Wes Clark: Today's Wikipedia Featured Article

I'm not sure how they decide what the feature article is going to be each day at Wikipedia, but today Wes Clark got that front page honor. Interesting. Do the editors at Wiki know something we don't? Is Wes close to an announcement, or is he still running for Secretary of Defense?

While there are some things in the article that fans of the General here at the KOS might want to edit, it's still one impressive biography. Compare General Clark's career of service to this country to others' in the race for President. I'm talking resume candidate supreme here.

Consider the military history alone. Here's a guy who could not only clean up the Rumsfeld mess at the Pentagon, but also create a military that projects soft power better, that wins hearts and minds, that can fight the kind of low-intensity conflicts we will see in the future (like the one we should be fighting better in Afghanistan).

Then, consider the education. Rhodes scholar. Masters in economics and military science. Valedictorian of his class at West Point. The man is perfect for the job of President.

But here's the best sentence in the whole article:

When asked about a presidential run by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! on March 2, 2007, Clark said "I think about it every day."

Me too, sir. Me too.

•  Tips and other pieces

  Thanks for the tips!

  You Clark experts should take a little time to edit any parts of his Wiki article that might need it.

  by supak on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 03:52:00 PM PDT

  •  Uhg

    Wikipedia politics! I don't know if I can handle that! :)

    Thanks for the great write-up supak!

    -Joe  

    by clark08 on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:15:36 PM PDT

  •  Supak, can you please be more specific

    "While there are some things in the article that fans of the General here at the KOS might want to edit,

    and let us know what you're referring to?

    I don't know whether anyone from CCN has been involved in writing the Wiki page or not, but taking a quick look it seems to be factual.

    Thanks.

    by jinny on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 05:12:11 PM PDT

    •  Waco and Priština International Airport

      I have seen discussions of both of these "controversies" involving Gen. Clark, and they have been dismissed as crap. Yet, the appear on the Wiki page. I'm not that knowledgeable about those events and Clark's involvement, or lack thereof, and would therefor hope that someone with that knowledge would take the time to edit that page.

      The other points in the comments here are well noted, particularly that Wiki isn't the best method for getting facts out about politicians. However, if you google Clark's name, you see the Wiki page in third. So, if he does declare, that page will get some traffic from the curious (and the devious (read Karl Rove's minions)). Therefore, it is worth making sure it is accurate, and to do that, I guess, Clark's people should keep checking it on a regular basis.

      Another way to control any possible problems with a wiki page would be to create better, legitimate pages, or to link to them from high ranking sites. In other words, a hefty dose of Search Engine Optimization for various sites about a candidate will push the Wiki page further down in the results.

      Too bad none of the campaigns takes SEO seriously. What a missed opportunity, in terms of fund raising and votes...

      by supak on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:33:06 PM PDT

      •  Thanks, very much appreciate your

        response and will take it up with others.

        by jinny on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:02:53 PM PDT

      •  Anybody can edit a wiki entry

        So it's up to all of us to be vigilant and check it to be sure it's correct regarding the facts.  When someone posts "the big lie", we just have to go there and edit it to reflect the truth.  That's the downside to wikipedia.

        by ljm on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:34:12 PM PDT

  •  Here's an alternative perhaps more reliable pedia

    http://demopedia.democraticundergrou...

    by what if on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:34:26 PM PDT

  •  And this also introduces Wes Clark fairly broadly

    http://fourstardemocrats.com/...

    by what if on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:38:41 PM PDT

•  one month from now

  4/22 is earth day

  Wes participated in this very positive constructive earthday network; something to promote and enjoy about Wes Clark's leadership;

  http://64.27.176.201/...
  Earth Day Network TV    

  INSPIRED VIEWING :-)

  by pollwatch on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:19:01 PM PDT

  •  Is there a transcript?

    May just be my computer, but I'm having trouble with the video.
    This sounds great and I'd like to know more about it.  

    by LAMaestra on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:32:01 PM PDT

    •  hope this link works for you

      http://www.earthday.net/  

      by pollwatch on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:56:24 PM PDT

    •  ps

      another Wes endeavor - call to action climate change

      Wes Clark - Global warming is a matter of national security. Will we live in a world where we must fight our neighbors for fresh water and food? Or will we take the lead now and leave to our children and grandchildren a world better off than the one we inherited from our parents? No excuses. No apologies. Take the first step today. We can't do it without you.

      http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/...

      by pollwatch on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 05:04:41 PM PDT

      •  I wish that

        I wish that he wouldn't mince words... ;)

        by clark08 on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 05:15:26 PM PDT

•  Wes CANT BE SecDef b/cos he is barred from doing

  So by the constitution.

