Wesley Clark's centrism is exaggerated

[bluestateguy]

He is basically a liberal, which is why I am losing patience with those who are suggesting that he is a DLCer, or even a DINO. The only reason he is being labeled as a centrist is because he is from the South and because he is a career military man. We are all so used to the notion that career military officers are just an extension of the Republican Party and conservatism.

We are now learning more about Clark's positions on the issues: he opposed the Bush taxcuts, he's pro-choice on abortion, pro-affirmative action, critical of Bush Administration environmental policies, supports gay rights and opposed the war in Iraq. He is an internationalist and opposes the Bush Doctrine of never ending preemptive war. His statements also impled that he favors liberal solutions on health care and education. Yes, he is pro-gun, but so is Howard Dean, and that has not scared away most of the liberals who support him.

Wesley Clark is a liberal, which is why I would be happy to support him if he were to run.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

1. I have no problem with Clark

But he should shit or get off the pot.

First, he needs to declare whether he is a Democrat or Republican.

Second, he needs to declare whether or not he is running for president.

[dfong63]

48. i have a problem with Clark

... or any candidate who tries to have his cake and eat it too, by not declaring. Clark is way too coy about his intentions and his allegiances. i say if he wants to be president, if he wants the democratic nomination, if he wants to have the backing of the thousands of people who comprise the institution of the democratic party, if he wants us to stake everything on him - then he should have declared long ago that he was running as a democrat.

i also have a problem with a candidate who has no political track record, but immediately wants to run for president. if he wants to be president, he should first prove himself in the political arena by running for some other lower-stakes office. maybe congress, senate, governor. imho Clark is no more qualified to be president than Al Sharpton.

[tameszu]

49. This thread is about Clark's liberal-ness (or alleged lack thereof)

and not about whether he is experienced enough or has paid his dues to the Democratic Party.

But I will answer this anyway.

First, having and getting the backing of 1000s of people who comprise the institution of the Democratic Party--and I daresay that the numbers for Clark are getting close--has no necessary relationship to when you declare either for the presidency or as a Democrat. If grassroots Democrats want you, and you represent Democratic principles, and you run under the Democratic banner, then you are a Democrat. And those things don't all have to happen at once--as long as they all eventually do, then no one should have any complaint.

Furthermore, Clark has only had the opportunity to involve himself in partisan political life for 3 years--his wealth of experience comes from being a necessarily non-partisan civil servant. So, in terms of relative time, his delay of a few months isn't terribly significant.

Also, I'm sure many people have pointed out that holding off on declaring maximizes Clark's chance to draw swing voter in both the primaries and the general elections, as well as giving the SCLM and right wingers a chance to label him. If you really want to beat Bush, then you really shouldn't begrudge him these advantages, if there's a chance he will become the nominee.

Does his lack of previous political experience mean that he may be a bit behind? Possibly, but Clark sympathizers are confident that he will be able to learn quickly. And if he doesn't most of us will be willing to admit we're wrong (and those who won't, won't be able to do much about it but whine ineffectively if no one votes for him anyway).

I should also note that it wasn't really Clark's idea to run for president in the first place. The Draft Clark movement preceded any significant rumblings that he wanted to run for president. This is about as pure as a sincere draft movement gets.

Finally, in my humbler opinion, no one is qualified to be president. The presidency is (a) an elected office, whose occupant is chosen by the will of the people; and (b) an awesome job for which no experience (except having been president before) could make one qualified.

[Kahuna]

63. You don't get it. If Clark runs it won't be because..

he wants to be president for his egos sake. Clark has spent all of his adult life in the service of his country. He's been retired for three years and has been enjoying civilian life. He finally has the opportunity to make good money.

He, like the other candidates are concerned with the direction that bushco has taken this country. He knows that he isn't a "politician." He knows that not being a politician can be a serious handicap to seeking the office. If he runs it's only because he believes that he can lend the national security bona fides needed to oust the bushistas.

While he may have come to this conclusion late, long after this excelerated election season began... He is using the media to help him catch up. The minute he declares as a democrat the free media ride is over.

[Maple]

2. Dumb question

What's a DINO?

[bicentennial_baby]

9. DINO

Democrat In Name Only

[carpetbagger]

11. DINO=Democrat in Name Only.

Clark looks to be solidly within the ideological tent of the party.

[terryg11]

3. A DLCer?

I would imagine they are a little scared he might run since he may be too liberal for him if wht is being said and printed about him are true

[JI7]

4. more liberal than al sharpton

i don't know this for sure, and it's kind of hard to believe, but i have heard that he is even more liberal than al sharpton.

[Terwilliger]

8. hahahahahah

does that mean he's the "wrong kind of left"? :D

[JI7]

5. wes clark is pro gun ?

i'm not sure about this. i heard he supports gun control.

