Wes Clark has marginalized himself. Despite a robust organized Clark

[bobthedrummer]

support group here at DU Wes Clark no longer concerns me. He's put himself outside wide support.

He would make a good replacement for Secretary of Defense or V.P., which he's already stated he won't consider.

Bye, bye Wes.

I really like Russ Feingold myself.

[xultar]

1. Tee hee hee

:popcorn:

[Stand and Fight]

2. ------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

[bobthedrummer]

5. No, it isn't baiting-this is a fact of national politics.

Wes Clark is marginalized.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Pithy Cherub]

22. Only to those who are inconsequential and inconsiderate.

Alas, this is flambe bait designed to be divisive without any comment worthy of merit. Everyone should have a candidate or candidates that they support wholeheartedly without someone demeaning another candidate of someone else's choice. Be careful, very careful in dengrating someone else's choice in order to uplift your own.

I have many, many family members in Wisconsin that are very wired with the political process. This is just the thing that makes me say who supports a candidate and HOW can have long lasting effects and unintended consequences. :popcorn:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. He always was

He's not a politician. Never was. He'd be great in a Cabinet, yes, I agree, but he's just not a politician.

I'm watching Feingold. So far, so good.

[bobthedrummer]

33. I like your views.

I'm an independent voter btw.
:thumbsup:

[Avalux]

39. A senator is NOT the answer

and what does "he's just not a politician" mean? What kind of litmus test do you propose for a candidate?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

47. First, that phrase, "litmus test,"

belongs in a chemistry lab. The rightwingnuts have corrupted it to the point of meaninglessness, so I'll just walk right on past that.

As I'm sure you're aware, but probably overlooked, being a politician is a profession as complicated and difficult and arduous as any other - medicine, law, architecture, for instance. The good ones practice their craft for years, and that's why they're the good ones. As with any other profession, some are talented, some are not.

But, what being a politician is not is a bonny walk in the park for someone who's never had any political training or experience or education, and that is how I see Wes Clark, who understands quite well the politics of the military, but who, like Jimmy Carter, has absolutely no idea of how Washington works.

[Avalux]

56. I respect your opinion

but somewhere within politician as a profession, the "service to country" idea gets lost. I won't get into an argument over Wes Clark, but I want a leader who puts this country before his career. How Washington works isn't necessarily a good thing and needs to change IMHO.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

79. It's implicit, in my thinking, anyway,

that politics is the profession of service to country.

That, I believe, is what has gotten buried in these past elections.

[Jai4WKC08]

169. "A," not "the"

Politics is A profession of service to country, but it's not THE only one. The military is another. Education is a third. Medicine can be, altho many doctors do not pursue it along those lines... most nurses do, I think. I'm sure there must be others--pretty much any profession that rewards the professionals with something more than simple profit.

But let's take off the rose colored glasses. Plenty of politicians have been no more concerned with public service than the greediest, most self-serving member of any other profession or industry. Just as many military officers lose sight of what should be their higher purpose. Power can be just as intoxicating as money--they're frequently the same thing.

And it's not just "these past elections" (not sure how far back you mean) where the potential good of politics has been lost. I suspect it's been that way since there have been politicians.

[Jai4WKC08]

69. Only one disagreement

I don't believe Clark "has absolutely no idea how Washington works."

He has a lot more experience in Washington than Carter did. He was a White House Fellow assigned to the OMB. He worked on the Army staff, in the Pentagon, at one point. He was on the Joint staff, where he worked with the NSC. As a unified commander (CINCSOUTH and CINCEUR, and concurrently with the last, SACEUR) he maintained close and constant liaison with Congress, and was on the Hill frequently to defend his budget requests, operational priorities, and to coordinate with Congressional principles and staffers.

Does he know "how Washington works" as well as a John Kerry, with however many years in the Senate? Probably not. Does he know more than most governors, and a lot of senators with one or two terms. I would submit he does.

Plus he's "scary smart." Not that Carter wasn't damn smart himself. But Carter had other factors at work that inhibited his ability to govern.

For one, a marked stubborness about wanting to reform "how Washington works" -- not that that's bad, or even that it's necessarily different than what Clark might want. Altho Clark is used to working within a massive bureaucracy that might give him an advantage that Carter lacked.

For another, the Washington elite (within and outside of govt) dissed Carter for being a peanut farmer from GA. Some of it was mere politics, but some of it was just the attitudes that a lot of Washington insiders have. Clinton had a similar problem with the whole "trailer trash" nonsense.

Of course, Clark is a Southerner too, but his accent isn't as pronounced, his experience in NATO gives his not a little more credibility for sophistication, and 4-star generals are generally afforded more respect than a lot of other professions by the self-acclaimed cogniscenti.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

80. He has a lot of Washington experience, yes,

but it's been beyond the purely political realm.

Clark's never had to deal with voters or an elective constituency. That's why he's an outsider, and that's why he's not a politician.

My personal belief is that he'll never run for office.

[Sparkly]

101. He's never had Congressional strings attached, that's for sure

nor is he saddled with a long voting record to pick apart.

Here's a brief description of the president's job from scholastic:
http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/presres/prsnapsh.htm

The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.

As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.

Which of those do you think Clark would be unable to do?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

114. Well............

......as a Washington lawyer of 30 years' experience, I think it's only fair to tell you that a Scholasic definition of the President's job is a great starting point for elementary school children, but, as we all find out when we grow up, there's a whole lot more to it than those few sentences, find though they are.

[Sparkly]

116. Yes, I know.

I wanted a very short outline.

But since I'm not a Washington lawyer, what do I know. :sarcasm: :eyes:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

123. True

There is something to be said for decades of experience in Washington - precisely what Wes Clark doesn't have.

Thanks for making the case so cogently. No need for sarcasm, though; your edification is reward enough.

[Sparkly]

125. Perhaps you'd condescend to answer the question.

Which of the aspects of the job, as itemized in that description, do you think Clark is unable to perform?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

133. Perhaps you'll first explain to me

why you feel the need to use a word like "condescend" simply because of my job experience and the fact that it's afforded me some knowledge that might not have been available to you?