  He needs to be out of the military for 10yrs or more

  by wuod kwatch on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:21:19 PM PDT

  •  You beat me to it

    But it's not the Constitution. It's statutory law. The Constitution doesn't even specify the cabinet officers, and one of the things Billy Mitchell was court martialled for was for advocating a Secretary of Defense, instead of a Secretary of War with Secretaries of Army and Navy also sitting in the cabinet.

    by Danjuma on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 05:46:31 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for the correction Danjuma

      Wes would have made a terrific POTUS.

      I think he is just not built for the daily grind of campaigns.

      But if he can do a Cheney (run as Obamas/HRC/Edwards VP) that would be terrific.

      I just think that in 8 yrs he would be in mccain territory in terms of age and not that attractive a candidate.

      by wuod kwatch on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:15:26 PM PDT

      •  Don't give up on Wes

        He did OK in 2004, especially considering his late start. He has been doing the "daily grind of campaigns" for others, especially the Democratic Congressional candidates of 2006, and he was a big factor in giving us this Democratic Congress we are all crowing about. I don't know why he's not running.

        But he may still decide to run. Don't count him out. He might be a good Veep, but rumor has it he ruled that out last time, and he may refuse it again. He does need to be somewhere in the administration to give advice. Brain truster isn't enough. Defense is out. State would continue the militarization of the department. I guess if he doesn't run for president himself that leaves Veep.

        by Danjuma on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:21:43 PM PDT

        •  Clark is likely to run. He did terrifric in 2004.

          Clark is currently doing everything he can to stop the war from expanding into Iran (something Zbigniew Brzezinski says will lead to 20 more years of war)!

          So, all Kossacks who oppose the war should be supporting http://www.stopiranwar.com/

          Clark is also very serious about seeking the Presidency, and will announce an exploratory committee in due time, probably before Memorial Day.
          When he's relaxed and with his supporters, Clark sometimes already talks like he's a candidate:  

             

          Well, I want to be really careful about raising taxes.  I really am going to try not to raise taxes, but I do believe we've got to take care of people.

          That's from: Reg Interviews General Wesley Clark (on Feb 27, 2007)

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          There's still more than 5 mos left before his previous entry date in 2003 (Sept. 17). In spite of that late start, which everyone remembers, people forget that by January 18, 2004, he was second to Dean in national polls.  That's the day George McGovern endorsed him.  
           

             

          McGovern endorses Clark...

                Sunday, January 18, 2004

                KEENE, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination picked up an endorsement Sunday from former Sen. George McGovern, the Democratic nominee in 1972.

                "I am here to endorse with all my heart and strength General Wes Clark," the three-term senator from South Dakota told about 500 people gathered at a pancake breakfast at Keene Middle School.

                McGovern said it was "important" for Democrats to "recover" the White House from President Bush, a Republican....

                Nationwide polls show Clark in second place behind Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont, another of New Hampshire's neighbors.

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

          Clark had nearly overtaken Howard Dean in New Hampshire, and Kerry wasn't even on the New Hampshire Radar.  Then - the big surprise in Iowa happened, and Kerry's Massachusetts operation flooded New Hampshire with claims that he was so much more electable - having been a long time Senator.  Yeh, sure, that helped a lot.

          Clark finished 3rd in New Hampshire and was summarily written off by most of the msm, but he went on to win in Oklahoma and come in 2nd in three western states, and third in two southern states.   By that time, Kerry had won 12 states, so Clark withdrew and endorsed Kerry.  Clark had been in the race a total of only five months, and he had started with nothing but himself - no staff, no money, no position papers, no experience at running for office, and no elected officials who owed him anything.  If he had stayed in the race, there is every reason to think that he would have beaten John Edwards in much of the country.  But he didn't want to be VP, and he preferred to work hard to get Congressional Dems elected in 2004.  So that's where his effort went.  And again in 2006.

          We Democrats made a bad mistake flocking to Kerry after Iowa.  McGovern was right.  Clark would have crushed Bush in 2004.

          And Clark could crush any Republican candidate in 2008 also. I hope he runs, and I hope we Dems are smarter than we were in 2004.

          by what if on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:58:19 PM PDT

•  My first choice woulda been Wes P/Obama VP

  Imagine 8yrs of reconstruction following the bagdadization of this country by chimpie and then put the country on cruise control and let Obama steer the psyche of the country towards normality again.

  by wuod kwatch on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:23:48 PM PDT

  •  Excellent first choice.

