Why it is just fine that Clark voted for and recently praised Repukes.

A compilation of defenses by "there they go again" Clarkies:

1) You have no proof.

2) You suck.

3) Clark didn't lie about being a registered Democrat when he wasn't. His spokesperson lied.

4) When Clark said Bush and his hateful band of murderous neocons were the best things since depleted uranium, he was just being patriotic.

5) When Clark said Bush and his hateful band of murderous neocons were the best things since nuked rations, he was just being polite.

6) When Clark said Bush and his hateful band of murderous neocons were the best things since Total Information Awareness, he was lying (as part of his plan to be a trojan horse radical liberal President).

7) Actions speak louder than words, and Clark conducted his life in the manner of a closet Democrat.

8) Military folks can't be Party members.

9) Military folks respect the chain of command.

10) Military folks know how to take orders.

11) Military folks were right to support Reagan.

12) Dean sucks.

13) Deanies suck.

14) Clark is the ultimate trojan horse radical liberal because he spent his whole life pretending to be a moderate independent with conservative leanings.

15) These concerns are silly.

16) I was concerned about this, but now I know better.

17) This is old news.

18) Grow up.

19) The "purity police" faction of the Democratic Party is why the Democratic Party always loses.

20) Not being a registered Democrat = not being a Party hack.

21) Yawn.

22) Clark gets a free pass on this from me.

23) Did I mention that you suck?

24) Did I mention that Dean sucks?

25) Did I mention yawn?

I think you will need it =).

:thumbsup: :D :D :D :D

(posted a while back)

- A man named Michael Jackson said that Clark was crazy. He tried to seize an airstrip that the Russians did not want him to seize, and almost started World War III. I will trust the WW III jibe on its own merits. Also, there is no way the American people will vote for a man who stands up to the Russians.

- I read a virulently anti-Clinton, anti-Democrat website called CounterPunch that Clark is no good for the Democratic party. Therefore, I will trust them, since their hatred of my party shows they have my party's best interests in mind.

- Clark has no political positions, except for those he has articulated. And while those he has articulated are liberal, that is only evidence that he secretly holds right-wing beliefs.

- I have a link to a right-wing publication trashing Clark, he is no good for the Democrats. Clinton, Carter, Kennedy and Roosevelt were never trashed irrationally by both the right and left!

- Does anybody know whether the the quote "Clark would personally crowbar hobos for fun" is actually true? Stop saying I'm smearing him! These are my theories! Do you have any proof that he DIDN'T crowbar hobos? EVER?

- I am PROUD of my vote for Nader. Hey! Don't call me retarded! Stop it! Stop it!

- While Clark sounds like a centrist and thinks like a liberal, Dean sounds like a liberal and thinks like a centrist. It is clear that the latter is better for the Democratic Party, since he is less likely to get elected, and less likely to push forth liberal positions if he is.

- Clark was pushed into the Democratic Party by sneaky Republican operatives, who wish to secure a Bush victory by electing a Democratic president.

- The hatred the GOP has for Clinton is evidence that he is a Republican. Therefore his friend Wesley Clark is a Republican.

- Clark voted Republican about 20+ years ago, therefore he is not a Democrat. The fact that right-wing Reagan was once a devoted Democratic is not a counterexample by proposition X, which I leave unspecified.

- Alright, so some Nader fans are retarded, but I'm not! Alright!?

- Because I'm a REAL Democrat, I will not support the Democratic nominee unless s/he is X.

- Clark has the potential to expand the party by bringing in culturally disaffected and politically disenchanted Reagan Democrats, while taking positions more liberal than the other candidates. Unfortunately, those Reagan Democrats are dirty, and shaking their hands is too high a price to pay for power.

- Except for his experience in high-level diplomacy, ever-rising poll ratings, and evident ease in front of the camera, he is too much a political novice to win.

- Since the Constitution grants the franchise only to those who (1) are members of DU; and (2) are extremely irrational, there is no way Clark can win the presidency.

This really was a great post.

Reagan was a New Deal Democrat only 1 decade before he gave the Goldwater Speech in 1964!

to Clark -- only to be told that I SUCK!

Other times, I'm told I'm being TOO PURE & that I must LOVE LOSING!

Other times, I'm told IT DOESN'T MATTER if he fellated Ronald Reagan & Richard Nixon, because goddammit he's a general!

Sometimes, they YAWN IN MY FACE!

And did I mention that sometimes I'm told that I SUCK!?!?

