Hello Everyone:

I am really thrilled to see that Gen. Clark is seriously considering running for Congress in Arkansas:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18300

Run General....

Submitted by Marla on January 18, 2010 - 7:42pm.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31655.html

Wes Clark for House?

By BEN SMITH | 1/19/10 11:05 AM EST

"Retired general and former presidential candidate Wesley Clark is considering running for Congress from his native Arkansas, a spokesman said today.

The spokesman, Erick Mullen, confirmed Little Rock chatter that the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander is weighing a bid for the House seat being vacated by retiring Democrat Vic Snyder..."

I definitely think that Gen. Clark would be a great candidate who would have excellent chances of winning if he runs for Congress in the Second Congressional District of Arkansas for many good reasons. This is a longer post but I did it in outline form so that it will be easier to follow. It had to be longer because you cannot summarize and credibly document all of the points that I made in just a paragraph!

Before I give those reasons, I want to describe what the AR-2 district is like if Gen. Clark decides to run in it so that everybody will be familiar with the area and I also have to make a very clear and upfront disclaimer that all of my reasons below making the point that Gen. Clark has excellent chances of winning are true to the best of my knowledge with the understanding that the AR-2 district is NOT targeted by very rich Republican donors who plan to literally try and buy the AR-2 seat by providing Gen. Clark's GOP opponent with many millions of dollars or with just an unlimited amount of money consisting of however much they think that it will take to buy the seat because of the terrible 5-4 Supreme Court decision last week which repealed the McCain-Finegold campaign finance reform rules on donor limits.

CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who is an authority on the Supreme Court, briefly explained just how serious that this Supreme Court decision is and how hard that it would be to try and change:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1001/21/sitroom.02.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Supreme Court Delivers Stunning Campaign Finance Decision; More Aid Reaches Haiti

Aired January 21, 2010 - 18:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "The U.S. Supreme Court today overhauled government limits on campaign spending, allowing big business, unions, nonprofits to spend much more freely on federal elections. It was a 5-4 decision that could have an immediate impact on this year's congressional campaigns and beyond.

Let's bring in our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, who is an authority on the Supreme Court.

Jeff, what does this mean in practical terms?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, this is an earthquake, Wolf, in terms of how campaigns are financed and conducted.

Very simply, this means that corporations and unions and any nonprofit organizations can spend as much money as they want, independent of campaigns, to elect or defeat the candidates of their choice. That means Exxon, General Electric, Time Warner, our parent company, can go buy time, run commercials, try to defeat the candidates they don't like or elect the ones that they don't (sic). It is a change, a dramatic change in the law. And it could have a big impact right away...

BLITZER: We heard the president and others today saying they hope Congress will take some action to reverse this decision. Can they? How much leeway is there?

TOOBIN: It does not seem to me like there is a lot of room for Congress to regulate here, because what the court is saying is the regulations that they had in McCain-Feingold are too intrusive.

What you might get is certain labeling. Everybody is familiar with political commercials that say, you know, I'm John McCain and I authorize this message. You may have a requirement for the CEO of the company to say, I'm so and so and I approve this message.

But in terms of stopping those ads, it's very hard for me to imagine how that could happen..."

It would be very hard if not nearly impossible for Gen. Clark (or for ANY serious candidate no matter who it may be) to run in a truly competitive district for Congress if his opponent can get as much money that they want anytime that they want in a Republican effort to literally try and buy the seat unless he can also raise a lot of money (probably starting at a minimum of at least one million dollars).

I think that Gen. Clark could raise enough money from his supporters all over the country, maybe from the DCCC, and probably from some Bill Clinton high dollar fundraising events in order to run a serious campaign under normal circumstances but I doubt that he could raise 5 to 10 million dollars (or possibly even more) if that is what very rich Republican donors think that they need to give to his GOP opponent in an effort to try and buy the seat regardless of the cost!

