of someone like Bush criticizing someone for lack of political experience, but I'm sure they Republicans will go this route if Clark gets into the race.

3.) Fundraising. Will he be able to get the backing from the party faithful with big pocketbooks?

Some people say he's entering the race too late, but interestingly enough, the founders of DraftWesleyClark.com pointed out that Clinton didn't enter the presidential race until October of the year before the election.

Despite these issues, I still think Clark looks like a damn strong candidate.

He's their guy. He's already met with From.

If you like the DLC, you'll love Clark!

Gene Lyons had a column a month or two ago about Clark. He seemed to say that the rank and file soilders loved Clark. Lyons talked about Clark speaking to a large group of soilders he'd served with and remembering all their names. He didn't even have to give them nick names!

The best thing about Clark being in the military and not being a neocon is that he has no one in his pocket already. He has not sold out to corporate interests. No Haliburton in his background. yes, the military might be seen as in his pocket but the guy is against the war. It would be like Cheney being against big oil. When you are an insider and are against the policies of the group you know where the bodies are buried.

I thought Powell was like that. But he got rolled. I don't buy Will Pitt's explanation of that and have one of my own...but that's for a different thread.

The last time we had a general that was THAT well liked by his troops was probably Robert E Lee, and his men worshipped him like a god and trusted him totally. I can only imagine how much this country would benefit if we had such a man in the White House. I would like to see how a crowd react when he speaks. That and the fact that he is willing to go against he military shows that he has a conscience, as I can't really think of any generals in the past who have gone against the armed forces in the sense that Clark has, anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

Clark and they speak very highly of him. There are also letters from Kosovars thanking him. I love to read those letters. I read them almost daily.

so I've heard, is that he's one of those confident, smart cookies that went up through the ranks like a bullet. Just like a lot of smarty-pants/golden boys, he probably annoyed the crap out of a lot of his peers just for being so <i>the shit</i>. Heck, I missed out on a Rhodes in the final round and I gotta admit I'm still a bit bitter--if I didn't think Clark would make a great candidate and president, it'd be tough to resist the urge to go smack something everytime I heard that part of his resume.

:hurts:

(heh)

He's also pretty strong-minded and quite slick (a nicer word might be "polished" or "political"), which are probably among the most common strengths and weaknesses of "born leaders."

Usually, the virtues of good leaders are often in tension with the virtues of plain old friendly good neighbors. I'm sure that people can dig up some dirt, but I doubt there's much that's too damning--at worst, it couldn't have been so bad that he couldn't have made SACEUR and 4 stars with it in his background...

Many think having a title will save them from GOP attacks on defense. Clark is closer to the liberal end of the candidates on defense -- Sharpton, Dean, Moseley-Braun, et cetera. When the GOP savages Clark, supposedly he will say "I'm a general" and they will go away like they did when Max Cleland emphasized his lost limbs in Vietnam.

I'm sorry, but he's not even just a general.

That puts him above Powell, and a lot of other generals.

SACEUR isn't a cute title. People want to talk cute titles, we *could* talk about the "State" of Vermont.

I share many of the concerns of many DUers about what kind of candidate Clark would make, but at least can we give him the respect he deserves?

Did that stop the GOP from running the "Cleland loves Saddam and bin Laden" ads?

If Clark did not have his title, he would not even be considered as a candidate. Perhaps Clark has a gift for campaigning or fundraising. Nobody knows. However, using the word "general" as a security blanket isn't going to win us the White House.

but I was just struck by the glib "cute title" to describe a position it takes a lot of time to earn and a capable man to perform.

I've said at DU that I do believe someone should be barred from running for president unless they've won one statewide race. I still believe that, and if this was 3 star General Joe Schmo stationed in North Carolina I wouldn't give him a second glance. But Supreme Commanders, I am willing to hear out.

...anything can seem too good since he is soooo badh. I really hope he runs because I believe he is the only democrat with the ability to destroy Bush in a debate so badly he will actually cry. See Bush will be stumped by the big words Clark will use like "the," "can," and "truth."

Clark is the only one that will make me switch my vote from Dean.