    The President's greatest power is in foreign affairs.  For domestic affairs, there is much more Congressional involvement - which should suit a former Senator, who as VP would also preside over the Senate.  

    Clark's obvious foreign policy superiority makes him the logical choice for President, not VP.

    Obama could learn a lot as Clark's VP.

    A Clark/Obama ticket brings together much of the mainstream Democratic middle-class with Clark's wider and more varied constituency.

    by what if on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:02:25 PM PDT

•  What about the 1000-officer test he came in 1st

  in, War College, accurately predicting 5-, 25-, and 100-year scenarios based on current trends?  Didn't see that...was it there?

  by venatrix on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:25:45 PM PDT

  •  I mean compared to a guy who can't predict a day

    after the fall of a dictator?

    by venatrix on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:34:09 PM PDT

•  He could be Secretary of State, BUT...

  He really needs to be President.  The WORLD needs him to be President.  His mix of talents and the discouraging state of affairs in the world make his decision to run almost a moral mandate.

  by The Smoldering Crone on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:32:40 PM PDT

  •  He needs to control the power

    I am sure that which ever Democrat wins the WH Clark will have an exalted role. Say, SOS, Ambassador to the UN, or something like that. I believe it will be a cabinet post at least.  However, I think he will command much more respect from the military and economic forces in Washington than the others, save Richardson.   The slime machine will try to destroy him but he will be harder to knock down than Hillary or Obama or Edwards.

    by hairspray on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 05:11:57 PM PDT

•  Best ignored

  Wikipedia is a totally unreliable site dominated by those who want to make a political point or just go after people they don't like. I've been a victim there myself. It should be treated like the National Enquirer and ignored in serious discussions.

  This is not a knock on Wes Clark, who deserves our attention as a potential candidate. But you can expect GOP attacks on that page soon. Wiki is a flawed concept that helps with trivial information but should be ignored on anything controversial in any way, from politics to sports.

  And if the wonks had any sense they'd make the featured page about something like Darfur or Islam and not about a 2008 Presidential primary non-candidate.

  by MakeChessNotWar on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:32:59 PM PDT

  •  It is ignored in serious discussions. We'll

    Wiki-sit it.  It will take hits, like all candidates' Wiki sites.  Life will go on.  Relax.

    by venatrix on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:52:58 PM PDT

•  It's simple for me. What you see is what you get

  which is unique man who is extraordinarily qualified to be our next President.

  Words from Wes in Manchester, NH
  January 22, 2004

  The American people shouldn't have to wait a day longer for openness and honesty from all the candidates.

  To put it simply, presidents are public servants - they shouldn't be in government to serve themselves or narrow special interests.

  They should be open, honest, and up front with the public about everything possible - and especially about their professional life, their business connections, lobbying records, and any potential conflicts of interest. Because, when it comes down to it, true leaders shouldn't have anything to hide from the people who elect them.

  And as candidates, I think it's crucial that we practice what we preach.

  As Democrats, we need to set an example for George W. Bush, and show him what an open and honest government is all about. We need to show the country that there are clear differences between Democrats and Republicans. We're the party of accountability and accessibility.

  We need to give the government back to its rightful owners - the American people.

  We need to bring a higher standard of leadership back to the White House. Leadership that puts America's values first: patriotism, faith, family, and inclusion.

  Leadership that puts the nation's interests above the special interests, and principles above politics. Leadership that believes in open, honest government and demands accountability. And that's why I'm running for President.

  I'm an outsider. I'm not a politician and I'm not from Washington, DC.

  I'm from a humble home in Little Rock, Arkansas. My mom was a secretary.

  We never had much, but we always managed to get by. And I understand how many families struggle to make ends meet. That's why we always need to put families first.

  I've spent my life in executive positions - as a doer, not a debater. I went to West Point. I led an infantry company in Vietnam. I commanded an armored division, helped negotiate peace in Bosnia, and led the military forces of 19 nations in war and peacekeeping in the Balkans.

  As a general, I was responsible for the lives of thousands of troops and their families - from fixing potholes on the base to providing schools and health care for their children.

  As a retired general, I sat on boards, chaired a startup of a high tech company, and worked as an investment banker.

  The bottom line: I'm a leader, not a politician. And I want what's best for our country, not what's best for the special interests. Because I believe the American people deserve better and the stakes are too high for anything less.

  http://www.clark04.com/...  

  "Major Clark is the most able White House Fellow I have known during my seven years in Washington...He brought to his work a brilliant mind and rare common sense. He has initiative, style, imagination, moral courage, and integrity-each in extraordinary degree...He has a rare sensitivity to others and a remarkable ability to motivate and lead them....He is totally dedicated to public service as a military officer."
  -James T. Lynn, Director, Office of Management and Budget, July 8, 1976

  by KayCeSF on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:33:34 PM PDT

  •  That

    should almost be a separate diary!

    by clark08 on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 05:03:02 PM PDT

    •  He's a born leader.

      From a little boy to this day, he leads.  And the remarkable thing is, it's never about him.... it's about the people he has lead.  He loves The People!

      Breaks my heart that those supporting other candidates, candidates who have not worked nearly as long and hard for their candidacy now, don't see the gift we have in Wes. When he runs, I'm hoping they will come to him.  Those waiting for him to announce, like me, we know why Wes Clark is the man. All one has to do is read his bio, his resume, and all he's done since he stepped out of the military to know that he has amazing compassion, courage, experience and intellect to lead.  Listening to him live, meeting him in person, and talking with him even if for seconds, only confirms he is authentic.  

      Well... bottom line is that we all could go on and on with a long list of his qualifications. People can start at Wiki, and then head over to www.securingamerica.com to find out even more that is not on the Wiki page.

      In fact, I would prefer people went to his site to grab all the great info about Wes, his speeches, his OpEds, the videos, etc. so they will understand that Wes Clark is a gift to our nation.  Hell, he's a gift to the world.  World leaders know it. What does that say about Wesley Clark?

      by KayCeSF on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 05:20:39 PM PDT

      •  Again

        Wonderful words.  Thanks!

        [e-mail]

        by clark08 on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 05:26:28 PM PDT

        •  Thank you clark08! I cling to the hope

          people will wake up!

          by KayCeSF on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 05:40:03 PM PDT

•  I would love

  for him to get into the race, but I want him to strategize when best to get in, not to just jump in because the throngs are clamoring for it. He needs to do it at a time when he'll get attention. I'm sure he knows when to time it.

  by Lena on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:26:21 PM PDT

  •  Here's a diary that says Wes has plenty of time

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    by what if on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:25:28 PM PDT

•  I'll throw my two cents in here...

  As I've said before, Gen. Clark is the one person among those who have their names 'out there' in this race, (in spite of not having delcared yet in his case) who has the temperment, the intelligence, the street cred, (both in military circles and in the diplomatic world, especially in the middle east) and the skillset to repair the complete and utter clusterfuck the Bush Administration has made of our country.  Edwards could make inroads I suspect, but in my mind he'd be better after a Clark presidency.

  General, I know you do post on Dkos occasionally, so I know there's at least a remote chance that you'll read this.  Just in case you do, I like what I've heard coming from you.  I like the positions you've endorsed, (the ones I've heard anyway) and the fact that unlike some other candidates, you don't throw loyal voting blocs under the bus in some quixotic attempt to placate h. Sapiens Republicanmoronis.  As this race progresses, that becomes increasingly important, and increasingly rare.  I also suspect that you're someone who can go into this mess and actually fix it.

  Now.... I'm not going to get on your case here for not having declared yet.  I know you've expressed a desire to avoid getting into the race too late if you run at all... and I'm fine with that.  Personally I myself am scratching my head at all the headless chickens running around trying to campaign almost two years before the election.

  I'm also hesitant to say this... because I know what it will cost you.  No, scratch that.  I hate to ask it of you.  I may not be the most seasoned person here at Dkos... but I'm old enough to have seen a number of presidential elections and I've seen what happens to candidates... especially candidates that aren't right-wing maniacs.  The poo-flinging press, the right-wing frames, the constant invasion of privacy, having your life stretched out in the common media... well it strikes me as a bit of a nightmare.

  But I'm going to ask it anyway... as an American.  Please General, run.

  We need a real Democrat.  We need a man of honor and integrity.  We need an adult.  We need 'the smartest guy in the room.'

  by Corwin Weber on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:22:17 PM PDT

  •  "We need 'the smartest guy in the room."

    You can say that again!

    Hear! Hear!
    Thank you Corwin Weber!

    by KayCeSF on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:27:42 PM PDT

•  I am the primary author

  Of the Wikipedia article. You can see my user page here. Crap or not they are serious allegations. Would you like it if the Bush article was a fluff piece that made no mention of his horrific polling numbers? WP:NPOV is a very serious policy. I would appreciate it if people didn't badmouth it or Wikipedia simply because some sections are imperfect.

  Every single piece of source material on Earth is flawed. If you cite anything to a singular source you build in inherant bias. Wikipedia is a single source, just like anything else. Featured articles, BTW, are quite reliable as they are of the highest standard and carefully watched.

  by stax on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:03:31 PM PDT

  •  Good for you, Jimmy, and thanks for being here.

    Do you watch the Wes Clark entry carefully to be certain it's not changed un-truthfully?

    Congratulations on your several honors there.

    by what if on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:10:38 PM PDT

    •  I do indeed

      With what's known as a "Watchlist" you can have a list of various articles you can check to see what the most recent updates are. I routinely check that whenever I'm online, so if any of my various articles have gotten recent edits I check the history to ensure no vandalism has gotten in.

      by stax on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:47:09 PM PDT

  •  No, hey, you're right

    I think the Wiki on Clark is very good. I only suggested that if anyone has more information, say references, to answer any of the alligations, then they should go add them.

    You did an excellent job. I was very happy to see it as a featured article. It's a perfect example of how Wikipedia can work well.

    As someone else said, we should wiki-sit it, to protect your good work, and to make sure people get a good education about Wes.

    by supak on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:16:11 PM PDT

  •  Thank you

    Staxringold, thanks for taking the time to write and defend the Wesley_Clark Wikipedia page.  

    You get Four-Stars in my book!

    -Joe (nethead on wikipedia)

    by clark08 on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:03:39 PM PDT

  •  You've done an amazing amount

    of work there!! Thank you, thank you!

    One place to check for further/more detailed information on both the Waco and Kosovo subjects are at Frenchie Cat's blog. Let me find it.

    Okay, did a search on her blog for Kosovo and these links came up:

    http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/...

    And for Waco:

    http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/...

    by jen on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:04:45 PM PDT

  •  serious allegations

    Aren't the truth.  There is a difference.  Plenty of people have all the facts to go edit the factual errors in your entry.  That's how it is on that site, so you can't get upset if corrections are made to reflect the truth.  That's not the same as a whitewash either.  It's like propogating the myth about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree.  It didn't happen, so there's no point in keeping it going.  There's already way too much revisionist history.

    by ljm on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:05:01 PM PDT

    •  Please see the Talk and FA pages

      To see how much research, peer review, and just plain work went into this.  Wow.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      by clark08 on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:15:12 PM PDT

    •  Once again, no

      No one reaches this level of public stature without drawing controversies. If you don't mention them the article is a lie with bias the other way.

      by stax on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:55:45 AM PDT

  •  The article was great!!

    Thanks for authoring it...I know you spent lots of time on it. I have it saved. Excellent...!!

    by capi888 on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:10:14 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for doing such a wonderful

    job of General Clark's Wiki page.

    I have emailed you to your yahoo a/c.

    by jinny on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:10:21 PM PDT

  •  Oh, And thanks

    For using Ken's Seattle picture.  That was the one time I was able to meet WKC in person.

    BTW: It was not a campaign event, it was a dog & pony show for a company trying to sell remote controlled zodiac boats to DHS.  WKC and Patty Murray were there.  Some Clarkies heard about it and showed up (Patty was kinda pissed about being ignored while Wes was mobbed ;)

    by clark08 on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:20:09 PM PDT

  •  Hey stax, you're doing great work

    been watching for a long time and that is no small feat what you've accomplished.

    Disregard the critics. It's a seriously fantastic body of work.

    by westcott on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:32:56 PM PDT

    •  No one is complaining

      just offering constructive tips.

      Seriously, Frenchie Cat's site has the definitive info on all the "controversies."

      http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/

      It has a search feature.

      by jen on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:59:45 PM PDT

      •  Once again

        Inclusion does not equal a support of the controversy or any statement on it's truthfulness. The stories were notable and repeated claims against Clark, so must be included to fully report on the subject.

        by stax on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:58:11 AM PDT

        •  Agree!

          I'm just suggesting that Frenchie Cat has valuable information at her site that through years of research and writing shine a light on the controversies that is perhaps more clear and valid than much of what is out there. That's all.

          I'm just blown away by what you've done over there. A lot of time, effort and energy that is very impressive!

          Thank you!

          by jen on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 09:39:13 AM PDT

•  guessing

  but Wes could correct the information there if he is aware of it or have a staff person do it; the thing about wiki is most people know it is a good quick reference but  does not necessarily get its facts straight/fact checking - encyclopedia with opinions and faux facts mixed in.....

  by pollwatch on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 02:54:43 AM PDT