In Vietnam, I was hit by four rounds and came home on a stretcher. When others left the army, I stayed in. We lived in 31 countries, had 20 jobs, and joked that we're always on the road - and it wasn't the road to riches.

But it was so fulfilling. For me, there was no greater honor - no way to be nearer to the heart of what mattered in America -- than to be serving and protecting the country.

Excerpt from The Daily Telegraph,
Familiar trail of Democrat hopeful,
October 14, 2003.

Gen Clark's years at Magdalen (Oxford), from 1966 to 1968, were successful. He won a swimming Blue and took a degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics

(...)

At the same time, he was a serving US army officer, freshly graduated from West Point military academy. His friends and comrades were fighting and dying in Vietnam, and he knew he would be joining them. He married his American sweetheart, Gert, in his second year at Magdalen

(...)

Now, in a scarier, more hostile world, Democrats are sorely tempted by the cross-party appeal of a decorated four-star general, who just happens to be a social liberal

(...)

Stew Early, a fellow Rhodes scholar and Gen Clark's oldest Oxford friend, thought a mixture of personal loyalty and ambition drove him. Mr Early argues that party labels do not fit his friend "To the extent that you might have thought he was a Republican, I don't think he identified with the business establishment, or great wealth," he said. "That wasn't where he came from. He wanted to become a great general."

Excerpt from Fox News,
Democratic Candidates Develop Economic Platforms,
October 13, 2003.

In one of his first speeches as a candidate last month, Clark said that it is ineffective to borrow billions of dollars to give to millionaires ... I will reduce the tax cuts Mr. Bush gave the richest households -- those making more than $200,000 a year.

Clark said he would use the additional revenue to pay for homeland security, aid bankrupt state and local governments and create jobs.

Excerpt from NAACP Presidential Roundtable,
General dominates discussion,
October 13, 2003.

Clark said Bush's tax cuts have made minority communities poorer, furthering their already unstable economic situation. "We're hemorrhaging jobs out there," he said. "We need to have an active job creation process in America."

"I would go to the U.N. and say my predecessor was wrong," said Clark, who took a lambasting from the other Democratic candidates in Phoenix for his wavering stance on Iraq.

"I'm willing to concede control," he said. "It's time to protect the American people from the real danger, and that's the people who ran into the World Trade Center."

But there was one aspect of the Iraq rebuilding process the three candidates in the debate agreed on: the Bush administration's request for $87 billion in additional rebuilding funds.

"The $87 billion should not, cannot, will not be approved before the American public knows what it's going toward," Clark said.

Excerpt from Business Week,
Marching Down the Middle,
October 13, 2003.

ROLL BACK THE TAX CUTS. Unlike Presidential hopefuls Dean and Representative Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who would repeal all of Bush's tax cuts, Clark would cut only those tax breaks for families making $200,000 a year or more. Ending those breaks would generate about $50 billion a year in 2004 and 2005 and $900 billion through 2013.

The plan is drawing fire from Republicans, who say Clark will boost taxes on small business. But the rollback would give Clark the money to accomplish several other goals, including beefing up homeland security, paying for a health-care initiative and other domestic spending, and reducing the deficit.

IT'S STILL THE ECONOMY, STUPID. Top on Clark's list is an economic stimulus plan. Clark would use $100 billion over the first two years, including $40 billion to boost investment in homeland security and infrastructure such as roads and hospitals. A further $40 billion would help hard-pressed states in education and health care; and $20 billion in tax breaks would encourage companies to purchase new equipment, hire workers, and keep manufacturing jobs in the U.S. But $50 billion a year is not much money in a nearly $11 trillion economy. And Clark would simply replace Bush's mostly supply-side tax cuts with an equal amount of demand-side spending.

ATTACK THE DEFICIT. Clark would use some revenues generated by his upper-bracket tax hike to fund a still-evolving health-care plan and other initiatives. The rest -- maybe $500 billion -- would go for deficit reduction. But even that would trim cumulative deficits by just 10% over the next decade, according to private estimates. And it is unlikely that candidate Clark will roll out a specific plan for long-term fiscal balance. Such a proposal would require even bigger tax hikes, as well as sharp cuts in popular programs such as Medicare -- issues that candidates are loath to tackle.

KEEP ON TRADIN'. Clark is a Clintonesque free-trader who backs existing accords such as NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. But he would insist that new agreements satisfy international environmental and labor standards, and he opposes fixed exchange rates in countries such as China -- a policy that would boost U.S. exporters.

Excerpt from Senator Harkin's Hear it from the Heartland forum,
Democrat Clark, in Iowa, Calls for New U.S. Vision,
October 6, 2003.

Clark said Bush's economic policies were "heartless, reckless and wrong" and touted his $100 billion economic plan, which would repeal Bush's tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 a year and put the money into homeland security, relief for state governments and business tax incentives.

Clark said he favored improvements in the North American Free Trade Agreement and said he would not approve any new trade agreement that did not require U.S. partners to meet at least international labor and environmental standards.

"There is a smarter and a better way to do it than what emerged in the 1990s with NAFTA," he said of U.S. trade agreements, saying the nation cannot open markets "willy nilly" without facing more job losses.

Excerpt from Arkansas Gazette,
Clark lets positions be known,
October 6, 2003.

