Is He The Man to Beat Bush?

[meow mix]

"We’re talking, of course, about Wesley Clark"
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8017

good article,
hopefully more are forthcoming =)

[Jack_Dawson]

1. In a word, Yes

[kanrok]

2. In two words:

Hell yes.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. In three words

Yes, Hell, yes!


Nice article. Thanks, Meow Mix.

[knight_of_the_star]

13. Three more words

Oh Gods Yes!

When I first saw a brief little ditty about him in Time magazine in late 2002 I KNEW that he would be the one.

[Pastiche423]

3. No, I don't believe he is

Maybe from the other side of the aisle...

He has no history in leading our party or living our ideology. In this, the most important campaign in my lifetime, our party needs a proven Democrat.

[saoirse]

9. What we need is a winner

And I think Clark has the best chance of winning.

[Pastiche423]

15. Who is "we"?

[Renew Deal]

49. Are you not a democrat?

[Pastiche423]

59. Yes

I am a Democrat.

I have been a registered Democrat for over thirty one years. In those thirty one years, I have worked for my party, have voted for my party and have lived the Democratic ideology.

clark has not. On October 17, 2003, he became a democrat for expediancy's sake. In his own words, “I would have been a Republican,” Clark told them, “if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.”

In January 2005, I want a tried and true Democrat to take the Oath of Office. And I will do everything in my power to make that happen.

[arewethereyet]

28. he's never won so much as class president

and he cannot even remember his own platform.

sorry, don't think so...

But you are correct, we do need a winner and his name is John Edwards. He's won at everything in his life and its easy to see why.

[TrueAmerican]

27. Like the one that

leads the tiny hamlet of Vermont. No thank you. America needs an experience and proven leader like General Clark.

[Pastiche423]

42. I agree that America

needs an experienced and proven leader, of which clark is not.

He has no civilian governing experience
He has no experience being a Democrat
He has no experience balancing a civilian budget
He has no experience in civilian healthcare
He has no experience in civilian education

He looks at the world through military eyes - his only experience.

[Renew Deal]

52. You are right

sorta

He has no civilian governing experience
No, but he was responsible for every aspect of his command including schools, roads, crime. His experience is just different. And it is executive experience.

He has no experience being a Democrat
I ddidn't know this was in the constitution. Bush* must have missed th ememo.

He has no experience balancing a civilian budget
Yeah so. He has experience balancing a military budget which requires passage in congress. He had to create and get it passed there.

He has no experience in civilian healthcare
Yeah so. Same answer as above, he has done it in the military. Here is his health policy. Let me know what you think
http://clark04.com/issues/improvinghealthcare/ There are a few more policies there that are germain. I wonder what you think.

He has no experience in civilian education
Yeah so. Same as above again.
Funded Preschool http://clark04.com/issues/preschool/
Education http://clark04.com/issues/education/
Endorsed by the Arkansas Teachers organization yesterday.

He looks at the world through military eyes - his only experience.

Only experience? What about his succesfull business career after the military? I guess that doesn't count. And BTW, he didn't just have military experience. His title included Commander in Chief. The only other candidate that can say that is Bush*.

I hope this helps. You can read more here
http://clark04.com/issues/

[Mountainman]

38. Yeah like Dukakis, Mc Govern, Humphrey, Carter

We need a winner like Clark!

[Pastiche423]

45. What has clark ever won?

[Renew Deal]

53. Everything he has ever done

He has a record of success from HS to today. He is a "turnaround expert." He lost his position in the Army for being to liberal. He won in Kosovo without losing a single person. What has Dean ever won besides skiing medals?

[Bucky]

55. The Kosovo War

To win that little war of his he had to win over the heads of state of Europe who were very reluctant to confront the unfolding genocide in their backyard. He used all the tools of diplomacy at his command and was able to put together a working, winning coalition. It was not a sham "coalition of the willing" but a real alliance founded on a legitimate and recognized international treaty organization, NATO.

That's a hell of lot better then the current president can claim.

This sort of work takes real skills and Clark more than proved that he was the kind of leader who can tackle the toughest challenges of the day. Not every problem involves issues as stark as mass murdering rampages, but the challenges facing any American president do require the leadership and bully pulpit skills that Clark is showing he both possesses and has effectively used in public service.

To try and say he is unqualified and inexperienced is just lame.

[Pastiche423]

58. Now isn't that something to be proud of!

How many innocent men, women and children did he kill for the wallets of the wealthy? How many Americans did he save while killing innocent men, women and children?

He dropped DU slimed bombs on their lands, infecting generations upon generations of innocent people.

YOU call THAT something to be proud of?

How about this?



Exchanging hats w/an indicted war criminal.

Sickening!

[Mountainman]

57. Clark will win the votes of the independents

It may be good that he isn't the Dem spelling bee champion because that way he appeals to more voters and we need all the independent and repub votes we can get.

Wes can win becuase he can get the most votes, Dem and non Dem.

[GOPBasher]

4. I'll be original with my response.

Yes. :)

[AntiCoup2K4]

6. No.

[moz4prez]

22. touché!

text

[Kosmos Mariner]

7. Yes!

By gaining over 300 electoral college votes!




:dem:

[chimpymustgo]

8. Thanks, meow mix.

Oh, yeah...

[Lefta Dissenter]

10. In a word stolen from Xultar,

Absofuckinlutely (your spelling may vary)

oops - is the White House going to demand an apology from me?

[ILeft]

11. Yes, as long as he doesn't pick Lieberman as his running mate

Actually my greatest concern about how the Right Wing Extremist group presently in power could beat Clark is an 11th hour smear campaign against the relatively unknown Clark, driving many voters to the "known" candidate. By the time the lies can be sorted out they will have won the election.

[poskonig]

14. Why would Clark supporters have issues with Lieberman?

eom

[retyred]

23. I don't have issues with Lieberman!

In fact I voted for him, of course Gore was also on the ticket, he may not be my choice for #1 or #2 but at least he's consistant in his positions, he doesn't flip-flop like another I could name that I do have issues with.



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[ILeft]

41. I do have issues with Lieberman. He undermined Gore during...

...the recount (remember his performance with Timmy Russert?). I voted for him, too. But after witnessing his cowardice and complete lack of grace under pressure, he turns my stomach. I don't trust him.

[mlawson]

12. I...think...he is the one!

Given the critical state of the world right now, most of which ills were either brought on by bush or exacerbated by him, can we afford, for the sake of ideological purity, to bypass Clark?? What if he is HE ONLY ONE WHO CAN WIN???????

He very well might be. Who knows?

[Killarney]

17. No political experience

Great guy. 4 star general. Fabulous. But the President is more than just Commander in Chief. The fact that he has no political experience will go against him. He should have at least done a term as senator or governor before going for the top spot.

With that said, I think he'd be a great VP and a Dean/Clark or Kerry/Clark ticket could beat Bush.

[mlawson]

19. Yes, but there is no time for that.

I see the 2004 election as a life-death emergency. We absolutely HAVE to win!!! The world can't endure four additional years of the bush regime.

Again, what if he is the only one who can win??? We can't wait for him to get 'experience', which doesn't really matter to the 20% apolitical voters in the middle, who will actually choose the winner based upon which candidate they LIKE the best!

Dumbo got 48% in 2000, despite having ZERO qualifications. Swing voters don't care. They are impressed by LOOKS, and Clark has it.

PS: I can't see Kerry beating bush, but he may indeed be The Annointed One. _______ help us!!

[Mountainman]

46. You have to be political to become a general in the Army

Clark can win any game he chooses to play.

[Pastiche423]

61. The office of the presidency is not a game

[Eloriel]

24. Thank you. You have no idea how much I appreciate

your post.

It demonmstrates -- again, for those who need it pointed out to them in concrete terms -- damn near the sum total of Clark's appeal: WHAT IF HE'S THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN WIN?

The underlying premises are these:

1. "I'm so scared of Bush I can't see straight and i will take ANYTHING that can assure me he'll get kicked out of office next year."
Here's a tip for you: if you're THIS afraid of Bush you'd goddamned better be working your tail off on the voting m,achine issue 'cause if that's not fixed, Bush WILL win -- he'll carry FL (again) and he'll carry CA, and prbably NY.

2. We really are weak on defense. Bullshit. BUSH is weak on defense and that's the truth, just as Dean says.

3. Only a military man can save us. Clark would love this. UIt's what he tried to promote on CNN last Sunday. Bullshit. We need anything BUT someone who has been trained for 30+ years to see everything in military terms. For that matter, I might point out that our military hasn't been exactly overly successful except in blowing people and things to eternity. We weren't successful in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam. We've only suicceeded in recruiting MORE terrorists. Hmmm, maybe war and the people who wage them aren't the answer?

I too am deathly afriad of Bi\ush. But I'm NOT going to allow myself to be SO fearful that I throw out all reason and common sense. I've looked at Clark's past -- it frightens me MORE than Bush precisely because he now calls himself a Democrat and is so slick and appealing. I just don't buy that a Rhodes scholar really bright guy didn't or couldn't figure out exactly who he has been serving -- and why -- since he got out of the military.

And yet people here at DU, a place where I used to consider the most well-informed Americans hung out, don't even care to look. Now THAT is scary.

Eloriel

[mlawson]

29. Well, maybe ALL of us aren't terrified of the military!

And I didn't appreciate your sarcastic tone, either!! ALSO, I said nothing about a weak defense, and that only a military man can save us. If someone else wants to say that, fine, but do not lump me into it, because I do not agree.

But what is this fear of generals?? Clark served under Clinton, or do you disapprove of him, as well? Ike wasn't the brightest bulb as president, but the country didn't exactly become a fascist state under him, either. THe WORST presidents in my memory (Nixon, Ronnie, Poppy and Junior) were not particularly products of the military.

Hey, I like Dean, and I am glad you support him. But it does nothing to build up Dean when you tear down other's favorites. Your post doesn't exactly make me want to rush over and donate to him.

[Donna Zen]

34. ideological purity

He is more of a Democrat than most, and is proposing a liberal agenda. Not only that, he even admits to being a liberal.

[retyred]

16. With all due respect to redheads

Like a redheaded stepchild.


retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[OrAnarch]

18. frankly speaking..

...as an undecided, Clark and Kerry are the two candidates I would definately not vote for, and not because of their past military service, but their flaunting of it, lack of regret for participating in the slaughter of Vietnam, etc, and riding a wave of right-wing inspired nationalism. I would need some severe apologies from them regarding their participation and contribution to the American military machine, something which Clark would never give, as it is his strongest campaigning point among the nationalistically blind.

I would, oh yes, draft Nadar in such a scenario, and ask Holy Joe to donate.

[BootinUp]

20. more frankness

be prepared for the RW tsunami then....

:scared:

[OrAnarch]

21. no worries...

...Id head north, no questions asked, if not gone allready by then. And I don't think one little anti-war liberal is going to get in the way of putting your military general in charge of the nation. Don't let my enthusiasm against those who commit murderous acts gainst humanity discourage you.

[FrenchieCat]

26. We won't....

Stereotyping what it's called. The word itself means simplify and categorize in order to make thinks neat and orderly, in other words easy and not complex.

Many do it.....so it's OK.

It's kinda of like what Bush said; you're are with us or you're agin us.

Even someone like this president thinks in black and white, without nuance.

Takes less thoughts that then frees you up for the priorities of your life.

Don't blame you.

Different people have different priorities.

[OrAnarch]

31. Whats complex about this issue?

He both pulled the trigger to kill fellow humans and also enabled others to directly do the same by contributing to the military machine. Furthermore, he brags about this "service" without remorse, touting it as his qualification. Perhaps (to strip down responsibility), like a gun is simply a tool a murderer uses to commit crime, military men are also tools the government and the PNAC use to murder other humans. People will jump to ban guns, these tools of destroying lives, but not the tools (soldiers) that the government uses to destroy cultures. Remember, a gun doesn't have a choice, but a human can decide to put his M-16 down and go home.

At least he can apologize for the lives he destroyed in the name of corporate greed, when he was young and blinded with nationalism. But he does not feel this.

[BootinUp]

32. It was kinda like

You sucked us in with that first post, then the truth is revealed. I don't hold anything against you for your position but seems you are playing games.

[OrAnarch]

36. I play no games...

I am clearly stating my thoughts on Wes Clark, and I would like at least a refutation or counterpoint among those who are also anti-war and against foreign intervention in the name of American coorporate intrests (if any of those support Clark). I am undecided on candidate but I am clearly decided on my philosophy in regards to our international policy and military.


Here is a man that chose to pursue this life and has not publically apologiezed for personally committing and contributing to war (read attrocities against humans) in the service of America (private sector defense contractors).


Here is a man who has served as a tool the establishment uses to spread death and disturb the global world for all his adult life (until a few years ago). What would stop him from maintaining this position?


Here is a man who brags and is proud of such service to these people and in fact, he campaigns on this issue. That I totally cannot respect anyway you slice it.




Please, from someone who is against America's anti-liberalistic global policy of domination and intimidation by use of military force, as a means that destroys human life, please tell me how you can supoprt Clark. What am I missing? Im not past casting a vote in the general if there is some logic to show my fault, but as of now, Clark and Kerry are not a 'live' option.

[BootinUp]

47. perhaps

while you wait for other responses you would look at this post I made on this issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=94966

My belief is Clark is not part of the machine. He is a man that felt he could help people by serving. But I have watched and read so much from Clark that I have a connection and I trust him. I think thats the only way you could ever vote for him based on your strong opposition to the use of the military. When he campaigns as a general, he is campaigning as someone who has seen the horrors of war and has pledged to all Americans not use force except as a last resort. See his pledges:

http://clark04.com/issues/10pledges/

regards

[knight_of_the_star]

56. So...

You are holding it against Clark and Kerry that they chose to serve their country? Lemme see, we KINDA needed people to destroy human lives during WWII. If we didn't do that, then we would be saluting the Swastika. What are your thoughts on that?

[Donna Zen]

37. And your solution?

If we could continue in black and white think-time, the solution would be no military at all. Well, while I hope that we will get there someday, I'll go out on a limb here and state that the American people would not elect someone who proposes getting rid of the military. Actually, I know some kids over in Iraq and since they are not here to defend themselves, I will tell you that I do not consider them murderers. They are 19 and scared, and their parents are crying, but your vilifiying them does nothing.

Clark is one of two candidates to propose cutting defense spending; the other is of course Kucinich. If elected, one of those two actually knows where the money is hidden, and can actually do it. Which do you think?

[OrAnarch]

44. at what point does one become personally responsible for their actions?

"They are 19 and scared, and their parents are crying, but your vilifiying them does nothing."


And when they are 50 or so? Clark was far beyond a scared 19 year old when he participated in this action.



And no, I am not suggesting to get rid of the miiltary is what we need now....but If Id ever buy a gun, be assured it be for defense, never leave its room, and not go out an attack people, if you know what I mean. Perhaps a defensive military wouldn't be all such a bad thing, eh? And the minute that military goes out and attacks, and the moment those boys do not put down their guns and go home, is he moment I villify them. We all have a choice always...from 19 to the age of Clark. Shall we villify Lee Malvo (sp)? Was he just scared? Should we villify german infantry in WWII, or what about SS officers? At what point can we hold people responsible for their actions...and I would argue, that Clark was far beyond such a point of being scared, and such is displayed by his stump speeches and pride.

[Jerseycoa]

25. No

Clark is clearly not for you.

[moz4prez]

50. I am reminded of something Orwell once said

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

[Donna Zen]

30. I want to vote for the person with the most experience

working in the White House. Let's see...that would be Wes Clark! One year in the office of management and budget, and two years in policy.

No experience in government? The brass are part of your permanent government. They push legislation like let's say "gays in the military" when years ago Kerry called on Clark to push for the policy.

As a recent GQ article stated: if nominated he will beat george bush like a drum from one end of this country to the other. He may be new at this, but he never starts behind at anything.

We need to be lead by a candidate that can not be questioned on their ability, their foreign policy and defense credentials, their temperment, and their honesty.

Clark is the one.

[dfong63]

33. no experience running for office, no experience in accountability to

... voters.

no experience being a democrat.

very little experience seeing things from a civilian perspective.

Clark is NOT a sure winner, nor a proven political leader.

[arewethereyet]

39. on the money

and the fact that he could not answer the question of how he intended to pay for his AIDS program the other day (and this is just one of a long string of this sort of thing) does not inspire me to think he can handle the job.

(the correct answer was out of repeal of the tax cuts, that should not have been too difficult to recall.)

[Donna Zen]

48. Let's see

Accountability to voters

From my civilian perspective, our elected leaders haven't been held accountable for years by the voters. That's a large part of America's problem. Clark believes in accountabilty, and has lived within a culture of accountability.

no experience being a democrat

This is an extremely lame claim, but rather than risk the inevitable retort that I would ever not answer, here it goes. What does it mean to be a big "D" democrat? Does it involve "party loyality"? Because if so, there are plenty of people on this board who bash the party everyday without giving it a second thought. There are even candidates running for president who bash the party every chance they get. How's that for unity?

But then again, perhaps it is a matter of registration for you. But that would mean committing to partisan politics while serving in the military. I am glad Wesley Clark stayed away from party politics; I wish Boykin would do the same. Having the military as a wing of the GOP is a bad idea.

And, there are people on this board who live in states, states just like Arkansas was until recently, where there was no party affiliation even shown on the registration form. They consider themselves Democrats and I agree.

I was not born with a "D" on my forehead. Either were you. I would suggest that as a liberal one should practice being broadminded and thinking about your words. Lockstep is for republicans.

experience seeing things from a civilian perspective.

You know you do sell people short. Yes, the military is basically a sociallist institution, but these people don't live in a bubble. In fact, it is less of a bubble than the people who have spent their lives in the rarified atmosphere of the beltway. Raise money...win election...raise money...win election....In between they huff and puff and go to parties. Their lives may be all politics, but those politics are not necessarily what is being shown on the evening news.

Please don't misunderstand, I think Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt have usually had the best interests of their voters in hand. Mostly. Not always. But they certainly don't live my life.

a proven political leader.

Clark is trained in leadership, has held the status of a "head of state" and quite frankly one of his qualities that I find attractive is that he is NOT a politican. He takes his giving of his word, very seriously.

Of all of the candidates, Clark can win.

[SheilaT]

35. If Clark is the man to beat Bush

then I can only assume he has more supporters out there than any other candidate? He's raised more money than all of them put together?

I'm so glad.

[mlawson]

40. You might assume incorrectly.

Many, many on the Left insist on near 100% agreement between themselves and a candidate they support. The question as to whether that person has a chance of winning seems to be of secondary importance. I am NOT referring to Dean, BTW. He could win.

Our enemies on the Right typically settle for the candidate on their side who can WIN, and worry about ideological differences later (or never), knowing that 'something is better than nothing'. And they do win, tragically.

I am sure that KKKRove just loves OUR methods, and counts on it.

[MoonRiver]

43. Truer words were never said.

I think the General can pull it off and become the Dem nominee. Dean is ahead right now, but Clark is neck and neck with him nationwide. We just have to wait until the SC primary to see how things shake out.

[arewethereyet]

60. Clark probably can catch Dean

but don't think his chances against Bush are strong. worse actually than Dean's.

[K8-EEE]

51. Loving Clark These Days!!

He's got the military experience, the smarts and the charisma to win. I'm really drifting into the Clark camp these days but will support anybody who is nommed.

[mdguss]

54. Perhaps:

He may be. I'll vote for who I think can win. He's on my list of people.