How about a Dean/Clark ticket???

Hey everyone I think this may be the answer to all our problems. Dean is kicking ass all over the place and Clark's numbers are phenomenal. Dean has plenty of domestic experience without any foreign policy experience. Clark has foreign policy experience without any domestic experience.

They also happen to be my number one and two choices. I lean towards Clark at this point. But I don't think his roots are strong enough within the Democratic Party to win it. Even though I still think he is the strongest candidate against Bush.

I think this ticket would kick some serious ass.

do you think Democrats can't stand up on their own merits when it comes to military affairs?

are you willing to kow-tow to Republican influence on what Democrats should try to sell the electorate?

And Clark has that more than anyone else.

a general?

Does a general have more credibility than a war hero, a doctor, or a legislator?

are you suggesting that the Republicans have won this argument?

Maybe we should be running on a strategy that REJECTS all military bullshit, and asserts the power of the people over the war machine.

Maybe then I could give Clark some "credibility"

I am not saying that Republicans have won by force of argument. They win by degrading the credibility of their opponents. If Clark can help shield the Democrats from such mostly baseless but unfairly resosant-with-the-public criticisms, then that will take a huge weight off the shoulders of the Democratic party.

what a wonderful selling point you've discovered!

What I'm saying is that the propoganda machine from the right is very powerful, much more so than the one from the left. Like it or not, the Republicans will go after each Democrat in a truly vicious manner. And even though the economy will be a big issue, national security matters and the military will also be big issues. Why not consider a candidate that will render most, if not all, attacks against his patriotism or foreign policy experience meaningless?

if you think that will work, ask John Kerry why his war-hero background doesn't excite more support for him...ask Max Cleland about how missing limbs seem to mean nothing to the electorate

For the sake of everything you want to defend, change the climate and stop the war-mongering.

Why would anybody doubt the patriotism and to a somewhat lesser extent the foreign policy/military credibility of a wounded and/or decorated veteran? The answer is that the right smeared Cleland and will try to do the same to Kerry. But Clark's a different story. He's not just a wounded Vietnam veteran; he's a military general with more experience in the armed forces than probably all of the Republican leadership combined. We have people that can help spread that message. And if the Republicans start viciously attacking a former military general, it makes sense to think it will eventually backfire.

"For the sake of everything you want to defend, change the climate and stop the war-mongering."

Huh? I'm a war-mongerer? Uh, no. I never took a side in the pro/anti-war debate.

do you know how much war Democrats have been responsible for in 50 years?

Now you want a military general as the leader of the party. Yeah...war monger.

Republicans and the media will attack whoever they want whenever they want. If they dont attack Clark on his military chit, they'll attack him on some other front. In the meantime, the Democratic party base will see that the party is so desperate to fight the Republican inspired images of itself that it does its best to look like Republicans.

"do you know how much war Democrats have been responsible for in 50 years?

Now you want a military general as the leader of the party. Yeah...war monger."

Clark is a war mongerer?

"Republicans and the media will attack whoever they want whenever they want."

Absolutely. And with Clark fending off most, if not all, of the criticisms about the Democrats' alleged problems with national security, they can focus on attacking about other issues.

"In the meantime, the Democratic party base will see that the party is so desperate to fight the Republican inspired images of itself that it does its best to look like Republicans."

I don't agree. Clark doesn't have to do much to fight back. He just has to be positive and stop any really nasty, untrue rumors. If the Republicans are too vicious, they could dig themselves into a hole.

when peaceful methods would have worked.

You must be kidding, right?

Peaceful methods MAY have worked in Serbia IF, the international community had stood up and started inervening forcefully with economic and politically pressure YEARS before the conflict.

But by the time Bosnia became a bloody mess, it was pretty much too late. Do you know anything about that conflict? Even semi-peaceful methods--an entire battallion of Dutch peacekeepers--couldn't keep 7,000 Muslims from being slaughtered in Srebrenica. There was clear and present danger in Bosnia. The world failed to act in time--the one thing that kept Sarajevo from being completely flattened was NATO airstrikes. The one thing that brought Milosevic to negotiating table at all was the threat of NATO airstrikes. You may justly condemn, as do I, the relative cowardice of the Western nations for preferring altitude bombing over a ground invasion and therefore placing Serbian civilians at unnecessary risk, but to say that "peaceful methods would have worked" is very close to nonsense.

by strengthening opposition groups during the war. I am sure that if Milosevic felt that his position was severely threatened unless he tried to make peace, he would have tried to make peace. the fact is that a peaceful resolution to the conflict wasn't even ATTEMPTED. We don't know, since it was never tried.

