Wesley Clark (http://wesleyclarkweblog.com/) has agreed (http://www.draftclark.com/) to run! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=694&u=/ap/20030916/ap_on_el_pr/clark&ncid=716) I am switching parties in order to vote in the primary for him.

Clark could be the antidote to the neoconmen, if he refrains (as I expect he will) from running too negative a campaign while sticking to the issues. America desperately needs coherence that will not be confused for weakness, and IMO is our best shot.

What do you think?

Originally posted by hypewaders
What do you think? I'm glad to see him running.

Well, the general feeling is that Clark is the "un-Dean". And by general feeling, I'm just referring to Fineman over at Newsweek/MSNBC.

Er ....

I'm excited. The Dems now offer a complete range of options, from the hopelessly simple (e.g. Al Sharpton), to the bureaucrat (Gephardt), the cute beatle (Kerry), a guy who reminds us of a garden troll (Graham), the woman (Moseley-Braun), last time's loser (Lieberman), the upbeat (Edwards), the fake plastic tree (Kucinich), the closest thing to a real Democrat (Dean), and now the man who can get us out of a stupid military foray with our asses and our dignity intact (Clark).

Seriously, with Dean and Clark, we have a legitimate duel for the Democratic Party. In fact, if we whittled it down to a four-way race--that is, if the six contenders step out and line up behind the remaining four--between Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Kerry, the Democrats might manage to make themselves a presidential force to take seriously come convention time.

I wonder how many more cycles before the real left finally shows up?

Clark impresses me.

But I can't make a decision until I see his positions on Iraq, the economy, free trade, jobs moving overseas and Israel.

If Stephen Colbert or Jon Steward were running, I would vote for either of them before I would vote for Bush again. So whoever runs against Bush gets my vote.

Get cracking, Jagger. Read the links. This is a candidate who actually can communicate.

Originally posted by Jagger

If Stephen Colbert or Jon Steward were running, I would vote for either of them before I would vote for Bush again. So whoever runs against Bush gets my vote.

why did you edit the first names you posted? it made a stonger point about bush!

Clarke is the Dem's Ahnuld.

No wonder both the Dems and Repubs are called Parties. :rolleyes:

Everclear punch.

Please elaborate the similarity between Clark and Schwarzenegger, G, besides the fact that they are both challengers- I don't get it.

I haven't been able to find anything about Clark's stance WRT domestic issues. I'm hoping he's not another closet socialist. The links provided didn't really tell me much. I know he's pro-gun control, which I don't really care for. He's a pragmatic environmentalist, which is something I generally agree with, because it makes him more of a conservationist a la Teddy Roosevelt.

Anyway, I tend to agree with his positions on national security, military issues (except for uncloseted gays) and foreign policy. As for everything else, I'm not well informed yet.

The British think he came close to starting WWIII in Kosovo (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm). Getting past that, I do think he is a moderate enough candidate from what I've heard so far that I would be comfortable with him, but I don't know enough yet about his domestic agenda.

why did you edit the first names you posted? it made a stonger point about bush!

Because I wasn't absolutely certain that I would vote for Osama if he were running against Bush. It would have been a tough decision.

"I haven't been able to find anything about Clark's stance WRT domestic issues. "

You can start here. (http://meetclark.com/faq/)

"The British think he came close to starting WWIII in Kosovo"

Well, he didn't. Russia was reckless and amatuerish, and not NATO in this incident. The concern at the time was that Russia was about to tip the balance by taking Pristina Airport and carrying out a massive airlift of troops there. About 200 Russian troops, without prior coordination, began blocking French and British units around the airport, and the provocative Russian actions came without any prior international explanation at any level. Clark as commander correctly prepared (but did not act rashly) to keep NATO in control. Clinton and Yeltsin then reached an understanding, Clark's command structure worked it out with the Russians to move in KFOR troops to share control of Pristina Airport, including the same squeamish British troops, who then did so in an orderly fashion. Clark reacted throughout with a level head. Nevertheless, he was retired three months early in the wake of the media and political hubbub.

"'Bizarre' Push by Russian Forces Rattles the Allies"- Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/IHT/BK/99/bk061499a.html)

Russian troops block NATO forces at Pristina checkpoint - CNN (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/13/kosovo.01/)

"Russians Ask for Help" - The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,207633,00.html)

Clark reacted throughout with a level head.

