Cojones and common sense--what a combo.
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!

Tell you what. I get panic attacks thinking about how easily some of these politicos can rebrand themselves on a dime and garner support for their poll driven policy concepts that will never happen. All these guys do is play into the wishful thinking and romantic lean of voters.

Almost always though, when (reasonable?) people take just that little extra effort to listen to General Clark, they become die hard Clarkies.

yep and believe it or don't, lots of die-hard Clarkies don't even hang out here. ever. oh, you would be surprised.

"Impeachment is NOT a Constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a Constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols, July 14, 2007

do you know why?

It takes a considerable investment of time to keep up with a blog that experiences any level of activity. People with jobs, a house and yard to maintain, meals to prepare, and kids to chauffeur just don't have the time. I probably spend 2-4 hours each day just reading the new posts (and all the navigation and scrolling required), and this is probably only a blog of medium activity. DailyKos seems like it would be a full-time job.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!

Sometimes I feel as though I can't give this blog the time and attention it deserves - and I don't even have kids. But, I'd rather be involved as much as I can be than not be involved at all.

means there are lots more.

How can we reach them?

that's how you reach them.

When/if he announces, they will be here in droves. There will be no stopping them.

I reeled in an ex-marine (still getting those "stand-by" letters, btw) who is NOT happy with current choice of presidential candidates:"None of them have a clue about the military"...BUT, didn't know General Clark hadn't said "NO" when asked if he'd given up the idea of making a run in '08...

I would be pleased except for the fact that this ex-marine is so very sad for his military...blinking back tears even

,(

"Impeachment is NOT a Constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a Constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols, July 14, 2007

a lot of people are too stupid to "get it." All they want are quick-fix, instant gratification type of answers. They just don't have the capacity/will/patience to digest the broader implications of their feel-good immediate solutions. No long view considered. Dummies. Ugh.

Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.

what proportion of the whole crowd saw Wes speak?

And how many of those, if not already fans, became fans?

I'm really interested in how much response General Clark received, compared to the "campaigners".

Were they, to the person, received as well as the General?

For Wes' speech I didn't look to the back as the room filled up. But asking others it seemed it was about 1/2 to 2/3 full....it was 8:00 AM.

You know from reading here....Wes got rave reviews. Talking to people (LOTS of people) during the rest of my stay there....those who saw him were blown away. Those who missed him were VERY sorry they did...cuz they heard how fabulous he was.

I didn't wear any "Clark 08" stuff while I was there. But....always told people I was a General Clark supporter..up front! The response was all good.

For the closing speech by Markos...I did wear my Clark for prez 08 button. Figured I'd seen it (them) all with a fairly open mind and nothing compared. So was proud to show it in the end...

There was a guy sitting at our table, a loudmouth guy, and he saw we were Clarkies. He was wearing an *dwards 08 sticker and said "Wes would make a great SecDef." Just wanted to bang my head on the table. Kept quiet and ate my ice cream bar....or Holly's Mark may have had to keep me from throttling the guy. Ack!

Many there had not made up their minds. Alot still waiting for Gore. Wes was VERY, VERY, VERY well received.

We've come a long way with this crowd in 3-4 years.

Gotta run.

"loud mouth" might be one(s) I have tangoed with at Kos.

Thanks!

maybe others did.

But...they all "sound" the same to me. Haha. ;)

The ones here in my town 'sound' just like the ones at Kos. How funny.

Gosh I wish I could have gone. :)

I should have mentioned above, but was in a hurry yesterday...Holly was doing her level best to talk some kind of sense into "loudmouth"....diplomatically. Bless her heart.

The *dwardians will face reality soon enuff. HRC will not be bested by the likes of little je. Nothing more than a pesky little knat. It would take someone who could "stop a charging rhino with his pinky" to stop that machine, I think. ;)

I wish you could have been there too. Would have been great to see you. Maybe next year. :)

...sanctimonious a**es on kool-aid: "you have misplaced anger", "you're projecting" and the ever-predictable "Wes would make a great SoD" (that always sounds obscene in my ear)

damned right I have anger bud.
It's not misplaced, it's
present and accounted for...

"Impeachment is NOT a Constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a Constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols, July 14, 2007

a good Secretary of Housing and Urban Renewal.

Wes Clark 08 For Real Leadership!

mebbe

"Impeachment is NOT a Constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a Constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols, July 14, 2007

Everything you say is true, Gordon. Wes has a
perfect right to do whatever he pleases with
his life. And furthermore he is doing and has
done more to make this world a better place than
any ten or twenty other people anybody could
name. But it still makes me just about as sad
as I've ever been that he's not (it seems) going
to run for the Presidency. There is simply no
way that he can give the frontrunner the needed
qualities--his experience, his courage his
integrity, his likability, and more--that I
think it's going to take to win the election
and to actually govern this country at this
time. I'm therefore very worried about my
country and, frankly, very confused by General
Clark's seeming choice. I hope we're wrong.
But I'm crying.

 have to win the primary; he would get lots of support enough  to win the general election;

:-)

Let's try and find some cheer in the fact, as Gordon stated it, Wes and Gert will operate "on their own terms".

In or out of this race, I would never have
expected less from Wes than doing it on his own terms in any case...

Not this time out.

Wes can be a "90-Day-Wonder" if he chooses to be, he doesn't need to be a graduate of the Academy (of dlc) to find the key to the Oval Office. Not if he finds the right moment.

"Impeachment is NOT a Constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a Constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols, July 14, 2007

Phyl, Over the past few months, I have tried to seperate my emotions from the reality of what makes a presidential candidate viable.

In recent weeks, I've read General Clark's new book twice, reread Antonia Felix's biography of him, perused my own writing covering all that has transpired the last four years, and thought long and deep about Wes Clark, Gert Clark, and Wes II.

How much can one ask of another?

General Clark has been open with his thoughts. I choose to accept his word. So, when he says, "I can't do this (referring to seeking the presidency 2008)" because he lacks money and organization, I understand that -- and I accept that.

I've resolved to stop obsessing over a Clark candidacy. It is in Wes's hands --- as it always has been.

Here is a quote from Wes Clark thinking about his two years at Oxford in England, circa 1969:

"I learned once again that friendship is about mutual respect and common interests, not about identical perspectives."

I'm trying to keep an open mind about the current field of candidates. I know we have to have a veto proof majority in the house and senate to protect us from whatever comes down the pike. In some ways it's nice to be undecided and being able to be undecided until I actually have to get ready to vote this time. The frontrunners in the Democratic party are doing just fine without my help. I just wish campaigning was all about talking and that our current field of candidates actually could do something like Al Gore and Wes Clark are doing. Bill Clinton is doing a lot through his foundation. Maybe that's the problem with a field of senators, congressperson, JRE and a Governor who has done things, but not widely known outside his state. If only his trip to Darfur had reaped real results. That would have been something.

But it has been true for many months that
Senator Clinton and Bill, like some giant
vacuum cleaner, were sucking up all the known
money and supporters through any means necessary.
I still hoped that Wes would try, because I
believed he would attract new people and new
money to his campaign. And that Wes would spend
his money more wisely. Since he still seemed to
be considering it even when the machine was
running full force, I thought maybe he thought
so, too. But, obviously, he felt he needed
more certainty.

He's getting money from lots of small donors. Any of the rich people who have maxed out to Hillary can still give to another candidate if they want to. That's just the nature of the beast. Don't forget that Bill and Hill are friends with Wes. I don't think Wes begrudges Hillary her shot.

AND there are LOTS of small donors available; I checked fundrace, and found that a very small proportion of those who had contributed last time have done so at this time.

...assume you've also given up on Wes being
v.p. for hrc?

glad to hear it, since there would be no doing anything whatsoever on his own terms as that woman's v.p.

