MSM/CNN Finally Recognizing Clark as Possible Candidate [w/poll]

How many "horse race" articles have ran already on CNN and elsewhere for the 2008 Presidential cycle? Quite a few, relative to the distance we are from actual vote casting.  

How many have even mentioned General (ret.) Wesley Clark as a possible candidate? Very few, considering his qualifications, netroots support and tireless campaigning for Democratic candidates since he dropped out of the primary.

Finally, Clark's possible 2008 bid is receiving some CNN attention. Currently, the following is featured on the front page:

http://www.cnn.com/...

more...

The article tells of Clark wanting to avoid the mistake of jumping in too late like he did last time.  He still managed to win one primary despite getting in late and being ganged up on by a couple different candidates during some debates.

I hope this means Clark will at least announce an exploratory committee sometime soon. He can probably wait until spring to decide.  He's got more actual "public service" than most of the names bandied about and he still has some outsider credibility in much of the general non-political junkie population that will make him quite appealing to general election voters.  The only question will be can he win the primary?

I believe Clark has won over early (meaning 2003-04) netroots doubters and has earned favors and respect from many state organizers around the country.  That stealth support that I've seen here and elsewhere - and isn't covered on CNN or other MSM outlets - will be a major asset if the General decides to run.  

We'll have to wait and see, but at least it is nice to have someone this qualified willing to at least consider continuing to serve his nation.  

•  He has my favorite quality in any candidate.

   He actually answers questions instead of repeating a rote position statement.  I'd need to see much more before I made up my mind, but the better the field of candidates is the better the level of dialogue gets.

  by Urizen on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:08:37 PM PDT

  •  surprised Clark doesn't want immediate

    redeployment of troops....

    from the CNN article

    Clark said Iraq will be a focus of the 2008 campaign. He disagreed with suggestions by some members of Congress that more U.S. troops should be sent to help stabilize Iraq. Neither would he begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq within the next six months, as others have suggested.

    by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:04:25 PM PDT

    •  troops

      That's because it's not about the military anymore.  Do you think the Iraqis LIKE dying or having the friends, family & neighbors killed anymore than we like seeing our troops killed?  Clark recognizes that you have to bring ALL the different regional/political factions to the table and use some diplomacy.  It's possible - he did it in the Balkans.  

      by AKTup on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:30:26 PM PDT

      •  If it's not about troops bring em home NOW!

        by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:38:15 PM PDT

        •  troops

          You're missing the point.  It's not about the troops - it's about the safety and security of the REGION.  It's bigger than just Iraq.  It's bigger than Sunni/Shia fighting.  See my post downthread.

          The troop presence gives us political leverage and they're still involved in training local forces to defend themselves.

          by AKTup on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:51:27 PM PDT

          •  It's about the region AND the troops

            Would love for just one "bring them home NOW" advocate to explain how they would propose to do that.

            Haul them out in helicopters? March them toward the border in tidy little lines? They aren't in Kansas and there's no Yellow Brick Road to home.

            No one can wave a wand and move that many troops and that much equipment out in that ephemeral thing known as NOW.

            No matter when redeployment begins it is going to take time and it's going to take careful planning. Planning for the safety of our service members as well as planning that is meant to achieve the least amount of chaos possible for the region we're leaving.

            A man who has been there when it comes to stratigic planning has a better chance of accomplishing a safe and sane withdrawal plan than anything that his come before in this mis-begotten mess.

            I would trust Wes Clark to lead in that planning. I just would.

            by witchamakallit on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:13:20 PM PDT

            •  false choice

              start flying some out now from the baghdad airport to Germany in cargo planes.

              some go to Kuwait in caravans. some go to saudi arabia.

              start moving out 1000 a week now. The rest can base in the kurdish north.

              by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:23:20 PM PDT

              •  confused

                what does that accomplish?  It sounds all simple and easy on paper (just fly them all home and the world will be at peace), but knowing Clark's background, I believe he has a little more insight that I do as to how to come up with the least bad solution at this point.

                by AKTup on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:29:38 PM PDT

                •  Is this a Cult movement or a political thread?

                  the military carries out the policy of the people.

                  Either you believe something good can happen to Iraq or the die has already been cast.

                  I see very little good that can come from our military actions in Iraq at this point.

                  there is good for diplomacy and getting the UN and other countries involved in political solutions but the opportunity for military accomplishment is over.
                  therefore start getting them out now.

                  If Clark's position is NO drawdown of troops for the next 4-6 months that's great however, not all dem candidates share his opinion.

                  by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:40:34 PM PDT

                  •  Your title line has nothing to do

                    with the body of your post. Most confusing.

                    by witchamakallit on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:48:00 PM PDT

                    •  Please list the Democratic Candidates

                      who have the same or more experience an General Clark.

                      by jinny on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:52:46 PM PDT

                      •  There are none

                        Did you mean this question for me or for EdwardsRaysOfSunshine?

                        by witchamakallit on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:14:40 PM PDT

                        •  Sorry, for

                          EdwardsRaysOfSunshine - don't know what hapened there.

                          by jinny on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:13:59 PM PDT

                  •  Cult movement? Takes one to know one, I guess.

