BS: Clark for Prez

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Alice
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 06:54 PM

For more Bush similarities, check this out.... spooky.

http://www.fiziwig.com/bushnclark.html
Click here
Separated at birth?

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 04:21 PM

That speech reads a bit like a more articulate and intelligent Bush, which takes some imagining.

But at least you get the impression that he actually knows where these places are, and has some understanding of the complexities involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Alice
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 12:29 AM

From what I have read about Clark so far, I am concerned that he is still a Bush-backer, now in sheep's clothing. Clark is well educated, has a made for TV persona, name recognition, but until recently, he was making public speeches promoting the current Bush administration. To change into a Bush opponent so quickly makes me skeptical about Clark.

Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal about Clark's record and quotes from a speech to the Republican Party Clark made in Little Rock, praising W.Bush and the administration.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004066

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 27 Sep 03 - 01:19 PM

frankham- Thanks, Frank, but I cannot let that statement about Waco stand without a rebuttal. Here is what I said:

"Sorry folks, but when Middle America finds out that Gen Clark is the one who sent 17 tanks into Waco, where over 80 people were killed, he will be toast. "

1) The people in The Branch Dividian compound were Christians, although they may not qualify under your definition. Cult is a loaded term and is usually used by opponants as a term of derision.

2) The people died when the compound caught fire. It happened because the army used flammable CS gas which was ignited by pilot lights in the stoves. Surveillance cameras show clearly that the fire started in the kitchen.

3) The term murder is yours, not mine. I see Waco a tragic accident and a good example of why the U.S. Army is not supposed to be used against civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,Frankham
Date: 26 Sep 03 - 08:05 PM

Dear GUEST,pdq
The 80 people you mentioned at Waco were murdered by the leader of the so-called Davidian cult.

Hi Amos, Having had no prior governmental qualifications means not having held public office but extensive military experience. Describes George Washington perfectly.

That said, a general in the military must have executive experience which may or may not translate into running an efficient government.
I would suggest, though without really knowing too much about it, that it would take political experience to survive the military hierarchy.

The guy currently running the show is on record as a failed businessman in oil.

Hi Charley,

As I understand the war in Kosovo, it was given the green light by the Clinton administration. Not clear as to why this nearly started WWIII. It seems to me that the Bush invasion would fit this description more neatly.


I can't understand why the Waco incident has become such a cause celebre against the US government. Do people really think that if the Davidian cult were left alone that it would govern itself within the guidelines of the law? Do they really think that those buildings and the people in them would be spared if let alone from another kind of brutality? Maybe this is a rhetorical question based on the idea that there is something inimically wrong with government, a Libertarian idea. Something goes wrong, it has to be the government's fault?

It may well be that he spearheaded the invasion of Panama. But where is this idea come from that he advised Israel on using force to subdue Palestinian? I'd like to see more proof of this (not that it isn't possible).

I understand that the term "cowboy" regarding military agression was coined by Adolph Hitler (which is neither here nor there).

You are right though. These questions need answering. Dean also has claimed support for Israel. This may entail subduing Palestinians as well judging from the actions of the Sharon government.

Damn, it's the lesser of two (or more) evils again! Apparently God in His wisdom didn't care to make politicians particularly honorable and made them notably flawed. :)

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Sep 03 - 02:17 PM

My great-grandfather was from Orkney and came over in 1851 with the Hudson's Bay Company. Yeth, indeed.

Really, folks, I've heard all the gags! Even started some of them myself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 07:38 PM

I met Fred once, and fell in love. But he just drifted on...

(Okay, I'll behave and get back on topic.)

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 07:34 PM

Fred Drift!

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 07:30 PM

Firth IS better than lath.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 02:14 PM

Yeth, I know! If it was Scotch, it would be a fifth.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 01:38 PM

"Firth of Forth" is in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 01:18 PM

Thath why you come firth inthtead of fourth!

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 12:45 PM

I have always made it a point to note the differences between pdq and pdc.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 12:46 AM

I'm actually pdc, kat, but you may call me by my first p.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 12:26 AM

pdq, thanks for the link!

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 24 Sep 03 - 06:24 PM

A friend just sent me the following site, which is entertaining (turn up your sound) but also very serious -- make sure you read each fade-in as it comes along. This is terrific stuff!

Voterrevolution

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 10:11 PM

I posted this on the other thread about Clark/Dean:

Clark's response when asked about gun control - as quoted in that Michael Moore piece to which a link was given earlier - was nicely done: "If you are the type of person who likes assault weapons, there is a place for you -- the United States Army. We have them."

It was a beautifully phrased soundbite. And rather neatly, it manages to do it without being dismissive of gun-freaks - in fact it's the opposite, quite flattering and welcoming. But without backing off from a potentially contriversial position.

And the response about America being "founded as a liberal democracy" was similarly adroit, pulling the rug from under the liberal-haters, and implying that they are the ones who are un-patriotic.

He either thinks well on his feet, or he's got a very good scriptwriter and coach.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Reiver 2
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 09:21 PM

I'd have no difficulty with a Dean-Clark ticket. I agree we've got to get the Bushies out. I voted Green in 2000 (and here in AZ it made no difference)... but if I'd been in Florida... I won't do that again.

Reiver 2

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Sep 03 - 12:00 PM

Here's what I wrote last night- just as the Cat crashed:

At this point the only thing I'm sure of is that whoever the Democratic candidate is, I will work for him or her. Green, for me, is completely out in this next election- we need to get this crowd out of Washington.

McGrath: "things are going to get very dirty indeed". My hope is that certain political elements won't feel pushed too far, and take matters into their own hands. This is the first administration I have felt such dread about.

Get 'em out.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Alice
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 10:14 PM

Dean's position is here:
Dean's Record On Women's Issues Click here for PDF

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Charley Noble
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 10:10 PM

Reiver 2

Intersting quote from the Common Dreams Website of Clark getting caught up in the euphoria of "liberating" Bahgdad. I know some of the folks who coordinate that website and they generally have their heads screwed on with a left hand thread. In fact I worked full-time for one of them, Tom Andrews, in a failed U.S. Senate campaign. Nice folks but they sure burned out the campaign staff.

Let's keep this thread going.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Nerd
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 03:45 PM

So far the only place I've seen Dean's positon on abortion rights specifically mentioned is the Boston Globe:

"As governor of Vermont for five terms, Dean angered the left by seeking the counsel of a group of conservative businessmen, and he angered the right with staunch support for abortion rights and conservation."

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/264/nation/Born_to_privilege_searching_for_a_purposeP.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 02:15 PM

raptor: Sad fact, but it is getting more dfficult to tell the truth from the lies no matter what subject or who is talking. The Clintons still run the Democrat party as the presence of Nancy Pelosi and Terry McAuliffe prove. The Clintons must be very worried about Dean, the only candidate who is not begging the Clintons for support. Be careful in assuming that Clark is on the "up and up". He may be a "plant" by the Clintons to divide the "outsider" vote. Hillary/Clark ticket, anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Raptor
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 01:51 PM

I say Dixie Chicks For President!!!!

Hillery? She couldn't even manage her husband let alone the counrty!

Is the waco thing true about Clark?

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Nerd
Date: 22 Sep 03 - 03:05 AM

Reiver 2,

a correction: Dean does not oppose gun control. His position is that the Federal rules as they stand are fine (but that they should be better enforced), and that the states should then have a right to institute whatever gun control they feel they need. His point is that in Vermont there is practically no gun crime, so ordinary Vermonters would feel that strict gun laws weren't useful to them. In New York or Illinois, many people would want stricter gun laws. The NRA has given him a very high rating for these positions, which could actually help him win.

Also, a confirmation. Dean is a centrist and calls himself one. It's the media and the right that has somehow decided to paint him as a liberal. This has much to do with his signing the civil union law, giving unmarried couples, including gay couples, the right to register as couples and obtain the same legal rights as married couples have. This has infuriated the right, even in Vermont.

