Dear dear Michael Moore,
I hope you have thought better after your initial statement of enthusiasm for Wes Clark on 12 September, 2003. He is NOT the principled anti-war candidate he was touted as by the media before he announced, and even though his anti-handgun stance was refreshing to hear, and his stands on Democratic issues (pro-abortion, etc.) sound respectable, he is a military man with Republican sensibilities -- (heck, he admitted as much when he said that he would have joined the administration if only Karl Rove had returned his call !) And he voted for Nixon and for REAGAN, two times for each!
He is endorsed and largely funded by the centrist DLC and the DNC -- (who had counselled the Democratic presidential candidates NOT to fault Bush on the war, to just stick to the economy, if you recall the message of Terry McAuliffe back in April) and he is THEIR candidate, they plus Clinton, neo-libs or neo-cons, interested in preserving the status quo.
Michael, it's clear that he has been pushed into the race in order to stop the momentum of Dean whose grass roots campaign has caught on, and if it is successful may threaten their centrist hold on power in the Democratic party and the lobbies and interests they represent.
Also -- Bush is now VULNERABLE like at no other time in his presidency. And with a year to go he can weaken even further because his administration has no exit strategy in Iraq except more of the same, no clue as to how to fix the economy, continuing loss of credibility on a daily basis, and unconcern about the disgusting state of affairs of the country.
So doesn't it follow that ANY CREDIBLE Democratic candidate can, if the trend continues, beat him soundly?
So why should we follow someone who is not a real reform candidate, who does not reflect our perspectives about what is needed to redress the myriad social concerns (even ignored by Clinton and the other Democrats) about what is sorely needed to even start to make amends for the destruction that this administration has caused and is causing at home and abroad?
Did you know that Clark has been involved, as a post-military businessman, in helping companies sell technologies that may threaten the civil liberties and privacy rights of citizens? In a recent profile, the Wall Street Journal reported that "Since retiring from the army in 2000 Gen, Clark has become: chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor startup, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country, and an advisory board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business. After Sept. 11 Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications." (quoted in Counterpunch, 1 Oct 2003)
Heaven knows we needed honest criticism of the Iraq war and the new Pentagon policy of "preemption." Dean is the only candidate who articulated it as soon as it was a stated administration policy back in the summer of 1992 or before. And we also need reform, real reform for increased social services, health insurance, unemployment insurance, environmental initiatives that are benign, different priorities for where our tax money is placed, not neo-conservative Clinton-type "reform," and we need it, have needed it in our country, as you know, from bottom to the top.
That's why I suggest you drop Clark, if you haven't already, and support Dean. (Of course, Kucinich has the really left platform, but he is not going anywhere in the polls, and in debates he is a scold who doesn't have the "credible" image, sorry to say. Oh, and Al Sharpton is the wittiest one, but he hasn't a chance, for various reasons.)
And I know you will be asked when you are on your tour what you now think about Clark -- so please, please don't say you support him because he can beat Bush like no one else could -- because the way Bush is going Howdy Doody could beat him.
And please, do give your attention to Dean's appealing message. And sorry for the long letter. It's not a rant.