EDIT: if nominated, she stands little chance of
winning the GE in any case, so the point is moot...

"Impeachment is NOT a Constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a Constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols, July 14, 2007

Sybil, I am still cringing after reading your reference to Hillary as -- that woman! Were you wagging your finger at me when you wrote it? The President of the United States wagging his finger at me: I have never overcome the visual.

Sorry, but I'm still holding good thoughts for a VP spot for WKC, but as I suggested earlier -- only with "that woman."

So, how has your day been going otherwise?

see upthread...

this a.m. I reeled in an ex-marine who doesn't much care for current candidates and hadn't heard that Wes has said,very recently: "NO, I haven't ruled it out."

...yet another Marine-4-Clark

you're welcome, semper fi, whatever

PS THAT woman.s v.p. gordon?
WHY would Wes do THAT?

"Impeachment is NOT a Constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a Constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols, July 14, 2007

...engage in discussion with members of the Clark Community is a good day, especially when I'm on the beach at North Carolina's Outer Banks -- a family tradition for 39 consequtive years.

And anyday someone 'reels in a marine'(as you say) must be a good day.

I agree with you, let us return to the intent of wescott's blog.

I don't understand how anyone who supports, likes, or respects Wes Clark could wish the vice presidency on him now. I could have seen that happening 4 years ago with John Kerry. Unfortunately, Kerry wasn't man enough to pick a running mate who was his equal and whose record of military service outshone his, and so he choose Mr. Sunshine instead.

You said in an earlier post that because of Gore and Cheney that the VP has become the second most influential office holder. Well, the Bush-Cheney model has so damaged the VP office that even Republicans are distancing themselves from that model, and no Democrat is going to go that way. And, if Hillary Clinton is president, the second most powerful, most influential person in her administration is going to be Bill Clinton.

Second, the VP is not in the chain of command for the military.

Third, why would Clark want to spend 8 years in a job where in the end no matter what he thinks or says or advises the final decision isn't his.

Fourth, you also talked earlier about the president sending "Wes Clark globe-trotting to set the stage for treaties, international agreements -- and resolution of our wars". My response then and now is that if Hillary Clinton is president, that's a job she's already reserved for Bill. And, constitutionally, those are jobs for the Secretaries of State and Defense, not the VP, no matter who he/she is. And Wes Clark is not the type of person who would think it appropriate or constitutional to have the VP usurping the powers of Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense - that's what Dick Cheney has done, with Bush's blessing, and Wes Clark doesn't approve.

Last, Hillary Clinton is just like John Kerry - she wouldn't want to pick someone the voters not just thought, but knew, bested her on the issues of national security, foreign policy, defense, and the military - the areas she's spent the last 6 years trying to beef up her credentials, to show how knowledgeable, experienced, credible, tough she is. No, I don't think Hillary Clinton is one to really, honestly, share the spotlight, in this case the ticket, with anyone who could so easily trump her on these issues.

Wes gave the perfect answer on troop withdrawal, and you latinjum just gave the perfect answer to this vp garbage. Hillary will not chose anyone who 1) would out shine her, and 2) advised her not to vote for this war. Besides, if Wes Clark was on a ticket, I would like to be able to vote for him.

I was in favor of the General accepting a Kerry request ONLY because I believed that it was our best bet of dislodging the horror of bush. I figured that the right-wing would attack Kerry's military service although I held a slim hope that Kerry would keep his word from his RollingStone interview where he said that he would fight any aspersions. Kerry needed Wes's cover.

You are correct: the vp spot is about to return to the warm bucket of spit it has always been.

You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley 

Having had my own reservations about Hillary Clinton as a serious contender for the presidency, it has not come easy for me to come to her defense.

When she sought the United States senate seat from New York, I was tepid about the idea, but the CHOICE of her or (initially) Rudy Guiliani, and then Rick Lazio, made my decision easy.

