tag:,2008:/16 2008-02-03T23:19:22Z Movable Type 3.33 tag:www.aleftturnforclark.com,2008://16.1088 2008-02-03T23:17:40Z 2008-02-03T23:19:22Z

It's a funny thought for me to settle on now, with a huge election test looming on Super Tuesday. But it's the one that has slowly been working it's way up from my sub conscious mind, and now that it's...

Tom Rinaldo http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/ It's a funny thought for me to settle on now, with a huge election test looming on Super Tuesday. But it's the one that has slowly been working it's way up from my sub conscious mind, and now that it's arrived I'm looking at it, and it's looking back at me. Over the last six months I have seen an extraordinary amount of very negative adjectives and names attached to Hillary Clinton on political discussion boards. Down right evil words used to describe her, with "unlikable" firmly lodged at the benign end of the available spectrum. But I am not finding her unlikable at all. I am seeing much to admire about Hillary instead. It occurred to me, how would it effect me if that type of bitter derision and accusatory hatred was aimed toward me every day? And not just by those who I can understand may have good reason to be my enemy, but also by those whose goals and vision for America I too share. A whole lot worse than it has effected her was my very quick and certain answer for myself. And Hillary has been dealing with this, to greater and lesser extents daily for over 15 years. All because she long ago dedicated her life to making a positive difference in other people's lives. That is really what this is about for her, I have no real doubt about that. And I know that Hillary Clinton is far from being alone in politics in having made that type of personal commitment. But very few have been attacked as fiercely, as relentlessly, and for as long because of that commitment than Hillary Clinton has. She has incredible inner strength. Many people notice that, but lately I have been seeing the grace in Hillary Clinton also. Though sometimes she flashes angry, it doesn't harden into bitterness. Hillary can take a punch and come back swinging, but she knows when, and how, to take off her boxing gloves when each round is over. Hillary's words of unity may not sound as inspirational as another famous Democrat whose name pops up a lot nowadays, but she knows how to live those words. She does it so our nation might prosper. Less than three years after the Republican dominated United States Senate tried her husband in public for high crimes and misdemeanors in an attempt to remove him from office, Hillary Clinton entered that chamber as a Senator herself. She went hard to work building the type of connections that were necessary to accomplish goals on behalf of her constituents in a divided chamber under the control of Republicans. And by all reports she succeeded. On a very personal level Hillary's own house was earlier divided, while people across the globe discussed her husband's semen stain on another womens dress. It pains me to write that, what must it have been like to live it? Not only did Hillary Clinton find the strength to hold her head high and continue to function in public, but she stepped forward on a political level to call out by name "the vast right wing conspiracy" then attempting a quasi legal governmental coup against the elected President - her husband. And Hillary continued to raise her teen age daughter throughout all of it, somehow shielding Chelsea's spirit from the soul deadening effect of the toxins that swirled around their lives. Hillary Clinton held her family together, Chelsea never lost the love of either parent, and today that young woman is a magnificent human being. This year I watched in Chicago when Hillary Clinton came to Yearly Kos. She was not in friendly territory. Kossacks were respectful enough but it was clear by and large that their hearts belonged to someone else. Several someone elses in fact. Hillary Clinton was viewed as the establishment by a crowd who saw themselves as an insurgency. But she was there and she sat on that stage through a nearly two hour debate not shying away from positions that were not tailored to win that audience's approval. And Hillary remained in good humor throughout all of it. That is something I have been thinking about today. I think MoveOn.org's rejection of Hillary as a candidate may have something to do with my thinking along these lines. Hillary Clinton, you may recall, defended MoveOn.org when they were red baited in the U.S. Senate, and she was in a minority of Senators who did so. Hillary never runs against the left no matter how ugly the attacks on her have been. She keeps seeking our support respectfully, whether or not the netroots treat her respectfully in return. That is classy, and, I think, a public reflection of the private grace that her own family is more privy to seeing than we. I see Hillary forced to banter with people like Chris Mathews and I come away impressed. He could have been knifing her yesterday and Hillary will still embrace him in public while dead panning "I don't know how to handle men who are obsessed with me"; but the truth is she has handled all of them, all of the Hillary hating, double standard setting, sexist talking head media males extremely well. They are the divisive ones, the unlikable ones, not Hillary Clinton. We all know how hard Hillary can be when she is facing a real fight, but she can be soft too. When she talks to gay and lesbian teens about a deadly plague of suicides and says; "we've gotta do everything we can to send a clear message that we value you, we value you as a person, as a total person, and we want you to feel accepted and respected in your community", that is going beyond mere tolerance. Hillary has been fighting for youth and families for over 20 years. Most voters have little idea how long and deeply she has cared about the health of children in America. Both Hillary Clinton and her current primary opponent, Barack Obama, carry the weight of history on their shoulders now, moving into political territory no person of their race or gender has traveled in America before. I give them both great credit for that, but this piece is devoted to watching and reflecting on Hillary, the supposedly less likable one according to America's pundits. Throughout what is an obvious ordeal Hillary has never lost her charm. I know she has had to watch each gesture, more so than any white man certainly, as people read her every move, the cut of her dress, the pitch of her voice, the range of her emotional expression, and her ability to convey strength without appearing cold or unfeminine. Throughout all of it, Hillary Clinton still talks about the issues, about the wrongs in America and the fixes it will take to right them. And she keeps fighting, applying her quick and subtle intelligence and indomitable work ethic to doing exactly that. And I like her. I honestly like Hillary Clinton for all of that and more. This isn't quite the way the Beatles sang it, but the change will do us good. To Hillary then, with love: Girl, you're gonna carry that weight, carry that weight a long time. tag:www.aleftturnforclark.com,2007://16.1087 2007-12-24T13:54:43Z 2008-01-16T04:13:56Z

Hillary Clinton is now officially my presidential candidate. Though she is not my ideal candidate for President, frankly it is rare that “my ideal candidate” even runs for any office, let alone wins it. I thought long and hard about...

Tom Rinaldo http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/ Hillary Clinton is now officially my presidential candidate. Though she is not my ideal candidate for President, frankly it is rare that “my ideal candidate” even runs for any office, let alone wins it. I thought long and hard about the Democratic choices still available for me to support for 2008, and after doing so I choose Hillary over any of them. I was greatly disappointed when Wes Clark did not run, I was greatly disappointed when Al Gore did not run, and I was disappointed that Russ Feingold didn’t run either. None of those men still have a chance to become President in 2008 but Hillary Clinton does. My first team didn’t take the field this season but Hillary Clinton did. I believe she will run an excellent campaign against the Republicans if she becomes the Democrats nominee, and I think Hillary Clinton will make a good President for America when she takes office in January 2009. I do not hesitate to support her for President. Of my other options only Joe Biden tempted me by having the skills, qualifications and judgment needed to be elected President in 2008, coupled with enough of an electoral pulse to keep from going D.O.A. before a single primary vote got cast. I don’t see an opening available for him though and I expect Biden’s run will shortly enter history as a footnote to 2008, similar to Senator Bob Graham’s role in 2004. I think Bill Clinton was correct when he said this; Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd are ready to be President now, and so is Hillary Clinton. For the moment at least, of these only Hillary’s chances seem realistic. While I hoped to have a viable seasoned progressive who actually stood against the IWR to support in this race for President, it was not to be. Instead I am supporting a liberal, brilliant, extremely knowledgeable and hard working woman for President. I’ve already faced it. Politically I am far further left than Hillary Clinton. I’m also far further left than most American voters, so this isn’t the first Presidential election where I find myself in this position. If ever I flirted with going third Party in a close Presidential election; 2000 cured me of that notion. I am not writing this blog to make the decisive case for Hillary Clinton, but I am writing to go on record about who I support for President and why. All of the arguments have been raised by now for and against all of the Democrats running; it is mostly just a matter of what you believe. I can’t do more than give a brief personal check list here so and I won’t even try to anticipate and rebuff all the contrary arguments. Obviously many see all or part of this differently. They likely will make a different choice than I then. I simply won’t consider Dennis Kucinich for President when voters in his home state don’t take him seriously enough to consider him a favorite son, and his grassroots activist base can’t even raise the money Kucinich needs to field a modest campaign in Iowa. I might have supported Chris Dodd for President had I ever got the feeling that more than 2% of the public could join me in doing so, while Bill Richardson has demonstrated an uncanny ability to uninspire people who started out inspired to support him. Perhaps I could support Richardson or Biden if one of them was actually viable, but I still wouldn’t feel compelled to. There is nothing about either one of them on whole that makes them preferable to Hillary Clinton for me. Though Biden has a lot going for him, I would rather elect America’s first woman President, just for starters. As for John Edwards, I won’t consider him in the primaries when his entire political career consists of one term in the U.S. Senate, half of that spent running for President, leaving Edwards with a paper thin record of real political accomplishments much of which he now runs against himself. Someone else with John Edward’s current positions may be electable in America today, but if a real attack machine ever starts up against Edwards his bi-polar moderate sudden morph to progressive political persona will make him a sitting duck. And since he accepted Federal Matching funds and will be tapped out by the primaries, make that a near defenseless sitting duck between mid March and the Democratic National Convention. I question John Edward’s past judgment, I am unimpressed by his record, and I can’t ignore his inconsistencies. So I challenge his claim of electability also. Which brings me to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two perceived national front runners. Both are fascinating politicians who, if elected President, would shatter a glass ceiling that silently discriminated against millions of Americans for centuries. In either case that counts for something, and to me either counts for a lot. They draw their appeal from different roots. Hillary Clinton, a prior inhabitant of the White House, draws strength from the recent past - before the calamity of George W. Bush’s two term presidency descended on America. She represents Democratic continuity as heir to the high point of power achieved by Democrats in several decades. While Hillary looks forward to America’s future she doesn’t embody it in the same way that Barack Obama does. He is younger, he is fresh on the political scene, and his race sets him apart from every past President America has ever known, at a time when the day approaches for minorities to make up the majority of Americas citizens. Obama, to many, represents our nation’s future. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are bright and talented speakers, and they both speak carefully as well. Hillary plays up her experience and Barack is consciously inspirational. Their style differs, their appeal differs, but their politics do not differ as much to my eye as many people seem to think. If Clinton triangulates, so does Obama, but he does so in different terms. Both show a proficiency to not get boxed in or pinned down. Both show an interest in accommodating different viewpoints even if their language stresses differing nuances; Hillary might highlight her ability to work together with different people while Barack might emphasize his capacity to bring different people together. It is not so very different, but primaries are about making mountains out of mole hills while fighting for the higher ground. For example; the Clinton/Obama flap about their relative willingness to sit down in person with the leaders of nations that may not be our friends. Clinton and Obama essentially agreed but each had a need to appear like they didn’t. For Obama, it emphasized his bold convictions to stress a willingness to sit down with any world leader at any time to discuss the issues that might divide us. For Clinton it emphasized her “years of experience” to stress her understanding of how diplomacy builds from lower level meetings up to a Summit. In practice Obama would see to it that preliminary meetings were held prior to a Summit, and Clinton would make a Summit happen if doing so had any real hope of being fruitful. To be blunt, I do not view Obama as a great progressive and Clinton as a centrist. Mostly Clinton has a longer record to find fault with, it’s the flip side of experience. Her record is a Liberal one. Obama has a cleaner slate; it’s the flip side of having less of a record, but his short record is no more Liberal than Clinton’s. We know that the Clintons have built practical political alliances over the years, and for better or worse, I see that drive and ability now in Obama also. I see real similarities. Bill Clinton first got elected President in 1992; call him “Dem Politics 1.992”. Hillary Clinton first got elected Senator in 2000; call her “Dem Politics 2.0”. And Barack Obama first got elected Senator in 2004; call him “Dem Politics 2.04”. Their programs are not that terribly different. Upgrades are nice but not if they have not been sufficiently debugged. And while the latest upgrade might automatically appeal to cutting edge bloggers, that does not hold as true for the general public where the test of time holds greater value. While I call it a major point in Obama’s favor that he opposed the IWR at the time, I note that unlike all 5 of the past and present Democratic U.S. Senators now running, all of whom voted yes on the IWR as did our 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee also, Obama was not actually sitting in a Senate hot seat when he made his earlier views known.. Me and my girl friend both opposed the IWR at the time also but I have to admit; I don’t think either one of us is any where near qualified to be President. It would be nice if it was that simple but it isn’t. Despite having voted for the IWR I think John Kerry would have made a good President. Despite having voted for the IWR I think Hillary Clinton will make a good President. I believe while Barack Obama is a tantalizing candidate for President, he is not the right candidate for President at this point in a short political career. He may best represent the future, but we face challenges today that require both a firm grasp on the present and a sure hand to deal with them. That does come with experience. It is true of every field, statesmanship is no exception. Though experience devoid of vision has little to offer, a vision lacking the experience required to execute and achieve it remains a mirage. When last America elected a President, Barack Obama still sat in a state legislature, That was less than four years ago. Obama barely knows his way around Washington yet, let alone the power centers of the world. He will learn, but I think he remains a gifted student at a time when a highly accomplished pro is needed instead. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are greatly talented. I believe his time hasn’t quite come yet but her time has. There really is a difference. Even the brightest apprentice still has much to master. Obama hasn’t faced real storms in National Politics up to now. His opponent in his first run for Senate was a virtual joke and Obama has not yet been called on to defend his record for reelection. His is an amazing story but the telling of it has mostly been positive to date. Obama has not been politically tested – he hasn’t yet faced the national Republican Party gunning to take him down, but Hillary has and she stood tall through it all and never missed a beat. She earned this appointment with destiny. It is time for America to elect our first Female President. Hillary Clinton will be a strong and confident candidate. Her intelligence and competence will contrast well against anyone the Republicans can throw against her. She knows her stuff and that shows, and she has a popular two term former President standing next to her, and that too will help. Americans know that they were better off eight years ago than they are today, and that is the trump card that Hillary best can play. By and large Americans know what to expect from a Clinton Administration, By and large they expect it to be a lot better than what they have today. And that always wins elections. In uncertain times a strong dash of positive certainty is powerfully reassuring, and that too wins elections. Hillary Clinton has strong support from women, she has strong support from Unions, she has strong support from racial minorities, and she has strong support from Gays and Lesbians. Each of those populations is a progressive pillar of today’s Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton isn’t my leftist dream for a President, but she is solidly left of America’s center, and we would be fortunate to see her inaugurated in January of 2009. Hillary Clinton now has my full support. tag:www.aleftturnforclark.com,2007://16.1081 2007-11-01T22:07:15Z 2007-11-01T22:10:02Z

