Clark: What has he done...

[sfecap]

To further the liberal/progressive/Democratic ideals?

We know that he has voted for rethugs. We know that he has raised money for rethugs. We know that he has been quoted as stating that Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, and Douglas Feith are "colleagues".

We know that he's never been elected to any office. We know that he's spent a career in the military where rank is the defining factor. We know that he has worked as an investment advisor. We know that he sat on the board of a corporation whose sole purpose is to invade privay, and has paid lobbyists to attack privacy legislation.

So what has he actually done? Please be specific. What is his track record of championing liberal or progressive or even centrist causes?

I'm curious...

[NeoConned]

1. Answer: He's not a progressive

He's the most conservative candidate next to Lieberman. He's also a good running mate for whoever gets the nomination which is what he's running for. He doesn't have a track record in national politics and being VP for 4-8 years will give him one.
It's that simple.

[FrenchieCat]

20. He saved the lives of

1.3 million minority Muslims in Kosovo. Was retired early because of his fight to use battle method to keep as many civilians from harm as possible.

He helped negotiate the Dayton Peace Accords to secure a lasting peace in Bosnia.

He helped write the Affirmative Action UofMichigan Aemacus Brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the army.

He Fought, but the lost the fight to intervene in Rrwanda. Had he been successful, add 800,000 more lives that could have been spared.

He criticized the war in Iraq on national TV in the middle of the war, and was thrown off the tube for it.

He is exposing PNAC to the world, and being called crazy by the neo cons for it.

He backed Kerry in 1993 on the Gays in the military issue. This was a time that no one else was doing it.

He defended Michael Moore on National Television, when many would not.

He has always worked closely in the army to make sure that Minorities were elevated and recognized appropriately.

He wants to cut Defense Spending.

He is against all that the Bush Administration believes is good for America.

Considering that he has not been in politics....he has done a hell of a lot!

[WiseMen]

48. HE IS NOT DEAN -- CLINTON CONCLUDED DEAN VS. BUSH A DISSAASTER

MOST OF THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP CONCLUDED THAT DEAN CANNOT BEAT BUSH.

[mmonk]

2. Be sure not to look at his positions

Be sure to keep with the canard he has the neocon world view.:boring:

[sfecap]

3. I've read his positions.

That wasn't the question.

What has he done? (Other than taking a "position"?)

[JoePizz]

5. I'm not sure that's a valid question, really

ANd it's a pretty dangerous one- If you define "action" specifically as consistantly doing things to further the professive movement and causes, then you only end up with two candidates with a long term proven track record- Kucinich and Sharpton.

Most of the rest have simply either "taken a position" or simply voted to support (or deny) a bill already in circulation.

[OhioStateProgressive]

6. maybe since they are the only two(nt)

[maxr4clark]

7. RE: What has he done?

Well, let's see.

He has devoted his life to public service; that is what a job in the military is.

He has earned a Rhodes Scholarship.

He has taught economics and political philosophy at the college level.

He has worked with foreign diplomats on both sides of many of the issues of the past twenty years, and impressed our European Allies with his ability to solve difficult international situations effectively.

He has dealt with housing, education, and health care issues for the European command of the US military--which included more people than live in the state of Vermont.

He has built an international coalition that committed soldiers from countries like France and Germany to stop Milosevic's ethnic cleansing.

He has succeeded in bringing a homicidal dictator to justice.

He spoke out against some of the policies of the Schwartzkopfs and Frankses and Sheltons in the US military, and he was asked to retire 3 months early for it.

He has covered the military strategies the United States employed in Afghanistan and Iraq for CNN.

In his coverage of the war in Afghanistan and the buildup to the war in Iraq, he said early and often that the War in Iraq was not necessary.

Since leaving the military, he has started a career as an investment banker. He has also been on the board of a company developing a state-of-the-art, high-efficiency electric motor to be used in automobiles. This motor can be used in either gas-electric hybrids or in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which means that he chose to work on technology that will help us achieve energy independence in both the short term and the long term.

In response to a very large grass-roots movement, the Draft Clark movement, he has reluctantly entered the race for President in 2004.

Frankly, I'd say that is a pretty good resume for someone who wants to be President in a post-9/11 world.

If you don't agree, I'd like to hear why.

[OrAnarch]

10. Rather....

"He has devoted his life to public service; that is what a job in the military is."

He devoted his life to contributing to the military force, making it easier for people like Bush to kill foreigners in unjust war. He should also share personal responsibility for the people he directly killed in such unjust conflicts as Vietnam.



I want a serious apology before Id ever consider voting for any man who would even put Clark at the lowest position in his cabinent.

[dutihampi]

36. Are you suggesting

that we shouldn't have a military? I mean that's what it sounds like. And if you are you must be completely insane. If not, how can you blame the men and women of the military for what our ELECTED officials order them to do?

[OrAnarch]

38. We can blame them quite easily

I am suggesting that we just shouldn't have a military which attacks foreign countries unjustly.


I blame the elected officials for the whole mess, but also each individual for their personal transgressions. Soldiers are still thinking humans, and therefore should share responsibility for their actions. Anytime the US unjustly attacks another nation (Vitetnam, etc), the responsible soldier puts down their gun and goes home or protests on behalf of their beliefs (if they have any).


Clark picked his gun up and started killing innocent foreigners in an unjust war, and then spent the next few decades contributing directly to this military machine, aiding others in doing similar unjust acts against humanity.


Furthermore, he has shown no remorse for his live's work (campaigns on this embarrassing issue). Either he is content that his contribution allows people like Bush to kill innocent humans more easily, or he is unaware that his action have done this. Either way, we can do better.

[dogman]

49. Wake up

He's the reason you can sit at a computer and criticize someone who has contributed more to this country and the world than your immature mind can imagine.

[OrAnarch]

56. Really?

I wasn't aware that sustained foreign conflict was a prerequisite for my unique American "freedom". Its nice to know that I can sit here and criticize people for slaughtering innocent people, when every nation in the developed world that doesn't wage unjust war cannot do the same.

Wake up. Put down your fallacious Republican talking points. Freedom and self expression are derived from a long established liberalistic social contract, not dependent on a military instituation waging war in the name of corporate greed.

But, I must remark, he has contributed far more to corporate intrests, defense contractors, and the elite that you or I could ever imagine.

[dogman]

63. Really

If we lived In some Utopian world it might not depend on defending yourself. The problem is when the department of defense becomes the department of war as it has now. This man has the mental capacity to understand the difference.

[OrAnarch]

64. Really?

I do believe he participated in Vietnam and such an experience only further encouraged his service to the military institution, which as that war proved it to be, the "department of war". Nuff said.