[tameszu]

17. Clark thinks gun control laws should more or less be left to the states

So he doesn't oppose gun control, just its control at the federal level, except when things start getting pretty nutty (i.e. assault weapons), which I think is similar to Dean's position.

I do have to say that I found his quote on this very clever--even more so, because I think he came up with it on the spot:

BEGALA: "Do you support additional laws on gun control?"
CLARK: "I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army--we have them."

[The Lone Liberal]

6. If He comes IN we WIN

Clark can beat Bush and maybe, just maybe break the backs of the right wing Congress.

[Terwilliger]

7. He was not opposed to the war

He was opposed to Bush's handling of the war...BIG difference

[tameszu]

18. This war is Bush's war

A sensible view of just war recognizes that there IS a BIG moral difference between war as a last resort to preserve world security and to safeguard minimum shared human rights principle, and war as a core part of an arrogant, unilateralist, and concealed plan to reshape the Middle East.

Bush's war is without a doubt the second. The liberal democratic nations might NOT have been opposed to the first sort of war. Kosovo was a pretty decent example of the first kind, which is why the U.S. had no problem rallying most the world's liberal democracies (I am citizen of one, and the difference in attitude is incredible), not to mention millions of muslims, to its side.

We have no idea if the second kind of war would have been needed in Iraq, because the Bush Admin never had the desire to pursue matters justly and cooperatively. Clark recognizes that there is a significant moral difference, and I think most people who aren't absolute moral pacifists do as well.

[Terwilliger]

20. funny, I just said that

but you were certainly PR flak...er, articulate about it

[tameszu]

26. Really, you did?

I could have sworn what you were trying to say is that Clark was only opposed to the way Bush prosecuted the war for instrumental reasons, which would suggest that Clark agreed with Bush on whether the conditions for a just war were met; whereas I was trying to argue that Clark did not support Bush's war because he thought that it failed to live up to conditions of international and moral justice, and was therefore morally wrong.

This is not a difference of spin; it's a difference of values. Although I am open to hearing you explain how the two positions I have described above are morally identical, which I submit will be hard to do unless you are an absolute pacifist (a position which I think is very hard to defend morally).

I could have made good money being a PR flak or a lawyer, but I was obviously too foolish and opted to do this political philosophy thing for some reason instead...

[RichM]

25. Lotsa baloney here: "We have no idea if the second kind of war would

have been needed in Iraq...."

Yes we do. We all know perfectly well, & have known for months, that no war whatever was needed in Iraq. I also fail to see the point to your verbal prettyisms about a "war as a last resort to preserve world security and to safeguard minimum shared human rights principle" blah blah, which seems to suggest some convoluted way of viewing the Iraq atrocity in a positive light. You sound like you're from the State Department.

Kosovo, incidentally, also was an unnecessary war based completely on lies (as in, "saving the Kosovo Albanians from genocide, MY FOOT!"). It didn't have jack-all to do with world security, or protecting anybody. It was plunder, & geo-strategic advantage, as usual. The main difference when compared with Iraq was merely that Clinton was willing to share the spoils with the European allies, while Bush isn't willing to share any of Iraq.

[tameszu]

27. Bosnia

In case, you need an explanation: 250,000 dead because everyone who had the resources--Europe, because it couldn't get its act together, the Clinton Administration, because he was cowed by the Pentagon and Whitewater-happy Republicans who don't view human rights as "in the U.S.' interests,"--stood by and did nothing. Hundreds of thousands of others rendered refugees.

"Kosovo, incidentally, also was an unnecessary war based completely on lies (as in, "saving the Kosovo Albanians from genocide, MY FOOT!")."

See above for my definition of necessity. Also, go convince the large Muslim communities where I lived (not in the U.S.) who supported the Kosovo intervention wholeheartedly.

So would you like to point me to the plundering that's going on? When NATO DIDN'T occupy Serbia and waited until they agitated to get rid of Milosevic and hold elections?

"I also fail to see the point to your verbal prettyisms about a "war as a last resort to preserve world security and to safeguard minimum shared human rights principle" blah blah, which seems to suggest some convoluted way of viewing the Iraq atrocity in a positive light."

I am pretty much lost as to the point you're even trying to make here. Neither I nor Clark think the war in Iraq (i.e. Bush's war) was justified or necessary.

As for my "verbal prettyisms": those are my conditions for one form of just military intervention. Care to suggest a better one? Bush does: "Whenever America feels like it." That's what we and the most of the rest of the world oppose.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

44. Another Incredibly Ignorant Statement

Kosovo, incidentally, also was an unnecessary war based completely on lies (as in, "saving the Kosovo Albanians from genocide, MY FOOT!").

I know quite a few Kosovars who would probably love to spit in your face right now.

We don't even need to marginalize you, RichM; you do a much better job of it yourself.

DTH

[Trajan]

59. Hear Hear .....

Citizens of a free, liberal democracy recognize that war MAY have to be waged in a brutal world known for producing megalomaniacical dictators who violate international norms by overrunning soveriegn borders using massive military machines, subjugating a sovereign nation's people, installing a puppet regime that would do its exclusive bidding: ALL in violation of international law, and outside of the purview of international consensus and UN auspices ...

Hitler did such a thing in 1939 ...

Saddam did such a thing in Kuwait in 1991 ...

Bush did such a thing in 2003 ....

Only a fool would deny that waging war is an unfortunate reality in this still savage world .... absolute pacifism cannot succeed in this world if only few adhere to it: .... but the moral basis of waging such a war MUST be honestly derived and clearly established ...

Bush COULD have stayed within the UN regime, and followed a course which would have lead to GREATER pressure for compliance from Iraq, through a tighter regime established through internaional consent, and declared by ALL nations through a singular UN voice ...

He could have maintained the inspection regime, and by gathering international support, and promulgated a TRUE coalition that would have acted in concert and with international acclamation to remove Saddam Hussein from power .....

There is NO DOUBT that Saddam was such a megalomaniacical dictator: ... but Bush, in his haste to ridicule the UN and its constituent members so he could pursue a unilateralist, ANTIinternationalist road, invaded a sovereign nation with overwhelming military power and without the imprimatur of international justification .... much like Saddam himself did in 1991 ....

As a liberal, I abhor war: ... But I recognize war must SOMETIMES be waged against 'evil ones' .... only fools will not defend themselves when they are TRULY threatened ..... But such a war MUST be morally justifiable up front ... and such justification must be laid out carefully and honestly ....

Bush's attack this year fails these tests .... he dishonestly promoted war by using false and misleading 'evidence', and prosecuted that war without the consent of the international community ....

Bush and his PNAC administration were wrong to wage this war in this way, no matter HOW bad Saddam is .... they could have done it right, and garnered widespread support here and abroad .....

Yeah: .... Its GOOD that Saddam had been thrown down, ... but the road taken to get to this righteous nirvana is dubious indeed ....

[AntiLempa]

72. Ridiculous!

Citizens of a free, liberal democracy recognize that war MAY have to be waged in a brutal world known for producing megalomaniacical dictators who violate international norms by overrunning soveriegn borders using massive military machines, subjugating a sovereign nation's people, installing a puppet regime that would do its exclusive bidding: ALL in violation of international law, and outside of the purview of international consensus and UN auspices ...

Hitler did such a thing in 1939 ...

Saddam did such a thing in Kuwait in 1991 ...

Bush did such a thing in 2003 ....<<<

If you are going to indict Bush for the Iraqi invasion then you might as well indict Clinton and HW for their handling of Iraq. Clinton opposed the UN inspectors an eventually threw them out.

I can't stand W one bit, but your slectiveness is very telling.

[Trajan]

76. What do you mean by 'handling' ? ...

<If you are going to indict Bush for the Iraqi invasion then you might as well indict Clinton and HW for their handling of Iraq. Clinton opposed the UN inspectors an eventually threw them out.>

What did Clinton do ? .... he fired at military targets in response to provocative moves by Iraq's military, which included turing on their Anti-Aircraft radars and targetting 'coalition' aircraft ...

HW: ..... he utilized a TRUE coalition built through international consent and under UN auspices: .. which is EXACTLY what I was referring to as legimitate ...

When Iraq overran Kuwaiti borders, and threw down their government, they violated international law .... it was BECAUSE of this that the UN coalesced around the consensus: .. that Iraq must be forcibly ejected from Kuwait .... it was UNDER UN agreement that the US and the TRUE coalition, which included arab states, .. would constitute the force which would actually execute the repatriation of the kuwaiti government and the forced ejection of the Iraqi military to within its own borders ....

THIS is how its SUPPOSED to work ....

My statement is entirely consistent ....

[Kahuna]

64. He's said and I quote, "It was an "elective" war. He has said that the

war has diverted resources from fighting Al Qaeda the real culprits.

Why don't you do some homework before you try to determine what Clark's real positions are.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

77. He WAS opposed to the war

Wesley Clark:

"They picked war over law. They picked a unilateralist approach over a multilateral approach. They picked conventional forces over special-operations forces. And they picked Saddam Hussein as a target over Osama bin Laden."

[ErasureAcer]

10. He shouldn't have given play by play commentary during the war...

seriously...he seemed like a nice guy...but really if he wasn't for the war...he shouldn't have been on the nightly coverage on CNN.

Furthermore, he doesn't sound liberal enough for me.

Go ahead and run him, but I won't vote for him.

[terryg11]

13. not liberal enough?

what are you going to do if someone such as Lieberman or Kerry gets the nod, he's about as liberal as they are

[bluestateguy]

15. George W. Bush Thanks You!

That's just what he needs.

[Terwilliger]

16. yeah, that's crap

I've heard that before too. And I'm sure the Kerry people are thanking you for electing George Bush, and the Dean people are thanking you for electing George Bush, and...oh my-- he's a what? A liberal? The Lieberman people are thanking you for electing George W.--

Do you see the problem with your reasoning?

Oh no, I forgot...please, tell me why you KNOW Clark's gonna win, again.

[ErasureAcer]

19. I don't see much of a difference between Dean and Bush...

They both support a 400 billion dollar pentagon budget.

That is 40 times times more than the rogue nations combined(Iran, Syria, etc...)

That is more than the entire world combined...only with all our allies coming a combined close 2nd with around 200 million.

I don't like fighting ficticious wars or keeping them going on(Iraq, Afghanistan) and supporting nation building by having our troops train soldiers of other countries in the philipines, colombia or even here on our own soil with the school of Americas.

Truly now, Dean isn't the only one...Kerry, Gerphardt, etc...

They all aren't gonna change a damn thing. We'll still have the death penalty. We'll still have shitty schools. We'll still have a stupid healthcare system. We'll still have no rights. We'll still have corporate influence. God won't be off my money...and my first amendment right not to have that shoved in my face every fucking day will go unheard. Gays won't be allowed to marry. America will still try and dictate the world. And the list goes on, on how Bush and the current leading dems offer no real alternative.

Dennis Kucinich is the only one offering America a choice in 2004. And if he doesn't get nominated, I will refuse to vote for a Bush wannabe.

I'll vote for the Green Party. McKinney, Nader, Moore, LaDuke...I don't care who they run...they will actually stand for something other than this bullshit.

Hate me all you want. Throw a pie in my face if you have to...but seriously, I want a change and I won't settle for anything less.

[bluestateguy]

21. Suit yourself

"I'll vote for the Green Party. McKinney, Nader, Moore, LaDuke...I don't care who they run...they will actually stand for something other than this bullshit."

You and about 5%, at best, of the electorate. However, we'll all keep the door open for you if you are actually interested in electing a president.

[tameszu]

24. About 2.5%, and that was before Bush showed that "there's a difference"

"we'll all keep the door open for you if you are actually interested in electing a president."

Or effectively participating in the imperfect liberal democratic institutions that is the reality that will exist in 15 months.

[ErasureAcer]

28. I think I win either way...

A. A green or someone with actual values(Kucinich) is elected president.

B. Bush is elected. The nation will have a civil war. Thus bringing the empire down. And if my side wins...we get to leave the south behind and start our own government. Furthermore, the world wins because the dems nor the repugs are invading anyone with their 400 billion dollar pentagon budget.

The roads may be different but in the end...justice will be served on this land. Schools will be funded because we're not spending 400 billion dollars on ficticious wars. Gays will have equal rights, including marriage and god will be off my fucking money as the first amendment promises us.

You can't defeat justice. You can hamper it down...with 400 billion dollar budgets for war and death. But in the end, Peace will win. The true liberals will win...and we'll have a big parade celebrating our victory over the supporters of death over the world for no fucking reason over education and peace.

Yes, my side will win. You can not stop this cause.

[tameszu]

31. Uh, I'll lay 10:1 odds against your theory coming to pass

"in the end, Peace will win. The true liberals will win...and we'll have a big parade celebrating our victory over the supporters of death over the world for no fucking reason over education and peace."

Right--peace is what comes after the civil war, which is perfectly logical. But I wonder whether you won't need at least a few "supporters of death" to help you win it?

I should also note that schools are hard to fund when they're smoking rubble.

[ErasureAcer]

34. I'm all for civil war...

international war...whether training other people's troops...or sending our troops into another country is wrong(without UN support).

If only I had some numbers with me. Bush helps me out by pissing off more people...where war is the only way to get this country back to its founding principles.

I do win either way. I may die in the process...but hey...life goes on without me...someone with my beliefs will win....and that is all that matters. America won't outspend the world in military spending...america won't be an empire anymore.

If I can get that to happen...I win. I'd like to do it peacefully...

[Terwilliger]

36. I say civil war

enough of this compromising to fools

[DoveTurnedHawk]

39. What Color Is the Sky in Your World? (eom)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. ROTFLFMFAO- I can't spell it out

I have to say it.


Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Fucking Ass Off.


A Civil War that leaves the South behind.


I thought we tried that in 1861.


Been there. Done that.

[Terwilliger]

30. "the imperfect liberal democratic institutions"

you mean, they're not in place now? What institutions will these Democrats create?

[tameszu]

40. They are indeed in place now...

...you know: the 2004 elections? Sound familiar? Buhler? Anyone?

[tameszu]

22. If he hadn't done the nightly coverage on CNN,

then America would have been denied their ONLY significant non-partisan voice who criticized Bush's war and its rationale on a major cable news network day in and day out!

CNN allowed Clark to lend his military background to help fuel the memes that the war was strategically foolish, that Bush & Co didn't have enough people on the ground to secure the peace, and didn't have a coherent plan for rebuilding or coalition-building. I would think that any progressive worth the name would jump at chance if offered opportunity to honestly give his or her views as to the Bush Admin's arrogance and stupidity.

I don't know if he's too liberal for you, but I think he is a significantly better than Lieberman, and infinitely better than Bush. I don't know what state you live in, but I assume that you can do the ethical calculus on your own as to the consequences of abstention (at least during the general elections).

[imhotep]

12. How do you know

Because he says so?
Trust someone with no record and no experience and you will get burned.

[tameszu]

23. How does anyone ever know about anyone?

For finding absolutely certainty is like finding the thought that precedes all other thoughts.

That is truly a question worthy of a Zen master.

However, it is untrue that Clark has no record and no experience. He has a particular record as a leader in the armed forces, and he has a public record in the form of his writings and statements. He has a wealth of experiences that are different from those of other candidates. How much executive experience do any of the congresspeople have? How much foreign affairs experience do any of the governors have? These may be legitimate questions to ask, but none implies a determinate to whether a candidate will make a good leader or president.

[poskonig]

14. Clark seems liberal enough for me.

The question is, is Clark liberal enough for himself.

[Voltaire99]

29. The Clark equation: social moderation + militarism

You may lose all the patience you want, but that doesn't move the yardsticks any closer to the left.

I'll grant you this much, however. A review of Clark's positions at www.draftwesleyclark.com suggests to me that he is at least as moderate as Dean. Actually, they're not all detailed positions, but mostly general remarks that the site has pulled from media appearances, and often relying on a heavy dosage of the "Well, in the military, I saw it this way..." kind of thing. No veteran political watcher should deduce much from out-of-context quotes (or the site's slippery way of decontextualizing to say that Clark "appears" to support this or that position).

But anyway, best of luck finding progressives willing to support a general! That would be a tall order even in a good era, but this is a bad era, rife with militarism, and for the future of democracy we need to expunge that from our governance. That's why I think you miss the deeper point when you write:

We are all so used to the notion that career military officers are just an extension of the Republican Party and conservatism.

Sure, but that's only half of it. The problem with career military officers--let alone four-star generals--isn't solely their party affiliation or position on social issues. It's also the values they have represented with the most central choice of a career: imperialism; corporatism; waste; slaughter. In short, this is simply not a good preparation for challenging the degrading assumptions in foreign policy and trade that have made the US so insecure that it now must maintain imperial outposts across the globe.

As an example, here is Clark in Newsweek, answering what role the UN should have had in the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq:

I’ve always felt the United Nations should have been involved. You need the U.N. for legitimacy, to get nations to cough up forces.

Contrary to your characterization, that is hardly opposition to the war in Iraq. It's actually a fairly typical conservative (as opposed to neo-conservative) view of the UN's role: as lapdog, to be properly cowed and bullied into "legimitizing" US militarism, and hence also as a conveyor belt that can "cough up forces." (http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/934709.asp?cp1=1) In fact, Clark was just a cautious critic of unilateralism and the war plan on the ground--not of the corruption and indecency which fomented this atrocious war. With his endless appearances doing color commentary for the invasion on TV, he was, in fact, an abetter of the Bush regime, a shill.

You might find him just dandy, and presumably you do, for the whiff of a general seems to be pleasant to your nose. I urge you instead to stop and smell the roses. ;-)

[ignatiusr]

33. OK

You need to have this made clear: Clark did NOT support the war in Iraq. He was a military commentator, and he did comment on military matters during the war, since we were already in the midst of it and Americans were already in danger, whether we liked it or not, but he did NOT support it. I have personally heard him repeatedly say in interviews that he never saw the immediacy of the Iraq threat, and that he thought that the problem could have been solved through UN pressure. On his first Crossfire appearance, he told Tucker Carlson that he thought that the biggest problem for Republicans in the coming months was going to be trying to justify their reasons for going to war.

[Kahuna]

67. Da da! The Clark detractors have a hard time telling the difference

from commentary about what IS already going on and personal opinion. I recall him saying exactly what you posted.

[Terwilliger]

35. You are NOT a liberal if you agree with Clark

a fairly typical conservative (as opposed to neo-conservative) view of the UN's role: as lapdog, to be properly cowed and bullied into "legimitizing" US militarism, and hence also as a conveyor belt that can "cough up forces."

In fact, I just dont know what kind of country this is anymore. I guess it was all just bullshit when I was growing up.

[tameszu]

43. Dude, I'm pretty confident I know what a "liberal" is,

and I'm pretty sure that they'd would prefer imperfect liberal democracy to a civil war.

Liberals, so far as I know, support civil rights, rule of law, democratic participation, process, social welfare rights, a humane foreign policy.

[Terwilliger]

46. a humane foreign policy?

like declaring war on a nation whose brutal dictator is OUR brutal dictator? Whose chemical weapons are OUR chemical weapons? Whose people are promised a Democracy that we never intended to give them?

And these weren't Republicans enacting these policies. They were Repubs AND Dems spread out over 50 years of the worst policies to have ever come down the pike.

Civil rights? Can I freely smoke a joint? Can gay people get married? Do people have equal access to health care and education?!?! NO...and its not some Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy either...its the actions of Democrats. (unless, of course, thats part of the VRWC)

[tameszu]

47. Did I say all Democrats are liberals?

No, I didn't. And they're not.

And did Clark support the war? Uh, no.

And this should be a point in Clark's favour: you should be happy, then, that he hasn't said that he's a Democrat yet.

I am also unclear as to how that list of stuff you mentioned applies to our discussion, although I support it. In fact, I am from a country that didn't always have that list of good things, but is in the midst of implementing most of it, and it didn't need a civil war, and I am very happy about that.

I also noted that the United States was an imperfect liberal democracy. And imperfect it will likely be for some time. But I should add that civil rights, the institution of marriage (gay or straight), equal access to health care and education (unless everyone having 0 access is the kind of equal you want) can be achieved in a state of civil war.

P.S.: If it is true--and I agree that it is at least qualifiedly true--that there was a dangerous nation out there with a dictator WE had installed and with weapons WE had given him, then wouldn't a human foreign policy consist of admitting the bad things we did in the past and then taking positive action to get rid of that dictator and to take his weapons away? The problem, of course, is that few people have the guts or honour to do the first part and admit the bad things they had done...

[tameszu]

38. Don't confuse a person with a military career with a militarist

As Vietnam demonstrated, there were plenty of military backgrounds who were or became anti-militarists.

And as the chickenhawks of the current war demonstrate, there's a lot of militarists who have never had any desire to personally pursue a military career.

"It's actually a fairly typical conservative (as opposed to neo-conservative) view of the UN's role: as lapdog, to be properly cowed and bullied into "legimitizing" US militarism, and hence also as a conveyor belt that can "cough up forces.""

Actually, assuming you mean American conservatives, the typical conservative has rarely thought they needed the UN for legitimacy. Why else do you think Republican Congresses kept the U.S. in arrears for so many years?

"The problem with career military officers--let alone four-star generals--isn't solely their party affiliation or position on social issues. It's also the values they have represented with the most central choice of a career: imperialism; corporatism; waste; slaughter. In short, this is simply not a good preparation for challenging the degrading assumptions in foreign policy and trade that have made the US so insecure that it now must maintain imperial outposts across the globe."

I'll remind you that Ghandi was trained as a lawyer in Britain. Not that I'm suggesting that Clark is Gandhi by any stretch--but following your logic, this kind of collaborationist, imperialist, defeatist background is simply not a good preparation to lead a liberation movement.

Also, I should note that your language about "challenging assumptions" suggests that you aren't speaking in terms of someone who is ready to govern. Because the person who wins need not "challenge" them; he or she can try to implement his or her vision--which is what Clark supporters are discussing, instead of speculating on whether their career choice has bestowed a suitable subconscious makeup on them. Those are oppositionist terms--there's nothing wrong with that, but I would think that when discussing a primary candidate, one would at least speak with the working assumption that that person will win.

P.S.: Here's my Clark counterquote from his http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html">article criticizing U.S. unilateralism, on both instrumental and moral grounds:

"In the twilight of World War II we recognized the need for allies. We understood the need to prevent conflict, not just fight it, and we affirmed the idea that we must banish from the world what President Harry Truman, addressing the founding of the United Nations, called "the fundamental philosophy of our enemies, namely, that 'might makes right.'" Truman went on to say that we must "prove by our acts that right makes might.""

[DoveTurnedHawk]

45. Tons of Progressives Here Support General Clark

But anyway, best of luck finding progressives willing to support a general!

Tons.

Not too many pacifists will, I certainly grant you that, mostly due to kneejerk, ill-informed reactions.

But that's OK. Pacifists (particularly unreasonable ones who would prefer to stick their heads in the sand rather than acknowledge the simple truth that Clark's "just war" philosophy is much more pacifistic than the majority of the current Dem field) are a relatively small percentage of the voting electorate. I'll take the sensible progressives who are open to the idea of a Clark candidacy over a bunch of clueless pacifists any day.

DTH

[AntiLempa]

73. Paging Mr. Orwell

Pacifists (particularly unreasonable ones who would prefer to stick their heads in the sand rather than acknowledge the simple truth that Clark's "just war" philosophy is much more pacifistic than the majority of the current Dem field) are a relatively small percentage of the voting electorate.<<<

War is pacifism. . .what?

From Dictionary.com "pacifism n 1: the doctrine that all violence in unjustifiable"

[DoveTurnedHawk]

74. More Pacifistic on a Relative Scale

You have people like GW Bush and his coterie of warmongers, who are probably around a 7 or 8, while Hitler and Stalin were probably 10+. You've got Dem hawks like Lieberman and Edwards who are probably around 5 or 6. Clark and Dean are both around a 3, I would guess, while Gandhi is a 1.

But certainly, none of the above people except Gandhi are true pacifists. I happily grant you that. My point stands, however: Clark's belief in a "just war" doctrine is leaps and bounds better than GW Bush's and even Lieberman's and Edwards' positions.

DTH

[Kahuna]

66. You still don't get it.

<<I’ve always felt the United Nations should have been involved. You need the U.N. for legitimacy, to get nations to cough up forces.>>

This statement is hardly a ringing endorsement of the war. He's only saying that since it was done (because bushco was going to do it come hell or high water) that is the way bush should have gone about it. Period.

[Julien Sorel]

32. For someone who hasn't even declared yet,

and who is 'too late to get into the race,' Clark threads sure seem to draw a lot of interest...

[grasswire]

37. Look.

The middle Americans who would flock to a Clark candidacy would more than compensate for those on the left who can't support him.

That's the reality.

So I don't think too much energy will be spent trying to convince progressives to embrace Clark.

I say it would be a landslide.

[tameszu]

41. Clark should appeal to progressives,

but probably not anarchists.

Or people who missed the boat when the smarter old school Marxists realized that the Marx's most worthy values could be best realized through democratic socialism.

[rman]

56. apparently he doesn't

in spite of all the down-playing of his centrism.

[tameszu]

57. Proof. Pudding.

Deep thought: either it will come or it won't.

We're betting that it will, once when he gets in. If we're wrong, then we look silly and the Dems nominate someone else. But if we weren't around to risk being wrong, and Clark never declared as a result, then you might have missed your best chance to beat Bush with a progressive.

BTW, I'm very progressive--for many years, I lived in a country far more progressive than the U.S. and was on the left even there. Clark appeals to me--and a lot of other people in the draft movement with similar views. Those are my empirics. But we are happy to wait for more, as well to try to present the best case we have to people who are open-minded--and maybe even to a some who are closed-minded but who insist on poking their heads in anyway.

[rman]

70. sounds like taking a gamble,

along the lines of some other posters here; "you never know for sure".

i say in some cases there is more certainty then in other cases.

how can one vote for a candidate because 'he may turn out to be quite liberal'? same kind of argument is heard wrt Arnold.

[Julien Sorel]

42. How many on the left truly can't support him?

I don't think there's a whole lot of people. You've got your Greens, who have been burned once and might burn themselves again before the presidential election, a few pacifists, and a few sickies who are hoping to see the country run into the ground so their party will finally have a chance to taste power. It's a tiny percentage of the populace. The rest, except for the Bush lovers, would be interested in a Clark candidacy.

[Pastiche423]

50. Who are the rest?

No Greens
No pacifists
No left liberals
No "sickies" ??? (Who are the sickies?)

Who but a handful of little boys in awe of toys (weapons) would vote for him if he finally decided his affliation and if he is going to run?

I believe the reason, or one of the biggest reasons threads about Clark get attention, is because it is all such a joke.

[tameszu]

51. BB did not say that "left liberals" would not support Clark

I am betting that most of them will--if they are actually liberals, and not merely leftists--if and when they hear Clark present his platform.

I call myself a left liberal and if you check the people who support him--a very significant number of whom, I should add, include http://www.women4clark.com/">grown-up women--they to a great degree fall significantly to the left of center.

We do like the fact that Clark looks in some ways very much like a centrist, but we think he will govern as a liberal. Think of it as a "reverse Dubya."

Also, I think BB did a pretty good job in identifying the "sickies": they are the people "who are hoping to see the country run into the ground so their party will finally have a chance to taste power." I would tentatively submit that there may be a couple of folks upthread who may sadly fit that description (and some people wonder why Alexander Cockburn's Counterpunch empathizes with the right wing loons of the American militia movement).

[Pastiche423]

53. "if and when"

"we think"

He might run as a Democrat.

He might run for president.

Methinks you know jack shit.

As far as the "grown up women", I've heard those "grown up women" talk about Clark on this board. Hell, I even collected their comments and made a long post about them. lol Can you say the wet panty brigade?

P.S. BB was as clear as mud describing the "sickies".

P.P.S. I have been a left liberal voter for over thirty years and their is no way in hell I would either support Clark of vote for him.

[tameszu]

54. Oh yeah, "lol Can you say the wet panty brigade?"

Now that's what I call a left-liberal attitude! Egalitarians everywhere must be clamoring to elect you as their standard-barrier!

I quoted directly from BB's post. I don't know how either of us could get clearer than that.

I don't honestly know whether he will declare or not. But I do know that if he delares he will run as a Democrat.

I don't know who you support, but could their supporters guarantee me how either Dean or Kerry will govern if they're elected? Fine gentlemen, both, but you can't guarantee anything. All politicians have flipped in the past and they'll continue to do so. And I doubt anyone could guarantee that Gephardt or Kucinich could beat Bush (I have serious doubts). The best you could do is to "think." You might want to try it sometime.

[Julien Sorel]

52. Gee, since he's going to be so unpopular,

you can stop showing up on every Clark thread with the same crybaby insults, can't you? After all, attacking a candidate who will only appeal to a few little boys isn't the sort of thing a rational person would do -- rational people generally use their time wisely.

Sickies, by the way, would be people who are irrational and unbalanced, perhaps neurotic would be a good word. Examples would be someone who hopes the nation plunges into civil war, so the Greens have a chance at becoming a real party. There's someone who posts here who made that very statement. Another sickie would be someone who wastes more time attacking the candidates, and non-candidates, supported by other people than they do boosting their own choice, especially when they've labelled the non-candidate a marginal player. Obsession is hardly the sign of a healthy mind.

[Pastiche423]

55. I agree

Obsession is hardly the sign of a healthy mind.

[Kahuna]

69. I agree. If they don't like Clark and won't vote for him...

There are many newcomers and converts to take their place. Stay home, vote Green or vote for Bush for all I care. I won't waste time trying to convince them otherwise. If they have to lie and distort they're already a lost cause.

[unfrigginreal]

58. Bluestatesguy, doesn't it baffle you, as it does me...

that the leftward part of our base wouldn't support this guy? From policy perspectives, everything that I've learned about him is definitely to the left of myself. My main attraction is that I think he can beat Bush, handily. And the reason that he could beat Bush is the same reason that we talk about with Lieberman losing to Bush, why vote for a lite candidate when you can have the real thing.

It appears as though misguided principles are getting in the way of allowing the left to vote for a man in uniform. It's a real shame that they're not sharp enough to realize that this may be the one candidate that they can put up to draw moderates and centrists as well.

[tomp]

61. what was/is his stance on the invasion of afghanistan? nt

[phillybri]

62. To many on this board....

...Not Howard Dean=DINO DLC'er...

I'm really hoping Clark gets in. He could really shake this thing up....

[Bread and Circus]

65. Why...

are the same handful of people on Clark threads
bashing him? I mean, from what I have
seen on DU, the diversity of Clark
supporters has grown yet these same
crackpots find their way into every
Clark thread to bash him and us.

It's wierd, is there some sort of conspirated
gameplan to do this? We like our guy and we
want to support him, what's wrong with that?

[Cornus]

71. My thoughts exactly...

...while reading this thread. It's been pointed out so often to avoid the negatives and just support the candidate of your choice positively. I still think that Clark would be the best choice to beat *, but I'm willing to vote for any of the other nine candidates if they are chosen to represent *OUR* party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. Being A Militray Man And Being A Liberal Are Not Mutually Exclusive

Admiral Rickover

Admiral Turner

General Clark

Admiral Elmo Zumwalt

[FDRLincoln]

75. clark appeals to me

I must say that Clark appeals to me. I'm undecided for the primaries at this point. When/if he gets in, I will take a close look at his positions to decide if he's the one I want to back. But from reading his public comments about various issues on the DraftClark site, I don't see anything there that would make me NOT want to vote for him. If anything, he is to my left on some issues.

I think Clark is extremely electable. He's the smoothest of all the potential Dem candidates in front of a camera. Much like Dean, he doesn't take bullshit from people. Unlike Dean, Clark is much better on TV, which like it or not is something that we have to consider in backing a candidate due to the shallowness of much of the American electorate. He would absolutely crush Bush in a debate. And it would be very, very hard for the Rove Machine to smear him as weak or unpatriotic, which is another advantage Clark has over Dean. Note that I like Dean, too....but he isn't smooth on TV and his anger at what Bush is doing to this country, while genuine and justified, could be turned against him by Rove.

Clark is angry too from what I can tell, but he's much smoother in expressing it. He looks like a winner to me...combining all of the various strengths of the Dem candidates into one package.

FDRLincoln, waiting for Labor Day and some official position papers from a Clark candidacy.