At least you haven't been told to leave this board and start your own "progressive board" elsewhere. That's when you'll know you hit the big time ;)

It doesn't matter if Clark lobbyied on behalf of Acxiom to help the government compile database dosiers on its citizens because:

- he didn't get paid for doing it (even though he did).
- the government could do it anyway, with or without the help of Acxiom.
- Companies already know a lot about you.
- Your ISP already knows what web sites you visit.
- It's for the best.

Yes, just like Reagan's Presidency. Right?

in my small town. There were four of us. There was a friend of mine who is in her early 70's, another woman in her 60's and a late twentyish married man.

The man's wife had just returned from her home country, Japan. He told us she was totally oblivious to politics in this country. When she told him that clark was the one she heard most about back home, his jawed dropped. He asked her what was being said about clark. Her answer, he's a general.

As if choreographed, the four of us all said, NO! Not clark! After that little outburst, I kept quiet, listening to what the others had to say about him. They all basically said the same thing. He has been manufactured by the media and (repugs, DLC, ?).


IMHO, I believe that is exactly what is going on. W/o even bothering to register, when he knew he was going to run for president over a year ago, he avers, in public, HE IS A DEMOCRAT!

Well, as we found out today, that was a lie. He has not registered as a Democrat. He is registered as an Independent.

The Democratic Party is being HAD!

Now, when you add in all of the many other (mostly repug) things we have found out about the good general, it comes as no surprise that he lied to the public, but especially to the Democratic Party.

Does any Democrat want to support a man that has lied to us from the get go? In the most extremely important upcoming election, does any Democrat want our country to be placed in the hands of a (non-democratic) liar?

This is not about one of his staff people not knowing about his registration. When clark avered his registration to the Democratic Party, he knew he was lying. He knew he was registered w/the Independent Party.

Why would he do such a thing? Might it be because he knew he wouldn't get many liberal votes if he told the truth? It couldn't have been an "oops". The man is a Rhodes scholar! He is highly intelligent! That's not a mistake a highly intelligent Rhodes scholar would make, is it?

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. I ain't that stupid!

Edited: From a Wes Supporter

LOYALTY -

"you're with us or you're against us, oh, and you're not a real American" - Bush supporters
"you're with us or you're against us, oh, and you're not a real Democrat" - Many DU Democrats

WE HAD BETTER NOT BE SO 90'S REPUBLICAN STUPID that we let a perfect democratic candidate and potentially great President slip through our hands over schoolyard loyalty or gamesmanship.

All the "controversies" of Clark's brief campaign have resulted from his continuing honesty - voluntary admission of his voting record, the Resolution vote, etc., his "firing" and the WWIII quote both from his OWN BOOK -

There has been a great deal of fear regarding Wes running from the beginning - that alone says he's the right guy, great men (yes, i.e. Clinton) often inspire a love or hate reaction. I hear the policy at FoxNews is to keep promoting Dean in the Dem primaries. don't you find that a little weird? it sure is odd hearing all these fake journalists call Dean the front-runner despite the Clark-leading polls and about how great he is. You know why that is?
They're ready for Dean kids. they've BEEN ready for Dean. these people (neo-con movement jerks and Murdoch / Scaife / Ailes backers and monsters) are diabolically organized. they are of one view when it's crunch time. that's easy to do when you have no REAL convictions, something that always been a little bickering point for us Liberals. When they all suddenly start saying the same thing about something, it's not a coincidence. They spent the entire 1990's developing a vocabulary to use against democrats. They literally have classes for this stuff, and a lot of money. The decision was made probably from the top (Rove, etc.) that the angry anti-Bush democrats were ready to embrace a Dean type candidate. They are PREPARED for that kind of democrat. In fact, despite his "outsider" crap - he's exactly the democrat all their tricks were made for. And it will work. It will work in the south and the plains etc. and they are ready. they NEED a Dean.

Clark was not part of The Plan. You could smell the fear as soon as the rumors started. I've been here since the draft movement, I've done my homework and I know Wes is a great guy and exactly the kind of guy we need. HE RENDERS THEIR ENTIRE VOCABULARY USELESS. all the liberal jokes, the pinko-communist softy crap. all the draft dodging hippie crap. the when you get older and get little money you'll see it our way crap. These people, the "neo-cons", unlike their more statesmanly predecessors, the Bob Doles and so on - who even though you disagreed with them, still at least kept the appearance of civil discourse and mutual respect - these new conservative figure-heads, the Ann Coulters and Tuckers and O'Rileys - they CANNOT actually debate democrats on issues. they instead revert to their shared, and well developed to provoke, anti-liberal vocabulary of shouting and name calling and flat-out LYING.