How do we know Clark hasn't been groomed to appear as Dubya's polar opposite by the very people who currently pull Bush's strings? How do we know they aren't cultivating Clark's candidacy in an effort to hedge their bets now that Fearless Leader is losing his much vaunted popularity?

I'm not saying any of that is the truth, or that there's any evidence to support this nagging feeling I have, but it's there nonetheless.

I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't put anything past the real power behind this administration.

How do we know Clark hasn't been groomed to appear as Dubya's polar opposite by the very people who currently pull Bush's strings?

You can't groom people to be able to think. Clark's way of approaching problems is a long established pattern. He establishes goals, risks, and strategies. And why would anyone like Rove chose to run a thinking person against bush?

n/t

Really. You make me laugh. You're feeble attempts to slander Clark so cute.

And you might want to discuss cluster bombs and civilians, too.

I don't think it's funny at all.

show some proof he was involved with Waco.

According to an must-read report by Ken McCarthy at Brasscheck, the military was far more deeply involved in the Waco massacre than is generally realized. Behind the military's part in the operation was now NATO commander General Wesley Clark.

-snip-

Clark was the Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas from August 1992 to April 1994. The Mt. Carmel raid was on February 29, 1993. The arson-murders occurred April 19. Clark had been Commander of the National Training Center and Deputy Chief of Staff for Concepts, Doctrine and Developments, US Army Training and Doctrine Command TRADOC, where Clark was Deputy Chief right before becoming an armor commander at Ft Hood, has as its primary mission to "prepare soldiers for war and design the army of the future." Item number one from the TRADOC vision statement: "...enable America's Army to operate with joint, multinational and interagency partners across the full range of operations."

General Clark, thanks to his operations at Waco and in the Balkans, is now a front-runner to become America's first commander-in-chief of the anti-democratic domestic command Clinton wants to establish.

More...

http://prorev.com/waco.htm

That offers no proof at all that Clark was at Waco. Guess why? He wasn't involved!! Counterpunch even followed up their article that insinuated Clark was involved with Waco. Seriously, is that all you've got?

"Though Clark (who had served with Schoomaker) was not directly involved in the onslaught on the Branch Davidians, the role of the US Army in that affair throws into harsh relief the way prohibitions against the use of the US military for civilian law enforcement can be swiftly by-passed."


www.counterpunch.org/waco2.html

Has he?

Only the tinfoil hats are accusing him.

It would lay the question to rest, one way or the other.

Or, are you afraid of the answer?

I already know the answer. I don't expect him to respond to a bullshit, baseless accusation posted on the internet. I'm sure he would respond himself if there was a need. But I don't see the need.

and where did you find it?

Waco comes up hundreds of times when you google Clark's name. I do not consider the question a bullshit baseless accusation.

If he won't answer, then something is wrong.

and you and a bunch of people from the American militia movement can hold special televised sessions and drag up Clark and whomever else you want in front of it and hit them with "Are you now or have you ever been involved in a plot to slaughter Branch Davidians?"

That would be a great blow for justice, indeed.

Because, we all know that a failure to issue a statement about one's involvement in an alleged conspiracy, even if there's no evidence beyond the most tenuous and contingent connection, is indication of possible culpability.

would be much simplier.

All candidates are asked hard questions. Why should Clark be different? I would think that the Waco question would be much easier than the Pristina airport question.

I don't think there WAS any involvement of the US Army. I know that the ATF pulled out all the stops on that one, but I don't htink the army was involved there.

I don't see any reason why we can't take Clark at face value for now - but skepticism is GOOD. I mean one of the things we hate about GW is the way he markets himself as the action hero who can save us - he's basically asking for the citizens to be uncritical... And the people who actually buy that crap?!@

On the flip side, many of us are hoping for some fair-haired hero who's going to emerge and save downtrodden us from *&co. I'm not saying Clark (or Dean, for that matter) is marketing himself as such - but maybe your reservations about Clark stem from the fact that he is being built up by his supporters as this action-hero altern-a-Bush.

Okay, so the spirit of individualism isn't exactly in style right now, but that's no reason not to endorse a semi-candidate of Clark's caliber.

I'll still throw support the way of anybody who can beat bush, but i think it's healthy not to lay your hopes completely upon ANY leader - the let-down will be inevitable.

Have you seen that they are making a * Action Figure? He's in the flight suit and they were referring to it as GI George.

Blasphemous

It should have AWOL inscribed on the patch

I haven't heard any, but I admit I haven't been looking.

http://draftclark.com/
For some general information on Clark.

Below are the statements from the official draft Clark site that get tossed out every time someone at DU asks what his positions are. I think its a decent articulation - certainly so for one who hasn't declared...

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm
On the Issues

“It’s very hard not to think in terms of the welfare of the country, and when you see the country in trouble, in challenge, yes, you’d like to pitch in and help.”

-- General Wesley Clark, Meet The Press 6/14/03


A Distinguished Record of Service
General Wesley Clark has a long and distinguished record of service in the armed forces as both a leader and a force for justice in the military. His innovative social vision led him to tackle, as a base commander in the early 1980s, such complex and then-taboo problems as teenage suicide and spousal abuse in military families. Clark’s innate sense of fairness has led him to embrace Democratic positions on domestic issues.


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

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)

I'll check it out.

(I guess the beauty of NOT having a political background is that Clark has no record to hold him back. He can carefully craft whatever positions he wants.)

without years of politics behind him he has less debt to pay and fewer owners than your usual pol. As stated throughout this thread, we'll see.

as long as it's not the tinfoil hat kind. :tinfoilhat:

I don't think there's any sort of conspiracy going on: Wesley Clark isn't by any stretch the perfect candidate--as so many people on these boards point out, he doesn't have political experience (he would have been more perfect, say, if he had gone from being a general to, I dunno, being the mayor of a very bland city for a couple of years) and military leaders don't appeal to everyone, especially some of the more hardened/anarchistic members of the base.

When he declares, along with his overall vision--which I think is a very inspiring one--he will have to take detailed positions. Those details aren't going to make everyone enamored with him right now happy, whereas right now people can just fill them in with whatever they prefer. If, as with Dean, or any other candidate, you like the overall vision and tone enough, and the rest of the details seem good, then you will make a compromise and give up the points on which you don't agree.

If Clark runs, you should definitely ask him hard questions--that's what the primary process is for--and if he win, you should definitely hold him to fulfilling his promises. Part of his "thing" is accountability, so he certainly wouldn't begrudge you doing either of the above.

But the last thing you should do, as a Dem who wants to beat Bush, is to be afraid of running too strong of a presidential nominee!

I posted this yesterday in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=62827&mesg_id=62827#63027

Received, may I whine, with a deafening silence.

If you think you have something brilliant to say and want to be heard, you gotta make it a top-level thread! ;-)

Oh well, thanks, I guess.

I just thought I'd try to make you feel better. :)

since hats the way career military folks are.

Hes not a liberal if thats what you mean by "nagging feeling". He is probably a good pick if you want a centerist Democrat.

There is still that issue about the "Incident at Pristina" and that he was supposedly "fired". Maybe there are some character flaws there.

Hard to say. No one is perfect, esp. if they are in politics.

I understand that Clark is good on defence against Bush and that the lack of a political past gives him the double advantage of both ahving no record and being an 'outsider'. What worries me is that public distrust of 'insiders' and affection for the military is indicative of a loss of faith in democracy. If we run Clark and he wins what is to stop the Republicans from digging up some right wing general to negate the "millitary credibility" gap? I think we should try to restore the public's faith in regular politicians instead of allowing this "if you've ever held a place in federal government, you are the source of corruption and the destroyer of all things good" mentality to continue.

Going back in US history military heros or men who made their name as generals rose to the Presidency a number of times...

Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Grant, Eisenhower...this has not been so unusual.

I think it is dangerous. And I think it was risky before as well. Grant and Eisonhower are understandable becaus Grant was a huge hero of the civil war, and Eisenhower was a very moderate Republican run as a gimmick by a party that had been out of the whitehouse for 20 years. But I still don't like it. We have enough chickenhawk militarism already. I don't want to encourage them to move to full blown strong-man militarism, which would likely be their response to an incumbent Clark in 2008. And if we are caught in running generals against each other every 4 years the Repubs will have plenty more to choose from.