How sad that a request for information would come linked to a personal insult.

[Sparkly]

134. Sure

It's a response to your assumption that you, as a Washington Lawyer, "edified" me about what Scholastic is. I found the tone of your posts extremely condescending.

They're also focusing on peripheral matters and avoiding the topic of discussion.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

146. You think that's what I wrote?

No, I assumed you knew what Scholastic was. You read that simple response completely incorrectly.

That's too bad.

[Stinky The Clown]

136. I juist read this thread. First, you *do* sound condescending. Second ....

you failed to answer the question asked.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[Sparkly]

154. "Rude" and "Personal" !!

Hilarious. "You don't read very well." "Mighty big words from someone who doesn't understand..."

But do enlighten us about what's "rude" and "personal." It's obviously easier than answering the question about which presidential duties Clark would be unable to handle.

[Stinky The Clown]

156. Let's start all over again

Very clearly now ..... what presidential duties do you feel Wesley Clark will be unable to perform?

[kevsand]

151. I'm going to say this calmly and clearly,

so there's no misunderstanding. The problem isn't what you've said, or whether it was truthful or not. As far as I can tell, everything you've said is, in fact, the truth.

The problem is how you've chosen to say it. You have, in my opinion, been very condescending in your tone, to the point of arrogance.

And the problem is also what you have failed to say. You have steadfastly refused to answer the specific question you have been asked. Aside from lacking decades of experience, what specifically do you think Clark will be unable to do as president?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

153. Tough

My tone offends?

That's not my problem. That's all in the perception, and if someone's sense of inferiority or inadequacy confuses confidence and competence with arrogance, well, then I guess they should examine their own shortcomings.

I haven't "steadfastly refused" to do anything. I stated - very simply and very clearly - that I don't answer rude questions from rude people.

[Sparkly]

155. "confidence and competence"

Actually, in my experience, people who are confident and competent rarely feel the need to brag, posture, pretend to "edify" others, put others down as lacking reading comprehension, and then act like it's others who are rude. Such behavior often indicates feelings of inferiority and inadequacy, in fact.

Just sayin'.

[Dinger]

121. Bravissimo Jai!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Woweeeeee! Took my breath away!

[Totally Committed]

131. Outstanding, Jai!

Wish I had seen this sooner. I would have commented then.

TC

[tabasco]

129. The last person I want to lead this Nation is a career politician.

Leadership skill is the most important quality for the President. A political career is not necessary to be a great leader.

For all his political skill, Kerry could not overcome the right wing attacks. He was being TOO POLITICAL and not being enough of a leader to counterattack and WIN.

I am actually very suspicious of those who choose politics as a career. It is just a job to many of them, a job in which they are well-compensated. A true leader like Clark is inspired by the best interests of the Nation.

At a time when the Nation is as divided as any time since the Civil War, we need a leader to bring this country together again.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

148. I'll take a career anything anytime

over an amateur.

Would you want a professional surgeon to perform your cardiac bypass, or would you prefer an amateur who'd - maybe - learn on the job?

It's always mystifying to me when people can't conceive of politics as a profession.

[Jai4WKC08]

159. Who said politics isn't a profession?

But so is leadership.

The job of winning an election is part of politics.
The job of being president is leadership.

Which do you think is more important?
And why can't someone start a second career in mid-life?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

161. Backwards

I started a second career in midlife, as a novelist, and it's been very successful.

Never, though, would I dare to compare myself to someone like Philip Roth, for instance, someone who's been at it all his life, someone who knows so much better than I do how things in the literary business work. Likewise, I believe anyone running for the job of President had better know full well what the job - and getting it - entails, or else you end up with a figurehead in the Oval Office, and lately, we call him George W. Bush.

I don't see what you mean by "leadership" as a "profession." It's a characteristic and a trait and lots of other things, but its definition is also vague and nebulous and - think about it - necessarily a part of the job of being President. So, trying to isolate and define it as you are doing seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees.

Again, if you'd rather have a non-professional politician as a candidate, I say more power to you, but that's not my preference.

[Jai4WKC08]

163. Novelist is probably a good example

Of a profession that a few rare talents have been able to enter at a later age and produce some of the true classics of literature.

It's also a pretty good example in that it may well be harder today to break into the profession in a serious way later in life because of the nature of how the publishing business has evolved. A Phillip Roth, to use your example, can get published on his name alone, even if he produces crap.

So too, to at least some extent, politicians. If they have name-recognition going for them, and the contacts among the political crowd, half their battle is won, regardless of their actual record of performance. I happen to like Senator Clinton, but is there any doubt that the media treats her like the front-runner because of her name? And doesn't the way the media treats her perpetuate that image in the public mind?

It may be more difficult for a new guy to the profession of politics to break in, but not necessarily impossible, any more than it's impossible for a older beginning novelist to write a what could come to be recognized as another literary classic. Maybe not in his or her first attempt, but if there's real talent and an ability and willingness to learn the game, the work will speak for itself.

We may have to agree to disagree about leadership, I'm afraid. There are personal characteristics involved in leadership that I think maybe you have to be born with, at least to be really good at it, but most aspects can be learned, thru training and experience. And there are also institutions which provide that training and the opportunity for experience. I come from a military background, so I may have a different perspective on that score. Growing leaders is essentially one of the foremost missions of a peacetime military, and doesn't go away in wartime either. And if other members of some other professions also need leadership skills, the same could be said for writing. Doesn't mean some people don't write for a living.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I would "rather have a non-professional politician as a candidate." I recognize that there are skills and abilities a professional politician develops, or should develop, over the course of a career that should at least theoretically make him or her more effective in a political job. Altho I would point out that a lot of "professional" politicians who are considered eligible for higher office don't really have all that much experience in the business. Clinton, for example, has one senate term. Edwards had less than one when he ran for president, and nothing even remotely related before. Does that really afford them that much additional credibility?

I know that Edwards, for example, has been challenged for his lack of experience in specific aspects of the presidential job, but I don't recall anyone ever levelling the same charges reference his political qualifications as have been used time and again to argue against Clark.