I don't know how many of you Dean & others supporters have actually seen Wesley go on conservative-skewed media outlets, but it's always GREAT. It's great because he completely Disarms them. they have nothing. they cannot use their entire language of rudeness against this intelligent, respected, heroic, patriotic and extremely respectful LIBERAL democrat. I've seen these guys just go slack-faced. Wes states his ideas with such clarity and common sense - that they realize they would seem like the assholes they are if they cheaply attack this great, NICE, GOOD man. I see that, and I think - hey look, THERE's MY PRESIDENT. nobody has made me feel that way in a decade. We're having a great time here in hope-land, recharging our desperately low batteries with the promise of a President Wesley Clark.

* He LIED about being a Democrat, din't he? Well, din't he? Lying does not equate to honesty, on my planet, anyway.


* "You could smell the fear as soon as the rumors started."

You mentioned the "F" word when talking about clark. Hmmm, who else has been using the "F" word to all American citizens lately?

Sorry, bucko, fear does not work when you are trying to convince people to vote for you. Besides, it's a repugtilian.

* I don't watch Fox, nor any other "conservative-skewed media outlets" why do you? That was a serious question.

"...against this intelligent, respected, heroic, patriotic and extremely respectful LIBERAL democrat."

clark is a LIBERAL democrat, my paralyzed ass! Hell, he isn't a Democrat to start with!

Sell it somewhere else.

I'm going to sign up for Clark's "Talking Point Memo" so I know which words Fabiani doesn't want me to google every morning.

This is cute, real cute. We ran Lieberman out of town and the DLC drags out Clark to replace him. There's no difference between Lieberman and Clark except that Lieberman, even though he's not a Rhoads Scholar, had no problems figuring out which party he belonged to and no problems deciding which party he was going go run in.

Oh and I'll bet Lieberman can remember every single vote he ever cast since he came of voting age. You really don't think Clark gets any points for admitting he voted Republican do you? Clark had to think long and hard before he answered that question and I'll bet you, as a former military person who's voted absentee before, that he weighed the odds of mysterious ballots surfacing from the Rovian vault before he answered.

On edit: If it's within 60 minutes, you can still edit your post to make the following change: respectful LIBERAL democrat Independent. Please don't forget to capitalize Democrat.

But keep talking! You get me all hot and excited when you talk about "the pinko-communist softy crap. all the draft dodging hippie crap". Makes me want to rush out, mix some granola into my yoghurt, and make a few "all we need is love" signs. :smoke:

26. Wondering whether Clark is really a Democrat or not is being like a Republican.

27. Wondering whether Clark is really a Democrat or not is getting hung up on "schoolyard loyalty."

28. Clark's biggest problem is that he's honest. If he had simply lied about his voting history and career, there wouldn't be any controversy.

29. The fact that many Democrats are frightened that Clark may not really be a true Democrat proves that he's the right man to be the Democratic Presidential candidate.

30. Dean's current frontrunner status is a Republican conspiracy to destroy the Democratic Party.

31. Republicans won't be able to use any of the dirty tricks they traditionally use against Democrats if we just wise up for once and nominate a candidate who has no history of actually being a Democrat.

Did I miss any?

But be prepared for a long list

They are laughing their asses off while at the same time shaking their heads that quote/unquote Liberals who got out in the streets to protest this war are buying this crap. I want to fly over there, scream and yell and say: Psst, it's not necessarily the same people. We are not all buying this DLC production.

Wonder what the excitement and spin are going to be like when Rove starts going through the JCS vaults and mysterious, undeniable documents start surfacing?

Methinks Clark should just keep his registration as is and run as an Independent.

and germans are thinking?
I don't.

Well now they're giving a big royal "fuck you" to the imperialist war machine of which Wesley Clark is a part.

Thanks for yet another mature sterling comment. One must wonder about a candidate who attracts so many people with a "who cares what anyone else thinks" attitude. :eyes:

Your comment is no surprise. It's a shame Clark has to rely on that type of thoughtfulless comment for his support.

on the financial side:

"There is a web site, people are reportedly collecting money, and he says he's a candidate for president...
Although General Clark announced September 17th that he is running for President, he as not yet officially filed a statement of candidacy, which is required to be filed within fifteen days of raising or spending $5,000. He also has not designated or authorized a principal campaign committee to raise or spend funds. Questions may remain about early fundraising and it's relation to the official campaign."

http://www.tray.com/

Questions about this will not surface in the media until after he gets the nomination.

