Daily Kos

Clark: They picked the two-foot rattlesnake in a box

Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:43:45 PM PDT

I spent the whole day today at events with General Clark--first the one I wrote a diary about yesterday (and I was at the blogger meeting with Arianna Huffington, which was a treat!!), and then later on in the evening, a fundraiser for WesPAC in Culver City.

I could spend all day writing about how fantastic the general is--his intellect, knowledge, message and genuine depth of feeling are all outstanding--but I wanted to share with you one brief story from the fundraiser that shows just how good the General is, and why he needs our support.

At the fundraiser later in the day, Clark was talking about national security, and how the Democrats need to recapture the mantle of national security from the Republicans.  I'll quote the General as best as I can:

Now, as important as it is how we deal with Iraq from here on out, and how we deal with Iran from here on out--as important as that is, if we want to be the party of national security, we need to talk not just about where we go from the bad situation we're in now--we need to talk about how we got there.

Bush talked about the axis of evil.  Whatever you want to call these countries, there were three of them: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.  Of these, North Korea was the most dangerous.  They were developing nuclear weapons, and the administration didn't do anything about it.

The second most dangerous was Iran.  They were trying to develop nuclear weapons, had a fundamentalist government, and had the capacity to arrange terrorism.

And the least dangerous was Iraq.  Iraq was a two-foot rattlesnake in a box.  And guess what?  They went after the two-foot rattlesnake in the box.  And because of that, they were distracted from and ignored the bigger and more dangerous problems.  And now look: North Korea has several nuclear weapons that they've developed.  Iran is enriching uranium and has a hardcore fundamentalist in Ahmedinejad as the prime minister.  We're in this position because they took the least dangerous country, concentrated only there and ignored everything else.

We need to talk about this.  We need to talk about Osama bin Laden.  We need to talk about what would have happened if Democrats had been in charge.  We would have gone after Osama bin Laden.  We would not have spent $200 billion on invading Iraq.  We would be talking to Iran, and we would have talked to North Korea.  This administration has refused to talk to Iran.  They've outsourced our diplomacy to Europe.  And I beg the administration: please talk to Iran before it is too late.

We can't shy away from national security.  We can't concede it to the Republicans.  We have to point out that they have failed at every step of the way.  We can't be afraid of it.  So let's talk national security--because it should be a strength for us.  It's not a weakness.

That, my friends, is a platform we can use.  We can repeat this over and over and over again--because given these failures, who knows where they'll take us over the next several years.

We had a few other Kossacks there at this event as well--including Reality Bites Back, Alysheba, and Shockwave.  I will blog tomorrow--when I'm allowed by the system!--about the whole day in general, including the rally with the Congressional Candidates and Stephanie Miller, as well as the private bloggers meeting.

If you haven't heard the General speak, YOU NEED TO!!!!!  He is the real deal.  Check him out.  You'll like him.

Tags: Wesley Clark, Iraq, Axis of Evil, Iran, North Korea, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Recommended, WesPac, National Security (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 392 comments

  •  absolutely (4.00 / 18)

    Clark is da MAN!

    Clark/Feingold anyone?

    Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

    by thereisnospoon on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:44:11 PM PDT

    •  my choice (none / 0)

      right now is that.

      it tastes like burning...

      by eastvan on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:04:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clark is a Repub in drag. (1.72 / 11)

      but, i could be wrong.
      i just never met an Officer that was a Dem.
      or admitted to being one. but, Clark could be the first
      i suppose.
      •  no. he's not. (4.00 / 5)

        meet him.  talk to him.  you'll quickly learn otherwise.

        oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

        My blog. Come visit.

        by hekebolos on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:31:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Talk Is Cheap (none / 0)

          "meet him.  talk to him"

          The old adage applies here..."Talk Is Cheap". What do his ACTIONS say about his political leanings.

          I DON'T KNOW...I'm just asking the question.

          Has anyone researched his writings/actions/affiliations/speeches from his days in the military? How about from his appearances on Faux News (which is an AUTOMATIC Red Flag for me)?

          I apologize to (most of) those I offended. :o)

          by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:52:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This stuff isn't a mystery (2.50 / 2)

            He's been on the VERY public circuit for a few years, gazillions of articles have been written about him, and yet you presume he's a Republican in drag on the basis of...not much.  I suggest you do some research on this then come back to join the discussion.
          •  Clark (4.00 / 5)

            Yes, I've reasearched him extensively (more than you'd care to know).  The only concrete (verifiable, third party) evidence I can point you to, directly, is Samantha Powers's book "A Problem from Hell, America in a Time of Genocide"  She points out that Clark was the ony one pressing to stop the genocide in Rwanda.  He was tight with Madeleine Albright (I don't think that anyone would question her Dem bonafides) and many others.  And a large part of Clark's retiring early is the relationship between him and Clinton's republican appointees.  

            His appearances on Fox News are simply an extension of the strategy he'd like us ALL to engage in.  He wants us to TALK to the other side.  We win when the facts come out.  He's out there speaking the truth when how many other voices on Fox are?

          •  Churchill believed the old saw (none / 1)

            "keep your friends close and your enemies closer".
            I believe that Clark's thoughtful commentary on Faux has been an effort to reach out to those listeners who are being terrorized by O'Reilly and Hannity. The weapon in the neocon war waged against Americans is fear. Clark's personal courage and calm demeaner when he's on FAUX may be an effective antidote to that fear. I read somewhere that one time, at the start of a commercial break when his mike was still on, O'Reilly could be heard complaining that Clark was taking over the show.
            O'Reilly's shtick is his anger which he uses to bully people. Clark has O'Reilly's number, I think,  and succeeds in disarming that anger.
            It's pretty amazing to see.
          •  Did read what he said on faux? (none / 0)

            He's advocating OUR policies, and he's actually well to the left of some Dems on Iran, calling for direct talks with the Iranian government before we went to the IAEA or U.N. Security council. The people who have been getting all their information and opinions from the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill Oreilly are the people who need to hear this most. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton has called for U.N. Sanctions on Iran trying to out hawk the Bush Administration.

