isn't always easy to watch in action...but its usually the most honest of all responses.

What Stack has blogged (with or without expletives depending on the individual) likely crossed the mind of many a Wes supporter.

I said what I said because I thought Sen. Stackhouse's comment on Clark's being half-Jewish was way below the belt.

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

Your comment was not one of a leader. Not that I would follow anyway. If you truly had issue with what he said you would have followed it up with reasoning, reasoning he could have understood.

I think you have a low tolerance for some. You need to work on that.

"Some of them put on their cowboy boots and put their feet up on the desk." -Wes Clark

As foreign as that concept is for me, I'm working on it. Thanks. By the way, I appreciate the comment about being a leader, but I don't see myself that way. The only title I deserve is something like Pontificator-in-Chief.

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

but, Stan, I thought it was interesting that Stack thinks that fact might have affected the way Wes has been treated by that group; it NEVER occurred to me for one second that it would have that effect!

Being called Jewish is not a 'dirty word' except in some neighborhoods. I've never heard it used, but I know some who have.

Sometimes you just don't get it. For someone who claims to be a Democrat and care about everybody you seem to pick on the people who deserve it least. I wish you'd show some leadership and make an effort to stand up when others are sitting. There's a recent post on one of the many Yahoo groups you lead that should have been addressed by you or one of the other leaders besides the, "Well put" by one.

"Supposedly loyal"

"Some of them put on their cowboy boots and put their feet up on the desk." -Wes Clark

I disagree, however, with your 'Clinton' part; we keep hearing it but have not seen any evidence thereof! and if they had helped, things would have been very different, IMO.

In fact, I suspect they went the other way. I have no evidence of course!

but I do remember the wingnuts saying Clark was a stalking horse for Hillary. You have no idea how badly they hate her. Remember how wild the attacks got on her husband? To the point that someone tried to fly a plane into the White House? And all those jokes that began with a rant about the president, and finished with "and that goes for her husband, too!"

They say Hillary is Socialist, Socialism = Communism, their ignorance and false premises pile on top of each other, but there is no way to rationally talk to these people, or get them to check their facts. Hillary's negatives are out of control. I don't think she can bring them down, but I won't interfere with her trying to do so, even if some on D-Kos seem to hate her, too.

Does anyone really think Bush will catch bin Ladin?

that the clintons lifted a finger for Wes in '04

certainly no endorsement from that quarter

but introductions and DLC connections. My understanding is that those are the people who shouldered aside the Draft Clark movement and triangulated the campaign to death with a lot of bad moves. A big netroots complaint has become that the professional Democrats have been losing so badly they should be fired. Some speculation has even been like that around Bush's incompetence. Is it really incompetence, or deliberate sabotage?

Does anyone really think Bush will catch bin Ladin?

triangulated to death, yes

...sounds more like sabotage to me

that it was after the 'pros' joined the campaign, it started to slide. Folks here have told about awful press management, that is, wouldn't allow press to meet him. And some genius pros told him he couldn't do Iowa. Their contract gave them authority to make decisions, and they did it badly.

So those he met thru b+H did WHAT FOR him?

O s***!

I faxed Bill this note on 1/13/04 "If Carter can appear next to Dean, you can appear next to Clark. Your most loyal supporters through thick and thin, Joan and Charles Jarowski"

I got a form letter response:

Dear Joan and Charles:

Thank you (blah blah blah)

A presidental campaign is a peculiar odyssey of the mind and heart, (blah, blah, blah)

Since I know the candidates personally, and appreciate the support they have shown me over the years, it wouldn't be right for me to favor one over the other. This is a big decision for our party and our country, and it's best left for the people to decide in caucuses and primaries across the nation.

However, when a nominee emerges, I will support him or her (blah, blah, blah)

Please know that I appreciate your interest (blah, blah, blah.

Sincerely,

Bill Clinton

Thanks.

So then,

willing, formerprezclinton was, to loan the General his political-operatives, but drew the line at his personal endorsement?

b'cuz the Clintons' personal agenda is always always always uppermost, circumventing the Constitution, Clinton gets a shot at his third term afterall.

indeed

"...b'cuz the Clintons' personal agenda is always always always uppermost..."

You got it Sybil. He(They) gets (get) a shot at a third and possibly fourth term. We get a dose of more moral bankruptcy in the White House and more corporate and political selling out added onto the last sixteen years.

Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)

Huh.

Wow.

I think I need to go elsewhere.

From reading Living History, I felt that Hillary has a well-developed sense of morality, at least social morality. And since leaving the White House, Bill has shown a strong sense of morality as well.

Are those of you accusing the Clintons of "moral bankruptcy" confusing morality and a difference of opinion or a difference in political philosophy? Maybe Hillary should be more explicit in articulating her moral code.