                    EdwardsRaysOfSunshine.  But...no - this is a political thread as most of the posts here have demonstrated.

                    Clark's position:  

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

                    You can feel free to claim to know better, but I'd challenge you to come back to me when you or your preferred candidate has led a successful military intervention including successfully holding together a 19-nation coalition and worked the diplomatic angle to establish democracy in the wartorn region.  

                    And, you're right - very little good can come from our military actions in Iraq at this point.  BUT it COULD get worse.  We're in a D- position right now.  What Clark is proposing is NOT a military action, it's a diplomatic one with the prospect of helping this not shift down to an F.

                    by AKTup on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:18:09 PM PDT

                  •  Respect for nations does not make me a cultist.

                    Nor does a basic adult understanding of how global tensions and foreign policy work make me some sort of kool-aid drinking hawk.  For every action there is a reaction - and the reality is that leaving is an action.

                    If Clark's position is NO drawdown of troops for the next 4-6 months that's great however, not all dem candidates share his opinion.

                    That is not the entirety of Clark's position, and he's made that very clear, repeatedly.  He is not in favor of Washington imposing a timetable from the outside, without FIRST having serious talks with the neighboring countries and giving them a stake in the outcome.  We don't need to make even more entrenched enemies on the way out than we made on the way in.  We need to stop acting unilaterally in the region, and hard as it is for some to understand, pulling out is an act, just as much as invading is.  He's not saying don't do it - he's saying don't do it unilaterally.

                    I see very little good that can come from our military actions in Iraq at this point.

                    Good, then you agree with Wes Clark - he's said no good can come of it either, only less bad.  Leaving can be done in a way where you have only a minor bloodbath, or it can be done in such a way as to trigger a gigantic bloodbath. He'd like for us to aim for the former.

                    He's all in favor of getting out as fast as feasible. He simply thinks it's smart to pay attention to HOW we do it, not just how fast, because HOW we do it could affect us, and them, for the next 50 years.

                    Find me another candidate who has for over 3 years relentlessly and publicly beat the diplomacy drum, and repeatedly urged talking to our enemies like Syria and Iran to the extent that Wes Clark has.  

                    If it were China that had invaded Mexico, and left it in that much of a mess bound to come spilling over our border, I think we would expect them to at least discuss their departure plans with us, and help us plan accordingly.

                    Not to do so is an additonal slap in the face to a region that we cannot afford to piss off any more than we already have.

                    by SaneSoutherner on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:29:39 PM PDT

              •  1000/week now

                That would take a bit under three years.  

                Or come up with a phased and orderly withdrawal.

                by Yamaneko2 on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:39:33 PM PDT

              •  Carefull planning is a false choice?

                And as we fly out and march away a thousand or so at a time what becomes of the ones who are left behind?

                What happens when we're down to, oh say, the final 5000 who are left to defend themselves against those in the country who would love nothing more than to blow them to smithereens and who would outnumber them by a few thousand to one?

                There is no simplistic answer to the mess. It's going to take a lot more than just "flying them out", which is why it's going to take someone with strategic experience to accomplish it.

                One thing for sure, the safest route for our troops will never be formulated on DKos.

                by witchamakallit on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:44:25 PM PDT

              •  Okay lets do that

                We can fly people out sure, but what about those tanks, APC howietzers, computers, radars and tons and tons of ammunition.

                We just leave it there right?

                You know full well if we do that it would be like kids in a candy store, and all those weapons will fall into the hands of Iran, Al Qaeda and worst of all the militias who will use it to settle their own scores in a genocide that will make what the Nazi's did to the jews look pretty.

                Sorry but we got into this war by making a rash judgment and commiting to it with no plan to succeed and assuming the best instead of being prepared for the worst.

                When someone comes up with a solid plan to leave Iraq, get all our equipment out and prevent the sunni and shia from going into an all out genocide and bringing Iran in on one side and the sunni state like the saudi's on the other let me know.

                But what it sounds like you are advocating is a disorganized partion of Iraq with our troops dodging bullets as they flee to the north and trying to get on the last airplane before the insurgents overrun the airport.

                I want the troops out two, but I don't want to start a genocide worse than Darfur in the process, a genocide that will certainly lead to a regional war. Do you doubt that, are you really willing to having the blood of millions of arabs on our hands because we were not patient enough to withdraw the right way and instead made a six month long mad dash for the exits?

                No offensive but I find that very optimistic and extremely unrealistic.

                Plan it, and for goodness sake plan it well.

                by Donkey Rising on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:47:10 PM PDT

              •  Then how are you going to feel

                when the real genocide starts like in Darfur? And when foreign militia enter with their US and western weapons?

                It will be a bloodbath beyond anything it is now.

                It's a mess we have made and there is no easy fix.

                by abbeysbooks on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 01:45:39 AM PDT

          •  The troops...