[dogman]

67. Never nuff

At his age, at that time, he was an honorable man serving his country. He learned from the political disaster that this war became. He has worked to make a better place for our service people since. Once again in your Utopia this would all be unnecessary. Sadly their is a real world out there and he is more aware of that world than any other candidate.

[OrAnarch]

73. Wrong...

At his age, perhaps he did not understand, but as the years went by, it was quite aparrent who he was working for and who he was killing. It was then quite obvious that the military institution was only a tool the rich used to become richer, at the expense of the third world. And to assume that he finally realized such at the end of the war, we can empiracally see that he was only encourage to devote a lifetime improving such an organization, making it easier for people like Bush to kill foreigners. To assume that he never could figure out what his actions resulted in and that he service was to the elite, well, can't we find someone better who has a clue?

Either way, such a service should not be the platform on which he campaigns, but rather, and embarrasing hiatus which he is deeply apologetic of.

[OrAnarch]

12. Your list has little to nothing to do with the progressive agenda...

n/t

[maxr4clark]

15. RE: progressive agenda

The question wasn't about what his agenda is; it was about what he has done. Positions on issues were specifically excluded from the topic.

Now as for whether his positions are progressive, is there a website that lays out your progressive agenda? I would call many of his positions progressive, but I'm not sure we use that term for the same thing. To me, "progressive" means putting people as the top priority, life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Organizations, such as corporations and Political Action Committees and even the major political parties, reduce the needs of the people they represent to the needs that the organization represents, which at best is an average of the needs of the people, and at worst (e.g. the Project for a New American Century) represents only the interests of those in power.

As far as my view of progressive as described above, Clark is VERY progressive. Go to www.clark04.com, see for yourself. His interest is most certainly improving the lives of the American people. And if Clark doesn't get the Democratic nomination, I am fully confident that he will, like Jimmy Carter but unlike Al Gore, find ways in which he can contribute to the quality of American life, no matter what position he holds. Clark is that kind of man.

[NeoConned]

4. "NeoCon Worldview"?

I never said a thing about a NeoCon worldview. He's obviously not a NeoCon. His positions are meaningless now because he's going to change them to agree with whoever gives him the chance to be VP. I think it's sad that he's even running and sucking up money that could be spent on a more serious candidate.

[maxr4clark]

8. Not going for VP

Tim Russert asked Clark about becoming Dean's VP on Meet the Press.

Clark's response was "that isn't in the cards. This race is about leadership." He then went on to talk about the fact that running as a candidate isn't a joy ride; it is something he wouldn't do for himself. He is running because he was asked to by the Draft Clark people, and when he looked at the candidates, he didn't see a clear, good choice available. He didn't enter the race until late because he was waiting for one of the Democrats to pull out front and provide a convincing challenger to B*sh, and save him the trouble of having to run.

Clark isn't running to be anyone's VP.

The Democratic Party isn't wild about supporting Clark because he isn't beholden to them; the recent news about how Gore came to decide to support Dean shows that Gore was looking for a fellow back-scratcher, and Clark wasn't interested. If you look at Clark's positions (at www.clark04.com), you'll see that he is more of a Democrat than Dean is--far more liberal on social issues and the environment. If you look at Dean's voting record in Vermont, you'll find he's even less of a liberal than he sounds like he is today.

Listen to Clark talk about the gays in the military question he keeps getting asked; his answer shows you that he isn't just following someone else's script, he really believes in equal rights. He suggests that, when we think about civil rights, we think: what if the person in question was our son or daughter? What rights would you want for them then? That's not a Republican talking, that's a liberal Democrat.

Dean did a great job of organizing his campaign, and he started very early. He has made the point that we need someone who won't get us into the kind of war B*sh got us into. The point he hasn't made, and I don't think he can make, is that he has any clue how to get us from where B*sh will leave us into a far better place. The only candidate with any credentials for doing that is Wes Clark. Wes can't do that as VP, and he knows it. His talent is leadership, not babysitting the Senate as the VP does (or used to do, before Cheney; Cheney is cowering in fear that he'll be the next victim of a terrorist attack, and using the time out of the spotlight to sell as much of the US to his friends back home as he can).

[1971]

13. Excellent responses to lazy questioner

maxr4clark,

I appreciate the time you took to respond to the original post.
I find questions posed like that to be either flame-bait or lazy.
Flame-bait because probably the poster opposes the candidate and just wants to give the appearance that the candidate lacks what it takes, or the poster (giving 'em the benefit of the doubt here) is just too lazy to read the tiniest bit about the candidate - pro and con - that is available, and wants DUers to do the homework for 'em.

So, to counter the negativity, DUers will come to the defense of an unjustly maligned candidate, as you have done so effectively.

Thank you.

[ajacobson]

11. flame bait

[NeoConned]

51. Its called 'branding'

My purpose wasn't to 'flame bait'.
At this point in the campaigns what the candidates say specifically about an issue is practically meaningless. We are the base. We need to be motivated. It's like telling a woman what she wants to hear so you can get her into bed.
There is an overall feel to each candidate (ie you know there general position on the matrix) but what they say today and what they will be saying 4-5 months from now is going to be different, count on it. Clark is the most willowy (able to bend with the breeze) of all the candidates because he can be and get away with it. His campaign is positioning him that way for a reason. All of the other candidates are beating the crap out of each other but who can say anything meaningful (read:damaging) about Clark at this point. hmmmmm?
It's all about "branding" a candidate like a product. If you could go to a supermarket and see a candidate on a shelf, which would you buy? Dean has great word of mouth and he's new and trendy. Gephardt is the brand your dad used. If the brand you usually like isn't there, give Clark or Edwards a try and see what they do.

[douginmarshall]

9. Saved one and a half million lives

For no other reason than they were human and it was the right thing to do.

Supported the U. of Mich. in their affirmative action case.

Earned the support of those who served under him. See www.cris.forclark.com

[sfecap]

14. Wow.

Saved those lives because he was altruistic? Or he was part of the military?

"Supported" the U of Mich suit. Impressive. Presidential material, there.

Earned the support of those who served under him. There ya go! (Except I've talked to some who served under him who thought he was a royal asshole...)

Still haven't answered the question. (But you really can't, can you?)

[Mick Knox]

16. Be careful with clark

First off! Dennis did awesome last night! I would love to see him as our Candidate. He would crush our babbling president. Hopefully, people start to see through the fog of so many candidates..

Clark!!!!

If youre a Conservative Democrat who actually likes to see the US at war everywhere... albiet possible just an air campaign like bosnia - fine vote for clark.

If you want to see our gov working towards peace with our allies .. and stop the insanity of this war, vote for dennis. Has Clark advocated pulling out lately? NO! He wants others to come help us. Well guess what! The world is not coming to help us unfubar iraq.