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

is in terms of personal conduct regarding ones morality. I believe conduct in our personal lives will be reflected in our public conduct. When they are different, when there is a disconnect, one must wonder what the person truly stands. Now, one can have the right positions on the issues, a good "social morality", as you put it, and still be flawed. When I look at a leader I look at both his or her's personal behavior as well as public actions. How many of us looked at Wes Clark in 2004 and felt, "What a refreshing change from Bush AND Clinton! We know Wes will not embarass us." Many may find these views archaic, but that is how I feel.

Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)

did WHAT for Wes, Syb?

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13437#comment-243413

nope. They stabbed him in his losing his command and they left him hanging out to dry in 2003/04. I am dumbfounded as to why General Clark believes he has any loyalty to the Clintons. Saddened and dumbfounded. It has been very painful to me also. I do not believe in swearing, but Stack's emotions are understandable. I must say though the Jewish part, I do not get. That had nothing to do about anything. All in all, I will never lift a finger for Hillary, plain and simple. No more Bushes! No more Clintons! We are a republic, not a monarchy!

Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)

would never be within range. But they're probably 'die hard' republicans anyway, so who cares? THEIR negatives may be inconsequential; wouldn't know how to confirm that.

...interesting moon, since your everso compassionate comment, under the circumstances, seems to be the precise type of comment that generates yet more comments on this "Hot-Topics" blog listing.

no need for calling on God

Moon. At least not like my impression of you has been these past years.

Have we come to this?

as a prop, window dressing, if at all. The Clinton machine needs that military gravitas that General Clark can bring. I know it's cynical, but whether it is VP, SOS, or SOD, it is just the same as what Bush did in getting Colin Powell in his administration. It looked very good for PR purposes, but in the end, did not mean much to how policy was created and carried out.

Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)

to say the least. Comparing Bush using Colin Powell as a stooge & asserting that the Clinton machine is using WKC for PR purposes not only insults the General but flies in the face of his good judgement. Do you seriously believe Wes would allow himself to be used in this manner? Do you actually think this was an unconsidered or blind or quid pro quo endorsement?

After reading A Time to Lead & hanging around here for a few years, for some bizarre reason I trust Clark's assessment of the situation.

Wes Clark is no Colin Powell. Let me know when he shows up at the UN brandishing a vial of white powder or starts extolling the virtues of the neocon agenda. Or sings YMCA with a funny hat. Or lets himself be used for nefarious political purposes. Or fails to have a spine. Just let me know.

I am not making a one to one comparison between the two men. Nor, am I making a one to one comparison that General Clark would act like Secretary Powell on a question like going to war in Iraq.

What I am saying is that, back at the beginning of the Bush admindisaster, Colin Powell was brought into the cabinet as much for looking good as being good. He helped Dubya look like he had a compotent man with experience in foreign affairs vis via his military and White House experience. And I think, brought into it so that Bush looked like he had diversity in the Republican party. We know what a joke that is. He was used. Powell, I am sure sees himself to be a patriot and a good soldier. So, when his president came calling he did what he thought was his duty to his country and his political party.

Whatever your feelings may be about Colin Powell, I do admire him for how he developed himself as a person and how he has tried to give back to his country outside the governmental realm. His motives are not totally nefarious like say Cheney. I won't tear him down for being a goof at a party either.

When it came down to it though, Colin Powell morally chickened out and for that he should be condemmed. He did the "good soldier" despite knowning what he was doing wrong. Many good people can get caught being like that quote about evil winning because good people doing nothing. He chose duty over doing what was right.

I do not believe that General Clark would ever decieve the American people. I do believe if he were faced with a similar situation to Colin Powell's he would resign rather than decieve the American people. He has, however, chosen in politics, to be a member of the Democratic party. As such, he has taken the "good soldier" tack of supporting the party whenever and however he could. Unlike a lot of people who believe all politicians are bad, I believe there are some good ones. We've seen the general stand behind some of the good ones. I think we also know that there are those who are in power or in a position to gain power, who will use good people to no good ends. The good person unwittingly ends up being used, though they believe their postition to be the correct one for the country.

This is the caution I am giving. We have seen it time and again from the Clinton machine. Until I see otherwise, I have no reason to believe they will do the same with General Clark. I hope and pray that I am wrong. I deeply respect the man. I disagree but wish him the best in casting his lot with Senator Clinton. I know that if he is put in a position of responsibility in her administration, should she become president, it could only be a benefit to our country.

I hope you will understand my feelings. I was PROUD to have stood out in the cold and traversed the state of Indiana, getting hostile looks and words, just to support General Clark in 2004. I would do it again for him gladly, were he running. Now, we each have to cast our own lots in this new election. I do not know where I am going except that I will not be supporting Hillary Clinton. I hope that in the spirit of what we had in 2004 we can be respectful of each others views and feelings at this time.

The Independant, TIMinINDINANA :-) Peace...

Don't Blame Me for the last 25 years, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and Wes Clark in 2004. :-)

That pretty much sums it up for me, too!