            See the difference, Clark is a sane rational Dem using every means possible to avoid us using heavy handed tactics until the truly last resort. Where as Hillary is an actual Hawk on these issues.

            Don't Trust Politicians

            by Donkey Rising on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:24:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Tell that to the 53 Fighting Dems....vs 2 GOPs (4.00 / 7)

        running for Congress, ... or has your head been up some of those GOPs in drag?
        •  Now it is 60 Dem vets when I update my site (4.00 / 17)

          Well over 60, KR, but a couple are being held back until formal announcements, etc. But I have 59 solid DEMOCRATIC candidates, mostly officers, many career men, from every branch of service and a large portion combat vets from the Gulf and Iraq wars.

          The talk like Dems, they act like Dems, the ARE Dems.

          They are progressives on domestic issues, believe America has been led fundamentally astray, and that Iraq was was a huge miscalculation that has distracted from the battle against terrorism. They want to take the patriotism, dedication, intelligence and enthusiasm with which they served our nation in the military to the halls of congress to put our nation back on course.

          And Clark is the greatest of them all. Wes has heart and spirit and intelligence. He has what it takes to lead our nation in this time of grief when we stand on the cusp of becoming a totalitarian state under a plutocracy.

          The fighting dems want to fight the neocons, not wars. They are not chickenhawks, but neither are they hawks. They believe armed force is the very last option that a nation should take after every other recourse has beene exhausted.

          Well, I could go on - and I will elsewhere - but see for yourself this Wednesday when some nearly four dozen veterans gather on the steps of the capital with Max Cleland at ten am in the morning and then meet for a huge event in the evening with a star studded cast of speakers. Air America will carry it live.

          Noel

          •  Too Much Sense (none / 0)

            General Clark is making too much sense.

            Only one solution: Swiftboat the bastard!

            And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (chuckle) is working very well for them. (Barbara Bush)

            by Krusty on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:56:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Fighting Dems (none / 0)

          And they were all (most anyway) recruited by RAHM EMANUEL...Mr. Republican Lite Himself!

          Not impressed by the "fighting dems" argument. I think it's going to blow up in Rahmmy Boy's face. Then again, I'm biased...I DESPISE everything (political) that Rahm stands for.

          I apologize to (most of) those I offended. :o)

          by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:57:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Eric Massa (NY-29th) co-founded the Fighting Dems (none / 0)

            ... and it was through his leadership, as well as most of the 60- Fighting Dems that banded together in unity. Most all were not recruited and are not supported financially by Rahm or the DCCC.

            ... not really sure what you stand for, though, other than what you stand against.

            •  Against (none / 0)

              What I'm against is Political Corruption...On EITHER side of the aisle!

              Rahm is as corrupt as they come. He's been implicated (NOT INDICTED) in a huge political scandal here in Chicago. I do think he will be indicted for something...take your pick...in the next 24 months.

              Wes was a LOBBYIST...That makes him "guilty by association", if not outright guilty, of CORRUPTION...And CORRUPTION will be what the '06, and possibly even the '08 elections will be all about.

              I apologize to (most of) those I offended. :o)

              by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:35:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Evangellical Millitary Officer (4.00 / 12)

        Jimmy Carter.

        'nough said.

        congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

        by bartman on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:31:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We have a lot of Republicans in drag... (4.00 / 9)

        They're in the US Senate and House.  They go by names like Biden and Liebermann and Hillary.

        But Clark is real.  He called this war the foolish mistake it was, from the beginning, when "The Democrats" were all gung-ho about it.

      •  Military Officers as Dems.... (4.00 / 13)

        Actually, I know quite a few. And, I'm married to one (usaf col. ret.). Most of them are retired--which just goes to show you the power of the propagandizing that goes on within active-duty ranks. However, having said that, the ones I know who are Dems are horrified at this administration and disgusted with the foreign and domestic policies of this Republican Party. They are also deeply and profoundly pained at the destruction of the military they love and spent their lives serving. So, don't distrust Clark just because he is smarter than the average retired military officer. Instead, hear him and hope that he speaks to others within the military who also can see what's going on but who aren't allowed to speak openly about it.

        "One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me? And..when I read Daily Kos, it doesn't surprise me...." ~~Barack Obama

        by SignalSuzie on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:31:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  My DAD was/is (4.00 / 2)

        a Democratic Officer (retired).

        You would be surprised, but then, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Traditionally, military have been barred from being partial (wearing public dress at partisan events). And many people in the military generally stand by that. Of course the ones you hear from most are the ones who don't.

        However, the top people they MUST respect are those appointees by the President, (and the President himself) and right now that means Rumsfeld and Condi, so it doesn't matter what party they are in, they won't dis their superiors, they would get in big trouble.

      •  JFK... (4.00 / 5)

        and jfk.

        Although JFK died before I was born and I've never met jfk, I have met Wes Clark several times.  The man is a Democrat.  Period.

      •  You're just showing your ignorance (none / 0)

        by parrotting that tired meme.  Please, educate yourself about General Clark before you go spouting off that drivel and making a fool of yourself again!

        It's easy:  www.secruingamerica.com

      •  CLARK/REPUBLICAN (none / 0)

        ACTUALLY, I've spoken with a few veterans who state simply that having a military President, at THIS time, especially, would be a great mistake. Plus, many have also said they do NOT TRUST CLARK.
        Feingold for President!!!