I still like Dean better than Clark given what I've seen, and a Dean/Clark team could be great. But it's not necessary for them to decide which will be first on the ticket just yet. All they need to do is pledge not to attack one another, and that if one wins the nomination the other will have first crack at the VP spot. Then they can see what happens from there.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Reiver 2
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 10:38 PM

I watched the Little Rock speech, too. I was a little disappointed... not by what he said, but by how he said it. He seemed a bit tentative and stiff. He needs to project a warmer personality if he wants to win. I still haven't made up my mind, but I'd vote for ANYBODY to get rid of the disaster we've got in power now. Kucinich is the candidate I find myself most in agreement with and probably Braun next, but they have no chance for the nomination. I like Kerry and think he can stand up to Bush on the (phony) "patriotism" issue, but somehow Kerry just doesn't project enough... "passion" I guess you'd call it.

A couple of things: Dean is very much a centrist and not a liberal. He's a fiscal conservative, has opposed gun control and is lukewarm at best on a woman's right to choose. People mistake him for a liberal because he opposed the war in Iraq and opposes Bush. Still I have to admire the campaign he's run, use of the internet, and... yes, his passion. I'd vote for him if he gets the nomination but I'm still not ready to commit to him.

As for Clark, I'm keeping an open mind. I saw some things on Working Assets Radio (http://www.workingassetsradio.com) that raised some questions in my mind:

"Former NATO commander Wesley Clark has thrown his hat into the ring. He's the first four-star general to run for president as a Democrat, and he's anti-war. At least that's what the media say: The Boston Globe called him 'A former NATO commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war.' Salon called Clark a 'fervent critic of the war with Iraq.'

But the website Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/)has posted the General's commentary from the London Times this April. It reads in part: 'Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation... the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air... President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.'

And the media-watch group FAIR (http://www.fair.org/) has pointed out that Clark, as a paid pundit for CNN, said that Saddam Hussein 'does have weapons of mass destruction.' 'And you could say that categorically?' Clark was resolute: 'Absolutely.' (1/18/03)

It makes you wonder about the media's definition of anti-war. Maybe he opposes it now, but then? It doesn't sound like it."

Still, I care more what he says now, than what he said then. People sometimes do grow, become enlightened, or whatever, and change. So, again, if he's nominated I'll vote for him... just not yet ready to commit to him for the nomination.

Reiver 2 (Bryce) (Sorry this is so long... but when did you know me to be brief?)
http://news-opinion.blog-city.com (my own personal blog site)

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Alice
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 05:27 PM

I just watched Clark's Little Rock speech about his candidacy, broadcast on CSPAN. Clark has a masters degree in Philosophy and in Economics (pay attention, Mr. Bush). Clark did use some obvious Dean lines, like "we can do better", which has been a Dean campaign slogan from the beginning. I think it is going to be a very interesting primary. I liked Clark's statements about questioning the current policies... he clearly stated it is true patriotism to question what the government is doing in Iraq and with the economy - that made the crowd cheer.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 04:48 PM

very little of the voting population is "up for grabs".

But the voting population is only half of the population that has votes, but for various reasons doesn't see fit to use them. (Or in some cases got stopped using them by the crooks in charge of rigging the vote, which is why you - and all of us for that matter - got landed with Bush.)

There's lots of room for surprises from the people who haven't seen anyone worth voting for in previous elections.

One think I predict - things are going to get very dirty indeed. I am sure Bush doesn't want to see this guy up against him.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: michaelr
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 04:47 PM

Guest, pdq writes: "That means 90% is not open for change unless it involves misconduct."

Well, then we'd better convince the Dems to go after the Bush team for their lies, misrepresentations, and war crimes! Misconduct is a polite word for what those bastards did and are doing.

I was thinking it would be better strategy for the Dems to hammer Bush on taxes, unemployment, the economy, and the environment, and not concentrate on the war where the Resident is sure to play the patriot card. What do you think?

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Alice
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 02:02 PM

Here is an interesting quote from Clark in Newsweek:

WORD WAS THAT Karl Rove, the president's political mastermind, had blocked the idea. Clark was furious. Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. "I would have been a Republican," Clark told them, "if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls." Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race—as a Democrat. Messaging NEWSWEEK by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a "humorous tweak." The two others said it was anything but. "He went into detail about his grievances," Holtzman said. "Clark wasn't joking. We were really shocked."


Is Bush a one term president? Question of the day poll:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/poll.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,Frankham
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 01:08 PM

I think that sometimes the only person to really understand the nature of war might be a dedicated military man. At least they can assess the cost unlike Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. I'm not sure Clark would want to appropriate slush funds for the Pentagon. It sounds as those he's his own man and not given to swallow the Pentagon line.

I think he can beat Bush.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: toadfrog
Date: 20 Sep 03 - 09:36 PM

Sorry Mick. Surely I respect your views. But when I here someone say "trust me," I know I'm in trouble. Bad news, that turn of phrase.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 20 Sep 03 - 05:05 PM

Truth be known, very little of the voting population is "up for grabs". Union member votes in federal elections comprise 25% even though unions are about 13% of the total U.S. work force. Add to this 92% of black voters, 85% of Jewish, and the vast majority of new immigrants and the Democrats have about 42% before the nomination process even begins. It does not matter who is nominated. Clinton got 42 1/2 % of the total vote count when he was first elected in 1992. The great "middle", mostly rural America and Christians, give the Republicans about 48%. That means 90% is not open for change unless it involves misconduct. The 10% remaining is actually +/- 5% if you want to look at it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 10:09 PM

Well toadfrog, I guess we will see. The problem with your thesis is that it presumes the voters in the states you cited are democratically oriented. That hasn't been the case in a number of years. It is true that the Democratic nominee will have to turn out the base, but it is always a battle for the middle. Trust me on this one.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Charley Noble
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 09:13 PM

Interesting, Michael.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: michaelr
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 07:29 PM

Turns out Clark was fired by the Pentagon, ostensibly for being hard to get along with. This is from Richard Cohen's Washington Post column, Sept. 18:

...then-Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, joined by many of Clark's colleagues, came to just plain dislike him... He won the respect, even the awe, of his colleagues, but too much of the time he did not win their friendship. The rap on Clark is that he lacks precisely those qualities that define a politician, particularly warmth and affability... even his most steadfast champion in the army, Gen. John Shalikashvili, recognized that Clark was too brash, too cocky, too driven, too self-absorbed, too hard on subordinates, too dismissive of critics and criticism - but, also, too brilliant and talented to be overlooked... the personal qualities that bothered his critics would be intolerable in a president.

FWIW...

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 07:22 PM

I believe this will be a Dewey versus Truman kind of election with a nasty surprise biting the Republicans. Keep your fingers crossed!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: toadfrog
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 07:04 PM

I don't believe any of those guys has enough experience to run the country. Clinton took 3-4 years to catch on. Bush still hasn't caught on. I want to see a whole bunch more of Clark before I believe in him. And a whole lot more of Dean, although I like him. It's a job that requires a lot more in the way of understanding, political skills, communication skills and force of personality than specialized knowledge.

I disagree with Mick. This election won't be won in the "great middle." Things have changed a lot since 1992. Even a General from Arkansas is not going to carry Arkansas, if he's a Democrat. To win, a Democrat is going to have to bring out the Democrats, en masse, in places like Ohio, Florida, New Jersey. To do that, Clark will have to discover some populist roots. Bottom line: I vote for whoever the Democrats nominate (unless it's Lieberman - then I guess I turn Green).

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Peg
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 04:51 PM

Dave O. (and others): I think the concern over Clark's lack of experience in government might be amended to suggest he has    little experience with ECONOMICS: balancing a budget, seeing   trends, understanding how to keep social programs afloat even in the midst of cuts, etc. One also fears he might want to spend an exhorbitant amount on military funding and we simply don't need any more of that in the near future. Our economy is tanking and the rest of the world hates us. Our next prez has his or    her work cut out.
I think he'd be great to have in the cabinet, though. Maybe as Chief of Staff? That guy Leo Mcgarry on The West Wing seems to run the country.
(sigh)   yes, I would like to have Martin Sheen for president right about now, as a matter of fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: curmudgeon
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 08:50 PM

The reference to playing blues guitar was Howard Dean, not Wesley Clark. But maybe, like Schwartzkopf he plays autoharp?

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 08:38 PM

I think this must be a different Wesley Clark. Shame really - he appears to be musical enough.

Though look what happened when you had a saxophone player for President. And Tony Blair can play guitar. Doesn't really help.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: TIA
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 03:28 PM

Haven't found anything on his musical abilty, but he studied economics at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. Also, currently a licensed investment banker.

His economic credentials seem better than Bush's military credentials.

Now, what instrument does he play.....

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 03:07 PM

Regarding Clark and various invasions, etc.:

In the US, civilians run the military -- says so in the Constitution, and EVERY member of the Armed Forces takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Thus, if Reagan (I have a personal problem with adding the word "President" to his name) said to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Invade Canada" the invasion would be the responsibility of the President, NOT of the JCS.

However, no member of the US Armed Forces is required to carry out any order which they find illegal-- but you'd better be right about it, be willing to take the consequences, or be willing to quit rather than compromise your opinions.

I want to hear more about Clark, though, before making any decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 02:16 PM

Isn't the fact that he hasn't got governmental experience likely to be a positive thing for a lot of your voters?

Is there any evidence that people with lot of governmental experience are any particular use? After all, being governor of a huge state like Texas sounds as if it would be a guarantee of some kind of competence...

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: TIA
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 02:13 PM

In answer to MoH's question...

(excerpt from Christian Science Monitor article, May, 2002)

"Howard Dean tips back his cowboy hat, adjusts his guitar, and lets fly some fancy finger picking. The crowd of state lawmakers hoots in delight, clearly surprised at their 11-year incumbent governor's musical prowess. They roar even louder as he launches into a parody of his recent cross-country travels to the tune of "On the Road Again. "Just a nonpolitical tour of the United States," he croons, his female staff singing back-up vocals. "Everyone's my friend, if they're from a state with lots of delegates, but I'm not a candidate.... Yet!""

Off to check on Clark's musical ability...

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 02:05 PM

As to the statement, repeated above several times in essence, that Clark doesn't have governmental experience, I have two things to point out:

1. He DOES have lots of experience running large organizations. Yes, it's true he doesn't have political (as in beating the bushes for votes) experience, but if you don't think there's a lot of politicking necessary in the rise to and executing general's rank in the Army, you're sadly misinformed, say I.

2. No significant public officer is just an individual. He (she?)is a team, with experts, specialists, allies, and advisers--and with obligations and debts which have to be served, for good or ill. This applies whether the officer is a judge, a governor, a legislator, a general, or POTUS. So one needs to look at the connections a candidate makes, the quality of his support, and try to find out what kind of management style he exemplified in his tenure as a commanding general. Eisenhower, for instance, was a "staff general", building bridges, maintaining consensus both within his staff and in relations with WW II allies. A "top-down" general would be a different kind of potential president altogether.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 01:41 PM

So can these guys play the blues or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 01:26 PM

SOrry, TIA -- I should have written "the rational civilian (who can play the blues) in the first position".

What it is see, is that I secretly believe that the ability to play the blues well is a kind of intelligence test far more accurate than the mechanistic sort espoused by the psychological weenies. (Oh, sorry, Harp!! :>)))

The litmus test is whether or not one can combine the words, emotions, and technical skills required ALL AT ONCE to create a persuasive presentation of affect. It's a purdy good test when you think about it!!

And maybe other kinds of music -- providing they contain genuine emotion--could qualify similarly, such as Zydeco. But not the super-refined stuff with the false veneer. We can leave that to the Bush WHackers.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: TIA
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 01:19 PM

Mind always on music, I read the first part of Amos' sentence...
"the rational civilian who can play the blues in the first position...", and thought he was implying he couldn't go up the neck. Rest of sentence quickly disabused that notion.

Someone asked about Clark's grasp of the economy. I heard somewhere that he taught economics at West Point. Is this true?

Dean/Clark...Clark/Dean...hmmm...

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 12:47 PM

CORRECTION!!!

According to my Peace contacts:

"I mispoke regarding General Wesley Clark's role in the invasion of Panama. He didn't assume command of the Southern Command until 1996. General Maxwell Thurman commanded the invasion of Panama."

At least my friends still make an effort to verify their remarks on the internet.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 11:16 AM

Colin Powell was offered the job of Vice President, Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. He Chose Secretary of State and is clearly a diplomat first and a military general second.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Alice
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 11:02 AM

I'm hoping Select Smart will update their candidate selector soon with Clark's positions on issues.

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Peg
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 10:51 AM

I appreciate Clark's position on Bush's military wrong-doing...but it's a fair point that the man does not have the governing experience necessary to pull this sountry out of the economic mess Bush has us mired in...

BTW if you want an unofficial transcript of the Bill Maher interview, you can find one at www.wesleyclarkweblog.com.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Alice
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 10:25 AM

Colin Powell has stated in the past that he would not run for President - and I think his reason would exclude VP, too. His wife and family really do not want him to do that and he gives them the last word. I wish the Republicans would have had Powell for their presidential candidate in the last election, and we wouldn't be in this mess. He does seem to have gone through a make-over being in the Bush administration... I had much more respect for Powell before the Iraq mess and might have voted for him for President if he ran.

Cheney is a Wyoming oil/energy man. He is part of the resource power elite and that is why he will stay on the ticket.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 09:41 AM

There's no doubt in my mind that Clark on the Democratic ticket will add necessary muscle. And I would dearly love to see the Bush Re-Election Campaign derailed. And I'm sure Republicans are worried a whole lot about a viable Clark candidacy, much more than about Dean or the other Democaratic candidates.

On a personal level, I need to read a whole lot more about his training and experience.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 08:52 AM

And stay focused on those three or four items -- don't go wandering off into side issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 08:44 AM

Mick,

I don't think Powell would accept a promotion from Rumsfeld "House Negro" to Bush's "House Negro"... If the man has any level of intregrity at all he'll just finish his stint and excuse himself from the entire mess....

And, yeah, yer right Clark/Dean works for me.... I think we'll know how much strength Clark has within the next month. The main thing for him to do is aviod mistakes that the press can blow out of porportion.

Either way, I'd rather see a ticket formulated before the convention so that there seems to be unity within the party early and everyone can get on board with a unified message around 2 or 3 big issues. National Security has to be one of them and Clark can hold his own (and some) with regards to that one.

As for the other two. Pick 'em. I personally like rolling back the tax breaks to the rich and sell it as "In these times when the working man is sacrificing to pay for National Security, it's immoral to give the upper 1% a hefty tax cut." My second issue would be health care.... But no matter. No more than three biggies of the voters will get confused.... And hammer early and often...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 01:59 AM

Why wouldn't Clark ask Dean to be his VP? I think that he would not be inclined to take the #2 slot yet, as the early (very early)view seems to be that he has at least as good a chance as Dean. Money, of course, will have much to do with all this. I would bet that he will run very strong. Look for Bush to replace Cheney, perhaps with Powell, if Clark runs as strong as the early numbers seem to indicate.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 10:47 PM

Well, heck, Amos. Howz 'bout invitin' Powell to be a real Secretary of State, rather than Rumsfeld's "Porch Negro"... Now, wouldn't that be somethin'... Now that would certainly right some wrongs... Yeah, I'd like to see what Powell can do, other than pick boss's cotton...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 10:33 PM

Yeeeha!!   

I'd like to see that -- the rational civilian who can play the blues in the first position, and a good military person with some brains in second.

(Dean could also ask Colin Powell to run the second position and they'd be a shoe-in. But I 'spect Colin's feeling a piece burned out from all the fabricating he's been forced into...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 08:33 PM

Well, Amos. I was thinkin' the same thing myself. But took it a step further. If I were Dean I'd just give Clark a call and ask him if he wanted to run a tag team going into the primaries. A tad unorthodox but, hey? Remember Bush having Powell in his camp before the S.C. primary? I think it would be a bold move, shut down a few other Dem campaigns and gine the Dean/Clark ticket a big jump on the campaign to oust the Bushwackers...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Alice
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 08:28 PM

Dean and Clark have talked a lot recently. I was on a conference call with Governor Dean the other day. Many Dean supporters have been asking him to pick Clark as a VP. Dean said it was too early for any candidate to choose a VP, but he encouraged Clark to run as a presidential candidate. On the phone, he said Clark is a good man.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 08:06 PM

Wonder if Dean could talk him into VP?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Alice
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 07:47 PM

I think Clark's entry into the campaign is a good thing. It reaffirms the fact that you don't have to be a Republican to be patriotic, you don't have to support Bush's policies to be militarily strong. I think it was good that he entered the field of candidates. I also think he would be a good Vice President or Secretary of Defense.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 07:25 PM

A far cry from Patton, Bill D. I'm with Bluejay all the way on this. From what I've seen of Clark, he's on his way to getting the Democrat nomination. Either that or it will go to someone who has not yet declared (but not Hillary). If Clark gets the nomination, he'll be president, no question. (And I'm happy to put money on it, pdq!) The 12th general to land the job, I think.

Amos, doesn't Clark have a fairly strong grounding in politics or economics as well as his leadership experience in the military?

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 06:53 PM

ohh..my! THAT Clark!....I think I re-think my thinking...*wry grin*

we want to replace Bush with a reincarnation of George S. Pattton? tsk!

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 05:08 PM

Well, I'm also open to Clark as a candidate but I'm curious how he'll respond to some questions from long-time peace activists with regard to his military record:

1. Clark is the cowboy who nearly started World War III in Kosovo. Only the insubordination of British General Jackson, who refused to send troops to the Pristina airport to prevent Russian troops from landing there, prevented what at the time was feared to be the beginning of a world war.

2. Clark was the commander of Ft. Hood at the time of Waco and supplied logistical support, training, equipment, and some say the battle plan for the massacre.

3. Clark was Commander-in-Chief of the US Southern Command in Panama at the time of the US invasion in 1989. Even pro-invasion former Canal Zone people living there at the time regarded him as a cowboy and to him, at the time, was attributed the provocations that provided the immediate justification for the invasion.

4. Clark parlayed Operation Just Cause (the invasion of Panama) and his role in it into a military strategy touting the benefits of "asymmetric war," and has advised Israel on how to use asymmetric force in subduing Palestinians.

These are not my questions but I'll be very interested in the response from Clark.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 05:04 PM

The guy has military, but no prior governmental qualifications. Why would that make him a more desireable President -- or even a more persuasive President -- than one who had successfully governed a state and managed a very large budget?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 04:26 PM

Trouble with your theory, Wesley S, is that they eventually have to give this "unnamed candidate" a name...downhill from there.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Wesley S
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 04:15 PM

There is an interesting artilce about Wesley Clark in a recent issue of Fortune magazine. They mentioned a poll { sorry I don't have more details } - when they asked voters if they would vote for Bush or an unnamed canidate with Wesley Clarks qualifications 40 per cent said Bush and 48 per cent went with the unnamed canidate..

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 04:13 PM

Sorry folks, but when Middle America finds out that Gen Clark is the one who sent 17 tanks into Waco, where over 80 people were killed, he will be toast. Prediction for 2004: Hillary wins nomination for pres with Sen John McCain as V.P.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 03:50 PM

All I want is one decent person to step out in front. So far, Dean's decency and personal charisma capture my fancy. But as long as someone displaces the rancid, putrid clump of yahoos and bully boys currently infesting the Capitol, I don't mind who does it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 03:30 PM

there are at least 4 or 5 of the Democrats that I think I could expect to do a decent job AS president, but only 2-3 of those who I think have a chance of BECOMING president, due to style, image and 'baggage'...waiting to hear some more substantive speeches. (and hoping against hope that someone will address some of the truly important issues, rather that just the 'hot' topics of the day. Clark sounds decent so far...we shall see.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: michaelr
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 03:15 PM

Clark certainly looked presidential on Bill Maher's show, and when Maher asked him to declare that "liberal" is not a dirty word, he said: "I will say so right now! This country was founded as a liberal democracy."

Of course we'll have to find out where he stands on issues like tax cuts, abortion, death penalty etc.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 03:11 PM

Those aren't debates, they're Q&A sessions. A true debate would be on one point ("Mr. Bush, Mr. Dean, there is considerable unemployment in the country right now. The policies of Mr. Bush do not seem to be making a dent in the problem. Please discuss the benefits and limitations of these policies."

Bush would speak for, say, 10 minutes, stating his position. Dean would do the same. Then Bush again for 10 minutes, and Dean again. Then each would be given 15 minutes to rebute points the other had made. None of this "Mr. Bush, please explain yourself crap.

I do think that GWB stands right small next to Clark, but then again GWB stands small next to the guy who sweeps the streets here.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 02:26 PM

Well, not that I'm ready to jump on Clark's bandwagon here, but he certainly appears to have more of that huff 'n puff downright toughness that Southerners seem to think is important than does Bush. You wrestle the South away from Bush and hold the states yer 'sposed to and should, and Bush is history.

Yeah, I can see the debates now. Clark to Bush: "Now come clean on yer deck landin' 'er I will do it for ya'!" Yeap, if we thought Bush looked small last time, you'll need a magnifying glass to find him this time...

BTW, anyone else of the opinion that Bush lost all 3 debates to Gore. Hey, I voted Green but I did watch these danged things and thats the way I saw it. But the press gave two to Bush with one being a tie? Go figure?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 01:34 PM

Trouble with that hypothesis, Amos, is that it ignores two facts. First, is the general dissatisfaction that the middle is feeling (rightly or wrongly)with the current choices. I really like Dean's take on the issues, but it would be wrong to assume that folks are buying into and not being susceptible to the perception of him being too far left. Second, we do not yet know Clark's ability to capture the popular imagination quickly. I have to tell you that Clark, if he is only a moderately good speaker, with the right message will surge quickly. It really isn't about the relative records, it's about whether he can capture enough money quickly to get his message out. Tell me all you want about the issues, but I understand what politics are about in the good, old USA. It isn't about what's real, it's about what is perceived to be real. This is going to be an interesting few months. Full speed ahead.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 12:16 PM

Bluejay,

Clark will have to do some accelerating to catch up with the lead Dean has established; and Dean's credentials for the position are as good, considering that he did a lot more for Vermont than Bush did for Texas as Govenrors. My 2 cents' worth.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 12:06 PM

Grant, Hayes and Garfield were all Civil War generals, all Republicans, all from the state of Ohio.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: beadie
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 11:47 AM

I didn't say he was a HEROIC (or even that successful) general . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 11:10 AM

But of General Taylor is rather better known in folk circles for the time he tangled with Santy Anno - and was robbed of his victory by the folk process, which insists that he ran away!

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: beadie
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 09:13 AM

Let us not forget Pres. (Gen.) Zachery Taylor.

He was Mr. Lincoln's unit commander during the Blackhawk Indian War of 1838 after having served from the time of the War of 1812.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 08:15 AM

Just a point to those who would condemn Clark because of his military background: Washington, Jackson, Harrison, Lincoln, Grant, T. Roosevelt, and Eisenhower come immediately to mind (apart from Commander-In-Chief, Lincoln was the lowest-ranking officer). Research would, I'm sure, show others.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark for Prez
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 07:39 AM

This is why my advice to various labor leaders and political leaders has been to "keep your powder dry". I don't know if Clark is the one, or not. But I do know that the only thing that matters to the progressives and moderates in this country is that we choose the candidate that can win.

The same rule applies here, though, that applies to Dr. Dean. Let us see how he appeals to the great middle. That is where campaigns are won and lost.

Mick

Subject: BS: Clark for Prez
From: BlueJay
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 03:42 AM

So retired General Wesley Clark will be announcing his candicy later today. I am surprised that I am the first to start a thread on this announcement.
My initial assessment is that Gen. Clark is the only Democratic candidate who will defeat Bush in the 2004 election. Sorry, but none of the other candidates, Dean, Kerry, etc, seem to have the knowledge, experience and charisma as this guy. I predict now that Wesley Clark will be the next president of the USA.

I've seen him on a few news sources, but what convinced me was on the Bill Maher show. When asked about President Bush's triumphant landing in aflight suit on a US aircraft carrier, General Clark rresponded, (and the quote is not exact),

"He looked good in that flight suit, it's a good flight suit. Lots of American fliers have worn that same flight suit. Lots of American fliers have died wearing that same flight suit"

To me, this exposes Bush's hypocracy. I hope the American people will fucking PAY ATTENTION, and vote this loser out of office. Thanks, BlueJay