The initial negotiations during the fall of Yugoslavia.

The entire Bosnian conflict.

The Dayton Accords.

The many rounds of negotiation leading up to Rambouillet.

I agree that the international community could have done much more previous to the war. But a peaceful resolution was indeed attampted many times.

Indeed, if you note how the conflict actually ended, there was no ultimate final confrontation with Milosevic, and the international community made quite clear to him that his position was threatened--although by them. As for a solution that involved only supporting the internal opposition within Serbia, such opposition was very, very weak until after the international community had forced Milosevic to give in. Note that it took many months even after NATO had severely weakened Milosevic's position for the opposition to organize and force him out, and mainly because the military had lost faith in Milosevic, precisely because he had been defeated.

within the former Yugoslovia were concentrated on during those negotiations. I should have mentioned that.

By bombing Belgrade, we hurt the opposition. It strengthened Milosevic because it made him seem like he was standing alone and with courage against the most powerful force in the world.

I was talking about the Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars, and Purple Heart he was awarded in Vietnam. Apparently they give those out to just anyone.

but I think that Clark in the VP spot certainly wouldn't hurt. He is not indispensable, but if he is willing to, I think he would be a great pick.

what do we need with a general when we have a war hero? huh?

Kerry may be a war hero, but that doesn't mean he can't be viciously attacked, like Max Cleland. And he hasn't even come close to serving the same amount of years as Clark, nor have his experiences been the same.

you're saying they won't attack him?

do Democrats base all their decisions on how the media will play them?

But I doubt it would stick very well. And while Democrats don't base all of their decisions on how the media portrays the candidates, a lot of people seem to think swing voters do.

how about appealing to the liberals and progressives who aren't voting? Can't do that with a military general.

you appeal to the base for the nomination and the middle in the general election. And who says liberals and progressives, if there is such a difference, won't vote for a military general?

and, franbkly, if you think the Democratic party needs to be governed by how people interpret their military prowess, then the Democrats have already lost, because Democrats are not supposed to be about the power and monied eleites that bring us wars in the first place

OnEdit: incorrect spelling

I'm not saying that being a military general necessarily would make him a good political leader.

"if you think the Democratic party needs to be governed by how people interpret their military prowess, then the Democrats have already lost, because Democrats are not supposed to be about the power and monied eleites that bring us wars in the first place"

I'm not even sure of what you're saying. Your comments appear to be nonsensical, with one clause representing one thought and the other representing an unrelated thought. But I'll try anyway.

If Clark can give us some much needed credibility in the eyes of the public on foreign policy and military matters, so be it. No, the Democrats aren't weak on defense, but the right is winning the propoganda war, and there's no reason to expect them to stop it now.

Now see if you can give me a legitimate reason for your claim that liberals and progressives won't support a military general.

"much needed credibility" which means you think Democrats are weak in military affairs...why do you think that? Because we dont advocate war every time there's a problem? Because we want to cut the military back to some normal program, instead the money-hole it has become? That we want better treatment of the soldiers than of the high-priced equipment our tax dollars buy?

By the way, CT, you did not answer the question: If Democrats are about social equality and justice, then a military person is the WORST representative we could come up with.

""much needed credibility" which means you think Democrats are weak in military affairs...why do you think that? Because we dont advocate war every time there's a problem? Because we want to cut the military back to some normal program, instead the money-hole it has become? That we want better treatment of the soldiers than of the high-priced equipment our tax dollars buy?"

I don't think that, but because of the strength of the right wing propoganda machine, a lot of people do. Clark, it seems, can help render those criticisms meaningless.

"If Democrats are about social equality and justice, then a military person is the WORST representative we could come up with."

That's not a question. That's a statement. And I don't see the connection.

when he rallied behind Bush.

when the first unknown horse was led out of the CFR shed.