        "His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork" - Mae West

        by Harper on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:28:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did you make sure they were Dems? (none / 0)

          Republican operatives would love to derail any chance of a Clark candidacy and are working actively to do so.

          Don't Trust Politicians

          by Donkey Rising on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:52:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  BFD (4.00 / 2)

          oh my, you say you have spoken with a "few" veterans who wouldn't want a "military" president at this time. That's the election right there folks... let's pack it in because no less an authority that those "few" vets, who Harper has claimed to have spoken to, don't trust Clark.

          Harper, your agenda is loud and clear. From the title of your post in caps "CLARK/REPUBLICAN" to you placing "NOT TRUST CLARK" in caps and finally your "Feingold for President!!!" line. It's ashame you feel you have to down a potential primary opponent to pump up your guy.  

          •  not to mention (none / 0)

            that Feingold and Clark could possibly team up for 2008.  Who knows?  I don't like the DLC, but I am absolutely not convinced that just because Clark took help from the Clintons that he isn't his own man.  I think ANY candidate would have taken help from where ever they could get it and still keep their adgenda and talking points sharp.  Especially if they are smart enough to raise money $20 at a time over the internet from grassroots and lesson the corp. bucks if they can.
          •  CHILL (none / 0)

            Just stating my opinion, which we are free to do on this site. Not trying to denounce, really, but I do encourage looking at all sides. There is something to be said in favor of "intellectual curiosity".

            "His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork" - Mae West

            by Harper on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:13:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Democrats as officers (none / 0)

        Lyndon Johnson WWII, John Kennedy WWII,  Jimmy Carter.  Where do you get this stuff?
      •  check out: (none / 0)

        http://www.vetpac.org/...

        The men and women in the military, who, by the way, swear an oath to uphold the constitution and to protect the country from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC, have been callously used by the Bush neocons over the last 3 years. Some of them are mad as hell and not going to take it any more. They are welcome, as far as I am concerned, to the Democratic party as our allies and I hope the ones willing to run for office succeed.
        I myself had not really paid attention to politics and only became a Democrat when I started receiving the ugly neocon campaign literature of a Bush clone guy in Texas a few years ago.
        Teddy Roosevelt, if he came back today would not believe what the Republican party has sunk to under Bush/Cheney and let's not forget pappy Bush and if you wish Reagan. All hacks. Teddy Roosevelt was an environmentalist and conservationist, I believe.

      •  WWII, anyone? (4.00 / 2)

        What's so hard to comprehend about Democrats who believe in strength in the world and progressive governance at home? That strand in our party has a fine lineage dating back at least to John F. Kennedy and dozens of other Democratic Reps, Senators, Governors and millions of rank-and-file voters who served our country against the Nazis and Japanese in the 1940s and responded to the threat of authoritarian Communism for the four decades following.

        As the military serves to defend American values abroad and (regardless of what we think about specific instances of this) help promulgate them outside our borders, it makes sense that its members would stand closer to the party that best upholds those best values of the country. I would hope that most here consider Democrats to be that party.

        I think the trend toward Republican support in the military and particular among the officer corps had to do with real and perceived Democratic disdain for the armed forces from the mid-1960s through the '90s. But after the abuses and misuses of the Bush administration on the military, and the prominence of veterans as our last two presidential nominees, and the emergence in this cycle of the Fighting Dems, we have a real chance to turn this back around and reconnect with our Kennedy-era support among service members and their families.

        Let's not toss it away with lazy thinking or (worse) elitist dismissal of the soldiery.

      •  You didn't meet me! (none / 0)

        How about General Hoar???  I can name hundreds.
        I was stationed with Gen. Clark, he is a great man. Kind, Funny, smart...and all the traits of good Dems.

        Impeach the whole bunch!!!

        by regis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:25:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Democrat Military Officers (none / 0)

        Your statements show your ignorance about Wesley Clark and his positions, as well as the military in general. How many officers have you met? Did you ever serve in the military; see combat?

        While career military officer tend to be from the south and conservative Republicans, there are plenty of Democrats in the military.

        Opposition to Bush and the Republicans is as strong as I have seen it since I was commissioned in 1960. Many of us, especially combat veterans, oppose Bush, Cheney,Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, for their criminal mismanagement of the war on terrorism and believe that we should never have gone to war with Iraq in the first place.

    •  Right on (4.00 / 3)

      He would make Jeb (who WILL be the GOP nominee, in my opinion) look foolish.

      The Republicans will trot out the same old strategy in 08: make Clark look weak on defense, portray him as a waffler (the "flip-flop" attack on Kerry would have been used on ANY nominee because it's their standard play book), go after his personal life in snide insinuations and attacks on his masculinity, etc.

      I really don't think any of it will stick against Clark.  And Feingold is the perfect VP nominee: swing state, sharp intellect, a fierce attacker.

      I hated Bush before it was cool.

      by daveriegel on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:06:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ah, no, that would be reversed (none / 0)

      Feingold/Clark.  But, really, it's too early to tell who Russ will pick for his VP.

      Obama used to be for single payer before he came out against it.

      by formernadervoter on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:42:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No (none / 0)

        Had it right first time around - Clark should be Commander in Chief - Feingold could be President of the Senate - think about what each job entails and it's clear that Clark should be in the top spot, not VP...in fact, not VP at all.  If Clark doesn't win the nod, then he should be SoS.
    •  I think so, too. (none / 0)

      Make that change.

      by barnowl on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:57:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sign me up for that dream team (none / 0)

      Hey, have you heard about that kook fringe Lib site, Daily Kos?

      by greee on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:59:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry (none / 0)

      He's STILL a Clinton/DLC Democrat. We've been down that (losing) road before.