Well me either and I’ll tell you my main reason. The U.S. Senate could vote to gather up every loose saber littering that chamber’s floor to lock safely in the attic and what this White House would hear are sabers...

Tom Rinaldo http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/ Well me either and I’ll tell you my main reason. The U.S. Senate could vote to gather up every loose saber littering that chamber’s floor to lock safely in the attic and what this White House would hear are sabers being rattled while they were carted off. But I’ll tell you something I don’t like almost if not equally as much as Clinton’s Kyle – Lieberman vote. By and large I am upset by how anti-war grassroots have seized on Clinton’s vote to use as a primary season football at the expense of trying to lesson the risk of war with Iran. Essentially the primary reaction of most anti-war grassroots activists to the passage of Kyle –Lieberman by the U. S. Senate has been to blast Clinton for her vote and use that vote to argue against her Presidential candidacy. I know I am over simplifying, but the most common line of attack seems to be that by voting for Kyle- Lieberman, Clinton gave political cover to Bush/Cheney that will make it easier for them to attack Iran while they still are in office. Let’s step back and look at that for a second. Maybe several LONG seconds. If it is a valid concern that Bush/Cheney might attack Iran (and I think it is), and if them attacking Iran would be a horrific error (and I think it would be), then we all need to be doing something RIGHT NOW to try to prevent that attack. And I would ordinarily expect those who are most concerned about the negative aftermath of Kyle – Lieberman to take the lead now in trying to reverse, or at least contain, the damage that they believe that vote has caused. After all, stopping a war is at stake. But many seem to think that stopping Hillary is a higher priority, or at least they seem to act that way. Stopping Hillary from winning the Democratic Nomination would not prevent George W. Bush from attacking Iran. Nor would getting whoever one wants nominated instead of Clinton. Democrats could nominate and elect Dennis Kucinich President and he still wouldn’t occupy the oval office until Bush’s term in office is over. I see people playing politics over War and Peace, and unfortunately I see it from both the Right AND the Left. Let’s stop and take another look at that Kyle - Lieberman vote. First let’s look at the obvious. It passed and the margin was not small. Hillary Clinton cast her vote with the majority, but what would have happened had she not? Instead of passing by a vote of 76 to 22 with 2 not voting, had Clinton joined the opponents Kyle – Lieberman would have lost by 75 to 23 instead. From either a policy or political perspective the result would have been the same – overwhelming Senate approval. Clinton’s vote made no critical difference, neither did Obama’s non vote. For those of us who are unhappy about Kyle – Lieberman our problem is much bigger than the votes or non votes of Presidential candidates. Minimally we have a bone to pick with the entire Democratic Caucus in the Senate, almost 30 of whom supported Kyle - Lieberman; far more than voted against it. So no it wasn’t just the same small handful of blue dog Democratic defectors of the sort we are so used to fretting over. It was our Senate leadership, and not just Harry Reid but Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer too. It wasn’t just the Nelsons, Pryor, Salizar and Laundrieu voting “Aye”; they were joined by Levin, Mikulski, Martinez, Stabenow and Whitehouse , among other “unlikely suspects”. But for some reason I have been reading very little wholesale criticism of Senate Democrats over Kyle – Lieberman, only of Senator Hillary Clinton. I call foul. Is Clinton’s vote on Kyle – Lieberman a valid test for potential support of a candidate? Absolutely, as is every vote taken by every politician who now or previously held an elected office. But the selective political outrage focused on Clinton and virtually Clinton only masks as concern for stopping an attack on Iran, not merely on stopping a presidential candidate, and it doesn’t pass the smell test. Does anyone wonder what might have happened if the Senate Democratic leadership and a majority of the Senate Democratic caucus had not struck a deal to gut the original language found in Kyle – Lieberman? You know, the original language that actually explicitly DID approve of the use of military force against Iran? Does anyone think that Joe Lieberman agreed to take that language out as a friendly gesture just to be nice? I wonder. I can’t prove it but I suspect the original version of Kyle – Lieberman could have passed intact except by a closer margin. I think enough hawkish Democrats would have provided the votes needed for a winning majority (and for the record Clinton says she would have voted “No” herself on the original version). Then the Senate would now be on record telling Bush “sure, attack Iran in self defense if that is what needs to happen”. That would really have been swell. If we so are concerned that Kyle – Lieberman, even the somewhat gutted version that ultimately passed, sent the wrong message to Bush about possibly attacking Iran, then shouldn’t we now be concerned about having the full Senate, or at least as many Senators who supported Kyle – Lieberman as possible, correct that wrong message? If all the fears expressed are valid, than organizing to get the Democrat elected in 2008 who has the sanest position on Iran is merely closing the barn door after the horses have fled. A lot of good that will do us after Bush starts a new war in his remaining months in office. But I see almost no outrage expressed about the actions taken by a majority of Democrats in the Senate; I just see Democratic primaries political points being scored at the expense of one, Hillary Clinton. So where is the missing effort to now set the record straight in the Senate? The only Democratic Senator who voted in favor of Kyle – Lieberman now going out of her way to clarify to Bush what that vote did and did not actually support is, of course, Hillary Clinton. Many chalk that up to politics and her need for political cover, and that is certainly the in vogue cynical view point. Sure Clinton has a need to explain to those whose votes she now seeks that she is not gung ho for attacking Iran but rather prefers robust diplomacy, but few activists seem willing to even entertain the possibility that she is also saying what she really believes. We live in a cynical time only deepened by the fact that cynics too often are correct – but not always. Still for the sake of argument let’s take a look through a cynic’s eyes. First conclusion; support someone other than Clinton in the primaries. OK, I get that part. If you really believe Clinton wants war with Iran any more than other viable Democratic candidates, and presuming that you don’t, no doubt she won’t get your first vote. Fine, but what about actually preventing that war with Iran from starting while Bush remains in office? Seems to me that Hillary Clinton, since her vote for Kyle – Lieberman, has said and done many of the things needed to minimize unintended Bush Administration consequences from that measure having passed. Whether or not that also minimizes unintended Democratic primary voter consequences for her is a different matter completely. Meanwhile I am continually reading anti-war activists pushing the case that Lieberman himself wants to see pushed. Namely we throw cold water on any possible alternative to a drums of war interpretation of what the majority of Democratic Senators intended when they backed Kyle Lieberman, and for the life of me I fail to see how that helps. Or let me be more precise; I fail to see how blasting Kyle – Lieberman as enabling war helps if virtually no one has any interest in getting the Senate Democratic majority to reframe and clarify their intent now to dampen further drums for war. We have Hillary Clinton currently out there in public asserting that nothing in Kyle – Lieberman says the U.S. Senate supports anything except diplomacy with Iran, and anti-war activists are shouting back “Wrong! Yes it does!” Am I the only one who sees something a little odd, and even counter productive to the point of dangerous, with this picture? Stopping a pending war with Iran should trump primaries politics, especially if war needs to be prevented before a new President gets to take office. What of the 28 or so other Democratic Senators who like Hillary Clinton voted for Kyle – Lieberman? Wouldn’t it make sense to get more of them on record now clearing up any doubt by opposing military actions against Iran while Bush remains in office, at least without direct Congressional approval? I can’t for the life of me see why they would though, not when they reap political advantage by keeping their mouth shut and their heads out of the line of fire. Why not let Hillary take the flak? She gets all of it now regardless of what she says or does; she can co-sponsor the Webb Amendment, she can back no preconditions to diplomacy with Iran, she can argue time is not running out for diplomacy, all it does is expose her to further attacks. Meanwhile for the rest of our Senate Democrats not running for President, most of whom supported Kyle – Lieberman also, it remains out of sight out of mind. We are giving them every incentive in the world to let their Kyle – Lieberman votes represent their final word on the matter. Politically, they would be fools to open their mouths now and divert any criticism that they legitimately could share in away from Hillary. Don’t expect to see any of them stepping forward to set the record straight that they did not support another rush to war with Kyle - Lieberman. After being left off the hook, and watching what happened to Hillary when she rose to clarify her intent, they would be suicidal to not stay hunkered down. Folks, this is not the way to prevent a looming war. tag:www.aleftturnforclark.com,2007://16.1057 2007-09-21T04:21:47Z 2007-09-21T04:27:26Z