Ordinary Americans" need to receive a greater share of the nation's economic prosperity. "It is ordinary men and women who have made the wealth of this country, and they deserve more of the benefit of it," he said.

He added: "We're going to look at the tax code. We're going to look at other things."

Clark has already called for taking back tax cuts that those making more than $200,000 a year have received since President Bush took office in 2001 and using the money saved — $100 billion over two years — to fund a variety of job-creation initiatives, including projects related to homeland security.

Excerpt from Meet the Press interview,
October 5, 2003.

Taxes are something that you want to have as little of as possible, but you need as much revenue as necessary to meet people's needs for services."

Excerpt from Times Record News,
Midwestern University TX Speech,
September 29, 2003.

Clark is a Clintonesque free-trader who backs existing accords such as NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. But he would insist that new agreements satisfy international environmental and labor standards, and he opposes fixed exchange rates in countries such as China -- a policy that would boost U.S. exporters.

Others — including Gen. Clark, Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, John Edwards of North Carolina, and Bob Graham of Florida — said only tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be reversed. They said full repeal would increase the tax bills of already-struggling working families.

Gen. Clark said he believes in free trade but said the country needs to make sure it is fair to American workers. The former NATO commander said he is still developing his anti-deficit and health care plans.

First: The Homeland and Economic Security Fund would invest $40 billion over two years to directly fund jobs that immediately improve our security. The Bush Administration has shortchanged vital areas of homeland security. The Council on Foreign Relations released a bipartisan study this summer that said that the nation is dramatically underfunding efforts to prepare police, fire and ambulance personnel for terrorist attacks. This fund would improve our defenses against terrorist attack by paying to train more firefighters and police officers, hire more Coast Guard, customs Service, and law enforcement personnel. The fund would also pay for construction projects to safeguard bridges, ports and tunnels; and fund high-tech efforts to develop ways to detect biological and chemical weapons and materials.

Second: Another $40 billion will go to the State and Local Tax Rebate Fund. Mr. Bush's tax cuts have had a brutal effect on state governments. In some states, their tax code is linked directly to the federal tax code, so a tax cut at the federal level translates into automatic tax cuts at the state level. But the states, unlike the federal government, must balance their budgets - so the Bush tax cuts force state budget cuts in areas such as education and health - even in prisons. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has concluded that state budget cuts could push nearly 2 million people off Medicaid - denying poor mothers the chance to take a sick baby to the doctor.

My plan will give $20 billion to states to help keep tuition increases down and help state and local government train workers for new jobs. Another ten billion will go to states to help them meet the increasing cost of health care. The final ten billion will help states fund important jobs in law enforcement, corrections and social services.

Finally, my plan will set aside $20 billion over two years for Tax Incentives for Job Creation. Businesses are not hiring new employees even though the economy is growing, partly because the growth is weak and businesses aren't sure it will last. I'm proposing a new job creation tax credit that will reduce the cost for a business to hire a new employee. The plan will offer up to $5,000 tax credit for each additional full-time employee any business hires in 2004 and 2005. The plan will also encourage small and medium-sized businesses to invest in new equipment by allowing these firms to write-off up to $150,000 in investments over the next two years.

If any businesses are thinking of buying major new equipment over the next several years, this tax change will encourage them to do it now, and create the stimulus when the economy most needs it. As President, I will also order an immediate review to determine whether any tax and spending provisions provide manufacturing firms an incentive to move jobs overseas. No tax incentives offered by the government of the United States should harm the workers of the United States. At the same time, we will review trade agreements to make sure our trading partners have opened their markets to our goods. We will insist that China should play by international norms and not set its currency at artificially low levels that give their exports unfair advantage, and we will reverse the cuts Mr. Bush has made to the Manufacturing Extension partnership - a project that is shown to help firms increase or retain jobs.

(...)

Again, this $100 billion, two-year Job Creation Plan will not increase the deficit. It simply moves $100 billion from tax cuts for households making more than $200,000 a year and directs it to job creating funds that will help middle-income and working class families.

I'm promoting a New American Patriotism - because it is vital to the life and health of this country that we criticize our leaders fairly - but freely. Some ask: How can you criticize the President at a time of war? I answer: "How can you not?" Eighteen months ago, Mr. Bush said in his State of the Union Address: "My economic security plan can be summed up in one word: "jobs." We can now sum it up in one word: "failure." We cannot afford failure. We can't be forced to accept failure just because we're at war. In fact, we cannot tolerate failure precisely because we are at war.

I am not making a partisan comment. The chance to earn a living is not a partisan issue. Yet when we point out the facts, they will call us unpatriotic; or they will call us left-wing liberals - even though I have been non-partisan my whole professional life. I don't oppose the President's policies because they are Republican policies. I oppose them because they don't work. If they worked, I wouldn't be here. If he admitted they didn't work and changed them, I wouldn't be here.

Clark vows to "hold the present administration accountable."

"For the first time since Herbert Hoover's presidency, a president's economic policy has cost us more jobs than our economy has had the energy to create," he said. "For the first time since the 1960s and early '70s, we have more than 100,000 troops abroad, and, once again, at home Americans are worried about their civil liberties. And for the first time since the Cold War, Americans no longer feel safe in their homes and workplaces."