            ...are part of the problem.  There is no chance of calming down Iraq, unless you use the troops to level it, down to every house, while our military forces remain.  Clark's position on the war has been his most defining weakness, in my opinion, and he has been all over the map when it comes to discussing Iraq.  Indeed, one of his first statements after announcing his candidacy last time was the blunderous admission that he would have supported the resolution authorizing military force in Iraq, after claiming he was "against the war."

            by scorponic on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 02:45:21 AM PDT

            •  He would have supported

              the Levin amendment, which required Bush to come back to Congress before going to war.  Not the Iraq resolution which eventually passed.

              by LSophia on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 08:28:45 AM PDT

            •  not true

              The troops are there as a political tool.  What happens if Iran decides to just invade saudi by way of iraq?  or vice versa?  What happens if the saudi's and iranians say they'll help out, but only if sadr is gone first?

              I think a large part of what we need to do is get our troops to the borders to contain everything, rather than targets in the cities, but that's something I'll leave up to the general(s).

              Just randomly pulling out isn't a solution.  I'd say give clark's ideas a chance.

              by qkslvrwolf on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:40:51 AM PDT

              •  These proposals, of course, rest...

                ...on the assumption that we own the world, or, further, that a nation that commits illegal aggression still has a choice in when, or even if, it withdraws its troops.  And don't use the canard that the Iraqi government wants us there.  The government was formed out of a process imposed by the invaders, whether or not elections were held.  Imagine the reaction to someone claiming Iraq had the right to determine the conditions of its withdrawal from Kuwait, or even whether it would withdraw, even if it had overseen elections in which a government emerged that "invited" Iraqi troops to stay.

                As for your "what ifs," what if we stay, trash the place until no hope of a viable society exists and are forced out because of the unmanageable chaos and it becomes a free-for-all for Iraq's neighbors?  That game can be played any way you want it.  Bottom line, though, is that the country using force has the burden of persuasion that (a) the use of force is legal and (b) is the only option available.  "What ifs" don't get you to (a) or (b).  

                by scorponic on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 07:56:49 AM PDT

    •  Have you ever entertained the thought

      that perhaps he knows what he's talking about?  He's certainly got a leg up on the "arm chair generals" who are spewing their strategies while jockeying for position in the race for the 2008 presidential prize.  

      Personally, my money is on the Wes Clark plan for Iraq.

      by reggiesmom on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:57:10 PM PDT

  •  Yes! Saw this at my school

    He came to Brown yesterday to speak, and I was utterly amazed at the wealth of information he drew from in answering all of our questions.  Never avioding even the most loaded question from critical students, he gave us a well-supported, well-thought out response.  It was a wonderful sign of respect to a group of students.

    by aebudde on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:27:57 PM PDT

    •  Q and A

      That's my favorite venue.  Clark is fantastic in Q&A or townhall format.  There's not a subject that's off-limits - he'll answer anything...and at length, not just a shallow, soundbite response.

      by AKTup on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:42:38 PM PDT

    •  Good

      Good post-good write up in Brown student newspaper before and after the event-good answers by Clark-Good school.

      by haypops on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:56:39 PM PDT

      •  linky?

        please?

        by qkslvrwolf on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:41:53 AM PDT

        •  The links at the Brown paper are incredibly long

          and awkward to post here.  They are 228 characters long....

          But the original articles are linked from the postings on SecuringAmerica

          Clark urges diplomacy, stresses China's future strength

          Q & A with Clark: "I haven't said I won't run" for President

          by kathygo on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 01:10:55 PM PDT

    •  He respects everyone

      He really does.

      by mariawells on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:33:10 PM PDT

  •  Amazing----

    the MSM actually notices something that many of us have been activly discussing for quite a while--especially about those silly polls they publish full of has been and never will 'candidates'. Will wonders ever cease? Next thing you know the MSM will publish a story about rumours that there may be an impending Democratic Party electoral victory.

    Clark has been active and at the forefront of the issues and the recent campaign. For those that follow these things ( and that obviously doesn't seem to include the MSM )it has been obvious that Wes Clark has not only been a valuable contributer to the Democratic Party, he also has strong netroots support, now recognized as an essential componant of electoral success. For more on Clark--http://dokeysdiass.blogspot.com. I will be putting some stuff I found in my e-mail today from his PAC regarding recent statements on Iraq either tonight or tomorrow ( time management thing!).

     And, yes I am one of those 'Clarkies' There are a lot of us and we are going to get louder. I apologize for that in advance. But we are not going away.

     

    by eastvan on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:57:01 PM PDT

    •  Correction to above

      http://donkeysdiass.blogspot.com me dumb-not type good-proofread worse.

      by eastvan on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:07:39 PM PDT

  •  I just recommended this

    I just recommended this to someone else:

    Gen. Wesley Clark and Sadako Ogata : Refugee Crises of the 1990s, http://www.loc.gov/...

    It's definitely "much more"; it's about an hour long.  I like it because it's more like a conversation than a presentation.  It's not necessarily all "on target" for the issues that people are interested in at this moment but I think it gives a real flavor of Wes.  He does talk about Iraq at the end--and this was nearly 2 years ago, so the current situation was somewhat different, but the general principles are the same.

    by mariawells on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:13:16 AM PDT

•  He is among

  the many candidates I would consider.  I can envision voting for him.  Put another way, there's nothing about him that would preclude a vote, although it's also possible I might support a different candidate in the primaries.  

  I am glad he is seen as a major candidate.  I think he is, along at least with 5 or 6 others.

  by TomP on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:09:59 PM PDT

  •  would support

    clark, edwards. gore or Obama....

    they all have their pros and cons

    Clark
    Pro - how can you not say "allied supreme commander" and not think he has the military credentials.  (not high negatives but not known)

    Con - polls very low, and does he have the campaign charisma to win the people over?

    Edwards -
    Pro- very low negatives in polls/ large chunk of undecideds.
    charismatic speaker excellent campaigner.
    Elizabeth Edwards - may be the most effective campaigner of all 08 candidates.  (I'm hoping she takes on hillary personally)

    Con- for some leaves un empty feeling needs more oomph

    Gore (seems unlikely to run- people stop mentioning him as a VP candidate it's all or none)
    Pros- rebirth since the loss of 2000,  high name rec.  more popular now more than ever.  Southern.

    Cons- very high negatives.  In every poll he and hillary have one thing in common well known by all but about 49% of the people won't vote for them.

    Obama-
    Pro - charismatic speaker, low negatives, blank slate,  broad appeal
    Cons- blank slate, what does he stand for,   according to his book has done "blow" .  most people don't know anything about him.   May be a bit too much in the lieberman mold..

    is he running for VP?

    by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:28:03 PM PDT

    •  I'm in the democratic wing of this camp

      

      by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:50:45 PM PDT

      •  I agree but don't tell my wife.

        by SimplyLeft on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:12:12 PM PDT

        •  Bill?

          Is that you?!?!

          by AKTup on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:26:25 PM PDT

    •  candidates

      If you look at the polls, this is the general order:

      • Clinton - Good Senator, terrible Presidential candidate.
      • Obama - Good oratory skills, little experience, black (unfortunately still a large disadvantage), has pissed off too many of us lefties.
      • Edwards - Charismatic, liberal. Lost in 2004.
      • Gore - Isn't running.
      • Kerry - Uh, no.
      • Clark - Good credentials, but unknown. Don't know much about his politics.
      • Biden - Uh, no.
      • Richardson, Bayh, Vilsack - I know these names, but have no idea who these people are.

      So who does this leave us? Edwards and Clark. Clinton if no one else comes to the front. Gore if he changes his mind.

      It's a pretty small field, but fortunately none of GOP frontrunners qualify:

      • Giuliani - Lots of dirt, probably too liberal.
      • McCain - He'd win if he were the candidate, but he won't be.
      • Gingrich - Hahahahaha. No.
      • Romney - The religion problem.

      by nasarius on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:33:37 PM PDT

      •  sort of agree but add Obama

        to the list...
        One of those three will emerge as the anti-hillary.
        the sooner the better.

        by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:42:44 PM PDT

      •  Correction and Explanations

        Edwards lost? If they counted all the votes he'd be VP right now...or did you mean he lost the last primary?

        You don't have to worry about not knowing who Bayh is; Bayh is a haircut, that's all.

        by LNK on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 12:44:31 AM PDT

•  I like him...

  ... but I'm going to give him, and his supporters, a really hard time about Iraq.  

  I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that our troops will be redeployed from Iraq faster with President Hagel than with President Clark.

  by decon on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:10:43 PM PDT

  •  Why?

    What's Clark's position?  I want us out, yesterday.

    Don't tell me he's a stay-the-course guy.  That eliminates him for me, if so.

    by Miss Blue on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:14:17 PM PDT

    •  NO, he's not stay the course!

      He favors redeployment, with involvement of others in the region to stabilize Iraq.  He favors helping them develop their own solution, not the US dictating their solution (i.e. partitioning).  

      by LSophia on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:16:40 PM PDT

      •  Thank you.

        n/t

        by Miss Blue on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:19:05 PM PDT

    •  Not stay the course

      but not get out yesterday either:

      Clark said Iraq will be a focus of the 2008 campaign. He disagreed with suggestions by some members of Congress that more U.S. troops should be sent to help stabilize Iraq. Neither would he begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq within the next six months, as others have suggested.

      "It's not a matter of fiddling with troop levels," Clark said. "It's a matter of politics inside Iraq and diplomacy in the region. ... You can lose what's going on militarily inside Iraq, but you can't win it militarily, either by putting more forces in or by pulling them out."

      In some ways this is right, but in others it's just delaying the inevitable.

      by dday on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:20:38 PM PDT

      •  You know, if Clark thinks we should do this

        carefully - then I am inclined to listen to him. I do NOT know more about this than General Clark, and I trust his judgment and loyalty to the troops 100%. Maybe we should listen to what he has to say.

        by adigal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:53:20 PM PDT

        •  Yes

          His is the only experienced voice of reason at the present time. If Kerry couldn't handle Bush in a goddamn debate that he won, he is not going to be able to do it.

          Hillary can't because she is a woman so she will have to appoint someone else to do it and I don't see her not second guessing everything.

          What does Obama know about all this.

          And if Gore couldn't handle Bush in the dabates without sighing and crossing over into his space, do you really think he can handle the middle eastern mind which is so much more subtle.

          This is how the right perceives things. They watch Gore and then Kerry not being able to handle Bush and it didn't make them feel safe. Neither of them was perceived as strong. Intelligent yes, maybe, but not strong.

          by abbeysbooks on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 02:02:40 AM PDT

          •  asdf

            And if Gore couldn't handle Bush in the dabates without sighing and crossing over into his space,

            Hardly anyone noticed those sighs in real time, did they? The media made it into a big deal which it really wasn't. Gore did very well on substance on the debates notwithstanding these minor stylistic mistakes.

            Gore has diplomatic experience from his VP days. He has recently had many high profile visits with several heads of state, and is widely respected and regarded. Gore may well be the most popular American (along with Bill Clinton) around the world at this point.

            do you really think he can handle the middle eastern mind which is so much more subtle.

            Yes, because he is a solid thinking individual with good personal qualities and excellent diplomatic skills.

            Clark's debate performance in 2003-2004 was seriously underwhelming. In my view, he and Mosely-Braun were the worst debaters that cycle.

            Would that be a basis to think that Clark can't handle the middle eastern mind which in your words is "so much more subtle"?

            by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:21:13 AM PDT

            •  I have no problem with Gore

              But, of course you would think Clark did lousy in the debates.  You can't stand the guy.  

              Those debates sucked all around.  Clark got attacked by Peter Jennings for being associated with Michael Moore.  That was just total fucking bullshit and there was nothing he could do about it.  You can't have a real debate with 10 people on the stage anyway.  

              Actually, even with only two people, debates have become a farce.  It's not even worth having them, IMO, at this point.  Every one I've seen recently is worthless.  They're too staged.  They're too much about soundbites.

              We need real, substantial issues discussion.  And, no, I don't know how to make that happen.  I'd love to hear other people's ideas on that.  Maybe we could actually make something happen.  Live-blogging might work.  

              I'm guessing there is a typo in your last sentence.  You're asking what makes people think Wes can handle the middle eastern mind?  Well, he seems to get invited to all their events, so they must have a respectful dialog with him.  Check his schedule next week.

              by mariawells on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:39:12 AM PDT

              •  asdf

                But, of course you would think Clark did lousy in the debates.

                yes, I think he did poorly in the debates.

                You can't stand the guy.

                How did you come to this conclusion? It's a false one, by the way. I think that Gen. Clark is a fine individual from what I have seen. As a candidate, there are pros and cons to a Clark candidacy, which I sometimes talk about.

                I'm guessing there is a typo in your last sentence.

                There was no typo. I was illustrating the hyperbolic nature of the "argument" that Gore's sighing somehow makes him poor at handling middle eastern minds, with a similar "argument" about Clark.

                Yes, the debate format should be improved, somehow. I have thought about this many times and may diary some ideas I have had.

                by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:01:58 AM PDT

                •  You either didn't watch many debates

                  Or you remember it the way you wish it had happened.  Or you hold a minority and rather peculiar opinion.  To be honest, I've never heard anyone criticize Clark's debate performance who wasn't pushing someone else by doing so.

                  If you go back to the reporting at the time, Clark was said to have won two of the debates hands down, based on polling afterwards.  The NBC debate had Matthews and Jesse Jackson both raving about how well he did.  Additionally, while I wouldn't say he won the debate, his ad at the end of the MTV debate was voted the best of all the candidates, so that one certainly didn't hurt him.  Even for the very first debate he participated in (I forget who sponsored it, but you can google it if it helps),  the pundits said he won because he didn't lose.

                  There was only one debate Clark clearly did poorly in, and that was the one right before the NH primary, run by Fox.  Jennings and Hume ganged up on him.  He was actually asked the same "gotcha" question twice.  And almost nothing at all about issues.  Butcha know, the only guy who actually came out of that one unscathed was Lieberman.  I remember Edwards looking particularly clueless about a Middle East question.  And even Sharpton, always fast on his feet, got trapped in a question he clearly did not understand.  But that's the way Fox set it up.

                  Come to think of it, considering how the media screwed around with Gore's debate performance in 2000, I'm kind of surprised you would consider them an essential qualification.

                  by hfjai on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 10:15:05 AM PDT

                •  "how did we come to that conclusion"

                  Dude...you get on EVERY clark topic and EVERY time you post the same tired BS about clark.  Its enough to make me think you're a mccain supporter or something.  that's where he (and most of the rest of us) came to that conclusion. You made up your mind.  Fine.  Why don't you leave some room for everyone else to do their own thinking?

                  by qkslvrwolf on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 12:10:00 PM PDT

    •  Clark Stay The Course?

      No way! But he wants us to use a gradual pull out. And use diplomacy in the region first. He says if you try to pull the troops out too quick that this will put our troops in greater danger. As they will try to kill us all on our way out. Clark knows how to handle this. After all his experience that he had while in Kosovo in the 90's. There was not on American Soldier casualty during that time. Every watch him give his opinions on Fox news? Come visit Clarks blog sometime if you don't have Fox or go to Securing America.com and look under Videos as they will put some of Clarks latest appearances there.
      Another plus is that Wes has a lot of respect from other Countries. He knows alot about how Muslims think.
      After all he was endorsed during his last run for President in 2004 by some foreign diplomats. (over 35 I think).
      People in other countries hate the Shrub we now have in  the White House.
      But they love Clark. Need I say more?

      by Becky58 on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:28:23 PM PDT

      •  He has a street named after him

        in Kosovo.

        Can you imagine a street in a Muslim named after any of our current administration? I can't.

        by LSophia on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:31:58 PM PDT

        •  Ooops

          That should be "in a Muslim nation."

          by LSophia on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:36:51 PM PDT

        •  Yes, but it would probably be

          an wide avenue at the end of the gastrointestinal tract.

          by monkeybiz on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:51:17 PM PDT

        •  Hope

          And there is a street on the Brown University Campus which is the name sake of what Clark brings America and the world -- Hope!

          by haypops on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:59:51 PM PDT

      •  Over 50 diplomats

        I think it was 55 but could be wrong.

        A highly respected man in the world. It would be a true pleasure to see him at the head of our country.

        by witchamakallit on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:34:01 PM PDT

        •  Very good! 55 DIPLOMATS for CLARK! :)

          Morton Abramowitz, Ambassador to Turkey and Thailand, Assistant Secretary of State
          Brady Anderson, Ambassador to Tanzania.
          Christopher Ashby, Ambassador to Uruguay.
          Jeff Bader, Ambassador to Namibia, Senior Director National Security Agency
          Robert Barry, Administrator, Agency for International Development; Head, OSCE
          J.D. Bindenagel, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues.
          Donald Blinken, Ambassador to Hungary
          Amy Bondurant, Ambassador to OECD
          Avis Bohlen, Ambassador to Bulgaria, Assistant Secretary of State
          George Bruno, Ambassador to Belize
          Paul Cejas, Ambassador to Belgium
          Tim Chorba, Ambassador to Singapore
          Bonnie Cohen, Under Secretary of State
          Nancy Ely-Raphel, Ambassador to Slovenia
          Ralph Earle, Deputy Director of State, Chief U.S. Negotiator, SALT II Treaty
          Thomas H. Fox, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
          Mary Mel French, Chief of Protocol
          Edward Gabriel, Ambassador to Morocco
          Richard Gardner, Ambassador to Italy & Spain
          Robert Gelbard, Ambassador to Indonesia & Bolivia, Assistant Secretary of State
          Gordon Giffin, Ambassador to Canada
          Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador to Brazil, Assistant Secretary of State
          Anthony Harrington, Ambassador to Brazil
          John Holum, Under Secretary of State
          William J. Hughes, Ambassador to Panama
          Swanee Hunt, Ambassador to Austria
          James Joseph, Ambassador to South Africa
          Rodney Minott, Ambassador to Sweden
          John McDonald, Ambassador to the United Nations
          Stan McLelland, Ambassador to Jamaica
          Gerald McGowan, Ambassador to Portugal
          Arthur Mudge, Mission Director for Agency for International Development
          Lyndon Olson, Ambassador to Sweden
          Donald Petterson, Ambassador to the Sudan, Tanzania & Somalia
          Kathryn Proffitt, Ambassador to Malta
          Edward Romero, Ambassador to Spain & Andorra
          James Rosapepe, Ambassador to Romania
          Nancy Rubin, United Nations Commission on Human Rights
          James Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State
          David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary of State
          Howard Schaffer, Ambassador to Bangladesh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
          Teresita Schaffer, Ambassador to Sri Lanka & Maldives
          David Scheffer, Ambassador at Large for War Crimes
          Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to the Netherlands.
          Derek Shearer, Ambassador to Finland
          Richard Schifter, Assistant Secretary of State
          Thomas Siebert, Ambassador to Sweden
          Richard Sklar, Ambassador to the United Nations
          Peter Tarnoff, Under Secretary of State
          Peter Tufo, Ambassador to Hungary
          Arturo Valenzuela, Senior Director, National Security Council
          William Walker, Ambassador to El Salvador & Argentina, Head, Kosovo VerificationMission
          Vernon Weaver, Ambassador to the European Union
          Phoebe L. Yang, Special Coordinator for China Rule of Law, State Department
          Andrew Young, Ambassador to the United Nations

          by Knightrider on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:55:09 PM PDT

      •  Don't tell any one but

        Michael Moore endorsed him too.

        by SimplyLeft on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:52:53 PM PDT

        •  and Madonna too.......n/t

          by ParaHammer on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:54:36 PM PDT

        •  and Gaylord Nelson

          father of Earth Day!

          by AKTup on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:53:17 PM PDT

          •  and Jeff Davidson

            random blogger!  :)

            by jdavidson2 on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:55:32 PM PDT

          •  That title also belongs to Ira Einhorn.

            by abbeysbooks on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 02:03:42 AM PDT

            •  Some other titles also apply to him..

              by wrights on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:01:18 AM PDT

              •  Yeh I know

                He killed Holly. and she was an absolutely beautiful person inside and out.

                by abbeysbooks on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 09:29:58 AM PDT

              •  Yeh I know

                He killed Holly. and she was an absolutely beautiful person inside and out.

                by abbeysbooks on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 09:29:58 AM PDT

        •  And George McGovern

          Stan Davis
          Lakewood, CO

          by Stan81747 on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:33:36 PM PDT

          •  McGovern wrote the book: "Out of Iraq"

            with plan.

            Oh, I thik we've got a winner.

            by LNK on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 12:46:43 AM PDT

      •  Times are right for Clark

        This time is similar to the Korean War period when the country went for Eisenhower, with his global view and decisive nature. I believe Clark is very much like that.

        by denno61 on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 02:19:41 AM PDT

    •  He doesn't want to stay the course..Nope!

      Clark says that we must make it clear with an official statement that there will be no permanent American bases in Iraq. Also, he calls for redeployment of the troops, and no additional troops (I heard him use the words "blowing smoke" when talking about McCain.) Mostly, and this is my opinion, he gets slightly frustrated by politicians posturing about something about which they have limited knowledge. I'm not sure who he might include in that category.

      Clark's absolute message is that the solution--and thus getting us out of Iraq--lays outside of Iraq. His original policy statement written in 03, called for regional diplomacy. Once when O'Lielly challenged with: "Do you really think Iran would talk with us," Clark came back with: "Well, they talk to me." Kinda shut O'Lielly right the fuck up. Susan's diary today speculating on what will be included by the ISG, focused regional dialogue. Quite frankly, I listened to Jimmy Carter tonight, and he sounded pretty much like Wes Clark. Carter was one of the people who urged Wes to run in 04, I don't doubt that they talk.

      Wes Clark will speaking next week at a three day Gulf conference...we'll have to wait and see what he comes up with.

      Remember: Clark never wanted to invade Iraq, and he believes that bush has used and abused the troops. He wants them out.

      by Donna Z on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:41:42 PM PDT

    •  FYI--Wes's op ed on Iraq

      This was in USA Today last week:

      http://securingamerica.com/...

      by mariawells on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:23:17 PM PDT

      •  I like the Kerry/Feingold plan

        better.

        by isbister on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:00:53 PM PDT

    •  Then are you going to sit and be quiet

      as the bloodbath in Iraq escalates beyond anything that is going on there now? It will  be a terrible genocide and won't stop until most of both sides have been killed. There will be no quick surrender as it involves religious belief systems.

      And militias from surrounding countries will come in to add to it. Saddam wasn't the tyrant he was for no reason. That's what it took to keep things under control. Of course we had destabilized the region since 1959 creating a class of barbarians.

      It will be beyond our imaginations. We did it and we can't fix it and someone will have to step in and start working on it. As long as Bush is president it is not going to get better. They hate him more than even we hate him.

      by abbeysbooks on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 01:57:48 AM PDT

  •  Is faster

    always better?  

    Don't misunderstand me - I'd LOVE to see the troops come home.  I just want to make sure that the Middle East doesn't go up in flames after we withdraw, or, barring that, that any damage is minimal.

    I'd hate to see some of those groups over there get their hands on nukes, for instance, as an absolute worst-case scenario.

    by LSophia on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:15:35 PM PDT

    •  Usually it's not

      We got into this damn war by rushing the process and holding a vote before due process had run it's course. It was popular, 70% of Americans loved the idea, until we saw that the popular thing may not have been the best thing for America or Iraq.

      I don't believe in easy answers on Iraq, I'd love there to be some magic solution where our troops could come home tomorrow. I just don't see it happening though, it takes a lot more work than that, Eisenhower got us out of Korea, but it didn't happen overnight, it takes work.

      Moving troop levels up or down won't change things for the better. If we flood the region with troops like McCainiac suggests we'll end up fueling even more resentment and anger and neighboring countries will see it as a sign they must step up their effort to keep us from succeeding in Iraq because they then know we are going after them next.

      If well pull all troops out in 6 months there is no way in hell anyone but Iran or Al Qaeda will fill the power vacuum, they already have the ground work to move right in and make themselves at home, that's already in the process of happening I know but it wouldn't be 150 to 250 a day, it would be on the order of thousands dying each day.

      Withdraw is part of a larger objective, which is deescalating tensions in the region, and if we ever hope to do that we have to start talking to Iran and Syria. Shrill won't do it, I don't know where Edwards or Obama stand on that, Gore would talk to Iran. Biden and Bayh are too hawkish to try something like that.

      Wes has the street cred and experience to pull it off. The problem is though I think his plan could work, and probably has an 70% chance of success I think it would only work if HE were President. This cabal has shown little interest in adopting his idea's or listening to anyone who didn't share in their delusion of Empire.

      Personally I think those who say we can leave tomorrow and lay out no plan on how to do it other than reducing forces are just as naive as the neo cons who got us in there. Just as there were unintended consequences in invading Iraq and knocking off Saddam there will be unintended consequences when we leave if we don't lay the ground work first.

      To name a few...

      Iran's world influence will increase.

      The price of oil will sky rocket again, probably to the order of $110 to 135$ a barrel. Probably leading to a recession in the U.S. and Europe which will in turn reduce imports and have an impact on China's economy which could lead to yet more tensions.

      Al Qaeda will set up shop in western Anbar, there's no doubt about that. I'd look for Fallujah to become the capital of this radical Islamic state.

