Arkansas Democrat Gazette: Clark earned stripes in party, analysts say
Submitted by Mary Lee on December 10, 2006 - 7:00pm.
Clark earned stripes in party, analysts say
In past 2 years, retired Army general has forged a place among Democrats
BY PAUL BARTON ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
WASHINGTON — When Wesley Clark was contemplating a run for the White House in 2003, everything about being a candidate was foreign to him.
Having spent his life in the military — and having never run for so much as a school board seat — he faced basic training that began with picking a political party.
Although the Army general from Little Rock voted in Arkansas’ Democratic primary in 2002, he didn’t formally declare himself a Democrat until two weeks before he announced for the presidency. As a result, his competitors for the nomination seldom let an opportunity pass to question his party credentials.
Party credentials are no longer an issue.
The former NATO commander has spent the past two years doing everything short of planting yard signs and baking cookies for Democratic candidates nationwide. He went frequently to Capitol Hill to advise Democratic congressional leaders on national-security issues. In the run-up to the midterm elections, he spoke out against President’s Bush’s conduct of the war in Iraq at forum after forum.
As one headline in The Hotline, National Journal’s political news service, asked: “Is anyone doing more for ’06 candidates than Wes Clark?”
By his own account, in the Democrats’ drive to retake Congress, Clark “raised $1 million for 86 different candidates, and a lot of the candidates I supported won.”
“I think Wes Clark had a very good year in 2006. He was one of the most visible leaders of the Democratic Party,” contends Washington-based political strategist Simon Rosenberg.
Adds Kenneth Baer, a former speechwriter for Al Gore, “I don’t think anybody questions his loyalty to the Democratic Party at all.”
A host of other factors, however, remain for consideration as Clark ponders a second White House run, political analysts say.
What made him an attractive candidate in 2004 were his national-security and foreignpolicy credentials. If he gets into the 2008 race, they say, he will no longer have that mantle to himself.
Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson also have extensive resumes in those fields.
That’s not to say that Clark’s credentials aren’t still attractive.
In questioning Bush’s Iraq policy from the get-go, Clark showed “he was clearly ahead of the curve,” according to Dick Harpootlian, former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party.
“He would be a credible candidate if he decides to get in. He would certainly be as credible as [Arizona’s Republican Sen.] John McCain.”
Clark’s third book, America’s Son, is scheduled for release next fall. His publisher, Palgrave Macmillan, promises “a groundbreaking vision for America’s future.” Clark, himself, told The Associated Press that it will be his contribution to “a profound debate about what America stands [for] and who we are as a nation.”
But the book, he cautioned, is not a guarantee that he will run again.
Clark launched his first run at the White House late, in September 2003. He put together his campaign staff on the run, and observers say he made strategic errors by choosing not to contest the Iowa caucuses and by frequently making remarks that seemed to contradict previous positions.
Baer says that whether Clark has sharpened his campaign skills remains a key question.
“Clark got in very late and was very inexperienced in the national political scene. I think he learned a lot over the last two years,” says Skip Rutherford, director of the Clinton School of Public Service in Little Rock.
Clark’s ties to former President Clinton figure, as well.
In 2004, many saw Clark as a kind of stand-in for his former commander in chief. Longtime Clinton donors, especially those from Arkansas, rushed to help Clark build a credible war chest.
If, as expected, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton gets into the 2008 race, Clark would no longer have the imprimatur of the former president.
“The Hillary factor is a big one,” Rutherford says.
“Her candidacy would certainly impact a lot of Arkansans. My sense is, Clark understands that.”
Without a well-established donor base of his own, Clark would face a daunting fundraising task, according to analyst Jennifer Duffy of The Cook Political Report, a respected online publication.
To be viable, she says, candidates are going to have raise as much as $30 million by April 2007, and $100 million by next summer.
And if Illinois’ Sen. Barack Obama decides to run, there will be no oxygen left in the room for other candidates, Duffy says. “If Obama runs, it’s a two-candidate race.”
Clark says he has set no timetable for a decision, though he referred to “the first time I ran” during a telephone conversation from Istanbul, Turkey, last week. Clark, who runs a strategic advisory and consulting firm, was there on business.
“The first time I ran, I had to cut off my business interests,” Clark said. “I’m in business. I’m not in a government-paid public position like a politician.”