In alot of ways the GOP of that time are sort of like the Democrats nowadays as they are pretty much shut out of political power, esp. in Congress.

Even Clinton, popular tho he was, ended up having to dance to a GOP tune (welfare reform, DOMA) to remain politically viable for 1996.

Yes, we Democrats are out right now, but we've lost 1 Presidential election under questionable circumstances. This is not indicative of a massive rejection of the party. The Republicans in 1952 had lost 5 Presidetial elections in a row. The last loss, Dewey vs. Truman was a squeaker, but it wasn't stolen like the 2000 was. Gore got more votes than Bush and we now ca all admit that he wa bit stiff. When you consider that we have several good candidates running and Bush has a bad track record, things should be pretty good. Our only weakness might be that some are still scared by the events of 9/11, although some polls I saw posted here indicated that the economy is a bigger concern among Americans. So the best way to get in trouble on the "security" issue would probably be to play Bush's game and legitimize his fear-mongering by joining in on it and trying to out-do him. Long story short: the last few years have sucked, but we have no evidence that the Democratic party needs a radical change to get votes, hence no need to go gung-ho on defence. We'd probably be best served putting our energy to getting out the vote and getting young people to become Democrats for the long term future.

Powell had been mentioned as a Republican presidential candidate in the past and I'm sure his name will come up again.

He'd never make it. Besides I doubt that the GOP base would pick him in the primaries

That's the ticket.

that months ago.

Not trying to pat myself on the back - but no one is thinking seriously about getting Western votes. Especially now that Ahnuld might actually put California into play....

Gebhardt is the closest, and I think he'll be out in 90 days. Bob Kerrey would have been a reasonable VP choice as well.

I still think Clark/Dean, or Dean/Clark is the likliest scenario. Kerry for State, Gebhardt for Labor. Lieberman for........wait....I dunno, I'll think of something....

otherwise a repuke names his replacement.

Richardson would also help with the Hispanic vote.

I used to like Dean, or at least the idea of Dean - but the more I see of him, the less I think of him as "the one".

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

However, I share your ability to conceive of the conceivability of ANYthing through the looking glass of electoral politics. I lived through the Reagan presidency, and I know that everything is possible. Perhaps I now live in an alternate, then-possible universe, while in another, then-possible universe Carter's second term led to a quicker and beneficent Pax Americana, and the people have jobs, good schools and health care. (If you haven't guessed, I, like Clark, enjoyed studying philosophy.)

I do find it stretching for him to be a BFEE trojan. 'Twere so, a successful and repudiating campaign would likely bring rotation of majorities and leadership in both Houses, again substantiating the possibility of the intentionalist fallacy. So, very unlikely.

I admit some pleasant but wary surprise at his degree of support in here and the country. Wary, because they always seem to take my favorite shows off the tv and favorite products off the shelf.

I liked what I thought I saw in Clark back during Kosovo, just from tv and a few articles. Similarly, I liked what I thought I saw in Dean when he was on c-span back when there was a governors' conference in Vermont. Only first impressions I know, but I think they are borne out since, and I am mostly in synch with what I learn of their positions.

And the main, current, controlling impression is that the two stand the best chance of dethroning the Abomination. Just a guess now, and I'm completely open to any indication any other candidate can do better at this prime and essential task. I'll lick envelopes and vote for whoever has the best shot.

Lordy, on election day if national polls and what have you indicated that Ralph F****** Nader was the best shot at unseating aWol, I'd punch him in and double-check my chad. But one alternate universe at a time, please.

One hour from now.

n/t

Clark is who Clark is. But honestly, who would even be thinking a General unless 9/11 happened? And if Gore had won the electoral vote and was now President? This is what what makes it perfect.

:kick:
J4Clark

Because of 9/11, Clark is perfect? Perfect for what and why?

Your right let me explain, I guess someone that is not aware of the Terrorist attacks on the US would be clueless how Clark fits in.