Clark registered as a democrat a month ago! His hero is ronnie "whatsmyname". He doesnt know his opinion until he consults with Prez Clintons consultants and then it doesnt jive up with his previously stated conservative opinion. *Knock*knock*knock* anyone home McFly?*

Clark is a warrior. We dont need a warrior to make peace with the world... unless your idea of peace is everyone dead.

[maxr4clark]

23. Dennis did do awesome, but Clark has the answers

Kucinich did awesome last night. He did awesome in the previous debate. His supporters are rightly proud of him for not supporting the war. But he will not win the candidacy, and even if he did, he wouldn't win the election against B*sh. He doesn't deal with the real world. I love his health plan, but I don't see how anyone could pay for it.

If the US just leaves Iraq as Kucinich suggests we do, Iraq will be more of a killing field than it was under Saddam Hussein, and the world community would be right to condemn the US for such an action. Regardless of how the situation got so bad in Iraq, the US now has a moral obligation to leave Iraq in peace, and simply leaving now will not accomplish that. Kucinich's plan amounts to "the problem B*sh created in Iraq is now Iraq's problem, not ours." I cannot support that view. I admire Kucinich for his idealism, but his thinking only goes so far. He doesn't consider what his ideas will become when he actually tries to put his ideas into practice.

We need a real world solution to the Iraq situation. We _do_ need a military leader to lead us out of the situation B*sh has created in Iraq. We need someone who knows how to do it. We also need a leader who doesn't have any other agenda in Iraq than getting out. That is EXACTLY what Clark is proposing. He is proposing staying in Iraq to provide security to the Iraqi people until they can do it themselves. He is proposing putting the Iraqis in control of their political situation NOW, not in June of next year or after he becomes President but NOW. He is proposing we put the US in a security service role in Iraq, and letting the reconstruction of Iraq's political system and infrastructure be led by those who opposed the war overseas--France, Germany, and the rest of the countries that correctly denied B*sh any military support.

This is the right solution. This is the moral solution. This is the practical solution. This is really the only solution that everyone can walk away from a winner.

Clark is proposing a real world solution, and frankly I don't think he cares whether he gets to take credit for it or not. He cares much more about the people we have in Iraq and the ordinary citizens of Iraq than he does about his "career" as a politician.

In the New Hampshire debate, did you notice that Koppel asked lots of candidates for their ideas about Iraq, and then he asked Clark for a "reality check"? Dean and the rest of the candidates have been echoing Clark's suggestions on Iraq for over a month now. It is clear who has the expertise and the sensible answers on how to get out of Iraq; Clark does. It is also clear that Clark wants to bring al Qaeda to justice for its attacks on NYC and Washington DC. He doesn't want retribution; he wants justice. He wants bin Laden tried in the International Court, not lynched here in America.

This is a big deal. If America lynches bin Laden, bin Laden becomes a martyr for radical Islam, one that won't be forgotten for hundreds of years. If bin Laden gets convicted in the International Court, which does not have the death penalty, bin Laden gets to live the life of a convicted criminal for ten, maybe thirty years. There is no jihad glory in that, just shame.

Clark is NOT a conservative democrat. Dean is a conservative Democrat, with his support for the NRA and his poor record on the environment and his bull-headed approach to questions. Look at his positions: Clark is a social liberal. He is the only candidate pushing affirmative action. He has given the best answers on civil rights, e.g. that when considering a person's civil rights, you should think about that person as your own son or daughter, and then ask what rights the person should have.

[Tinoire]

60. Clark is indeed coming across as a Social Liberal but

I think Clark is a Social Liberal, and I don't base that on his words (words are cheap) I have that on the highest word of several fine veterans I respect who were stationed at Fort Hood at the same time he was. Additionally, I was stationed at West Fort Hood at the same time, under a different command that was pretty much separate from Clark, and I don't recall hearing any major grumblings from the troops 'over there'.

Some good points in your post and I have no doubt that if Clark were President, America would eventually regain its old place at that international table, dictating this and that and coercing other countries into supporting the spread of our imperialism. I want more than that though. I want something we haven't had in a long time, an America that is respected because she is good and wants to be an equal partner to other countries. That is my biggest problem with Clark- he thinks the way we were doing business before Bush was just fine because he is part of that system.

Have you no concerns about his links to some of the most hawkish organizations out there? Or his association with Soros who is no more than a velvet-glove version of Bush? How do you feel about him being on the Board of Directors for the National Endowment for Democracy (another Soros operation that destabilizes perfectly good governments to replace them with US/corporate-friendly leadership)? I ask this question pertinently at a time where the NED has been exposed as being up to its neck in the overthrow of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela so that we can appropriate their oil.

How do you feel about his position with the Markle? CSIS? Acxiom? ETC..?

I ask because I am continually astounded to find informed, thoughtful people like you and several other Clark supporters supporting him.

Bullet, machine-gun questions. Sorry... So many threads going on today.

[maxr4clark]

71. Good questions

The reason I am as informed as I am is that I try to find out for myself the answers to questions like yours; thanks for asking them.

Your view of Soros is new to me. I have only heard of him recently, and I know nothing about the NED. Thanks for calling them to my attention. I also don't know anything about Markle or CSIS, but will be looking into them.

I've looked at his association with Acxiom. I posted what I found on the DU (somewhere, I don't know how to find it, I'm too new). If you tend to be concerned about a person's associations with groups unless you have absolute proof that it was fine, I don't have that kind of proof. I did find, however, that the same newspaper stories that suggest he was associated with CAPPS II via Acxiom stopped short of saying he was actually associated with CAPPS II, which was developed by Lockheed Martin; only that he had pitched Acxiom to Lockheed Martin as a company that has experience with processing sensitive information by computer. If Acxiom had been the people who did CAPPS II for Lockheed Martin, they definitely would have said so. Thus, Clark's association with CAPPS II is tangential at best. The Washington Post article also said Clark stressed that personal privacy rights needed to be protected in a project attempting to identify terrorists by information about individuals; and I'm sure we both agree with that.

I also know that he is different from many ex-military, in that he chose not to represent companies to the Department of Defense, even though that is how his military career would make him most useful to government contractors. It would also be at least bordering on unethical. In the cases I have pursued, like the Acxiom connection, Clark has always come away cleaner than the people I know personally in similar situations (I grew up near the Beltway, so I have known a number of ex-government/military consultants).

A man who has a background making the right ethical choices in the military is more credible to me on military decisions than someone who has never faced those choices directly. The President HAS to face the choices directly. I'm still looking at General Clark's record on ethical choices, but what I've seen so far is encouraging.

[maxr4clark]

72. Stuff on Acxiom found

Hey, I found it...in this thread! #41 below.

[maxr4clark]

17. Answered the question? I did.

Clark pushed hard to get the military to address Milosevic. In recent interviews, he has said that he pushed that hard because he saw what happened in Rwanda, when the US did nothing.