Be that as it may, the bottom line to me is whether the individual candidate has the ability, knowledge, and character he or she purports to offer and that I judge necessary to do the job. Much as when I read a book: What I get out of reading it is no more or less if it was written by a Phillip Roth or someone I've never heard of. Even as I might be more likely to pick it up in the bookstore based on the name alone.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

178. I don't understand what you wrote,

but, even as a non-fan of Philip Roth, I heartily recommend his latest, "The Plot Against America." Remarkable piece of work.

[Itchinjim]

3. Clark '08 eom.

[sharonking21]

4. "He's put himself outside wide support"

Evidence please?

[bobthedrummer]

6. 2004 primaries.

[Jai4WKC08]

37. Oh yeah

No one has ever lost his first election and come back to win in the future. LOL!

[QC]

108. Flamebait requires no evidence. n/t

[MollyStark]

7. In what way do you think he marginalized himself?

I am not a supporter. I am curious about your reasoning.

[NoPasaran]

11. He's failed to attract the support

of the Kucinich groupies! He's doomed! Doomed I tell you!

[Stand and Fight]

16. --------------------

--------------------------

[Adelante]

20. Actually

Wes has his fans among Kuchies. :)

[bobthedrummer]

17. I'll tell you what, Molly, I'd rather focus on promoting Russ Feingold

than talk about Wes Clark. I voiced my opposition to him here long ago. Now I just can safely disregard him because of the possibility of a Russ Feingold candidacy in the Democratic Party.

[MollyStark]

21. I would prefer Feingold too. However you started the thread.

I was just wondering why. I think I will go scout other threads and see.

Peace

[Adelante]

23. Wouldn't it be possible to promote Feingold?

Without bashing Clark? Disregard him, go ahead.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

27. How's this?

A Feingold/Clark ticket...........

I swoon.

[Jai4WKC08]

42. Clark/Feingold makes more sense

The president is commander in chief.
The vice president presides over the Senate.

Historically, voters are reluctant to elect a senator without some executive experience. 'Course, if the Repubs run a senator, perhaps that point is moot. But then, we won't likely know who they're gonna run until it's too late for us, will we?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

53. Yeah, that would work for me, too......

But, I'm not sure how well the historical templates work any more. I think the election game has gone so haywire, and with cable and Internet and everything else, I just don't know that history dictates anything anymore.

One thing of which I'm certain is that something's got to be done about Diebold and voting machines before the next election.

[Jai4WKC08]

60. Amen to that! n/t

[MollyStark]

64. "The president is commander in chief."

The President is a heck of a lot more than that.

[Jai4WKC08]

71. Of course he's more

Duh.

But he IS that, and it's what a lot of voters seem to care about first and foremost. Especially if there's a war going on, or when the Repubs hype the threat.

Senate experience is not executive experience. This is not a slam on Feingold, whom I happen to like and respect. It's just a fact.

[Sean Reynolds]

95. Historically votes are reluctant to elect generals.

I mean, historically the last general was elected in the 1950s....historically speaking.

Ya' know, just for historical matters.

[Sparkly]

98. And how many generals have run since Eisenhower? n/t

[Sean Reynolds]

103. Why start with Eisenhower?

Does history start when Eisenhower left office? Maybe there is a REASON why generals haven't ran for office since he left?

[Sparkly]

104. Because you said he's the last general elected

as evidence that voters won't elect a general. I'm saying that's not because generals run all the time and continually get defeated in the general election.

Colin Powell was suggested as a potential candidate at one point. I don't recall a lot of upset about the fact that he was a general.

[Sean Reynolds]

106. And maybe Powell didn't run because he WAS a general...

And knew he'd lose.

There has to be a reason why only a handful of generals have ran for president and vice president over the past 50 years.

I'm saying that reason is that the American people are warry about merging military with localized government.

[Sparkly]

107. I think you're guessing -- but there's no evidence of what you're saying

Again, the Commander-in-Chief is definitely a position merging military with government. I don't think people have a problem with that.

[Sean Reynolds]

120. I do.

That's why Clark lost the primary.

Obviously SOME people didn't want Clark as president.....

[Sparkly]

122. You have a problem with the president being Commander in Chief?

I'm saying the position of president itself does merge military with government. I didn't realize that was considered a problem.

I'm not going to replay the primaries again, but I'll say there were many factors involved, especially IOWA.

[Jai4WKC08]

126. A lot of 'em didn't know who the hell he was

Because the late start, and because of the media blackout that started in early January. Long about the time Clark spoke out against media consolidation... imagine that. Altho, it was also the time where he was first starting to catch up to Dean in NH and leading in the South, so maybe that was more of a factor.

Or maybe not. But imo you can't assume that a significant number of people (obvious "some" works, but that would be true if Jesus himself ran) "didn't want Clark as president" just because they apparently wanted Kerry more. If that were true, then there's no point in anyone but Kerry running in '08.

[kevsand]

138. As it turned out,

a significant number of people didn't want Kerry, either. Oh, well.

[Jai4WKC08]

119. There have been 12 presidents who were generals

From what I remember, only Washington, Grant and Eisenhower held no other elective office in between. But not all of the others have had particularly extensive experience in elective office, if I recall. Probably Jackson had the most.

In any case, twelve out of 43 ain't a small proportion.

Is there something about the duties of president that you think has changed significantly since 1956, when Eisenhower was last elected?

I'll grant you that the climate of elective politics has changed, but I'm not convinced they've changed in such a way that would completly rule out the possibility of its happening again. We've hardly had any try. Haig barely got out of the gate, but I think that had more to do with Haig than the nature of politics. Clark has tried once, but he got a very late start. Of course, not late compared to, say, Eisenhower, but the need to start early, because of the massive amounts of money required among other things, is certainly one thing that has changed.

[bobthedrummer]

40. Sure, and I guess this is one way to do that-I'm not attacking Wes Clark

at all, to many voters he just doesn't register any more, he had his shot in 2004 now it's time to get behind strong candidates like Russ Feingold.