See, on September the 11, 2001 the nation was attacked by terrorists. The nation is also in economic disarray.

The nation is afraid of more terrorist attacks. As a result, Bush attacked Iraq. Which led the country into a massive division.

Bush having no military experience has lead the country into a downward spiral.

Clark, having a great deal of experience will be able to straighten things out again.

So, if September 11th, would have never happened, the country would not be at war, its economy would be stronger, and nobody would care who the Democratic nominee would be.

But Clark, with his background and experience is perfect for fixing the nation's most important problems.

:kick:
J4Clark

you make absolutely no sense.

Maybe it is you that is afraid of "terrorists"? Maybe it is you that needs a big strong general to protect you?

Our "most important problems" are finding ways to get the real terrorists out of the White House.

I go for smarts, and achievement, and excellence, and all that other stuff I'm not.

To me, Clark embodies the best qualities of our Democratic presidents of the last century.

oh well. :shrug:

I don't know if I'd describe Clark that way. That's what's so cool about his potential candidacy. Clark will inevitably appear to be moderate. In actuallity, he's quite liberal. The value in that is that he can promote a liberal agenda (as pres.) that someone like Kucinch could never get away with. Clinton was viewed as liberal by the right when he was actually conservative. They fought him every step of the way. They still don't realize what a great Republican pres. they had in Bill C.

Clark could not only sneak a whole lot of liberal ideas into play, it is my contention that he could single-handedly bring back the white male to the Democratic party. Perception is everything. If the white males have a strong male image to vote for you could see those guys embracing liberal values and returning to our side of the fence. Also, Clark would affect congressional races like no other of the candidates. That alone is reason enough for me to vote for him. This man will have coattails.

Image goes a long way!

Wesley Clark is percieved as a "man's man". Someone like Kucinich is not.

Platforms are similar.

Who would Joe Sixpack possibly vote for, and who would he ridicule?

Image is why GWB gets away with big BIG government (while passing himself off as a 'conservative') and carrying a facist agenda. He's percieved as flawlwess by his lemmings.

and why would a woman want to vote for one?

But I used the term "man's man" for lack of a better one, but also in an effort to get a point across.

Gen. Clark is a candidate the average 'Joe Sixpack' he can admit to his buddies he voted for.

Hell, I got a ton of flack from my friends for admitting to voting for Dukakis in '88.

As for women voting: Hell, a lot of them voted for 'W' in '00. And I see him as having that kind of image (even though he's a corrupt prick).

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

Sheesh!

Haven't been reading the board in the past few days, have you?

Another reason to campaign AGAINST him.

And I do realize that the women's vote is VERY important.

It is the difference maker in any election.

But I'm just stating a perception, that's all.

for you to label Clark's female supporters "http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=169110#169718">the wet panty brigade"? Yet it's sexist for a guy to write that Clark cuts an image as a "man's man."

Or is there some other reason?

Just wondering--I don't know my 3rd wave feminism as well as I should...

in the wet panty brigade are men.

How is that sexist?

tameszu: I call myself a left liberal and if you check the people who support him--a very significant number of whom, I should add, include http://www.women4clark.com/">grown-up women--they to a great degree fall significantly to the left of center.

(Ed: link above is to the website "http://women4clark.com")

pastiche: As far as the "grown up women", I've heard those "grown up women" talk about Clark on this board. Hell, I even collected their comments and made a long post about them. lol Can you say the wet panty brigade?

Stereotyping? Check.
Sexualization of motives? Check.
Trivialization through the above? Check.

So are you sure your problem isn't that Clark isn't too liberal for you?

If the Democratic party doesn't shake it's girly man image it will lose in 04.

22% of white males identify with the Democratic party. That's pathetic.

I remember telling some guys at the gym where I worked out that I was voting for Mondale in 84 and they were laughing. As a white straight male Southern Democrat I can go for days without finding another one and I am in sales so I meet lots of people.

Some DUers need to get out and interract with middle Americans ; we's got an image problem<<<<<<<<<<< purposeful colloqialism.

As far as the women's vote the Dems will do well. We need to reach out to more men to close the gender gap.