When she announced the formation of her presidential exporatory committee last January, I scoffed at her candidacy.

The idea of her and Bill back in the White House didn't sit well, for all the reasons one could conjure up -- too numerous and well-known to set forth here.

And then reality set in. My reality, at least.

The presidency is not a training ground. John Edwards and Barack Obama are fine human beings -- I am confident of that. But comparing their history and perfermances during the campaign trail --especially during the debates -- so far, neither hold a candle to Hillary. That's how I see it and I'm sticking to it.

What I fail to understand is the level of malevolence some of Wes Clark's most ardent supporters express on his website. Especially when General Clark (WKC) defends her, most recently on Kudlow and Co., a CNBC business talk show. Especially, when Bill Clinton gave a warm endorsement of WKC's forthcoming memoir --- and especially when WKC discloses Bill Clinton's personal apology for signing off on The General's early retirement! Before one questions why I bring in the former president, here is my answer: Yes, when you get Hillary, you get Bill -- and I like that.

If Wes Clark were to declare his candidacy, as I did in 2003/2004, the bulk of my existence from now until election day would be devoted to his advocacy. Until that time, I am back to CHOICES.

Until another Democrat --- and only a Democrat --- can show me the beef, I remain satisfied (note I did not say convinced) that Hillary has the most experience to handle the presidency. I'll just ignore the flaws.

For those who propose the idea that the Clintons would not pick the strongest person for the vice-presidency, explain why Bill chose Al Gore (at the time, Gore had served six years each in the House and Senate) who had far stronger credentials and congressional support than Bill.

One can say lots of g-d awful things about Bill and Hillary Clinton. I know I have.

One thing people can't say is that they are politically stupid.

One final thought. The idea that the Vice-Presidency of the United States in the 21st Century is a worthless position, or a demeaning one for Wes Clark, confounds me.

Wes Clark exemplies duty and country first.

If called upon by Hillary Clinton, I suggest he will serve. If she is the nominee and he not on the ticket, I expect WKC will give her (and Bill) his unconditional support -- as will I.

"I learned once again that friendship is about mutual respect and common interests, not about identical perspectives."
...Wes Clark, reflecting on his two years in England at Oxford University, circa 1968-1969.

"Whether one likes it or not, Bill and Hillary Clinton are what identify the Democratic Party. "

Well, that just makes me feel very, very, very sad.

If we are to reach a new level of politics, with accountability and transparency as the norm, and a way of doing business and serving us who elect them, it's not going to be under this bunch.

Sorry Gordon, you know I luv's ya, but these politicians have given me plenty of disappointment and reasons not to trust them. I have never had much 'faith' in those who have been entrusted to run things during my lifetime, and politically savvy might be a good thing for cutting deals in the backrooms, but not if those deals are continually at the behest of corporations and the wealthy, whose motivations I will must question.

Politically savvy is, at least from where I sit, is not the sole marker for leadership. Which is what this country sorely needs at this point in time.

Without real leadership, the kind that raises up us AND the rest of the world, we will not see that change.

I was really hoping to see it. I think all of us are. And many believe that by simply installing the next top-of-the-media-poll dem into the Oval Office will affect that change. Sad. God, that's sad inducing. Because I know better. Every instinct I have about people (and they're pretty darn good - hey - I hang out with you guys) is telling me that no matter what happens, from where we're standing today, we're just making it harder on ourselves.

Would Wes serve, if called by Hillary? I'm sure he would. Because I don't doubt, for a nano-second, his commitment to this country. How I feel about that? Well, let me put it this way. I don't know if I can handle that kind of anxiety.

...I will be back in Chicago later this month, so maybe we can get together.

I deleted the part of my comment in re the Clintons "are what identify the Democratic Party." Not because I don't believe it, but because it didn't seem germane to my comment.

We may be dissappointed with our political leadership, but we have to make a CHOICE. I cannot look at Hillary in a vacuum when Wes Clark is in the picture.

In re the anxiety you might experience if it is a HRC/WKC ticket: I have some suggestions how to overcome it. Let's talk if it happens.

n/t

My reply was for Dormaphea.

I think I'm out of here. Hopefully, General Clark will let his supporters know, one way or the other, what his decision will be.

This not knowing is becoming just too much.

If he runs, I'll work hard to support his campaign. If he doesn't, I'll stay home.

FWIT, General Clark's pull is not only Democratic supporters, but Republicans, Independents and all others who are seeking much more than what the Democratic and Republican parties are providing.

I thought we all would have known by now what General Clark's plans would be.

has become too much for many it seems Anita, as evidenced by the numbers of folk who no longer post here as they once did and the number who would have backed Wes but have since moved on to another.

I think its possible that we all know by now what his plans aren't...even though we may not be able to say it out loud.
:(

Thank you. The time has come to say it out loud.

HOWEVER, like the fellow who fell overboard into a sea of man-eating sharks, FATE may yet save us.

PS: Did anyone hear that the first primary or caucus may be THIS year. If so, 2003's September is 2007's August.

Makes no sense. If it keeps up this way, the primary for 2012 will be the day after that one.

Seeds of it's own destruction, this.

The reports I've read and heard put the blame on South Carolina Republicans. They're moving their primary ahead (Dems are not) which forces NH to move since state law there says they have to have to first primary. With NH moving Iowa, to follow their state law, has to move as well. 

Barry
Are you safer today than you were six years ago?©

state laws.

Particularly when they impinge upon the political processes of other states.

Last I heard, since 1865 we've been a union. Maybe that doesn't apply any more?

Always!

Re: the primaries moving up...its become ridiculous, and even more importantly it tinkers with "fate" in making any "late" run even later.

Fate may snatch a non-candidacy and thrust it into the annals of presidential history. Think New Hampshire 1968 and the rest of that historic presidential year.

You think someone might die?

First, I'm living today under the assumption that Gen. Clark will not run for President this time. I've reconciled myself to that near-fact. If I'm wrong, I'll be ecstatically surprised. If I assumed he's running and ended up being wrong, the disappointment would be huge. I've been through that stage already.

So, what to do? Hillary, warts and all, will be orders of magnitude better than any Republican alternative. Now, I see Hillary as someone who would be a technical, managerial president -- more or less a caretaker, not making dramatic changes, but not doing significant damage to the country, either.

I'm about to believe that the Democratic Party as it should be is in its childhood, or perhaps adolescent stage. It's not yet mature. Wes Clark is the father of this new party, and he has sired several others who are now in Congress. There just aren't enough of them, yet.

Maybe the best way for Clark to serve is to devote his remaining active political life to bringing maturity to the Party, by bringing more Jim Webbs and Joe Sestaks to the forefront. When that happens, we'll have a party of which we can truly proud. Wes is unlikely at this point ever to be President himself. But one or more of his students may be. If that happens, he would have done the greatest good for the greatest number of people for the longest time.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!

Stan, I'll settle for whatever WKC and Gert believe is his best coarse.

My point is -- and always has been: Whatever WKC thinks is the best road to restore America, I will follow him. I am old enough to know that there are times when one concedes to leadership -- and young enough to follow a proven leader.

In the matter of presidential politics 2008, I listen to what WKC says -- directly or otherwise.

THAT'S why I'm crying.

I've also been astounded by the malevolence but I suspect that Hillary has become the lighting rod for a lot of frustration. The frustration is easy to understand.

However I cannot ignore Senator Clinton's flaws simply because she "has the most experience to handle the presidency" in a mediocre field of candidates. The fact that we're even discussing that question is I think a symptom of a fundamental problem in this country.

Students often come to me to show me their work and ask "is this good enough?" My reply is always the same; "Is it your best?" All too often that is met with a blank look because the students honestly does not understand the question. They've been taught that "good enough" is the American way. Striving for excellence is literally a foreign concept.