Some note that it may also serve Clark’s political career to stay out of the race. He would be more likely, for instance, to be picked as someone’s vicepresidential running mate if he avoids the risk of exposing himself as a poor campaigner a second time.
“I can see him as a good complement to a ticket,” Duffy says.
Clark’s hard work for the party certainly has earned him something, Rosenberg says. If Democrats retake the White House, “I’m sure he will be serving in a very senior post in the next administration.”
Information for this article was contributed by Bill Simmons of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Accept no substitute!
I entered politics because of Wes Clark. If he doesn't run, I'll go back to life without politics.
Run Wes Run!
Now that would be sad.
If Wes Clark chose not to run would he be "finished"? Would he work (as he has since dropping out of the last election) for the candidate that is chosen? Would he work for the Senators and Reps. that are running and could use his help?
This is not about Clark this is about OUR country and Our Constitution... We The People.
My thoughts...
Kevin
Remarks like this give me great concern:
And if Illinois’ Sen. Barack Obama decides to run, there will be no oxygen left in the room for other candidates, Duffy says. “If Obama runs, it’s a two-candidate race.”
I have a huge problem with such absolute statements.
I can't imagine that the end is already determined with no real debate and no votes cast. Of what use are any of us in that case? Just let the media make the decisions.
carol4clark
General Wes Clark * * * * 4 Stars Over Texas
It's statements like this that are absolutely SICKENING! Once again, let's allow the media to choose our president. F***ing A!!!
On the other hand.....to hell with them.
Career politicians are no better than used car salesmen...my apologies to all used car sales men here.
Clark is the only possible candidate with principles
If I can't have someone with principles.....to hell with them all.
Run Wes Run!
Anyone who thinks that the Presidential race can accurately be handicapped this far out is still waiting for a job in President Gary Hart's Administration. I may not say the same thing six months from now, when the race for money is more fully defined and people have had a little more time to actually think about their preferences, but for now here is my opinion: People giving out opinions like this simply like giving out opinions.
..that darling of the Democratic Party: President Joe Lieberman (who lead most polls two years before the 2004 election), and we all were pleased to see the media annoint President Dean in the summer of 2003.
And just before Barack Obama burst onto the scene this autumn, there was the unbeatable Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, who apparently caused(according to some media experts)her biggest rival, Mark Warner, to decide to throw in the towel before the game started.
Speaking about Senator Clinton: Haven't heard much about her lately---or for that matter, former Senator and former VP nominee John Edwards.
What's going on?
George Romney, Mitt's Dad, back in 1968.
Wasn't Muskie the one who had the audacity to form a tear in his eye --- and thus disqualify himself for the Oval Office?
Somebody or some group had dissed Muskie's wife, as I recall, and he teared up. That was the end of his candidacy.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
or more exactly, Donald Segretti, working for Nixon. Without the dirty tricks exposed in the Watergate investigations and trials Muskie probably would have been the nominee. McGovern certainly would not have been. He was the only Democrat the Nixon burglars didn't bother to eliminate from the candidates.
Such interference is another reason this White House needs to be investigated. There are simply too many parallels with the COINTELPRO programs, and too many Nixon administration ties.
In my opinion, catching Bin Ladin has always been the last thing Bush want's to do. Old Binny's too beneficial to the whole Bush/Cheney propoganda machine!
It worked like a charm to allow the Bush WH to get away with anything and everything. Just toss Bin Laden's name around to scare people stupid. This tactic seems to have lost a lot of it's (hot) wind lately though.
Odd that, considering the fact that Ladin's followers have increased by only God knows how many, grown rich from poppy crops, armed themselves to the teeth, expanded their "turf," including taking back much of the regions in Afghanistan that Bush abadoned in his rush to Iraq, and have dug in deep, awaiting the return of our troops. Meanwhile, Bin Ladin is no doubt resting up in one of his many rich relatives palaces, and remember, the Bush and Bin Ladin families go way back.
Bush/Cheneyco has allowed these murderers to roam freely while we broke our nation on the Iraq war. The damage they have done to America is staggering.
This is why we need Clark in the WH in '08.
Who even begins to compare with Clark's knowledge and experience in both war and diplomacy?
I don't see a single cadidate who comes close. We need Clark now! Not as VP or Sec. of State, but as president. Clark is the right man at the right time.
Let the pundits babble. It's not about what's PC or who is the flavor of this month.
It's about our nation's very survival.
No Retreat, No Surrender
Bruce Springsteen
Just to make people think. I only have one comment on your comment, though.
"It's about our nation's very survival."
Bin Ladin isn't. The USSR was. Global warming is. Even the deficit and the dangerous imperial overstretch we are doing right now are. But bin Ladin doesn't have the power to bring down the United States, and can't get that power, unless we alone give it to him. That's one reason why it's sillier to give up more of our freedoms to fight him than we gave up to fight the Soviets or Nazis, who WERE real threats to our nation's very survival.
listening to BO on the front page of the WaPo online last week. He looked as if he was charming her, but she did not look amused.
Al Gore was surely going to run. And he was going to take it all. And the only person who could give him a run would was Dick Gephardt.
Then when Gore didn't run, it was surely going to be Lieberman. Then it was almost certainly Howard Dean.
John Kerry? Yeah, right.
And who won the nomination?
If Wes doesn't run, I'm going into political semi-retirement...especially financially.
But as I wrote the other day, I hope that Clarkdom, the major Yahoo! groups and the CCN survive. I don't want to lose my family.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
If Wes doesn't run, maybe we could start a Clarkies Anonymous group. ;)
I'm certainly not going to back anyone else even of Wes asks. Been there, done that with Kerry. Never again.
Run Wes Run!
Clarkies Anonymous. I like that. Annual conventions, steeped in old videos.
Those, of course, would not begin until January 21, 2017, after Wes's eight years in the White House.
He'll be 72 when he leaves office. Seems perfect to me.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
A guy who drew across-the-aisle comparisons to Patton and Marshall isn't destined to be a Vice- or Assistant anything.
With Wes, we are talking about legendary leadership potential. We are talking about a President.
I run into people all the time who say that they just don't know much about the General. After a one or two minute rundown, almost every such person I talk to becomes a Clark convert.
The guy's a leader. And in the long haul of serious debate, he won't just be competitive, he'll win. The substance factor just weighs too heavily on his side.
With people like Obama, what they ought to be fearing is scrutiny and what it might reveal- or in Obama's case, the lack it might reveal. With Wes, scrutiny is exactly what he needs. Because when you start scrutinizing the General, you realize you've got a man who should be President. If he would just announce, it would force the MSM to start mentioning him in every 2008 article. It would force them to bring him into every 2008 conversation on the talk shows. It would force them to lay Wes' accomplishments on the table for America to see. And when you put Wes' accomplishments next to those of his opponents, it quite frankly makes the opponents look a bit silly. Wes needs to force the hand of the MSM into talking about him.
And to do that, all we need is for Wes to announce. Right now, for Clark, scrutiny would be his best ally.
I would welcome scrutiny of Clark - he'd come through shining. How do I know? Because I scrutinized the hell out of him and his record before I realized that this is the man I want for president.
Unlike many on here, I was not a Clarkie in 2004. I voted for Dean, and frankly didn't know much about Clark. Unless you frequented political blogs at that time (and I didn't), he got in too late to be on the radar screens of many Americans. Millions, like me, were not very politically active, so voted for the frontrunners whose names and positions we knew a little about.
I began looking at Clark in 2005, after his name kept popping up in support of other Dems I liked. The more I found out, the more blown away I was by this man. There is no doubt in my mind that if the average American knew he was running, and the MSM started looking at him, he would find support pouring in from many quarters.
Clark does not just appeal to the "political junkies" - as a matter of fact, I think that most of his support would come from outside that realm, if only his name would get out there.
So I say bring on the scrutiny. Get his name out there, then let the Clarkies talk to their neighbors, their teachers, their friends, and their coworkers to further shape that message. He'll blow them away. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind.
Bring it on.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
I really do especially like the way you think nocore. No nonsense in a big way.
And you're right...no second chair for Wes.
watch and listen...
As for scrutiny, Wes invited it last time out and he'll do the same again.
God knows some of those 'pretenders' simply cannot afford to do so.
Unfortunately lots of Dems don't really want to scrutinize their candidates all that much otherwise we wouldn't be suffering the epidemic-hubris we find in the current line-up of Dem potentials...
watch and listen...
He also demands accountability for his programs. His were the only ones with measurable goals.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
I run into people all the time who say that they just don't know much about the General. After a one or two minute rundown, almost every such person I talk to becomes a Clark convert.