Not according to some sources. Ordering a British airborne drop on to an airfield full of Russian troops could be considered provocative in some camps.

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/archives/000206.php

http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9908/msg00007.html

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/thetimes005.htm

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras12.html

Despite that, I don't discount him for the presidency. Looking at his website today and learning more on what he is about politically, he looks interesting.

Originally posted by hypewaders
You can start here. (http://meetclark.com/faq/)Thanks for the link.

He was made a commander of the FRENCH Legion of Honor and received Dutch and British honorory knighthoods.

I think that at least indicates he has some skills in foreign politics and more likely to improve relations with "old" europe ..

"Ordering a British airborne drop on to an airfield full of Russian troops could be considered provocative in some camps."

It would be more accurate to portray as "provocative" the action that prompted the General CLark's response: Russian troops were blocking KFOR from the airport without coordinating with "allies". Note in your own referenced article (http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/thetimes005.htm) that "A secret mission by British SAS troops to beat the Russians to Pristina airport on the night before Nato's liberation of Kosovo ended in disaster when their Hercules transport plane crashed on takeoff in northern Albania". It would seem therefore that WWIII, armageddon, and the collapse of the universe were all averted by this plane crash.

I think W. Clark is a tool used by insider group to weaken Howard Dean. This insider group controls US ploitics. They have a road map to control Islamic countries. They need more war in Mid-east. Bush is their favorite. To make sure their road map can be carried out, they make Lieberman their favourable candidate in Democratic Party. So either Party wins, their foreign policy will remain unchanged. But American people realize the war policy is not for the interest of US. They go for Howard Dean whom opposes the war. As Howard Dean leads over other Candidates, the group worried and use such tactic to divert Dean's support. At last make their favorite win the primary.

Being hand picked by Bill Clinton and considering his record at Kosovo and Somalia, how can you go wrong?
The only question is, will it be a Clark/Clinton or a Clinton/Clark ticket.

:bugeye:

kathaksung, I think you are a tool, but you don't know it because it's a conspiracy.

No, Fudd, we have secretly transplanted Clintons Brain (Hillary) in Clark's head: mwwwwaaaaahaahaaaaahaaaaaaaa

Our slogan will be "It's time for a Clinton to give some head".

I like everything that I've heard about Clark thus far. If the election were held today he'd have my vote. I'm gonna contact his organization this coming week to see if I can help out. Hope to see you there!

PS: Wouldn't it be great to have a Clark/Dean ticket?

Hope springs eternal,
Michael

I'm pushing for Clark/Franken:D


Hey, don't laugh! We elected Dan Quayle!

Originally posted by kathaksung
tinfoily conspiracy theoryI stopped reading at "insider group".

Originally posted by SuperFudd
Being hand picked by Bill Clinton and considering his record at Kosovo and Somalia, how can you go wrong?
The only question is, will it be a Clark/Clinton or a Clinton/Clark ticket.

:bugeye:

Have you considered his role in Waco slaughter?

Quote, "From Waco to Yugoslavia:
The US military was at Waco
General Wesley Clark was involved in the siege and final assault near Waco, Texas that killed, by a combination of toxic gas and fire, at least 82 people including some three dozen women, children and infants. As outlandish as this claim may seem, it's a reasonable conclusion that can be drawn by any fair minded person who takes the time to examine the evidence. Further, there is substantial circumstantial evidence that, Clark, in addition to acting as a tactical consultant, may, in fact, have been the prime architect and commander of the entire operation.

If this is true, why is it important? First, it represents a clear violation of US law. The military is banned from involvement in the enforcement of US civil law except under certain carefully defined circumstances. The incident at Waco did not come even close to legally qualifying. Second, it casts light on some of the more outrageous tactics used in the war against Yugoslavia, in particular the bombing attacks on Yugoslavian news media, essential life support services, and on civilians, the latter which were sometimes, but not always, described as "accidents." Third, President Clinton began the year with the statement that he is considering a Pentagon proposal to create a new US military command, commander-in-chief for the defense of the continental U.S., a first in peace time and an alarming move for reasons described in "Bombing 'suspended' - and now, the future"

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/clark.htm

US military observers were at Waco, but the military did not intervene. It makes a good ghost story for the conspiracy theorist nuts amongst us, but there is nothing wrong with it.

Clark has it. The chiselled looks. The medals. The knight in white armoury. Go for it America. He's better than fat ego-prince.