 For years, decades even, I've been voting for mediocre Democratic presidential candidates because they were better than the Republican alternative but no more. I will not cast my vote for someone who I consider to be unqualified to be President of the United States. I will vote, but it will be a write-in vote.

Barry
Are you safer today than you were six years ago?©

You have given voice to the crux of the matter.

Thanks

People want leadership......and in the absence of leadership, they will listen to anyone who walks up to the microphone.
Lewis Rothschild, in "American President"

...I totally understand and respect it. In fact, I have felt it more times than not.

I might suggest that in 1932, FDR was considered a second rate mind at best and an aristocrat who didn't understand the poor and laboring class. Harry Truman was a compromise VP in 1944. The liberals had Wallace and the southern Democrats had their guy (can't recall right now who that was). FDR spoke to Truman twice before FDR died in Lucy Mercer's arms in Warm Springs, Georgia. And who would have thought that a small-state governor with a "randy" reputation would make a decent president.

Circumstances often dictate the success of a president. Actually, after 9/11 George W. Bush could have become a great one --- but common decency and a modicum of mentality are required.

We just never know how things will work out.

So what are you teaching your students? Drop out of school if you don't get your favorite teacher?

This is a pivotal election. If the republicans win we could be looking at 16 years of republican rule.

'...I suggest he will serve'

Maybe Gordon, maybe not. In one of his interviews (TPM? front paged here) at YK he answered the question about the biggest challenge confronting America and he said (approximately)

...well America is bigger than NS...keeping the doors of opportunity open for all Americans...are we leading (back) to a "gilded-age"? leading to an empire? an empire that's "hereditary"?...and he talked about how every child should have the potential to strive to be a ceo, etc...or even president of the United States. "That's the struggle for this generation", he said.

I see Wes willing to serve his country always, but I somehow don't see Wes ever willing to serve a dynasty.

...call dynasty-busters-911

"Impeachment is NOT a Constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a Constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols, July 14, 2007

I never held "maleovence" for either of the Clintons...in fact...I liked both of them.

Then there was a fateful day in October of 2002 when Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Hillary, etc, etc stepped onto the Senate floor and enabled this lousy crew in a "war of choice"...."an unecessary war"....a "strategic blunder" (even tho they were warned). Watching and waiting for each one....because they expoused themselves as "leaders" to say "NO!" we're not going to do this...we don't need to do this. Watching to see if they listened to Wes...to Robert Byrd. They did not. Why? I believe in my heart of hearts it was for those oh so important political reasons. They didn't want to look like wimps when their day came to run for prez.

It wasn't bad enuff they did this in regards to a matter of life and death....they did and said nothing to stop this crew in the past six years. Nothing. Just stood back watching this country go down the toilet...until they were running for prez, that is.

When you have a personal stake involved...you don't always look at matters in regards to politics. Far from it. You're looking for answers...the truth (even if you don't want to hear it sometimes). And looking for someone to stand up and do the right thing. Wes is the only one in the past years who has given me that...and I'm forever grateful. So....

HRC can take her political saviness and "I'm your girl" to stand up to the right-wing and shove it. She wasn't very politically savy when she cast that vote for the IWR and she didn't stand up when it counted most. Not for me and my family.

As Wes has said, "You have to look at what people have done their whole lives....they usually do the same thing over and over again." (paraphrasing)

It's not all that "astounding" really....just depends on your perspective.

...I have had to overcome --- the Iraq War vote.

It is not that I forgive or condone or accept anyone's rationale for the vote. I was so upset at the time that I joined a protest in front of Senator Schumer's apartment -- holding candles,shouting "shame," "shame," "shame."

It's just that I need to make a choice -- mindful that FATE may yet intervene and make a Clark candidacy viable.

Just can't get there...just can't. Probly never will.

I haven't given up on Wes either....just letting FATE.....or whatever....take it's course now. ;)

That's the problem with the burden being shouldered by so few. It's really not that hard to "get over" somebody else's kids being used as pawns by the oligarchy. It's a hell of a lot different if it's your own flesh and blood.

I don't even understand what my son is serving anymore. I resent like hell that he is under obligation to serve this nation of idiots who don't even know how the government is supposed to work and will tolerate almost any atrocity as long as it doesn't touch them directly. I keep waiting for the nightmare to end, for SOMEBODY, ANYBODY to take charge and bring back the America that I grew up in--which wasn't perfect, but people noticed when something was wrong, people cared, people took action, they didn't just change the channel and get another beer--but it's NOT HAPPENING and I have a growing fear that it WON'T. The last time the system worked was when Nixon resigned. Then the rigging started in earnest.

So, this time, if Wes throws his support behind one of these clowns, I won't be able to follow him. I'm sorry. I just can't go through it again. It'll be time for me to bug out and try to survive the destruction of our republic and keep my family whole. I've almost entirely given up on trusting our electeds to do the right thing. The system is rigged to benefit the most corrupt and the rest of us have to sink or swim on our own.

Even in the America I grew up in, THE SAME DAMNED THING HAPPENED. America's youth were sent off to a strange land to fight in a useless war, in large part justified by deception and misinforation. And in that case, both Democrats and Republicans were responsible.

I tried my damnedest to stay out of it. I selected the Navy and an officer track, and chose east coast duty rather than west coast duty. I almost made it to the theater anyway, and ya know what? Had I gone there, I would have done my duty all the while thinking that the whole effort was a doomed folly.

So will your son -- do his duty. He will feel his loyalty to his unit and his immediate superiors. And you...and we...can be proud of that.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!

pardner was drafted, saw combat in Korea and most of his friends and neighbors only sat up and took notice when they saw his picture in the local rag as the recipient of a bronze star...they didn't even know he'd been gone

he wasn't their son

"Impeachment is NOT a Constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a Constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols, July 14, 2007

This just happens to be the most important one for me. I know why my nephew does it...cuz we raised him and made him what he is....and have talked about it and advised him at length....not just since Iraq....and I'm proud of him for it. But this is our burden to shoulder. I don't expect others to shoulder it. So we try to do our damndest to change it for them....make it better.

People are going to see things differently through their own life experiences and perspective. Think about the man who stood up in the debate the other night. His strife was about his job and insurance and health care. He was just as distraught over that as you and I with our "issue" sometimes, Susan. I doubt very much after everyone applauded him and he didn't really get an honest answer from the "others" he felt anything would change for him. Because they weren't looking at it as helping him and others like him. They look at it as what is politically expedient and towards the next election. Pandering is more important....on ALL issues. Those up on stage have had plenty of opportunity and years of "experience" to help this man....and they never have. That's just one example. The bottom line is....WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN??? And why should we trust them now?

But there isn't anyone else to look to, is there? Not right now. And with the current crew we have.....people are desperately searching....just about anything looks better than this bunch. And so it is.....

Wes will do what he sees best to do....from HIS perspective....and he should. We may not end up agreeing in the end....that won't be the first time. We'll all have to look at what our options are when we cross the bridge. And make our decisions wisely and in good concience. Right now...as things stand today....that's about all we can do. :)

Mariner, you have put your northWESterly finger on the issue here - quite brilliantly, I may add. "Where have they been?" should be the theme of Wes's campaign. I agree that most of today's politicians look at issues and answers as "what is politically expedient and toward the next election." The passage of the onerous wiretap bill exemplifies that; again, most of them probably hadn't read the damn bill, as they were too busy packing for their vacation. They just let Georgie renege on the previous more acceptable version at the last moment and slip his provisions in there 'cause he knew they were in a hurry to get the hell out of there. All this reminds me of a little book out there that I have long forgotten the title and author of, that says, about artists - and this can be broadened to apply to most anything these days - "NO ONE gives a damn about your art except YOU. Accept that and you will live your life a little easier." Regrettably, with my own stuff, I find that to be all too true. In this, art, politics, and life are quite similar.

Wes Clark 08 For Real Leadership!

And where the hell are they NOW! Oh yeah, they're holding all of us hostage--IF we elect them President, THEN they'll start to do something. I really believe them. Sure I do.

WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN?

I like that. It says so much. It would set Clark apart from the others, all, except for Gravel, legislators.

Legislating isn't leading. Pontificating isn't leading.

If you want to be the leader of the free world, then dammit, LEAD!

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!

That always seemed like a good theme for Wes. He would say, "All these politicians up here have been yapping about these issues for years, but none of it ever gets done. WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN?! Why don't you elect a 4 Star General and just see what gets done!" Haha. Sounds good huh?

Maybe there will be enuff stalling and spinning on the myriad of issues where each persons issue will add up to enuff people getting a clue they're being totally BS'd and then Gordon's fickle finger of fate will kick in. Maybe?

I appreciate your art, donjo. ;)

And it isn't that I'm not proud of him for being the kind of person he is, one who is willing to stand and serve when so few others are. But, there's the selfish (I guess) part of me that says (in these times when our troops are being so badly misused and abused), THIS IS SO UNFAIR! Why MY son and not that smug bastard Mitt Romney's sons? Why should he lay down his life for ANYONE who isn't willing to fight for this country in other ways, to defend our Constitution, to stop these criminal bastards that are robbing us of our greatest resources and our American heritage?

He told me that starting on Monday, he's pulling two weeks duty as a casualty notification officer. Not that I want anybody in his area to lose a loved one so that he has to be the one to bring them the bad news, but it probably will happen. And then, God help me for being selfish again, but I hope it makes him stop and think what it would be like for ME to have to go through that, and that he'll consider it when he makes his decision whether to stay in the Army or not.

I become more unhappy and bitter as time goes on and nothing changes, and MY son is still unharmed--my friend Rosemary whose campaign I am working for now lost her son in Iraq. I admire her for being able to channel her grief constructively. I don't think I'm that strong.

more than you know. :)

It is so painful to read this post and your most recent ones.

I'll be passing by Cleveland, via motor-car to the midwest later this month. I'd like to have a coffee and talk.

If you are agreeable, please write me at nylarebus at aol dot com or call 347 416-3054.

In the meantime, please know that your son and you remain in my thoughts.

that General Clark has decided to make a run for it. Its contingent, of course, on making a good run at his pre-conditions; he still needs concrete support, cash and organization, and we've got to work on helping him get those.

So try not to cry, or use that energy to think of ways to help get what he needs. For example, helping relieve burden of 2004 campaign debt.

And we're here, together.

n/t

About one hundred thou.I deleted my blog; encourage all to contribute, as its prolly connected to his decision. Don't want 'the world' to have it flashed in its eyes. kmissik received letter mentioning it.

be used to pay the old debt, since Wes doesn't have a current campaign?

could be, but would be attributed to '04 campaign. each donor should check '04 to be sure they're within '04 limit. merely bookkeeping matters to us, but impt to others.

jordans11 'raising' pledges; wkc would like $ for '04.

Jordan is taking pledges, not contributions, for a Clark '08 campaign.

"Impeachment is NOT a Constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a Constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols, July 14, 2007

and because our goal is to get Wes on the road, seems reasonable to me that for those able to contribute, the debt about which he's 'spoken' should be tackled first.

...doesn't seem very practical

"Impeachment is NOT a Constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a Constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols, July 14, 2007

Syb; everyone can contribute separately.

ANYONE besides kmissik reported getting this letter?

I'm just confounded that no one else has mentioned receiving it.

a copy I will help, assuming I am eligible

401-828-0644

Bill (from RI)

I've seen letter, and you are eligible. So are most here, except those who maxed out in '04.