SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Wesley Clark -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (195)9/24/2003 11:15:46 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 1414
 
Message 19340451



To: American Spirit who wrote (195)9/24/2003 11:20:43 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 1414
 
Message 19338706



To: American Spirit who wrote (195)9/24/2003 11:51:26 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 1414
 
Try Telling Clark He’s Not a Patriot
________________________

by Joe Conason
The New York Observer
nyobserver.com

From the awful autumn of 2001 to the triumphal photo op on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln this spring, Karl Rove’s strategy has been consistent and clear: run every campaign as a referendum on the "wartime" presidency of George W. Bush. That plan has succeeded in mitigating the inherent political weaknesses of the Bush administration, and in concealing the damage done to American security by its foreign and security policies.

Mr. Rove must almost be grateful for the continuing cooperation of the opposition party, whose confused, hesitant reactions have lent Mr. Bush more credibility than he has earned. Of course, the Democrats are in a trick bag. If they criticize the President’s conduct of the war on terrorism, they’re smeared as unpatriotic; if they endorse his policies, then why should anyone vote for the Democrats in an era of national peril?

That quandary reflects deeper problems and divisions within the Democratic Party. Unless they can mount a Presidential campaign that addresses valid concerns about terrorism and security and confronts the Republican appeal to those fears, they will be unable to exploit the President’s poor record on domestic issues.

Of the current hopefuls, John Kerry possesses both a sterling military record and an extensive Senate record in foreign policy. Those were among the reasons why Al Gore almost selected the Massachusetts Senator as his running mate in 2000. He has demonstrated a powerful capacity to stand up against the Republican tactic of questioning the loyalty of their opponents, a gambit that would boomerang badly if used against this decorated Navy captain.

But while Mr. Kerry has made a strong start, partly by articulating the most thoughtful critique of Bush policies, he has lately gotten bogged down in sniping with Howard Dean, the highly competitive anti-war candidate. The Republicans plan to caricature Mr. Kerry as an "elitist liberal" like Michael Dukakis, the last nominee from the Bay State.

All those factors explain the sudden appeal of Wesley Clark, the retired general, television commentator and political flirt who has yet to declare his interest in the Presidency or even his partisan affiliation. In theory, he personifies the Democratic answer to the Rove strategy. A native Arkansan, Mr. Clark graduated first in his class from West Point, won several service decorations, went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar, and completed his Army career with victory in Kosovo and four stars as supreme allied commander of NATO. Aside from Mr. Kerry, he is the only candidate with real military experience—and that includes both the incumbent President and the Vice President, each of whom found a way to avoid their generation’s war.

Smart and telegenic, Mr. Clark easily transcends the old stereotype of the Southern military man. He supports abortion rights and affirmative action. His opinions about tax cuts, health care, education and the environment are all well within the progressive Democratic consensus. Speaking as a career Army officer, he might be able to persuade independent voters who tend to be suspicious of traditional Democrats.

In his 2001 book, Waging Modern War, he explains his liberal stance simply but effectively. "I grew up in an armed forces that treated everyone as a valued member of the team. Everyone got health care, and the army cared about the education of everyone’s family members. It wasn’t the attitude that you find in some places, where people are fending for themselves and the safety net doesn’t work."

More significant than Mr. Clark’s views on domestic policy are his willingness and capacity to speak out credibly against the Bush administration’s security policies. During his stint as a CNN commentator on the Iraq conflict, he skillfully critiqued Pentagon strategy and White House diplomacy without getting himself singed.

In an interview with The American Prospect magazine last March, he articulated an outlook that would serve the Democrats well. "Terrorism is a multilateral problem," he told Michael Tomasky. "You cannot defeat it in one nation. You need international police work, teamwork, international harmonization of laws against terror. You act unilaterally, you lose the commitment of your allies to make it work. That’s the one thing that will kill you in the war on terrorism." To him, America represents "the embodiment of the Enlightenment," which calls for "a foreign policy of generosity, humility, engagement, and of course force where it is needed. But as a last resort."

Both Mr. Clark and the nascent movement to draft him may already have missed their moment. He was expected to announce an exploratory committee two months ago. Back in his home state, some Democrats suspect he is actually running for Vice President. He would be more than an adornment to any Presidential ticket next year.

And whatever the merits of all the other candidates, it would badly complicate Mr. Rove’s "patriotic" strategy if Messrs. Bush and Cheney were required to confront not one but two progressive Democrats who served in Vietnam.



To: American Spirit who wrote (195)9/25/2003 6:51:47 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1414
 
Clark Takes Spotlight in New York Debate

guardian.co.uk

Thursday September 25, 2003 11:19 PM

By RON FOURNIER

AP Political Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - Retired Gen. Wesley Clark presented his credentials as a Democrat on Thursday with a biting attack on President Bush, then joined nine presidential rivals in a mix-it-up debate over tax cuts, Medicare and the job-shedding economy.

Bush is ``a man who recklessly cut taxes, who recklessly took us into war in Iraq,'' said the newcomer to the race and his party, confronted with favorable comments he made about the Republican president as recently as 2001.

For the most part, Clark's rivals avoided criticizing him throughout the two-hour debate - but not so one another.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts seemed eager for combat early, criticizing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean for favoring a repeal of all of Bush's tax cuts to finance health care expansion and other programs. It is ``absolutely wrong'' to propose eliminating all cuts, said Kerry, who favors scaling back tax cuts for the wealthy while maintaining them for lower and middle income Americans.

Dean, ahead of his fellow New Englander in the latest poll in advance of the New Hampshire primary, picked up that challenge quickly.

``This is exactly why the budget is so far out of balance. Washington politicians promising everything,'' he said. ``We cannot win as Democrats'' that way, he chastised Kerry.

``Tell the truth,'' he prodded the Massachusetts senator.

Dean said that among the candidates, only he and Sen. Bob Graham of Florida - also a former governor - had ever balanced budgets. With Graham's campaign in financial trouble, that remark amounted to an appeal to the Floridian's supporters to give his own economic credentials a look.

Still later, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri saw an opening to attack Dean.

He assailed the former governor for having criticized Medicare in the past, and said he had agreed with ``the very plan that Newt Gingrich wanted to pass, which was a $270 billion cut'' in the program that provides health care to seniors.

At the time, Gephardt said, he was the Democratic leader in the House, leading the fight against plans promoted by the former Speaker and champion of the GOP revolution in Congress.

Referring to Dean's self-description as the candidate of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, Gephardt said, ``I think you're just winging it.''

``That is flat-out false and I'm ashamed you would compare me with Newt Gingrich,'' Dean said in response. ``Nobody up here deserves to be compared to Newt Gingrich. ... We need to remember that the enemy here is George Bush, not each other.''

Kerry returned to the same issue moments later, saying he wanted to come to Gephardt's defense. ``I didn't hear him say he was like Newt Gingrich. I heard him say he stood with Newt Gingrich when we were struggling to hold onto Medicare,'' he said.

The event at Pace University was the latest in a series of debates sponsored by the Democratic Party, and billed in advance as a clash over economic issues.

It was the feistiest of the trio of debates held so far. But it was also leavened with moments of humor, as when Al Sharpton described the field as ``eight career politicians, an officer (pointing to Clark) and a gentleman (pointing to himself).''

As the laughter from the audience died down, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun added, ``And a lady.''

NBC's Brian Williams, the moderator, served the first question up to Clark, the former general who joined the race just last week.

Challenged about his political pedigree, Clark had a ready reply.

``I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I'm pro-environment, pro-health,'' he said. ``That's why I'm proud to be a Democrat.''

In a slap at Bush's foreign policy, the former supreme NATO commander said the United States should ``engage with allies, be a good player in the international community, should use force only as a last resort.''

Moments later, Dean passed up an opportunity to criticize the former general's recent political conversion. ``It's up to the voters in the Democratic Party to determine,'' he said.

Asked about Bush's request for $87 billion in increased funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, only Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Sharpton said flatly they would oppose the funds.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said, ``we have no choice but to finance this program'' to protect 140,000 American troops in Iraq and bring them home.

Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina said, ``I would vote for what is necessary to support the troops.''

Gephardt said Congress needs more information from the administration before voting on Bush's request and said it can't be assumed that Republicans would vote for the plan.

In a jab at Bush, he added, ``It's incomprehensible to me that he can go to the UN'' seeking help from other nations and ``come away empty-handed.''

Asked whether they would pledge not to raise taxes, Graham and Lieberman both declined.

Clark, who has only just begun sketching out a domestic agenda, said he was determined to attack the ballooning federal deficit. He said he was prepared to ``put all government programs on the table, including the military programs.''

Asked his own view about Bush's request for $87 billion in funds for Iraq, he sought to turn his relative political inexperience into an asset.

``If I've learned one thing in my nine days of politics, you better be careful with hypothetical questions,'' said the retired general.

The debate came in a campaign intensifying - about four months in advance of voting in Iowa's caucus and New Hampshire's primary.

Inevitably, the field seemed to be sorting itself out along financial lines.

With the next fund-raising reporting period a few days away, campaign officials said Graham is experiencing difficulties that have put his campaign in peril.

On the other hand, Dean - the surprise of the early pre-primary campaign - is expected to shatter party fund-raising records for a single three-month quarter.

Clark's entry into the race posed the largest threat to Dean - the man who has vaulted ahead of the field in fund raising and pre-primary polling in several states.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003



To: American Spirit who wrote (195)9/26/2003 8:26:23 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1414
 
Debate Commentary from Josh Marshall

talkingpointsmemo.com

(September 25th, 2003 -- 10:35 PM EDT // link)

Okay, a few random thoughts on the debate, just finishing up now in the 9 PM replay. My main reaction is that there are just too many candidates to follow any of them through the debate, any real themes, how they're doing, anything like that. The candidates who stood out to me were Clark, Dean and Kerry (and the order there is intentionally alphabetical). I thought each had a good debate.

Clark had some good moments, his opening statement was very good. Mainly he just didn't make any mistakes and, to my mind, showed a lot of energy. As with the rest, there just wasn't enough time hearing him talk.

The same for Dean. I can see why his supporters like him. He was strong, with those moments of sparkle-in-the-eye candor and wit. At the same time, he was on the receiving end of a lot of attacks, which is the sign of a front runner, but also took some of the edge off his game.

Kerry was sharp, strong and smart.

Many of the other candidates gave good answers and came off well -- Lieberman, Graham, etc. (Lieberman had one extremely funny moment.) But on balance the others just felt irrelevant to the race. That may be unfair to Gephardt who was definitely all over the debate. But on balance that was my impression.

-- Josh Marshall