I'd say that was because he was altruistic while in the military.

Who do you support, sfecap? The "altruistic" President we have now, who has diverted attention away from pursuing his family friend Osama so that he could attack Iraq so their oil industry could altruistically be built by Halliburton and Bechtel, two of the most altruistic corporations known to man (or at least, Crawford Texas)? The altruistic President whose altruism led Texas to take over from California as the most polluted and polluting state in the nation? Our altruistic President who believes women should die in childbirth instead of having the option to abort their child?

Or do you support Governor Dean, who supports the NRA for altruistic reasons?

Or do you support Dennis Kucinich, who is very altruistic but not terribly realistic?

Who, sfecap?

[Mick Knox]

19. Clark = we lose

He ordered the british to attack the russians and the brits luckily refused. He almost got the world killed IMO. Is he better than Bush? I'll give him that, and him my vote, but hes pretty close - I would rather see Braun as our Nominee than him. What if he's a warmongering Republican in Democrat clothing?

Can he beat bush?

Some future great GOP Commercials if Clark is our candidate - coming soon to a TV Near you:

at a GOP fundraising dinner in Little Rock in May, 2001: 'And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there.'"


----------
GOP Commercial #2:

"I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush,"

----------
GOP Commercial #3:

"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."


----------------------------------------------

I'm pretty new here. I am very suprised to see a site dedicated as this one is cannot see through Clark and see what the GOP will do to him with 300 million nice new unmarked corporate bucks to spend on either crushing clark for flops or Clark praise bush ads.

He could be a good vp to try to help swing moderates- but its time to stop appealing to those who have their head in the sand and take our country back!

Oh just because he says he wouldnt take VP.. doesnt mean squat. His word means nothing.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Why do you always posts those speeches?

I guess I have to babysit you...make sure I am always behind you to clean up your out of context bullsh*t. Since I've done this several times, I want to know why you are being so disingenious in reference to this man.

Are you trying that hard to protect the candidate you favor, where you would continue to spread the misconceptions that many hold of Clark due to RW smears. To you just hate him? or are you scared for you own candidate?

You need to get over yourself and go talk up your candidate instead...cause your efforts ain't working!

here is the full paragraph of contention:
------------------
You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be doneAnd I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.
----------------------
notice he says he is glad to have them in office for the challenges ahead in EUROPE!

for the other crap that you keep spreading go to: http://clarkmyths.com/

[Mick Knox]

22. What speeches?

I'm active on yahoo and some other boards.. but his is my first clark speech here. You must be confusing me with someone else.

At any rate... I'm personnally NOT happy with the "Great" team we have in office, Bush et al.. ESPECIALLY with our challenges with Europe.. or ANYWHERE else, unlike Clark.

But thanks for clearing up and "thorougly debunking" that "myth".

I also wasnt the one, unlike clark, that praises Bush at GOP FUNDRAISERS.

Odd there is a need for a "Clark myths" website. You think there are some "myths now" .. what til the corporate machine kicks up.

Vote Kucinich in a primary near you. Doesnt matter anyway, Dean will get the nom.

[maxr4clark]

24. speeches

She means the speeches you're quoting (Hi Frenchie!) Clark has dealt with the statements you quoted. If B*sh chooses to use those quotes in a campaign against Clark, he'll regret it. They will only show that Clark is someone who can unify the country, because he is not afraid to talk to both sides on the important issues, and he can relate to the people who relate to B*sh. B*sh has far worse quotes to be used against him.

Dean may or may not get the nom. The Republicans are more worried about Clark now than they have been, see www.polipundit.com for the evidence--and for the evidence that Republicans would love to face Dean, so much so that they're willing to give money to his campaign, and now Kerry's and Edwards', to make sure Dean gets the nom.

Whoever the Democratic nom is, he will get the Anybody But B*sh constituency that right now supports primarily Dean. Gephardt would get more votes than Dean running against B*sh, because he can add some votes from the south to the Dem core. Clark will get more than either of them, because Clark has followers in the south and the leadership skills and good foreign policy ideas and a moral authority that Gephardt doesn't.

[Tinoire]

57. How disingenious. Just which war was Clark defending in March 2003?

and what spin because this is not the first time you've seen this quote.
=========================================

March 2003 (while the rest of us were already hating Bush and lining up behind Democratic candidates for the Primaries & at the same time Clark was being "drafted" by Democrats)


Salon: "Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ..."

Clark: "I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.

Salon: Do you disagree with them on their worldview?
Clark: I disagreed with them on some specific aspects. I would not have gone after the war on terror exactly as did and I laid that out in the . But I also know there's no single best plan. You have to pick a plan that might work and make it work. That means you've got to avoid the plans with the fatal flaws. This administration came into office predisposed to use American troops for war fighting and to realign American foreign policy so it focused on a more robust, more realistic view of the world than the supposedly idealistic view of the previous administration.

But the views that President Bush espoused recently at the American Enterprise Institute, if his predecessor had espoused that view he'd have been hooted off the stage, laughed at, accused of being incredibly idealistic about the hard-nosed practical politics of the Middle East. So this is an administration that's moving in a certain direction, and now that that's the direction they've picked they've got to make it work. Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail.

<snip>
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index1.html

Not a Salon subscriber? Just watch the ad and get a day pass so you can read the entire interview.

[FrenchieCat]

70. You are being disingenious, at best .........

Using Right Wing tactics at worst. You can take a few quotes and imply that Clarl was saying one thing in particular. THESE PASSAGES ARE OUT OF THE SAME 5 PAGE ARTICLE. Actually, when you read the entire article....you realize how smart this man is. Fortunately, he knows how to get his point across without alienating anyone. It's called, again, for those not familiar with this, DIPLOMACY. You don't talk about your enemy in a way where they would hate you EVEN MORE. You talk about your ideas vs. theirs, and point to their approach....what's ok, and what's not, and how you wuold do it instead. FOR DEAN SUPPORTERS, IT CALLED NOT BURNING BRIDGES.......:.

Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ...

FOR DUMMIES, THE FOLLOWING IS A DIPLOMATIC APPROACH TO CRITIZING PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH WITHOUT LOOKING LIKE SOMEONE WHO'S HEAD IS ABOUT TO EXPLODE:

I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.

Do you disagree with them on their worldview?

I disagreed with them on some specific aspects. I would not have gone after the war on terror exactly as did and I laid that out in the . But I also know there's no single best plan. You have to pick a plan that might work and make it work. That means you've got to avoid the plans with the fatal flaws. This administration came into office predisposed to use American troops for war fighting and to realign American foreign policy so it focused on a more robust, more realistic view of the world than the supposedly idealistic view of the previous administration.

But the views that President Bush espoused recently at the American Enterprise Institute, if his predecessor had espoused that view he'd have been hooted off the stage, laughed at, accused of being incredibly idealistic about the hard-nosed practical politics of the Middle East. So this is an administration that's moving in a certain direction, and now that that's the direction they've picked they've got to make it work. Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail.

But certainly you're contemplating running for president -- I understand you haven't made a decision -- so even though you root for their success, you can't agree with their methods.

For me it's not about candidacies, it's about ideas. A lot of people have talked to me about seeking political office. But they've done so because of the ideas I'm expressing and they're interested in the concepts of a new American strategy, a strategic dialogue with the American people, a different way of looking at the world, a different image for America in the eyes of those abroad, a different means for accomplishing and protecting our national interest than what the administration has proposed


You're unlikely to hear Clark the candidate speak up on CNN, now that we're in the middle of war. But when Salon spoke to Clark just before Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced, he didn't shy away from criticizing Bush foreign policy. "I don't think the case has been made well," Clark told Salon about a war with Iraq. "It's been made very poorly."
------------------
What, if anything, would you have done differently in the current crisis?

Well, I would have said that at the outset we should have built a stronger legal framework on the whole war on terror and then worked to bring NATO into it so we had the NATO nations engaged more actively for the war on terror.
-------------------
I think the importance of working with allies is going to become self-evident in the aftermath of this operation. We're not going to be able to maintain stability in the Middle East, support the reconstruction of post-Saddam Iraq, deal with the challenges of North Korea, continue this struggle against terrorism, and face the problem of Iran alone and still return to prosperity in this country. It's bigger than what we can do.

------------------
Well, I certainly hope we're not going to stay there. I hope we'll get out as rapidly as is feasible. But we also have to recognize that it may take some time there before we can expect a democracy and a stable environment. I mean, we're moving into what has historically been a Middle Eastern Yugoslavia, racked by internal tension and fractious relations welded together in a state by the iron grip of Saddam Hussein. With that off, there's no telling what the fractionating forces will seek
------------------
So you don't share the president's optimism that this is going to be the first Middle Eastern country in a sort of democracy domino effect?
think that's possible, but I wouldn't say that's the most likely outcome. The most likely outcome is a stuttering instability in the region, intensified repression by some states, marginal moderation in others, and for the region more uncertainty ... that's the most likely outcome.

Should we work to make it a better outcome than that? Absolutely. Could we do that? Perhaps we can. But the "optimistic outlook" that some people have talked about is exactly that: It is optimistic, and it's not the most likely outcome.

[sfecap]

25. Dean.

Dean does NOT "support" the NRA.

But, hey, it sounds good huh?

Clark was a military officer and did what the CIC decided.

My question is: What has he done. Actually done, in military or private life, (other than support some neocons, apparently), that would lead me to believe that he is a "liberal". I don't see anything, but I may be wrong.

Position papers are fine. I'm looking for action. Is he a member of a liberal group? Has he donated to liberal causes? Something like that...

I'm just curious, that's all.

[maxr4clark]

28. Dean quotes the NRA as supporting him

...which is supporting the NRA in my book.

From the Burlington Free Press:
---
September 28: Dean walks the line on gun control
By Sam Hemingway

Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean has a ready answer for voters who think his opposition to the Iraq war and support for homosexual rights make him an ultra-liberal.

"I've been endorsed by the National Rifle Association,'' Dean tells audiences at almost every stop, referring to NRA's support of him when he was Vermont's governor for 11 years.
---

To be completely fair, though, a lot of that article is about how Dean is not aligned with the NRA. Nevertheless, Dean thinks it sounds good to be supported by the NRA. I am also still learning about Dean; most of my knowledge about the candidates comes from discussions I've had with my wife, who initially supported Kerry. I haven't been able to figure out much about Dean listening to him speak; in fact, the reason I am on this blog at all is that I want to know more about Dean, and why Dean supporters support Dean instead of Clark. So thanks for getting me to look more deeply into the allegations about Dean and the NRA.


As for the "what has Clark done to prove he's a liberal" question, thanks for restating it; it is a good one. Apparently, not very much, in the sense that you are asking about. You should keep in mind, however, that until a few years ago, he was an officer in the military; and as he has explained several times, it is illegal (or severely frowned upon, depending on the details) for military officers to be members of political organizations. My brother (sadly, a B*sh lover) is a Lt. Colonel in the Air Force, and he has pointed out some of those limitations on military officers when I have sent him emails containing evidence that B*sh is more harmful to Americans and American freedoms than to terrorists or the forces against freedom around the world.

I think you were asking about historically, but recently, Clark has done a number of things that only liberals do. Like suggest that Bush could be impeached for what he did to get us into Iraq (during the NH debate, he said Bush should answer for his actions to the Congress, which is a step closer to saying he should be impeached than his previous statements). Like promote the separation of church and state. Like praise the successes of affirmative action.

I don't see any reason to believe he is socially conservative. In response to a caller on C-Span, he said that, although he is Catholic, he disagrees with the Pope on abortion and a host of other issues, and he sees no contradiction in that because he believes people need to take personal responsibility for their moral choices. I don't see any reason to think he is being deceitful when he promotes affirmative action and civil rights for gay/lesbian couples.

[Mick Knox]

29. Dean and the NRA

Gov Dean rec'd an A rating after opposing the Assault Rifle Ban.

I have no doubt that ANY of our Candidates would do well on social issues and equal rights. I see no reason not to believe clark has finally decided his position is equal rights after his apparently military imposed 30 draught of opinion and furthermore, that his recent conversion to the democratic party is not genuine.

Equal rights and civil unions are not going to mean allot if we all blow up.. know what I mean vern?

We need a candidate to lead us to peace, we dont need a General Custer. He's absolutely the last one on my list; and further, I believe he would be easily the most beatable. he doesnt seem to quick on his feet; way to prescripted; and seems to me he gets outshined at debates.

Why couldnt kucinich, if he won the nomination, win vs Bush? If he was actually heard and not ignored, he would be liked.

I dont think we have to settle until AFTER the primaries.

[maxr4clark]

35. General does not imply warmonger

First, I think we are much less likely to all blow up with Clark as President than with our current leader. Among the Generals I know of, Clark is the least likely to use force; he prefers to use diplomacy, and that is precisely what I want a President to do. I hope you believe as I do that the United States should use its influence in the world to make the world a better place--not only or primarily for Americans, but for all people, according to their needs. Clark's AIDS policy, his support for the International Court, and his interest in solving international problems through international organizations and diplomacy convince me that Clark would put America's strength to use improving the lot of the citizens of the world, and not trying to increase the divide between the rich in America and the less fortunate in other countries. Given what we have both said I seriously doubt you will agree with me, however that is my considered, informed view of Clark.

Second, I see no reason to consider Clark's positions an elaborate deception on his part. His (biological) father was active in Democratic party politics; his stepfather was not. So far as I know, his mother was a Democrat. Having chosen a military career, he claims to have stayed out of party politics during his duty to his country, and I have no reason not to believe him. As he has said on many occasions, once he retired he looked at both sides, and made a rational decision to join the Democratic party. I see nothing sinister or disingenuous about that; in fact, I will always favor a considered, informed decision over an uninformed one. The reason I discuss the candidates on this blog is to learn more about all of the candidates, and as part of that to provide what I have learned about Clark to others; and I do that because I really want America to have the best leader it can for the next four years.

Third, I don't think most people would agree with you about how he does thinking on his feet, or how he does at the debates. The press pundits were all saying (to my surprise, actually) that he was the clear winner of the debate in Iowa. The WMUR online poll regarding who won the debate in NH currently shows 48% Clark (2563 votes), 23% Dean (1245), 8% Kucinich (444) as the top three; I have said either in this thread or another that Kucinich has spoken very well in the past few debates. Kucinich and Dean and Kerry and Lieberman have far more experience following a political script than Clark does; I think it is amazing that he competes with professional politicians as well as he does. The appearances that I think Clark does best at are Town Hall meetings, which are entirely extemporaneous.

As for why Kucinich couldn't win vs. Bu**, I find your question to be impossible to answer. The reason Kucinich can't win the Democratic nomination is the same as the reason he can't beat Bu**, so asking why he couldn't do one if he could do the other is nonsensical. This country is not willing to entertain political ideas that stray too far from the status quo. You can wish otherwise as much as you want, but that isn't the sort of thing that is going to change in a generation.

American politics proceeds by baby steps, which is why idealists and third-party candidates are not viable candidates at this point in American history. I would love to have the United States adopt a single-payer universal health care system, for example, but I cannot imagine that happening without some significant intermediate steps. I therefore support candidates that I see making the intermediate steps, because it reduces how long it will be until we get to where I want to get. You can call it settling if you want; I call it being realistic. To me settling would be settling for Gephardt or Kerry, who don't seem to me to be introducing any new ideas into the discussion at all; they would be placeholders for the next real President in 2008. Sorry, but that's how I see them.

[Mick Knox]

37. Re: "General does not imply warmonger"

You have some strong points. I doubt Clark will win the nomination anyway... I think deans the nominee.. not kucinich, gephart, or anyone else... as ugly as it is, Money historically decides the primaries.. Clark better hurry and get some $$$.. or they are all lost causes. More polls say Dean, more money poors into dean, and there it ends. I think its safe to vote for whoever you want in the primary and then support the nominee. I meant "settle" in terms of choosing the nominee- you should pick whoever you want... no need for anyone to settle in the primary, the people will speak and the winner goes.

[maxr4clark]

40. Agreed

Just to let you know, Clark is expecting to raise over 12M this quarter. Last quarter he raised 3M. I wonder if that will raise eyebrows like Gore's endorsement.

Clark isn't going to bow out of the Federal matching program, either now or later. I don't doubt that Dean will do better using as much money as he can against little George, but I do wish he would have stayed within the current rules for fair campaign financing. Then only B*** would be vulnerable to an attack against violating fair campaign finance.

[mikehiggins]

54. Just a point, here, sf

Clark was in a position to lobby for those million and a half targets of racial cleansing BECAUSE he was in the military. He was under no obligation to do so. In fact, it caused him a lot of trouble, fighting for those folks, and was one of the things he did that led Cohen and Shelton to announce his retirement before he even knew he was retiring.

It is much easier to get along with the folks on top if you go along with the folks on top. That holds true in any line of endeavor. For a general to take on the military establishment for some civilians who have no strategic significance to the Pentagon (or to the Republicans in the House and Senate like Tom Delay and Hastert and Fritch and their ilk--ever wonder why Clark is labeled "Clinton's General"?) is not a good career move, and he knew that going in. Standing by and watching it happen was, to Clark, like standing by and watching the Jews get marched into Buchenwald. It was wrong, he knew it and he took action against it, even though it eventually cost him his cushy job in NATO.

How many other candidates can point to something like that in their resume?

[Jerseycoa]

62. Affirmative Action

>"Supported" the U of Mich suit. Impressive. Presidential material, there."

Remembering the amicus brief, impressive, I agree.

Source: GT Law Alert

The core legal issue is whether achievement of a racially and ethnically diverse student body represents a compelling governmental interest that warrants race conscious admissions decisions, and whether the University of Michigan’s policies are narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest.

<snip>

As expected, the amici curiae briefs of former military officers and major corporations prominently figured into the Supreme Court’s evaluation of the permissibility and importance of achieving racial diversity at highly selective institutions such as the University of Michigan and the military service academies. Greenberg Traurig lawyers, led by shareholder Joe Reeder, served as co-counsel to the distinguished group of former military officers.

The Court quoted that brief in noting that "the military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both highly qualified and racially diverse unless the service academies and the ROTC used limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies." The others on that brief included Reeder, General Wesley Clark (former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and lately CNN commentator on the war in Iraq); Admiral William J. Crowe (11th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff); General Norman Schwartzkopf (Commander of Allied Forces during the Persian Gulf War); and other prominent generals, admirals, and service academic superintendents, defense secretaries, and U.S. Senators.

:dem:

[eileen_d]

18. LOL - "colleagues" - what a dirty word!

You're credibility personified.

[sfecap]

26. MY credibility?

Let's see...he votes rethug. His "colleagues" are neocon thugs, he raises money for rethugs...he lobbys for a company that would like to invade the privacy of virtually every American who steps on an aircraft...

My credibility isn't in question here, sweetheart.

[kang]

32. Just the facts please

There's no need for people to get so testy when discussing this stuff. First off, Clark has voted for Nixon and Reagan, just like he's voted for Clinton and Gore. So to say that he votes "rethug" (new one for me) isn't really being honest.

Second, I think people are under some strange notion that people who work in the foreign policy and national security arena operate in the same manner as partisan politicians. They don't. Alot of Clark's familiarity and respect for neocons comes from many of their long years of working on these issues. This doesn't mean that he doesn't think that they've botched American foreign policy.

Third, he did work for a company that created a product for screening passengers with a terrorist list. This isn't a system that will eventually be put in place? Are there privacy concerns? Yes. But I'm not sure I understand why he's automatically considered less concerned about privacy issues because he did work on pressing concern for our national security. Things just aren't always so cut and dry.

