During the Bill Maher interview, Clark said some word which was the “word of the day.” A George W. Bush doll (with Bush in a flight suit) parachuted down. It was Clark’s prize. Clark held the doll and said, “You know, a lot of men and women died in this suit.”
That was all he said. He attacked Bush implicitly while making a very respectful comment.
I think he has the political skill to go toe-to-toe with Bush.
The “almost started WWIII” charge was made by a man who was an officer in the British army unit that took part in Bloody Sunday and later participated in the coverup. To this day, that particular British officer has pretty much tried to say that Bloody Sunday was no big deal. I wouldn’t take his word on this matter.
More on Bloody Sunday:
(http://www.theclarksphere.com/archives/000347.html#000347)
Note that this is from a very Clark partisan site, so keep that in mind.
One more tidbit:
The rest of the article looks pretty good to me.
I think that Clark can beat George Bush and reunify the country. I also think it is amusing that he is a Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas.
For so many years now we have looked at Presidential candidates and asked, “Is this the best we can do?” It has been disheartening. Clark has made me sit up and take notice as no one has in forty years.
I, too, am considering volunteering for his campaign. I need to find out a little more first and not be so swept away by his intellect, accomplishments, charisma, distinguished career, military know-how, international experience…
Well we have a John Kerry, John Edwards, and now a Johnny Come-Lately, but I do know (during those rare moments of lucidity) that his name is Howard.
I know its unfair, but a Democrat has a lot more to prove than a Republican. Unfortuneatly it takes a 4 star General, Rhodes Scholar, West Point graduate who was number one in his class, combat veteran seriously wounded in Vietnam, and who led NATO in a military campaign to go up against a fellow who has a rather conspicuous vacuum in the middle his own military record. I just know the Republicans are joing to rail on Clark’s fumbles in the Kossovo campaign (which is looking better and better in hindsight), but that should get the ‘liberal’ media to look into what the hell Bush was doing in the National Guard. The Republicans are the party of “defense” and “national security” and the Democrats should feel lucky that a piece of brass like this is actually on their side.
The dude who is running for Vice President is John Edwards, not Wesley Clark. So, we might have two guys running for VP in the Democratic party next year.
The reason The General is running is because Team Clinton wants him to. Team Clinton does not like Dean at all, because Dean is seen as a threat to the leadership of the Democratic Party and Team Clinton wants to run Hillary in 2008.
I don’t understand the logic, though. If Dean loses in 2004 (He will because he is too liberal and batty as hell), the fight in 2008 will be between Hillary (shudder) and Al Gore (who I don’t like much, but got bent over and screwed in 2000).
I would think Hillary and Gore would WANT Bush to win in 2004. I would if I was Gore and would go as far as to say some positive things about him a month before the election, and quietly vote for the man on election day.
Just to clarify the WWIII thing, Clark addresses it in his book and even uses the Jackson quote himself, then goes on to discuss the situation at great length. So it’s hardly a charge he’s unprepared for. In his words, from p395 of Waging Modern War:
Blocking the bridges to the Pristina airfield was a tactical decision that Jackson disagreed with, and Clark was overruled by his higher-ups. I don’t see the controversy.
Corndog: the logic is simple. It may be impossible for you to believe, but it is, I think, true: the Clintons want a Democrat to win in 2004 because they think it would be good for the country.
(I think it’s also a distinct possibility that she will want to be Clark’s VP as well – she would probably only ever have a shot at the presidency if she were already VP, IMHO.)
I doubt that the Clintons want anything because “they think it would be good for the country”. They would want it because it would benefit them or their party. Why else would carpetbagger Hillary have run in New York? Had she been an honest human being, she would have run in Arkansas.
Kind of like Texan Dick Cheney claiming Wyoming as his residence to side step the 12th Amendment.
Back to the OP, the official announcement in Little Rock should start any minute now. Stay tuned…
Why, are liberals incapable of loving their country? I guess if you don’t wrap yourself in the flag, that means you don’t care about America. :rolleyes:
Oddly enough, most people are a mixture of a bunch of characteristics. I’m sure Bush and his crowd believe tax cuts, the war in Iraq, dispensing with environmental protections, etc., are good for the country. I’m also sure that Bush is a very ambitious man - why else would he decide to run for President after one term as governor of a state where the guv has little power, and before that, a career of unadulterated failure in the oil biz, plus a somewhat more successful one as glorified handshaker for a baseball team? To say that Bush’s qualifications were modest is like pointing out that the Grand Canyon is long and deep. Think ambition and self-promotion might’ve had something to do with why he ran?
I’m sure Bill and Hillary were/are ambitious too. But that doesn’t mean they don’t also frequently want what’s good for America. And they probably became Democrats because they believed that the Democratic vision for America was better for America than the GOP vision for America.
Oh, come now: Hillary’s about as Southern as I am.
Ok, so Clark looks like a viable candidate in terms of respect and intelligence.
But what does he have to say about domestic issues? These are the ones that are really important to me. I don’t really give a flying fig about good foreign policy if he is going to push for a bunch of bills and such that I am opposed to on a personal level.
Anyone have a cite for what he wants to do to our society?
Snake Legs, during his announcement speech Clark said that he would soon be making speeches on the economy and national security in the coming weeks.
In the meantime, you can start here to get an idea of some of his domestic positions (culled from various sources by the Draft Wesley Clark campaign): http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm
Also keep an eye on Clark’s official webite: http://www.americansforclark.com
See, the thing where you are messing up is you are listening to rightwing sources that just want to make up a whole bunch of lies. Clinton actually praised Dean at the same time he praised Wesley Clark. If Gore wanted to run for president he would do it now. Hillary isn’t going to run now and it is very unlikely that she would run in 2008. If she wanted to go after the presidency she would have ran for governor.
Hillary Clinton is on the side of Hillary Clinton. Likewise, I’m not certain she’s connect with the same reality as the rest of us, given how easily she can live in a fantasy world where her husband is 100% faithful and any and all tales of him boinking a cute lil thang at work were nothing but fabrications by a “vast right-wing conspiracy”. Likewise, her blatant politicking has shown that her real concern for this country is about as strong and braod as is Dick Cheney’s.
Now, please quote SPECIFICALLY where I stated that one must wrap oneself in the flag to love this country.
Dogface, rather than continue to hijack this thread, perhaps you could open another thread in GD or the Pit. If you do, please provide a cite that supports that Hillary believed that Bill was 100% faithful. :rolleyes:
Personally I think that most politicians, either side of the aisle, are egotistical/delusional enough to think that they are good for America, and can rationalize away their ambitions as part of what makes them good for America.
Well, rsa I read through that first link and it was much as I feared.
I liked the straightforwardness of Dean and I think that the General would be respectable.
Unfortunately, I don’t agree with him on any issue that is listed. 
Why can’t we have a candidate who is Republican and not Bush? Or a Democrat who is not out to kill babies and restrict freedoms? <sigh>
As someone who voted a mostly D slate in yesterday’s primary, I object to your desire to take away my right to baby-killin’. I love killin’ babies. Give me a baby, and I’ll kill it. You can even tell me how I kill it: strangling, stabbing, drowning, running over it with a lawn mower, tossin’ it into the polar bear pen, whatever. Don’t matter how the killin’ gets done, as long as I’m the one doin’ the killin’. As a proud American lib’ruhl, I just couldn’t live without the regular baby killin’, and it seems to me that you’re the one who wants to restrict freedoms.
Oh, and by the way, :rolleyes:.