Wes Clark can help us in that department.

Wes Clark can be the next JFK. He can make liberalism and masculinity mutually inclusive again.

Think of it. A real man who can speak in complete sentences and demonstrates the ability to be tough as well as empathetic.

Gerneral Clark. Your country needs your service again.

So, I won't go further......but he just isn't going to be a good choice. A Military Man in the White House??

That's taking it even further than our "little Emperor."

Clinton.

8 US presidents were Generals, 3 were other high ranking officers. Two others were the sons of famous Generals. I think you are selling the country short.

:kick:
J4Clark

Redo your math and try again...

Better yet, redo your research and try again. What this country doesn't need is a military leader. Especially one with a proclivity for cluster bombs...

Every pres since FDR has served in the military cept Bill Clinton.

and i'll say it again. If y'all want to win this election, its going to be on the back of a person like Clark

It doesn't really matter if some (or many) progressives can't bring themselves to support Clark.

The number of middle Americans who will flock to him will far surpass the number of progressives who won't back him.

So I, for one, am not going to invest time and energy in trying to convince other progressives to support Clark.

As a Wellstone Democrat, it's more important to me to drive the BFEE from power with such force that they'll never seek power again.

middle Americans vote in the primaries?

He's go to get through the primaries to get to the middle Americans.

Why would we nominate someone in the primaries who can appeal to middle Americans.

Let's nominate someonme who can alienate as many middle Americans as possible.

They're fat, self indulgent, and ill informed.

Who the Hell needs them.

I'd rather be right than govern.

This is the most important issue for Democrats - Get rid of Bush!\

Aiming to please solely the far left is political suicide. Just like the extreme right, they'll never be satisfied. Disagree? Two words: Ralph Nader.

Aim for the middle, and you've got a helluva chance.

Clark sounds more left than Clinton.

So fret not, progressives: You may be pleasantly surprised.

Every time I dig deeper into this guy's background I come away more impressed. First in his class at West Point, Rhodes
Scholar with Master's from Oxford in political science and economics, he's no ordinary general or military man. He's an
intellectual and a philosopher. He will make the most incredibly articulate, wordly, and well-educated President we've ever had. John F. Kennedy was a military man. But Kennedy was also a best-selling author, like Wesley Clark. Anyone
who has any doubts about Clark being overwhelming Presidential material simply has not made themselves aware of this
man's background. The guy is fluent in Russian and Spanish! Does Dubya even speak English?

:thumbsup: i just went to www.digitalclark.com and watched some of his apperences that i had missed. The man is unflappable. I think that he would make a great canidate and if he enters he becomes my "horse" in the primaries

...on another message board that after Vietnam Clark took some time to study with Jesuits regarding the philosophy of "just" wars. He's no Schwarzkopf.

Schwarzkopf is a legitimate genius (S/B IQ of about 160 iirc), and a surprisingly thoughtful man resides behind the... expansive personality. He's fluent in several languages, an accomplished magician, believe it or not, and has an MS in Engineering. A lot of these top military guys are quite bright, in fact, Clark obviously being one of them.

but he did sign on to a pro affirmative action amicus brief in the Michigan affirmative action case. Let's give him his props.

He's just in the right place at the right time. FDR probably seemed like he was too good to be true when he ran for the Presidency.

Clark supporters I am sorry I was not here yesterday to put up the good fight, but I went to the Illinois State Fair to stump for. . .GENERAL WESLEY CLARK!!! Throughout the day we met with various statewide elected officials to promote GENERAL WESLEY CLARK!!! We did not get a chance to talk to Gov. Blago, but we talked to Lt. Gov. Quinn, Attorney General Madigan, Chief of Staff for Speaker Madigan, State Rep. Meeks, State Sen. and US Senate candidate Barack Obama, State Controller and US Senate Candidate Dan Hynes, US Senate Candidate Blair Hull, US Senate Candidate Gary Chico, Fmr Talkshow Hostg and US Senate Candidate Nancy Skinner, as well as numerous county and township Democratic chairpeople, reporters and Democratic activists.

With one exception, all of them gave positive feedback (at this point these people are wise not to support anybody) and there was no negative feedback, the one exception was the ONLY ONE WHO HAD NOT HEARD OF HIM, but that was very interested after hearing about him. ( I am going to post this in a few Clark threads).

Over the past few months, because of all the Clark noise and a personal desire to not just see a bushco defeat, but clear progressive victory, I’ve invested many hours getting to know the general. My initial response was to dismiss the thought of a military man in Washington. But I would like to share with you some conclusions and speculations I’ve reached about this man. I hope it will clear up some misconceptions and help others to understand what we are looking at. BTW, I don’t need a “to good to be true” candidate. ABB will do. To me, this is no longer about Dem vs Rep, this is about the future of this planet. The world needs us to get rid of the vultures circling peace and sanity, two good friends who are currently bleeding to death in the dessert.

Clark believes in being completely through when faced with any problem. In his writing he speaks of plans with back up plans with feedback and review. Going without sleep, seems to be common place to him. I’d say he doesn’t need much and can function without it when necessary. If he is going to run, then right now he is quietly putting together a team. He’ll want the best, because he is not afraid to delegate responsibility. He believes that having a well tested policy is a better way to operate than crisis mode. This quality could result in a great campaign, or surprise him with the disorganization of the real world. Only time will tell and that's why we have primaries.

He accepts mistakes made by himself and others only if people take the time to learn from those errors. He was once stung by the press because of a remark taken out of context at press conference and seized the opportunity to learn from the experience because he knows 24/7 news in part of the life of a public figure. (BTW, Clinton, after reading the transcript, felt the incident was not a big deal; Cohen punished Clark for what was essentially a media “gotcha.”) I wondered about his saying that the aviator photo op was “embarrassing.” A more stinging statement than others he had used on prior occasions, but after thinking about it, he meant to be caustic. He knew he was going to get the question, and he deliberately used his authority to bust bush.

Although Clark is a skilled diplomat and can answer in non-answers with the best of them, he really doesn’t lie. It’s the honor code thingy, and he takes it very seriously. Of course this maybe a problem in a campaign...this is not the mark of politician. Promises and hedges is often the meat of stump speech and interview. Clark may decide to run, but that decision doesn’t include compromising his integrity.

Clark also believes that each of us, including himself, must be accountable. He doesn’t see this in some John Asscrap Calvinist kind of way, but rather as a form of meritocracy. Government and society provide the opportunities for the American Dream, we provide the muscle and the willingness to participate. He thinks Congress has breached the Constitution by giving up its role of checks and balances so that they can avoid responsibility. Getting Congress to quit acting like a club and begin acting like the representatives of the people will be a difficult job, but if we are to continue as a democracy, a necessary one....the sooner the better. BTW, I think this notion while worthy, may be a serious drawback for him; however, I'd loved to see him hold Tom Delay over an open fire.

I suppose this post is too wordy and too long so I’ll stop, but in response to some other posts on this thread...he speaks four languages: Russian, Spanish (he learned the language because he was promoted to the Southern Command so that's what one does in Clark's world) French and a language the chimp will never master, English. Also, he taught “Just War theory.”

This thread is a good review of the pluses and potential minuses of a Clark candidacy. The serious concerns some people have are well articulated. The known strengths are covered well. Bottom line -- we all need to learn more and get answers about those concerns.

The more I learn the better I like him -- the right person at the right time, I think.

Jackson Stephen's reputation (the BCCI corruption, for example) is not an association one would want ~imho~ ... Gen. Clark apparently quit his "position" with Stephens Group this year to pursue other things ...

http://www.stephens.com/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=jackson+stephens+and+BCCI

Of course, being a Board member of Acxiom, Inc., offers one a huge databank of information on citizens which could help any politician I suppose - even if Board membership associates one with Kissinger's "business associate", "Mack" McLarty, as well as, other Arkansas good ol'boys.

http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=1668&Country_Code=USA

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/733269/000073326903000007/proxy2003.htm

these are the things that concern me

a company developing alternative energy technology.

He worked at Stephens for maybe 12 months. Everyone who thinks that's enough for guilt by association, yell "purity!"