You left out one thing. Clark has a mind. He thinks. His degrees are in philosophy, politics and economics. He isn't a dullard. He seems to have a sense of the common values of humanity.

Who knows what an election campaign or winning will reveal. But right now, I like what I see in Clark.

i thought clinton fired clark.

seriously, clark is a war-criminal sent to mix up the dems from the way i see it they had enough problems without a military general in the mix.

someone was talking about the clinton campaign machine proping up clark.. could it be that clark was backed to re-select bush by dem snafu to set up an election run by hillary in 2008?

clark a closet socialist!!? omg a socialist general, that's just not possible in the usa..i thought Clark was a freaking republican until last month.. sounds more like a closet fascist to me.

"War Criminal."
"Socialist."
"Fascist."

Please substantiate.

someone else said he might be a socialist.. i just think that is so far off its funny. i'm more inclined to think him the opposite..

warcrimes tribunal found him and many others guilty of war crimes in yugoslavia..

"FINAL JUDGEMENT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY TO INVESTIGATE U.S./NATO WAR CRIMES AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF YUGOSLAVIA

Final Judgement

The Members of the Independent Commission of Inquiry to Investigate U.S./NATO War Crimes Against the People of Yugoslavia, meeting in New York, having considered the Initial Charges and Complaint of the Commission dated July 31, 1999, against President William J. Clinton, Gen. Wesley Clark, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema, Prime Minister Jose Maria Azmar, the Governments of the United States and the other NATO member states, former Secretary General Javier Solana and other NATO leaders, and Others with nineteen separate Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, other international agreements and customary international law;"

http://www.vcp.nu/english/guilty.htm

clark is just one of the named

there's lots of other info out there on yugoslavia and NATO's actions there.. you can use google as well as i.

Good try, very oblique, but nice try. Keep slinging, and let's see how much mud sticks to you as compared to your most unsettling political targets.

I just found something out about Clark that I don't like.

His past statements indicate he is for free trade and globalization. So far, free trade and globalization has resulted in the loss of about 3 million jobs in 3 years and a jobless recovery. His past statements may have just following the conventional wisdom. Perhaps now that he has to put together his own platform, he will revisit the issue.

Clark has an interesting interview with Josh Marshall here. You have to go down the column to 1 OCt.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm

Here is a small section from the interview.


TPM: There are all sorts of critiques about the present administration's domestic policies. What's the central one? What's the central problem, the central flaw in this administration's domestic policy?

CLARK: There's an underlying ideological drive that overrides pragmatism. The American people want government to fix the things they can't fix themselves. The American people are basically individualists. They like each other; they're very charitable and generous; they're bound together in a hundred different ways -- they're not a big-government country. They're not socialists. But they recognize there are things they can't fix, like healthcare, or education--public education.

And this administration comes in with an ideology that blocks its ability to see, articulate, and resolve those problems. It's an ideology that's a sharpened sort of right-wing Republican party ideology. It has no real intellectual base to it. It's just the ideology of a party. By intellectual base, I'm talking first, trickle-down economics. No reputable economist stands up and says, "Trickle down economics really works." Because we know the marginal propensity to consume of people who are making $100,000 a year and less is much higher than the marginal propensity to consume of people who are making $350,000 a year and more.

So therefore when you say you're going to give money to the rich so they'll make jobs for the poor -- that's not a very efficient way of producing jobs in the American economy. We know that, all things being equal, that the lower the tax rate at the margin, the greater the incentive to earn the extra dollar. But we also know -- it's just human nature to figure that out -- that in a society where you've got a lot of people that are struggling to pay the electricity bill and the telephone bill and you've got a few people who don't care what the electricity and telephone bill is, that the few people who don't care about these things ought to pay a higher proportion of their income to help the rest of the country than the people who are struggling with the necessities in life.

I mean this is just sort of basic principles. I think most Americans understand and appreciate it. For some reason, this administration can't. This administration has crafted an ideology that basically is designed to roll back the institutions that have helped this country. They promote the ideology through sloganeering, through labeling, name-calling, talk radio. But when you really get down and scratch it, there's not much there.

For example, take the idea of competition in schools. OK now, what is competition in schools? What does it really mean? Well, competition in business means you have somebody who's in a business that has a profit motive in it. It's measured every quarter. If the business doesn't keep up, the business is going to lose revenue, therefore it has an incentive to restructure, reorganize, re-plan, re-compete and stay in business.

Schools aren't businesses. Schools are institutions of public service. Their job--their product--is not measured in terms of revenues gained. It's measured in terms of young lives whose potential can be realized. And you don't measure that either in terms of popularity of the school, or in terms of the standardized test scores in the school. You measure it child-by-child, in the interaction of the child with the teacher, the parent with the teacher, and the child in a larger environment later on in life.

So when people say that competition is-this is sort of sloganeering, "Hey, you know, schools need this competition." No. I've challenged people: Tell me why it is that competition would improve a school. Most of them can't explain it. It's just like, "Well, competition improves everything so therefore it must improve schools."

If you want to improve schools, you've got to go inside the processes that make a school great. You've got to look at the teachers, their qualifications, their motivation, what it is that gives a teacher satisfaction, what it is a teacher wants to do in a classroom. We've got to empower teachers. Give them an opportunity to lead in the classroom. Teachers are the most important leaders in America. All that is lost in the sloganeering of this party. And the American people know it's lost. So you asked me to give you one thing about this party that's in power -- it's the sort of doctrinaire ideology that doesn't really understand the country that we're living in.

Much more on site.

Blanket rejection of concepts of free trade and globalization seem at times unrealistic and oversimplistic: Would the preferred overgeneralizations be restricted trade and isolationism?

It is particular aspects and practices of evolving international trade and cooperation that need our attention. I think we should go beyond buzzwords and get to the real issues, and I'll be watching Clark these regards as his platform hopefully emerges more clearly.

Blanket rejection of concepts of free trade and globalization seem at times unrealistic and oversimplistic: Would the preferred overgeneralizations be restricted trade and isolationism?

I agree it is a very difficult problem that can't be solved by closing the borders of a first world nation. I think the biggest problem lies with investment capital producing goods in cheap, third world labor markets and selling in high priced, first world consumer markets. Investment capital leaves the country taking the US production base with it. Goods that could easily be produced in the US.

However for the moment, the US has the largest consumer marketplace in the world. Conditions could be set for access to this market. Perhaps if you wish to sell in the market, then you must invest in the country. IMO, international corporations would pay that price for access to the largest marketplace in the world.

We do need to find a solution to the wholesale shipping of US middle class jobs overseas. I see this phenomenum as a greater present threat to the US than even our follies in the Middle East.

And I still haven't seen any suggested solutions by any democratic candidates. Unfortunately, the JM interview with Clark didn't cover the issue.

Another very important and ominous issue I would like to see addressed by Clark is our debt.

Our 2002 GDP was 10.5 trillion dollars. Our current national debt is 6.8 trillion. It looks like we are adding another tillion by the end of next year. I think our trade deficit last year was around 500 billion. Money supply went up 27 percent from 2000-2002. The dollar is dropping.......

I know what Bush is going to do about the economy and debt. He is going to give more tax breaks to the rich, print and spend more money. What are the democrats going to do if they win? I am especially interested in what Clark would recommend.

As President, I will confine Senators in Guantanamo when&if necessary in order to to enact Tort Reform. I will place a national .10c tax on ever private, corporate, or government gallon of hydrocarbon fuel used by anyone under my until-impeachment-or-assassination thumb. I will subsidize 10c per KBTU of clean alternative energy. I will award $X billion to your idea if it clearly will improve our lives. Oh, and we'll stop f$cking with people, so they relax. Hello world! C'mon get happy!

sweet!

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
US military observers were at Waco, but the military did not intervene. It makes a good ghost story for the conspiracy theorist nuts amongst us, but there is nothing wrong with it.

Ghost story? Military personnel and equipment involved in round up of Waco. Tanks were seen in picture with background of waco in fire. Someone else has argued with me on this topic but at least he is honest not to deny the presence of military.

Quote, "
<You show me some actual military documentation that proves me wrong, and I'll gladly own it, but while that entire operation was happening, General Clark was a highly visible man on post. He was making statements and running other operations on the base while his equipment and personnel were on loan to the Federal Authorities, end of story.>

My answer, "May I say same thing "You show me some actual military documentation that proves me wrong?" What I know he was "Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas (August 1992-April 1994)." According to you "his equipment and personnel were on loan to the Feds." So he didn't related to Waco slaughter? It's as absurd as Tony Blair saying that he didn't involve in Iraq war. "The British army in Iraq are only equipments and personnel loaned to US."