..."oh my God! (smacks forehead) Stickdog, you are SO RIGHT! Thank you for removing the blinders from my eyes!"

That's the one you want, right? Will any other answer do?


-ph :smoke:

and tell me what you find objectionable.


Also, imagine YOUR candidate being asked these questions extemporaneously.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm

Crude but effective. Fire with fire, baby.


-ph :evilgrin:

I'm clearly a Clark supporter, but mockery and derision does nothing to advance my interests. I'd prefer to use data, logic and reason.

But maybe that's just a quirk of mine.

often succeeds. Besides, there's no reason you can't have all of the above. Personally, I don't waste time using data, logic, and reason with people who have amply demonstrated they aren't interested in it, but maybe that's just a quirk of mine ;-)

But I feel that ignoring is better than mocking. Mockery just pisses them off and makes them more adamant in defending their beliefs.

When it comes to Clark, I think a lot of his detractors will come around if they simply read what he has to say. Antagonizing them just makes them just dig in their heels, making them reject the truth. And in my opinion, anybody who reads the TPM interview with Clark and thinks he's a Republican needs to seriously rethink their idea of party affiliation.

until Dean's campaign starts flagging. There is nothing you or I can do or say that will change their minds. Ever been involved with the wrong person, and had your friends tell you over and over again you were making a mistake? Same dynamic is at work here.

There's more going on there than derision, anyway.

35. Nothing we can say will change your mind, so why should we even try to mount a defense?

36. Let's ignore the questions and have a good cop/bad cop side conversation among ourselves about how horribly illogical, inconsiderate and insipid these questioners are. Then when we both come to a mutual agreement that the problem is the questioners and not the questions, people won't be able to help but see it our way!

Ignore the legitimate questions and offer no answers or reassurances. Instead dismiss as "those people," conclude apriori that any attempt to educate would be futile anyway, subscribe sinsiter motives to the questioner.

Why use reason when you can simply feign superiority?

Why consider the message when you can simply attack the messenger?

just so you'll know in your future logical endeavors, Mr. Logic Boy.

While you're at it, try to puzzle this one out: several of your 'answers' are grossly distorted, Mr. Logic Boy, and the fact that you are continuing to push this over God only knows how many threads despite the fact that Clark's supporter's have frequently said 'We don't care, because it isn't relative to who he is now and what he's doing' is evidence of some cognitive disturbance on your part. Yourself, and a few of your fellow Clark haters, are the only people to whom this is a big deal, and the only reason it's a big deal to you is because Clark threatens your candidate. I believe this answer has been given to you before, but you left it out of your list for some reason.

So add another number to your list: 'No one except the threatened cares. There's an election on, let's go win it.'

Check my posting history.

No one is more upset than me to find out that Clark is no more than your classic "clean slate" political cipher soldier-of-fortune.

Having watched him on television for sometime and followed the way mass media presented the guy, I never would have believed it. If the man had one thing, I thought it was true conviction.

Now I find out that he was just a gun-for-hire.


*****************


Note that I already have the "we don't care" argument listed in the initial post.

And I already have the "this isn't a big deal" argument listed in the initial post.


*****************


However, I do need to add:

33. When it comes to Clark, past performance is not indicative of future results.

34. You only care because your candidate is threatened.

Mr. Logic, that answer is not on your list, except in some twisted, Deanhonest form which I have no desire to unravel. But continue with your lists. I doubt anyone much cares anymore.

Translation for the logic and reading impaired: Yawn.

but the same small click of Dean fellators and wannabe moral purists dont understand the concept of rational debate so they ignore and repost ad infinitum because they think that winning the battle at Democratic Underground via spam and smear will win Dean or lose Clark the primary. Theyre laughable in their political naivety, but repugnant nonetheless.

See #2 in the original post.

See my point?

You didn't address the issue of Clark's voting Republican and praising Republicans. Instead you complained about "Dean fellators and wannabe moral purists dont understand the concept of rational debate."

That's a classic ad hominem "argument."

I pointed that out by classifying it as a "You suck" argument -- which was my obvious stand in for an ad hominem attack.

You cried "strawman."

"Strawman" means claiming that someone made an argument that he or she never actually made.

In summary:

You made a clear ad hominem attack. I pointed that out.

How is that a strawman?