      I apologize to (most of) those I offended. :o)

      by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:35:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He IS NOT. (4.00 / 2)

        You have nothing with which to back up that statement.  I know you don't because it's just plain false.  Spew it all you want.  It's doesn't make it true.
      •  it's your road that took the dead end turn. (none / 1)

        ...we kept shouting,.. but it's you who didn't listen. Apology excepted

        '04 was about national security; .. and so will '06 and '08, especially as our economy, US deficit, trade deficit, education, health care system,  foreign diplomacy and civil liberties hit rock bottom and suffer in consequence from the incompetencies in leadership by this administration.

        •  No Apology Here.... (none / 0)

          I was a Dean-O-Crat. Clark was sent in by Hill & Bill to help undermine Gov. Dean.

          And in the words of Dumbya, "He did a heckuva job!"

          I apologize to (most of) those I offended. :o)

          by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:21:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're kidding, right??? (none / 1)

            Please, tell me you're kidding... I suppose it was Wes Clark who released the Dean Scream tape as well???

            George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

            by ThatSinger on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:56:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What? You mean Dean 'blamed Clinton,' too! =:o (none / 0)

            I doubt it, ..nor did he blame Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, Sharpton, etc... and the Gang of Democratic candidates, who cost Dean the nomination, as evident in your view.

            I'm glad they all ran, but as a former Independent, I would never have even considered joining with or campaigning for the Dem Party, until Clark entered race, as a Dem.

            •  even clark admits he was (none / 0)

              part of the Clinton's stop Dean effort.  And so does everyone else, except his online supporters.  

              If Hillary runs, Clark will not.  It's just that simple.

              •  Clark, who I know, has NEVER said or been part of (none / 0)

                any such thing. That is a myth and frankly a lie.

                This goddamn 2004 stuff again and not focusing on 2006 which crucial.

                Hell Clark won't even take money from the Congressional Candidates he apprears for or charge them his expenses. WesPac events like last night pay his expenses. Ask the others to appear for a candidate and see how much of the take they want for their 'leadership' committee.

                He has dedicated himself to winning back the House...not running for President. In his mind the House in 2006 is crucial for the ability to begin to take back this country.

                Your comment is not true.

                Just a red meat eating Democratic dawg...frontpaging at The Democratic Daily

                by BigDog04 on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:15:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Link ??? (none / 0)

                n/t

                "In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. " James Webb, Sep 02

                by ParaHammer on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:16:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Then link it! (none / 0)

                Don't make unsubstantiated claims, it looks more like character assassination than anything else.

                You don't see us doing off on some make beleive tale that Howard Dean was just a plot to make Dems look weak on security..

                And you may find yourself eating your political hat in a few years if you really beleive Clark won't run if Hillary does.

                Don't Trust Politicians

                by Donkey Rising on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 05:48:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Wha wha what? (none / 0)

            Please cite the evidence you have that shows the Clintons "sending" Clark in to take out Dean.

            That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:11:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Excuse me (4.00 / 2)

        But General Clark opposed giving Bush a blank check last I checked.

        In what way is he DLC Dem? He is pro environment, pro choice, supports progressive taxation and beleives in protecting privacy and the constitution. He is not part of the corporate wing of the Democratic party.

        He is a genuine progressive liberal, whether you like it or not.

        Don't Trust Politicians

        by Donkey Rising on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:07:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Hope You're Right..... (none / 0)

          "He is a genuine progressive liberal, whether you like it or not."

          I hope you're right. But there are too many "Red Flags" that suggest otherwise to me.

          I apologize to (most of) those I offended. :o)

          by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:26:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Read the position papers. (none / 0)

            Clark is as progressive Dem as you can get.  What else would you call someone who would eliminate Federal income tax for a family of four making less than $50K a year and make the rich and the corporations pay their fair share?
    •  Feingold (none / 0)

      I respect Senator Feingold's intelligence, courage, thoughtfulness and patriotism. I think he would serve this country well as VP.
      But at this point in the battle to defeat the neocons, it is not clear whether Feingold on the ticket is the best choice. Someone who served in the Senate is a swiftboater's target.
      All of us here, I think, admire Feingold's courage in voting "no" on the Patriot Act at a time of political hysteria. But that could be used against him in red states under the right geopolitical conditions. And you can be sure that Rovian tactics would be used against any Democratic Senator.
      Also, Feingold is someone who has been a watchdog for us in the U.S. Senate. He's one of our most thoughtful Senators.
      Let's face it there are several Democrats currently in office who would be fine as president and could win the Democratic nomination. There are very very very few who would be great presidents at this point in time and would also be able to win in a landslide. We need the landslide. We have all seen how effectively the dirty tricks have been used to turn a close election.
    •  no way (none / 0)

      And I beg the administration: please talk to Iran before it is too late.

      That's a horrible idea.

      All you get from that is Republicans claiming that the cowardly Democrats want to negotiate with terrorists, and that strong Americans don't do that.

      Talk to Iran sounds weak. Doesn't matter if it's smart. Doesn't matter if it's better policy. Doesn't even matter if it'll actually work.

      What matters is that it sounds like "negotiate with the terrorists" and that's exactly the kind of ammunition we can't afford to give Republicans.

      •  Weak like the EU, NATO, China, and Russia? (none / 0)

           Weak is shooting first because you're scared and have no confidence in your skillset.
            I know what you mean, but there is no viable choice. If it's between shoot or talk, I vote talk talk.

            The big point:   Bush has squandered the time to talk with Iran and as someone said here today "outsourced our diplomacy to the EU", and now the options aren't as good as they were a few years ago. Now there's a possibility that the US is playing bad cop to EU's good cop, but that supposes that this admin. is capable of finesse diplomacy.....
              Me, I'm afraid the neocon's fringe wingnut hawks (yep) are ascendent with their  can't-make-this-up strategy of complete chaos in the Mideast as the way to bring about democracy and oh yeah tame players in the globalization effort that's their core goal. The 'moderate' neocons' hope that success in Iraq would get everyone to toe the line, these would be the neocon 'doves'. I've read about this, but haven't seen the neocon roster for this match.

         IRAN:    Tonight there was a new show on cNBC called Global Players TV .  On it was :

        ex-CIA Director Woolsey
        NATO parliament member Pierre Lellouche
        China's Zhang Zhijun
        Russia's Parliament member Konstantin Kosachev
        and crisply hosted by Sabine Christiansen.

             It was a roundtable discussion, mostly about Iran. Much said wasn't new to me, but it was good to hear it from the horse's mouths so to say. The telling moment came when the NATO rep Lellouche said he looked forward to working with his friends from China and Russia and obviously left out the US/ Woolsey, sitting right in front of him!
             Hard to say what he meant to say by the omission, but I think it was speaking to Woolsey's "no appeasement " argument, which followed the opening question about Lellouch's quote calling Iran's president much like Hitler...
              Other than those two interesting bits most of the hour was spent on discussions of diplomacy past and possible, and sanction's possibilities.I'm thinking Woolsey is a neocon dove, as he was talking about 'careful focused sanctions'.
              Woolsey spoke of something with George Shulz, and they just published something. Probably it was the "Committee on the Present Danger", with Joe Lieberman as co-chair. Probably he was talking about this article:
         

        "The Petoleum Bomb " by George P. Shultz and R. James Woolsey
             'Our nation's dependence on imported oil leaves it dangerously vulnerable to attack.'

        Google Woolsey + George Shultz and check this out from the "Woolsey Watch" :

        The Foundation for Defense of Democracies is headed by former RNC Spokesman Cliff May, and it is this organization that relaunched the neocon hive of the Committee on the Present Danger.
        from Steve Clemons "The Washington Note", which has all the links in that quote.
        There are other 'Woolsey Watch' articles on Steve's blog.
           Another blog site Energy News has the same article and several others, including one by dkos' Jerome a Paris, and a "Peak Oil Primer".
        -------------------------------------
            Also amusing from google is the Bohemian Grove link to :
        "Bohemian Grove:World Leaders in Satanic (like) Rituals since 1892"
        ......ya never know what you'll find!
                 Take your tinfoil and pack a lunch...there are links to dozens of stories , put together by the group that hounds these bastids, the Bohemian Grove Action Network.
    •  Clark is da man picked (none / 0)

      by the guy who picked the Bushes and the Clintons in between.  Jackson T. Stephens is only out for himself and his cronies.

      How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

      by hannah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:32:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think he lacks charisma (none / 0)

      I know you may find that hard to believe, but he actually fails to impress when on TV.  

      He might sound reasonable, but I think the listener tunes out. I don't think people hear him. I understand why he goes on FOX, but I don't think it helps him, and I doubt that wingers will vote for him.  I believe that churches are telling their congregations how to vote, and they follow.  

      It's probably quite an effective way to campaign.  

      •  Maybe they do tune him out (none / 0)

        but even reaching a small proportion of the Fox audience is a big deal, and they certainly tune out Gore and Dean, I think Wes is more likely to get through them since he is a military man.

        I know I was very impressed when I saw Clark on CNN, I think he does get through to people. people value truth, and when reality and rhetoric are out of sync Clark gets through to people. Not everyone obviously, but enough to make a difference.

        Don't Trust Politicians

        by Donkey Rising on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:59:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tips (3.98 / 51)

    for the General!  I've never been so impressed by a candidate--seriously.  It reminds me of my early days with Howard Dean.

    oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

    My blog. Come visit.

    by hekebolos on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:44:32 PM PDT

    •  except without Dean's weaknesses (4.00 / 4)

      seriously, I can't find a simple flaw with the guy.

      With Dean, I found myself defending his "draft-dodging past", Vermont's small size, his tendency to be a loose cannon (otherwise known as telling the truth...).

      But with Clark, I can't see any chinks in the armor.  And he speaks with an ease and facility that is a combination of Clinton's and Bush's best public speaking and personality/charm traits.

      And his policies are as reality-based and progressive as they come.

      What's not to like?

      Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

      by thereisnospoon on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:50:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (4.00 / 5)

        He has W's "folksiness" but with the intelligence and depth of knowledge that W lacks.  And he has the best resume on earth.  Seriously, this is the candidate.

        Not only that, the General has crossover appeal.  Because of his appearances on Fox News, he has a bunch of Republicans that know who he is and thinks he makes sense.

        Make no mistake about it--if Clark wins the primary, he wins the presidency.

        oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

        My blog. Come visit.

        by hekebolos on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:54:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (none / 0)

          The toughest challenge will be getting through the primary.
          •  I think you're right even though I (4.00 / 7)

            am unable to fathom why Democrats would want to shoot themselves in the foot by choosing someone who cannot possibly win the general election such as Hillary Clinton.
            I believe Clark is truly the most progressive candidate I have listened to and read. I had the great pleasure finally to meet him at the Bob Gammage for Governor fundraiser in Houston and I was blown away by how easy to talk to and personable he is. Someone told me he reads 40 books per month. And yet what comes across is how much he cares about the repercussions of policy on people's lives. What makes Bush and Cheney so frightening is that they just don't seem to give a damn about the trouble they've caused in the world or the people they've hurt.
            •  Country Duty Honor (4.00 / 2)

              He's lived it. This country comes first.
            •  Clark reads everything (4.00 / 4)

              he reads Daily Kos (we want to get him to post here) as well as a few other blogs, such as FireDogLake.  He told me at the blogger meeting what blogs he reads, but I don't remember them all at this point.