This is what it takes IMHO. Anecdotally, I have a neighbor across the street who is quite the right winger (retired State Trooper). I also have neighbors 2 houses down who are old 60s type radicals, think Abbie and Larry from Dharma and Greg. Lots of "over the fence" discussions and they all are Clarkies. Several of my Veterans For Peace chapter would also like to see the General run.
Send in the cavalry!
"Am I getting smarter or is the propaganda getting dumber?"
- Paul (not me), Vietnam veteran
I think that if there is an announcement, the floodgates will open. I'm heading to a very rightwing part of the country next weekend. It will be interesting to see what kind of reception I get with my "General Clark for President 08" and "Wes Clark Democrat" bumper stickers on my car.
Proud to be an American.
Their are still a few people around here that still have their Bush/Cheney stickers on their cars. But they give me the thumbs up and honk when they notice my Clark 08 sticker.
I actually got approached once while pumping my gas. And the man asked me if the General was going to run again. And I said I didn't know yet. But sure hope that he does. The man agreed with me and said he thought the General was fine man. He wants the General to run too.
Now heres to turning Oklahoma and several other states Blue.
Run Wes Run ! Please
the Bush/Cheney stickers are still out there, aren't they. I'll have to see if I get any response from cars sporting those stickers. I have a few extra Wes Clark Dem bumper stickers to give away - maybe I can convert some of the cars from B/C to Clark!
(I've retired the use of colors to denote parts of the country.)
Proud to be an American.
I left New York and spent the better part of two-and-a-half months in the summer and autumn of 2003 in New Hampshire advocating General Wesley Clark.
Let me tell you my experience with scrutiny of candidates by Granite Staters. By the time they are done with Barack Obama, they will know his shirt size, favorite food, position on everything from whether he favors the requirement that motorcycle riders be required to wear helmets to where he stands on gays in the military.
And speaking of the military: They are going to want to know what he or she knows about it.
Let's thank George Bush for one thing: The American voter will see each candidate for President in terms of being their COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
And if that candidate isn't seen as one, they will have a hard time.
and no VP slot for WKC, either--if not POTUS, it's SOS or nothing, imo.
And is there is no WKC run, I'm outta there.
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!
I know exactly what other Clarksters mean about meeting so many people who know little or nothing about Wes Clark.
"The Liberal Media" didn't cover Clark's '04 campaign much, despite the fact that his poll numbers, nation wide, were running as higher than most other candidates, and his supporters were very enthusiastic.
And yet, Clark managed to come in 3rd place in New Hampshire, despite the fact that he had NEVER run in any election before then. Not bad. Since we are talking about a race for the world's highest office.
Clark went on to win Oklahoma, and came close to taking two other states as well. He also came in as one of the top three candidates in many of the other states he ran in, despite the odds against him.
Why? How? With so little time, media coverage, or funding?
I think it's because he has that quality of being able to really connect with people. Clark really cares, and it shows. Cares about his country. Cares about the troops, and cares about average American people.
His long and distinguished military record also speaks volumes about what sort of man Clark is. There is a quality about him that makes people trust him, and like him as a person. Those who served under Clark back this up, saying Clark was always there for his troops and their families. Whatever their rank or "importance."
Will Clark be there for us in '08. Everything I know about him says he will. Not for glory. But because Clark is a true patriot. He loves his country and will not stand by and watch it being dismantled without a battle. Yes, I believe he will run.
In my opinion, his only "weakness" in the '04 election was his lack of experience at "playing politics." He has had awhile to study how elections work, for better or worse.
He is putting himself out there for the American people to see and get to know. Hopefully by the time the next campaign season heats up, we wont be hearing the old "I don't know much about Clark" refrain. And I'm certain that once the American people get to know this man and see what he has been able to accomplish in his lifetime, they will elect him, and he will be one of our greatest presidents.
In the meanwhile,
We need to send a message to Clark, loud and clear, that we NEED him now! That he is the one person who can reunite our divided nation and repair the damage done to it by Bush. He needs to know we are with him.
General Clark, we are here, ready and able to work hard to get you elected, because we also love our country and want to see it once again lifted up to the place it belongs, as a shining example of hope, a nation based on the principles of true democracy and freedom, an example for the world to see, and follow.
We know that you, General Clark, are the man who can lead us to that place, who can reunite us and restore our nation's hope, and our faith in ourselves. Finally, we know that you will fully restore our US Constitution, and defend the Bill of Rights, so that future generations will look back at us and say, we were a great generation, a generation that worked to make this nation and the world a better place for every human being. In our time, and for the future.