[Adelante]

49. Maybe you still have time to edit

Turn it away from being an anti-Clark post and toward a pro-Feingold post. Easy. Just take out Clark altogether, since he seems to have nothing whatever to do with what you are wanting to say here. Then you can have the pro-Feingold discussion you say you want without irking anyone at all.

[high density]

55. What makes Russ Feingold so strong?

Nobody on the national level knows much about who Russ Feingold is. I'm not saying he's not a possibility to run for prez, it's just that I don't agree that Clark is as obscure as you say he is, especially when compared to Feingold.

Kerry and Edwards "had their shot" in 2004. I can't say Clark has had his shot yet.

[bobthedrummer]

59. Well most Americans have heard of the McCain/Feingold Campaign

Reform Bill, this was watered down-Russ Feingold is about ethics, first and foremost, and he's demonstrated an ability to get bi-partisan support.

[sharonking21]

51. Well then ...

why don't you go back and retitle your post? Or, if you cannot do that, kill it and start another one with an appropriate title. I have no problem with your supporting your candidate--just don't use mine as bait.

[More Than A Feeling]

63. This is starting to sound like satire

It is unacceptable to do a drive-by bashing of one possible candidate, then excuse yourself to promote your candidate without backing up your talk. If you can bash Wes Clark again, you can give your reasons again.

[bobthedrummer]

65. See post 40

[More Than A Feeling]

68. That's nice.

I'm glad you know so much about "the voters". This voter still has Clark very much on his radar screen.

On edit: Isn't it a little early to start the 2008 primary wars?

[Crunchy Frog]

102. I sorta think that the original post in this thread

rather undermines that particular claim.

I'm a huge fan of Russ's by the way, and he would likely be my first choice should Clark end up not running. I know that a number of Clarkies share that sentiment. Are you really certain that posting alienating and divisive things aimed at potential political allies is really the best strategy?

[Pirate Smile]

9. Are you bored today? In the mood for a fight?

[Avalux]

14. Both of us think he's bored - lol n/t

[leyton]

10. Huh?

Your post makes no logical sense - there is a lack of evidence, and I'm not really sure what you mean by some of your sentences. I don't think he's a political dynamo, but I don't see how he's "marginalized" himself. He's a true progressive, IMO, why is not deserving of your support?

[Avalux]

12. Posts like these are SO irritating -

You make a very strong statement, claim Clark has marginalized himself, then give absolutely no points to back up your statement. Nothing but flamebait. Guess you're bored today? :shrug:

[elfin]

13. Forget Russ

Far too enchanted with himself - and I am from Wisconsin and vote for him.

I will NEVER forgive for his fawning over Ashcroft in the hearings and then voting for him.

[Evergreen Emerald]

32. What? Is he daft?

Anyone who fawns over AssCroft is not worthy of boot-cleaning let alone public office

[Adelante]

15. "Wes Clark no longer concerns me."

Well, okay, if you say so, although it begs the question of why you feel compelled to post this, you know, if you're not concerned.

Would you mind explaining the following?

"He's put himself outside wide support."

And how exactly has he marginalized himself?

A little substance, just a little.

[Stand and Fight]

18. ---------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------

[jen4clark]

38. Why ask for substance?

Since the OP feels as he does he obviously doesn't want to discuss Clark. Of course being a Clark supporter I checked out the thread when I saw the subject line. After reading the post I get the feeling OP either 1) wants Clarkies to react or 2) doesn't want to discuss him. General Clark has been discussed enough here that regulars probably know more about him than any other '04 candidate so I don't see the point in going over the same talking points over and over again. It's all here.

From my own experience in learning about General Clark, I would think anyone who listens to him, reads his books and his position on issues would understand why we supporters love him so much. If someone takes the time to do that and still doesn't like him I don't think any amount of talking about him will change that.

Thank you, Jen

[quinnox]

19. I think there is more made out of Clark here than merits

discussion. I mean, he dropped out early and wasn't the last guy standing, that was Edwards.

I know there are a lot of hard core Clarkies here but I'm afraid there is more hope behind him winning a 2008 primary than reality.

[Stand and Fight]

26. No one here is arguing that right now.

The problem is that the OP is making a statement without any facts; that is, he says Clark has been marginalized, but fails to say exactly how and why while proclaiming it a fact. I'm a Clark supporter, but I've got my money on others for 2008, unless he manages to accrue a bit more political experience in four years. Somehow I don't see that happening... However, I will strongly disagree with such a bold and baseless statement as "he has marginalized himself."

[quinnox]

30. ok, I hear what your saying

I guess the original post is what people have a beef with

[Avalux]

43. Yes; that's the problem

the poster knows there are a lot of Clark supporters on this board, and any negativity towards Clark will generate a lot of responses. He provided no facts to support his statement.

If his goal had been to discuss Feingold and why he supports him, there was a much better way to go about it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

109. No actually Kucinich was the last one standing

And that's because Kucinich was the last one to drop out. It was up to each candidate to decide when to drop out and whether to endorse Kerry prior to the Convention.

Kucinich had no more realistic chance of defeating Kerry by mid February than Clark did. And in my opinion neither did Edwards. This is aside from whether or not Edwards had more relative support in 2004 than Clark or Kucinich, sure a good case can be made for that. But the "last man standing" bit is a red herring. Edwards was a bit slower in sitting down than Clark, though faster than Kucinich. One could also say that by staying in Edwards went on to lose a whole lot more primaries than Clark did.

Edwards is a viable candidate in 2008, so is Clark, and I think Feingold will probably be one also. I am through with 2004. 2008 will sort itself out over time and we will find out who has the best crystal ball. By all means advocate for Feingold, Edwards or whoever if you want.

[cidliz2004]

157. Dean and Clark had the plug pulled from their campaigns

Edwards was standing because he was preordained to run with Kerry. It was obvious. At the time of Clark dropping out, Edwards did no better than Clark.

[sellitman]

25. No Clark fan here either but........

We have a long way to go before I'd count anyone out.

(Well ok...maybe LIEberman)

Splain?

:popcorn:

[Stand and Fight]

28. ----------------------------------------

--------------------------------

[bobthedrummer]

29. Well let's talk about Russ Feingold then. He's the only Senator to vote

against the PATRIOT ACT, I'm glad he did that. The PATRIOT ACT needs to go.

[Kinkistyle]

44. The Red Sox have marginalized themselves because the Yankees are awesome.

Basically you are supporting your argument that "Wes Clark has marginalized himself" by saying that Russ Feingold is a good candidate.

A nice non-sequitor. How about a more rational rationale? :eyes:

[Larry in KC]

113. Too strong. More like "The Red Sox have marginalized themselves...

...because I like the look of the Orioles."

I hope Wes Clark will be president. I also think his chances of doing so are excellent. We can go into details on more legitimate threads.

[Pepperbelly]

90. what's he going to do on Bolton?

???????

[Rowdyboy]

31. I'm so happy you're no longer worried about Wes....How clever

you must be to singlehandedly, with no proof offered whatsoever, declare he's "put himself outside wide support".

And thanks for the comments about the Clark supporters on DU. How the hell could all of us not see what is clear to you? Guess we're all just not as clairvoyant as you.

:sarcasm:

[MollyStark]

34. I'm back and I see what you are saying.

I think your opinion may be right.

[Avalux]

36. Oh joy! Yet another person full of ambiguity.

Jump right on in - glad you can "see" what he's saying; quite a gift you have there.

[Adelante]

41. My sentiments exactly

:D

[Stand and Fight]

46. My thoughts exactly. n/t

[blm]

35. I think Wes Clark is doing a fine job speaking up in any way he can

be heard.

I don't think ANY of the Dems candidates from 2004 are being marginalized. They are just not getting the proper media attention from an unbiased press, as they deserve.

[Totally Committed]

100. Thank you, blm. (n/t)

TC

[mikehiggins]

45. Silly comment, silly thread. If Clark no longer concerns you

what exactly is the point of all this?

The reality is that Clark is possibly one of the most dangerous men in politics today.

Why? Because I said so. No need for argument or proof; just my bald statement.

Ain't the Internet wonderful?

(he is dangerous, though)

[Stand and Fight]

50. Thanks...

I agree and don't see why anyone would post a thread is they believe someone is no longer of consequence and then make a bold statement about that same person... Makes no sense whatsoever.

[kevsand]

61. I'm back and I see what you are saying.

I think your opinion may be right.

Oh wait, somebody already said that here...

;-)

[TheModernTerrorist]

76. what can I say

except I'll bet the guy knows ways to kill a man....
...seriously.... ;-)

[haypops]

48. Its just the opposite!

Last week he had his triumphant return to the House Armed Service Committee meetings where he was heralded by Republican and Democrats alike. Next week he appears on The Bill Maehr show again, Marginalized? hardly.

[Jai4WKC08]

73. I heard Maher on Wolf Blitzer's show a while back

Maher was crowing about how he gets some really intellectual and informed experts(sorry, don't remember his exact words) on his show. The example he gave? Wes Clark.

I hardly think Clark is "marginalized" in any way, shape or form.

[Sparkly]

52. Wishful thinking?

[Adelante]

54. Hey, Sparkly!!

:hi:

[Sparkly]

57. Hi!!

:hi:

[sharonking21]

58. Terror Level Raised to Red by Homeland Security!!!!!

Uh, not really, I'm bobthedruumer and I'd like to talk to you about Russ Feingold.

Humph!

[Sparkly]

62. Hah!! Or -- "I am actively ignoring Russ Feingold!!"

"I'm not even thinking about Russ Feingold. It's not worth posting about Russ Feingold. Russ Feingold is marginalized, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I'm ignoring Russ Feingold and not saying anything at all about Russ Feingold.

I'm just promoting Wes Clark." ;)

[kevsand]

66. Whatever you do, don't think of Russ Feingold.

I'm thinking of a candidate who's not Russ Feingold, because
Feingold has "margarinized" himself. It's perfectly obvious that no one from a dairy state has ever been elected president...

[sharonking21]

67. Eat cheese or die! (NT)

[Crunchy Frog]

118. Terror level of a potential Wes Clark candidacy raised to red

by recent three hour long HASC testimony/evisceration of Perle and by recent attendence with Howard Dean at an Association of State Democratic Chairs meeting.

Howard Dean spoke next, complimenting the Ark Dems, addressing the direction of the Party and praising Wes' testimony before the HASC. He said he was thrilled that Wes had told it like it is and put Perle in his place.

At Red Alert level, people falling all over themselves to claim that Wes Clark is completely marginalized, a neocon operative, or both.

[Clark2008]

70. You can like Feingold all you want, but a guy with a Jewish

last name isn't going to fly in the red states anymore than it did in 2000.
I'm sorry, but that's also a fact of national politics.

[Avalux]

72. I kinda like that pic

Clark/Dean? :applause:

[bobthedrummer]

75. Isn't Clark Jewish also?

[Clark2008]

83. I didn't say that anyone was or wasn't.

I said Feingold SOUNDS Jewish. I don't even know if he is or isn't. That isn't the point.

And, for the record, Clark's father was of the Jewish faith, but Clark has always been raised a protestant Christian and then converted to Catholism in his early adulthood.

[MollyStark]

86. Well thank God Clark escaped the shame of being Jewish

hoooo baby, that's a close one. Off :sarcasm:

BTW, Clark hasn't gone to a Catholic church since Viet Nam. He belongs to a conservative protestant church.

[kevsand]

92. "conservative protestant church"

Ever gonna get around to proving that, Molly? Surely you know by now that there are no RPCNA churches in the entire state of Arkansas, right?

[MollyStark]

164. I know the church

If you need to prove or disprove what I am saying knock youself out investigating for yourself.

I know the churh, I know the people. But let me add on edit that I had mistake two of the Presbyterian churches in Little Rock and the one I know is indeed not moving to the Reformed Presbyterian. That doesn't change the fact that they have always been one of the more conservative southern Presbyerian churches.
I am familiar with the church itself because of personal ties. I know some one who grew up in that church and his parents still attend there. They are very nice people, but they are conservative to the point of almost caricature. The funny thing is that their 40 year old son is gay and they are in deep denial.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[MollyStark]

165. I will tell you what I told one of you friends

I have personal knowledge of that church. But you are right, I don't care about your links and arguments because of that fact.

[FrenchieCat]

177. Funny that you did'nt mention this "personal" knowledge

in the last thread you brought this garbage up, and instead gave us some bullshit link that proved you didn't know what in the fuck you were talking about.

Now when did you discover this "Personal Knowledge"?
This Sunday?

So little truth....yet so much effort to make shit up! What's up with that?

[Adelante]

182. Actually, she's mentioned it several times

In the not too recent past. I think she may have had a haircut or something. You know, a minor change can drastically disguise a known identity. The CIA knows that trick.

[Totally Committed]

96. He's not ashamed of it at all...

I think this subject is being distorted and sensationalized a bit.

Wes even had the Kanne's campaign for him. He is very proud of the Jewish part of his family.

TC

[MollyStark]

166. Good I am glad he is not ashamed

I was being sarcastic as you can see by the "sarcasm" smiley.

[Adelante]

99. AH CHES!!!

Pardon my sneeze :eyes:

[tishaLA]

144. That sounds like more than a sneeze

sounds like you're chilled to the WICK! Must be a new-old ailment running around.

[Adelante]

145. Maybe an allergy - an irritant in the air

I've had it before :hi:

[Crunchy Frog]

111. Now that particular claim is really a bit of an old Chestnut

isn't it Molly? I mean, this was gone over extensively in another thread, and a number of people came up with documented proof that Wes's church was not of that particular conservative sect you were claiming it was.

If you are going to make claims like that, please at least provide some documentation rather than simply resorting to bald assertion. If you don't start using some evidence to back up your claims, people may stop taking anything at all that you say seriously.

[bobthedrummer]

124. I guess Wes would be half-Jewish then like some of my relatives.

Protestants can be so conservative that they resemble freepers. Some are freepers, come to think about it.

You made an issue out of Russ Feingold's name "sounding Jewish" and insisting that that is some kind of a handicap politically in the 21st Century in America.

He is my Senator, Wisconsin doesn't concern itself about being Jewish.
So is our other Senator, Herb Kohl.

[Jai4WKC08]

132. Oh, make no mistake

Being Jewish is a handicap politically for national office. Lord knows it shouldn't be, but it is. It's not anti-Semitic to say so. At least, not in my opinion. You know, as a Jew living on the KS side of the KS/MO border.

I am happy as can be that it's not a significant factor in Wisconsin, believe me. Obviously it's not much of a problem in the NE. But in Missouri? Kansas? (not that we have much chance of taking Kansas) NM and AZ? FL? I think it very well could be.

[bobthedrummer]

135. I remember how extreme some people were when our 1st Roman Catholic

was elected POTUS.
Even up North here in Wisconsin that was brought up in some quarters.
There's a reactionary crowd in every epoch I guess.
In every neighborhood too, of course.

[Clark2008]

158. Thank you, Jai.

This is exactly what I was aiming to say.
It shouldn't be a factor, but it is.

And, I dare say, that if Israel yanks us, somehow, into a war with Iran, it may be even MORE of an issue than it is now - though it shouldn't be.

[MollyStark]

168. Some states are more ignorant than others?

So we must not nominate a Jew because some people are biggots.
I'm a democrat, I can't buy that line of reasoning.

[bobthedrummer]

171. Yep, it is silly, but that's about it, those are my perceptions of that

kind of "reasoning" too.
It's dangerous to give up to bigotry.
Never again isn't just a historical statement.

[Jai4WKC08]

175. You don't think so?

I mean, when it comes to prejudices against specific minorities, you don't think some states and demographic groups do not tend to be more bigotted than others?

Why do you think gay civil unions passed in VT and marriages are pretty much being accepted in MA, but KS, MO, OH and other states have in the last year passed special legislation banning them? Do you think an openly gay man or lesbian, no matter how qualified, would have the slightest chance of being elected president?

No one said "must not nominate," but to ignore the disadvantage is naive imo. And I'd be very surprised if Feingold himself isn't smart enough to recognize that. Which is not to say he won't run, but I would imagine it will a factor in his decision.

[Tom Rinaldo]

141. Look, I remember when people made an issue of JFK being Catholic

You know why? Because it WAS an issue to some people at the time. That was reality, not my view of how the world should be. The fact that JFK as a Catholic could get himself elected from good old Massachusetts didn't prove that he could in West Virginia, or so the controversy raged at the time. And Kennedy still won, and maybe Feingold will too, but that doesn't mean that anyone who acknowledges that it is a wild card variable should be equated with someone who personally would vote or not vote for someone because of their religion. Or their race, or their gender, but we all know that some voters do factor those variables into who they can or will vote for. Personally I don't think it would still remain as a possible factor had Lieberman been sworn in as Vice President and had he then proved to be a popular Vice president. Familiarity breeds acceptance and then certain issues simply fade.

You know one could turn this variable into a possible advantage by talking about voter demographics in Florida which is a key swing state.

I like Feingold a lot. I expect he could make a fine President. Too bad this thread was started in a way that was certain to deflect people from actually talking about Feingold, if that was supposedly the original intent.

[Totally Committed]

143. I look forward to the day when...

no one's race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation is an issue in any election.

TC

[MollyStark]

167. I didn't make an issue of Russ being Jewish

Do you mean to reply to me? The poster seemed to be saying that even though Clark was jewish, he converted to Catholicism (and I suppose because his name doesn't sound Jewish)he would escape that prejudice in the south.
Maybe I read too much into the poster's comments. But I have no issue with Russ being Jewish and I don't think most southerners will either.

[Totally Committed]

82. Wow! Great Picture of Howard and Wes...

Thanks for posting it.

TC

[MollyStark]

84. You are saying that the south is hopelessly backwards.

If the situation in the south is as retarded as you suggest then we need to ignore what they want and concentrate on the midwest.

[Totally Committed]

87. Actually, Russ might do really well in the midwest...

Just my opinion.

TC

[Clark2008]

88. In vast parts of the rural South, yes.

Because there is no choice in media. That could change if someone would challenge the media barrier.
However, you can still win by getting the Dems in the cities, the moderates and the black folks out. I just don't think you're going to inspire them with a Feingold because they won't view him as having anything in common with them.

[MollyStark]

97. Then is sounds like we need to forget the south

and concentrate on the west.

[Crunchy Frog]

74. If Wes Clark no longer concerns you

then why are you starting a thread about him with seemingly no other purpose than to provoke a major flamewar? Far from becoming marginalized, he is becoming one of the Democratic party's central spokespersons especially on issues of foreign policy. Methinks maybe you're protesting a bit too much.

Oh, and I really like Russ Feingold too and will never be a party to anyone's attempt to artificially pit him and Wes, and their supporters against one another. I believe that you are doing Russ a profound disservice with this sort of post.

[Adelante]

77. Okay, I get it now

There was an 08 straw poll posted by none other than bobthedrummer and Wes Clark won over Russ Feingold.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1708711

Bye, bye Bob

[prvet]

94. WesDem Thanks for posting the poll

I just voted for Wes

[Totally Committed]

78. Geez effing Louise!

I am not looking for anyone's support, or agreement, or anything, but I am going to say this because I just have to. It is my opinion only and I take full repsonsibility for it.

bobthedrummer wakes up with a wild hair across his buttcrack and decides, in his opinion, Wes Clark has "marginalized" himself. He posts this opinion, offering no reason, no supporting data, no nothing. And, once again, we are all forced to debate his point until it is down to the number of angels that will fit on the head of a pin. I say "forced" because there are those of us who feel strongly enough about defending General Clark that we cannot let an unsubstantiated ad hominum attack such as this one pass without a modecum of defense on his behalf.

We go through a thread that features Wingnut phrases (read: "litmus test"), and all the other usual insults, responses to the insults, and then it is boiled down to "he doesn't have Kucinich support", and "Feingold/Clark is okay with me".

Why isn't it possible to support your candidate without attacking someone else's? I come here and do that almost every day. Why can't you just start a positive Feingold thread? Or a positive Kucinich thread? Both men are honest and decent and a credit to the Democratic Party. I say that openly to you here and now. Why is Wes Clark brought into it at all?

Clark supporters take a lot of abuse for supposedly hijacking threads all the time. Is it ever noted how many of these drive-by-shooting threads we are forced to participate in? Is it ever noted that threads like this may be a valid reason for what is seen as our hypersensitivity, or our hypervigilance? Why is it always we who are seen as the aggressors?

The Democratic Party is in deep doo-doo right now, and all this me-me-me-belly-button-gazing-my guy's-better-than-your-guy is not helping. bobthedrummer -- feeling bored? Write a letter to the editor to a paper about the candidate you support. Write an e-mail to a member of the media and ask them to remember that their job is to report the news. Write an e-mail to a member of your government that you feel needs to grow a new spinal cord, or maybe a new working set of 'nads.

If we do not begin to win elections, we will never get to govern. And if we don't win, if it is because we were too busy attacking our own that we will be complicit on the loss. Knock this crap off!

TC

On edit: It is NOT hijacking a poll to get a candidate's supporters to rally and vote. I am tired of the bad rap we get for simply supporting our candidate!

[Clark2008]

85. Hell yeah, TC! You tell 'em!

:applause:

Because it's true: we probably are hypersensitive and hypervigilent as a result of these drive-by postings and the rightwing memoed attacks on Clark.

[Totally Committed]

91. It's like feeling you have to sleep...

with one eye open, fercryingoutloud!

TC

[CarolNYC]

81. This is a funny thread.

You give yourself away, drummer. Anyone truly unconcerned wouldn't feel the need to trumpet it like this.

I'm sorry you feel that Wes Clark is such a threat to a Feingold candidacy...or perhaps I'm not, actually.

2008 is a long way off, though. Chill out a little, buddy.

[senseandsensibility]

89. The voice of reason!

:hi: Hi, CarolNYC!!! I'll take it as a compliment that the OP is so threatened by Clark!

[CarolNYC]

105. Hey senseandsensibility!

:hi: How's California?

Yes, I think it's a good thing for Wes that he's already seen as such a threat that people have to start talking about how they don't consider him a threat....I take it as a very high compliment.

I'm with Crunchy and some others here, also. I like Russ too. :)

[cestpaspossible]

110. OK

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[kevsand]

115. I hear Spinal Tap is hiring... eom

[Crunchy Frog]

117. That would be an excellent gig.

I understand their drummers have a habit of spontaneously combusting.:D

[bobthedrummer]

127. Yet I live on to play another day.

O8)

[Donna Zen]

128. I like Feingold too.

Clarkies like backbone, and while Feingold has made some votes I've been unhappy with, overall he has a record of standing up for what he knows is right.

In fact, Feingold is one of the few (very few) Dem politicos, I would support. Having been released from ABB, I'm not going back. The rest of them make me want to puke on my shoes.

Wes Clark is an amazing person.

[Totally Committed]

130. Amen, Donna...

TC

[Leilani]

137. Count me in too.

No more ABB.

I like Russ Feingold a lot, & if he has idiots supporting him, well, I won't hold that against him.

The same old tired politicos always run the show, & that's why Dems lose.

And they will continue to lose, but I won't be there next time with my vote or money.

[Crunchy Frog]

140. You've pretty much summed up my feelings exactly.

Russ is also one of the few that besides Wes that I would support. I'm done with voting for the lesser of two evils.

[Clarkie1]

160. I like Feingold a lot, too.

What I don't like is people who start flame-threads.

Clark certainly has not "marginalized himself." There is no basis whatsoever for that bizzare statement.

[bobthedrummer]

162. The 2004 primaries and the fact of his Republican supporting past

combined with his intimacy with "the crazies"/Vulcans gained through the Pentagon, has marginalized him. It's simple math, look at the 2004 primaries.

This is my way of purging myself of him and his support group here at DU-which imo uses questionable tactics, at best. It's simple math, people, the General hasn't succeeded in garnering wide spread popular support regardless of his support here at DU or his appearances on the captive, selective US MSM.

You Clark folks use simple math on the polls here and hijack threads for a guy that the people have already passed over as far as POTUS.

Bye-bye to all that. Things are changing here. It's simple math.

[Clark2008]

170. No - there is a band of roving anti-Clark people who

are constantly misstating what others have said, misstating Clark's positions and trying to undermine anything positive Clark has done.

And, I'm calling bullshit on it.

[bobthedrummer]

173. One of your sisters suggested that another DUer and myself were

some kind of neo-conservative RW operatives and she attempted to link this to Wes Clark's recounting of the influence of Richard Perle in some thread that the Mods deleted.

In fact we began a dialogue of sorts in that thread.

[Clark2008]

176. I don't know about you, but there are some anti-Clark

posters who rarely-to-never post anything else but Clark smears.

I have to wonder about their motives.

[sendero]

172. On the other hand...

... Feingold is number one with a bullet.

Yeah, right.

The breadth of your delusion is truly staggering.

[Strelnikov_]

174. Most People Have The Courtesy To Purge In Private

Don't vanity threads like this belong in the lounge?

[Jose Diablo]

139. Having a hard time getting a clear picture of Clark

First off, his active military career carries a lot of weight with me, he took an oath, and as far as I can tell he has served and honored that oath. Notwithstanding many voices I have heard about Bosnia, by and large I think as the military leader there, he did good. But others could disagree I guess.

What troubles me the most is his involvement in making "total information awareness" a reality, no matter what it is called. The TIA was shut-down by congress, I thought, but now we find out that it is alive and well under a private company. And this was done with Clark's help. I don't understand why he would support this effort if the idea was shot-down by congress. It seems out of character, maybe there are circumstances in this I am unaware of.

To be honest, I'm concerned about a real civil war and I think a military leader and a humanitarian also could maybe help prevent this by pulling the federal government back from the Bu$h/neocon lawlessness. I think Clark could be the man to do this, to mend the rift we have here in the USA.

Clark's is extremely smart, this guy knows what he is doing and he is a smooth operator. To get to the top, in his profession, you have to be able handle the political aspects of the decisions. There is politics in the military, as with all human interaction. To state that Clark has no political experience is pure bunk.

As for the political machine in DC and being an outsider, I view that as a plus. Screw the beltway politicos, it would be good to flush most of them anyway, and Clark could be just the man to do that IMO.

Lastly, I like how he burned Perle. Anybody that doesn't like Perle, well I think thats a big plus. I have heard people say Clark is a PNAC or DLC, but the deal is, if Clark was these things, why did he burn Perle a new one? That doesn't make sense. Perle is at ground zero for the neocon/PNAC agenda and Clark tore him up in that recent meeting in the house armed services committee.

I wanted Kucinich to win the primary, but I also gave to Clark and so I get his e-mails too.

All in all, I could support Clark if I could figure out this TIA thing and why he supported it.

By the way, how come the spell check doesn't recognize Kucinich's name?

[Totally Committed]

142. Jose, why don't you e-mail him?

As him all your questions and see if you get an answer.

Go to:

www.securingamerica.com

and there are links you can follow to contact WesPAC.

TC

[autorank]

149. Clark will get the nomination. I'll make you a Crow stew!

Gee, and how did he "marginalize" himself. That's a sweeping statement with a "bye, bye" inserted with authority.

Clark is extremely intelligent, experienced, and liberal candidate. He lacks some of the soft spots others have (e.g., lack of foreign, management, military experience) and he is skilled on the media.

With a year to get going and the impending catastrophes facing us around the world, he will be right in the middle of things.

[Totally Committed]

179. If this is what you call MARGINALIZED...

you need a new dictionary. Behold, the marginalized Wes Clark:

News From House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
H-204, The Capitol, Washington D.C. 20515

http://democraticleader.house.gov

Monday, April 11, 2005

Pelosi, Gen. Clark, Skelton, Evans to Announce GI Bill of Rights for 21st Century

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Retired Army General Wesley Clark and Congressmen Ike Skelton and Lane Evans and will announce House Democrats' GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century at a forum with veterans' service and military organizations on Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. in HC-5 of the U.S. Capitol.

WHO: House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
Retired Army General Wesley Clark
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL), Ranking Member, House Veterans' Affairs Committee

WHAT: Forum to Announce House Democrats' GI Bill of Rights for 21st Century

WHEN: Tuesday, April 12, 2005

TIME: 3:00 p.m.

PRE-SET: 2:10 p.m.

WHERE: HC-5, the Capitol

****

And, from the HASC site:

General Clark Sets Forth Steps to Success

Ranking Member, Ike Skelton (MO) made the following statement regarding General Clark's testimony:

"One of the hidden costs of this war lies in the fact that the people who serve and the equipment with which they perform their duty are being worn out at such incredibly high rates.

"As General Clark so ably explained today, our military's ability to deploy in support of contingencies in other parts of the world has been compromised by the size, intensity and duration of our commitment in Iraq. Our troops and equipment simply cannot sustain another conflict in their present condition.

"Army and Marine Corps recruiting continues to fall short, and I believe we must also follow General Clark's suggestion to continue to improve the benefit structure for our troops, particularly members of the National Guard and Reserve.

"Without giving these brave men and women the support they deserve, we will be unable to avoid the impending crisis in recruitment and retention."

http://wwwd.house.gov/hasc_democrats/Press%20Releases/w...


TC

[Sparkly]

180. Right on, TC

I immediately thought of this thread when I read that.

[ClarkUSA]

181. Yeah, that's why Clark and Pelosi are introducing a new bill together

aka. The 21st Century G.I. Bill of Rights while Feingold is getting his second divorce.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1717375