              I'm amazed the guy has time for Gert and his family.

              oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

              My blog. Come visit.

              by hekebolos on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:36:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And Gert (4.00 / 2)

                when I first saw her speak at a political event broadcast on CSPAN during the 2004 primaries, I was taken by how gracious and unpretentious she is. I don't think I have ever seen a woman in public life who seems more down to earth, sincere and personable. Have you had a chance to meet her? What a charming first lady she'd be. A goodwill ambassador. In 24 hours this country would regain our self-respect if we were wise enough to elect Wes and Gert.  
                •  er Wes and somebody and Gert was first lady:)) (none / 0)

                  •  I have had a chance to meet Gert (none / 1)

                    but not nearly as extensively as I've talked to the General.

                    Gert is extremely caring, but also quite self-effacing.  At all the Clark events I've attending, the General has encouraged Gert and his son Wes (who lives in L.A. and attends his L.A. events) to say a few words.  She is always extremely hesitant and reticent, but always says her (brief) piece with grace.

                    Wes Jr. refuses to take the mic at all, not wanting to detract attention from his dad.

                    It's funny--at the first blogger meeting I attended with the General, he wanted to keep on talking to us way past the time he was scheduled to give his speech--he's amazing like that, he just wanted to keep on talking to us--and Gert had to prod him in increasingly fervent tones that he needed to go out to the main audience.  It was really quite touching to see them all interact.  It's a great family.

                    oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

                    My blog. Come visit.

                    by hekebolos on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:06:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thanks, they sound like really nice (none / 0)

                      people who really care about this country and each other. What a sacrifice it would be for them. Because I believe that General Clark would work his heart out to get this country back on a sustainable course....financially, geopolitically, economically, energywise, education and so on. He understands how all these policies fit together. And he's courageous enough to want to do what's right, including moving us toward alternative, green energy and making that part of an engine of economic growth.
            •  I agree.... (4.00 / 3)

              I am actually a Gore supporter; having said that, I think Clark would be an excellent choice for the Democrats as a candidate, and I'd support him as a nominee wholeheartedly. I just can't support Hillary Clinton as the Dem's nominee. She's got the money and the machine, clearly, and I'd love to see a woman in the office. But, I don't think she would bring in enough independent voters to win.

              "One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me? And..when I read Daily Kos, it doesn't surprise me...." ~~Barack Obama

              by SignalSuzie on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:36:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  No, you must be kidding. (none / 0)

          Clark has W's "folksiness"?  Was that a total slam of Clark?  I find Clark far from folksy, on the contrary, he seems like an intellectual who would discuss political theory and policy for hours over a beer.  Not someone the average 'Murikan would want to have a beer with.

          Anyways by '08 folksy will be out, and "stern straight-shooter" a.k.a. John McCain will be back in.

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:17:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No chinks in the armor at all? (none / 1)

        Not even one little bitty one somewhere?

        On come on.  Dean just lays all his chinks right out there in the open, and most are not bothered because he is a fighter.

        Everybody has armor chinks.

        "I'm willing to say things that are not popular but ordinary people know are right." Howard Dean

        by floridagal on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:37:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Seriously, I've looked for one (none / 0)

          I don't think you can find it.  Perfect family, no "skiing in Aspen", no "wacko liberal", no "unpatriotic OBL ally".  I don't see how you can smear this guy, unless you call him a flip-flopper between parties or something.  But even that doesn't detract from his platform.

          oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

          My blog. Come visit.

          by hekebolos on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:41:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  in fact, the Former Republican meme (none / 1)

            will work wonders in red states.

            Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

            by thereisnospoon on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:51:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I doubt it (none / 0)

              but I do think it kills him in blue states.  I know I don't have any interest in a candidate who was praising bush and raising money for republicans AFTER bush stole florida and the white house.  
              •  don't think so (none / 0)

                As I said somewhere earlier on this thread, I don't think that it kills him in blue states.  It only hurts during the primaries, but helps during the general election.  I'd argue that you, nor I, nor most here at Kos are representative of most voters.  Heck, if you trust the Pew Research categorization, we're only 19% of the voter base.  But I digress.  I know many people who would not consider having voted for republicans as a liability...in fact, most people I know would consider it a positive.  It's precisely this that makes them open to Clark as a candidate.  Doesn't matter that his policies were actually more liberal than Kerry or Dean.
          •  They smeared him on the Balkans (none / 0)

            It bull. I checked it out, and I followed that story very closely, the first one I use the Internet to follow. They accuse him of trying to start WWIII, and several other ridiculous things. I think almost everyone BUT Clark, from GHW Bush to the EU to Yasushi Akashi, came out badly, but it didn't include General Clark. He's one of the few people who came out well.  
            •  IT WILL BE '04 ALL OVER AGAIN (4.00 / 3)

              No matter how good Clark is or isn't, the campaign will be one Swiftboat attack after another. Rather than discussing issues, he will have to defend his record in the Balkans. The Repubs don't care about the truth. He will have to debunk one snarling attack after another. And too many Americans believe what they see on teevee.

              No courage = No $$$ for Dems

              by MO Blue on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:15:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree (none / 0)

                They have a standard series of attack lines that they will use no matter the nominee.

                Lack of political experience is one that will be used; I think Clark can turn that into a positive given the current corruption scandals.  There is no way they can tie him to any kind lobbyists, etc.

                I hated Bush before it was cool.

                by daveriegel on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:09:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I THINK HE WORKED FOR A LOBBYIST FIRM n/t (none / 0)

                  No courage = No $$$ for Dems

                  by MO Blue on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:29:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  "Lack of political experience..:" (none / 1)

                  Oh yeah? That didn't stop them when a certain Republican General Dwight D. Eisenhower became a candidate... and won.
                  From the White House website:

                  After the war, he became President of Columbia University, then took leave to assume supreme command over the new NATO forces being assembled in 1951. Republican emissaries to his headquarters near Paris persuaded him to run for President in 1952.