Now we've got a poltically untested, unverifiable, unknown Stallion being PUSHED on the crowds like Cesar waiting to be crowned wanting to team up the first and both now saying they're friends.

Brilliant manouver on the part of Right and Right-leaning Dem political marketers who feared the back-lash of the the Progressives and Liberals rising up. The writing was on the wall for them to see when we got out and marched in the streets and posted on these boards for all to see.

Did people think they were stupid?

Beware the wolves in sheeps' clothing. If you're a Progressive or a Liberal, NOW is the imperative time to stick to your principles because WE THE PEOPLE MUST DECIDE who is electable and who is not.

If we let whorish political marketers and their slick packaging determine whom we vote for, we might as well not even get out there and vote because we will have betrayed that right!

Fearless as ever :hi:

I'm sending you the name& lyrics of that song you were looking for.

Right up there with the Bilderberger Group, the Trilateral Commission when it comes to shadow governments.

I had my own research on this but cannot find my post tonight. We discussed this when David Kelly (the UK scientist with the smoking gun re Iraq WMDs) was murdered. Right before his death he had warned of "dark actors playing games" and I was trying to find that thread for you because it explained it with good references. This is what I quickly found tonight and I only glanced at it... It looks ok as a starting point. If you have questions or are really interested, PM me. Since this organization has been founded, all Presidents of the US, have are invited to brief it BEFORE becoming President. This is especially significant in the case of unknowns like Dean and Clinton who are not members but invited to come "chat". Clark, would have had a reason to brief them due to his role but Clark is also a CFR member. Most of our important Dems are. Consider it a political country club with an agenda if you want.


-----

The Council on Foreign Relations and the New World Order
By Charles Overbeck (PSCPirhana)
Matrix Editor

The Council on Foreign Relations, housed in the Harold Pratt House on East 68th Street in New York City, was founded in 1921. In 1922, it began publishing a journal called Foreign Affairs. According to Foreign Affairs' web page (http://www.foreignaffairs.org), the CFR was founded when "...several of the American participants in the Paris Peace Conference decided that it was time for more private American Citizens to become familiar with the increasing international responsibilities and obligations of the United States."

The first question that comes to mind is, who gave these people the authority to decide the responsibilities and obligations of the United States, if that power was not granted to them by the Constitution. Furthermore, the CFR's web page doesn't publicize the fact that it was originally conceivedas part of a much larger network of power.

According to the CFR's Handbook of 1936, several leading members of the delegations to the Paris Peace Conference met at the Hotel Majestic in Paris on May 30, 1919, "to discuss setting up an international group which would advise their respective governments on international affairs."

The Handbook goes on to say, "At a meeting on June 5, 1919, the planners decided it would be best to have separate organizations cooperating with each other. Consequently, they organized the Council on Foreign Relations, with headquarters in New York, and a sister organization, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in London, also known as the Chatham House Study Group, to advise the British Government. A subsidiary organization, the Institute of Pacific Relations, was set up to deal exclusively with Far Eastern Affairs. Other organizations were set up in Paris and Hamburg..."

<snip>


http://truedemocracy.net/td3/shadow/s03.html

...there's no overarching agenda, for crying out loud -- it's more like a high-level trade group for people who work in international relations

The agenda is to keep themselves in power, and to neutralize threats to themselves. for crying out loud.

It amazes me how Clark supporters at DU continually write about winning the moderate republican votes. They seem to think progressive Democrats are expendable.

One example: If you write that you are fed up with Clark not saying what party he belongs to, you will be told: "It is so he can court swing voters. Are you to dumb to understand?"

What they don't understand is that some of us understand all to well.
Thanks to you and Terwilliger for explaining so much better than I can.

I'm an asshole

I always thought it was an asset to be an asshole(pun, unfortunately, intended).

I have no asset

OnEdit: that's not necessarily causal...many white men have very nice assets

A pain in the ass when we discuss religion or abortion :) but DEFINITELY NOT an ass-hole. I LOVE the way you call people out on their Bull-shit. We need that. Need about 100 more like you who can do it the way you do WITH the knowledge required to back it up!

I've admired a lot of your posts and have a lot of respect for your writing. I think we're all a team, part of the old Progressive team and it's a crying shame that we're becoming as "diluted" as our own Party is becoming. Time for all people of good faith to rally around the Party, around the old Flag YES (!) but men of good faith must be very careful of whose holding that flag or trying to.

Thanks for ALL the info in your posts!

Peace

Weren't they the people that brought us Carter? Clark is from the same Rhodes network that gave us Clinton too. When I first heard about Clark running, a long long long time ago, I didn't think the idea was bad at all - I have no problems with a military person, and I think he's electable. But so far, he's done little that interests me.

Let's put it this way- if you don't have the CFR's stamp of approval, you won't get anywhere.

If you have theur endorsement, the entire machinery, media and all will be behind you and they will practically catapult you to the Presidency.


Most of the cirrent Bush admin is CFR. For such a small club, they're in all the right places.

His views are very similar to Dean's, with Clark probably being more liberal. He is intelligent, articulate, and Southern (that probably would make a difference)

All this anti clark stuff is driving me freakin' nuts!

He is definitely a democrat! He speaks before democratic groups -- see this link to the New Democrat Network Meeting: http://www.cspan.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=wesley+clark&image1.x=0&image1.y=0

He advocates for the Democratic Party by saying things on Crossfire like "The Democratic Party is bubbling over with ideas."

His policy positions are all consistent with the Democratic Party. He's said many times that he's pro-choice, he was against the war in Iraq and he was against the Bush Tax cut.

He's a huge asset to this party! Plus he's been advising Dean! Dean has even said that he would make an excellent running mate!

Yes you have to win the party's base but you also have to win over some swing voters that's just the way it is. Dean is energizing a lot of people. I think he will bring into the fold lots of new voters which is very important but he may very well pick as his running mate Wesley Clark. And, who knows? There's a slim possibility that it could turn out the other way around.

Dean has the Mo. but Clark has generated a lot of interest and he hasn't even declared yet. Please lets not play these DLC type eat your own games here. It's not helpful.

Please stop with the Clark bashing already. It will just hurt us in the long run and it's getting really tired.

He is a Democrat afterall, so we would be standing up on our own merits where military affairs are concerned.

a killer ticket! A GOP-killer ticket!

say that he was considering Clark as his running mate?

and would consider each other. Watch as the days pass, you will see another "miracle" happening before your very eyes.

How many more to get to the Holy Land?

For some reason, that off-the-cuff analogy just sent a shiver down my spine.

neither of them have any washington experience, particularly during and after 9-11

People don't like insiders. They like the guy who is going to come in and fix the problems that the insiders have let go on for so long.

Washington experience? Hmmm, I suppose a President Dean would have no less Washington Experience than had previous Presidents who were former Governors: Clinton, Reagan, Carter, FDR, etc.

And if you don't think Clark's experience dealing with the Pentagon therefore with Congress and the White House gave him "Washington" experience, then you really don't have a clue about Gen. Clark.

Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and FDR had veeps who were Beltway people

I think Clark may even be a likely choice for Dean, I was just commenting, because I think it would be prudent to have someone who's dealt with the 9-11 aftermath firsthand at the top of the ticket, or atleast on the ticket somewhere

hardly bashing

Dean/Clark would make an unbeatable force against the Bushistas. Take a look at how well they complement each other:

-- Dean has executive experience, culminating in a balanced budget and a health insurance program in his state; Clark has military experience, culminating in service as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander – Europe.

-- Dean has expertise in domestic issues; Clark has expertise in foreign affairs.

-- Dean brings gravitas as a doctor; Clark brings gravitas as general.

-- Dean, from Vermont, is a northerner; Clark, from Arkansas, is a southerner.

-- Dean has the “Big Mo,” as indicated by rising poll numbers, media attention, and fundraising success; Clark is respected by the public AND the media, who know him as an expert consultant on TV news.

But let’s not forget the important things they have in common:

-- Both Dean and Clark are exceptionally well educated and well spoken, yet extraordinarily direct and plainspoken.

-- Both have outstanding records in public service.

-- They have compatible views on such issues as the Iraq War, the Bush tax cut, abortion rights, and affirmative action, to name a few.

-- Neither of them is a member of Congress, which means their election to office will not deplete either the House or the Senate of a sorely needed Democratic member (a critical consideration, when several of the other candidates represent states where their replacements would be chosen by Repug governors).

There's not a doubt in my mind that this is the ticket that would win back the White House plus it would have very big coat tails.

I think this would be a first class ticket

NOT!

Dean does not need Clark.

Democrats do not need to play by repug rules.

Why are some people afraid that Democratic ethics and stances are not enough?

Dean?

:shrug:

oh well

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

lol!

I made one response to the top post and one to Terwilliger. That's taking over this thread? lol


On edit: Besides, what's it to you? Can you even vote in this country?

You are interfering with a propaganda thread. The Clark supporters are on a mission from God to convince Dems that we need a man who, Rhodes Scholar and all,

1. still can't figure out what party he's in

2. is at 1/3 Republican, 1/3 Democratic, and 1/3 Independent support according to the Republican and Democratic heads of the Draft Clark Campaign who, by the way, have their media run by David Wallace who
"headed media relations for one of the nation’s leading public-policy think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute (PNAC)"

3. is going to mainly run on the issue of Homeland Security with just enough sprinklings of progressive words to not get people too alarmed

What a great country this is where you can run with no political record and astutely craft your position as you go, according to the polls.

The pieces are all there. Time to start reading the writing on the walls.

I will stop interfering, just as soon as...... hmmm...... er......

Sorry, no can do. I won't stop interfering. My country is a stake and as long as I can still breathe, I will continue to interfer w/any campaign that supports Clark.

Guess the words PNAC mean something to you too :)

Things are pretty bad when you have dedicated sincere Dean meet-up leaders jumping ship and ringing the bells over an alliance this guy.

There are limits to "Anyone But Bush".

It's amazing all the stuff we've learned to watch out for in years of reading and watching organizations like the DLC, the AEI and now PNAC.

do you not have any ability to defend yourself?

Did you answer my question?

(white horse?)

I think it's a mistake.

he might choose Clark for a running mate, he will be a black horse, as far as I am concerned. I have been supporting Dean since before there were meet ups. Now I am uncertain.

I've withdrawn as organizer of our local Dean meet up group, until I decide who I am going to support.

If Dean wins the nomination, it's going to be up to him to convince independents and moderate democrats that his foreign policy is workable.

At any rate, once Clark gets out on the stump, I think people will be surprised regarding the case he can make for domestic change.

then no general or anyone else will be able to do it.

Just what the country needs, eh?

A pink velvet glove for the iron fist?

That sounds quite "right" to me and hardly the solution required for the Democratic Party, the nation or the world.

If the Democratic Party does not have a choice that is the exact opposite of * there will be NO progress, instead things WILL get a whole lot worse.

I fail to understand why there is such a chorus of voices here that feel the need for someone whose life has been dedicated to the machinery of war.

Since they all served in the military.

But, it is my firm conclusion that "the military" and all of it's baggage needs to be converted to better purpose.

Just imagine how things would be if all the manpower of the world's armies and all the money wasted on death and weapons were used for building and improving things.

The thing I would really like to see is a global vote (all six billion or so of us) to ban the following:

1. Armies and the formation of them.
2. Weapons and the manufacture, possesion, and distribution of them.
3. The choosing of any "leader" who thinks that war is acceptable on any terms.

How many grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles and children do you think would agree?

And what pitiful and small group would disagree?
Who do you think would object to or prevent this voting from taking place?
Who prevents it even now with their constant sowing of the seeds of fear?

to ban the following:

1. Armies and the formation of them.

2 Weapons and the manufacture and distribution of them.

3. The choosing of any "leader" who thinks that war is acceptable on any terms."

Been there..... Done that.....

The Kellog-Briand Act outlawed war in 1928 and it was violated before the ink was even dry.

"We must take man as he is not the way we want him to be."

-Edmund Burke



*Burke was a small c conservative but he had a profound understanding of human nature. That's why he opposed the French Revolution but favored the American one.

You seem to miss my point entirely.

I stated that I would like to see all 6,000,000,000+, the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE vote on this matter.
Children too!!

I did NOT mean some "treaty" that the next clown in the long line of adventurous politicians could sweep aside at a whim.

Do you personally deny that you would agree with such a vote?

to use force to protect myself

to protect my family

to protect my country

to protect those weaker than me

and to use non lethal force to protect my property.

Care to take a crack at the four questions posed in the post containing the premise of banning war and it's component parts?

whose life has been dedicated to the machinery of war"

Psst, if you find out, will you please help me to understand?

can't back it up.

There are two parts to the word Chickenhawk. Which part is more offensive? Is it more offensive to not want to be in war or to desire a war?

I did try, and my reply to comment #1 came in at #55. What a joke. How do you expect anyone to have a conversation this way.

To desire a war is most offensive.
To my thinking war is the greatest of crimes against humanity.

than slavery?


than genocide?

These conditions are the result of the wars that armies engage in.

So yes war is the greater crime, and quite often at the root of the two other crimes you bring up.

that war can stop those things.

War is sometimes, though VERY RARELY, neccesary. It is only neccesary when humanitarian concerns are being completely ignored and dropped by a country to a GREAT extreme, a vast number of innocent civilians ae being hurt and killed, and there is no peaceful way to stop it.

In such a war, the goal should only be to stop the tremendous harm to innocent civilians, and immediately after humanitarian aid should be poured into the area and the root causes should be examined and dealt with. The war should be carried out with an objective of very minimal harm to innocent civilians.

World War II was neccesary, though the way it was carried out by the Allied powers lacked much respect for humanitarian concerns. It is the only war in the 20th century that I can say that with surety. The Persian Gulf war might have been justified if it hadn't included a devestating bombing of Baghdad and a ground invasion of Iraq. Its outcome, the liberation of Kuwait and the establishment of weapons inspectors and two huge no fly zones in the North and South, was admirable, but then the ends don't justify the means.

I would have gladly given my life to free my black brothers and sisters from bondage. I would have gladly given my life to have stopped the slaughter of my Jewish, Slav, Communist, Gay, and Catholic brothers and sisters at the hands of Hiltler and his executioners.

"Some thing gnaw at a man's soul worse than dying" but don't take my word for it:

"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in a time of crisis"

-Dante Alighieri

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

-Edmund Burke

or

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest thing. The degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.The peron who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

-John Stuart Mill

Have no fears- it's a small chorus making a LOT of noise with absolutely no concept of solfege.

The noise is to make sure there's no debate on their candidate in the hopes that people will be dazzled enough by the shiny brass and not notice things that would otherwise tip them off.

Since day 1, all we've heard about this candidate is exactly what you're hearing now- "The General is the Savior" of the Democractic Party. No one can really tell you why, nor can they really tell you why the Democratic Party- but never mind, just meekly hand your country over based on their word of honor that the Savior has arrived if we can just convince him that we're worthy of such a great honor.

Ceasar is coming to be crowned ;)

:toast:

And I must say I enjoy reading your posts!
Thanks too, for your time spent in researching the matters that you do.

though with this much at stake, it's almost a duty ;)

Depends on the orders. As head of NATO forces, I'd have to say he was more of a peacekeeper than a warmonger -- nonetheless, I am not taking sides here -- A lot has to happen before considering the best presidential candidate, much less who his running mate should be. It is reasonable to assume that the VP choice will not be anyone in the race for the nomination -- in fact, it usually isn't.

Neither Lieberman nor Cheney were running in 2000 and were the VP choices.

Gore didn't run for nomination in 92. Nor did jack Kemp in 96.

Bentson wasn't a PReisdential candidate in 88, neither was Quayle.

Ferraro wasn't a candiate in 84.

Mondale nor Dole ran for the nomination in 76.

We should not limit possible VP choices to those vying for the top spot.

Quaint little term that is, eh?

Isn't that what the sheriffs of the old west called their six-shooters?

If our leaders spent more time extolling the virtues of humanity and less time stirring up the cauldron of fear and the supposed differences among our human family perhaps there would be no need for the bullshit games that pols and generals play.

the operative word being "if".

A West Point graduate, injured in Vietnam, who I met a while back explained to me that Firemen hate fires, Military men hate wars.

Both are involved in fighting what they desire least.

We can talk semantics all day long. We can talk about utopian societies all day long. Neither conversation will make useful salient points on Clark's ability or inability to lead as president, vice president, a cabinet member or a private citizen.