After seeing Wes Clark speak twice in NYC yesterday, once on his own at a book signing, and later with Hillary Clinton at a fund raiser for her, it is becoming clearer to me how Clark's concern over stopping a...

Tom Rinaldo http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/ After seeing Wes Clark speak twice in NYC yesterday, once on his own at a book signing, and later with Hillary Clinton at a fund raiser for her, it is becoming clearer to me how Clark's concern over stopping a war with Iran factors into his decision to endorse Hillary Clinton for President. At the book signing Clark was asked, as a last question with time running out, if he thought the U.S. would bomb Iran, and he said "Yes". Clark focused his answer on what appeared to be most likely and why, he wasn't giving his personal views, though Clark repeated that he thought that bombing Iran was a "bad option." Clark pointed out that not only is it the stated policy of the Bush Administration that Iran must not be allowed to acquire weapons grade uranium, but he indicated that he personally talked to all of the current Democratic candidates about their views on this contengency, and they all essentially agreed with that bottom line (though it was not something that they embraced a chance to proclaim). Clark then backed up and said actually that was the position of all the Democratic candidates with one or two possible exceptions - which he did not clarify further. I took that to indicate that all of the major candidates, minimally including Obama, Edwdards, and Clinton, were prepared to bomb Iran if need be to stop them from getting nukes. Kucinich most likely is one exception, and my guess is Gravel is the other that Clark is not sure about. Perhaps it is another Democrat, not Gravel, who is not clearly in that bomb Iran at the point of "A bomb making" camp, but I am confident Clark would not have started his comment with the word "all" if one of the likely nominees disagreed with that position. Clark said that though Iran denies it, there are continuing strong indications that Iran is developing the capacity to build nuclear weapons. He envisioned a day some time possbily soon when a top intelligence official might walk into the oval office and tell whoever is president then that Iran started producing weapons grade uranium leaving the United States with a 15 day window to take that process out before dangerous quantities of bomb grade uranium got dispersed to the far corners of Iran where it could no longer be tracked or pin pointed. Earlier in his comments at the book signing Clark very strongly made the case for United States full court region wide diplomacy in the middle east that engaged both Iran and Syria in comprehensive talks NOW. Clark returned to that position as the wrap up to his reply to the question and time ran out for further questions or discussion. Here is how that ties back to Clark's endorsement of Hillary Clinton in my mind. When earlier Clark was asked at the book signing what he would do if he were President now regarding Iraq, one part of his answer was to say he would immediately get Richard Hollbrooke, who he called a good friend, a personal gulfstream jet and send him off to the middle east to do non stop shuttle diplomacy involving all of the players with a stake in what happened to Iraq and the entire region, as his personal representative there. He would ask him to try to hammer out a set of agreements that would meet the needs of the nations in that region without further escalating the arms race there, while simultaneously defusing military conflicts. As most here already know, Richard Holbrooke is currently a key adviser to Hillary Clinton. Both at the book signing and at the Clinton fundraiser, Clark stressed that Hillary Clinton is by far the most experienced candidate in our current field, on foreign affairs and national security in particular. Clark stressed that Hillary will need very very little orientation to her new responsibilities as President, let alone on the job training, since she has already been a full partner at the highest level of an 8 year Presidential Administration, to go along with her 8 years also spent in the U.S. Senate. And not just any administration, but one that developed a coherent grasp while in office on how to handle the full range of security threats facing America, which fully embraced diplomatic initiatives including those with current adversaries, as a central tool of state craft. Wes Clark clearly thinks Hillary Clinton is already fully up to speed to begin working the entire middle east at the highest levels from day one in office. And with a diplomatic break through now seemingly the only option that could prevent looming military conflict with Iran under any conceivable administration that voters may install in office through the 2008 election, time will be of the critical essence in preventing the next war. Hillary Clinton was very respectful of Wes Clark at the event she had him appear at, she neither seemed intimidated by nor dismissive of his expertise. I believe Clark now feels that not only is Clinton our near certain nominee, but of anyone who we may elect she is most supportive of and competent at the type of region wide diplomatic offensive that Clark believes the U.S. must launch in the middle east ASAP. It goes beyond her intellectual support for that policy, it goes to having the contacts already in place inherited from Bill Clinton's presidency, both with a seasoned team of her own advisers who all are comfortable working with each other at the highest levels while playing for the largest stakes, and with various world leaders who will view a Hillary Clinton presidency as a reprise of Bill Clinton's presidency - knowing full well that Bill will be there in the White House too. That is the combination of skills, experience, good will and contacts that will allow Hillary Clinton to hit the ground running, soon enough if we are so fortunate, to find a diplomatic way out of the looming show down with Iran before the clock runs out on peace. Months matter. Weeks matter. Even days matter. If Hillary Clinton is elected Wes Clark is now part of her inner circle, one way or another. It seemed clear to me from last night watching them interact together that she is absorbing at least some of Clark's counsel already. That was clear to me from the broadly defined language she used in describing the types of security threats facing America in the coming decade. Her words were embracive and not confined to a check list of potential direct military threats, and in that way very reminiscent to how Wes Clark talks about our national security. I got the feeling that they have already begun working together. Given the high chance that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and my high regard for Wes Clark and the positive contribution he could make in any Democratic Administration, that clearly is my hope, but it also is my intuition. tag:www.aleftturnforclark.com,2007://16.1056 2007-09-17T00:58:14Z 2007-09-17T07:39:57Z

Over the last four years I have come to appreciate that Wes Clark seems to have a sure sense as to where attacks on the chances for a Democratic Party victory are most likely to come from, and how he...

Tom Rinaldo http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/ Over the last four years I have come to appreciate that Wes Clark seems to have a sure sense as to where attacks on the chances for a Democratic Party victory are most likely to come from, and how he carefully pre-positions himself to protect whatever flank of our Party is most exposed and vulnerable to an attack that might deny us an important victory. There is no more important victory to secure for the Democratic Party now than the White House in 2008, because that victory is not just needed for a domestic and partisan political party, it is needed both for the health of our Democracy and for sanity in this world. The visible danger that the Democratic Party faces in 2008 comes from all of the usual suspects, starting of course with the Republican Party but including a host of puppet masters and enablers, from powerful special interests to a rightist propaganda oriented mass media. Most Democrats know those enemies well enough, they are familiar foes; dangerous yes, but easily recognized and fairly straight forward to defend against. Sometimes we do well in that regard, sometimes not, but it is an unseen adversary that can ambush and thereby defeat our efforts to deny Republicans the White House in 2008. That adversary hides in our own passion, in our own desire to right all that is wrong in our nation now. I am guilty of that passion though I do not view it as a crime. I make no apologies for fighting for what I believe in my heart is best for our nation. But passion denied frequently leads to bitterness, and for many of us in the activist base of the Democratic Party, passions flow in support of Democratic candidates for President far more progressive than Hillary Clinton will ever be in our eyes. Passion isn't the hidden adversary that will have to be overcome for Democrats to defeat the Republican nominee for President in 2008. It is a lack of passion for our most likely presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, that I fear may doom us. I am among those who believe that Hillary Clinton will be a tough sell with the American electorate in 2008. I am also among those who believed barring a Clark or Gore candidacy, that Hillary Clinton is destined to win the Democratic nomination for President. To me that now seems all but certain. Neither Obama or Edwards or any other of our declared candidates can overtake Clinton in my opinion; Wes Clark is not running and I don't believe Al Gore will either. It will take a lot of hard work by a lot of committed progressive minded Democratic grassroots activists to put Hillary Clinton over the top in 2008, and she can not afford for that effort to lurch forward in low gear after her nomination. I suspect this is one of the reasons why Wes Clark chose to endorse Hillary Clinton now. Clark is a thoroughly decent human being who was trained in the profession of warfare. There is no room for woulda coulda shoulda in a military campaign. Clark has been on the equivalent of such a campaign ever since he entered politics to oppose George W. Bush's neocon scripted disastrous plans for America. I firmly believe that Wes Clark believes it is near certain now that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate for president in 2008. If he is correct, and my respect for Wes Clark's ability to analyze pending events has grown continually since I first was exposed to his thinking four years ago, then the future of our nation's well being in the first half of the 21st century will largely rest on Hillary Clinton's ability to defeat the Republican nominee for President in 2008. I don't think Hillary Clinton needs further active support from Clark supporters in order to win the Democratic nomination. I for one can not bring myself to give her such support at this stage, but that part doesn't matter. What matters is how fast so many of us who have deep resistance to the idea of supporting Hillary Clinton for President are able to work through our antipathy toward her to fight for her chances to win in November. We can all pretend that there is an intellectual switch each of us can throw that shifts us from opposing Hillary with a passion to fighting hard to help her defeat the Republican if she wins the nomination, but most people are not wired that way. There is an emotional psychological journey that must first be undertaken, and that journey can be slow and torturous. It was that type of journey that took too long to take for far too many in 1968 that allowed Richard Nixon to hold onto a rapidly shrinking lead over a late charging Hubert Humphrey to win that presidential election and doom our nation to four more years of war in Viet Nam. It took a long time for anti war Democrats to become pragmatists in 1968 after the Chicago convention nominated LBJ's Vice President to run over Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern and the ghost of RFK. By the fall most of us were sobered enough by the prospect of Nixon getting elected that we could then seriously work for Humphrey, but we were a little too little, a little too late. I don't think Wes Clark expects his endorsement of Hillary to turn many people who oppose her now into supporters of her now. But I think he realizes by endorsing Hillary Clinton early, who he (and I) fully expect will be the Democratic nominee, that he is helping hasten for many that emotional psychological journey I mentioned above, so that come the day when she is nominated, more of us will be ready to stop sitting on our hands and start working hard to get Hillary Clinton elected. In my opinion (and I suspect in Clark's) Hillary Clinton doesn't really need further help to win the nomination now because it is already hers to lose. What Hillary needs most is for more Democratic activists to view her nomination as at least marginally acceptable when in all likelihood it actually comes to pass. That is how Wes Clark is helping Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party in my opinion, the most. That is why his support of her now is critical. Hillary will need some serious bridge building to this party's activist base to unify the party behind her if she becomes our nominee. Wes Clark is helping walk point for her now in that regard. In so doing I believe Wes Clark is also walking point for our nation's future well being, just like he has for his entire life. For those who do not see Hillary's nomination as a near certainty already, Clark's endorsement may be a bitter pill. Since I have long believed that only Al Gore or Wes Clark could deny her that nomination, of those who either are in the race or had a potential to enter it, I can appreciate what I think Wes Clark now is attempting to do, even if I am not pleased at the prospect of Hillary Clinton being our candidate in 2008. tag:www.aleftturnforclark.com,2007://16.1050 2007-09-04T06:18:57Z 2007-09-04T06:24:12Z

General Clark went well beyond the mainstream Democratic Party in preemptively positioning himself, and those who stand with him, to confront a growing threat to peace, and also to our Party. For those who picked up on Clark’s stance early...

Tom Rinaldo http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/ General Clark went well beyond the mainstream Democratic Party in preemptively positioning himself, and those who stand with him, to confront a growing threat to peace, and also to our Party. For those who picked up on Clark’s stance early the lag between him sounding an alarm and more people hearing it has been hard to accept, but as hard as it’s been for the netroots to take that danger in, compared to the institutional Democratic Party they have been relatively quick to respond. The most obvious example now concerns Iran and the urgent need to counter the neocon strategic agenda for war and the propaganda campaign that boosts it. Of course General Clark has been talking about the need to head off the potentially catastrophic pending conflict between the U.S. and Iran for almost four years now, and after repeated increasingly urgent interview warnings and statements, he and VoteVets.org launched their public StopIranWar.com petition and letter writing campaign back in February of this year. Most of it went right over the heads of many in the netroots at the time. Anti-war activists remained pre-occupied with getting the U.S. out of Iraq, and many were skeptical that the Bush Administration could even think of initiating new military aggression while physically and mentally bogged down in Iraq. Some who did pay attention to what StopIranWar.com attempted were critical that the statements issued by it were not more pointed in their attacks on Bush and stronger in their defense of Iran's position. Too few saw what Clark already knew, that the public simply would not buy a white washing of Iran's role in the escalation of tensions between our nations, but some straight talk about how U.S. policies toward Iran were contributing to increasing dangers would be a welcome reality based relief for many voters. As StopIranWar.com got rolling most anti-war activists continued to rail against Congressional Democrats for not doing more to get our troops out of Iraq quicker, while barely noticing when the House Democratic Causes quietly quashed an effort to force President Bush to seek Congressional approval before launching any attacks on Iran, and Senate Democrats derailed an effort by Senator Webb to do the same. It's about six months later now and many in the netroots are finally getting alarmed about the real possibility of another war erupting while George Bush is still in office. Better late than never? Certainly, but is it now too late for the netroots to meaningfully contribute to heading off the next war? Hopefully not, but I honestly do not know for sure. On a far less urgent front I now notice increasing discussion on Democratic oriented netroots web sites about whether or not our current leading candidates for President have enough experience under their belts, especially concerning national security, to convince voters to vote for them over their opponents. In some cases that discussion centers on primary voters, in others on the General Election in 2008. Activists are finally starting to notice that, slim as her credentials may be, Hillary Clinton has been making real hay out of claiming to be the most seasoned candidate of those currently ranked in the top tier of Democratic candidates. To this day not enough Democrats seem to be asking themselves why, with the National Republican Party increasingly discredited and seemingly in complete collapse, Rudy Giuliani - he who wears 9/11 as a cape, continues to poll competitively well against Democratic potential candidates in head to head match ups. Still, increasing numbers of netroots activists are starting to wake up to how much of a gift Jon Soltz and VoteVets.org have been to the Democratic Party, advancing as they do a truly progressive agenda on military natters. Of course General Clark had a leading role in VoteVet.org from its inception. It remains my opinion that a Wes Clark entry into the Presidential race, even at this relatively late date, would be a godsend to the Democratic Party but mostly to our nation. I honestly feel that his message is potentially powerful enough, and his intellectual and moral stature is strong enough, to propel the General into the thick of the nomination race within two months of his entry. But failing that I wonder if there is any chance that the General would consider making a new effort to reinvigorate the StopIranWar.com campaign. It seems to me that the netroots are finally waking up to the reality of that pending war, and they might now be ready to take that ball and run with it, given strong leadership and the right tools. I think we, and I say “we” now because I am a part of the netroots, have just about caught up to where General Clark was back in February. tag:www.aleftturnforclark.com,2007://16.1047 2007-08-20T03:32:49Z 2007-08-20T05:48:16Z

Summer is rolling on and Labor Day is approaching. George Bush and Dick Cheney are now almost certainly the least popular President and Vice President team in American History. John McCain, the G.O.P. pretender to the throne who once was...

Tom Rinaldo http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/ Summer is rolling on and Labor Day is approaching. George Bush and Dick Cheney are now almost certainly the least popular President and Vice President team in American History. John McCain, the G.O.P. pretender to the throne who once was feared as the only man with sufficient stature and integrity to convince the American public to renew the Republican lease on the White House, has departed center stage after a war vote malfunction stripped bare his passion for the Iraq surge, exposing him as unelectable in the Super Bowl of politics. Meanwhile the Democrats have a very strong field of presidential candidates. At least the media keeps telling us so, and given the quagmire the G.O.P. now seems stuck in, it’s hard to argue otherwise. That could be the reason why so few do argue otherwise, since conventional wisdom is much easier to repeat, but cracks that can fracture the veneer of Democratic complacency are hiding in plain sight, where many refuse to see. For one thing, the Democratic Party still has not shaken its inferiority complex compared to the Republicans when it comes to National Security. If you doubt that you need look no further for evidence than the August 4th vote by 16 Democratic Senators and 41 Democratic House members to support Republican written legislation giving George Bush’s near laughing stock of an Attorney General constitutionally unsupported authority to spy on the international telephone calls and e-mails of Americans, in the name of keeping America safe from terrorists. Anyone who found that vote shocking simply has not been paying close enough attention to Democrats in Congress. Democrats may have found the courage to often unite against the Iraq War now that it is universally unpopular, but they still rattle sabers against Iran almost as well as the best Republican Chicken Hawks around. It is that knee jerk need to posture as tough as Republican that led a Democratic Senate to issue George Bush a blank check for war against Iraq in 2002. Very little has really changed. Most of us indulge in speculative pop psychology from time to time, so this should be familiar terrain; how do most men who are insecure about their masculinity tend to act in public? Correct: with compensatory macho aggressiveness. Well it’s something like that with many of today’s Democratic politicians. They may truly believe in promoting Peace, and of course they are quick to let the Democratic Party’s anti-war leaning activist base know that about them, but then comes the overwhelming political urge to compensate for that expression of “softness “ with some hard edged rhetoric about protecting America from its enemies. Too many elected Democrats believe they still have to prove to many American voters that they are tough enough to keep them safe. Why is that exactly? One part of the answer is sensible enough; Americans want to feel safe in a world that they believe poses real dangers to them. Democrats who ignore that sentiment do so at their own political risk when they run for national rather than state or local office. And of course Republicans, perceiving a likely political advantage, always do what they can to pump up the public fear factor. Today’s National Republican Party has evolved into a political machine that only runs well when it runs against a threat posed by enemies, both domestic and foreign but especially foreign. It almost doesn’t matter who the Republican candidate is, they get brand name marketed, and too few voters really question what’s actually inside that box. The Republican brand name is identified with National Security, the military, and a strong defense. The Democratic brand name isn’t. So a Republican candidate for president who was an eager war evader, a man who had rarely even physically left this country let alone show any real grasp for understanding the world, managed to get enough votes (both real and imagined) to defeat two internationally seasoned Democratic Viet Nam veterans in back to back elections, the first in a time of relative peace, the second most definitely not. Say whatever you will about them, but no man or woman who manages to get elected to Congress is truly objectively dumb. It takes some street smarts if nothing else to out maneuver other potential candidates from your own party to win the nomination to run for even the safest of seats, and no one wins a contested election without at least mastering the art of campaigning. Democrats running for national office (Congress included) know about the chinks in their Party’s brand name, and they always choose a plan to deal with it. If they are blessed with a progressive enough constituency that task is relatively straight forward and simple, but few have that luck, and no Democratic Presidential candidate either during the Cold War, or since 9/11, ever has had an easy ride in that regard. Time and time again they chose between one of two deeply flawed options to stay competitive. Option A is to essentially cede Republicans the National Security advantage, while trying to still beat them by outscoring the G.O.P. on issues that play better to Democratic strengths. No candidate would publicly admit to that, just like none would admit that they plan to virtually write off any region of the nation when it comes to allocating sufficient campaign resources at the beginning of a campaign, but it still happens. Option B is a significantly different variant employed by other Democrats that essentially depends on a strategy of mimicking Republicans (Democrats using this option should not be confused with the small group of hard core Democratic hawks who really do have deeply engrained identical views on National Security issues as most of today’s National Republicans – though of course those using this option go out of their way to sow that very confusion). It covers most of the “sound tough” crowd I referred to above. At base it’s a form of camouflage. Democrats employing it hope that if they too use tough rhetoric that sounds similar enough to what voters expect to hear from Republicans, the perceived difference between the political parties on National Security can be fudged enough to make domestic issue differences the only ones that ultimately stand out when it comes time to actually choose who to vote for. Can Democrats win national elections using either Options A or B? Yes, if they run a very skilled campaign, or if the tide of public opinion for whatever reason is then running strongly enough against the Republican Party. But either the candidate’s skill or that public tide must truly be formidable, because the main stream media is not the Democrat’s friend when it comes to matters of National Security, as evidenced by the essentially cheer leading, white washing function it played in the run up to the invasion of Iraq then, and the similar role it is playing regarding Iran now. And even when the Democrats run and win with a candidate possessing formidable political skills, and a tide that is running against the Republicans, which was the case with Bill Clinton in 1992, something significant happens. We fail to ace the elections. We don’t put the Republicans down for the count. We govern with dangerously thin majorities, and/or by courting the votes of Congressional Democrats with a vested interest in sounding and acting like Republicans all too much of the time. And we suffer progressive setbacks like a Democratic Congress passing the FISA bill this month. Right now this nation may be one major domestic terrorist attack away from ushering in a Rudy Giuliani presidency. Of course that attack may never happen, no matter how often the Department of Homeland Security fiddles with the color codes or issues terror attack advisories, but then again it just might. Lord knows the Bush Administration has been very busy over the last six years increasing America’s enemies and reducing America’s friends. There also is that unresolved matter of pending war with Iran, which George Bush is free to initiate at any time under his own authority, given that the current Democratic Congress is so loath to be seen tying the President’s hands in advance on that one. The Democratic Party’s two preferred strategies for dealing with the Republican Party’s current brand name advantage on National Security (with a partial exception for the war in Iraq hereby granted) is to focus their energies elsewhere or essentially mimic Republicans. Neither is a winning strategy if new security concerns come to capture the public’s attention in 2008. And this is where General Wesley Clark has been offering the Democrats a way out of the current rigged box. Wes Clark offers Option C: Become the political party that effectively promotes America’s security. The answer is so simple as to be audacious; stop side stepping the challenge, and stop pretending to be something Democrats are not. Embrace the differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party on National Security and show the public that our way will keep them both safer and more prosperous; safer because America will have fewer enemies in the world, more prosperous because our treasury will not continually be drained by endless wars to the advantage of select war profiteers. Rearranging the identities pegged to the brand names of the Democratic and Republican Parties concerning national security won’t be accomplished simply by hiring better PR firms to design more effective ad campaigns. Symbolism is part of it but it must be backed by substance. People are funny when it comes to matters of life and death; they take it seriously. General Clark has helped provide a historic opening to the National Democratic Party, a chance to redefine itself in the eyes of a critical swing slice of the public after 30 years of Republican battering in the wake of the Viet Nam War. Clark laid his four stars on the table for the Democrats, which in itself conveys important symbolism, but in Clark’s case he consistently backed that symbolism up with very real and ongoing substance. Wes Clark is not a photo op politician; the uniform of his decades of service is never offered up by him as a political prop. Since entering politics in 2003, General Clark has been in constant meaningful dialogue with the American people regarding matters of national security. His PAC website is called “SecuringAmerica.com” and a quick browse of it offers a more meaningful overview of the challenges facing America in the 21st century than a typical Graduate level class in international relations. In redefining and then explaining the basic elements needed to guarantee America’s ongoing security in the coming decades, Wes Clark paints a very different picture than the one being sold by Republicans, and unlike some Democrat’s mimicry, Clark offers the depth found only in legitimate three dimensional vision. Look no further than Iran to see that difference. Unlike the two dimensional posturing that most Democratic politicians engage in regarding Iran, which consists of mostly sounding tough while saying we should be willing to talk directly with Iran, General Clark is not afraid to admit to and explain at length how our government’s own behavior contributes to the dangerous current impasse between our nations. Not only is Clark fearless about advocating “Give Peace a Chance”, he describes what that peace could actually look like while detailing a series of specific steps that might take us from here to there. And he goes beyond that to positively reframe America’s ongoing position in the world community looking forward to the changes the 21st century will undoubtedly bring. Democrats need to articulate a real strategy for furthering peace and prosperity in the world, one that goes beyond platitudes and actually rings true to American’s who believe there are those in this world, men like the frequently cited Osama Bin Ladin, Saddam Hussein, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, capable of harboring ill will and intent toward us and our nation. Wes Clark prominently states at the StopIranWar.com web site that he co-sponsors with VoteVets.org: “War is not the answer”. Democrats need to explain why that is so at time when real security threats confront us, while we still possess the most powerful military in the world. It is not an easy task but it is one that General Clark thinks Democrats can and must be up to, both to secure significant victories as a political party, and to secure real peace for our nation. It is why Wes Clark is our longest and strongest member of the new “Fighting Dems”, working to recast the Democratic Party’s image, while broadening the Democratic Party’s message and base, so that we can recast our nation’s policies and govern with strong majorities committed to using our nation’s resources to help our nation’s people. Wes Clark represents a bold and different approach that the Democratic Party now has an option to pursue. Whether it will or not is still uncertain. tag:www.aleftturnforclark.com,2007://16.1034 2007-08-01T06:30:10Z 2007-08-01T06:53:03Z

Two things the media loves nowadays are sports and reality TV. No wonder they are so enthralled by Presidential contests. What could possibly be better than two fields of high profile celebrities competing in a nonstop horserace over 18 months...