                  (emphasis mine)

                  So they purposely went to seek him out and "draft" him for the Presidency, evidently with the intention of exploiting his post-war fame, status, and prestige with the American public... and it worked.

                  "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

                  by Donna in Rome on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:02:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  what got me to notice Clark... (none / 0)

                     let me say this first off: my first choice for pres in 2004 was Dean.  then i saw the screw-ups and mismanagement happening in iraq...how this admin used - abused - our troops to further their ideology.  so i began to read about Gen Clark because i believed a general would be the only one who get us out of this mess.  the more i read about him, to more i wanted to see him as our next president.  he doesn't like war...as he has said many, many times, "war is the last, last, LAST resort!"  i know he would not abuse our troops the way this admin has.  he has diplomatic skills that this admin can only DREAM of.
                    Gen Clark would also make sure our troops are taken care of in Iraq AND here at home by making sure they receive the proper care and education that this admin has taken away by "budget cuts."

                    (just some thoughts from an average citizen)

          •  Nothing? Perfect? (4.00 / 6)

            Now come on.  

            Frankly I appreciate Dean's efforts very much.  I don't like seeing people praising Clark and attacking Dean in the same post. No need for it at all.

            "I'm willing to say things that are not popular but ordinary people know are right." Howard Dean

            by floridagal on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:07:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Amen. Dean's Great (4.00 / 3)

              It's so refreshing to have a Democratic leader who speaks his mind, and I support his 50-state-strategy. Give Dean some time to do his job, and stop doing the Republicans's job by joining in their smear campaign. Internalizing Republican smear messages about Dean and other Dems, then spreading their manure around as if it were "truth," is Lieberman-esque--or perhaps I should say, CUELLAR-esque.

              "One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me? And..when I read Daily Kos, it doesn't surprise me...." ~~Barack Obama

              by SignalSuzie on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:42:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I like Dean (none / 1)

              I supported him after Clark dropped out, but Dean was an easy target for the Republican spin masters. There are some things Gov Dean has said I disagree with but I by and large like him.

              Don't Trust Politicians

              by Donkey Rising on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:17:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  didn't mean to (none / 0)

              and I wasn't attacking Dean.  I was one of the biggest Deaniacs you could find, and I still am.

              But political realities are political realities.

              Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

              by thereisnospoon on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:10:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I'll tell you his weakness (none / 0)

            He's never held political office.  The last person elected President with that history was Eisenhower, and he was a pretty special case.

            This is the problem I used to have with Jesse Jackson, whom I voted for in 1984 and 1988, as well.  You want to be President?  Run for some political office.  Run for Senate, for Representative, for Governor, for Mayor.  Something that shows either administrative or legislative ability.  Something that allows this reasonable concern on the part of voters to be addressed.

            I'd happily vote for Clark for President and I'd vote for him over at least half the people on Kos's straw poll list in a primary, including Kerry and Clinton.  But to act like he has no weakness just makes you look like you're not looking hard enough.

            If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

            ~ Umberto Eco

            by Major Danby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:07:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Never held political office? (none / 1)

              Like Marcus Aurelius said to Maximus in Gladiator: "that is why it must be you."  That is, in fact, his strongest qualification.

              Seriously, every time I go to an event with the General, the theme from Gladiator starts running through my head.  He's just that confidence-inspiring.

              oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

              My blog. Come visit.

              by hekebolos on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:16:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I completely agree, hekebolos! (none / 0)

                After the "culture of corruption" that exists in Washington today, I would think that America would want a drastic change from politics as usual.  Who would be better quailfied then a man of General Clark's experience & stature in the military?  Plus, it's not like he's a complete novice to the world of politics and he does know his way around Washington.
                •  That's why we elected Ross Perot in 1992 (none / 0)

                  or at least that was the reasoning of his supporters.  Would I prefer Clark over a Democrat who did seem to wallow in the culture of corruption, as you put it?  Sure.  I see no reason to think that that description applies to Feingold, Edwards, and probably several others.  As for your "who would be better qualified" question, frankly it strikes me as a non-sequitur.

                  If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                  ~ Umberto Eco

                  by Major Danby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:02:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't see Gladiator (none / 0)

                and if I had, and if its theme did keep running through my head whenever I saw a given politician, I would probably keep it to myself.

                If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                ~ Umberto Eco

                by Major Danby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:59:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I like Ike. n/i (none / 0)

              ------- 1776 called. They want their country back.

              by EdlinUser on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:32:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  So because he hasn't held political office (4.00 / 7)

              we will nominate another senator? No senator has won election since Jack Kennedy, and he was a special case!

              There is a strange dysfunction among liberals that say, on the one hand, that our problem is the beltway boys, then turn around and say one needs legislative experience to run for president. Well, Clark has the same kind of experience a Governor has: executive experience. He ran NATO as supreme commander and dealt daily with ambassaors, generals, heads of state, preseidents, premiers and every other kind of European political creature and they love Clark! It is high praise indeed. He is a rare combination of warrior, sage and statesman.

              You can take all the political experience of the Senators and Congressmen and shove it upriver as far as I am concerned. I would rather see a governor than another legislative candidate. And Clark has even more experience than any governor since he was an international figure and also controlled the health, welfare education of hundreds of thousands of US military me and their dependents.

              No man on this earth has better qualifications to run this country than Wes Clark. No man is perfect, but this man is one for the ages.

              •  As I said above... (none / 0)

                with the current culture of corruption in DC it is a perfect time for an outsider.  I think the lack of elected office is a winner for Clark (of course opponents will still use it... any port in a storm... but he should be able to hit it out of the park given the current political climate... plus his national security experience in unparallelled by any presidential contender)

                I hated Bush before it was cool.

                by daveriegel on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:11:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, should he? (none / 0)

                  I was a political scientist before I was a lawyer and I can tell you that I know of nothing in the American Politics literature that would suggest that an outsider (meaning lacking electoral experience, not being anti-Washington) should be more likely to "hit it out of the park given the current political climate," except maybe the colleced writings of Patrick Caddell.  Are you basing this on anything beyond armchair speculation and wishful thinking?

                  Again, this reminds me of the blather we used to hear about Perot (and what some Repugs used to say about Steve Forbles.)  I say again:  while I am leaning tentatively towards Feingold, I am not antagonistic towards Clark.  But the tendency here to perceive what is a pretty obvious weakness as a virtue is making me view him much more skeptically.  And I ain't being paid by anybody nor am I part of anyone else's campaign.

                  If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                  ~ Umberto Eco

                  by Major Danby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:15:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I, for one, completely agree. (none / 0)

                IMO the best resumes among potential candidates are Clark and Bill Richardson, and would like to see that as a ticket in either order.

                Clearly a winner, either way.  Doesn't carry the baggage of Hillary/ Gore.

                "Good idea Chuck, but Syrup won't stop 'em." Firesign Theater, Everything You Know is Wrong.

                by 3card on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:02:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yup... and none of their experience (none / 0)

                  either.  God forbid we have experienced candidates running.  
                  •  "Clearly a winner"? (none / 0)

                    I'm sorry, the Kool-aid fumes are getting a bit thick in here.  Was this "clear" to the primary voters in 2004?  Why assume it will be "clear" to the general election voters in 2008?

                    Seriously, you guys are worrying me.  It's not like I've never had political crushes before, but this seems simply googly-eyed.

                    If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                    ~ Umberto Eco

                    by Major Danby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:22:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  The problem is both reality and perception (none / 0)

                First, I'm not convinced that NATO Supreme Commander  truly garners the same kind of executive experience as a governorship.  Yes, I'm sure very good for foreign policy experience, but that's just part of the job (and not the one people usually vote on.)

                Second, and in some ways worse, I'm less convinced that NATO Supreme Commander is viewed by the general public as a similar qualification, and that is why I worry Clark would be hurt by perceptions in the general election.

                Here's a list from Wikipedia of all of the officers who have been SACEUR.  Want to tell me which ones were ipso facto qualified to be President?  Be very careful before you suggest Al Haig.

                   1. General Dwight D. Eisenhower (U.S. Army): April 2, 1951, to May 30, 1952
                   2. General Matthew Ridgway (U.S. Army): May 30, 1952, to July 11, 1953
                   3. General Alfred Gruenther (U.S. Army): July 1, 1953, to November 20, 1956
                   4. General Lauris Norstad (U.S. Air Force): November 20, 1956, to January 1, 1963
                   5. General Lyman Lemnitzer (U.S. Army): January 1, 1963, to July 1, 1969
                   6. General Andrew Goodpaster (U.S. Army): July 1, 1969, to December 15, 1974
                   7. General Alexander Haig (U.S. Army): December 15, 1974, to July 1, 1979
                   8. General Bernard Rogers (U.S. Army): July 1, 1979, to June 26, 1987
                   9. General John Galvin (U.S. Army): June 26, 1987, to June 23, 1992
                  10. General John Shalikashvili (U.S. Army): June 23, 1992, to October 22, 1993
                  11. General George Joulwan (U.S. Army): October 22, 1993, to July 11, 1997
                  12. General Wesley Clark (U.S. Army): July 11, 1997, to May 3, 2000
                  13. General Joseph Ralston (U.S. Air Force): May 3, 2000, to January 17, 2003
                  14. General James L. Jones (U.S. Marine Corps): January 17, 2003, to present

                If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                ~ Umberto Eco

                by Major Danby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:09:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Supreme Allied Commander (none / 0)

              of NATO Forces Europe aint too bad of an office to hold.  On West Wing, Bartlet even said it's the one title that can rival his own.

              If you've ever attended one of his events (he spoke here at American University last September) it is obvious that he has an incredible sense of control and structure.  I wouldn't be too worried about the fact that he is not a life-long politician.  In fact, that's exactly what the Fighting Dems are all about: those who have served our country in other ways than political office.

              "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope..." -RFK

              by AU Blue on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:39:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The "Fighting Dems" are not running for (none / 0)

                fucking President.  House, and sometimes Senate, can be a good entry-level position.  Not President.

                And because we are on the same side in the larger sense, I want you to imagine me as Josh saying this to you:  never, ever cite what a fictional television character said about the equivalency of the Presidency and SACEUR as evidence for the proposition that it is true.  If you want me to unpack the reasons for my offering you this admonition, I'll be happy to do so.

                If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                ~ Umberto Eco

                by Major Danby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:19:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Weak Argument (none / 0)

              "Never Held Office" is a weak argument in this case.

              As you stated yourself, he needs "administrative experience". I think serving as a General in the US Military is about as "administrative" as it gets.

              Given some of his misadventures in Kosovo, though, I do question his diplomacy skills.

              I apologize to (most of) those I offended. :o)

              by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:01:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  here's one (4.00 / 5)

          not adept at campaigning. for all the supporter buzz the last time around, clark's run was underwhelming. which did not, FWIW, distinguish him from most of his competitors. i'll watch this next one to see what he's learned from '04, though, because his heart seems to be in the right place.

          surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

          by wu ming on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:53:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Totally agree (none / 0)

            I was a big Clark supporter last time, and I am expecting to be again, but he doesn't seem to be able to hit that "folksy tone" which resonates with a large crowd.

            Among those of us with large vocabularies, and reasonable ability to deal with complex subjects on the fly, he's great to listen to. But I'm not sure how well he comes across to people who are less comfortable with the academic environment.

            congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser