the "mysterious" draft Clark folks

im sure trace back to Clark and his campaign staff.

The Clark movement is starting to look contrived.

Now if he comes out and details all of his positions and stops playing coy, i might like him as a veep....but im skeptical.

I'm skeptical of Clark even being veep! Can you say "creepy military ties"? I knew that you could ...

i swear to god. Um..yeah.

is the powers that be, choosing our candidates for us..........its very difficult for a legitimate man of the people to make it far in either party, thats a fact.

Ever heard of the DLC ? Thats usually a Faux trick "oh its all you conspiracy theorists" :eyes: I actually heard some weekly standard asscracks claim neo-cons are all just a bunch of "conspiracy theories"

You need verifiable evidence to support your claim outside the realm of extreme circumstantiality. Of course parties conspire and propaganda campaigns are artificial at the top by those that are sprinkling it down on everyone, but to single out Clark for it is absurd.

Unless by contrived youre saying that Clark is a plant or something...

seminar supporters.

I think its highly likely in politics that a "draft movement" is made up of the candidates campaign staff. Wes just doesnt want to run, but all those poor folks just scraping by, are forcing him into it.......:eyes:

Check out the link in my signature line. Since when does a guy being drafted, tell the troops to Crank It Up?

your post is 100% redundant

You strung a few words one after the other in a semi-coherent sentence but it still didn't address squat.

i cant believe your research skills didnt lead you Here.

That way at least one of us will believe you did

HUGE sighs ....

Ugliness ...

Meanness ...

Bitterness ...

ALL unattractive qualities in a human being ....

Can we NOT be nice ? ....

your post is 100% redundant.

We hashed this out last night. Too many clues for us to miss it.

Clark has AEI/neo-con connections ? you had better not be saying that

Do a search on the guy. Jackson Stephens, Axciom, information databases for Homeland Security. If you want more, I'll pull it together for you.

Lots in this thread. Tons more book-marked http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=212190#212501

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thenewbushwhackerbrigade2/message/16549?source=1

Homeland Security: http://www.gcn.com/events/15995.html

Main relation to PNAC is via AEI and alone nothing to get too concerned about I guess but when you start putting the entire puzzle together...

loet's just say that the guy in charge of the "Draft Clark" media
"has also headed media relations for one of the nation’s leading public-policy think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute.

You can check out more bios here. The whole contrived story is as coy and as nauseatingly sweet as the entire show. A Republican and a Democrat co-found this movement where they're going to beg Mr Crank It Up Cesar to run and just happen to have AEI's media guy running the media show and well, just read the first thread I pasted.

http://draftwesleyclark.com/who_we_are.htm

he is lower than dawg poop. Big Fucking :puke:

For Gods sake, i knew they would try every angle to keep PNAC going.........count on it, several schemes and frauds will be involved in the dem party/field/primary.

"We report, you decide"...

You want to know what's really eerie? The Freepers are just as leary.

Considering some of the sources that people on this thread are willing to cite. In fact, it seems quite consistent and predictable.

Finally you succeed in making an accurate post, congratualations. I guess the laws of statistics will prove themselves after all.

Tinore says "Hey... I'm like Fox"

Yes you are like Faux.

Yet: .. I can hardly believe that having ONE association in such a network qualifies as de facto evidence of adherence to its creed ... Being familiar with ONE AEIer out of hundreds means that one is COMPLETELY absorbed and approving of all of its various subterfuges and nefarious plans ? ....

Hell: .... is the Pizza Delivery Boy in on the PNAC blueprint simply because he shows up with a large, sausage and mushroom, easy sauce and well done pizza at Richard Perle's house ? ....

This fiasco of criticism is reduced to character assassination by the use of such specious and fallacious assertions ...

> GOP conspiracy

It certainly feels like that here at DU.

Atlant

I used that myself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=138954

is putting it nicely. Change the "y" to a "n" and it makes more sense.

Wicked good fun.

... with no political track record, who's afraid to say the word "democrat". yes folks, this is our one and only hope to beat bush. NOT

when we kept calling ourselves "dumb libruls" :shrug:

Maybe that wasn't so nice of us! We'll have to be kinder next time.

equate to "road rage." I think I repond in an unflattering fashion at times because the behavior is so familiar.....*bush/rove like.

Clark supporters do not repsect Gen. Clark. What if his "troop" behaved like that? He probably would put them in the brig.....

Heh

He was one of the military officers Clinton found he could trust, which is why his career took off under WJC.

OF COURSE the "Draft Clark" people are related to the "Clark people!" It would be naive to expect otherwise. Remember Perot and his "volunteers?"

I don't hold that against him at all. My only question is about his political skill to put together a viable campaign with no experience.

General Clark tells his troops to "CRANK IT UP!"

Right there on the FRONT PAGE of the Draft Clark web-site and every single blog out there.

Proudly displayed article here: http://www.draftclark2004.com/news_detail.asp?nid=92

---

Clark said "crank it up" to one of staffers or what not, and the draft Clark people decided that they liked the implication and so they post it on their site because it's motivating. They picked it out of a newspaper article. Don't you think if we were all scheming and sneaky and trying to get Clark to pass secret messages to us, that we'd, you know, not let it get out to the papers? And that if it did, we wouldn't post it on our websites? We clearly think it's innocent, which is why we've posted it on our very public websites. It doesn't make sense otherwise. Sheesh, not even Fox or FrontPage has run with this angle, and they've certainly been "cranking it up" recently (or maybe that's a double head-fake, too! Oooh, attack the plant to make him look legit!).

Sigh.

was said by Clark to to a supposed "close advisor" who insisted on anonymity when quoted in a subscription-only publication. So it's veracity is doubly removed from scrutiny -- sourced to an unknown speaker and printed on a website that costs $25 for a trial pass for a single day's access. Who knows if he actually said it?

All of these innocent little things... Who are we dumb Americans to let little misunderstandings over who's drafting whom and Homeland Security get in the General's way... This is still America- not some country in the Middle East or South America. NOTHING having to do with the General's ascent is "doubly removed" or even removed from "scrutiny". There are already enough Generals messing up the peace in this world so this one isn't getting a free ride.

Must just be me but if I wanted something to remain "doubly removed from scrutiny", the last thing I'd do is have it plastered it all over the place. :shrug: Just whose idea was this? If I were you, I'd fire the guy. I mean, really- the notion that the American People just rose up one day in one HUGE grass-roots movement, duplicated a bunch of identical web-sites, and plastered the same things all over it to draft a Homeland Security General into office, is a little laughable. Or is this also something that should be "doubly removed from scrutiny"?

So much spin but in the end it all sounds like that line from Jesus Christ Superstar: "We have no king but Ceasar".

Wouldn't that be the easiest way to figure out what's going on? There's a fantastic book by by Umberto Eco called Foucault's Pendulum. Basically, it's about how normal as well as very literate people can easily make connections everywhere, all over the place and weave fantastic conspiracy theories from the Knights Templar to the Rosicrucians to the Illuminati and so on. And it utterly consumes them.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about with this "doubly removed from scrutiny" deal. I think what Charlie is saying is that someone that Clark said it, some news service that so far as I know is completely unrelated to Clark (National Journal) reported it, the draft people picked it up and ran with it as a motivator. But that's just me, because I don't presuppose an organized, conspiratorial hierarchy here.

As for this movement springing up "overnight," I think I've tried to explain many times that draft Clark as a movement first sprung up at the beginning of the winter, not long after the Dems got pummelled in the election. Did you ever email Kos of the Daily Kos, now a Dean contract worker, to ask him about that original draft site? He can tell Like the Deanies, except without even an official rubric or candidate, we had to dwell in anonymity for a long time. When did you first hear about us? Probably when Clark started making the rounds on the talk shows in earnest and after the MeetUps hit critical mass in late July, right? Well, I've been following this passively since at least February, with a bit more interest when I read the Esquire interview in June, then I finally jumped in earnest just before it became cool to do so.

By the way, here's at least one (public access, as usual) explaination for why so many of the websites look similar:

http://www.clarkcoalition.com/steal_this_code.html

Given that we're an almost purely web-based movement (and no, as you'll note in the polls, there's hardly hoards of us in the real world, just on the web, sort of similar to Dean, but on a much smaller scale), could you at least give us credit for being organized on the web? Could it be that we got a few bright web people to take advantage of the very low entry barriers to web publishing to make "campaign in a box" web kits for MeetUp leaders to take home?

I mean, look at blogs. I and most of the rest of the world had no idea what they were 14 months ago. Then all of a sudden they're everywhere. Coincidence?!? No, actually. Critical mass?!? Maybe!

Could it be that some people are actually realizing some of the grassroots organizing potential of the Internet? Is there a coincidence that John Hlinko also helped lead the extremely successful MoveOn? Might these two things be related?

I had some things to say about Jatras rather ugly views about Muslims, which just might explain why his family sided with the Serbians over the Albanians, but Charlie already got to that. Here is the original article for which Jatras drew some well-deserved flak in demonstrating his bigotry against Muslims, which is rooted in a misplaced, extremist interpretation of Eastern Orthodox Christianity (which also explains his automatic sympathy for the Serbians):

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/February1999/0299Jatras.htm

Anyway, this is probably the last you'll get from me, at least around here, for awhile (see PM for the explanation)...see you around, Tinoire, and may you find the truth that you're looking for...

You've been very effective at providing a moderating influence to some of the more explosive threads I've seen.

please note that Kucinich is my favored candidate. If the old DU had a working search option, you'd find that I was hoping he would run long before he declared. Or you can decide that I'm a long term Clark plant, your choice.

I am wary of Clark. I'm also wary of Dean. And Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt...

Apologies. If I could change the Adjective from "you" to those", I would.

Hello Tameszu.

You're right. All of this is so innocent and poor Ceasar is so misunderstood. :shrug:

In my opinion, Gen. Clark is the kind of general we saw too often during the Vietnam War and hoped never to see again in a position of responsibility for the lives of our GIs and the security of our nation.

So I just say NO. No to Homeland Security and all the other stuff Clark and his friends are bringing with them.

quoted from:

Letter to Stars and Stripes magazine on Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.)

By Colonel George Jatras (Ret.)
October 17, 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------

<very interesting snip>

The shortsightedness of Gen. Clark's consorting with KLA thugs, whom he is largely responsible for putting into power in Kosovo, is borne out by the Washington Times article "Kosovo Albanian attitudes change; Some see U.N., NATO as foes." (Sept. 21). It said, "Where once NATO troops were greeted with cheers, those cheers have now changed to anger and occasionally violent protests since the arrest of several leaders of the former Kosovo Liberation Army."

As for his ability as a military leader, Gen. Clark failed on two counts - the air campaign and his plan for a ground campaign. While the questionable effectiveness of the air campaign was not solely his responsibility, his acquiescence to the strategy and his cover-up of the results detailed in the Newsweek story "Kosovo Cover Up" (May 15, 2000) are testimony to his dedication to power and career. As for a ground war, which Gen. Clark admits that he favored, he insists that he could have conducted a successful ground war in Kosovo by sending Apache helicopters and ground troops through the mountain passes between Albania and Kosovo, a plan which was described to me by an Apache pilot as a "hare-brained" idea. Gen. Clark planned to support the Apaches with "50,000 Albanian troops," a statement he personally made to me at a Washington, D.C., book signing. There's no doubt that a ground war with the might of 19 NATO nations eventually would have been successful. But at what cost and why? To feed Gen. Clark's ego and ambition!

If Gen. Clark had had his way, we might have gone to war with Russia, or at least resurrected vestiges of the Cold War. And we certainly would have had hundreds if not thousands of casualties in an ill-conceived ground war.

<snip>

http://www.aim.org/publications/guest_columns/letters/2002/oct29.html

was an aide to Larry Craig (R) of Idaho and was a foreign policy analyst for the Senate Republican Foreign Policy Committee. He's also a favorite of the Christian right's Rockford Institute. He got his old boss into an embarrassing flap with his remarks concerning Islam:

James George Jatras, a foreign policy staff analyst on the Senate Republican Policy Committee, said Islam has a "fraudulent self-depiction as a pacific creed," arises from "the darkness of heathen Araby" and rivals communism as one of the "gigantic Christian-killing machines."

In an apparent reference to historic Islamic descriptions of heaven, Jatras added that "it is beyond me what spiritual values any Christian has in common with someone whose idea of beatific bliss is boinking an endless parade of the well-rounded houris said to inhabit the Muslim paradise."

WaPo reprint at Geocities

Be careful using Jatras to buttress your arguments -- he's a bigoted fundie rightwing loon.

Google search for "George Jatras"

is a fine source. I mean after all, the man was a military officer! A Colonel! How impressive!

"BENEVOLENT GLOBAL HEGEMONY"

Congress, the American People, and the Unsuitability of the United States as the World's Policeman

Paper presented at the international conference:
America's Intervention in the Balkans
Chicago, February 28 - March 2, 1997
----------------------------------------
James George Jatras is a policy analyst at the United States Senate. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent any Senate member or office
---
Every once in a great while, an article appears in a `mainstream' publication that, so to speak, lets the cat out of the bag, by spelling out clearly and explicitly ideas and trends that have long been dominant factors in public life but are usually seen only in vague or implicit form. One such appeared in the July/August 1996 edition of Foreign Affairs. Entitled Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy, it was intended as a blueprint for a Dole Administration, and no doubt also a claim for high appointment for its authors, Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, both editors of the flagship of neo-conservatism, The Weekly Standard. It could best be summed up as an appeal for America to become the embryo of a world empire.

<snip>

FIXATION ON THE MIDDLE EAST. Among the two most potent foreign lobbies on Capitol Hill are those pleading the causes of, first, Israel and, second, a group of what are seen to be a collection of moderate, pro-Westem Muslim states, notably Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf oil monarchies. It is often wrongly assumed that these lobbies are mutuatly antagonistic, when in fact their interests, while certainly not identical, are often congruent. This congruence was most evident during the Persian Gulf war. It has also been a factor in America's pro-Muslim Balkan policy, reflecting both the obvious sympathies of the Muslim client states and, as the Israeli analyst Yohanan Ramati has described it, the cynical but skillfiil manipulation by Croatian and Muslim propaganda of Holocaust themes to mobilize American Jewish opinion, plus the desire of some Israeli policymakers to be in accord with American support for 'friendly, pro-Westem' Islamic states.

Summing up this orientation in the New York Times (January 2, 1996), in an op-ed with the revealing title of 'The Third American Empire,' Jacob Heilbrunn and Michael Lind, both editors of The New Republic wrote: 'The fact that the United States is more enthusiastic than its European allies about a Bosnian Muslim state reflects, among other things, the new American role as the leader of an informal collection of Muslim ruttions from the Persian Gulf to the Balkans. The regions once ruled by the Ottoman Turks show signs of becoming the heart of a third American empire.'

<snip>

In closing, it is hard to say whether the above consolidation is already an accomplished fact, or whether it is still short of its completed form. Has the United States already been irrevocably transformed into a second 'evil empire' or not? I can say that even today in Washington it is almost impossible to have a serious discussion with most policymakers about our country's interests without entering the world of pseudoreality, without being treated to an endless ode to the 'shared values' of Democracy, Human Rights, and Free Markets, along with a defense of the righteousness of forcibly 'sharing' them with lesser breeds without the law. I conclude that one of the disabilities of living and working in the hegemonist capital is a lack of appreciation for the common sense that I trust still remains in the country at large, which some believe will eventuatly beat back the ideological tide. Conversely, I submit that those living in the real America -- which I assume is out there somewhere -- little suspect how bad things really are. If any refutation of my pessimism can be made, I would be glad to be proved wrong.

http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/multi/jatras-97.html


I dunno. I kind of like the guy. :shrug: Makes a hell of a lot of sense as he warns us against the NEW WORLD ORDER. Kind of refreshing for a Military Officer.

Just had to note that it was funny that you called me one of the "bigger guns"...I think?

Please let me assume that you're just pretty much kidding and that you're just playing and you only metaphorically imagine me as a high-level Clark trouble-shooter, wearing a snappy MIB suit with a headset and sitting in a darkened control room in a hidden bunker or Manhatten office tower, right? (As fun and sexy as that image is...I wish)

The truth could hardly be less mundane. I'm a very tired and presently not optimally well-kept grad student in a small flat in downtown New Haven, typing into a laptop, wondering if I really understand people in general anymore.

Anyway, best wishes and all that. No more troubleshooting here for me. I'll just leave it to Pepperbelly, some other good people, and maybe a bunch more regular but possibly overexicted folks.

Cheers,

ET

You're a paid agent of KKKKarl Rove, the FreeMasons, and the Daughters of The Confederacy, although I suspect you've double-crossed them all, and engaging in industrial espionage for Krispy Kreme donuts is your true passion. Anyone could claim ot be a regular Joe; that you would try to pass yourself off as normal is proof positive that you aren't.

You might fool some of the people once or twice, but the rest of the people, you'll fool more often, or not at all.

... a RossPerotUndergroundPart2.com could be rising ...


Draft Cosmic "the country's going to Hell in a handbasket and most of us just want more of the same" Dot for President!

- I don't necessarily believe we must preserve and extend our core values around the globe (sounds very Bush/PNAC-esque) as much as I believe that we must become a cooperative partner with respect of the ideals and opinions of other nations as we address the global issues we share - together ... they will continue to hate us for our freedoms if we keep the current course ...

- We don't protect civil liberties by "reexamining the PATRIOT Act" ... we call for its full repeal ... now!

- Pro-environment - I recycle and have a "Be Green" button (it's just not a party ... one can "Be Green" and "Be a Democrat"!)

- Supports an economy! really, I do!

- Supports the families of America's military (and, non-military, too)

- and, much much more (other policies and positions will become clear as time goes along)

Clark is no mole. He is at least giving serious thought to running as a Dem. I do think he needs to announce soon and show that he has the skills needed to run a campaign. It is harder than it looks and he needs to realize that.

Wesley Clark's Imaginary Friend

Does Wesley Clark have an imaginary friend? The retired NATO commander and possible Democratic presidential candidate has been muttering darkly for several months that opportunists in the White House seized September 11 as a pretext to take out Saddam Hussein. Clark maintains that he received a call at home the afternoon of September 11, 2001, urging him to say on CNN that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were connected to Iraq. But Clark has now provided three versions of this story, and they don't add up.

Version One: On "Meet the Press" on June 15 of this year, Clark asserted that intelligence about the Iraqi threat had been hyped. "Hyped by whom?" asked moderator Tim Russert.

CLARK: "I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You've got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had--Middle East think tanks and people like this, and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn't talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection."

That was an astonishing accusation of corruption in the White House, and unsurprisingly it caught the eye of several astute observers. Sean Hannity followed up two weeks later on Fox's "Hannity and Colmes": Referring to the Russert transcript above, Hannity said of the call, "I think you owe it to the American people to tell us who."

Version Two: Clark replied, "It came from many different sources, Sean."

HANNITY: "Who? Who?"

CLARK : "And I personally got a call from a fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank who gets inside intelligence information. He called me on 9/11."

HANNITY: "That's not the answer. Who in the White House?"

CLARK: "I'm not going to go into those sources."

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman also understood that Clark was playing with live political ammunition, and he wrote a July 15 column attacking the White House and headlined, "Pattern of Corruption."

"Gen. Wesley Clark says that he received calls on Sept. 11 from 'people around the White House' urging him to link that assault to Saddam Hussein," wrote Krugman.

Last week, rather belatedly, the New York Times published a July 18 letter from Clark purporting to "correct" the record.

<snip>

You can read version 3 here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/002zlaay.asp Never mind the author; the transcripts check out and that's what's of concern- especially when there's so little else on record.

V.1

"Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You've got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'"

V.2

Clark replied, "It came from many different sources, Sean."

HANNITY: "Who? Who?"

CLARK : "And I personally got a call from a fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank who gets inside intelligence information. He called me on 9/11."

Really. Any even halfway charitable reading--especially considering the context of extemporaneous interview comments--would indicate that both of those statements are completely consistent.

V.3 is a smear attack from the Weekly Standard, a right wing, neocon hack rag. You know, edited by William Kristol of PNAC and the AEI.

If we agree on one thing, it's that those people--at least the people who make the decisions there--suck. Just upthread you were willing to indict the draft Clarkers on guilt by association with AEI. Why would they start smearing Clark--with the same attack that you're advocating? Does this mean you're a PNAC/AEI operative, because you're linking to them and using their memes? I hope not, because I sort of like you.

At some point, there is a point as too much circumstantial evidence--you know, when parts of the kitchen sink starts contradicting one another.

I posted a link to the Clark Presidential site last night where DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND was prominently listed as a link to visit.

Today, the whole site is DOWN. GONE. Vanished. Original link which was still good last night http://torgo.crosswinds.net/wesley/links.htm

But you know what? You can still see it in the google cache before it's disappeared for good. Yes this WAS a well coordinated invasion!

The page is still in the google cache: http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:haFi9Ko213YJ:torgo.crosswinds.net/wesley/links.htm+&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8
----------------------------------

---

Democratic Party Links

• College Democrats>
  
  
• Democrats Abroad>
  
  
• Democrats.com>
  
  
• Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee>
  
  
• Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee>
  
  
• Democratic National Committee>
  
  
• Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee>
  
  
• Democratic Underground>
  
  
• National Jewish Democratic Council>
  
  
• New Democrats Online>
  
  
• Young Democratic Candidates Network>
  
  
• Young Democrats>
  
  
  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=235415#239470

Crosswinds was originally a Geocities-type free outfit. Now they're a lo-rent "all this for one price!" host. Their bandwidth limits are real stingy, and an influx from Tinoire's postings could've pushed the site owner into a pay-more-or-get-booted situation.

500 MB/month as a transfer limit, fwiw. If that were the case, though, it'd be nice if Crosswinds displayed a "this account has exceeded it's monthly bandwidth limit" instead of "Oops... It looks like the page you are looking for is not here." page, don't you think?

Expect the Google cache to disappear soon. Homeland Security reasons and all.

What You Need To Know About Wesley Clark
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=226326

Google caches aren't forever. If the source disappears, in time the cached version will too. Nothing sinister about it.

who started that site was apparently in a car accident. I don't think the site has been updated since July.

By its very nature. I'm not sure the Clark folks, odd as they are, have cornered the market on this little fact of life.

and these pols are laying it hard and heavy. Theres a difference between "operative"
and
"enthusiasm"

Clark posters are heavy on the former , not the latter.

Pepperbelly excepted.No offense meant to you, but for god's sake, I can only imagine what cuz's ops are doing elsewhere... these guys envision themselves as the night jump into occupied territory

The point for me since I am undecided, is that it is nice to see those who know the history of the many candidates bringing both the good and bad into the light....it's the sespool one has to wade through to get to those nuggets that can be a bit...well....smelly. :D

I don't trust him...not one bit.

Dean is liberal and he is the only electable candidate, that is contrived.

Clark can get bent, but Dean can get twisted, they do not (in Clarks case seems to not) represent my views.

and I think the "liberal" tag was made by several non-dems ?

Dean is fiscally conservative and fairly progressive socially on domestic politics, foreign policy is my biggest concern with Dean.

A whole crapload of Dean supporters on here.

Who said liberal? The entire of the media.

And Dean isn't liberal, and if they are fooling themselves...

Then they cannot expect my vote, and I will laugh in the face of any Democrat that blames the loss on the Green party in that instance.

"fairly progressive" will NOT suffice for me.

I love it. A perfect demonstration of how to remain in the political wilderness.

"I want it 100% my way or I am more than happy to leave the BFEE in charge to continue running this country into the ground."

Bravo!!

Julie--who has little use for the spoiled, narcissistic children that post here

See if the party moves anywhere but to the right if they win with a centrist.

Since so many of you seem to have a rather surprising (to my, I guess, overly rationalist eyes) penchant for conspiracy theories, I'm not really sure if I can do anything to convince you there's not conspiracy. Because you just can't prove a negative. That's why conspiracy theories go on forever.

But let me personally tell you that nothing I've seen from the mid-high level of the draft Clark movement on down smacks of GOP "operatives" (as opposed to disaffected Republicans), Clark manipulating things beyond the scenes, PNAC plans for world domination, and so on. I'm wandering about pretty high in the draft Clark movement right now, and it's all based on volunteering and poking people to give you work to do. And most of the people involved are Democrats, with a fair number of independents (those evil non-partisan bastards!).

If you are really concerned, why don't y'all stop making up conspiracy theories and meet some Clark Bars for yourself? You can feel like you're all cloak 'n dagger and infiltrating undercover if this is what you need to do to feel motivated. They don't care. They happily know that there's Deanies and people who represent other candidates who are lucking. Or probably won't as long as you don't break too much stuff. It's just a bunch of semi-activists, sort of like you, except maybe with a bit less time to dream up conspiracies:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wesleyclark2004/

So have a look around. It's open membership. Poke stuff. Steal the FAQs we're going to use to counter oppo research. Search for secret doors. Check to see if the Clarkites aren't really pod people or what not. But please don't just sit around here dreaming up stuff without, you know, actually trying to talk to someone who's supposedly involved in the "conspiracy."

And if you want to talk to me about it, feel free to PM me. I'm legit...uh, excuse me, I have to go meet with the junior Illuminati now (that was a joke).

Clark is going to be elected our next president in 2004 get over it.

He doesn't yet deserve the democratic party nomination. He won't even say he is one, screw him.

Don't want to miss this!

Good-night gentlemen.

It's amusing to watch the Democrat bashing on this forum lately.

The Clark bashers are as m-e-a-n ,h-a-t-e-f-u-l and b-i-t-t-e-r as any F-r-e-e-p-e-r.


I think the abject hatred that the left harbor for anyone they perceive as altering from their orthodoxy is profound.

I pity them....


Love is the answer......Hate is corrosive... It destoys the container as well as the object.


Peace

It was amusing for a while, but now it's just tiresome.

Because I am a Democrat, I don't take much joy in the cannabalism going on around here. I was pleased to find this site, and I really used to enjoy it, even if I don't post every thought that comes into my head. But the vitriol is getting out of hand.

As someone who is inclined to like Clark, I don't care to be painted as an undercover neocon or, alternatively, as someone who is too dumb to figure out what's really going on. I am most assuredly neither.

One of the things that scares the hell out of me about the Republican Party is its increasing domination by a right-wing that is fanatical about pursuing their moral agenda and imposing their beliefs on everyone. There is only black and white -- no shades of gray. It saddens me to see that being exclusive, dogmatic and zealous are not characteristics of only the Repubs.

I have had no contact with the Draft Clark movement nor have I participated in it in any fashion. My contact with those supporters on this board has been surprise at the passion evidenced by them and an occasional word urging that they react the same way Wesley does: with caution, good will, and preparation.

that the Democrats recapture the White House in 04....

I will ride any vehicle that gets us there even if that vehicle is John Kerry, Howard Dean, Wes Clark, or even Joe Lieberman etcetera.....

All those candidates have inherent strengths and weaknesses which we shold explore but many of the canidate bashers on this board while thinking they are performing a altruistic task are really doing the bidding of Kar Rove and his cabal...

Lenin called them "useful idiots".

I hate always coming in on these posts so late, since most people will miss my message. But I want to say this:

These "mysterious draft Clark" posts are only interesting to those who haven't been involved in the draft movement. I have been working for the draft movement for half a year, back when virtually no one knew who Clark was and there were only about 65 people involved in it. Now, there are 30-40,000. I spoke directly with the leaders, back when there were so few of us that it was hard to tell who was a webmaster and who was just a peon. So I can tell you personally, from my own experience, that this is a true grassroots effort, with no affiliations to Wesley Clark.

and I now have at least 4 additional people going with me for the one on the 8th. Also my son and his college roomate are going to go and think they can bring a few of their new friends. 2 of the people going with me voted for the * in 2000 and are looking for some one they can vote for and they like Clark. What I find amusing whether it is right or wrong is that they prefer Clark over Dean even though Clark is more progressive than Dean, it is the fact that he is less tainted by politics and they like what they have seen on sites other than the political sites. They were quite impressed with the Leadership for American and the call for open dialouge, they did not support the Iraq war. This is a grassroot organization and I certainly do not consider myself odd. I am a card carrying member of a union as my dad, and my husband, who are both veterans. My dad has been advocating Clark to any and all vet friends he has.

Spouse and I were impressed during the media orgy through the "first stage" of the war by Clarks ability to convey his feelings about the war and back his positions up with substance without coming off as simply a partisan or just another pacifist malcontent. I swear to God we said, "Now why can't THIS GUY be our President?"

Why indeed. Since looking into his bio, his record of service and his stand on the issues we have been a part of the Draft Clark movement.

Sorry to blow the whole aura of conspiracy but it's just a bunch of mostly ordinary folks who think this is the guy who can beat Bush like a bisexual Muslim cleric with a white girl at a Bob Jones U rally.

about Clark? He retired from the Army and public employment before there was a HSA or department . . . how can he be tied to it?

I'm not a big fan, but I don't like to see the guy painted with the wrong brush.