People do not necessarily vote based on what really is true, they vote based on what they perceive is true. There are liars like Sarah Palin who have successfully convinced a lot of people to believe in her lie about death panels which has already been exposed, which she still stands behind, and which unfortunately many people still believe:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18266#comment-354385

Sarah Palin won PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 5, 2010 - 8:18am.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/21/ltm.01.html

AMERICAN MORNING

Health Care Passes Critical Test; Digging Out After East Coast Blizzard; Hundreds Stranded in NYC terminals; Brittany Murphy Dies

Aired December 21, 2009 - 06:00 ET

KIRAN CHETRY, CNN ANCHOR: "Sarah Palin, though, apparently has no regrets on using the term death panel. In fact, recently, she did an interview with the national review and here's what she said about it. She said, quote, "The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally. The phrases a lot like when President Reagan used to refer to the Soviet Union as the, quote, "evil empire." It was quite effective. Same thing with the death panels. I would characterize them like that again in a heart beat."

So she's sticking by it.

BILL ADAIR, EDITOR, POLITIFACT.COM: Yes. You know, she is right that it was quite effective. As you noted, the polls showed that at one point 30 percent of the American people believed this was true. And I think this speaks to sort of a larger trend during the early part of the health care debate that the health care bill was defined initially by the opponents, and in many cases through falsehoods like this. But Palin's right. It was quite effective..."

This is why any candidate getting a virtual unlimited amount of money from very rich donors in an effort to try and buy a Congressional seat in a truly competitive race is so important. They can use that money to spread as MANY lies as they want to for months and the other candidate will not have any way to effectively refute those lies to so many people if they do not have enough money to seriously compete!

I really hope that AR-2 is not specifically targeted by very rich Republican donors who will spend whatever they think it takes to try and buy the seat but this is a possibility that has to be considered in my opinion. So all of my points below are based on AR-2 NOT being a target of rich GOP donors!

As for the kind of district that AR-2 is, The Cook Political Report on AR-2 district gives it a pink color which means that it leans Republican. That is one step after toss up and one step below likely Republican (solid Republican comes after likely Republican):

http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/house/chart.php

Select Arkansas under "Select a state..." or click on the state of Arkansas for this map to come up.

However opinions can differ because the Rothenberg Political Report puts AR-2 in the "Lean Democratic" category as of January 5, 2010:

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2010/01/21-house-seats-move-toward-gop.html

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

21 House Seats Move Toward GOP

Lean Democratic (0 R, 9 D)

•AR 2 (Snyder, D) *

Democratic Rep. Vic Snyder who is retiring won in both 2004 and in 2008 when Bush and McCain narrowly won in that district:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas's_2nd_congressional_district

Arkansas's 2nd congressional district

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Arkansas's 2nd congressional district consists of the center of the state and includes Little Rock, the state's capital, as well as its suburbs and surrounding areas. It is currently represented by Vic Snyder, a Democrat.

George W. Bush won 51% of the vote in this district in 2004. John McCain carried the district in 2008 with 53.69% of the vote while Barack Obama received 44.07%..."

My conclusion from all of this information is that AR-2 is an everall competitive district for an open seat but this is a year which is not supposed to be good for a lot of Democrats. Fortunately, I think that Gen. Clark will have the best advantages and the least vulnerabilities if he decides to run in AR-2!

Here is my list of 8 reasons explaining and credibly documenting why I think that Gen. Clark would have excellent chances of winning if he decides to run for Congress in AR-2 which I put in outline form:

1) Gen. Clark would enter the race already having a lot of name recognition because he is from Little Rock, he ran a serious national Presidential campaign in 2004 which I think made him better known in the Little Rock area, and he has done numerous interviews for years on all of the major cable news networks that most people watch.

Republican candidate Tim Griffin currently appears to be the front-runner to win the GOP nomination for AR-2 and from what I have seen on his website, it looks like he would have some name recognition from his background but it does not look like he would have more name recognition than Gen. Clark:

http://www.timgriffinforcongress.com/about.php

Tim Griffin Biography

2) Gen. Clark would enter the race already having an established office set up in Little Rock (he would probably have to expand it with a campaign headquarters), he already has a very advanced website set up on CCN which looks far more detailed than Tim Griffin's is (especially on the issues in my opinion):

http://www.timgriffinforcongress.com/issues.php

Tim Griffin On The Issues

But most importantly in my opinion, Gen. Clark would enter the race already having a very loyal nationwide base of supporters who would help him once he announced his candidacy. It is very doubtful that Tim Griffin would have nearly as many supporters that Gen. Clark has.

3) Gen. Clark is a proven fighter who is rock solid on the issues. He would have to be in order to have successfully taken everything that FOX News could dish out to him while he was an analyst there for about two years. Here are just a few examples of this:

http://securingamerica.com/node/272

"General Wesley K. Clark and Bill O'Reilly - The O'Reilly Factor" - 10.3.2005

http://securingamerica.com/node/286

10/19/05: General Wesley Clark - Hannity and Colmes

http://securingamerica.com/node/331

General Wesley Clark on Hannity and Colmes

November 17, 2005

We encourage you to listen to the clip.

http://securingamerica.com/files/WKCFox051117.mp3

Sean Hannity: "Joining us now is the host of "Morning in America," Fox News contributor Bill Bennett, and also former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, also a Fox News Contributor General Wesley Clark is with us. You know General, I gotta tell you something, I have had it with members of your party undermining our troops, undermining a Commander-in-Chief while we are at war, calling the Commander-in-Chief a liar, saying that he hyped, saying that he misled. They have done all of this without any evidence or proof. I wa-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think there's a lot of proof out there, Sean.

Sean Hannity: Hang on a second. No there's n- You're calling the-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And I'll be happy to talk about all of that in the show.

Sean Hannity: You wanna call the- You wanna call- Wait a minute. You wanna call the President a liar?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I want to stop all the name-calling-

Sean Hannity: You want to call him a liar?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -by you and everybody else, Sean. I think it's time to get down to the facts on this. I think there's been quite enough name-calling done.

Sean Hannity: Well, do you (sic) calling the President a liar?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I told you. Let's get to the facts. Let's stop the labeling.

Sean Hannity: Okay.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Stop the adjectives. Stop the guilt by association, and go to the facts.

Sean Hannity: Your- Members-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Here are the facts: Saddam Hussein was not part of what happened to this country on 9/11. Fact #2: Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, and Dick Cheney and the administration made a strong case that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and that Saddam was about to get a nuclear weapon. Now, that's the hype. That was the linkage..."

On a side note, Gen. Clark also called into Sean Hannity's radio program to refute what was being said that he did not agree with and he did everything that he could within his power to try and take on Rush Limbaugh over his "phony soldiers" comment:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191

Listen to Wes Clark fight for Dems on Hannity

Submitted by larry on June 22, 2006 - 8:57pm.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12727

Phony Soldier?

Submitted by Wes Clark on September 28, 2007 - 12:11pm.

"According to Rush Limbaugh, Jon Soltz, an Iraq war veteran, is a phony soldier. Today, Media Matters reports that Rush Limbaugh said that those troops who come home and want to get America out of the middle of the religious civil war in Iraq are "phony soldiers."1

The question is, would Rush make these outrageous and offensive comments to Jon's face?

Take action now. Email Rush Limbaugh and urge him to invite Jon Soltz onto his radio show!"

If Gen. Clark could successfully take everything that Bill O'Reilly Sean Hannity, and the rest of FOX News could dish out to him over such a long period of time, then he can easily run against any Republican candidate no matter how skilled of an orator that they may be and no matter how dirty that the campaign may get!

It will be very hard for any Republican candidate to try and define Gen. Clark in a negative manner in my opinion because he does not take any crap from anyone. I think that someone like Gen. Clark who can easily fight toe-to-toe with people like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly would dominate the debate even over the most skilled and ruthless of Republican candidates who are hard core Neocon ideologues!

4) If it is necessary (and I hope that it is not but it very well could be), Gen. Clark can probably run away from Obama faster and more credibly than any establishment Democratic candidate could because he strongly supported Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary, Obama and his campaign wrongly threw Gen. Clark under the bus when it was politically convenient for them to do it while Obama was the nominee, and Gen. Clark has had no kind of serious association with Obama since then that I am aware of:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12725

I’m proud to endorse Hillary Clinton

Submitted by Wes Clark on September 17, 2007 - 1:10pm.

"Today, I am proud to announce my endorsement of Senator Hillary Clinton as President of the United States..."

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13605

The Time is Now

Submitted by Wes Clark on February 8, 2008 - 8:08pm.

"Please add your voice to mine. Contribute to Hillary's campaign and help her reach voters across America..."

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15996

VIDEO: Linda Douglass of the Obama campaign threw Gen. Clark under the bus!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 3, 2008 - 12:02pm.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15941

CNN is now reporting that Obama "rejects yesterday's statement by Gen. Clark"

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 30, 2008 - 1:36pm.

Solid proof that Obama wrongly threw Gen. Clark under the bus because it was politically convenient for him to do at the time is that former Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson said the exact same thing about John McCain that Gen. Clark did when he spoke at the 2008 Republican National Convention and he got cheers from the audience when he said it:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16453

Fred Thompson on McCain: "being a POW doesn't qualify anyone to be president..."

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 3, 2008 - 3:55am.

While I absolutely want Obama to succeed and while I have been rooting for him to succeed since he was elected, I definitely think that Obama is in much more political trouble right now than most people think that he is. This means to me that Obama will probably be a very huge drag on many Democratic candidates running in 2010 almost like how Bush's unpopularity dragged down many Republican candidates in the 2006 mid-term election IF things do not chance very quickly (which will be very hard for Obama to do in my opinion):

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18265

ANALYSIS: Why Obama will probably have a lot of political problems in 2010

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 4, 2010 - 7:39am.

A Democratic candidate's ability to credibly run away from Obama IF they need to in November is a very important factor to consider in my opinion. Just ask any of the Republican candidates who ran in competitive races in 2006 and 2008 and who lost mainly because they could not credibly run away from Bush fast enough!

5) Gen. Clark can credibly run as a proven Independent thinker because he can show that he has already stood up to the activist base of the Democratic Party when he did not agree with them and when they did not agree with him. Gen. Clark never took back or apologized for saying any of these things even when they were not always a popular message with the Democratic base:

A) Gen. Clark opposed setting a timetable to leave Iraq when that was the popular position with most of the Democratic activist base and with nearly all of the announced Presidential candidates at the time:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/illustration_by_2.html

Next move in Iraq?

Americans want a new approach. Withdrawal? A bad idea. Partitioning? Won't work. The right approach is one that addresses U.S. interests in the entire region.

By Wesley Clark

Posted at 12:16 AM/ET, November 21, 2006

Timetables a bad idea

"What about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals? Today, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

What about imposing a tripartite division of Iraq? That would merely feed ethnic cleansing and likely lead to a wider, more intense conflict.

The right approach is a coordinated diplomatic, legal, economic and security campaign drawing upon broader dialogue in the region and intensified political work inside Iraq.

Here is how to do this..."

B) Gen. Clark stood up to MoveOn's General "Betray Us" ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noIx9_iX8tE

Wes Clark slams MoveOn for "Betray Us" ad (0:54)

pundital
September 18, 2007

"Fox & Friends."

C) Gen. Clark again stood up to MoveOn's General "Betray Us" ad by calling it "really unfortunate" and "a big mistake" in this interview with Tucker Carlson along with reaffirming his position on Iraq by saying "What we should be talking about is the situation and the strategy. What I've been advocating to Democrats for the last three years is: Don't talk troops and tactics:"

http://securingamerica.com/node/2698

(The audio and video of this interview are also available in this link)

9/18/07 - General Wesley Clark on Tucker

Tucker Carlson: "W-what do you make of the attacks by some on the left on General Petraeus? MoveOn-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's really unfortunate. I really-

