NationStates Jolt Archive

This man is probably my favourite mainstream US politician. He's intelligent, progrssive and he believes in certain principles. He spent a lot of time in Europe as head of NATO, and he knows how things are done over there.

He's got everything a president could need and more. He's an experienced general, he gets along with the young people, hell, he's even got Jewish heritage (*kidding*).

So someone needs to explain to me how the Dems could choose Kerry over him.

And more importantly: Is there a chance that he would do it next time?

I'd be interested to hear from the Bush voters in particular: would you vote for him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
And surely he'd do a better job than Bill O'Reilly.

he's even got Jewish heritage
*phew*

*looks around*

WHAT?

So someone needs to explain to me how the Dems could choose Kerry over him.


It would take to long to explain properly to a non United-Statesman. The short answer is, that I suspect that it was a combination of three things:

1. The democrats are not nearly as "democratic" as they like to pretend, and the party machine pushed his candidacy because it was "his turn".

2. They didn't really want to be in the Whitehouse for this political cycle, owing to strategic concerns.

3. They are obviously not prepared to compromise their prinicipals about certain wedge issues in order to get an electable candidate.

Let's face it, a piece of toe-jam - provided said toe-jam had a reasonable record on a few issues - could have taken the whitehouse in 2004. But no! Gotta go with Kerry. He has "gravitas".

BTW, had they run howard dean, he would have given bush a much harder race.

Wesley Clark as some massive leadership problems. The people in the military that I know would have a massive problem serving under him.

Let's face it, a piece of toe-jam - provided said toe-jam had a reasonable record on a few issues - could have taken the whitehouse in 2004. But no! Gotta go with Kerry. He has "gravitas".
Doesn't the process generally entail votes by all party members?
How can the entire body of the Democratic Party act in such a way? Surely if they don't like Bush they should try and get rid of him properly.

Wesley Clark as some massive leadership problems. The people in the military that I know would have a massive problem serving under him.

That has never kept anyone from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

He spent a lot of time in Europe as head of NATO, and he knows how things are done over there.
So? Both the US and Europe are all kinds of fucked up. With Clark the US could have hybrid fucked up?
He's got everything a president could need and more.
Oh really?
He's an experienced general,
That is good how?
he gets along with the young people
What politician doesn’t?
And surely he'd do a better job than Bill O'Reilly.
A damn retard could do a better job than O'Reilly.

Personally, I thought the Dems should have ran Lieberman. Alas, the days where the mild mannered can ascend to the presidency are gone.

Wesley Clark as some massive leadership problems. The people in the military that I know would have a massive problem serving under him.
Care to elaborate?
What constitutes a "leadership problem"? Especially since he was head of NATO, and he lead the US Forces in Kosovo.

That has never kept anyone from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Good point but most people in the military knows that he was relieved of his post while with NATO because of his shitty leadership. If he becomes the nominee, the military will turn out in droves to vote against him because they know that they won't be able to trust him. That was what got Kerry into trouble as well. The military knew they couldn't trust Kerry.

Doesn't the process generally entail votes by all party members?
How can the entire body of the Democratic Party act in such a way? Surely if they don't like Bush they should try and get rid of him properly.
Because the democratic primary is pretty much decided by the first two states to hold a caucus or primary, and then everyone follows that trend because people are damn sheep. Those two states happen to be sparsely populated with a 95% white population, by the way.

Care to elaborate?
What constitutes a "leadership problem"? Especially since he was head of NATO, and he lead the US Forces in Kosovo.

He was relieved of duty. The reason being leadership. No one in the military that I know of would serve under a person that was relieved of duty. Most people in the military didnt even like him while he was head of NATO for that very same reason.

I'd be interested to hear from the Bush voters in particular: would you vote for him?
And surely he'd do a better job than Bill O'Reilly.
Not only no, hell no. The man is so vapid, he makes John Edwards look like an intellectual heavyweight. His flip-flopping makes John Kerry seem decisive. And, last I checked, Bill O'Reilly was not running for any office (as it should be, since he is a commentator, and not a politician.)

He was relieved of duty. The reason being leadership.
The reason being a catfight with the British commander of NATO Forces. I guess that counts as leadership, but hardly in the way you are suggesting.

This man is probably my favourite mainstream US politician. He's intelligent, progrssive and he believes in certain principles. He spent a lot of time in Europe as head of NATO, and he knows how things are done over there.

He's got everything a president could need and more. He's an experienced general, he gets along with the young people, hell, he's even got Jewish heritage (*kidding*).

So someone needs to explain to me how the Dems could choose Kerry over him.

And more importantly: Is there a chance that he would do it next time?

I'd be interested to hear from the Bush voters in particular: would you vote for him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
And surely he'd do a better job than Bill O'Reilly.
My cat would do a better job than Bill O'Reilly. In fact, my cat would do a better job of sexually harrassing an assistant than Bill O'Reilly did.

As to Clark, I'm one of the tiny minority that agrees with you. The first moment I saw him, I said to myself if the Dems don't tap that guy for at least Vice President, then they don't know how to win elections. I like his politics and his philosophy. He has the resume. He has the personable public speaking style. He's a hard-headed ball-busting bastard of a commander and organizer -- even though people complain about working for him, they still do what he says. And he is almost preternaturally telegenic. That boy was made for tv. He can even get away with being short on tv. The only problem I saw with him as a candidate was that he is too damned smart, and he comes off as smart. Americans don't like smart people. They don't want someone smarter than them running the country. This is why we are fucked as a nation. The Dems should have latched onto him and handled his campaign so as to minimize the amount of time he spent actually talking in public. Sell him on image. Get the morons to confuse him with Eisenhower. Once they had him in the Whitehouse, he'd have been free to be as brainy as he liked.

I would have liked a Kerry/Clark ticket, or a Clark/Edwards ticket. I like Kerry's politics and his resume, too (not all that clean, but clean enough for a career politician), but "gravitas" -- that goes over even less well than brains with Americans. Clark as a running mate would have also added gravitas but added a little life (comparatively). Edwards was too boyish by comparison with Kerry. They didn't go together as a team.

Clark isn't as heavy as Kerry, so he would have been a good "senior" to Edwards. I like Edwards, too. An excellent speaker. If I ever need to sue someone, I would definitely call him. But not president material. Too bouncy.

The reason being a catfight with the British commander of NATO Forces. I guess that counts as leadership, but hardly in the way you are suggesting.

Apparently, you don't listen to military personnel, especially those that are in the same national service. He was sacked by President Clinton which was one of the smarter things he ever did. He honestly does have some leadership problems and the military will not flock to him. In fact, I'm sure most of them will flock to the republican candidate for president.

The reason being a catfight with the British commander of NATO Forces. I guess that counts as leadership, but hardly in the way you are suggesting.

Apparently, you don't listen to military personnel, especially those that are in the same national service. He was sacked by President Clinton which was one of the smarter things he ever did. He honestly does have some leadership problems and the military will not flock to him. In fact, I'm sure most of them will flock to the republican candidate for president.

Doesn't the process generally entail votes by all party members?
How can the entire body of the Democratic Party act in such a way? Surely if they don't like Bush they should try and get rid of him properly.

Basically because most people don't vote in primary elections.

In the US when you register, you choose the party you wish to be affiliated with, in order to grant you the right to vote in primaries. That said, it is a pro-forma procedure, and most people just tick the box, never acting on it again and only voting in general elections.

To further complicate this, some states have open primaries (anyone can vote), some people register tactically (registering for the party they oppose so that they can vote for the worst candidate in the primaries), some people choose parties they believe will keep them off the jury lists (an urban myth) and some people just check the silliest box.

And sometimes people change their political views without changing their party affiliation. For example, I am a registered democrat*.

In any event, what happens is that the choices that are made for candidates often in no way actually reflect the desires of the bulk of the so-called party members. This means that silly candidates are put forward. Especially owing to the fact that it is usually the hard core members - normally called the "base" who are the only people voting in the primaries.

Richard Nixon actually made this observation himself. He said - and I paraphrase here - to become a repbulican president you have to run to the right in the primaries, and run like hell to the centre in the general election. Naturally, this rule holds in a similar fashion for the democrats. Sometimes however, the base chooses a candidate like Kerry who didn't have to run to the left in the first place, and so his run to the centre was less than convinceing to the electorate as a whole.

*The party left me, I didn't leave the party &c.

Apparently, you don't listen to military personnel, especially those that are in the same national service. He was sacked by President Clinton which was one of the smarter things he ever did. He honestly does have some leadership problems and the military will not flock to him. In fact, I'm sure most of them will flock to the republican candidate for president.
I think that's an open question, but the military is not the only voting block in the country. As for your assertion that people in the military would have a hard time serving under him, you know perfectly well that the US military will not refuse to serve under any lawful president, even if they think he's an ass, so if Clark -- or Kerry, or Edwards -- were to get elected someday, the cooperation of the military would not be an issue. Implying otherwise could only be a negative campaign tactic.

I think that's an open question, but the military is not the only voting block in the country. As for your assertion that people in the military would have a hard time serving under him, you know perfectly well that the US military will not refuse to serve under any lawful president, even if they think he's an ass, so if Clark -- or Kerry, or Edwards -- were to get elected someday, the cooperation of the military would not be an issue. Implying otherwise could only be a negative campaign tactic.

No your right. They will but they will not like it but they will follow his orders.

As a Republican, I'd like to see the Democrats run Wes Clark in '08... :p

Easy money.

You need to be more patient...triple posting? ;)

Apparently, you don't listen to military personnel, especially those that are in the same national service. He was sacked by President Clinton which was one of the smarter things he ever did. He honestly does have some leadership problems and the military will not flock to him. In fact, I'm sure most of them will flock to the republican candidate for president.
And why does that matter? Bush's record really isn't that great (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/national_guard/) when it comes to all things military, yet soldiers voted for him.

Ultimately you know that someone like Clarke will value the military and care about the people who serve.

As a Republican, I'd like to see the Democrats run Wes Clark in '08... :p

Easy money.
Ssshhhhh!!! Don't give away our secret "strategery."

You need to be more patient...triple posting? ;)

I hate Jolt.

And why does that matter? Bush's record really isn't that great (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/national_guard/) when it comes to all things military, yet soldiers voted for him.

At least Bush didn't lie about his records. Kerry lied about his and got caught. Not to mention Bush didn't run on his military record, Kerry did and it cost him because his leadership got exposed.

Ultimately you know that someone like Clarke will value the military and care about the people who serve.

HAHA! Clarke only cares about himself as most politicians do.

As a Republican, I'd like to see the Democrats run Wes Clark in '08... :p

Easy money.

Not really. A blow up doll could have beaten Kerry. He has to go down as one of the first people who really brought out the vote for the other side.

I hate Jolt.
To Jolt:

GET A NEW SERVER!!!

lol :D

HAHA! Clarke only cares about himself as most politicians do.

You could say the same about any General/Flag officer.

You could say the same about any General/Flag officer.

True that but some do try to do what is best for their people.

At least Bush didn't lie about his records. Kerry lied about his and got caught. Not to mention Bush didn't run on his military record, Kerry did and it cost him because his leadership got exposed.
I didn't really follow the thing - I heard there were some veterans who claimed all sorts of things, and although proven untrue the damage was done.

HAHA! Clarke only cares about himself as most politicians do.
Question is whether a man from the military would be a better bet than a person from the political circles.

And what about Oprah? She'd rape the lot of the political caste - and make sensible policy on the way.

This man is probably my favourite mainstream US politician. He's intelligent, progrssive and he believes in certain principles. He spent a lot of time in Europe as head of NATO, and he knows how things are done over there...*snip*

I voted for Clark in the Wisconsin primary despite the fact that he had withdrawn from the race and endorsed Kerry the day before.

That should tell you all you need to know about my thoughts regarding Clark. :)

Good point but most people in the military knows that he was relieved of his post while with NATO because of his shitty leadership.

His flip-flopping makes John Kerry seem decisive.
The only problem I saw with him as a candidate was that he is too damned smart, and he comes off as smart. Americans don't like smart people. They don't want someone smarter than them running the country.
So here we have the three first reasons why people mightn't vote for him. Can they be eliminated?

No your right. They will but they will not like it but they will follow his orders.
Precisely. This ain't ancient Rome, after all.

But of course, that won't stop the opposition from trying to paint a different picture, as if it's somehow okay to imply that the US military lacks loyalty. Nonsense.

True that but some do try to do what is best for their people.

Which actually impairs their ability as a general/flag officer.

So here we have the three first reasons why people mightn't vote for him. Can they be eliminated?
What is this, a countdown?

I hate Jolt.



At least Bush didn't lie about his records. Kerry lied about his and got caught. Not to mention Bush didn't run on his military record, Kerry did and it cost him because his leadership got exposed.

Ah, the Corny universe. You realize that Kerry released his FULL military records don't you...and included therein was commendations FROM THE VERY ASSHOLES in the Swift Vets. So, all that's been proven is that the Swift Vets lied and that there is documentary proof of them doing so. According to the Navy itself, which ran an investigation, there was no proof Kerry lied about his record in any way. Unless you count Kerry's comment about Cambodia where the only thing proven was that Kerry was off by a few days and a few miles.





HAHA! Clarke only cares about himself as most politicians do.

unless it's a politician Corny has a hankering for.

What a tool. You are one of the least intellectually honest people I've ever talked to. You persist in repeating lies even after they've been blown out of the water. It's gotten to the point where I figure that you're either mentally impaired or intentionally pulling our collective legs.

What is this, a countdown?
If I was a citizen, I'd already be preparing Clarke's campaign.
And besides, I'm hoping to paint him in a good picture - so people criticising him doesn't sit well...:D

Good point but most people in the military knows that he was relieved of his post while with NATO because of his shitty leadership. If he becomes the nominee, the military will turn out in droves to vote against him because they know that they won't be able to trust him. That was what got Kerry into trouble as well. The military knew they couldn't trust Kerry.

I understood that he was relived from his post due to bickering with the British general and disagreements with Clinton, because Clark refused to be a lockstep Clintonite.

Do you have any support for your contentions, or is this just another Corny nugget freshly whipped from the Corny ass? Your habit of just tossing out unsupported nonsense is quite irritating, though expected at this point.

The reason being a catfight with the British commander of NATO Forces. I guess that counts as leadership, but hardly in the way you are suggesting.

That little "catfight" also caused him trouble from the anti-war left.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras12.html

And, if my memory serves me correctly, some GOP supporters attacked him for it as well.

As for the OP, it would depend on who the GOP (and LP) ran against him. I'd vote for McCain, Rudy Giuliani, or Colin Powell (I know - in my dreams) over Clark for certain. Chuck Hagel might be a possibility.

Mike Bloomberg should be president. (Provided he steps back from his silly 1 a.m. closing law thingy).

No your right. They will but they will not like it but they will follow his orders.

That is not necessairly the truth. Little known or published fact is that the US Military came very close to outright rebellion when Bill Clinton was elected. Instead 29 Generals chose to retire or resign leaving a huge void in several areas of the military, which turned out to be an opportunity for Clinton and Les Aspin to do the damage they did to the military. In the next few years hundreds of thousands of American Soliders seperated from the service due to the new and incompetent chain of command which included Clarke.
Personally, I would never vote for an individual who 1) is a political chameleon - any politician who is so void of a basic belief system that answering a phone call would make the difference between whether or not they are a Republican or Democrat has no business being the President of the United States 2) Was actually fired by the likes of Bill Clinton because he was dishonest and untrustworthy. Imitation is the sincerest compliment, but still. 3) Was a miltary leader that did not command the unconditional respect of those he was charged with leading.

That little "catfight" also caused him trouble from the anti-war left.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras12.html

And, if my memory serves me correctly, some GOP supporters attacked him for it as well.

Ah, but Clark's rigid stance there caused, eventually, the Russians to integrate their personnel into the NATO forces.

Also, I wasn't aware that antiwar.com was usually a source looked on with favor from the right...is it now okay to use it as an unbiased source?

As far as the accusation "he spent his whole life manipulating appearances," that is such a stupid line. It was used on Kerry...but strangely never caught on with Bush, even though it should have been painfully obvious that it was equally applicable. It's a simple line, difficult tio disprove. All it is is a smear tactic. All politicians, CEO's and General Officer HAVE to manipulate appearances. All businesses do it too...it's called marketing. It's a nonsense criticism only meant to appeal to the ignorant and easily swayed.

Here's Wiki, by the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

Also, I wasn't aware that antiwar.com was usually a source looked on with favor from the right...is it now okay to use it as an unbiased source?

:D As you might have guessed from our interactions over time here (if you were paying attention - I can be a bit of a stealth poster at times) I'm not a Fox news loving, Bush ass kissing, O'Rilley loving righty. And I've been accused of being a lefty on more than one occassion. Don't you love the libertarians who don't fit conveniently into the left right scale?

As far as being an unbiased, almost no source is without bias. Every source should be considered in light of it's potential biases, and the information judged accordingly. In this particular case, I'd say antiwaqr.com is a fine source for an example of the objections of the anti-war left to Clark's candidacy. :)


As far as the accusation "he spent his whole life manipulating appearances," that is such a stupid line. It was used on Kerry...but strangely never caught on with Bush, even though it should have been painfully obvious that it was equally applicable. It's a simple line, difficult tio disprove. All it is is a smear tactic. All politicians, CEO's and General Officer HAVE to manipulate appearances. All businesses do it too...it's called marketing. It's a nonsense criticism only meant to appeal to the ignorant and easily swayed.

Exactly.

*phew*

*looks around*

WHAT?
What?! I'm not part Jew!

That is not necessairly the truth. Little known or published fact is that the US Military came very close to outright rebellion when Bill Clinton was elected. Instead 29 Generals chose to retire or resign leaving a huge void in several areas of the military, which turned out to be an opportunity for Clinton and Les Aspin to do the damage they did to the military.

Well, I can say this is the first I've heard of it, and I can only say that if such events occurred, those 29 Generals are among the worst examples of American armed service members in our nations history.

First, they apparently contemplated rebellion (according to you), which had they acted upon it would have made them traitors of the highest order...objecting to a democratically elected leader to the point where they considered "doing something about it"...makes me want to puke in my hat.

I would have gladly taken a front row seat at their executions, if given the opportunity.

As you claim, they instead chose to resign, which is better...but not by much. They deprived the military of decades of experience and leadership, and I would claim that it is the resignation of these generals, and not the replacements selected by Clinton and Aspin, that truly did the damage to the command levels of our military.

They chose to deny their much needed expertise to our nation over political and personal differences...like a six year old who breaks his toy so his younger sibling can't play with it.

Truly pathetic.

Of course I'd vote for him if he's the more left-wing of the two major candidates. I don't vote for right-wingers. Ever.

Oh, and I completely agree with Delator's post.

I'd vote for Christopher Walken....

Other: If he had Hillary Clinton as his running mate, then yes.

I understood that he was relived from his post due to bickering with the British general and disagreements with Clinton, because Clark refused to be a lockstep Clintonite.

That's the problem. When your CO gives you an order, you damn well follow it whether you agree with it or not. By failing to comply with his CO's orders, he got precisely what he deserved. You do not disobey the orders of your CO.

Do you have any support for your contentions, or is this just another Corny nugget freshly whipped from the Corny ass? Your habit of just tossing out unsupported nonsense is quite irritating, though expected at this point.

My father served under him when NATO started to bomb Bosnia. Most of the people I know who served there didn't like him nor his shoddy leadership. I have heard far to many complaints to write them off.

Complaints you won't see in the press.

That is not necessairly the truth. Little known or published fact is that the US Military came very close to outright rebellion when Bill Clinton was elected.

HEHE! Thanks for reminding me of that. Somehow that slipped my mind.

Instead 29 Generals chose to retire or resign leaving a huge void in several areas of the military, which turned out to be an opportunity for Clinton and Les Aspin to do the damage they did to the military. In the next few years hundreds of thousands of American Soliders seperated from the service due to the new and incompetent chain of command which included Clarke.

Thank you for reminding me.

Personally, I would never vote for an individual who 1) is a political chameleon - any politician who is so void of a basic belief system that answering a phone call would make the difference between whether or not they are a Republican or Democrat has no business being the President of the United States 2) Was actually fired by the likes of Bill Clinton because he was dishonest and untrustworthy. Imitation is the sincerest compliment, but still. 3) Was a miltary leader that did not command the unconditional respect of those he was charged with leading.

Here here.

Well, I can say this is the first I've heard of it, and I can only say that if such events occurred, those 29 Generals are among the worst examples of American armed service members in our nations history.

I wouldn't go around throwing out that accusation. Many of those Generals had leadership that I would've gladly followed. They had much more leadership than Clarke ever had.

First, they apparently contemplated rebellion (according to you), which had they acted upon it would have made them traitors of the highest order...objecting to a democratically elected leader to the point where they considered "doing something about it"...makes me want to puke in my hat.

And if you were around the military at the time, you would understand why there was a near rebellion when Clinton got into office.

I would have gladly taken a front row seat at their executions, if given the opportunity.

They would only have been executed if they failed.

I wouldn't go around throwing out that accusation. Many of those Generals had leadership that I would've gladly followed. They had much more leadership than Clarke ever had.

The respective leadership of these men is not my point, and you know it...or you would if you had read my whole post.

These Generals should have demonstrated their committment to our democratic ideals and shut the hell up when the people voted into office someone whom they didn't like.

The very thought that these Generals might have even considered rebellion, simply because they didn't like some draft-dodging liberal being elected to office, makes me highly question the leadership and integrity of ALL high-ranking military officials, as well as their committment to the democratic ideals of this country.

And if you were around the military at the time, you would understand why there was a near rebellion when Clinton got into office.

He was a draft-dodger, a former pot-smoking hippie, and a liberal...am I missing something?

Thats still NO reason or excuse to contemplate an overthrow of a democratically elected President.

They would only have been executed if they failed.

Which they most certainly would have...I highly doubt that ANYONE else in this nation would have tolerated such a move.

Congress...State Governments...the people who voted Clinton into office. Those Generals would have found themselves with a multitude of enemies, and few friends.

I also notice you failed to address the rest of my post. Are you saying it was perfectly OK for those Generals to deprive our military of their experience and (according to you) superior leadership simply because they didn't like their new CIC???

As I said...truly pathetic.

At least Bush didn't lie about his records. Kerry lied about his and got caught. Not to mention Bush didn't run on his military record, Kerry did and it cost him because his leadership got exposed.

Wow.

Thats crap.

Bush never lied about his service, only becuase he refused to discuss it.
He didnt serve in Vietnam, and he was grounded in the air national guard, due to substance abuse, and didnt even serve his full number of days.
If he had, he would have no reason to not disclose full access to his records.

Kerry's far more distinguished service did not cost him the election.
That fact that he is a spineless douche, cost him the election.

As for Clarke, I dunno.
Cant say enough about him to have a solid opinion just yet.

He's a turd . I would would leave him floating in the toilet .

He's a turd . I would would leave him floating in the toilet .

Even a turd is preferable to Bush. A turd only makes one room smell. Bush did it to the whole country.

Let's face it, a piece of toe-jam - provided said toe-jam had a reasonable record on a few issues - could have taken the whitehouse in 2004. But no! Gotta go with Kerry. He has "gravitas".

BTW, had they run howard dean, he would have given bush a much harder race.
Yes and no. They sunk Kerry by the Republican trick of repeating talking points ad nauseum instead of arguing any positions, that and paying off "veterans" to attack him on military issues. How do you think McCain lost the nomination? Same way. Anyone afraid of using the Mudslinger 4000 would lose against Bush or any Republican running a Bush-like campaign.

These Generals should have demonstrated their committment to our democratic ideals and shut the hell up when the people voted into office someone whom they didn't like.

The very thought that these Generals might have even considered rebellion, simply because they didn't like some draft-dodging liberal being elected to office, makes me highly question the leadership and integrity of ALL high-ranking military officials, as well as their committment to the democratic ideals of this country.

He was a draft-dodger, a former pot-smoking hippie, and a liberal...am I missing something?



Actually they did dimonstrate their commitment to our democratic ideals and rejected the idea out of respect for them. Instead opting to resign or retire early en masse and opening themselves up to the blackmail they were subjected to, which was either sign a non disclosure agreement or face court martial due to the fact that the administration felt that their resignations were an attempt to attract the media in order to expose Clinton for what he truely was.

Those in military circles had much more knowledge of the Clinton's true ideology than the American citizens had been led to believe. They were aware of his connection to the communist chineese years before Johnny Chung had told Department of Justice investigators that he funneled more than $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions from a Chinese military officer to Clinton and the demcratic party.

They were also aware of Hillary's work for the CPUSA and the Black Panther Party which of course was carefully withheld from the general public by those in the media that are so unbias. Had the general public known the truth about these two at the time, they never could have been elected in the first place.

So in conclusion, to call them anything short of patriots, given the knowledge they possessed, and the restraint that they demonstrated, would be in my opinion what would be pathetic.

Bill Clinton was not then, and is not now a liberal. He never has been and neither is Hillary.

So someone needs to explain to me how the Dems could choose Kerry over him.

He's not as politically connected as Kerry was. Kerry was the darling of Ted Kennedy, and Kennedy's clout within the party was full bore behind Kerry.

This man is probably my favourite mainstream US politician. He's intelligent, progrssive and he believes in certain principles. He spent a lot of time in Europe as head of NATO, and he knows how things are done over there.

He's got everything a president could need and more. He's an experienced general, he gets along with the young people, hell, he's even got Jewish heritage (*kidding*).

So someone needs to explain to me how the Dems could choose Kerry over him.

And more importantly: Is there a chance that he would do it next time?

I'd be interested to hear from the Bush voters in particular: would you vote for him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
And surely he'd do a better job than Bill O'Reilly.


He dosen't have enough expierience as a politican for my tastes.

He dosen't have enough expierience as a politican for my tastes.

In my mind, that's actually a plus.

Other: If he had Hillary Clinton as his running mate, then yes.

I strongly second this. It would be the ideal political match in my opinion. The only thing better would be a Clinton/McCain ballot.

Well, I can say this is the first I've heard of it, and I can only say that if such events occurred, those 29 Generals are among the worst examples of American armed service members in our nations history.

First, they apparently contemplated rebellion (according to you), which had they acted upon it would have made them traitors of the highest order...objecting to a democratically elected leader to the point where they considered "doing something about it"...makes me want to puke in my hat.

I would have gladly taken a front row seat at their executions, if given the opportunity.

Hmm... executions... now there's a topic I'd like to see a US presidential candidate address...

The only problem I saw with him as a candidate was that he is too damned smart, and he comes off as smart. Americans don't like smart people. They don't want someone smarter than them running the country.

That is a really sad state of affairs.

Personally, if someone was going to be running my country, I'd want them to be at least as smart as me. The smarter, the better, as long as those smarts include some common sense.

I strongly second this. It would be the ideal political match in my opinion. The only thing better would be a Clinton/McCain ballot.

Unless one of them switch parties, this is not going to happen.

Unless one of them switch parties, this is not going to happen.

Obviously, but as a moderate McCain has no chance with the Republicans.

Obviously, but as a moderate McCain has no chance with the Republicans.

And Hillary doesn't have a chance with getting elected.

And what about Oprah? She'd rape the lot of the political caste - and make sensible policy on the way.
If Oprah the hun wins ANYTHING, I will personally start building my own WMD's

I voted for Clark in the Wisconsin primary despite the fact that he had withdrawn from the race and endorsed Kerry the day before.

That should tell you all you need to know about my thoughts regarding Clark. :)
What's that? That you would rather vote for a moron than actually make a difference? If Clarks supporters are all like you, we have nothing to worry about!

That is not necessairly the truth. Little known or published fact is that the US Military came very close to outright rebellion when Bill Clinton was elected.

Proof....I'd like to see some proof.

The mere fact that 29 generals retired is proof only that 29 generals were eligible to retire.

Proof....I'd like to see some proof.

The mere fact that 29 generals retired is proof only that 29 generals were eligible to retire.

My dad nearly left the service and you know its bad if he's thinking that. He's a career officer.

Even a turd is preferable to Bush. A turd only makes one room smell. Bush did it to the whole country.

And kerry couldnt beat him in an election ...Kerry is Diarea ..a big stinky puddle of it .

So the Dems will give us another dose of shit to vote for . And you wonder why they cant win an election ?

And surely he'd do a better job than Bill O'Reilly.

So would a pile of dog poop.

So would a pile of dog poop.


hey-where've you been? Last time I saw you, you were sporting a new tattoo.

So the Dems will give us another dose of shit to vote for . And you wonder why they cant win an election ?
Is Politics in America really that shallow that the person counts before the contents?

So if Clark isn't the one, who would be a good Democratic Candidate that even you would consider voting for?

Is Politics in America really that shallow that the person counts before the contents?

So if Clark isn't the one, who would be a good Democratic Candidate that even you would consider voting for?

I was a registered democrat most of my life . The Democratic party lost me with Jimmy Carter . I voted for Clinton when he ran against Dole . I am NOT in anyway a social conservative , I am at the least considered a social libertarian and at worse considered a social liberal . And yet I still voted for Bush because my choice was him or Kerry . Thats how fucked the Democratic party has become .
Tim Holden or John Barrow or Warner from Virginia would be nice to hear from but until someone declares for preident and puts forth their veiws I have only speculation to go on ..but HILARY CLINTON ? Get the fuck out of here ...thats who is currently one of the front runners for the Dems ....Wesley Clark a failed general disliked by his own troops ...a runt with a Napolean complex who never had an original idea..he's a choice ?
Give me someone to vote for that wont give my country away to the lunitics of the world .

Give me someone to vote for that wont give my country away to the lunitics of the world .
But isn't that exactly what they want you to think? Isn't that the way they want you to make the Political Decisions?

For about four years exactly zero people died because of Terrorism in America (except for those that followed a few days later because of the Anthrax letters, but I don't know the dates of those).
The only terrorism the US is currently confronted with is in those places it chose to go. As high as the number of fatalities in 9/11 are, they are nothing compared with the road toll since then.
Yet you don't make your choices based on who has a better record at keeping the roads safe.

I beg you, think of it as rationally as you can when you vote, because any mistake made by the people up there means that thousands of people in the rest of the world will suffer.

I think he has some image problems, but if he can get over them he would do a great job turning back the past two terms of 'progress'. I was pulling for him in the primaries last year, and I'd love to see him run again. Beats the hell out of Hillary.

Wesley Clark as President: Why not? good question.

Let us look at what kind of a president Wesley Clark would make according to CounterPunch of November 12, 1999, "The poster child for everything that is wrong with the GO (general officer) corps," exclaims one colonel, who has had occasion to observe Clark in action, citing, among other examples, his command of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood from 1992 to 1994.

"At the beginning of the Kosovo conflict, CounterPunch delved into the military career of General Wesley Clark and discovered that his meteoric rise through the ranks derived from the successful manipulation of appearances: faking the results of combat exercises, greasing to superiors and other practices common to the general officer corps. We correctly predicted that the unspinnable realities of a real war would cause him to become unhinged. Given that Clark attempted to bomb the CNN bureau in Belgrade and ordered the British General Michael Jackson to engage Russian troops in combat at the end of the war, we feel events amply vindicated our forecast.

'THE GUY WHO ALMOST STARTED WORLD WAR III'

In Waging Modern War, General Clark wrote about his fury upon learning that Russian peacekeepers had entered the airport at Pristina, Kosovo, before British or American forces. In the article "The guy who almost started World War III," (Aug. 3, 1999), The Guardian (U.K.) wrote, "No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the West's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if NATO's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport, threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the Cold War."

"I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international KFOR peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen. Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital. The Times of London reported on 23 May 2001 in an article titled, "Kosovo clash of allied generals," that "General Sir Michael Jackson [was] told that he would have to resign if he refused to obey an order by the American commander of Nato's forces during the Kosovo war to stop the Russians from seizing control of Pristina airport in June 1999."

If General Clark had had his way, we might have gone to war with Russia, or at least resurrected vestiges of the Cold War and we certainly would have had hundreds if not thousands of casualties in an ill-conceived ground war.

http://www.counterpunch.org/clark.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

good question.
You're not exactly the first one with that story...the question is this: Do you know a better alternative?

You're not exactly the first one with that story...the question is this: Do you know a better alternative?

Lieberman

I wouldn't want Wesley Clark as my president because he isn't machine washable. That is very important in my choice of world leaders.

Lieberman
What are his stances on the issues...primarily the only one I care about: Foreign Policy.

What are his stances on the issues...primarily the only one I care about: Foreign Policy.

He believes in having allies but he is also strong on defense as well as national security.

He believes in having allies but he is also strong on defense as well as national security.
So no specifics?

So no specifics?

I have to dig deep into what his stances are. Its been awhile!

You're not exactly the first one with that story...the question is this: Do you know a better alternative?most former Democrat candidates are better than Wesley or Hillary.
Even repubs McCain and Powell are better alternatives

Right now I am liking the Nevada senator that did "bring down the house" on the Repubs :D

... he is also strong on defense as well as national security.that is just words "strong on defense and security"...
its a tag.

what laws has he actually promoted to give us better security?

and NO.... it is not an auction about "who gives more billions to the Pentagon and Hallyburton"...throwing money to a problem can hide it for a while...but usually it does not solve it.

money has to be spent in smart ways.

So no specifics?

Asking Corny for specifics is like asking a statue for directions.

hey-where've you been? Last time I saw you, you were sporting a new tattoo.

Yeah, that was two weeks ago now. I have a new job which consumes my life and leaves very little time for mindless posting.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]
So someone needs to explain to me how the Dems could choose Kerry over him.

QUOTE]


Exactly what I was saying when I found out.

John Kerry isn't bad, but he's too DULL to become president! The only reason why he got CLOSE to winning was because a little less than half the nation hated Bush.

Yeah, that was two weeks ago now. I have a new job which consumes my life and leaves very little time for mindless posting.

Good for you. Jobs are good. Best wishes there.

What are his stances on the issues...primarily the only one I care about: Foreign Policy.

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/security.cfm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/economy.cfm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/environment.cfm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/health.cfm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/faith.cfm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/education.cfm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/govaffairs.cfm

I hope this provides some help. There are some things I don't agree with him on but I would vote for him for President.

Asking Corny for specifics is like asking a statue for directions.

You were saying?

[Lieberman] believes that working through multilateral organizations, when possible, is the best way of advancing American interests.
Not sure whether I like that "when possible"...but I guess it's better than nothing.
And in the fall of 2002, Senator Lieberman was a lead sponsor of a resolution authorizing the President to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam.
Not really a fan of this one...
He urged European partners to close the growing gap between American and European expenditures on defense and readiness.
Fair enough...

His economic policy isn't too bad either. Question is, Corny, would you vote for him?

Wesley Clark lost last time around because he had no platform. I do not trust him in the future.

His economic policy isn't too bad either. Question is, Corny, would you vote for him?


I hope this provides some help. There are some things I don't agree with him on but I would vote for him for President.

The answer is yea I probably would vote for him. I would've voted for him in 2004 but he didn't get the nomination:(

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/security.cfm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/economy.cfm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/environment.cfm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/health.cfm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/faith.cfm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/education.cfm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/govaffairs.cfmAll that is from his Personal Propaganda Web site...
http://lieberman.senate.gov

If you read the site...chances are you will find pieces of information that indicates Lieberman is great for almost al sides of the spectrum...For the pro-war..AND for the antiwar voters...the Enviromentalists AND the Oil companies...the Pro-trade AND pro-union voters

Its like trying to figure if Carpentier is a good candidate for F1 just by looking at his personal web site...

You are not going to convince anyone with that kind of biased sources...

Senator Lieberman was the lead Senate cosponsor of the V-chip law, which required television manufacturers to install a device allowing parents to block out violent and sexually explicit programming and exert more control over the television programs that their children watch.
Hehehehe...oh well, good thing I don't live in the States.

All that is from his Personal Propaganda Web site...
http://lieberman.senate.gov

Its like trying to figure if Carpentier is a good candidate for F1 just looking at his personal web site...

You are not going to convince anyone with that kind of biased sources...I mean if your only reference is his web site...He looks like a great fellow too...truly looks like a good man.

http://www.patrobertson.com/