We are ready to stand with you, General. Please stand with us.
No Retreat, No Surrender
Bruce Springsteen
Political figures run at a 20% positive. The most highly held occupation in the US is "generals."
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
at once.
I think it's silly to expect after a debate that the imbalance that gives hillary and obama so much in current polls would continue.
Is this why the media has made it such a two-man race, though? To give the impression to donors that there's no point in donating elsewhere?
In any case, I hear the first debate will be in late April. Obama is a particularly attractive speaker --- though we haven't yet heard him in a debate situation. I have the feeling that Hillary's support could deflate very rapidly once people see some other potential candidates.
I'm just hoping Clark will have the same person making ads for him as did for votevets.
I think there's still quite a bit of MSM naivete when it comes to Wes' money raising potential. The MSM is still always the last to know. ((patting them on the head))
What Wes did for 2006 candidates was nothing short of brilliant. Not only did he advance the 2006 cause, but he set up a national network of friends and allies. And, quite frankly, considering all he did to lend credibility to candidate after candidate who needed some... he has created a national network of indebtedness. Wes has built alliances galore.
Then, you add in the fact that someone like Soros is throwing his hat in with Wes, and I think we've got a candidate who has masterfully planned an early infrastructure. Give him some planning time, and nobody knows strategy like the General.
at the moment can speak like Wes, without notes, and hold an audience in the palm of his hand. This is how Wes impressed Yearly Kos so much by speaking about science for 45 minutes, without notes, and taking questions from an audience of scientists, lawyers and educational professionals.
Several times I've read here at CCN people saying that BO stumbled in his speech or that he had not practiced his speech. Wonder how he'll do in the question and answer sessions? He can't do a "W" and had people ask pre-selected questions and get away with it for long - none of them will be able to do that.
...SOMW. He never answered questions. After his speeches, he boogied. If it's not written down, forget it.
Run Wes Run!
I just don't want to have to deal with all the JE blossoms or the BO Blossoms or even the HRC blossoms (but, they're not as long lastings as the others) again.
That's it pia. BHO can deliver rhetorical jive beautifully. But he had to read the last speech I saw him give and when he lost his place he faltered badly...
Topic: Iraq
watch and listen...
but apparently he doesn't do the one-on-one thing. (How unilike our General!) Altho he did do well on MTP. He should use his skills to finish his Senate commitment, and help other candidates this time, tho.
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!
Just when I thought this was a highly complementary piece, the author changed it up on me. I'm getting the impression he feels Wes would be better off staying out of the race then getting into it. Of course, I could be interpreting it all wrong.......
Felt like it made a negative U-turn by the end.
carol4clark
General Wes Clark * * * * 4 Stars Over Texas
I'm still not buying this Obama thing. Maybe I have too much confidence in our electorate. I like the guy, but not for President yet.
Comparing Obama to Clark is like comparing a State Senator to a U.S Senator.
I don't understand the Obama thing myself. If it continues though it will have a huge effect on the 2008 race.
__
Rob
BlueSunbelt.Com Progressive netroots for the Sunbelt
robwire.com My personal and political blog
This guy obviously isn't paying attention, or pretending not to be.
Wes will prove himself immediately if he arrives with an announcement! I have no worries at all about him. It's the MSM and nitwits like this guy that bother me.
Like others below, I will give it up to life and living without politics if Wes doesn't run. I'll hope Wes does too if he doesn't run. God knows he and Gert deserve a long life with family and fun. But I won't bust my butt for a MSM/DLC commercialized candidate. Nope, no way!
Yep, same here. I'll dutifully vote for whomever the Dems nominate, but I'm not busting butt, or going door to door, or pulling out my bank card to get them elected. I'll only do that for Wes.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
I thought Hillary was from NY now. As far as Arkansas is concerned. I think she has about as many friends their as she does enemies. I was having a discussion with someone and they agreed. All the things that happened in the past (remember Whitewater)? would come back to haunt her. I know suppposedly their was nothing there. But I figure the MSM will dredge it up should she become the nominee. And they won't let it go.
Its one of those things. Where they build them up. Just to tear them down. I stayed on Fox for a few minutes after Weses appearance. And low and behold they started an Obama fest.