Tucker Carlson: Hil-Hillary Clinton said that she had to use willing suspension of disbelief as she listened to him.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes, but I don't consider that, that's not an attack on his character. She just sees a different set of facts. But the MoveOn ad, I think it was a big mistake, because we shouldn't be talking about the General. What we should be talking about is the situation and the strategy. What I've been advocating to Democrats for the last three years is: Don't talk troops and tactics. The problem in Iraq is not about troops. It's not going to be resolved by whether there's another 5,000 or 10,000 troops there or not. And it's not about what tactics they use - not a surge, not outpost, not patrols. That's not what it's about. It's about the region. It's about Iran's struggle for dominance. You must critique this administration on its failure to have real strategy and policies in the region that work. I, I've been through the region a number of times. I talked to the leaders in all of the friendly states in the, in the region. And I say, "Well, so how's the dialogue going with the, with the Americans?" They said, "Dialogue?" Sometimes they go months, they don't hear from the United States, and when they hear, the United States says, 'We want you to do this.' The United States doesn't listen. The United States doesn't build a team. The, the Saudis and other states in the region are, are very concerned about what might happen next.

Tucker Carlson: I bet they are..."

D) Many activists in the Democratic base do not like the more conservative Democrats and Gen. Clark has endorsed them even when it was not popular with all of his own supporters:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17723

A Good Offense

Submitted by Wes Clark on June 24, 2009 - 2:25pm.

"To face today's challenges and guide our country through a time of crisis, we need more good, hard-working leaders fighting for us in Washington. We need more folks like my fellow Arkansan, Blanche Lincoln.

Every day, Blanche Lincoln is fighting the good fight for all of us in the U.S. Senate, putting Arkansans back to work, fixing this economy, and keeping America safe and strong.

Blanche is up for reelection in 2010, and we've got to do everything we can to keep her in the Senate. With the June 30 quarterly fundraising deadline just around the corner, I hope you'll join me and stand with Blanche right now..."

Gen. Clark was openly opposed by one of his strongest supporters over this:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17723#comment-347087

No can do, sir.

"Sorry, sir. I can't go there. Lincoln isn't one of my favorite (supposed) Democrats."

Meanwhile, Gen. Clark can say that he has stood up to his base when he thought that they were wrong and then he can force his GOP opponent to take an up or down stand on many of the stupid and insulting things that Rush Limbaugh has said and on the Obama/Hitler, Obama/Communist, and the other crazy signs that the tea party activists openly display at their rallies which will put his GOP opponent in a clear lose/lose position. If his GOP opponent stands with Limbaugh and with the tea party crowd, then he will lose many of the swing voters in the district. If his GOP opponent denounces Limbaugh and the tea party crowd's crazy signs, then he will lose many GOP activists in his party base which will help Gen. Clark!

Gen. Clark can also use the fact that he voted for Nixon and Reagan IF it becomes even more necessary for him to further prove his independence from Obama and from top Democratic leaders who may not look very good by November if things do not go as they plan. This would be a last resort type of thing to do in my opinion so that Gen. Clark does not risk possibly losing some of his Democratic voters.

6) Gen. Clark is truly a uniter and not a divider while he always stands up for his principles which is something that I greatly admire about him. I think that most swing voters in AR-2 would also admire this about him when so many people all over the country are turned off by a VERY partisan Washington, DC right now:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17723#comment-347092

I think that what makes Gen. Clark very unique compared to other

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 24, 2009 - 5:55pm.

well known Democrats is that he can effectively campaign for liberal, moderate, and more conservative Democrats while other well known Democrats cannot do that!

Gen. Clark can campaign for and be seen with more liberal Democratic candidates like Ned Lamont and Charlie Rangel:

http://securingamerica.com/node/1656

October 6, 2006
Ned Lamont and Wes Clark at McDonalds for Vets Meeting
Derby, CT

Rally and Endorsement Event for Ned Lamont at UConn
Storrs, CT

http://securingamerica.com/node/1268

August 3, 2005
Special Guest
Charlie Rangel's Birthday Gala
New York, NY

Gen. Clark can also campaign for more moderate Democrats like Tim Kaine and Jim Webb who were running in red states and for Joe Sestak who was running in a red district:

http://securingamerica.com/node/458

October 11-12, 2005
Campaigns in Roanoke and Norfolk for Tim Kaine
The Fredericksburg Forum

November 2, 2006
General Clark joins Michael J. Fox for Fundraising Rally for Jim Webb
Arlington VA

http://securingamerica.com/node/1655

September 29, 2006

Rally and Endorsement Event for Joe Sestak (PA-7)
Clifton Heights, PA

Fundraiser for Joe Sestak (PA-7)
Wallingford, PA

Finally, Gen. Clark can also campaign for more conservative Democrats who were running in red states like Harold Ford and Jon Tester and for House candidates who were running in red districts like Kirsten Gillibrand:

http://securingamerica.com/node/1869

Wes Clark stumps for Harold Ford, Jr. in Clarksville, TN
November 2, 2006

http://securingamerica.com/node/1520

September 28, 2006
Supporting Jon Tester for Senate
Helena and Great Falls, MT

http://securingamerica.com/node/1268

November 5, 2006
Rally for Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20)
Catskill, NY

Does anyone think that any of these more moderate and conservative Democratic candidates would ever agree to be publicly seen with people like Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry? I honestly do not think so!

The big picture of things to me is that Gen. Clark is very unique because probably every Democratic candidate running anywhere in the country would be glad to be seen with him while that is definitely not the case with many other well known Democrats. This is a quality about Gen. Clark that has impressed me for years!

Gen. Clark having such a broad base of appeal is a very unique quality and it speaks very highly of him in my opinion:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9979#comment-161838

Why I think Gen. Clark is best qualified to unite the country:

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on December 8, 2006 - 6:27am.

7) Because of his very strong support for Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential campaign and because of his long time friendship with Bill Clinton, I am sure that Gen. Clark could get an endorsement, campaign help, and fundraising help from Bill Clinton much easier than most other Democratic candidates could if he wants it:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12725

I’m proud to endorse Hillary Clinton

Submitted by Wes Clark on September 17, 2007 - 1:10pm.

"Today, I am proud to announce my endorsement of Senator Hillary Clinton as President of the United States..."

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13605

The Time is Now

Submitted by Wes Clark on February 8, 2008 - 8:08pm.

"Please add your voice to mine. Contribute to Hillary's campaign and help her reach voters across America..."

8) Gen. Clark's most likely Republican opponent (Tim Griffin) plans to run on his military service of being a Major in the U.S. Army Reserve if he is the Republican nominee for the AR-2 Congressional seat:

http://tolbertreport.com/2010/01/21/video-tim-griffin-interview-part-1/

Video: Tim Griffin Interview Part 1

“I believe we need more veterans, more people with military experience serving in Congress,” insisted Griffin. “The last statistic I saw said that only 24% of people serving in Congress have military experience. I think that has got to change.”

That will obviously not work on Gen. Clark like how it could possibly work on another Democratic candidate and it will be very hard for Tim Griffin (or whoever the Republican nominee is) to try and define Gen. Clark as being "soft on terror" when he was very hard on the terrorist who tried to set off a bomb in the Detroit airliner plot and when he believes in "the use of force as a last resort:"

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18252

VIDEO: Gen. Clark on The O'Reilly Factor on Tuesday, Dec. 29

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on December 30, 2009 - 3:20am.

http://www.texasforclark.com/foreign.htm

Issue Briefs - foreign affairs

Excerpt from Remarks,
DNC Fall Meeting,
October 3, 2003.

"We believe in international institutions. President Harry Truman built the United Nations, even though after World War II, we were the only power still standing, we knew we needed friends and allies in the world to help us bear the burdens of leadership, and right the wrongs. And we believe in a strong military. We've got the best-trained, best-prepared, strongest armed forces in the world. And that's the way they'll stay. But we know one thing also. Use force only, only, only, as a last resort.

On these three principles, inclusiveness, multilateral institutions, and the use of force as a last resort, we can build a strong foreign policy. We can strengthen our ties with Europe and with nations around the world. And we can preserve peace."

In conclusion, I think that Gen. Clark would be a great candidate who would have excellent chances of winning if he decides to run for Congress in AR-2. He in my opinion is by far the strongest, the toughest, and the most knowledgeable candidate I can think of who clearly has the least amount of weaknesses!

Mitch Dworkin

http://mitchdworkin.com/
Check out my political website!

http://www.securingamerica.com/

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16039
RESOURCES: Speeches, Articles, and Career Highlights to help define Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 7, 2008 - 2:51pm.

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!