Being a general neither mandates nor does it diminish his ability to do the work of president. However, to lable him a warmonger because he was in the military is, well, hurricane quality spin.

I am not arguing for or against Clark in any of the above roles, but if we are going to make judgements on his qualifications, then we need to be realistic and fair in how and what he is judged for.

Do firemen start the fires that they hate?

Seems like a case of apples and oranges to me.

And it is the case that if there were no armies, it would be quite difficult to have wars.

By using the term "armies" I mean very large groups of people organized for the sake of killing other large groups of people.

"If there were no armies, it would be quite difficult to have wars."

Your logic is flawed.

Change armies to police and war to crime and perhaps, just perhaps you will see my point.

"If there were no police, it would be quite difficult to have crime."


War is often the effect of rapacious behavior not the cause.

Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini attacked many peaceful countries during WW2 and these countries and the countries who came to their defense had to create or enlarge their armies to defeat it; ergo war is the effect not the cause....

Once again, apples to oranges.

And tell me just how far Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini would have gotten without armies, huge quantities of weapons and the "political will" to invade other countries?

Keep in mind too, that the premise of the vote I suggested was in three parts.

1. Armies
2. Weapons.
3. Leaders willing to use the above mentioned tools of destruction.

You badly confuse the basic logical concepts necessity with sufficiency.

Object lesson:

And tell me just how far Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini would have gotten with charisma, politically motivated people, and a people with a sense of historical and communal pride?

Therefore, charisma, politically motivated people, and a people with a sense of historical and communal pride are...evil?

Without material things, it would be quite difficult to have greed or avarice. Without humans, it would be quite difficult to have murder, death or evil. Without society or nations, it would also be quite difficult to have wars.

Real practical and world judgement in OUR world for the foreseeable future requires armies, weapons, and leaders willing to use the above mentioned tools of destruction. Leaders who are in principle and a priori unwilling to even consider using these tools, in the absence of an agreement from all other peoples to do the same (and I am not saying that such a utopian goal is impossible, only that to get there, we have to confront the fact that we have not yet reached it) would be acting utterly immorally, as they would allow many evils that they could other prevent and would likely not move the world one iota closer to the utopian world without armies that we want.

It said "A different kind of Green" or some such.

Just how quickly does that kind of "green" turn brown?

It has turned into a Dean-bashing fest from the love-in faction of mutual admiring Leftist fundamentalists who would rather see the country nailed to a cross than violate the purity of the revolution.


Oh yeah, I forgot: LOL

The front page, top-of-the-fold article with the large color photo in this morning's NYTimes, complains about the "birkenstock" sea of progressives who make up Dean's ranks, when criticizing the lack of diversity among his supporters. The NYTimes always feels compelled to look down it's nose and use inflamatory language and charged words to define image creating reactions to stereotypes.

Sure. Clark might be a great addition to the ticket. I might eventually even decide that he should head it. But until he gets in the race and starts campaigning, my opinions are simply based on his seemingly impressive intellect and his grasp of the current state of affairs. Before I can seriously consider voting for him, I'll want to see:

1) Is he going to run?
2) Is he going to run as a democrat?
3) What is his campaing style? Can he take it to Bush without capitulating to the culture of fear?
4) What are his positions on the issues? Does he have an optimistic vision of America and some solid ideas for getting America back on track.

If and when these questions get answered, I'll make a decision about Clark. Until then, I'm putting my efforts behind a declared candidate who has already answered these questions to my favorable satisfaction.

Clark may be better suited for Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State.

Should Dean win, he has two options for VP. He could try to nail down a single state, like Florida, or he could try to appeal to a group or constituency. Bob Graham or Bill Nelson would make sense with the first option. The second option has a lot of possibilites. He could try to maximize the Hispanic vote. In that event, Bill Richardson or even Bustamante would make sense. He could try to maxamize the female vote, possibly Mary Landrieu or Dianne Feinstein. Or he could try to maximize the labor turnout. Gephardt would make sense then, and can also bring the possibility of carrying Missouri.

Clark doesn't really fit in with either of these options.

I think a Dean/Graham is the way to go. He's an experienced politician that regularly beats republicans and wont do something stupid under pressure.

Why take a chance on a totally untested political novice?

He is not needed.

eom