Hint: It isn't.

an ad hominum fallacy only occurs when a personal attack takes the place of an argument. Since the poster you referred to stated that he has made arguments in the past, but you ignored them, and since there is plenty of evidence in this thread to conclude that you do, indeed, ignore arguments, that would simply make his comments insults -- not fallacies. Considering their nature, however, I hardly think them insults, but rather, accurately descriptive terms. But I digress.

Yawn. Or would that be #23? 24? 35? 62? 12? 5? Who knows...

http://www.lnwalkup.com/ethicschapter2fallacies.htm#Ad%20Hominem%20Argument

Ad Hominem Argument:

Latin Root: "Directed to or against the person"
Definition: An attack on the opponent's character rather than on the opponent's argument.


***********


You said:


Since the poster you referred to stated that he has made arguments in the past, but you ignored them,


I don't remember ever discussing anything with this poster. Hence, we (probably) have a flawed premise in the midst of a classic ad hominem fallacy.


and since there is plenty of evidence in this thread to conclude that you do, indeed, ignore arguments,


hand waving


that would simply make his comments insults -- not fallacies.


Oh, so it was just an insult and not an ad hominem? I think that's called "picking a nit." (And, in this case, still failing.)

to explain it exactly, an ad hominem would be something along the lines of 'you suck so you're wrong.' He didn't do that; he simply said, in effect, 'you suck, and I've answered this before, anyway.' I don't expect you to see, or understand, the difference, though.

Got anything new?

I didn't think so.

Doesn't sound like it.

I read that Clark interview and I wasn't impressed at all.

Don't see what a big deal it is.

Just because you aren't supposed to actively participate in politics in the miliatey doesn't mean that you have to close your eyes to the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

CLARK: I voted for Al Gore in the election of 2000. I had voted for Bill Clinton previously. For me, the issue was: make sure before you pick a party -- you don't have to pick a party in Arkansas to vote, you just vote, and I voted in the Democratic primary, but that didn't mean becoming a member of the Democratic party. Before you pick a party, make sure you know why you're picking a party. Make sure you understand what the partisan political process is in America. What does it commit you to? What does it mean? How does it affect the rest of your life? What is it all about? And so I thought I'd take a look at both parties.

When was this? A Rhodes Scholar who works for the government has to wait until after he's discharged to "take a look at both parties"?

What do you make of this?

I was fortunate. I was well-enough known that both parties invited me to consider them. The Republican party invited me to participate in a fundraiser and run for Congress. The Democratic party invited me to be their nominee for governor of the state of Arkansas. I was tremendously honored by that. And it was clear as I looked at the parties, looked at the culture, watched the dialogue, it wasn't just that I had voted for Al Gore, I really believed in what the Democratic party stood for. And so when it came time to choose a political party, I chose the Democratic party.

Allow me to translate: "Since I was your classic political mercenary frontman, I decided to shop around before chosing a Party."

Do you seriously expect us to believe that Clark never realized the difference between the Parties until after he left the military???

CLARK: I have strong views. I have strong feelings about what's right and what's wrong in the way of policy. I taught economics at West Point, I taught political philosophy. I worked in the South Bronx in 1966 for three or four weeks in the neighborhood youth corps as part of the Johnson administration's anti-poverty program. So I had seen urban poverty. I worked as a counselor at the Little Rock Boys' Club back in the late '50s, early '60s, ended my last staff member position at the Little Rock Boys' Club in 1965, meeting kids from not the most affluent backgrounds. You get a certain feeling for America. And that's the feeling for the America I know. That's the America I want to-you know, I want to give everyone in America equal opportunity, including those people that are like I grew up with.

OK, General, you've had strong Democratic views and convictions for a long time now. So why did you feel the need to "take a look at both parties" before you decided you were a Democrat?

*****

Now, can the man talk a good game? Sure.

Is he an intelligent guy? Undoubtedly.

But can we believe a word that comes out of his mouth? That I don't know.

Care to help me with my fundamental difficulty here?

but how can somebody who taught political philosophy not remember who he voted for in every presidential election? It's weird.

interview and your post re-enforces one of the themes of this thread. Clark has some great talking points. His comments on eduction in the link you provide are music to my ears. But is it a siren song? That's the concern.

I want to beleive in Clark. Really, I do. But legitimate concerns cannot be dismissed as sour grapes, or bashing, or conspiracy theories. Time will tell, but Clark needs to get on the ball and start addressing the legitimate questions, many of which are articulated in this thread.

It's late. Thanks for saving me the typing.
John

It's another case like the "lies" the right slapped on Gore in the 2000 campaign. In that speech Clark was clearly praising the elder Bush for actions he took in the cold war, not the current Bush, as Conservative pundits have twisted the quote to make it sound.

Besides, what's the big deal? As I've said before, the Republicans got lot's of mileage out of a convert like Reagan. Is it really so hard to believe that the actions of this administration since 9/11 would send someone running to the Democratic Party? I can name many lifelong Republicans who are doing just that. Which is why Clark is such an attractive candidate. He allows those Repbulicans and Independents who have become disgusted with their party to feel comfortable coming over.

Dean showed the Democratic Party they still have a pulse, God bless him. But Clark's the one who will allow a generation of voters disillusioned with the conservative theology to give the Democratic Party a second look. All these speeches the Republicans are digging up to sink Clark are only putting him in a better position to win the general election. They're banking everything on getting him to lose the primary because they know that if he's our candidate, their toy W is toast.

32. We need to nominate a Reagan Democrat to bring back the Reagan Democrats.

Triangulation at its most obtuse.

people who can't make up their minds :) It's a new tactic by the DLC. Nominate someone who can't make up his mind to attract voters who can't make up their minds and expect the loyal Dems and candididates to just get over it because "if you close your eyes, you won't even notice" :shrug:

as the party just keeps... lurching to the right.

If Clark is such a Liberal that Reagan Democrats can only now come home to him because he's so...Liberal... what does that make Gore? What does that make Bush? ... No, no- I have a problem with catering to this. Please, Reagan Democrats, come home all you want to but don't expect us the Democratic Party to re-arrange the furniture for your temporary comfort. If the price of your comfort is my discomfort... we're going to have to talk.

So in other words, we should fork over the reins to a bunch of people who were...misleadable enough to vote for Bush :shrug: Oy ve, Now I'm really terrified :scared:

Pssst... Don't hold the funeral yet, the Daily Meme's not really dead; it's simply been replaced by the There's a link to it right at http://www.wesleyclarkweblog.com/ (I know, like everything else it's independent).

But good stuff there! I especially liked this one:

Post this one on the fridge for the Clark-skeptic in your family: A wonderful column in The Memphis Flyer by a self-described "lifelong left-wing pacifist-leaning Democrat" who brings up the 7 most repeated left-wing pacifist-leaning Democrat attacks against Clark, stares them right in the face, and smacks each one of them down with incredible efficiency. More like this please!


It all sounds so... conservative :scared: Right smack down to the Daily Talking Point Memo... Like a Department of Propaganda.

But good, I can bookmark all these sites as reference New Liberal sites:

Joshua Micah Marshall is a writer living in Washington, DC. He is a Contributing Writer for the Washington Monthly and a columnist for The Hill. His articles on politics and culture have appeared in The American Prospect, Blueprint, The Boston Globe, The Columbia Journalism Review, Feed, The Financial Times, The Forward, The New Republic, The New York Post, The New York Times, Newsday, Salon, The San Francisco Chronicle, Slate, Talk, Tompaine.com and The Washington Monthly. He has appeared on Crossfire (CNN), Fox and Friends (FOX), Hannity and Colmes (FOX), Hardball (MSNBC), Late Edition (CNN), O'Reilly Factor (FOX), The Point (CNN), Reliable Sources (CNN), Rivera Live (CNBC), Washington Journal (C-SPAN) and talk radio shows across the United States.

I just want someone who's not going to get batted around. The reason Bush is salivating over a Dean candidacy is because they think they can smear him with charges of hamstringing security and tying the government's hands behind their backs in the war on terror. Clark can better articulate the case against war because Bush can't fuzzy the issue with a lot of smoke about him being some hippie.

Also, in insecure times people rally behind the "strongest", and next to Clark, Bush looks like a weanie. What's more, Clark is the best able to make the case that being environmentally sound is to be economically sound: he's been chairmen of several companies, including one that developed "enviro-friendly" technology. So he flies above the usual Conservative distortions that it's environment vs. economy. As an investment banker he's also able to talk intelligently about corporate shennanigans, including Mr. Bush's. As a General, no one can better make the case for gays in the military.

It's not a matter of becoming Republican, but being the best candidate to forward Democratic policies. Dean will constantly have to be proving he's not weak on security, he's not anti-business, he's not a liberal. Clark can constantly go on the offensive: you're weak on economics. You're wrong on war. You're disaterous on environmental policy. That will win in general election, and it will put a new sheen on Democratic policies immune to the tired old attacks from the right. The question is whether he can sell it to his base.

There's another problem. I'm seeking a candidate who can repudiate the Bush paridigm of fear and suspicion -- a candidate who convinces me he is prepared to reshape America and her role in the world. I'm not eager to support a candidate who accepts the same world-view as Bush and tries to argue that he is better prepared to operate in the Bush world.

...and that's Clark!

Reshaping the US role in the world is what motivated him to switch sides.

I do not buy into the "we will protect you from the terror we created" racket.

No to the New World Order.

I do not buy into the "we will protect you from the terror we created" racket.

No to the New World Order.

People will feel perfectly secure with Dean, plus they won't have to worry so much about their civil rights being unnecessarily curtailed in the name of fighting terrorism.

See: Clark's association with the idiotic, unnecessary and counterproductive "no fly list" CAPPS II program.

I admire your passion but that's not enough and none of it is proven.

Bush isn't salivating over Dean's candidacy because Dean has the power of the people behind him and if there's one thing Bush is afraid of, it's the people- especially a bunch of people who aren't buying this crap re a war on terror no matter how many obscene things the government will either allow or cause to terrorize the populace into submission. I dislike many things about Dean but damn, you've got to give the man that much.

Clark's campaign is driven on fear.
Dean's campaign is driven on anger.
Kucinich's campaign is driven on grief.

No one wants to hear any war, no matter how well packaged as anti-war talk and especially not from Clark who waged a war I protested many times. I think the DLC has seriously mis-calculated this one in their desperation to stop the grass-roots movements- anti-war activists and Leftists are not going to roll over quietly. Bush Bush and Clark are the same when it comes to all these wars as far as I'm concerned- I've read Clark's papers and statement to the Senate and they were a full endorsement of what Bush was doing so I do not beleive this new image at all. I think Clark would have done the same thing only he wouldn't have bungled it and exposed the game, making it so vulnerable to the anger of the world and of the public.

The rest of what you pointed out, imo, is just talk and doesn't qualify anyone for the Presidency. I was in the military 20 years and didn't see Clark lift a finger to do anything for gay rights. Soldiers under his command were prosecuted just as harshly as the under the most conservative Generals and he had every authority to get that toned down and didn't. I say this from experience because I knew a LOT of gays and our command had instructed the CID NOT to trail people and NOT to go out of their way to document things and the few cases we had were dealt with extremely leniently. Lisping, totally out-of-the-closet gays were pretty much protected because the command had fostered a tolerant climate. Clark did no such thing so I find it humorous that now he's portraying himself as some sort of gays-in-the-military type of guy. The time for him to have done something was then with action and not now with meaningless words.

I'm no fan of the good Doctor but he has a faithful, sincere, moneyed, and very fervent grass-roots movement. They don't have to pander to the right because Dean has enough of the Progressive and Democratic base to carry him through. I don't see that at all with Clark. He mostly has conservative Democrats who were all for the war, a few disillusioned Republicans and many independents who aren't enough of a party to win anything on their own.

If Clark dares say something to Dean about the economy, he will be wrong because Dean, clever little Centrist parading as a Liberal, that he is, is excellent at balancing budgets. I can't put any creedence in Clark's economic talents because when he was praising Bush in May 2001, the defense is always- he had no idea how bad it would be back then, but I remember 2001- the stock market had already plunged and crashed and you didn't need a big degree to understand that. That will come out with Clark and will haunt him.

Why, in all sincerity I ask, do Clark supporters and the DLC think that Democrats give a rat's ass what the Right thinks? Our only immunity from the right is to stop trying to be like them and to be ourselves letting our base be proud of what we represent.

If Clark were to win the nomination, I would be so ashamed for my party that I would, for the first time ever, vote third party. That's how serious some of us are about this. It really has little to do with the fact that he's not a Democrat (though honestly, you would think anyone running for the Dem ticket would have taken the time), it's the fact that he does not represent progressive values. The war against Yugoslovia is a big no, the admiration for the neo-cons is a huge nail in the coffin, the votes for Reagan Nixon Bush Sr (I trust that ballot to mysteriously appear as well as any other absentee ones he sent that were non-Dem) are no-gos, and his support of the war, no matter how he would have refined it is an absolute killer. To that, you can add his associations with certain corporations and people which more aware progressives won't forgive him for.

The task at hand is going to be to define Clark's base and I am really not so sure he expanded it by running as a Dem.

Just my 2 cents. Thanks for your civility.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

37. WELL TEHN HAVE FUN VOTING FRO BUSH!!! LOOSER!!!!!

another spot on rebuttal :eyes:

I'll take Clark. At least he can win.

untiring efforts to smear the Democrats and split the liberal votes as one of the main reasons why George W. is in the WH too.
the Greens are the best tool for getting democrats defeated.

Ralph nader was like a gift from God to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

I originally started lurking here at DU at what seemed to be the tail-end of a whole lot of Dean bashing.

I tried to look at it all objectively. Some accusations were outright false. Some were legitimate but didn't change my personal opinion. Some did change my opinion. The bashing hasn't stopped at all, the target has just changed. I was hearing the exact same things from Dean supporters - some of whom I see making anti-Clark posts on a daily basis.

The Dean and Clark bashers have the EXACT same mentality. You're saying "I read this and it made me hate your guy, so you should have the same reaction unless you're incompetent or a Republican." When someone uses the same argument against you, you blow it off or try to discredit the claims in the exact same way you mock others for.

Take a look at what you've been doing lately, stickdog. You've made purely opinion-based Clark bashing posts in which you essentially say "Clark did ___ and ___ and ___. I can't fathom anyone with a brain supporting him!"

Example: Clark has one closed-door meeting with congressmen. You use this to bash him and describe entire campaign as being "anti-people."

Someone points out one particular closed-door meeting that your guy, Dean, had early last month. It just happened to be with Clark.

Are you CONCERNED that Dean had a closed-door meeting with Clark? I am, and I'm so concerned that I'm going to repeat it again and again because I think you should change your mind because of my opinion.

Seems pretty asinine, right? It is. Obviously everyone here who's chosen a candidate has a bias. When a Deanie sees something anti-Dean from a Clarkie, they're likely to identify it as pointless bashing and brush it aside. When they see something anti-Clark, they want to bring it out and rub it in the Clarkies' faces. Clarkies see this as bashing.

And the vicious cycle continues.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, show some objectivity. If you can actually be honest with yourself, consider what you'd be saying if Dean spoke at a Republican fundraiser in 2001. Certainly you wouldn't like it, but you'd say something along the lines of - well, that's not a good thing, but he's proven himself to me in other ways and I won't hold it against him. That's a fair opinion to have - whether it's a Deanie or a Clarkie that has the opinion, on WHATEVER subject it might be. I don't buy a lot of the shit you spew about Clark, and that's my right. I don't try to shove Dean's shortcomings down YOUR throat, and if I did, you wouldn't buy much of it either. It wouldn't do much more than piss you off - which you seem to be trying to do with your post.

PS. If you somehow devise more "Clarkie defenses" from this post, it'll only serve to prove my point. Thanks.

"BUT HE SAID NICE THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS - ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID, HE SAID NICE THINGS ABOUT THEM, WHICH MEANS HE IS ONE! IDIOT! WHY AREN'T YOU LISTENING TO ME??!! WHY DON'T YOU HATE CLARK YET?!?!?!?!"

Do any of you EVER even TRY to address the questions rather than the questioner?

If Dean said glowing things about BushCo at a Repuke fundraiser after 2000, I would certainly not be supporting him.

I love Dean's campaign. I think he listens and responds to his supporters. I like his maverick credentials.

But the Bush regime and the Dems' generally complicit response to it hasn't put me in a very trusting mood. This goes for Dean as well as Clark.

and go from a persecutor of Christians to their defender why can't a-n-y many change his ways.......

I thought we liberals belive in redemption and rehabilitation....

If not, we should incarcerate for life all criminals because they are bound to do it again...

I have been ingnoring these internecine battles the past few days but I wanted to put in my two cents about redemption...

The only difference between a sinner (R)

and a saint (D)

is that one man's saved

and the other ain't

Peace 03
Brian

on the road to Demascus.

but I'm not putting a rehabilitated bank robber in charge of Chase Manhattan. The rehabilitated one is going to have to prove himself first...Blind trust gets you robbed.

If I recall correctly, Bush was rehabilitated too- had sworn of the bottle and was a born-again Christian...

Oh no... Action, not words... Even God demands action.

Ok, mabye 10 people could give a shit about this.

You're Clark's outreach coordinator?

God you folks are laughable



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
Retyred IN FLA.

... I just voted 'yes' on the new rules.

argue just as baselessly as Clarkies.

I got burned out "litigating" and "relitigating these topics".

2 you suck
18 grow up
21 yawn

Them's my answers and I'm sticking to them

I'd just rather support someone who's been in the Democratic party longer.

so get over it and fall down on your knees.



AND GIVE ME TWENTY MAGGOT!

:kick: