Will you vote for Wesley Clark in the Democratic Primary if he runs?

[mtnsnake]

Poll question: Will you vote for Wesley Clark in the Democratic Primary if he runs?

[msongs]

1. versus who? nt

[mtnsnake]

9. Sorry, this is just in balance to the original poll where HRC was the lone choice

[Quantess]

108. Personally, I'd pick Clark over Clinton. (no text)

[MessiahRp]

111. Same here.

I'm not too thrilled about the prospects of Hillary being our candidate.

When Bill unleashed Republican policies (gays in the military, NAFTA, DOMA, Welfare Reform) he didn't make you feel as fucked as you truly were by them. He was such a good communicator you felt as if he was making the right choice.

Hillary doesn't have an ounce of his communication skills. If she predictably follows Bill's path of right wing appeasement, it will feel as if we'll have a right winger as our President... except the right wing media will attack her. So "liberals" will be blamed for her right wing policies.

I prefer to vote for the candidate that best represents us, not them. Hillary just doesn't get it though... she'll continue to lean right even when they continue to sucker punch her in the mouth at every turn.

Rp

[Quantess]

113. Hillary throws pearls to the right-wing swine, so to speak.

And, having been the object of scorn for several years is a huge burden.

About General Clark's communication skills: I jumped off the couch and cheered at the TV, a couple of months ago, when I saw him verbally smackdown Neil Cavuto. Clark is a great speaker, from what I've seen.

[Trajan]

2. Not Enough Information ....

Is he running against Jesus ?

[cadmium]

3. I have to see who else is in.

[wakeme2008]

4. Maybe ... I am a Gore man but Clark is second

:)

7. yep... Gore/Clark all the way.

[Burma Jones]

54. If Gore doesn't Run, Clark is my Choice

My once favorable opinion of Al Gore has only gotten better with the years.....

[ananda]

5. Gore is my first choice.

I don't know where Clark stands in my list of Dems.
I do know that I would vote for Clark over Hillary
Clinton... but not over Al Gore.

Sue

[Boston Critic]

6. Not my first choice

I want to see Al Gore enter the race.

But if Clark gets the nomination, I'd vote for him in November.

[mike_c]

8. no-- I am utterly opposed to generals in civilian gov't on principle....

It would be different if Clark served time in some other office and proved his ability to govern in a civilian capacity, without the military hierarchical command structure. Clark's steadfast refusal to run for any job but the top command job tells me that he is too militaristic for civilian gov't, no matter how liberal his politics.

[billbuckhead]

12. Washington wasn't a bad choice, Eisenhower was OK

I don't think Wes had much opportunity to run statewide in Arkansas. I don't think he would want to parachute into some other state.

[mike_c]

16. Washington was not a professional soldier....

THAT comparison is utterly unrealistic from a historical perspective. Grant was an awful president. Eisenhower was OK, but he served in a time when social stability was more important than political change, and even then he stoked the cold war to a fever pitch. I would not have supported Ike any more than Clark.

[Jai4WKC08]

27. Actually, he was by the standards of his time

Landed gentry, rose to the rank of colonel. Obviously not the same system as we have now, nor anything like the military industrial complex. But the potential to be "militaristic" was just as strong, and Washington managed to avoid it. As has Clark.

I doubt I would have supported Ike either, knowing what I do now anyway. But only because he was too conservative, as you should expect for someone who chose to be a Republican. His military background made him a better president, given his political views, not a worse one.

[mike_c]

53. Washington spent what, maybe four or five years in uniform...?

I'm just guessing, maybe it was more, maybe less. The point is that he was NOT a career militarist by any means, except in the sense that his social standing assumed the obligation to raise and command a militia. His commission was the result of his social position, not his adherence to professional militarism. He became a general largely because of his social status and his tactical ability, not because of lifelong dedication to military advancement. I hate it when people hold GW up as an exemplar of a general leading civilian government-- Washington was NOTHING like the generals in today's professional military. Under Washington's leadership there wasn't even any such thing as a standing army in America. Now if Clark were to propose disbanding the military and returning to the Jeffersonian vision of an America without a permanant military then I would certainly sit up and take notice. Otherwise, I'll stick to my contention that career militarists have no place in civilian government unless they can prove themselves capable of operating in an atmosphere entirely different from a military command structure. The place to prove that is in lower office, not in the presidency.

[Jai4WKC08]

57. All during the French & Indian war, and periodically before that

Not sure how many years total, but enough nevertheless.

Of course, it wasn't like our career military today. I do maintain it was a close at it came, for his time and place, and the exact same in the most significant way. If Washington didn't establish a standing Army, it was because of the way Washington was, not because he wasn't military. Think where we'd be today if Washington had been Napolean instead.

You have this stereotypical idea of what a career officer is, much as you do of what a military command is like. It just isn't true. I don't guess I can convince you otherwise, but I KNOW you're wrong, so I have to say it. Like any other other profession, certain characteristics may apply as generalizations to the group, but it wrong to judge ANY single individual according to a stereotype.

Clark is one of a kind. And he HAS proven the stuff he's made of, in and out of the military.

You never do explain how you think the "military command structure" is disqualifying, or even significantly different from civilian organizations. People are people. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy. We're not talking about an infantry platoon in a John Wayne movie. Sorry, but on this matter, you don't know what you're talking about.

[mike_c]

59. I thought that was self evident....

Military command is autocratic; civilian government in America should be democratic. I'm sure Clark is a wonderful leader, but his training and experience-- a LIFETIME of training and experience-- is in a form of command that is inherently incompatible with democratic government. I'm not saying he can't rise above that experience, I'm saying that I'd like to see him demonstrate his ability to do so in a lower elected office, or perhaps even a cabinet position, before I consider electing him president.

[Jai4WKC08]

62. I take it you either didn't read my #14

Or you just can't believe what I'm telling you. Maybe you don't want to. I tried to give you very specific examples of what Clark has dealt with that is EXACTLY the same as civilian office holder of a comparably sized organization.

Look, I can tell, since you think it's self-evident, that your assumptions about the military are deeply implanted. But please, TRY to hear what I'm saying, even if you then choose to disagree.

Large military commands are no more autocratic than any other large organization. Less than many. There are WAY too many essential parts that follow their own competing interests. Way too many individuals who are more interested in their own personal agendas. Way too many outside factors you can't control and can only adapt to. Geez... think of ANYTHING a civilian leader/manager has to deal with, at any level, in or out of government, and a military commander probably has to deal with the same sort of thing.

The most I will grant you is that the military command may function more efficiently than its civilian counterpart, because MOST of the people (but by no means all) are professionals who achieve their positions in as close to a meritocracy as you'll probably find (somewhat offset by a very high rate of turnover). But functioning more efficiently does not mean it functions much differently, only that it can accomplish more in a shorter period of time. The steps it has to go thru are exactly the same.

[mike_c]

63. none of which has any real bearing on my comment....

Yes, I do disbelieve you in one sense-- I do not believe that military command operates by consensus building and coalition formation-- the heart of democratic government. "Get all the captains and majors from the battalion staff together and let's have a debate and a vote on how best to run today's offensive." Even the Israeli army, which is famous for it's tolerance for the expression of individual views, is not democratic.

But more to the point, Clark himself demonstrates this hierarchical autocracy by his consistent refusal to seek any office but the top office-- the one with the ultimate command. He's betraying the general's disdain for surrendering full control. He would have been a shoo-in for a congressional seat or even the senate, where a term or two would show the world how well he is really prepared to deal with democratic leadership roles.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. It has already been pointed out to you that Democrats hold those seats

To run for Congress or the Senate, Clark would have had to challange a sitting Democrat. Most of your comments have displayed logic, which doesn't mean that I agree with that logic, but given your point of view you made your case by building on that view. With this post however you jump the tracks. It is arrogant of you to assert that Clark's decision to run for President is proof of a General's disdain for surendering full control. That is a projection of your own belief system, and it is pure speculation at best for you to assert it.

The truth is you don't know what you are talking about. Theoretically, of course, any theory is possible, but you don't KNOW Wes Clark and you don't know his reasons for believing he should run now. I accept his word that he believes his unique set of experiences and skills may best qualify him to be a good President at this time in history.

In order to win any political office one must have some argument to present to the public to convince them that you are the best suited candidate to elect. Most point to prior political offices held to make that case, but there is nothing sacred about that argument that makes it the only winning one. There are not many military men who can plausibly make the case to the public that they are ready to be President without first holding another office. However Ike could plausibly make that case, Colin Powell could plausibly make that case, and Wes Clark can plausibly make that case. The principle is no different than a trial lawyer running for U.S. Senate the first time they run for anything, or a movie actor or wrestler running for Governor. Most lawyers, most actors, most wrestlers, are not plausible candidates for Gopvernor, Senator, or President as the first office they run for. But there are always exceptions to that rule. And sometimes those exceptions are exceptions precisely because they are exceptional people.

[mike_c]

87. excuse me, but democrats challange one another in primaries...

...all the time. If Clark has presidential aspirations, then such a challange is to be expected. Again, it seems that he expects to simply step into the top job without any prior experience in wholly civilian government.

[Jai4WKC08]

110. You're mixing apples and oranges... in two ways

First off, you're confusing executive vs legislative functions. Legislators may have to wheel and deal, make alliances, build consensus, compromise, etc. But do you honestly think that a governor, for example (and to use your battalion example), would call his staff directors or other department heads into a room and tell them, "let's have a debate and a vote on how best to run" whatever happens to be on the agenda on a given day? Of course not. He may ask them questions and listen to their opinions, but ultimately he's gonna tell them what he expects them to accomplish, and maybe how. If they don't or can't, and if he's at all effective as a leader, he'll find someone who will. In that sense, an executive in elected government functions every bit as authoritatively as an executive (commander) in the military.

That, by the way, is what people expect a president to do, which is why they almost always elect governors over senators.

Second, and more importantly, when you say, "Get all the captains and majors together..." you're confusing the way a battalion works with the way a four-star unified command does. In a battalion, of course everyone is military, most of them work within the same chain of command, are subject to military discipline and depend upon the commander's imput to their efficiency reports for career advancement. So while they might voice opposing opinions, once the decision is made, everyone salutes smartly and follows orders. It is very authoritarian, no question about it.

But a unified command, especially one overseas, functions COMPLETELY differently. Again sticking to your example in so far as possible (it's much more complicated), a commander at NATO or SOUTHCOM conducting an operational planning meeting would precisely have to debate, build consensus, use the force of his personality, co-opt some members, apply pressure thru others, and all the other things you describe as "democratic." You see, most of the attendees of such a meeting would not even be military; and of those who are, many would not work for the commander. Instead, there are civilian employees who work for the command, but who will be there long after the commander is gone, civil service being what it is. There are also representatives from other federal civilian agencies who couldn't care less what the commander thinks of them--they won't be there tomorrow if they don't want to be. There are civilian contractors who can just quit if they want, and some being under contract to agencies outside the military don't even have to do that --they just do what their contract says and nothing more. There are reps from military agencies not within the chain of command, logisticians for example, as well as reps from non-governmental agencies such as elements of the UN or various humanitarian organizations -- use your imagination, civilian contractors provided by outside organizations, and finally members of the military (or sometimes the civilian ministries of defense) of other nations. NONE of these people have to follow a commanders orders if they don't agree with them, NONE of them can be bullied into agreeing (not most of the time anyway), and ALL of them have their own priorities, limitations and agendas that can induce them NOT to support whatever it is the commander might want from them. It's about as far from an authoritarian organization as you can imagine. It's more like herding cats.

One other thing. And again, I think you're not reading what I or others have posted, because this has been answered and you didn't even acknowledge it. But I'll try a different approach.

How on earth can Clark's "consistent refusal to seek any office but the top" demonstrate any kind of "hierarchical autocracy" on his part when there has been absolutely no lesser office open to him to run for? If anything, he would show far more disdain and disrespect for lesser mortals if he were to just move in and say, OK, (Snyder Breyer or Lincoln), time for you to step down because I'm back home now and nothing you've accomplished or contributed in your career matches my qualifications, so just get out of my way."

I personally do not agree that he should have to seek a lower office, because I believe that the very top-most levels of military command are at LEAST as qualifying as any comparable civilian office (more so in most ways). But you don't have to agree; my point is that defining Clark's personality as autocratic or disdainful as if he had some choice about running for a lower office is ridiculous, bordering on the absurd. I'm left to believe you're just grasping at straws to come up with a rationale for what is really just a bigotted gut-reaction.

[FrenchieCat]

65. Clark certainly has bucked the establishment before......while he was in

uniform......and lost his job of 34 years because of it. So where you get to come to the conclusion that Wes Clark lifetime of training and experience is in a form of command, is really not reality based...... :shrug:

There may be other reasons for you would not choose Clark, but him being somekind of mindless command soldier should not be one of them. If that was the case then....in order for you to be consistent......I would then choose to be more concerned about those Politicians who vote "For" resolutions for political expediency. Cause for me, that's worse and a more pertinent issue to the discussion!

excerpt from "The Unappreciated General" -- 5/2/00
Not so for the general who won Kosovo, although he too ousted a murderous tyrant who burned and occupied a neighboring land. This general also led a cumbersome multinational coalition to victory in a short war--this time with zero combat deaths. But Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme allied commander Europe, will come home to no special welcome, no TV or book deals and no talk of the presidency. Clark's reward for victory is early retirement. Tomorrow, several months before his tour of duty would normally end, Clark will turn over the European command to an officer more to the liking of the ever-cautious White House and defense secretary.

Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true

Why Wesley Clark Got the Ax at NATO - 8/6/99
Defeated generals are sent home in disgrace, but it is most unusual to dismiss victorious ones. Whatever the future may hold for Kosovo--and it looks rather grim at present--there is no doubt that NATO's war against Serbia ended in victory. Nor is it in doubt that its military commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, was very much the victorious general of that war.
snip
Yet the implication that Clark was fired because of normal disagreements between the center and the periphery, between the Pentagon and a regional commander, is utterly misleading. Something much bigger was at work: Clark was caught in the middle of an extremely muddled and controverted transition between two forms of warfare.
snip
Clark, of course, knew better. He himself prepared for a much longer air campaign than many others expected by ordering minimum-risk air operations. Nevertheless, the pressures of the war forced Clark to call the Pentagon's bluff, in the case of Apaches, publicly exposing the gap between pretended "combat readiness" and the refusal to accept its real-life risks. He could hardly be forgiven for that.
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure4.htm

"Washington's Long Knives" 8/03/99
The Clinton administration's decision not to reappoint Gen. Wesley Clark for a second term as Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR) of NATO forces following his victory over Serbia in the Kosovo war reveals the state of high-level Washington confusion over fundamental Balkan policy aims.

More than any senior U.S. civilian or military official, Gen. Clark epitomized a tough, no-nonsense approach to Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Belgrade no doubt views the decision and its timing as a reflection of Washington's unwillingness to stay the course in the region that can be exploited in the months ahead.
snip
So much for the People magazine view of Washington personnel decision-making. The real story, of course, is that Gen. Clark was not reappointed because he had ruffled too much senior Washington plumage in achieving NATO's victory. The administration expected that a brief and light NATO bombing campaign would bring Mr. Milosevic to heel, put a lid on the violence in Kosovo, and enable the United States to restore the frayed credibility of its European leadership role and the viability of the alliance itself. All at little price and minimal risk.
snip
Gen. Wesley Clark has earned the nation's gratitude. He learned well the lesson of using force to prevail in the Balkan snake pit and emerged as a genuine allied commander of stature. In so doing, however, even a leader of his talents and professionalism was unable to survive the more harsh and unforgiving Washington snake pit. He will depart NATO next April as the shortest-tenured SACEUR since Dwight Eisenhower. That's not bad company to be in.
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure.htm

Warrior's Rewards -- Newsweek 8/06/99
Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme Allied Commander in Europe, waged and won NATO's campaign for Kosovo without losing a single soldier in action. For the U.S. military, the victory was uniquely—historically—bloodless. Last week Clark learned it was also thankless.

In a midnight call from Washington, Clark was told he'd be relieved of his command at NATO next April, a few months earlier than he'd anticipated.

Clark still has his fans at NATO headquarters. It was Clark who balanced the demands and misgivings of 19 nations and armies through 78 long days. That showed a great political touch; indeed, Wesley Clark may be too much of a politician for some soldiers—even if he is too much of a soldier for the politicians. During the Kosovo war, that made him "the perfect man for the job," said a top NATO official. When the war was over, it also made him the perfect man to dump.

[mike_c]

68. all such examples deal with his conduct IN UNIFORM....

I want to see him function in a civilian consensus government BEFORE I support him for the top seat in the executive branch. Is that too much to ask? Why won't he run for congress, governor, the senate, or even seek an appointment to government? Hell, state representative or city councilman would be better than nothing at all!

[FrenchieCat]

72. You keep moving the goal post.....

Clark worked as the main builder of international concensus....by informing, negotiating, cajoling and keeping 19 heads of state on board while waging a war. In addition, he negotiated a peace treaty in the Dayton Accords, which still holds after a decade....

But you feel that Clark should be a city councilman instead... :eyes:

I'll let those who read decide who's got the ridiculous requirements here.

I suggest that you continue to support your calculative "I didn't really vote for it/I was misled/I'm sorry" politicians...cause I doubt anything else will ever satisfy you.

[mike_c]

85. please-- if you're only interested in mocking, then there's little point...

...in continuing the discussion. I did not say the I want Clark to be a city councilman. I have never "moved the goal post." I said that I want him to prove himself in civilian government by any means available to him before I can support him for the highest office in civilian government. Rather than responding to that argument you're mocking the substance of my misgivings by suggesting that they're "a ridiculous requirement." I don't think it's ridiculous at all.

As for Clark's role in building international consensus, it is laudable-- but it occurred while he was in uniform, at the head of an organization that was locked and loaded. It was gunboat diplomacy at best. That is not the way to run a civilian government. I want to see how he can do THAT.

[FrenchieCat]

89. I wasn't mocking you, I was repeating what you said....

in your own tone...."city councilman would be better than nothing at all!", meaning that, at least, that would bring you some kind of "satisfaction"...if the most decorated Officer since Eisenhower would run for just about anything before you felt he qualified for the office the president.....because only professional politicians need apply, I guess. :shrug:

Remember that Clark, as The Commander of Southern Command and as Allied Supreme Commander had many people under him (as well as all of those other commander jobs that he held when he wasn't a teaching at the War College and West Point). Those folks were Americans, even if they were the military.....he had to determine how money was going to spent for the betterment of those he was in charge of. That was part of his duties; budgeting.
--------------

Clark's testimony before a House subcommittee on education reform, from back in 2001, a little over a year after he retired and well before he was considering any sort of political career. Just the formal statement, not the question and answer session that I suspect followed. It's probably available on line somewhere, but I wouldn't know where to look.

***************

http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/107th/edr/im...
Impact Aid: Making the Commitment to our Military Family

Hearing before the Subcommittee on Education Reform
Committee on Education and the Workforce
United States House of Representatives
November 8, 2001

General Wesley K. Clark
United States Army, Retired

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.

Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the critically important subject of impact aid and the education of the young people in the military family. Let me commend you for holding this hearing, and for your willingness to address this issue.

Put simply, the quality of youth education remains a key factor in the retention and recruitment of personnel in the Armed Forces. Beyond mere expedience, our nation must assure that the children of its Armed Forces personnel are provided a top quality education. The United States' military force is highly educated and its members hold the same expectations for their children's education. More of our men and women are basing their decisions to enter or leave the military on perceptions of the quality of education their children will receive. It is significant that as the ranks of our Armed Services have fallen, funding for impact aid has fallen short of the level needed by our children's schools. If we want strong, educated, committed men and women in our Armed Services, then we must provide for their families well being.

Currently, there are approximately a half million military dependants who attend school in districts surrounding military bases. Less than 15% of military children are in DoD schools; the rest attend public and private schools off-post. In my home state of Arkansas, in the vicinity of Little Rock Air Force Base, there are approximately 2500 students who attend school off post. The three school districts are eligible to receive assistance under the federal impact aid program. However, the impact aid program is funded nationally at only around the 60% level. What does this mean for Little Rock? This means that the three school districts in Little Rock bear a great burden in meeting the educational requirements of each child, both military and civilian. Currently, the three districts receive $575,000 in federal impact aid. If the program were fully funded, the school districts would receive somewhere around $3.8 million.

This significant shortfall translates into a decrease in the number and quality of academic and extracurricular programs the schools can provide to its military and civilian children. It also means a decrease in armed forces retention and recruitment, which is cause for great concern. We do not want to see our military children losing out on the quality education they deserve and their parents expect. Impact aid was designed to reimburse public school districts the full cost of educating the military child attending public or private school off post. In 1950, the Congress recognized that the loss of traditional revenue sources like property and personal income taxes negatively impacted the local school districts. Traditionally these types of taxes have accounted for a significant portion of the local school district's annual budget. However, military students can negatively impact the district's financial resources because their parents do not pay such things as income taxes, license fees, and property taxes. While the nominal cost of educating one student varies from district to district across the United States, one thing remains clear, the federal government must do more to fund the education of our military children. The federal government must live up to its promise to care for its military family by fully funding the impact aid program. If we want to retain and recruit the best men and women, we must provide for their families and this means making an extra effort.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while much has been done in recent years to strengthen accountability and decentralize responsibility and authority in the DoD school system, off-post schools remain beyond the control of the military and DoD leadership. However well-meaning the off post school leadership and staff may be, these schools face particular challenges as I observed in my assignments at Ft. Irwin, Ft. Carson, CO and Ft. Hood, TX. Such schools tend to suffer from restricted funding and higher than average per pupil cost due to the turnover of students associated with military reassignments. In normal communities, the public schools draw on a diverse tax base and enjoy a relatively stable student population. This stability reduces school stress, disciplinary problems, and the general frictions that are inevitable at the beginning of each school year. Civilian schools with substantial population of military families often suffer from reduced tax base as well as extraordinarily high turn over of students even during the school year.

Federal impact aid was created to address these problems. It is a matter of money but it is not a hand out. These additional resources are very much needed. The federal government impacts school districts and our government should do its part. I know that the Committee has worked hard on behalf of our military family to provide the best possible education for our children. This is an important issue to me and I commend the Committee for it.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would
be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[FrenchieCat]

91. Clark also did things that he didn't "have to" after the Uniform came off....

He Wrote an Amicus Brief in reference to the U.of Michigan Affirmative Action case.

Amicus Brief To the United States Supreme Court,
February 19, 2003
Based on decades of experience, amici have concluded that a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps educated and trained to command our nation’s racially diverse enlisted ranks is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principal mission to provide national security.

The primary sources for the nation’s officer corps are the service academies and the ROTC, the latter comprised of students already admitted to participating colleges and universities. At present, the military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both highly qualified and racially diverse unless the service academies and the ROTC use limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies.
http://www.texasforclark.com/affirmative.htm
----------------
Wavecrest - the company Clark started after he retired....
But right now, General Clark wants to talk about bicycles.
The retired general has been devoting much of his time to running a company making a new kind of electric motor that does not require gears or a transmission, but uses computer algorithms to maximize torque and efficiency. The company, WaveCrest Laboratories of Dulles, Va., hopes to put these motors into hybrid gas-electric cars or even hydrogen-powered fuel-cell cars one day. But for now, WaveCrest is focused on bikes. By adding one of its "adaptive motors" to a conventional bicycle
frame, WaveCrest claims that its two-wheeler can go Lance Armstrong speed - 30 miles an hour - with hardly any pedaling at all.
snip
That sweet spot occurs in many electric motors when they are spinning at thousands of revolutions per minute. When used in a vehicle, some kind of transmission or reduction gearing is needed to slow things down so the wheels can turn at their proper rate, said Elias Strangas, an electrical engineering professor at Michigan State University. WaveCrest's design could eliminate the need for a transmission or gears by getting the motor's r.p.m. to match the wheel's needs. Small motors could even be put at the wheels themselves instead of having one large motor under a car's hood. The WaveCrest bicycle relies on such a setup.
These so called in-hub motors could drastically cut the weight of a hybrid or fuel-cell car, Mr. Brauer said. And that could allow the car to carry extra batteries and extend its range.
http://greenspeed.us/wesley_clark.htm
------------
Emergency Preparedness Expert:
Clark has been involved in emergency preparedness for a long time as well....before he ran for any political office! Now wouldn't that be nice to have in addition to everything else Clark offers in expertise, a real expert on that subject. Wouldn't have to have him wait for a briefing....
http://www.wittassociates.com/
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_March_23/ai_n13467014
http://www.muhajabah.com/clarkblog/2005/06/general_wesley_clark_former_na.php
------------

Oh...and by the way, Clark was spending his time just yesterday at the Humanities Festival with his Wife and being interviewed there by Samantha Powers, Pulitzer award winning author for her book: Problem from Hell....
America and the Age of Genocide
Earlier working titles apparently included The Guilty Bystander and Again and Again: Fifty Years of Genocide and American Bystanderhood, but it was presumably determined that these hit too close to home and so the benign, non-finger pointing title won out
2003 National Book Critics Circle award winner
2003 Pulitzer Prize winner (for general non-fiction)
http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/ghistory/powers.htm

See first hand report on that event here.....
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9642

Ps. And don't forget that Wes Clark is a true intellectual who quotes Plato regularily.....a Rhodes Scholar who graduated from Oxford University who majored in Economics, Philosophy and Political Science, was a White House Fellow, and now a senior fellow at the Burke Center at UCLA-- http://cbs5.com/education/local_story_261160914.html
His first lecture was on torture.

who speaks 3 languages apart from English.

Pss. Besides Clark's caring about Rwanda, and Kosovo...there is also Darfur....which he has been concerned and writing about since 2004--
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USATODAY/2004/07/06/501055?extID=10026
Out of time in Darfur
By Wesley Clark and John Prendergast | Jul 06 '04
For the past year, the international community has shamefully acquiesced to the crimes against humanity occurring daily in the Sudanese province of Darfur.


http://www.eamedia.org/2005/nr05/01.php
US FORCES SHOULD INTERVENE IN DARFUR, SUDAN – GEN. WESLEY CLARK
Almaty, Kazakhstan, April 23 – “US forces with a mandate and adequate cover should go in and stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Darfur,” he said in answer to a question. “It has gone on long enough. Enough is enough. It must stop.”

Also, Clark is a board member of this group here:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3060&l=1
as a Vice Chair -- of which George Soros is a chairman...
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1139&l=1

And here's some information on the Rwanda-Time line, and some comments about Wes Clark's involvement in attempting to get something done about it.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4018.html

and he just happens to know a thing or two about science....

Time Travel Clarification
What Wesley Clark Really Said About Time Travel

by Brian McWilliams
October 14, 2003

http://www.pc-radio.com/clark-timetravel.html
On September 30, I published an article at Wired News entitled Clark Campaigns at Light Speed.

The article reported on remarks made by Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark during a campaign event Sept. 27 in New Castle, New Hampshire. At the event, Clark stated his belief that humans will someday be able to travel faster than the speed of light.

Due to a faulty understanding of physics on my part, I originally reported that Clark had professed a belief in the possibility of time travel. While some experts have previously said that travelling faster than light implies time travel, Clark in fact did not specifically profess an interest in time travel.

After several readers e-mailed me about this aspect of my article, later on Sept. 30 I revised the online version of the story to avoid suggesting Clark had advocated research into time travel. (The quotes attributed to him, of course, remained unchanged.)

Unfortunately, my reporting error is travelling at light speed and has been duplicated in media outlets around the world. Newspapers including the Washington Post and New York Times as well as late-night TV show hosts Jay Leno and Dave Letterman have borrowed the time travel idea from my story.

Given the current impossibility of rewinding time, my efforts now to undo this mistake may be futile. But I hope to prevent this mis-reporting of Clark's remarks from spreading further. To that end, I have made an audio recording of the relevant section of Clark's Sept. 27 campaign speech available here:

http://www.pc-radio.com/clark-nasa.mp3

The audio is about 3 min. 45 sec. and the file is about 668 KB. Clark's comments about faster-than-light travel are at about 3:05. Feel free to publicize this link, and/or to download the file and distribute it freely. I can also provide on request a high fidelity version of the audio for broadcast.

Sincerely,

Brian S. McWilliams
PC-radio.com
http://www.presidentialufo.com/time_travel.htm

So bottomline......I'll agree to disagree strongly with your take. I'm thinking out of the politician box, and thus far, I like what I see.

[BootinUp]

76. mike_c, looking forward to your response to #70. n/t

[mike_c]

83. sorry, I was away from the computer....

See below.

[Dinger]

105. Thanks Frenchie. Bookmarked & Saved For Future Use

Keep up the good work my fellow Clarkie!:patriot:

[high density]

70. "Democratic government" in the executive branch?

I don't agree with your statements on Clark, and I think you have a warped view of how a president operates. Nominating judges, vetoing legislation, and acting as Commander in Chief to the armed forces are not examples of democratic processes. Your standards would disqualify just about every business owner or leader out there in the country (e.g. Ned Lamont.)

And by the way, I happen to LOVE the fact that Clark isn't a career politician.

[mike_c]

80. sorry, I was out running errands.....

#70 essentially postulates the unary executive-- a president who leads by command rather than by consensus. While there is certainly precedent for that, it isn't the government I want. There are aspects of executive power that will always operate that way, hopefully with appropriate congressional oversight-- post #70 mentions a few, like the nomination of judges-- but it's clear that the framers of the Constitution intended checks and balances to prevent the concentration of authority in the executive, and to favor the executive who governs by consensus and democratic coalition building rather than by command authority. Again, that is what I fear about General Clark-- that he is too steeped in a unary approach.

[BootinUp]

84. Come on.

The unitary executive has been used to overide laws established by the legislature. I don't think you understand the recent executive power grab vs. the conventionally understood authority of the executive branch.

[mike_c]

86. then we will simply have to agree to disagree....

We're right back where we started. Until Clark proves his ability to perform in civilian government where an autocratic approach is either unavailable or the approach of last resort, I won't support him for the highest civilian office in America. I don't think that is at all unreasonable. Attacking my credibility, or my understanding of government, is hardly productive.

[BootinUp]

88. So a military guy can't follow rules/laws?

The difference between Bush and Clark is one is on an ideological mission to increase executive power and the other sees that as a threat to our democracy and decided to fight it. Guess which one is which.

[Radical Activist]

116. Washington had a stronger political background than military.

When he was chosen to lead the Continental Army, he had already lead the Continental Congress. He was a political leader first, and a military leader second. He did not step into the office of President without having political experience or having been elected to office, as would be the case with Clark. There is no comparison.

[Tom Rinaldo]

118. The Continental Congress was less than a hundred people.

Their meetings were held in Independence Hall, it always amazes me when I visit there. And Washington was a military leader in the French and Indian Wars before having any political experience. There was no national election to lead the Continental Congress. Clark was head of N.A.T.O. and held Head of State status in Europe.

[Jai4WKC08]

120. None of this is really relevant, but you're wrong

The times and governmental organization were so different back then, it seems totally irrelevant to compare Washington and Clark to this level. But to keep the record straight...

Washington never led a Continental Congress. He participated in the first Continental Congress as a delegate (selected by the VA General Assembly), but the president of the Congress was a guy named Peyton Randolph, also from VA. By the time the second Continental Congress met, we were already at war and one of the first things it did was create an Army and put Washington in charge. From most of what I've read, Washington's main contribution to the both was providing military advice. Most contemporary documents referred to him as either Colonel Washington, or "the Virginia Colonel."

Btw, that first Congress only lasted about a month and a half.

Another btw... Clark won't "step into the office of President" without "having been elected to office" first. If he can get himself nominated and elected, that is proof enough of adequate policial skills imo. Not that I have any doubt of his possessing the type of political skills that are essential to the office.

Like I said, I don't think you can compare step by step the careers of Washington and Clark. The only point in bringing up one in relation to the other is as PART of the evidence that this nation has always and traditionally recognized the military as a legitimate preparation for the office of President. Some of the twelve presidents who came up that route have performed better than others, but the same can be said for presidents who were senators or governors.

My personal opinion is that there's really no one who honestly thinks Clark doesn't possess the skills necessary to function as president, no matter where he got them. This is imo more a case of preferring someone else, and trying to use the military as a reason for eliminating Clark from consideration. But I also think most people know that voters tend to respect military officers more than they do politicians, which may be the reason they've elected so many of 'em.

[Tom Rinaldo]

125. Military ranks highest in survey: "Overall Confidence in Leadership By Sector"

Wes Clark's military background currently provides him with a strong electoral advantage for a possible Presidential run in 2008. This is taken from Harvard's John F.Kennedy School of Government's Center for Public Leadership Report:

"National Leadership Index 2006"
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/nli/


"A year ago, in the first national study of confidence in leadership, two-thirds of people across the United States said that there is a leadership crisis in our country, and nearly three-quarters said that unless our leaders improve, the U.S. would decline as a nation. A year later, this second study finds, confidence in American leaders has deteriorated even further: now some 70% believe there is a leadership crisis in the United States today. The pages that follow chronicle an unhappy moment in our national life. Just look at the National Leadership Index for 2006, a ranking of the public’s confidence in the leadership of the 11 major sectors of society. Americans say they have more than a moderate amount of confidence in only two of the 11 sectors: the military and medicine. All other sectors of leadership fail to win even a moderate amount of confidence."

The Military is top ranked for "Overall Confidence in Leadership" in this survey. Local Government comes in at number six, the highest rating for government at any level. State Government ranks seventh, Congress ranks ninth, and the Executive Branch ranks tenth out of the eleven categories presented.

And who occupies the basement? The Press.

[Radical Activist]

138. I honestly don't think Clark is prepared.

I don't believe leading in the military is comparable to leading politically. And no, I really don't believe Clark is prepared for that transition. He has done nothing to show me that. And no, negotiating some treaties and leading an international military force is not the same as getting something passed through Congress, mobilizing national public sentiment, or leading a federal bureaucracy that you can't fire, reassign or demote. It just isn't the same.

[Jai4WKC08]

156. I don't believe you because

You support someone for president who has NEVER ONCE shown himself capable of "getting something passed through Congress, mobilizing national public sentiment, or leading a federal bureaucracy that you can't fire, reassign or demote." So how important could those things be to you?

You're so pitifully wrong about what the military's like, and about what Clark did in the military, it makes my head spin. But that's a different issue and dozens of people have tried to explain it to you before, so what's the point.

[Jai4WKC08]

14. Refusal? Tell me when he could have?

Which of the two incumbent Democratic senators from Arkansas do you think he should have run against? Maybe the incumbent Democratic congressman from his district? Or maybe he should have run for governor this year, then started his presidential campaign the next day? Sheesh.

I can understand if you think he needs the political experience to be viable, even tho I disagree. But it's absurd to read anything into his character or personality from it.

Besides, imo it unrealistic to expect Clark to run for a lower office than he's already held. NATO SAC enjoys head of state status, whether you think it should or not. No one EVER runs for a lower level office once he's held a higher one. The system just doesn't work that way.

I honestly don't know where people get such simplistic ideas about military command. There's really not much difference from running a large military organization like EUCOM or SOUTHCOM than there is any large civilian outfit. Yeah, maybe your staff and immediate subordinates can be ordered around -- you think that's not true for a state governor? But the units from outside your chain of command can't. The federal bureaucracy you rely on for support can't. The legislature that provides your funding can't. Your civilians employees and their unions can't. The governments of the countries your troops live in can't. The non-governmental agencies that operate in your area can't. And ultimately, even the troops don't automatically do exactly what a commander wants -- it takes leadership and management skills that are the exact same as the civilian world.

[haypops]

18. lessons learned

I have no military experience, nor did I ever think very much about what was involved. Basically I came to Clark despite his military background. An unintended consequence of my Clark experience has been gained knowledge and appreciation of these critical matters.

[MasonJar]

10. Only if Al Gore does not run. Then I hope to see Clark as VP. If

Gore does not run, I am behind Clark 100%.

[Larry in KC]

11. Yes, I will vote for him, work for him, donate to him...

... with the very greatest of enthusiasm!

[Kahuna]

13. If Gore doesn't run I would happily support General Clark.

nt

[sampsonblk]

15. Yep, what you said-nt

nt

[Rowdyboy]

17. My partner and I both would vote for AND work our hearts out for him

However, if Hillary runs, I don't see where Clark gets adequate funding. Their donor bases overlap seriously.

[imlost]

19. and work hard for him. Gore second choice. n/t

[jpwhite]

20. I'm in the military and Clark is the guy for 2008

I do have a lot of military experience and Wesley Clark is the guy that can win the White House in 2008. He is the only guy in the Democratic party that the Republicans can't attack for being weak on terror. He is the kind of person who could win the main race. We can't nominate a northeast liberal. We need to nominate someone who can win the whole thing. Vote Clark/Edwards or Clark/Obama (depending which one he picks).

James
[e-mail]

[blm]

26. That's not a cool way to support him. Further there isn't anyone in DC who knows terrorism

and the tracking of global terror networks and their finaciers better than John Kerry.

It's what the corporate MEDIA allows to seep through that is the battle - and that will be true of ANY Democrat.

Clark has been around the pike, too, and it didn't work out as easily as he thought - it does make him a better candidate, now, but the point is that he would have had the same weakass DNC in place that Kerry had, and the DNC never went into 2002 or 2004 with any plan to win.

Like it or not, the strength of the party infrastructure in every state MATTERS and a strong one can pull across the finish line even an average candidate. Kerry got as close as he did pretty much on his own campaigning along with Cleland and Clark who represented him more than any underinformed DNC spokespeople did.

Why do you think Dean has had to work so hard rebuilding the party infrastructure in so many states where it had been collapsed since the mid90s? It MATTERS - that's where the votes and the election process are secured first and last.

[Jai4WKC08]

55. I don't see what's not cool about it

I thought jpwhite stated his case very well.

It's a sad fact that any Democrat from the northeast starts out in a hole that a southern, western, or midwestern candidate doesn't have to dig out of. Anyone who thinks not is in denial. That said, I do agree that the DNC machine is not what its GOP counterpart is and that was a large part of Kerry's problem.

Nor do I want to demean Kerry's knowledge about terrorism, but there's a big difference between reading reports, asking questions, even writing a book, as Kerry did... or being out on the frontline actually fighting the terrorists where they live. Clark had his sedan blown up, you know? He knows about terrorism.

Most people are at least vaguely aware of Clark and the Kosovo war, and maybe fewer know about his role in enforcing the Northern no-fly zone, or Haiti nation-building, or the Dayton accords. But anti-terrorism and force protection have been standing military missions for many many years now. Certainly since the Beirut bombing. There's no senior military commander who doesn't know enough about terrorism to fight them in his or her sleep.

[blm]

56. Because media SAYS SO? There is nothing wrong with where a person comes from

it all depends on the MEDIA. You think Bush2 couldn't have taken office in 2001 if he had been from Maine? All you need is a media willing to protect you, lie about your image, and smear the other guy relentlessly.

That's ALL.

And big media NOW will have to make some adjustments, since Kerry will be able to hold hearings on them, and will even be handling the net neutrality issue.

[Jai4WKC08]

60. It's not just the media

Altho of course they are always a factor.

I don't know where you live, but I grew up in GA. I live in KS now. I spent over 20 years in the military living and interacting with people from all over.

There are just some people who will never vote for a liberal from Massachusetts. And they're not all die-hard Republicans. Even more significantly, there are many many more who will make certain assumptions about someone from MA, especially a Democrat from MA, and it's MUCH harder to turn those initial assumptions around, especially when they are reinforced by the GOP machine AND the corporate media.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just saying it's many times harder -- an obstacle to be overcome that a non-northeasterner doesn't have to clear. Kerry almost did it with enough people to make the difference in '04. I don't know whether there are enough left for him to win over to make it in '08.

And yeah, I think that if the media had let people know George W was born in Connecticutt, it would have been a helluva lot harder for him to win his nomination in 2000. Most people to this day are totally ignorant that he ain't from Texas.

[blm]

61. Well, CORRUPTION was the main issue in the exit polls. That's Kerry's forte.

They will all have the opportrunity to do their best on stage in the series of debates - and the Democratic voters will make their decision.

Counting someone out based on geography is absurd and sophomoric in the post 9-11, postKatrina country we now live in.

You think Louisiana voters might listen more carefully to Kerry's proposal to emergency fund the strengthening of the Gulf CoastLine the way he did in June 2004? Imagine if that project had been begun in February 2005?

People will LISTEN more now than they were willing to then.

[LittleClarkie]

21. Only if Kerry does not run

Then he would get a serious look from this former Clarkie.

[blm]

25. If Kerry doesn't run, I'm with Clark and I HOPE he'll pledge to open the books on BushInc.

.

[SoulDrift]

131. You're kidding

Kerry lost. He has shown a tendency to commit Bush-caliber foot-in-mouth errors. You can't seriously consider Kerry a 2008 candidate at this point, can you?

[cadmium]

145. she is not kidding. me either

I would vote for Clark if Kerry and Gore werent in the running. It is early. Kerry can be savaged in the media a few more times before I would give up on him. Clark is my strong 3rd choice.--although if Dean was in it the race would be a jumble for me. I would wait for the debates mostly. So there you go--that's why the call it politics.

[Spirochete]

22. Clark is on my short list

as is Al Gore. If they're both running, I'll have to give it some more thought.

[AtomicKitten]

23. He is in my top 3 definitely.

eom

[Adelante]

43. And here I thought it was your top 2

;)

[AtomicKitten]

79. the order shifts

as often as the wind some days ... but it's all good.

[Tinksrival]

24. To hell and back for Wes Clark

He is the only candidate that would have united me and my republican in-laws. :)

[greeneggs708]

28. Yawn

Got a plan for 06?

[arcane1]

33. a plan for 06?

It's november 13, 2006... what do we need a plan for?

[JamesJoyce]

29. No

Not a big fan of ex-Repos. A leopard doesn't change its spots.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Reagan was such a great Democratic President, wasn't he?

And to state this for the 14,819th time on DU, Clark was never a Republican. Never. Unlike Virginia's new Democratic Senator James Webb, who was a registered Republican, Wes Clark was a registered Independent who voted for some Republicans and for some Democrats.

[JamesJoyce]

32. Clark thought Bush and his NSC was doing a "heckuva job".

He has NO credibility!

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Really? Why not go after Al Gore too while you're at it?

"President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities.

I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done."
Gore's Concession Speech



Gore backs Bush in war against terrorism
September 29, 2001 Posted: 11:59 PM EDT (0359 GMT)

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Saying the country is more united than ever, former Vice-President Al Gore Saturday pledged his allegiance to the man he conceded victory to last year in one of the closest presidential elections in American history.

"George W. Bush is my commander in chief," Gore said during the keynote speech at the Iowa Democratic Party's 2001 Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner

Gore, sporting the greying beard he grew while vacationing in Europe earlier this year, commended Bush on his leadership in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

"We are united behind our president George W. Bush, behind our country, behind the effort to seek justice not revenge, to make sure this can never, ever happen again, and to make sure that we have the strongest unity in America that we have ever had," Gore said."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/ret.gore.speech/


There are more quotes like these out there. They aren't hard to find if you look for them. You intentionally distort what Clark said, when he said it, and why. 9/11 hadn't happened, Iraq wasn't being invaded. Check out the Senate transcripts for the public debate over Bush's cabinet designees after he took over the White House. With the exception of John Ashcroft, they all won praise from most Democrats in the U.S. Senate at the time, and that includes Donald Rumsfeld.

[JamesJoyce]

35. NOT a valid comparison

Gore served Clinton and the Senate as a Democrat;

Clark voted for GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH!

Who's to say he won't turn again?

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Ah, but Clark served Clinton and Gore also. And it's very valid.

Clark did a masterful job helping implement Clinton's foreign policy.

The only reason we know who Wes Clark voted for previously is because he freely revealed it. Clark voted for Bill Clinton twice, and then Gore, and then Kerry, which means that we know Clark voted against George Herbert Walker Bush in 1992. Clark never directly commented on 1988.

Ronald Reagan voted for JFK in 1960, and ran for President as a Republican in 1976. So 16 years after voting for a Democrat for President Reagan ran as a Republican himself. Even if you are guessing that Clark voted for Bush Senior in 1988, Clark still voted for Democrats for 16 years prior to his first Presidential run in 2004. Seems to me if Republicans were as clueless at judging the sincerity of Reagan's evolved political convictions as you seem to be with Clark (who NEVER was a Republican, only voted for some - just like thousands of our current DU members), Republicans would have thrown away the entire Reagan revolution, wouldn't they?

So James Webb actually endorsed George Allen in 2000, that's just 6 years ago. Are you blasting him as untrustworthy now also?

[high density]

75. Do you remember the Al Gore that was whoring up NAFTA?

How "Republican" of him!

[Greyhound]

161. Just for the record, he not only supported NAFTA, he cast the deciding vote in

a 50 - 50 Senate, bringing global corporatism and all the accompanying benefits, to amerika.

[JamesJoyce]

36. NOT a valid comparison

Gore served Clinton and the Senate as a Democrat;

Clark voted for GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH!

Who's to say he won't turn again?

[FrenchieCat]

41. Your statements are NOT valid, Jamesjoyce......nor are they

backed up with anything, and therefore your credibility is what is questionable.

In my book, the lack of nothing more than one sentence declarative statements makes your posts irelevant. I counsel you to vote for Pickles Bush...cause "I heard" that she was a Democrat once upon a time. How's that?

[JamesJoyce]

45. The FACT remains...CLARK was a REPUBLICAN

He voted for RICHARD NIXON

He voted for RONALD REAGAN!

And by hook or by crook, WesPAC will never funnel enough money to get him a primary win outside Oklahoma!

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. The fact remains you are WRONG.

By your definition about 90% of Americans are or were Republicans. Having voted for a Republican does not make one a Republican. There is that little matter of Party registration. By your definition there is no such thing as an Independent, but that is what Wes Clark was. Not only that, but anyone who claims to be Independent, who voted for both Democrats and Republicans as an Independent, suddenly defaults to being a Republican under your personal logic. Believe what you want, but you are factually wrong.

And you never answered my question about James Webb.

Oh, and by the way, that ex Republican Governor of California (no not Ronald Reagan), you remember him don't you? Yeah, Earl Warren. He made a terrible Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, didn't he?

[JamesJoyce]

49. Sheldon, is that you?

nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. People know exactly who I am around here. You on the other hand...

...are pretty new here. And you are hiding behind a pen name. But I won't bother guessing who you are.

[JamesJoyce]

112. Uh...ok.

If Clark has had such a conversion, why is he always on Fox News alongside Colmes, O'Reilly, and Gibson? He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and a trojan horse for a conservative America. Democrats, support hiim at your peril!

[Tom Rinaldo]

115. You underestimate folks here at DU, JJ

Essentially everytime Clark makes a FOX appearance there is a thread at Democratic Underground devoted to discussing it, and usually video clips of his performance get featured at prominent leftist activist sites. People here have seen for themselves the job Wes does for Democrats, tearing FOX Republican talking points to shreds, and we are cheering him on for it. People here know how often Clark has used his air time on FOX to undercut conservative support for Bush as a "War Time President". People here know how many times Clark has warned, on FOX, of the dire consequences that an attack on Iran would bring, and how adament Clark has been, on FOX, that the United States needs to negotiate directly with Iran and Syria and North Korea rather than recklessly lead with our military.

Democrats are proud of how Wes Clark has willingly gone into the FOX Lion's Den and trashed it up and down for Democrats. Clark's efforts contributed to Democrats winning this time in predominantly Republican States like Virginia and Montana, where FOX viewership is high.

[Adelante]

42. It's been said many times

"Clark voted for GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH!"

However, Clark never said it. And I've looked. He may have voted for the man, I dunno, and neither do you. All you know is what some reporter said.

Clinton thought Clark served him VERY well, by the way.

[Jai4WKC08]

52. It was Joe Lieberman who said it

Not some reporter. Reporters USUALLY don't say things without some source to back them up.

Factcheck.org repeated what Lieberman said. But Lieberman has never been overly concerned with accuracy.

No one has ever, to my knowledge, provided an original source for the information.

One thing we can be relatively sure of is that, after Clark made his first star in 1989 and got to know some of the Republican policy-makers in the Bush41 adminsitration face-to-face, he voted for Clinton and Gore.

It really doesn't matter tho. Voting for a Republican does not make someone, anyone, a Republican. I think this poster would be shocked at how many Democratic politicians, to include potential 08 presidential candidates, voted for Nixon and/or Reagan. Clark is just more honest about it. He could have easily have denied it and NO one would know differently.

[CarolNYC]

102. Hmmm...Maybe "JamesJoyce" is really Lieberman

in disguise...I suppose Joe's a little upset by Wes' active campaigning for Ned Lamont.

[JamesJoyce]

128. I am not JOEMENTUM

But at least JOEMENTUM knows how to win elections!

[CarolNYC]

129. Nope, I don't believe you. You sound too much like pissy little Lieberman....

So I'm going to suppose that's who you are.

See you around, Joe! :hi:

[JamesJoyce]

133. JOMENTUM could take on Wes anytime.

Unlike Wes, Joe has actually held public office.

[BootinUp]

134. Excuse me, but

Just wanted to point out that Wes trounced old Joe in the 2004 primaries.

[JamesJoyce]

135. Unfortuantely Wes Clark can fool some of the fringe elements of the party

but more level-headed Americans see through his ruse.

[CarolNYC]

136. Hey,

pissy little Joe...Still smarting that Wes trounced you in the primaries, huh? You're a hoot, you know...but don't you have work to go to in the Senate or something?

[JamesJoyce]

137. Grow up

.

[CarolNYC]

139. Oooh, good come back, Joe! n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

144. JJ is also off attacking Edwards on another thread by the way

There's nothing quite like using a majority of one's first 30 posts on Democratic Underground making snarky attacks on leading Democrats to win friends and influence people here, is there?

[JamesJoyce]

146. Apparently some have problems with legitimate criticism

as suggested by the hyena-like response by Wes supporters in this thread.

[BootinUp]

148. Correct me if I'm wrong

but did you just liken posters to wild scavengers? Thats a pretty high minded debate tactic. lol.

[Tom Rinaldo]

150. I've already been through writing posts 34, 40, 48, and 115 to you JJ

I already took your "legitimate criticism" more seriously than it deserved. The more thorough my replies were, the more rhetoric, simple minded, and insulting your "arguments" became in return.

You ended up essentially calling Clark a Republican agent masquarading as a Democrat who is so extremely outside of the mainsteam that Greens support him. We stopped having an intelligent discussion a long time ago, if ever there was one on your part to begin with.

[CarolNYC]

152. Well, did you expect anything better from pissy little Lieberman? n/t

[Texas_Kat]

103. President Bill Clinton praises General Wesley Clark

President Bill Clinton praises General Wesley Clark
at City Year's Little Rock Launch
November 16, 2004

"I'd like to say a particular word of thanks to Wes Clark.

I met Wes Clark (I think) in 1965, when most of you weren't alive.

He was at West Point, I was at Georgetown, we had never met in Arkansas, though we both grew up here 50 miles from one another.

In the ensuing 40 years, I can honestly say, I have rarely met any person whom I regarded more highly and whom I thought loved our country more or served it better."

[Strelnikov_]

154. Damn, Your Right!! Never Should Have Supported Jim Webb

Guess all that social justice talk after he was elected was just a ruse.

[Strelnikov_]

155. Wasn't This Out Of The GOP Playbook In The '04 Primaries?

Yea, I remember this one.

[Greyhound]

31. Happily with enthusiasm, no nose holding required.

He has the same quality that raygun did, a genuine belief in what is right, but he combines it with real capability and requires no puppet master to tell him what to do.

Add that to the fact that he is correct on the issues and we will see a landslide, the only flies in the ointment are the political power brokers, and they don't like him because they know he will not acquiesce to their corrupt demands.

[xkenx]

37. Which is why we all need to help create new "Clarkies"

along the way so that the MSM will be forced to take notice and the masses will grow to appreciate what we have in Wes Clark.

Not since Bobby Kennedy have I been so inspired by a public figure as I have been inspired by wes clark.

[Greyhound]

39. Agreed.

My worry is the Party won't let him through.

We've seen it time and again, for my whole life at any rate, where there is a candidate that has the cross-party appeal needed to win big, but won't tow the party line or is in competition with a well-connected insider, and the party sabotages the campaign, leading to a re:puke: victory.

[Matsuzaka]

38. He is in the middle of my list

He's behind Gore and Obama but way ahead of Kerry and Edwards, who are way ahead of Clinton.

[Adelante]

44. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[bigwillq]

82. Hi!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Marnieworld]

46. Gore's my guy

So if he's running no. If Gore isn't running I'd consider Clark because I always had a positive impression of him. He hasn't sat back at all since the 2004 primaries and he's been an excellent ally.

[Cosmocat]

47. He is ABSOLUTELY the right man, at the right time ...

This country is doing to DESPEREATLY need a mature, even handed PROGRESSIVE leader who has the experience AND cache to BEGIN to restore the damage to our standing in the world ... It would send a VERY postive message to the planet to elect someone with his international status ...

[fadedrose]

51. It depends on who's running..

I would vote for him over Hillary Clinton or Obama.

[MODemocrat]

58. In a heartbeat

He's intelligent, dignified, Democrat, and very handsome. I'd welcome him to be the nomineee for president. :thumbsup: :patriot:

[MrSlayer]

64. Fuckin A right I will.

Nothing would please me more.

[jhain]

66. twice n/t

[survivor999]

67. Could this poll be biased?

Just wondering. Why? Perhaps all those who don't give a damn about Clark (99.9% of Duers) put this thread on Ignore instead of voting No? Nah, that's crazy talk...

[FrenchieCat]

73. Well, guess this poll operates as does those in the real world....

where some choose to vote, others choose not to, and still others never even register. :shrug:

[xkenx]

74. No, YOU are biased against Clark.

If you've been paying any attention, polls on DU which offer multiple alternatives have had Clark winning (or occasionally neck and neck with Gore or Feingold) for the past two years. Since access is equal for all DUers, then these polls should roughly represent DU sentiment. If only Clarkies vote, then other DUers should take note of the depth of support for Clark. In these mini-polls (should the individual person run?), I believe only Gore has a positive response in addition to Clark.

[mcscajun]

71. Absolutely! He was my first choice in 2004, and still the One.

He spent the last year or more stumping around the country for Democratic candidates, and his "spare time" taking the fight to the right and standing up to the idiots (and their idiotic RW guests) at Fox.

Clark '08!

[nickshepDEM]

77. Probably not, but since my guy (Warner) dropped out...

I'm willing to give just about every candidate a look.

[BreweryYardRat]

78. Hell yes.

He'd make a better president than Obama, and he's equal to Gore.

Edit: Oops. Had "present" instead of "president."

[bigwillq]

81. Undecided at this point

I don't know the other candidates that will be running.
Plus, has Clark even made an announcement that he is definitely running? :shrug:

[fuzzyball]

90. I voted NO in primary but will vote for Clark in GE

Clark may be the smartest guy running but he is
certainly not the most experienced politician and
might commit more tantrums such as "He (Kerry) was
just a lieutenant, I was the general" etc. at the
slightest goading as was done to him by some GOP pol.

So I prefer that he be NOT out nominee for prez. He will
be very good as SOD or SOS.

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. I watched that bit live on Larry King

Bob Dole set him up and it was in no way a tantrum. It was an unscripted attempted use of humor to rebut a Dole put down that I understood at the time which was pulled out of context and blown up into a false issue. Clark learns from everything, including that farce. Watch him master the attempts to "get him" now on FOX.

[FrenchieCat]

94. I didn't see no trantrum....but I did see a 4 star general who wore the uniform for 38 years

and did see Sen. failed presidential Viagra nominee Dole set Clark up--by attempting to demote the General in discussing a race that the General didn't even compete in (Iowa). Dole stated that the General was really a lieutenant and Kerry was a general in politics. :eyes: That's not something you say to a military man. You don't use military ranks regarding an issue that isn't military to a military man and go on to demote him!

However, far from your description, Wes kept his cool and set Dole straight. It was a "Gotcha" set up, and no matter how Clark would have reacted....stating that he was a General and not a colonel was going to be used, and was....by Kerry.

However, Dole during the General Election basically did the same thing to John Kerry.

So in the end, I hope more there are others apart from Wes Clark who learned something at some point.

[Jai4WKC08]

104. You're misquoting

Clark never said Kerry was "just a lieutenant." He said Kerry was a lieutenant. There's a big difference in that one little word.

[fuzzyball]

123. I do not keep notes of exact words spoken by every politician

I neither have the time or the energy to do that.
But I always try to paraphrase as accurately as
my memory will serve me.

In this instance, when you pull rank on some other
person, no matter how civil the tone or the words
are, it is still meant to imply that you are somehow
superior.

A good and seasoned politician would not commit such
a mistake. Did you ever hear Bill Clinton put ANY
democrat down? Did you ever hear Reagan put any
republican down? I rest my case.

Happy turkey day!!

[FrenchieCat]

126. You have no case.....

Dole pulled rank on Wes Clark......and so according to your logic, it was Dole who was wrong in making the statement to begin with.

Clark stated solely the facts, that he was a General and Kerry was a lieutenant; which was accurate. Anyone making an issue out of a factual statement and attempted to turn it into a put down was looking for something to begin with....which was shown to be the case; pure twisted politics done by an irrelevant "gotcha" blown out of all porportion by those who could cheaply capitalize on it. Even worse than the Kerry joke and how it was used because Clark didn't mispeak.

Clark was not putting a Democrat down, but yes, it was "just politics". Clark was not a politician.....something I'm glad of personally. But Clark learned much from that.....in particular just how ruthless politics are, and how it ain't what you know, nor what you believe as much as understanding what your opponents are willing to do to get rid of you and how many in the media will play.

A Valuable lesson, certainly.

[fuzzyball]

159. Dole was'nt running for anything...he was acting the spoiler thats all

Clark should have known better than pull rank over
a fellow democrat in the race for nomination.

[FrenchieCat]

160. Clark wasn't contesting that particular primary contest either.....

So how he would be demoted without having even participated is beyond me.....It would have been one thing if Wes had just lost or something.

But as I have already admitted in my previous post responding to you, for a first time pol, Clark learned a Valuable political lesson indeed.

Now, are you saying that Clark should continue to pay for that one from this point on, or was the fact that Kerry (who was the victim of having his own words twisted just a couple of weeks ago) exploided the comment against Wes Clark right before New Hampshire (and Clark came in third to Kerry's first) punishment enough on Clark's political learning curve?

[Clarkie1]

92. Absolutely. Here's why he beats Gore (my 2nd choice)

Gore has done a great deal to educate the public on global warming. He is able to do this because he understands science, and the environmental crises. What Gore has done on this front is heroic.

Now, here is why I support Clark over Gore:

Clark understands the science behind global warming (and other science) as well as Gore. This is important to me. Clark has said global warming is one of the top three issues Democrats need to address, and he consistently ties it in with national security. Not only that, but Clark is more electable and can swing more "red" states, eventhough he is as progressive as Gore.

For these reasons I support Wes Clark over the distinguished Senator Gore. They are both great patriots.

[Raine]

95. Clark's my man

he was in 2004 and he will be in 2008 if he runs. :thumbsup:

[MattSh]

96. I set the bar much higher for Generals.

Since the military is a fundamental undemocratic organization. He might be in my top five now, but is likely to go lower before he goes higher.

[Hosnon]

97. I'd honestly love to see a McCain/Clark ticket. I'd vote the hell out of that.

Or vice versa...

(I voted "yes".)

[jonnyblitz]

98. you have got to be kidding. McCAIN? he is beyond VILE

and a pro-war (among other things) REPUBLICAN. I am sure most Clark supporters would shudder in horror at your suggestion right along with me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

99. Clark would have absolutely nothing to do with that. n/t

[Hosnon]

100. Well I am a Clark supporter from the last election. And my view stems from

Iraq concerns.

Contrary to what many believe here, I think McCain is right of center. I also think Clark is left of center. I think they would bridge the divide between Red and Blue and work effectively together and with Congress, regardless of its future make-up.

If those two couldn't fix the mess in Iraq, no one could.

[FrenchieCat]

106. I believe Clark had something to say about McCain.....

Let's see.......
Enabler? I can't remember off hand right now, but it wasn't a compliment; that's for sure! Think it has something with McCain's vote on the torture bill....

When I find it, I'll post it, cause this was recently.

[wisteria]

101. Depends on who else is running. n/t

[stackhouse]

107. hell yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!

any time any place!!!

[jpwhite]

109. Wes Clark - future secretary of defense

He needs to support whoever the next candidate is and be that person's secretary of defense. Let's name Clark the Sec. of Def. at the convention. He should be one of the main speakers, so we can clearly outline our plan for fighting global terror. By doing this you are informally adding him to the ticket, and showing America that we can be tough on terror.

James
[e-mail]

[Jai4WKC08]

122. He can't be Secretary of Defense

Not for the next administration anyway. He won't have been retired from the military for 10 years until the summer of 2010.

But I gotta ask ya... :wtf:
I know you posted something somewhere here at DU, in just the last day or two, about supporting Clark for president. Now you think he should only be a cabinet member? What's up with that?

I think you had it right the first time. Clark is the best possible candidate for the top spot on the 2008 Democratic ticket. Yeah, he'd make a great SecDef, if he could be, and a great Sec of State, Homeland Security... pretty much any office you want to name. But you'll never find ANYone as qualified across the board, foreign and domestic, with the absolute standards of integrity and courage, and most importantly, the respect and LOVE for the principles and ideals upon which this nation was founded.

[Bucky]

127. Besides, he'd be better as Secretary of State.

Or better yet, as president.

[zann725]

114. Not as Prez. He'd make an excellant Secy of Defense though.

His background and expertise are there, and much needed.

[Radical Activist]

117. No. I don't want to vote for a wild card.

Clark has no experience in elected office and no actual record by which I can judge him. President is not the place for wild bets.

[FrenchieCat]

119. I Know.....let's vote for someone that won one electon, took office and

and while there co-sponsored the Patriot Act and the Iraq War Resolution! Is that the type of record that would make you feel more comfortable? :shrug:

[seabeyond]

121. kerry is #1 on my list... clark is #2. so depends n/t

[SoulDrift]

132. Kerry's off mine.

Clark at the top, possibly Edwards or Obama at #2. Can't beleive people still consider Kerry after his lackluster campaign, and his foot-in-mouth from a couple of weeks ago.

[seabeyond]

141. cant beleive people would actualy side with the repugs

on a botched joke that we all know was a way to attack the man in typical repug way. but instead of going after the liar for personal gain allow the attack on kerry. just boggles my mind.

[NCarolinawoman]

157. Agree, I am a "Clarkie" first but Kerry got a bum rap.

The press went after him unfairly and just piled on, encouraged by Karl Rove's crowd. He worked very hard in getting people elected in '06.

I think it is terrible when someone is totally condemned for a verbal slip-up when he was most likely tired. Anyone of our possible Democratic candidates might be susceptible to that at one time or the other. They are only human. Hillary's response was particularly mean-spirited.

General Clark will always be my first choice, but Kerry is in my top three because he is a great environmentalist and National Security issues will definitely be important in '08.

[seabeyond]

158. thank you. your post means someone from a person supporting another

i can respect that. and wont hurt at all if clark wins. easy as pie for me to support and vote for. it doesnt have to be a matter of bashing to support the person you want.

[Kat45]

124. Absolutely, n/t

[IndianaGreen]

130. Clark v. Hillary... No contest!

A man of substance versus a woman looking for hers.

[citizen snips]

140. I agree

n/t

[JamesJoyce]

142. Wes is so far out of the mainstream

even Indiana Green Party members are endorsing him!

[Pithy Cherub]

143. Before making grand stupid and totally wrong pronouncements

you should learn who is who first, hmmmm.

Indiana G is my friend and not a Green - and if that were to be the case so what. So far the substance of vaporware has marked your contribution.

[featherman]

147. Count me in...my top choice at this time - no Senators, please!!!

[rucky]

149. Do I have to decide now? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

151. Of course...........you know your life depends on it!

NOT! :P

[nickinSTL]

153. I said "Undecided"

Because as much as I like Wes, I have to see the other options and listen to all of them before making a decision.