He's proposed the creation of an agency of foreign assistance, laid out an aggressive plan to combat AIDS, wants to make Preschool universal and make higher education available to more people, and much much more. I mean, does anybody here think it was easy for him to lead a 19 nation coalition into war with a president that refused to use ground troops, a Pentagon who didn't even want to be there, and an ethnic-cleansing Serb regime that was set on wiping out an entire people? Does anybody think any of the other candidates could have done that? Because that's the kind of experience we're going to need as a nation facing nuclear proliferation, combatting terrorism, third world dictatorships, a thriving drug trade, and who knows what else.

He's not just pointing out what's wrong and getting people up-in-arms about it, he's offering a vision.

Why is it so hard to judge candidates on their ideas? He's served over 3 decades in the Army and has always loved serving this country, I'm not sure why some people keep questioning his word. He's refrained from attacking fellow Democrats (unlike some) and I think that's got to be respected.

I respect alot of the other candidates positions, but there are "political" reasons and honest policy differences that bring me more in line w/Clark. But I wouldn't support him for a second if I didn't think he could beat Bush AND be a great president.

[mikehiggins]

55. Equating Clark's work with being against personal privacy

is like equating a Ford employee who worked on the Pinto with being in favor of burning people alive.

Can we use a new phrase here? How about "meme mining"? as in throwing all sorts of concepts into the air to see which one takes flight.

[Tinoire]

58. These attacks on your credibility are an absolute hoot!

You may be a Dean supporter but I've got your back when it comes to your credibility.

When you don't know you say so (like the Dean on the I/P issue where you posted that link for me, that turned out not to be very good for Dean because he mis-spoke but you admitted you didn't know and provided the information). OMG, this would be too funny if it weren't such a serious matter.

Well Sfecap, your credibility is fine with me because you don't talk about things you don't know about and you don't SPIN- not even for your candidate. Thank you for that.

[eileen_d]

59. The lack of credibility stems from threads such as

"Is Kerry a liar or just delusional?"

I'm sorry, but I have a problem believing anyone who posts garbage like that is asking an honest question.

[Toot]

27. Very good post

The main reasons I can't get behind Clark is that he was a speaker at a Republican fundraiser not that long ago(I think last year) praising Bush and company. For him to praise Bush and his horrible team really turns me off.

So go DEAN!!

[Rose Siding]

39. What gives me pause....

is the fact that he was a corporate lobbyist for the CAPPS II program. I guess, technically, that's *more* progressive than Poindexter's original Total Information Awareness, but there has to be a more efficient way to cut down on the number of lobbyists than to elect them president.

Welcome to DU, Toot :hi:

[maxr4clark]

41. Red Herring

Thanks for bringing up this CAPPS II claim, I hadn't heard about it.
Here are the facts I could find, partly taken from this WP article.

1. Acxiom is a large company founded in Little Rock in 1969. Wes Clark joined Acxiom in Dec 2001, and resigned in Oct 2003. Acxiom makes computer systems that deal with large quantities of information, including company finances, telephone lists, etc; the normal kind of information that gets stored on computers.

2. One group Clark met with was a part of the Treasury Department that deals with money laundering. Another group Clark met with was Lockheed-Martin, the company which headed up development of CAPPS II. Based on Clark's career, I would guess that he was helping make connections between the company he represented, Acxiom, and the people he knew in the government and the defense industry that might be interested in their services. The WP article states that Clark was working for Acxiom out of a sense of duty to do what he could to prevent future terrorist attacks.

3. Clark was not lobbying; he was acting as a salesman for Acxiom. Lobbying is trying to get legislation passed.

I grew up in the Virginia suburbs of DC, and as a new computer science graduate, I worked in the DC area for government contractor companies. This is what most military or government retirees of high enough rank do: they get a job for a government contractor, persuading some part of the government that the company they work for does good work. The companies do it because personal introductions like these tend to get them more business. The retirees do it because they are well paid, and with good reason; they are credible salesmen to the government. This is how it worked when I was a teenager in the 1970s, and it is how it still works now.

What Clark did was an ethical example: he helped his company pursue contracts with parts of the government other than the part he worked for. Clark was employed by the Department of Defense; the article lists the CIA, Treasury, and Justice Departments as groups he contacted for Acxion, but not the DoD. Unethical examples are a dime a dozen, including the scandal an Air Force officer recently got into for agreeing to buy 100 refueling tankers from Boeing as her last act for the Air Force--before retiring to a job at Boeing.

4. Short excerpt from the WP article:

Government and industry officials who have attended meetings with Clark described him as thoughtful and persuasive. Jones, the Acxiom official, said Clark repeatedly stressed the need to "properly balance legitimate privacy interests and the need for security." Jones said that was a core theme of Acxiom's effort to win government contracts.

This "expose" article points out that Clark was taking personal responsibility for his statements on behalf of his company.

5. The WP article does not say that the system Clark pitched was CAPPS II, only that it was pitched to the people who developed CAPPS II. If it were, I am certain they would have said so, rather than dancing around the issue as they did. Sounds to me like Acxiom didn't get the contract, and that Clark's actions didn't have anything to do with the CAPPS II program specifically. There is no reference to CAPPS II in the Acxiom press releases, which there would be if they had obtained a lucrative contract for it.

So you can say you don't like government contracting as a job choice, but as a government contractor, Clark did an exemplary job of handling some pretty complex ethical and civil liberty issues.

[Rose Siding]

42. re: your pt # 3- His Senate lobbying registration:

http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr_viewer.exe?20020



In this article, the WSJ and Fortune tie him a little more directly to the hawking of information programs (as does the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, in a later portion than snipped)-

snip>
But as a businessman, Clark has been involved in helping companies sell the Pentagon and the Transportation Security Administration technologies that may threaten the civil liberties and privacy rights of Americans. In a recent profile, the Wall Street Journal reported that "Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become: chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications."

Clark's most controversial role has been as a member of the Board of Directors of Axciom, a Little Rock-based database company that owns some of the most extensive consumer databases in the world. According to the Wall Street Journal, Clark "joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information." Fortune magazine reported that Clark "is spearheading the company's pursuit of contracts with the federal government. For example, the company can retool software that detects insurance fraud and make it screen airline passengers instead. Acxiom is now in talks with several government agencies and has won at least one contract so far."

http://www.counterpunch.org/donahue10012003.html

[maxr4clark]

44. More proof of Clark's personal integrity

1. I was wrong, Clark registered as a lobbyist. Thank you for pointing that out, I want the truth to reach the people.

2. In the wake of 9/11, Clark got involved in companies that might help prevent terrorist attacks like those perpetrated on 9/11.

3. According to the WP article, Clark stressed the importance of individual privacy rights. This is the key bit to me, the part directly about what Clark did. The way I see it, you can take three approaches to how the government deals with the interplay between national security and individual freedom:

(a) You can blindly trust the government, like most Americans.

(b) You can watch the government and point out their failures. This is Ralph Nader's approach, and it has been very successful on a lot of issues.

(c) You can take an active role in the process, and help keep civil liberties from being taken away in the first place. You do that by lobbying Congress and getting involved in the contracts the goverment makes with industry. This is what I see is Clark doing.

As for the WSJ/Fortune quote "Gen. Clark has become chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up", that technology company is involved with making electric motors for use in hybrid gas-electric or hydrogen fuel-cell cars. Again, I see Clark getting off his butt and doing something about America's security issues, this time by addressing the root of the problem: American dependence on foreign oil. If more liberal Democrats would get involved in technology companies like these, we would all have less to gripe about--and the Bush family wouldn't have income from polluting oil companies to run for President.

[Rose Siding]

45. In your pt C

you indicate a rather subjective acceptance Clark's actions. Has he said as much? Is there any evidence that what you believe is so?

As for liberal Democrats being involved in tech companies (and I believe they are, primarily- do you mean tech spying companies?), didn't this lobbying job coincide more closely to Clark's participation at repub fundraisers and support for the admin than his decision to declare as a Democrat?

[maxr4clark]

46. re: in your part C

Oh, I think all of Clark's actions show he is for freedom of speech, equal rights regardless of race, creed, color, sexual preference. The _way_ Clark responds to questions about individual freedoms speaks to me of his convictions more than any quote from a few years ago does. He invites us, when considering people's rights, to think of it from the perspective that the person is our son or daughter. I haven't heard anyone describe the liberal perspective on individual rights as well as that for a very long time.

The idea that Clark is a closet B*sh supporter is ludicrous, a fiction created by a paranoid mind (not necessarily yours, I don't know how you get your ideas). He criticised B*sh on live CNN television for not doing enough to actually catch bin Laden, for not providing clear evidence of a need to attack Iraq. Saying that we have the right people in office (for what lies ahead in _Europe_, not the Middle East) while talking to Republicans convinces me that he wasn't considering running for public office, not that he's a closet Republican.

On the Clark blog, there are plenty of people who know him personally that vouch for him being a man of integrity, genuinely interested in people more than corporations or money or using force to subdue other countries.

All three of the above count as evidence that "what I believe is so".

[maxr4clark]

47. see previous evidence

If you don't think I answered your question, re-read #41, point 4. I gave the evidence before the opinion. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and answered the question behind your question: does Clark support individual liberty? Yes he does.

[MariaS]

30. What has Dean

Ever done for me? Or anyone outside the minute size state of Vermont?

[SahaleArm]

69. He did a good job in handing out corporate welfare...

:evilgrin:

[sandnsea]

31. Improved the lives of 500,000 soldiers

and their families. By supporting day care, education, better health care, affirmative action, and all the things Democrats care about; or used to anyway. And he actually had to implement these programs and make sure they worked on his bases, which is actually more than any other candidate has had to do. Clark is good, I could support him 100% in the GE.

[carpetbagger]

33. Agreed.

He spent much of his career as a type of specialist in commanding units with poor morale and bringing them up to speed. That's how he did it. Good old fashioned liberalism.

I've previously addressed most of the original poster's attacks.

[returnable]

43. Kick

He's also been pretty involved with the Boys & Girls Club of Little Rock, and chairs WaveCrest, a company dedicated to developing highly efficient electric motors for applications in the military and possibly in hydrogen-fueled automobiles.

Hmmmmm... an alternative energy source? Sounds pretty progressive to me...

[neuvocat]

34. The U.S. Army (and the military as a whole)

has excellent credentials when it comes to dealing with race/gender issues. Of course there is plenty of motivation when you need people to fill the ranks. Still, there are plenty of programs to ensure that racism is minimized as much as possible, the same for relations between male and female troops. Also, minorities and women have done very well to move up in the military as many of them have moved far up both the enlisted and officer ranks.

I realize much of this sounds overgeneralized but I have served in the army and have seen first hand what goes on regarding race relations.

[tameszu]

50. Three Concrete Progressive Things Clark has Done

Off the top of my head:

1) As military commander and head military peace negotiator in the Balkans, he helped Madeleine Albright begin to concretely realize a liberal form of internationalism. He laid his stars on the table to make sure that NATO and multilateralism could succeed in its first attempt in the post-Cold War era to achieve crucial security and humanitarian goals in the face of hardened military opposition--namely, defusing the genocidal/ultra-nationalist and expansion threat of Milosevic and preventing a massive refugee crisis.

2) After retiring, he was one of the first senior military officers to help compile the amicus brief supporting U. Michigan's affirmative action policy in that crucial Supreme Court case.

3) As a CNN commentator and Presidential candidate, he has outlined the broadest and most coherent critique of President Bush's policies. He is the only "big 6" candidate to argue that President Bush must be held responsible for Sept. 11. He is, as far as I know, the only candidate to explicitly cite PNAC's overall strategy of Middle Eastern domination as a possible rationale for the Iraq war.

So, sfecap--ready to be a Clark supporter? Or to at least quit with these thinly-veiled insinuations that Clark is not a progressive?

[goodhue]

52. not much

but he looks good in uniform

[dogman]

53. He has given us hope again.

If we were only interested in liberal/progressive/Democratic ideals we would only support Dennis Kucinich. The problem with that is, it takes more than 1/3 of the electorate to win an election. You would not even consider Dean as his record doesn't fit with these ideals. Since we want to eliminate B*** we have to have a candidate with the ability to beat B*** and yet hold the values that Dems hold dear. I believe leadership, responsibility, and honesty will beat B***. Without electability none of our ideals will be realized.

[Jerseycoa]

61. AIDS Awareness

As a humanitarian and an internationalist, Clark has worked in Africa with Bono and made a practice of visiting HIV orphanages in Haiti.

As a candidate, he calls for universal health care for everybody under 22, universal health insurance coverage for adults, and supports sex ed in public schools. He would direct U.S. AIDS money through the UN Global Fund, would fully fund the Ryan White CARE Act, and increase NIH research funding for AIDS.

Global AIDS Policy

Domestic Aids Policy

:dem:

[maxr4clark]

65. evidence

That heartless, cruel Bu$h Lite! And you know, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy isn't good enough for him, either. "Give us something better", he says to the humanitarians that run the DoD, Donnie "Bleeding Heart" Rumsfeld and Paul "I'm not a" Wolfowitz.

No wonder Bu$h doesn't want him to testify against Milosevic in open court. There's no telling how many of Milosevic's humanitarian acts he might have neglected to mention.

[MontecitoDem]

66. If you think Clark is a Republican

How do you explain endorsements by Charles Rangel and Andrew Young?

Are they being hoodwinked?

[SahaleArm]

68. Don't worry they'll be called Republicans as well.

Bunch of tinfoilers :tinfoilhat: