MacBeth -- where do you get that I'm framing the argument in the terms of "i'm smarter than you...you're dumb...people on the other side of the argument are just dumb?" where are you seeing that. yes, i said he looked like an idiot on CNN...but i never said that if you agreed with his politics it means you're incapable of carrying on a coherent argument. or attempted to frame those who post here on the other side of the argument in a way that is insulting. my take on clark is based only in my experience in watching him on CNN during the war. that's it. Achebe - welcome back.
I never even really considered Wesley Clark as a candidate. Now I guess I can. The most interesting part of his biography, I think, is his involvement in hydrogen as an alternative fuel to oil. Because this current administration is all about The Oil; grab the oil and natural gas, demonize other countries who want access to it (France, Germany) and make sure that we control the fuels and make everyone come to us, hat in hand, to buy the stuff. Too militaristic? Yep. I'm not saying China is a peace-love-dope country; they're looking out for their own interests as well. But we seem to be starting up another bankrupting arms race with a new ideological foe. I don't know if our economy will withstand the additional burgeoning of the deficit. Kerry and Clark, 2004....hmn. Whatever their credentials, the candidates next year will have to look like they can handle homeland security. (Just say no to Joe [Lieberman].....too hawkish.)
Well where did you get that I was doing the reverse? I commented ( admitedly sarcasticly) on his resume, as compared with Bush's, and wondered about the wisdom of people who support Bush calling a guy(who by all observable means of assesment is much more intelligent and aware) an idiot , moron, or senile...and the fact that those comments just happened to come from people politically opposed to Clark seemed to me to be something of an impetus for said conclusion. Same goes for saying his take on US militarism and foreign policy being ill-founded... I personally am neither for nor against Clark, but the 'idiot' stuff seemed to be off base and knee jerk, not to mention partisan. It would be the same if a Democrat called Kissinger an idiot, and I'd have the same reaction. Kissinger may have been many things, some of them pretty low, but no one can question the man's intelligence. Clark may not be many things, and Presidential material may be among the things he's not, I don't know...but two of the things he is most definitely not lacking are intelligence and awareness of our political/military course. People who say so are, IMO, taking shots at shadows...
1. maybe i misunderstood you 2. i said he came off like an idiot to me during the CNN coverage of the war. the same way rather and jennings did reading back election returns in 2000. just looked silly. the sky is falling...the sky is falling! and then military victory...just seemed funny given the source was a general. seemed like he was building up for a different outcome.
Clark had an incident during the Gulf II when he was working as a CNN analyst that threw a pall over his "campaign" (which has not, of course, actually started yet): As he was leaving a building a reporter asked him an opinion question on the Iraq war. He told the reporter to hold on a minute. He then called his boss at CNN and asked if he was allowed to discuss that particular question with a rival network's reporter. He then hung up the phone and told the reporter Sorry, I can't discuss that with you right now... True story. Take what you want from it, and ponder who he may really work for (conspiracy theories, anyone?)... I actually like Clark, and were I to find out more of his positions I would even be willing to vote for him (he along with Leiberman are about the only Dems I'd even consider, the rest are unprincipled, dishonest slimeballs). I disagree on his primary mode of military operation (since the mid-90s he has been a strong proponent of the "airpower can win wars without ground troops" school of thought, which I feel is not applicable in every case), but that is really just a detail, as he is willing to go to war when necessary, and that is what counts most. He has been cleverly quiet about most of his political views and favored economic strategies. Have to know more before I could consider it. I think alot of people feel that way now, which is not necessarily a bad thing for him at this point.
I'll take it that he was employed by one network and couldn't speak to another one. How many times do you see Larry King give interviews on Fox News?
You don't get it? He was asked a question as to what he would do on a national security issue in the role of president, and he declined to answer because his boss said not to. I'm not sure how to spell it out here... How can a presidential candidate not be able to answer questions on a national security issue of such importance? Everyone else got it. The reporters sure did, at least.
treeman, I would suggest that you're nitpicking... but I think you are being ridiculous. I'll reserve the term nitpicking for the time in which I can at least see where you are coming from. As interesting as Clark will be when he does become a candidate (hopefully)... currently he is not a candidate. More to the point, by your description, it sounds as if he was being a dilligent and loyal employee. Did he put himself in jeopardy by for(e)saking his responsibilities to his employer? No. He called his boss when he was unaware what his responsibilities to CNN actually were. That's discipline. Hell, I think I have more respect for the guy now. If he were a self-important ****, maybe he would have scratched his nuts and went off the cuff... and spoken in the way that many of us write... he would have said things in some stupid all-knowing way... you know, in that Charles Barkley, or heypartner, or treeman, or Achebe vein. Clark doesn't strike me as a man that thinks that he's above the team. I respect him for that. And I certainly respect his discipline.
Clark's possible candidacy has been a subject of speculation for months, and the question posed was an opinion-oriented question, not something that would have given away a friggen trade secret or cost CNN viewers. Personally I don't think it's all that big a deal; the media thought it was a big deal when it happened (for about a day or two, as their attention span is limited). I was just mentioning it; as you'll note, I actually said that I like the guy, and therefore am not trying to slam it - just throwing it out there. It is a bit curious that some of you "just don't get it", or don't see anything suspect in it. I suppose he can do no wrong... Well, he is, after all, a Democrat.
Now I understand your posts a bit more. You're completely misinformed and make stuff up as you see fit. If there is one reason that Clark won't win the party's nomination... is that he is about as uncommitted as a 'democrat' as you'll find. The man has never declared party affilitation. He won't even comment on which previous candidates he voted for. I frankly think he'll use the party to try to get in the White House. But, so far, I don't care. I like more of what comes out of his mouth than I do what comes out of Bush's mouth. Besides, I'll respect someone that served, faults and all, 10x out of 10 more so than I will someone that joined the pansy ass guard... and then went awol. ps, I didn't "get it", b/c I never saw any hoopla about Clark refusing to moonlight for some other network (link???). I didn't "get it" b/c I assumed that commentators aren't supposed to moonlight for some other network. Does anybody else other than treedude think that this is strange? I went into whole "zany, be objective, what if Bush did this" mode... and it still seemed really, really boring.
I think you don't get it because you're thinking in terms of him "moonlighting for another network". That is not in the context of what happened; it was more along the lines of "Mr. Prospective Presidential Candidate, may we ask you a question abvout what you think we should do in this particular Iraq situation?"... It was opinion-based, and as far as I know reporters - even em[ployed ones - are allowed to express those to the media, and it doesn't even have to be with the same company they work for. Hell, I'm pretty sure that some journalists and reporters even write for and appear on shows that are owned by a different company than that which employes them (you know, like "meet the Press"?), so... even if it was "moonlighting" - and it was not - your argument is pretty weak here. But whatever, like I said not that important. I just like it more when prospective presidential candidates actually share their opinions about relevant issues instead of saying "I'm not at liberty to discuss that", especially when it is an opinion that they have every liberty to discuss.
Depends on how how one views things. Doesn't sound like he is interested in doing Republican primaries against the incumbent and he discounts a third party bid. He has taken enough positions that run counter to the current Administration, so hard to imagine him as a Republican in the near future. Is the Stephens Consulting that Clark used to be with the same Stephens that is a friend/supporter of the Clintons? <a HREF="http://www.msnbc.com/news/927000.asp">Transcript for June 15</a> <i>........MR. RUSSERT: Would you like to be president? GEN. CLARK: Well, in many respects, I’d like a chance to help this country. And I don’t know if that means being president or doing something else. But I’ve spent my entire life in public service, except for the last three years. And it’s very hard not to think in terms of the welfare of the country, and when you see the country in trouble, in challenge, yes, you’d like to pitch in and help. MR. RUSSERT: Are you considering entering the presidential race? GEN. CLARK: I’m going to have to consider it. MR. RUSSERT: By when? GEN. CLARK: Well, sometime over the next couple of months. MR. RUSSERT: And your time line is by September... GEN. CLARK: I don’t have a specific time line, Tim. But I do have to consider it. MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you two Web sites that have been developed, and I’ll put them on the screen for you. There they are. DraftWesleyClark. And now in New Hampshire, there is this radio ad. Let’s listen: (Audiotape, radio ad): Announcer: General Wesley Clark: Vietnam combat veteran, Rhodes scholar, four-star general, business leader, and with your support—the next president of the United States. Paid for by DraftWesleyClark.com. (End audiotape) GEN. CLARK: That’s amazing. MR. RUSSERT: Do up want them to continue those advertisements? GEN. CLARK: Well, you know, all I’ve—I don’t have anything to do with that group. And I’m enormously impressed by their energy and so forth. I’m going have to give some serious consideration to this. And I’ve been—I’ve been saying that this is really about ideas and trying to get the ideas out. And I’ve been very grateful for the opportunity to do that. Maybe there’s something more to it. <b> MR. RUSSERT: You have voted in Arkansas in the Democratic primaries. GEN. CLARK: I did. MR. RUSSERT: So if you did run for president, you would run as a Democrat? GEN. CLARK: Well, I haven’t said that. I haven’t made any official moves. But this is a two-party country. There’s no successful third party bids. And, you know, it’s just—that’s the way it is. And I am concerned about many things in the country, not only foreign policy but domestic as well. MR. RUSSERT: So you would run as a Democrat? GEN. CLARK: Well, I haven’t come out and said that point blank. I mean, I think that’s another step that would have to be taken. MR. RUSSERT: But you wouldn’t challenge George Bush in the Republican primaries? GEN. CLARK: I haven’t considered that, no. MR. RUSSERT: So it would be in the Democratic primary? GEN. CLARK: You’re leading the witness here. I mean, that’s a step that I’ll have to work through along with everything else. You know, I’ve been non-partisan. I’ve got—I’m a centrist on most of these issues, and I’ve got people after me from both sides of the aisle.</b> That are—a lot of Republicans have talked to me and they’ve said, “Look, we’re very concerned about where the country is. We’re moving into—not only have we done a war that’s essentially an elective war that’s put us in trouble afterwards, in an indefinite commitment”—and by the way I don’t hear—they don’t hear the strong voices out there about mission creep and exit strategy that dominated the 1990s dialogue. But a lot of Republicans have come to me and said, you know, “What does this mean?” And they’ve said, “On the other hand, we always believed that we should be the party of fiscal responsibility. And where are we going with the tax cuts? What does this mean for the future of the country?” So I’m getting, you know, interest from both sides, really... MR. RUSSERT: What do you... GEN. CLARK: ...and just haven’t moved past that. MR. RUSSERT: What do you think of the Bush tax cuts? Would you have voted for them? GEN. CLARK: Well, I would not have supported them, no. MR. RUSSERT: Why not? GEN. CLARK: Well, first of all, they were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs. There are more effective ways of using the resources. Secondly, the tax cuts weren’t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it’s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don’t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should—one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country. So I think that the tax cuts were unfair. And, finally, I mean, you look at the long-run health of the country and the size of the deficit that we’ve incurred and a substantial part of that deficit is result of the tax cuts. You have to ask: “Is this wise, long-run policy?” I think the answer is no. MR. RUSSERT: As president, would you rescind them? GEN. CLARK: You have to look at each part of them, but there are—you’ve got to put the country back on a fiscally sound basis, whether that is in suspending parts that haven’t been implemented or rescinding parts, that’d have to be looked at. MR. RUSSERT: They’d say, “Candidate Clark is for raising taxes.” GEN. CLARK: Well, you know, I think that what candidate Clark, if there is such a candidate, would be for is he would be for doing the right thing for government. You know, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld put it this way when he was talking about how long to stay in Iraq. He said, “We’re going to get out as soon as possible, but we’re going to stay as long as necessary.” Well, it’s more than a clever formulation. It’s the right formulation. I think it’s the same thing about taxes. Taxes are something that you want to have as little of as possible, but you need as much revenue as necessary to meet people’s needs for services. The American people on the one hand don’t like taxes. None of us do, but on the other hand, we expect the government to do certain things for us............ MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, would you accept the vice presidency if offered? GEN. CLARK: Well, I haven’t moved into considerations of things like that, Tim. </i>
For you Pro-Clark guys, what exactly does he stand for? I hope for the best candidates possible, and at this moment, I'm not feeling any of the Dem guys. So what makes Clark so politically attractive?
Here is an article about a recent Clark visit to New Hampshire: <a HREF="http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/may/5_13.shtml">Wes Clack comes to NH to create more buzz about presidential campaign and make no news about plans</a> <i>MANCHESTER, May 13 – Technically, retired General Wesley Clark said he was in town just for business. However, by the time he left Manchester, Clark had talked foreign policy to a well attended Rotary Club, backstroked a few laps at the YMCA, and talked education and economic stimulus packages to a group of high profile New Hampshire activists at the Merrimack Restaurant. No, even as hype and buzz surrounds Clark like the central question if he will seek the presidency, he offered little information on his presidential aspirations, if any, during his first trip to New Hampshire since October. It was after that October trip that the rumors of a Clark presidential run began. A story in PoliticsNH.com went back to those Clark talked with during his trip. Many were left with the impression that he wasn’t just speaking as a former military general, but possibly a candidate. Other stories followed. He would not either confirm or deny that he was considering a run. Clark is from Arkansas and went to West Point where he later taught. He was named a Rhodes Scholar. In 1998 he led NATO forces in Bosnia. Most recently he served as a CNN military analyst during the most recent war in Iraq. He consistently repeated Monday that he was "not a candidate" and did not even had a political affiliation. "People have advised me that the less partisan you talk the more support I'll get for what I say," Clark told a small group of activists at the Merrimack Restaurant. Clark did shed light that he thought large scale government programs like the interstate system, G.I. Bill, and the development of land-grant college proved government was "important", he made the case of how he changed education for the 44,000 children who attended his military bases, and answered a question on President Bush’s recently argued tax cut by saying he favored a stimulus package for small businesses. <b> "I would like Democrats to speak out and say government is important. Government is important. Government does things for people that they can’t do themselves. Why are people ashamed to say that? People say government is so inefficient, look government is just us. It is just a bunch of people like us who sit around and do things for people. The inefficiency is limited by the quality of people who work there. </b> Along with saying he believed in the "importance of government" Clark also said he believed in a progressive tax system. "I happen to believe in progressive taxation. I am sure there are people out there who say everybody should pay the same rate of taxes, but I don’t believe that. The same people who don’t make as much money shouldn’t have to pay the same amount of taxes. When you make more money you spend it more on luxuries so you can afford to pay more in taxes. And you ought to. And you should be proud of it. I’ve given five times more in taxes last year than I made as a general." And after all that he said he couldn’t remember if he was a registered Democrat. He did say he voted in "the Democratic Primary" though he didn’t specify which one or how many. On his trip Susan Putney, of Dover, presented Clark with 1,000 letters from those who would like to see him run for the White House. One letter was an e-mail typed by a solider while on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln during the recent conflict in Iraq. Clark didn’t show much facial expression at the letters, but said the letter from the Lincoln was "amazing." After all the letters was he even considering running? "It’s pretty hard not to think about this," Clark said to a reporter. Clark said when he travels around the country speaking to groups he is having "strategic dialogue". He wants the country, in his words, to step back after 9/11 and Iraq and evaluate where the country is headed. He wants to see the United States more involved with international institutions like the United Nations and NATO because the country shouldn’t have to bear the burden of taking care of the world and those institutions were set up on the very premise of helping the country do exactly that. He said to get the economy back in order the country needed some type of stimulus plan focused on small business. "I do believe that hard working Americans do need some break in taxes because our country has excess capacity and we need a stimulus in demand. So I would be in favor of a limited stimulus program that would have impact immediately." Clark didn’t offer specifics of what type of stimulus package. Later in the afternoon he met with a small group of businessmen and then with Manchester inventor Dean Kamen. A meeting with Kamen was the business reason of the trip, Clark said. <b> When asked if he would be back in New Hampshire sometime soon, Clark told PoliticsNH.com "probably so."</b></i>
Thanks Mango... I guess it's a bit too early for people to have actual plans. Saying "government is important" isn't really saying much. I truly hope the Dems produce a respectable candidate. It's been a long time since we've had a president that was respected by both sides. I'm probably expecting too much when it comes to that...
bgm, I agree... Clark has the background story that makes him available for respect all around... (although of course the ideologues from both corners would cry like a bunch of losers). If he can put together some coherent argument, then I think he might shock some people... but from what I've read, few people give him the opportunity to actually be nominated (ie Iowa and New Hampshire... choosing a centrist four star general? hmmm... well, at least there's South Carolina).