      Baghdad will become a city under siege, much like Sarajevo in the mid 90s, different sides shelling each other, landmines, snipers, probably some roadside bombs but suicide car bombers will become a thing of the past as out of a need to survive people will shoot anything that moves.

      Iraq will be in a state of genocide for the next 5 years.

      The Turks will come in and exterminate the Kurdish government and occupy the area Ottoman style.

      Refugees will flee Iraq in droves creating a humanitarian crisis in Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

      Osama will declare it a great victory and feed off of popular Muslim resentment towards the U.S. particuraly in Iraq and will work to finish us off in Afghanistan..

      Just to name a few results that WILL happen, not might, will happen if we don't leave in an intelligent way.

      However if we don't start laying the ground work to leave soon soon we are going to lose anyway, that's inevitable, this war cannot be won militarily and Wes knows it. And two if we stay we are going to lose ourselves in Iraq the same way the Soviets lost themselves in Afghanistan, we'll bleed our economy dry, cripple our military and lose our world clout as China takes center stage in the new century.

      And when we lose the bully pulpit, we'll lose everything, because right now thanks to Dubya, the bully pulpit is all we've got.

      by Donkey Rising on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:46:13 PM PDT

      •  You are absolutely right

        de-escalating an already tense middle east is a HUGE problem. Even if Bush and Co. tried to do what Clark advocates, it wouldn't work because they do not trust him or his motivations. I doubt if any improvement will happen until 2008. Look how popular Clinton is in the middle east. They know he tried to bring peace and worked really hard at it and they trust him for it. Same with Clark. They saw what he did to save the Muslims under Clinton's reign. So, our next President better be someone these world leaders know and trust from experience and action, not just rhetoric.

        by hsvscg on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:54:16 PM PDT

      •  Yes.

        An intelligent way out must be found. and negotiating with all the middle eastern countries affected by what Bush and his cronies did must be brought to the table.

        by abbeysbooks on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 02:06:57 AM PDT

      •  asdf

        Wes has the street cred and experience to pull it off. The problem is though I think his plan could work, and probably has an 70% chance of success I think it would only work if HE were President. This cabal has shown little interest in adopting his idea's or listening to anyone who didn't share in their delusion of Empire.

        And there's my problem with your thesis. By the time our next president is in office, many of the bad things you mention will have come to pass.  And under George W. Bush's leadership our presence in Iraq is making things worse rather than better.  

        In that context, getting out FAST is unequivocably better.  

        Clark's nuanced and intelligent positions serve only to undercut those who would begin to withdraw immediately. And by the time he is President, if by a miracle he is elected, it will be much too late for nuance.

        by decon on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:00:15 AM PDT

        •  We have a Democratic Congress now

          Soon as we had that, Rummy was gone.  Wes was very worried about having this Bush cabal run things unchecked.  That is why he was so insistent that we HAD to (HAD to, HAD to, HAD to, HAD to) take back Congress.  Now we have, and there's a real possibility that we can force this to be done well.  Given that there's a really really strong possibility that withdrawing immediately will suck Iraq's neighbors into a regional war, it's Wes's view (and he's pretty experienced with this stuff) that we must try, now with real checks and balances, to fix this the right way.  

          by mariawells on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:13:22 AM PDT

  •  Probably not any faster under Clark,

    but a lot more intelligently.  Clark's got some horsepower under his hood.  Hagel...not so much, at least IMO.

    It's not unreasonable at all to give him and the others a really hard time over Iraq.  Gore's the only one who can really claim an alibi.  Lots of blame there to go around.

    by dougymi on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:17:30 PM PDT

    •  and we've had enough finger pointing among Dems

      Dems should stay focus and united on expanding the Congressional majority and winning the White House. Having Clark in the mix will only help shape the overall presentation of the party.

      by jdavidson2 on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:21:28 PM PDT

    •  I was under the impression that Clark

      was against the Iraq war from the start. So how can he share any blame???

      by adigal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:56:58 PM PDT

      •  No he climbed on the bandwagon

        when the fervor was there just prior to the invasion.  It was hard not to do that after he realized that bush was intent on invasion. He's a general, after all.

        Before that he was against it as it was a distraction from the GWOT.  After the invasion he turned against it again because he understood the quagmire that we were getting into, but just prior to the invasion he was for it and made some statements in favor of it. Francislholland has documented that in his diaries.

        Doesn't matter to me, I understand how Gen. Clark felt.  I got caught up in the same emotion as a veteran. I was against it prior to the invasion but jumped on the same bandwagon at the time of the invasion.  It was hard not to feel that way for me. I support Gen. Clark fairly strongly now.

        by dougymi on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:45:03 PM PDT

        •  He was still against it

          Once it was inevitable he gave his views on how best to accomplish the best results, and of course he was on board in praising the troops, but he was still not in agreement that invading Iraq was the thing we needed to be doing.

          by witchamakallit on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:56:09 PM PDT

        •  Yet another person who

          never bothered to read clark04.com

          (from http://www.clark04.com/... )

          February 15, 2002:
          "I think what comes out of it is if we're going to go into this operation in the future, we've got to be sure before we undertake it that we can go all the way, not only to Baghdad, not only Saddam