Tom Rinaldo http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/ Two things the media loves nowadays are sports and reality TV. No wonder they are so enthralled by Presidential contests. What could possibly be better than two fields of high profile celebrities competing in a nonstop horserace over 18 months to win the Super Bowl of Politics? A serious discussion of the critical issues facing both our nation and the world? Nah, doesn’t even come close. Meet the Press was never able to muster the ratings that Survivor has. So it’s no surprise that General Wesley Clark’s potential 2008 run for President gets virtually no mention in the press. He’s not on their chosen island. But what about us Democrats? We aren’t covering 2008 Presidential races, we’re staging one. In theory we get to pick our candidates. Currently we have a nice group of announced ones. Wes Clark isn’t in that group, and neither is Al Gore or Russ Feingold. In Feingold’s case the reason is clear; early on he decided against running this year. Al Gore has done all he can to discourage speculation about him running for President, other than stating that under no circumstances will he run. So of course that encourages speculation about Al Gore running for President. That leaves Wes Clark, who candidly admits that he would like to run for President this year, if he can line up enough support. Which, it seems, discourages some Democrats from speculating about Clark. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/24/10261/5764 There would not be a strong Draft Gore movement, given Gore's ambivalence about moving back into politics, if a solid consensus existed that our Democratic field can’t meaningfully be improved on, or that whoever emerges from it would be our best bet for winning big in November. John Edwards has moved hard to the left since he ran in 2004, which although to my liking, threatens to cost him some of his previous moderate support which might be a factor in his current third place standing in polls of Democrats, and could complicate his efforts to capture the center as our nominee come November, should Republicans run someone like Guiliani. Barack Obama is less easily ideologically pegged, but I am concerned he will never adequately shake a sense that he is still too inexperienced to elevate to President of the United States, with the accompanying status of Commander in Chief of America’s Armed Forces. To me Hillary Clinton polling strong so far compared to Obama and Edwards speaks more to the weakness of our field than its strength. Many Democrats worry about the extent of Hillary’s unpopularity with the larger public, knowing that Republicans have been geared up to take her on for over a decade. Plus she's alienated much of the liberal base that usually drives Democratic primary results. Yet she is much more than holding her own because, I believe, she's the only leading Democratic candidate who immediately comes across as a plausible Commander in Chief. Al Gore, were he running, could challenge her on those grounds, and so could Wesley Clark. Clearly Gore, with his high public profile and standing in the Party, would be a top contender the instant he entered the race, a feat Wes Clark could not instantly replicate. But the untapped support Clark has to draw on is only matched or exceeded by Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Back in December when most activists thought Clark would run, he was in a statistical tie for popularity in Kos polls with Edwards and Obama. They scored 26% support and Clark had 24%, despite only getting a tenth of the media attention that Edwards and Obama were then receiving. Wes Clark would rise above the remainder of the field upon entry, establishing himself as the designated dark horse in the race. And he would build from there, especially if it became clearer that Al Gore is not going to run. At some point this fall, if Gore doesn’t surprise me and enter before then; folks will know it’s not going to happen. By November the way will clear for Clark to move up again, tapping into support that till then held out for Gore. That leaves him plenty of time. Clark’s rise to the top tier might be aided by a reexamination of a current front tier candidate who is underperforming relative to Clinton. If Wes Clark can stand up to Hillary Clinton on a debate stage and out expert her on the issues, increasingly he'll be looked at as the only progressive candidate who can stop her from winning. Late breaking momentum is usually what has won primary races in the past. Most candidates who were front runners at this stage in the race went on to lose, often badly. Above I sketched a path that could take Wes Clark to victory in the primaries, even factoring in a late start, even acknowledging that he won't immediately generate the same enthusiasm that Al Gore could entering late. To me it is all entirely plausible, if Wes Clark meets the preconditions he has set to enter the race, and using his own words “that means you've got to have the money and the organization behind you.” One advantage Wes Clark has over the announced Democrats concerning money is simple but significant none the less. Because Wes Clark hasn't set up an exploratory committee, he hasn't tapped out a single donor for their maximum legal contribution to his campaign. Anyone can help Clark’s campaign once it starts, by writing him a check for $2,300. Many donors don't contribute that much over an entire campaign, but thousands max out immediately with their first contribution. Our current candidates have been to that well and can not legally return, but Clark can fill his bucket there. Even so, something is lacking or Clark would be announcing his candidacy now rather than commenting on preconditions. I've argued why it isn’t intrinsically too late for Clark to enter the race for President. My goal now, before it is too late, is to focus attention on why Wes Clark deserves more support if Democrats know what is good for us. Lets start with a few things that should be obvious. Wes Clark got it right about not invading Iraq, he owes no one an apology for his previous position, and getting it right the first time in matters of war and peace is a good thing to seek in a potential President. And Clark has it right on Iran too, though hopefully our nation will wake up in time this time. Unlike our current candidates other than Bill Richardson, Wes Clark doesn't use a career in Congress as a launching pad for his campaign. Our track record is poor with those who have. With the exception of Chris Dodd, who enlisted in the Army National Guard and served in the Army Reserves, none of our candidates are veterans and only Wes Clark served active duty in a war zone. Does a Democrat have to have been a veteran in order to win the White House? Obviously no, but in today’s political enviroment, when Republicans shamelessly invoke calls to “support our troops”, it offers us an advantage if our candidate has been one. But of course Wes Clark did more than just serve his country on active duty; he served 34 years helping rebuild our Army after the Viet Nam War, rising to the rank of 4 Star General and N.A.T O. Supreme Commander. Wes Clark offers the Democratic Party National Security credentials in a candidate we never dreamed of having (prior to his 2004 run anyway) during the life time of almost anyone reading this diary. before 2004, you have to go back to the early 1970’s to find a time in American history where national security credentials were as important to the qualifications of a President as they are today. Just listen to Republican rumblings. Already Rudi Guiliani is calling Democrats “the nanny party”. A long and poorly distinguished line of Republican chicken hawks will not end with Bush and Cheney as candidates, new recruits stand ready to foist their hypocricy on America. “But this has already been tried”, Wes Clark’s detractors tend to say. “Clark ran as the Democrat’s General back in 2004, and he lost. It is time to turn that page.” To which I say, exactly. Why is it so few seem willing to acknowledge that while Wes Clark did remarkably well as a rank novice politician back in 2004, he is no longer the same candidate that he was back then, since then Clark has grown greatly in his new calling for America; perhaps it is Clark’s detractors who are stuck on an old page. Maybe Party rain makers would do well to tune in closer to our netroots. We have the track record for recognizing the force of the future breaking. We have the track record of knowing when it’s time to fight. We knew that the corporate relief bankruptcy bills that some of our Senators now apologize for approving were middle class poison, at the time. We knew that the IWR was a blank check for Bush to attack Iraq, at the time. Unlike Senator Schumer, we knew, at the time, that Democrats needed to filibuster Judge Alito when George Bush nominated him for the Supreme Court. It didn’t take us years to figure that out. It doesn’t take us years to see the obvious. There is no Democrat today more able than Wes Clark at coming back at Republicans stronger than they can attack him in the first place, and he usually manages to do it with a winning smile. Ask the netroots, we cheer him on in our blogs every time he does. Evaluating Wes Clark’s potential as a candidate today solely from his first few months as a politician in 2003, makes as much sense as deciding how fluently someone will later speak Spanish after their first lesson Even if some rain makers in the Democratic Party won’t acknowledge it, we saw how Wes Clark covered Kerry’s back in 2004, and how he fought for our Congressional candidates in districts big and small to help Democrats retake Congress in 2006. We see what Clark is capable of when he gets sufficient support because we are the ones who have given that support. And we know how extraordinary a gift it is to have a candidate, who served 34 years in the military, capable of winning the deep loyalty of anti-war progressives and security dads alike. Wes Clark not only served our Party well these last four years, he's been a critical agent of change within it, helping engineer a sea shift of support that can lead to solid Democratic majorities for a generation to come. Long before the so called revolt of the Generals against Donald Rumsfeld; there was General Clark in 2003, calling for Rumsfeld to be fired. And when Republicans once again played their wedge politics card, seeking to align themselves with the men and women in uniform whose lives in reality they showed little true regard for, there was General Clark traveling around the nation from college campuses to Foreign legion halls proclaiming that “We Democrats love the men and women serving in uniform”, all the while exposing how Republicans took the lives of those men and women for granted; all the while undermining the legitimacy of the war that the same Republicans sent our troops off to fight and die in, to get maimed in without sufficient body armor, only to be left to rot inside under funded veteran hospitals upon their return home, if they returned at all. When suddenly Republican candidates for Congress woke up to see hard hitting ads exposing their real lack of support for our troops on their TV, with the Iraq and Afghanistan vets of VoteOrg.com calling them out to their faces to the voters of their districts, it was Wes Clark’s hand behind the scenes that helped VoteVets.org pull that off. Before we had Democrats like James Webb, an ex Republican Navy man, run for the U.S. Senate after winning a primary against a Party backed opponent with netroots support, Wes Clark came first, breaking down the knee jerk resistance some liberals felt for supporting a career military man who once supported Reagan. Clark was Webb’s earliest major supporter in Virginia, back when that support was hard to come by. And before former Navy Commander Eric Massa became a certified kossack, and started blogging on Daily Kos each week, calling out Bill O’Reilly to the strong cheers of fellow Kos members, he was Wes Clark’s top aid in the Balkans. It was Wes Clark who first backed Eric Massa, helping him enter politics. Did it help Democrats win seats in conservative districts in 2006, to have Wes Clark as a commentator on the most widely viewed news network in their neck of the woods, covering their backs, taking the worse that FOX could throw at him and besting them every time? You know it did, and Clark knew exactly what he was doing there and why. Would it help our chances in 2008 to have a Democratic candidate for President who has already defined himself positively to millions of FOX viewers? You tell me. Wes Clark always has the courage of his convictions and he stands out with Democrats like Webb and Massa for being fearless in that regard. It's a quality Americans respond to when they find it. It’s straight talking, it’s basic respect for Democracy, it's leadership, and it’s a commitment to an ideal larger than oneself. Anyone who knows Wes Clark knows he isn’t in this for himself, and that's a quality Americans respond to when they find it also. Are all these qualities unique to Wes Clark? Of course not, there are many fine Democrats, some of them are already running for President. But a Clark candidacy now brings our Party unique opportunities that we should think long and hard on before throwing them away without finding out what Wes Clark can do for us. General Clark will address Yearly Kos in a keynote address Friday morning. Let’s see who is listening. It won’t only be lowly bloggers like me present in that room. There's a theory about the six degrees of separation Starting with those who fill that room on Friday we may not need to go half that distance, a third might suffice. Look around at that crowd Friday if you are fortunate enough to be there, or watching from an internet hook up. More than one person present will know more than one person present, who has it within his or her means to help Wes Clark reach his preconditions to run for President. If you are not one of them you might know someone who is. That’s the third degree of separation. reaching the right person in that chain could alter the course of this Presidential race. Think about that while you watch Wes Clark speak on Friday. ]]> tag:www.aleftturnforclark.com,2007://16.1031 2007-07-23T13:43:48Z 2007-07-24T04:35:28Z

For readers of tea leaves, the omens have not been favorable lately for a 2008 Gore Presidential run. For one thing, the man himself still sounds decidedly less than enthusiastic about the prospect, and there are those supposed semi-insider leaks...

Tom Rinaldo http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/ For readers of tea leaves, the omens have not been favorable lately for a 2008 Gore Presidential run. For one thing, the man himself still sounds decidedly less than enthusiastic about the prospect, and there are those supposed semi-insider leaks that say Gore spoke more positively in private about the prospect two months ago than he has of late. Jimmy Carter seems convinced that Gore won’t run despite having personally urged Al to throw his hat into the ring. Now there is a report quoting his daughter Kristen saying at a book signing for her second novel that; “He's really not going to get in the race.” We have come to the near end of a dramatic run of events that have deservedly kept Al Gore’s name (and his mission) centered in the public eye. Starting with the release of “An Inconvenient Truth”, furthered by a campaign that organized many hundreds of simultaneous nation wide viewing parties, followed by “An Inconvenient Truth” winning the Academy Award for Best Documentary, Al Gore has been on a deeply meaningful and productive roll. Al Gore then published a high profile political book offering his unvarnished take on what is wrong with America; The Assault on Reason, which led to high profile book promotion opportunities both in the media and in person. Most recently Al Gore produced and hosted the world wide series of concerts, “Live Earth”, which highlighted the global environmental crisis facing all of us, which also spawned hundreds of viewing parties all across the nation. Finally, the Draft Gore movement capped all of this off with the delivery of 100,000 signatures on a petition to Al Gore, urging him to run for President. The buildup has reached a climax, the stage is set, but Al Gore isn’t seen standing in the wings, adjusting his bow tie, waiting for the curtains to open on a spot lit podium with a microphone pre- adjusted to his height. There are no clues leaking regarding an important pending announcement concerning Al Gore’s political plans, though now is the time when I would expect to start seeing them. Instead the few clues scattered like wayward bread crumbs tend to be discouraging. Does this prove that Al Gore won’t run in the primaries as a Democratic candidate for President? Obviously it does not. Even if Al Gore’s current thinking leads him away from that choice, that could still change in time for him to make a run of it. Over the late spring and into summer, national polls have been tracking Al Gore’s support among Democrats for a Presidential run. The results seem to indicate that Gore is clearly competitive, but they don’t show Al Gore leaping easily to the front of the pack. And after an initial pattern of rapidly rising polling numbers, more recently Gore’s support seems to be stabilizing, somewhere in the thick of the upper tier of candidates. To me that indicates that the Democratic nomination will not be handed to Al Gore on a silver platter, he will have to fight for it. If Gore wants to fight for it, I think that he can win. But does he want to fight for it, at this stage in his career, given the crucial mission Al Gore already has underway, one that frequently transcends partisan politics? Only he can answer that question. As those who know me already already know about me, I remain a strong supporter of Wes Clark for President, though obviously it is far from certain that he will run in 2008 either. People differ on how far from certain a Clark candidacy is. On one end of the spectrum some believe the word remote doesn’t begin to describe how likely the chances are Wes Clark will still announce for President. Others feel the stage is now set for Clark to enter the race, and that the moment is rapidly approaching for Wes Clark to make his final decision. Time will tell soon enough. To me it has long been obvious that if Al Gore wanted into this race the space for him to enter it has clearly been reserved. Al Gore earned every one of the hundred thousand signatures on the Draft Gore petitions that recently got turned in. To be blunt, there hasn’t really been room for more than one shadow candidate to haunt the current Democratic field, and given Al Gore’s deserved current high profile, it is he who casts the longest shadow. So it is natural that Gore’s name immediately comes up whenever speculation about another Democrat entering the race breaks out. Personally I would be glad to support Al Gore for President in 2008. I think Gore would make both a great candidate and great President. But what if he really doesn’t run? For those who have read my Diaries in the past, you know I have frequently promoted Wes Clark for President, but have you noticed that I’ve refrained a little from doing so lately? My reasons are actually explained above. I felt the opening to run was Al Gore’s to seize now if he wanted it, and I have been holding back, waiting for his thinking on that choice to become a little clearer. Up until now I felt confident there was ample time for events to play out as they may, time enough for Wes Clark still to declare if Al Gore decided not to. Now however, that time is growing shorter. How much shorter is another matter open to debate, but I suggest that the Labor Day weekend is the essential end point for Clark to clearly signal, at least informally, that he intends to be a candidate for President in 2008. Al Gore has the option to enter the Presidential race later, whether or not Wes Clark also declares; Gore is the man who won the popular vote in 2000, and by now most Americans know he is the man who should have been sitting in the White House for the last seven years. Wes Clark however, can’t wait much longer. The title of this Diary invokes Gore, Clark, and the 2008 election, but also Kos, so maybe it’s time for me to explain why I included Kos. I think the Yearly Kos Convention that is about to happen is a crucial moment for Wes Clark and any chance that he will run for President in 2008. Most if not all readers of this Diary know that Wes Clark will deliver the Keynote address to Yearly Kos on Friday morning, the first full day of activist business there. No I don’t expect Wes Clark to then make his presidential plans known one way or the other, but it will be a significant moment regardless. During that weekend in Chicago, dozens of the most influential bloggers in America will gather together, listen to, and meet in person most, if not all, of the Democrats actually running for President. They will be joined there by many hundreds more committed political grassroots activists drawn from every movement and all corners of our nation. The impression of Wes Clark that Yearly Kos attendees leave Chicago with may well factor into Clark’s ultimate decision. For the first time since the DNC Winter meeting, Wes Clark will share the same political spotlight with the Democratic men and woman who are already running for President. Will you be attending yearly Kos in Chicago? If not, will you be one of many thousands more who tune into what takes place there through the internet from afar? If so I ask one thing of you, especially if you have not already committed to one Democratic candidate, body heart and soul. Focus closely on what Wes Clark has to say at Yearly Kos, focus closely on how Wes Clark is received by fellow Democratic activists at Yearly Kos. Here is why I ask. If there is one moment in time when some words of encouragement to Clark from us, some expression of appreciation to him for the service he has given and continues to give to America, might in some small way influence Wes Clark’s final decision, it will be in the weeks immediately following Yearly Kos. I address this especially to those of you who still hope Al Gore will yet enter the race for President. Gore very well may, but he very well may not also. It is accurate to say that Al Gore has not yet locked the door and thrown away the key to a possible 2008 run for President. But it is accurate to say that Wes Clark has intentionally left that same door wide open. Of the two men, Al Gore and Wes Clark, Clark is now the one more likely to actually run. Some Democrats are quite content with the current field of Presidential candidates. Others are not. Clearly those of us still urging either Al Gore and/or Wes Clark to enter the race fall into the latter category. I believe we do so for many of the same reasons. I view both Al Gore and Wes Clark as seasoned, visionary leaders and statesmen. I view both men as true patriots willing to say what must be said, and do what must be done, to bring about core essential changes to the course America is now on at the expense of their own careers if need be, and that is the type leadership I think America and the world needs today, and that is the type of leadership that can carry the Democratic Party to an historic sweeping electoral victory in 2008. So I would not ask any supporter of Al Gore to turn away from your dream of him becoming our President in 2008. It still may come to pass. Given Al Gore’s standing in the Democratic Party he could enter a crowded field late and still emerge as victor. If Wes Clark enters the race soon that would not kill Al Gore’s chance to enter the race later with a good chance of still winning. But now is the time, for those who are so inclined, to encourage Wes Clark to declare his candidacy for President, if you believe it is important that at least one of these men run in 2008. I honestly now doubt that Al Gore will run. I am more than open to being proved wrong, and I am not convinced that he won’t run. Al Gore still has ample time to decide. Wes Clark does not, and in his own words he “thinks about it every day”. No doubt Wes Clark will be thinking about the decision to run for President in the days that immediately follow Yearly Kos. If you want Wes Clark in the race, now is the time to let him know. If you are not yet sure, now is the time to pause and consider Wes Clark seriously, and Yearly Kos is as good a place to do so as any you can find. After Clark delivers his speech to Yearly Kos my plan is to start a Diary over at the blogging area of Wes Clark's own web site; Clark Community Network. That Diary will be very short, so short in fact that I can already tell you what it will say. It will ask "Why do you want Wes Clark to run for President?" I hope to see many of you over there then. tag:www.aleftturnforclark.com,2007://16.1027 2007-07-15T23:10:25Z 2007-07-16T02:25:36Z

Repeatedly, Republicans in the U.S. Senate have shown both their willingness and their ability to muster the 40+ plus votes needed to sustain a filibuster by denying a motion for cloture. As a result several crucial Democratic legislative initiatives, which...

Tom Rinaldo http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/ Repeatedly, Republicans in the U.S. Senate have shown both their willingness and their ability to muster the 40+ plus votes needed to sustain a filibuster by denying a motion for cloture. As a result several crucial Democratic legislative initiatives, which if polls are to be believed all had strong public support, have expired with a whimper not a bang. And each time the Democratic Senate leadership turns to the public with a collective shrug and says; “We tried but they won’t let us”, while public dissatisfaction with a Democratic Congress continues to grow. It must be frustrating for them. Is it their fault that the American people haven’t elected enough Democratic Senators yet to bring legislation to a vote when Republicans refuse to limit debate? No, it’s their fault for refusing to make Republicans either put up, or shut up. Each time the Republicans demonstrate that they have the votes they need to filibuster Democratic legislation to death, Democrats respond with an emphatic “there’s really no need to bother” as they move on to the next item on their legislative agenda. From where I sit it seems like they’re all just going through the motions. Democrats propose important legislation which they are confident reflects the will of the people, and then Republicans tap them on the shoulder and say “you don’t have 60 votes”. Democrats respond;”we can’t argue with your math”. The legislation dies, dueling Press Releases get released to the press, and they all move on to repeating the exact same charade with the next important piece of Democratic legislation. It seems like a “gentleman’s agreement” prevails in the Senate that says in unspoken words, “none of us are up for the stress of a real filibuster anymore, so let’s have cloture votes instead, and if Republicans can muster 40 votes we’ll consider that a substitute for a successful filibuster and save all of us a lot of unnecessary trouble.” Well what’s wrong with that, some might ask? If you know you will lose anyway, why not say uncle early and save yourself an unnecessary fight? I suppose it’s a fair question. When I begin to formulate an answer my mind fixes on an image from many years ago. If you allow me a short digression, I think you will understand why. It was around 1980 and I was a member of an environmental activist organization that was staging a major protest against a large corporation which we believed was putting both the environment and public health in jeopardy through their actions. The protest campaign was approaching a climax and a decision had been made to attempt to shut down their corporate headquarters for one day through a non violent civil disobedience blockade of all the entrances to their building. Our organization however faced a dilemma. Our members adhered to a very strict code of non violent conduct which prohibited any activity that might endanger either persons or property. Therefore we ruled out any behavior that would truly make an entrance impassible in case of, heaven forbid, a fire or some medical emergency. So putting Super Glue in locks, chaining of doors, anything like that was simply never an option. Ideally we would have loved to have hundreds and hundreds of protesters willing to non violently block each of the entrances with our bodies, prepared to be arrested without resistance for our beliefs should police be called upon to remove us. We would have loved to position new waves of protesters to stand by and replace us at the doors as each prior batch got carted off to jail. There was just one small problem with that plan; we didn’t have enough people to pull it off. Turns out we couldn’t muster several hundred protesters willing and/or able to make that commitment at that moment in time; the most we could come up with was several dozen. So we had to find some face saving way to fake it. The idea we came up with was pretty feeble, but it still seemed better than nothing. We accumulated a number of large collapsed cardboard boxes and a few roles of tape, and took them with us to the corporate headquarters to reassemble there. After arriving our largest group of protesters proceeded to the main entrance and peacefully blocked the doors there, sort of as originally planned, while a few of us headed off toward secondary exits, each carrying a large empty cardboard box in our arms which we planned to pile up by the doors. Not much of a real hindrance true, but we figured at least they would make a momentary, visually interesting symbolic barrier if nothing else. Turns out the corporation in question feared publicity more than a minor one day disruption of their activities, so they essentially ignored us at their main entrance and directed employees to use side entrances instead. But the strangest thing happened. As the first of our box carriers approached the first side entrance, a company employee quickly shut and locked that entrance from inside, I assume to keep us and our menacing empty boxes safely outside. By the time we made it to the third and final alternate entrance, it was all any of us could do to keep a straight face, because by then it was apparent that all it took to get this corporation to barricade their own entrance for us was the approach of a single straggly protester carrying an empty cardboard box. Wham! Instant lock down. We never got as far as actually leaving any boxes at the corporation’s door steps, since they effectively closed off their own entrances for us at the mere sight of one. As a result the company never got to see that the threat we bore them was completely hollow. After a couple of hours of successfully playing this game we decided to conclude the protest while we were still ahead, and before anyone actually called our bluff. And we happily went home feeling mission accomplished; with little muss, no fuss, and no jail. So now when I see Democrats in the Senate pull together a clear majority of Senators behind important legislation that they are confident that the American people strongly support, only to discover a minority of Republicans waving a failed cloture vote in their faces to conjure up the menacing threat of a certain endless filibuster, this is what I think of. I visualize Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell marching toward the Senate Democratic Caucus holding a large, empty cardboard box while Democrats scramble to shut down their own initiative in order to avoid it. Why should Democrats fear an actual Filibuster more than the Republicans? If the Democratic leadership puts the Senate into 24 hour session, it is Republicans who have to make fools of themselves reading from cookbooks in the middle of the night. Forcing the Republicans to filibuster to stop Democratic legislation each time Democrats can’t swing 40 votes to end normal debate on a measure would, I concede, be overly extreme and likely to backfire against them. Never forcing Senate Republicans to follow through on their implied willingness to filibuster critical legislation, I believe, is just as extreme a misuse of majority power. It is a veiled surrender to the extortion of minority intimidation. There is an important positive message sent when people show a willingness to stand up and fight for something they truly believe in, that to an extent is independent from concerns about the most likely ultimate outcome of that fight. Republicans for the moment are getting a free ride to send that message every time they defeat a motion for cloture on debate of a measure that has the clear support of a majority of the Senate. Republicans assert that they care so passionately about preventing some harm to our Republic that they will filibuster if need be to stop it, and Democrats have still not called that bluff. How many rounds of “we tried but they won’t let us” do you figure it takes before the public starts to hold a Democratic Congress in low regard? Think maybe it’s already gotten to that point? Might the public start to wonder, are Democrats trying hard enough? Sometimes, not every time but sometimes, begging off from an important fight because it appears unlikely it can be won comes at a higher cost than literal defeat. Sometimes the message is more important than the outcome. All out no holds barred 24/7 filibusters are certainly moments of high political drama, but there are times that are ripe for such high drama, and we are now living in such a time. It’s true that no one asked for my advice, but if you’ve read this far already I figure you probably won’t object strenuously if I give it. I urge Senate Democrats to go back to wherever it is that they dropped the Webb-Hagel Readiness Amendment after it fell four votes short of the 60 they needed to make it filibuster proof. I suggest that they pick it up and dust it off, maybe give it a few minor cosmetic changes so that they can technically call it “revised”, and then resubmit it to the Senate for renewed consideration. And I suggest they then call the Republican bluff to filibuster against the Webb-Hagel Readiness Amendment if a vote for cloture can not be obtained through less strenuous means. I guarantee this is one fight that the Republican Party does not want to wage in the spotlight of a real filibuster. They do not want to explain, at filibuster length, how refusing to guarantee our brave and patriotic active duty troops as much time at home following deployment to a war zone as they actually spent in that war zone, before they get shipped back into a war zone again is actually “supporting our troops”. The time has come for Republicans to put up. Or shut up. Senator Reid, hold your ground if Mitch McDonnell comes marching toward you holding a large cardboard box. This time accept what he has to offer, and call the Senate into 24 hour session, for the purpose of providing relief and a small measure of fairness to America’s brave men and women, who daily risk their lives for our freedom and security. Republicans have much more to fear from staging that filibuster than Democrats do. It would ratchet up the heat on all of their chicken hawk hypocrisy, and show America who really supports our troops, if you called that Republican bluff. It’s their ultimate nightmare. Harry, give them Hell. tag:www.aleftturnforclark.com,2007://16.1020 2007-07-04T16:44:39Z 2007-07-04T16:48:04Z