Nothing against the man. Really.. But enough is enough already. You know if Faux News is pushing him. You know it means.... run the other way as fast as you can!!!!
They want to build Hillary and Obama up as much as they can.
Just so when the time is right. Tear them to shreads. For they want Republicans to control the White House.
And what is the deal with all the Senators? Both sides.
It started with Kerry and Edwards in 04. And now that the Shrub can't run again and Cheney isn't going to. They put up Senators on both sides. Go figure.
End of rant.
Win with Wes in 08
to salaciously dig up all the Clinton/Monica/imeachment stuff all over again and tar the whole Democratic Party with it if they can.
Can't you just imagine Fox's Library having all the clips lined up ready to go?
I have been thinking the same thing for a long time. Now they will have to come up with something on Obama. I wonder what that will be? Hmm...... Possiably that he doesn't have the experience that is needed to run the Oval Office...? Or to effectively run the country? It is so obvious to me what they are up to. I wonder if the Sheeple are paying attention now that the midterms are over ? I surely hope so.
Obama not wanting to vote for him because of his race, tht then why are they to vote for him -- on his voting record?
I would like to get my hands on those pundits who continually refer to the General as a bad campaigner. I saw him several times in 04. There is no one in the party that handles a town hall like Wes Clark. No one. And I've seen him on the stump bringing the crowds to their feet talking about Democratic values when the others were droning about policy XYZ.
Furthermore, who exactly is such a "good" campaigner. Gephardt? Lieberman? Bayh? Vilsack? Richardson? Who? Oh please. This crack-pot meme has its roots with the usual suspects. It is unfair and unwarrented, and I'm sick of it.
Yes, Wes did struggle with a quickly thrown together team...not bad people for the most part, but people who did not have time to get themselves organized. Okay, there were some bad eggs too. But, Wes Clark himself has always projected wisdom, leadership, and honesty on the stump; and he's done it with a smile.
I do worry about the money, and I do wonder where we'll get a team. There is also one candidate currently over-hiring talent so that they can't get hired by a rival. All's fair...but ya gotta wonder about the power of money in American politics. It's not good.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
You've nailed it as always, Donna.
"There is no one in the party that handles a town hall like Wes Clark. No one."
Can't imagine how anyone could have seen one of those town halls and not have been incredibly impressed. He was a master at those from the beginning.
"Wes Clark himself has always projected wisdom, leadership and honesty on the stump; and he's done it with a smile."
Yes, yes, yes. And no shortage of charisma either.
carol4clark
General Wes Clark * * * * 4 Stars Over Texas
or my gut instinct, but after watching how this process is run, that meme was crafted solely to depress the General's ability to raise funds.
That speech in Texas was not a fluke. And quite frankly no one has more energy than Wes Clark. No one.
I'm so glad I missed all of the Sunday shows; I'm thinking of doing that more often.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
You spoke up thread for me. With Barny Frank threatening to shove more bad trade deals down our throats, I've gotta to figure out how me and mine will survive.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
I wont go through all the details of my last post, listing all the disadvantages Clark had to face in '04, but I can tell you my own story. I was horrified when I first heard the Clinton's were backing a retired General for president. I was convinced that anyone who had spent their lives in the military would just have to be a hawk, right?
Well, I was wrong. Stupid wrong. After I watched Clark spend about 90 minutes talking to people and answering their questions face to face, once I saw the sincere and caring individual that I now know Clark to be, I realized I was wrong. As Clark himself explains it, war must always be the absolute last resort. The very last resort. I imagine that after you've been in battle, you have a somewhat more realistic idea of what it is you're sending others into, and what the bombs you are dropping are doing to the innocent civilians living, and now dying, in those cities. Clark was shot four times in Viet Nam and nearly killed. He's seen people die, including his own young troops, and he knows the realities of war.
Not like the present WH resident, W, who refused to go to Viet Nam and serve in combat ( Heck, the poor little fella mighta got hurt over there after all) yet stood pumping his fist in the air as the first shells fell on Iraqi cities,and is quoted as repeating "Feels good, feels good" over and over again. His fist pumping away. Must have been a great night . . .for Bush.
Can such a person be sane? Even if war is unavoidable, it should never "feel good" to bomb cities filled with civilians. With children, for the love of God.
I wonder how many people know that W used more bombs on cities filled with civilians, with children, on the first night of that war than his father dropped during the entire Gulf War? Then W hit them with that many bombs again the next night, and the next. That's three times/plus as many bombs in three nights than his father used in forty days. When you imagine what it must have been like on the receiving end of that . . .
And he didn't stop bombing after those three days of "Shock and Awe." No, it went on and on.
Because by golly, George just HAD to Free those poor Iraqis somehow, now didn't he? Funny, the oil wells remained unharmed in the least.
I have heard Bush has, so far, "freed" somewhere between fifty-thousand and one hundred and fifty-thousand Iraqis in much the same manner.
The old style "Free at Last" sort of freedom, I reckon. But then, he was just too darned busy "freeing" all those ungrateful Iraqis to find time to do an actual body count. He's a busy man, ya know.
Too busy to be bothered by the warning he received in August-6-01 that Bin Ladin was going to strike on US soil and that suspected terrorists were learning how to fly airplanes. I have to wonder why suspected terrorists were even allowed to stay in our country. Doesn't that seem a bit odd?
Buzy George was also too busy reading a book about a goat to react when he was told our nation was under attack. An attack that could have been nuclear for all he knew. Well, I shouldn't be so hard on poor W. I mean, we must keep our priorities straight now. Stories about goats are very important.
This so-called CIC, George Bush Jr. is the absolute best argument that those who command the military need to have some sort of concept of the realities of war and the horrors that it always brings. Not some indulged child grown tall who thinks bombing cities filled with women and children "feels good."
I shudder to think what history will say about this.
No Retreat, No Surrender
Bruce Springsteen
from last week that pointed out Corpress' take on General's run compared to reality?
Oh. I remembered!
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9242.html#more-9242
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
to point out where Clark's statements contradicted one another. Jeez, I'm getting so tired of this half-assed so-called journalism.
Wes 08
their predictions have been correct in the past. If they want to be regarded as pundits they should show us the beef.
They're all very good at shooting down others, yet one never sees any of them sticking a toe in the water.
As far as Hilary and Obama sewing this up between them I don't believe that's so. The danger is that they could suck up a lot of the money, which would be wasted, as I still think the electorate will be looking for someone with alround substance.
To compare Biden and Richardson with General Clark is a joke - neither have exactly sparkling personalities.
That Wes said --
"The first time I ran..."
Nobody says "the first time" I did anything if there isn't going to be a second time. They say "when I ran before" or something equivalent.
You don't say "the first time I climbed Mt Everest" if there isn't going to be another time..." Even if it's just in the back of his mind, he is thinking of 2003-4 as the FIRST time, as opposed to this time, the SECOND time.
So I am just going to use this little bit of lexicon analysis here to confirm to myself that Wes has in fact just slyly announced he's running for President!! The second time. And it's his little hat tip to those of us paying attention.
Now... about that $30 million by April...
That's only $10 million per month! Which is only 10,000 people at $1000 a pop. Or 20 gala fundraisers. Or one George Soros and some grassroots for good measure. Or...
I'm trying to sell my house. If I manage to do it by April, $1000 will go to Wes Clark 2008....even if I can't get that really awesome carpeting I want in my new house.
F/ it. This is more important!!!
Run Wes Run!
we can form the Bare Floors for Clark contingent of the support base!
"Give up your latte for liberty" was a diary I wrote once to raise $$ for Bowen's run... we did very well on that one.
How about "Give up your carpet for Clark??" :D
Let's see, a Happy Meal and movie for two a week would be, what, about $30? Let's say $25/week for Wes! Surely thousands of people can carve $25 out of their entertainment funds every week or month.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
;)
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
Let's see...
There were something like 55,000,000 votes cast for the Democratic candidate last time. If somehow, these people were convinced to give up 1 Big Mac for lunch and send the money to Wes instead....
my bank card comes out. I also have a birthday in a few months, and am blessed with a very generous husband who likes to buy me diamonds. I've already told him that if Wes runs, forget the jewelry.
"What do you want for your birthday?"
"A real president, sweetie."
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
and I'm retiring, so when I find out what my various 'funds' will provide to me, I'll have a number $ for Wes campaign.
We've done it before.
"Am I getting smarter or is the propaganda getting dumber?"
- Paul (not me), Vietnam veteran
That is an interesting analysis of the factors Clark has to consider.
__
Rob
BlueSunbelt.Com Progressive netroots for the Sunbelt
robwire.com My personal and political blog