Some observers perceive a double standard in how the Republican Party of today trumpets the righteousness of President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence compared to their prior zeal for impeaching Bill Clinton when he was President. Obviously they are...

Tom Rinaldo http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/ Some observers perceive a double standard in how the Republican Party of today trumpets the righteousness of President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence compared to their prior zeal for impeaching Bill Clinton when he was President. Obviously they are missing the point Bill Clinton was a hard working life long public servant who had never been in trouble with the law before the Republicans in Congress impeached him for lying under oath. There was no underlying crime involved, just a lapse in personal morality for which no one was ever charged. But Clinton lying under oath then, in the eyes of the Republican Party, was reason enough to bring down a government and nullify a national election in which the voters of our nation chose Bill Clinton as their President. “Sorry voters”, said the Republicans, “but no one is above the law; Bill Clinton lied under oath so he can’t remain your President. We must spend hundreds of millions of dollars and months of Congress’s time seeking Clinton’s removal from office, because lying under oath must have consequences. This isn’t about a blow job; it’s about the rule of law.” Now, with Scooter Libby spared from spending a single night sleeping in a jail cell, it’s important to realize that this isn’t about intentionally taking America into war under false pretences. Nor is it about illegally outing a C.I.A. agent out of partisan political vindictiveness, because no charges on that were ever brought. No, the commutation of Libby’s prison sentence is about mercy for a hard working life long public servant who had never been in trouble with the law before, and it is about the pursuit of justice, because making Scooter Libby spend as many hours in jail for his conviction on obstruction of justice, as Paris Hilton did for evading court imposed restrictions on her driving, would have been a miscarriage of justice, verging on cruel and unusual punishment for a man who was only following the wishes of his President when he committed his crime. Fortunately for Scooter Libby, he served an activist President who felt free to disregard legally established sentencing guidelines, and empowered to overrule a strict interpretationist judge and jury to substitute instead his own enlightened understanding of justice for the rote rule of law that our judicial system slavishly attempts to impose equally on all Americans. Fortunately for Scooter Libby, George W. Bush is in the mainstream of today’s Republican Party, which rejects a firm moral compass with rigid definitions of right and wrong. Instead the modern G.O.P. enthusiastically embraces relativism, which is what allowed them to rise up against our Commander in Chief during America’s war in Kosovo, while Bill Clinton was President, without forfeiting their freedom to condemn dissent against our current Commander in Chief, George W. Bush, as unpatriotic and verging on treasonous during this time of war inside Iraq. Rejecting the straight jacket of strict constructionism, the free thinkers of today’s Republican Party understand that our Constitution is a living Constitution. They know that the founders of this great nation could not possibly have anticipated the circumstances that prevail in the 21st century back when they drafted the Bill of Rights, with it’s simplistic prohibitions against government surveillance on citizens without due process and court supervision. Though the founding fathers may have been familiar with the Barbary pirates, modern Republicans assert, how could they ever have foreseen the rise of Al Qaeda? The relativistic Republican Party of today understands that consistency of values in the pursuit of power is not a virtue, and blatant hypocrisy in the defense of a goal is not a vice. When entrenched Democratic politicians ruled Congress, term limits were heralded as an essential remedy to restore good government. Once Republicans seized Congress term limits were a hindrance to the long term exercise of power by a Party which believes, in its heart of hearts, that unlike Democrats they actually know what is best for our nation. This modern G.O.P. can effortlessly draw distinctions between highly irresponsible and dangerous Democratic budget deficits, and enlightened beneficial Republican budget deficits. They appreciate the value of an appropriate double standard. Examples of flexible thinking in today’s Republican Party are almost too numerous to mention. Freed from the tether of a firm ideological anchor, Republicans today are able to pursue common sense wherever their professed faith takes them. States Rights provides a valuable check on excessive Federal Power, but concentrated Federal Power is the most effective weapon available to suppress local immorality, such as State sanctioned gay and lesbian marriages. The relativistic Republican Party of today believes the best way to prevent abuses of power is to see to it that power is always concentrated in the right hands, not in ideologically pre-determined “right places”, using whatever legal means necessary to do so. For Law, today’s relativistic Republican Party also understands, exists to restrain the bad, not to hobble the good. Thus it makes no more sense to apply the rule of law equally to all citizens than it would to grant police and suspected criminals similar legal rights. And clearly George Bush, as the ideal representative of the modern Republican Party, is a President who sees that it makes no more sense to send a good public servant like Scooter Libby to jail, because of the blind mechanical workings of some impartial legal system, than it would to release a bad potential terrorist from Gitmo, because of the blind mechanical workings of some impartial legal system. Blind Justice? Not good enough. Blind justice is incapable of seeing what the G.O.P. senses must be done. tag:www.aleftturnforclark.com,2007://16.1013 2007-06-22T16:48:44Z 2007-06-23T18:39:25Z

Subtitle: When Pushers Sell You a First Hit Cheap – Worst Case Scenario. The Neocons are mobilizing again, this time pushing hard for an American strike on Iran. Few any longer doubt their remarkably tenacious resolve to seek further war,...

Tom Rinaldo http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/ Subtitle: When Pushers Sell You a First Hit Cheap – Worst Case Scenario. The Neocons are mobilizing again, this time pushing hard for an American strike on Iran. Few any longer doubt their remarkably tenacious resolve to seek further war, but many seem to doubt that they can sell that program once again, given the deteriorating state of their currently sponsored debacle in Iraq. I was blogging recently on another site where someone threw out the question, “Where would they find the money to pay for another war?” which led me on a journey that brought me to this Blog. And let me be upfront about it; I decided to throw moderation to the wind with this one. This time my worst fears are given free reign. Before giving my bleak answer to the question posed above, prior to detailing the admittedly nightmare scenario it derives from, let me first tell you where I’m coming from. I think neocon true believers view the world as a giant version of the board game RISK. In that game one empire triumphs, while all else lose. They believe a war larger than the one we momentarily are confined to, one fought to secure strategic Middle Eastern oil reserves which America “needs” for our future, is inevitable. And by triggering that war sooner rather than later, the cost to win it, by their accounting, will be lower than the tab putting it off would add up to. But the American public is reluctant; we have seen too much war already, and few are willing to now pay the price that an expanded war entails. So what is a good Neocon to do? How about the following: http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25086/pub_detail.asp For those who think the picture I paint above is too extreme to take seriously, I ask you this. How much are you willing to bet? What are you willing to lose later if you are wrong, in return for holding onto your calm certainty now that it's not going to happen? What odds does it take to justify your complacency, five to one against an American (or Israel with full American support) attack on Iran? Perhaps you find the odds closer to ten to one against it, if so does that leave you secure enough about the future to feel no need for concern now? Or maybe you think I'm a whacko alarmist, me and Wes Clark and Sy Hersh and Noam Chomsky and a bunch of other crazies just like them. If the odds really are 100 to one against this pending war, is that reassuring enough to return to quarrelling over primary candidates and forget all this fretting over preventing a war with Iran? One chance in a hundred is the same odds cited for a flood rising to the so called century mark in any given year. With a big storm already raging, and with numerous dark clouds gathering by the second on the near horizon, how comfortable are you going to sleep on the flood plain of that once in a century storm? The 20the Century saw two World Wars. The 21st century has none to show for itself so far, but it's still fairly early. One isn't really over due yet, so why should anyone think we might be approaching the brink of one now? And no one listens to neocons anymore, do they? The name for the following site I believe is self explanatory: StopIranWar.com