DNC members say Clark's past support for Republicans is not a drawback

DNC members who got their first look at Clark said his past support for Republicans was not a drawback.

"I don't care who he voted for in the past, I want to know what he's going to do in the future," said Joe Reed, Alabama Democratic Party vice chairman. "This was probably one of the first major political speeches he had to make, and I thought he did well."

Rickey Cole, chairman of the Mississippi Democratic Party, said he was uncommitted but leaning to supporting Clark after hearing his speech.

But Redding Pitt, chairman of the Alabama party, said Clark still faced major hurdles. "It's extremely important that he be able to fire up the base, and it's not clear that he can do that," Pitt said.

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=787593

I think Clark's major support will come from the base of the democratic party - whether he is the eventual nominee or not.

Presented by the Federal Election Commission
CLARK, WESLEY GENERAL ID: P40002792

Office Sought: President
Election Year: 2004
State: Presidential Candidate
District: 02
Party: UNK (Unknown)
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?P40002792

…
"A Clark campaign spokesman at first told BusinessWeek that the former general had in fact updated his voter registration to reflect his newfound status as a Democrat. But a call to the Pulaski County Voter Registrar indicated otherwise. When asked to explain the discrepancy, campaign consultant Mark Fabiani says Clark hadn't yet had time to register as a Democrat."
…
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=448201#448927

Two southern DNC chairmen are close to giving Clark their support. A Clark victory in the South looks promising!

if that doc is THE doc one uses to register for an office run?

If so, he did NOT resgister to run for the DEMOCRATIC Party!

CLARK, WESLEY GENERAL ID: P40002792

Office Sought: President
Election Year: 2004
State: Presidential Candidate
District: 02
Party: UNK (Unknown)
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?P40002792

DEAN, HOWARD ID: P40002214

Office Sought: President
Election Year: 2004
State: Presidential Candidate
District: 02
Party: DEM (Democratic Party)

PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE:
DEAN FOR AMERICA ID: C00378125
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?P40002214

KERRY, JOHN F ID: P80000235

Office Sought: President
Election Year: 2004
State: Presidential Candidate
Party: DEM (Democratic Party)

PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE:
JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC. ID: C00383653
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?P80000235

EDWARDS, JOHN ID: P40002347

Office Sought: President
Election Year: 2004
State: Presidential Candidate
District: 02
Party: DEM (Democratic Party)

PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE:
EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT ID: C00384073
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?P40002347

SHARPTON, REV ALFRED C ID: P40002404

Office Sought: President
Election Year: 2004
State: Presidential Candidate
District: 02
Party: DEM (Democratic Party)

PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE:
SHARPTON 2004 ID: C00384388
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?P40002404

for President. We don't need Ceasar-wannabes.

If he wants to get credibility as a Democrat, he needs to resign from this Prez run, register as a Dem or at least join the national and his state level Dem Party, run for a office, like governor, senator, or US Rep as a Democrat and win that office, build a record as a Dem in that office, win re-election, and then run for President. Only then will I fairly evaluate Clark as a potential Prez nominee for the Dem Party.

I don't want a general for president.

...if Clark gets the nod and you and others take your ball and go home.

I, on the other hand, will vote Dean if he gets the nod despite him being the worst environmental candidate of the 10.

But, despite your post, he HAS credibility as a Democrat.

of his credibility as a Democrat? (Other than the slick words coming out of his mouth.)

...is his support among DNC leaders and the voter base - who have him solidly as either the frontrunner or a strong second.

THAT is the measure.

is not Independants, nor is it repugs.

I am part of the DEMOCRATIC base. I have been for over thirty years and a DEMOCRATIC activist for all of those over thirty years.

clark ain't no DEMOCRAT!

:eyes:

I voted for Gore, as you well know. (Asked and answered yesterday.)

Besides, I am not running for president on the DEMOCRATIC ticket.

In his military career: strong belief that the US military (post-Cold War) should be used in humanitarian purposes. Argued hard within the Pentagon for intervention in the 3 million person African massacre known as Rwanda in 1994. Worked to enhance the healthcare and education programs for the troops and their families. Received special recognition from the Audobon Society for protecting 2 species - tortoise and woodpecker. Affirmative action amicus brief for University of Michigan.

Post career: Voted Clinton & Gore (8 years voting Dem right there, OK?) Campaigned in early 2002 (far before anyone conceived of a DraftClark movement) for 3 Dem Congressional Candidates. Clark voted in his state's 2002 Democratic primary, and campaigned for Democrats Katrina Swett (NH), Max Cleland (GA) and Tom Lantos (CA), and contributed to Erskine Bowles (NC).

high heaven in 2000.

"But in December 2000 Clark, on NBC’s “Today” show, had called Rumsfeld “an inspired choice. He’s got great experience, he’s got great international stature, he knows the issues. He’s coming into familiar terrain. And he’s certainly going to be a member of a very strong team with General (Colin) Powell and Dick Cheney there.”

Given the way Clark's words have been taken out of context previously, I have my doubts.

Many of the offense that people have to these quotes seems to be that Clark isn't partisan enough... perhaps I'm misguided, but I'd rather our political discourse be based on the facts of a case, rather than characterizing the opponent as an 'evil-doer'.

Besides, are you going to tell me that you don't have any friends that are conservaive at all? It is possible to disagree with someone's politics without hating them, you know.

He's got no record to back up the words he spews from his mouth, but he just recently resigned form his corporate lobbyist position. Who is really paying Clark's bills?

...concerning his environmental record. Do you?

...e-mails directly from people who have worked in Vermont and surrounding states as environmental activists and also a reporter from a VT newspaper.

I won't post them here because I have no link to send people to to verify the accounts.

But I don't believe this info will stay obscure for very long. If other Dem candidates don't have it, they're research people aren't doing their jobs.

I won't eat my spinach and you can't make me!

To Larkspur (edit..forgot to address it): I know that I've seen on other posts that you are not a fan of Gen. Clark's, but what I wanted to know was is your opposition to his candidacy based on the fact that he's a general (career military man) or that you don't believe he will stay loyal to his stated liberal positions in the future? I'm just curious as to what makes people think that Clark is a "fake" given that the man hasn't lied or said anything misleading so far in his campaign.

Also, to follow up on that, why is it important that he has a voting record to back up his positions if he is in fact campaigning on those positions? By it's very nature, wouldn't that obligate him to advocate those positions once in office or face accusations of betraying his support? I think I understand the point, but I'd like to hear more from you on that since many of the other candidates running who have held office have flipped on issues (which happens) and that might be an issue if one followed a certain line of thinking.

Finally, who do you support and what do you least like about them as a candidate? Just wondering....trying to get some understanding of the vast divide between pro-Clark/anti-Clark people.

My opposition to Clark is based on the fact that he is a general who has no prior civilian political experience to evaluate and that he has helped fundraise for Republicans about 2 years ago and has praised Bush & Co. while claiming to have voted for Al Gore in 2000. He also lied about being a registed Democrat. He is a registered Independent. The Dem Prez nominee is the Party's standard bearer, and because of his dubious dealings with Repukes in his recent past and lack of record as a Democratic politician, I don't trust him to stay loyal to Democratic principles.

For Clark to be a credible Democratic candidate for President in my eyes, Clark should have run for a lower office, like governor, senator, or US rep as a Democrate, win that first election, manage the affairs of that office well and within the parameters of the Democratic platform, and win re-election at least once to prove that he is not a one-term wonder. Then I'd have a record to evaluate to determine if Clark made the transition from military general to civilian political leader. The Arkansas Dem Party did offer Clark the opportunity to run for governor as a Democrat but he turned them down. A missed opportunity of his own choosing

Who am I supporting for Dem nominee? Gov. Howard Dean M.D. I was an Al Gore supporter until he bowed out. I supported Al because Bush has screwed this country up and wanted someone who had experience in the Executive Office to step right in and get fixing the mess without making lots of inexperienced related mistakes. I respected Al's decision to withdraw, and after he did, I gave all the candidates, including Sen. Lieberman, who I don't like, another chance to impress me. The only one who did was Howard Dean. I signed onto his campaign in April 2003. At first my support was due to his strong opposition to the Iraq War. I agree with his logic on that issue, but the more I got to know about Dean and his campaign, I became more impressed with both. I like being considered a participant with the campaign to help restore our democracy and I like Dean's straght-talking and pragmatic approach to resolving problems. I definitely support Dean's desire to rebuild the Democratic Partry from the grassroots up. There's too many Dauphins leading the party right now.

How a candidate runs a campaign gives you an idea how he will behave as President, especially under pressure. Dean started with $157,000 and now has $25 million. That shows ingenuity, good judgment, effort, and determination to succeed. If he can turn $157,000 into $25 million, I believe that he has the skills and tact to lead our nation out of Bush's huge deficit. Dean's Campaign is very organized but it is also employs open source and empowered team concepts, which allows Dean's supporters to use our own imagination along with tools from the campaign to spread the news about Dean in our communities. What I liked best about Dean is, I've met him twice, that he is glad to meet the average citizen. He treats you like a newfound friend and is excited about meeting you and his behavior is totally normal. His doctor's patient relationship training definitely comes to his aide. As a feminist, I can detect male chauvanism quickly, and Dean has none of that. His wife is a doctor and definitely an equal with him in his life.

The other problem I have with Clark, is that he took so long to enter the race, and did so after Dean was clearly becoming the front-runner. That makes me more suspicious of Clark than if he had hopped in at the beginning of the year.

What do I like least about Dean? Not much. I don't think he's perfect, in fact his imperfections are part of his charm, to me. He needs to relax more on TV, but I think that will come in time. As far as issues, my concern is with his Israeli/Palestinian position. I thought that he would be to pro-Israeli, but he cleared that up with his statement that he would be "evenhanded" and would follow a similar path that Bill Clinton did with the 2 adversaries.

Maher: I want to read you a quote,
because Howard Dean said "...In Vermont, you know, politics is much
farther to the left. A Vermont centrist is an American liberal right
now." And then his campaign manager came out and said "That's not an
admission he's a liberal!" Which, quite frankly pissed me off. Somehow
they hijacked that word. And you're a Democrat, you said that last week.

Clark: Absolutely. (audience applause)
Maher: OK. I'm just wondering, of all the people who have the
credentials to say "liberal" is not a bad word, I'm wondering if I could
get you to say that.
Clark: Well, I'll say it right now.
Maher: Good for you!
Clark: We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this
country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this...
this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was
the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss
the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck
by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People
who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they
believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose
that in this country. We've got to get it back.

and Clark's definition of liberal in his quote is not how it is understood by most people today. It is the classic definition of the word liberal, but this quote also shows how naive he is about the connotations that the word liberal have.

It will be interesting to see if Clark can keep defending liberal in front of more conservative audiences, and if he will even bother to defend it against the right wing talkshow hosts who malign it every breath they take.

Dean has also said that if you define liberal as one who balances budgets, then he's a liberal. He said this on Larry King Live. What Dean is doing in this instance is trying to redefine or reclaim liberal from the media definition of it -- irresponsible spender and a sexually immoral person. Unlike Clark, Dean knows the games the media plays with trying to pigeonhole politicians with labels that have negative connotations with it, and that is why Dean fights the media labeling game.

arbiter of "who is a Democrat" chimes in with a promise not to vote for the Democratic candidate if he is not HER choice. I don't want to beat Bush, I just want MY candidate to win/

Clark is not a registered Dem and he has no history of being a member of the Democratic Party. His fundraising stint for the Repukes a couple years ago qualifies him to be a Republican, but not a Democrat.

The only people in the Democratic party that have not welcomed Clark with open arms are the Dean people, following the lead of their candidate. This is personal, because he has stolen the spotlight from your fair-haired boy. I would be willing to bet we wouldn't be hearing a peep about when or how Clark registered if he was polling behind Dean or didn't have the media's attention.

because you're slamming Dean supporters and describing them as mindless, shallow groupies who would follow Dean off a cliff.

We're intelligent rational people who have weighed the issues carefully and admire the way Dean has stood up and spoken out against the Bush administration. He is a candidate with substance and intelligence and being a doctor he knows a lot about the health care system and has a plan to improve it so everyone has health care in this country.

Dean supporters aren't threatened by Clark because Clark has many political views similar to Dean.

The more the merrier in my opinion. When the candidates try to outdo each other, that will be good for Democrats and good for the country. We have some great candidates and I can't say that the Republicans are blessed with as much talent as the Dems are.

Clark has just entered the race and seems to be doing well but this campaign has many months to go and we won't know who the winner is until the Democratic convention.

I wish you anti-Dean people would just cool your jets a little bit and stop insulting Dean supporters. It's unproductive and does nothing to persuade people to your way of thinking. Some Dean bashers are obsessive in the way they go after him and go to great lengths to discredit him.

Put your energies into debating the issues instead of personalities. We have time to make up our minds and many of us will change our minds a dozen times.

The candidate you bash today may well be the Democratic nominee in 2004 AND the next President of the United States.

The DNC and DLC are organizations whose traditions are to back a certain candidate and this is nothing new. This presidential primary race is very different from any in the past and Dean has made history with his ability to use the internet to generate support.

nor do I have anything against the vast majority of his supporters. The post that you are referring is a direct response to a specific poster and part of a long running debate. I apologize for the lack of clarity that made it look as if I was referring to all Dean supporters. I would ask you, though, to give the same tolerance speech to others on your side.

eom

a mole to divide the Party. Of course his history of political causes counts-none of it very much like the Democratic Party I remember.
He's scary with a scary group of PNAC pals.

:eyes:

there were/are alot of the PNAC, Neo-Con crowd... that means these people were his PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATES.

Should Justice Breyer be shunned because he serves on the Supreme Court which is dominated by Right Wingers and which handed the election to Junior?

Should Justice Breyer be shunned because he doesn't insult his fellow Justices like Scalia when he speaks at conferences?

Should Justice Breyer be condemned because he may speak highty of his "pal" Clarence Thomas when interivewed?

Breyer did not chouse to be associated with the others.

I disagree.
Breyer did choose to be associated with the others.
He accepted a supreme court nomination knowing full well
who he would be working with.

I think that the point that professional associates
are not necessarily pals, is quite a good one.

Weren't Aaron Burr (Vice President) and Alexander Hamilton (Treasury
Secretary) professional associates in Jefferson's cabinet. And just how much did they like each other, given that Burr killed Hamilton in a duel.

As much as Clark choose to be associated with PNAC'ers in the Pentagon.

Breyer's professional and career path as a jurist meant associating with others who may have radically different viewpoints than himself. So he shouldn't have pursued that path because of this?

Because the Military/Pentagon is dominated by PNAC'ers or Republicans, then you think a Liberal shouldn't join?

The PNAC'ers don't OWN the military just like they don't OWN the courts.

They can however, try and stack the military's top brass and the Courts with idealouges.

It is a just as much a mistake to abandon the Military to Rightwingers as it would be to abandon the Courts.

Both ideally should be above Partisan Politics.

Good luck!

:evilgrin:

DTH

Anti-Clark=anti-logic
Anti-Clark=un-American
Anti-Clark= (you pick the pejorative term)

Hell, he was a union leader at one time....But once he switched,
they didn't seem to interfere with their ability to seem as useful to the party....and we know what happened next...

I am undecided, so I am not out here trying to boost Clark....

I understand the point. However, the only similarity is a philosophical switch. Ronald Reagan had a liberal Democratic past years before he set about running for elective office (Governor of California). Reagan toured for years as a spokesman for GE and spoke at rubber chicken dinners all over the country telling people of his switch and why he switched. Say what we want about Reagan, but I don't think even the most rabid of right-wingers questioned his sincerity when he ran as a conservative Republican. He had, after all, spent years showing his colors.

Contrast that with Wesley Clark, who spoke glowingly of the most despised members of the Bush regime only two years ago and his playing coy with what party he belonged to (even after his retirement, right up to his announcement for the presidency!)....

Clark campaigned for dems in 2002 and voted Clinton and Gore.

Is their a committee somewhere that determines the amount of time one must spend as a dem to really be a dem?

I didn't suggest such a thing. I was only responding to the question regarding Reagan. You cannot compare the two.

Campaigning for Dems in 2002??? Details? Also, after stupidly admitting he voted for Reagan and Nixon, do you think he would REALLY be so dumb as to admit to voting against Clinton-Gore?

Ronald Reagan had a liberal Democratic past years before he set about running for elective office (Governor of California). Reagan toured for years as a spokesman for GE and spoke at rubber chicken dinners all over the country telling people of his switch and why he switched. Say what we want about Reagan, but I don't think even the most rabid of right-wingers questioned his sincerity when he ran as a conservative Republican. He had, after all, spent years showing his colors.

Sounds like you're implying Reagan's switch from Dem to Repug wasn't questioned because he spent years explaining why he did it before he ran for office.

That being the case, you must feel a sufficiant amount of time must be spent convincing people you are what you say you are.

If so, how much time and who decides it?

I think it is a perfectly fair question.

Enough to be able to have a recorded history of working for the Democratic Party, which clark doesn't.

But certainly BEFORE you fill out the forms to run for president, don't you think?

But he din't even do that! His party affliation on the FORM TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAYS: UNK!

...it is well known and on the record he campaigned for democrats in 2002.

But maybe the Democratic Purity Commission has determined that isn't long enough.

Next?

otherwise, that's just bunk.

...BUT...

Clark, who played a major role in the Dayton peace accords to end the war in Yugoslavia, campaigned for Democratic congressional candidates in New Hampshire this fall

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20029892.html

From CNN: Last year, Clark endorsed Democrat Max Cleland of Georgia, a fellow Vietnam War veteran, for re-election to the U.S. Senate against Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss

http://www.draftclark2004.com/news_detail.asp?nid=21

Tapped has learned that Clark's only major personal political donation was to a Democrat. According to Federal Election Commission records, Wesley K. Clark donated $1,000 to the campaign of former Clinton aide Erskine Bowles on Nov. 4, 2002.

... he campaigned for only Democrats this year, including U.S. House candidate Katrina Swett in New Hampshire, where he also attended a private dinner with party activists. He campaigned in Georgia for Sen. Max Cleland, a Democratic Vietnam Veteran... and in California for Rep. Tom Lantos.

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20029892.html

A few links among many.

Clark campaigned for NO REPUBLICANS for the 2002 Congressional elections.

Now scurry away Pastiche423!

you do not consider honesty a requirement for politicians.

I believe he mentioned that on a post awhile back.....Will is going to have to work on him, I guess...

Good catch!

snip>

"I am proud that I stood against Richard Nixon, not with him," Kerry said.

Having participated in a couple of these recent threads re: "Clark directed the NED to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela" and "Clark Approves of all the henious crimes committed by SOA graduates" (my paraphrasing), I think I have a better idea of what this really comes down to: If you remove the causus belli from the anti-Clark people and you remove the defensive belligerence from the pro-Clark people, what we're looking at here is a mock battle between Democratic liberals and Democratic moderates. Many Democratic moderates have been inclined to be in the camps of one of the more centrist candidates before Clark's entry or have worked to draft Clark and have been drawn to him. There are a few Democratic liberals (myself included) who either supported other candidates or have been working to draft Clark (myself included) as well.

In talking to and listening to people who I know are either politely or rabidly anti-Clark who support Dean, Kucinich, and Kerry, I've come to the following conclusion: This is a mock battle for the soul of the 2004 Democratic Party. My friends and acquaintances who are Dean and Kucinich supporters tend to be more liberal than I am and are uniformly suspicious or flat-out derisive when it comes to anything to do with the military, including retired Generals. My acquaintances who are Kerry supporters are derisive of Wes Clark because he dallied so long and entered the race with a thunder clap of publicity that directly impacts their candidate.

Clark represents a centrist vision of the Democratic Party and Democratic liberals don't like it, in my opinion. His late entry to the race has angered many Democratic moderates.

There's just a lot of angry people around DU and around the Democratic electorate as a whole right now when it comes to Wes Clark. For some people time will move them from other candidates to Clark. For others, time will move them from Clark to other candidates. For yet others, time will not intersect their vote and Wes Clark anywhere.

..just eats Dean supporters up!

I don't see supporters of any other candidate as rabidly opposed to Clark as some Dean people are - and couple that with the fact that Dean isn't all that liberal (less so than Kerry) - and what I think it boils down to is jealous rage.

Many Dean supporters thought it would be a cakewalk for Dean - that he was going to be crowned the Dem nominee.

Clark, at least for now, has thrown a monkey wrench into Dean's machine, and the Dean folks know it.

So I don't buy into all the liberal vs. moderate theories. Dean is a moderate himself and only energized the base with his anti-war stance.

Kucinich - also anti war - hasn't gotten that kind of response. Why? Why aren't the Dean "liberals" backing Kucinich? Because he IS a liberal. And they don't really want to back a true liberal.

And now that more candidates have spoken out against the war, the moderate Dean's only thunder has been swiped.

DTH

Clarks stated position seem to be fairly liberal. Clark has said that he was a liberal and proud of it. From what I understand, Dean denied being a liberal.

:evilgrin:

eom

He's a moderate-conservative at best.

give you that impression, and in contrast which of your views give you the liberal slant?

Could any other candidate than Clark caused so much division in the Democratic Party?
Only someone like Nadar, Limbaugh, or Carl Rove running as a Demo could have done more damage.
I don’t think it was an accident.

Man, that is just rich. Clark is espousing a positive, confident, LIBERAL message.

It's not his fault that a few complete nutjobs overreact to him with irrational hysteria.

DTH

There were no questions about the candidates being republican-like in their policies.
And nothing Clark has said in the last month is deferent than the Democrats, but what he said as little as 2 years ago is far different than today, and you cannot seem to see that this turns off a lot of people in the Democratic party that are idealistic and makes them wonder what is going on.
You want to blow them off and say we don’t need them because we will get the NAScar dads that like generals but you are wrong. The key to the next election is a large democratic turn out, and Clark is the one to undo that unity.

There were no questions about the candidates being republican-like in their policies.

Two words: Joe. Lieberman.

And nothing Clark has said in the last month is deferent than the Democrats, but what he said as little as 2 years ago is far different than today, and you cannot seem to see that this turns off a lot of people in the Democratic party that are idealistic and makes them wonder what is going on.

I don't see "a lot of people" caring about this non-issue. I see a few extremists here whining about it, on a message board whose participants are 50% self-described socialists and 40% self-described revolutionaries.

As for what he said two years ago, we've gone over this time and time again. He was willing to give an early-term Shrub Cabinet the benefit of the doubt. He was proven wrong. Many Americans will like a man who isn't blinded by partisanship to the point of hate.

You want to blow them off and say we don’t need them because we will get the NAScar dads that like generals but you are wrong. The key to the next election is a large democratic turn out, and Clark is the one to undo that unity.

LOL. We'll see. I will put my punditry up against yours any day of the week. ;-)

DTH

I see a few extremists here whining about it, on a message board whose participants are 50% self-described socialists and 40% self-described revolutionaries.

Two recent polls, many hundreds of responses.

DTH

like Che Guevara.

Guevara’s "admirers" have constructed, manipulated and displayed his image for mainly political ends. The idealization of the Argentine revolutionary, who was a key figure in the Cuban Castro Revolution, portraying him as a romantic hero, intellectual and freedom fighter, contributes to the distortion of Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

This man, who ordered the execution of countless human beings while in charge of the notorious La Cabaña prison in Havana, who terrorized Cuban society and who denied freedom to thousands of citizens whom he considered "deviants" or "anti-revolutionaries" can never be accepted as a hero, martyr or -- the shock of it -- a saint. The blood of thousands of Cubans is on the hands of "Che" Guevara.

http://www.today.ucla.edu/html/971010CheShow.html

some of you clark supporters do your candidate a disservice with your constant "left-bashing." if he is so "progressive," it seems to be that progressives would support him. in reality, there's not much difference between clark and dean...they are both centrists.
however, dean is getting the support of some progressives...i don't know that clark is. and please...don't claim to be "progressive"...i've seen your posts here, and in case you don't know: you are NOT progressive.

so now you have a problem with avatars? :puke: as i said...you aren't doing your candidate any good by being so petty. as to clark, he needs to figure out that declaring which party he's running for...officially...might garner him more support. there is nothing at all "wrong" with saying this...and i might add,it's a failure of his campaign to continue to fan the flames of this issue by not putting it to rest...officially.

..if the same people who whine about Clark being a "war criminal" use avatars of war criminals, that kind of says something, doesn't it?

so :puke: on you.

And since YOU don't set the standard of what PROGRESSIVE is I'll just laugh at you.

bwahahahahahaha


And Clark has registered as a Dem now. So it it put to rest. And he has already got more support than any of the other candidates.

So there!

There has been ZERO evidence that he's causing "so much division".

There have been some backhanded comments by people who are RUNNING AGAINST him, lots of theories put forward on one website (this one).

Are people booing his speeches? Are pundits gnashing their teeth?

Is there some "division" I've missed?

They seemed pretty united at the Fall Meeting. The division is only on DU.

If Clark really is this closet undercover Republican, you would think it would be the supporters of the only REAL liberal in the race - Kucinich - who are railing against him.

You might even think that the Kerry supporters would be on Clark's ass more. Nope, not them either!

It is many of the DEAN supporters on DU who have contribute to the riff.

Not that Clark supporters don't give as good as they get, but ask yourself: Is the turmoil REALLY about who is most liberal or is it about who has been upstaged.

I may be wrong, but I don't see Clark supporters using rightwing talking points to tear down Dean.

That tactic smacks of desperation.

Who do you suppose he was planted to stop Kucinich? Dean is the one with the idealistic supporters in large numbers and the one with the most money.

The only plant here is locoweed.

:crazy:

DTH

...think this - and the DNC doesn't - it's all just a fantasy created to make Dean look like a liberal warrior fighting off the rightwing mole for the good of the party.

I have to take issue with your causality on this one, zeemike.

I don't think Clark caused the division. I think his unique mix of ideas and background simly exposed it. It's always been there; all anyone ever needed to do to expose it was to poll a large-n national sample of Democrats on issues and you could see it in the results.

I do think we tend to have more of an exacerbated division here on DU than nationally since I would say most people here are more active in politics and have more of a specific allegiance to a candidate than many Democratic voters, undecideds, and Republicans who will wake up do at this time.

But of the people I do know that are democrats I would say that roughly 40% of them feel that it is all being fixed to an outcome that will benefit bush.
And the history of Clark surely leads them to believe that it is true.

Let me amend that to DU--and the people zeemike has talked to.

That's not proof Clark has caused any division, which is what you said first. Now you're saying that the election is fixed to benefit Bush (which, how is that possible if he loses) and that Clark is somehow involved in that.

When people start booing him, and prominent Democrats come out and say they have problems with him, then start telling me about the "division" he's causing.

And, it's funny that when Dean was talking about Bush-lite and blah blah blah, you didn't feel he was being divisive.

And I know that.
But of the democrats that have said they have a problem with him are there any that you consider prominent?
But I have said it before and I repeat it now if Clark is the democratic nominee and wins I will publicly apologies and summit myself to any humiliation you want to heap on me.

..and it is a BIG city - and absolutely ZERO people feel that way.

I am talking about people. If only party members voted you would not have any problem. I don’t know any party members.

I'm talking about party members, their friends, their families, strangers who come up to our booths at various fairs and events.

Not ONE SINGLE TIME has anyone said or implied Clark is anything less than a democrat.

However, I have seen Clark's support swell from people who were backing other candidates - especially Dean.

Your circle of friends and acquaintances are of necessity party members. And that is because you are active in the party.
I am not active in any party and never have been. And none of my friends and acquaintances is either, so we are in two different worlds.
You want the party to win and as a loyal democrat you will go with whoever is nominated as long as it has the approval of top party people.
I want the people to win and I want someone that will change things. And I do not care what party that is particularly, although no matter what a Repug said I would not believe it. They have demonstrated that they will screw the people anytime they want while telling tem that it’s for there own good.

Neither one of us is bad or necessary wrong. But while I think I understand you pretty well, I do not think you understand me at all. I want change not victory. I want peace not war. I want real freedom not more laws. I want a real choice when it comes to a vote.

And, even more interesting, I live in a very culturally diverse city. And the support for Clark has transcended those line.

Black, hispanic, you name it. They see Clark as the best bet to take Bush out. And that is the objective for infinitely more democrats than any notion of faux party purity.

DTH

... I network with hundreds of other Democrats, from ordinary voters to State and local officials, and I have YET to hear ANYONE except supporters of Dean or Kerry even give a rat's ass about Clark's alleged 'impurity'. If I ever met any DK supporters, I suppose they'd feel the same way, but they don't seem to be doing anything in IL...

Whose name is on my avatar?

Unlike some supporters of other candidates, *ahem*, I find discussions of the strengths and weaknesses, even fatal liabilities, of my own guy to be not only ok, but necessary.

But then I don't think Clark is my pretend boyfriend or Lord and Saviour or that supporting him is proof of some fantasy "creditials". He is simply my candidate of choice.

:toast: I personally think this whole 'purity test' thing is a load of HORSESHIT, and I wrote Howard's campaign and told them that very thing this morning!

...lets see- he is friends with President Bill Clinton, and Rush and Drudge smear him...

...hmmmm, which side should I choose?

Wolfie, Perle, whistle ass, Reagan, Condi, Nixon and cheney

....hmmmm, which side should I choose?

..hmmm... which side should I choose?

that some of these people need to see a doctor other than Dr. Dean.

http://tinyurl.com/pg3w

--- In wesleyclark2004@yahoogroups.com, "Mary-Pat O'Donnell"
<marypat@w...> wrote:
> CLARK EMERGING AS AN OPPONENT OF REAGANISM
>
>
>
> Candidate Derides Committee That Crafted Cold War Victory
>
>
> By IRA STOLL Staff Reporter of the Sun
>
>
>
>
> General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the
Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a
bizarre,crackpot attack on a small Washington policy organization and
on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War.
> In a Tuesday interview with Joshua Micah Marshall posted
yesterday on the Web site talkingpointsmemo.com, General Clark gave
his evaluation of the Clinton presidency. He said that the Clinton
administration,in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found
itself chained to the Iraqi policy promoted by the Project for a New
American Century much the same way that in the Carter administration
some of the same people formed the Committee on the Present Danger
which cut out from the Carter administration the ability to move
forward on SALT II.

In the same way that Democrats were being "diplomatic" towards "their friends across the ailse" in the early days of the Bush admin?

He also praised some Democrats in that same 2001 or 2002 speech.

check out www.mediawhoresonline.com and check out the back issues- the have the entire Clark articles and they call some of the anti-Clark accusations into question...

When did Clark say this? What was Bill Clinton saying about the Bush admin at the same time?

I dont think to many DEMS at all, much less Wesley Clark, were calling the Bush admin "lying bastards" shortly after 9/11...

everyone likes who they like. Harping on one or the other guy wins no one to their candidate.

Tell me why I SHOULD vote for your candidate. I hear dean's a dick on medicare. So what. I hear a few voted for the PATRIOT ACT and for THE WAR. So what. What are they going to do NOW?

Being bull headed for your candidate is fine but it turns me off big time. I am sure others out there would prefer to hear why voting FOR your boy is better than hating the OTHER GUY.

The election is going to be held by all and everyone's votes when tallied are going to do the picking. Its really out of our hands. Sure. You can work for your guy and persuade people to vote. That's a good thing. But no one on this list is going to change one damn thing that's coming.

All of them are good men who love their country. SOME of them have the cojones to put their reps on the line by taking hard votes and standing against bad ideas: the war, the patriot act, etc.

Some of them have great soul: Dennis has so much of my own in him that it bothers me that he probably can't be elected. Pragmatism tells me that. But I give credit to all who try and get him there. Kudoes to Kucinich boosters.

Dean has the lead, others follow. Gephardt is a trad dem that I wanted to be president last time until Gore won me over. Lieberman is a disappointment but he's SOMEONE'S guy and so be it.

You win no one by cutting another candidate. Tell me why I and others should vote FOR your boy. You might just win a convert or two. I find the denouncings churlish, unproductive and conducive to turning off the person's candidate. You have the right to make them, don't get me wrong. But I find myself looking with greater and greater degrees of disfavor when you do.

But then, that is democracy in America. Unfortunately, sometimes.

I had a somewhat disturbing conversation with a co-worker yesterday. He's a very literate person, educated and very liberal. He is probably not following the primaries as closely as the people here. He's kept very busy in his work doing battle with the fallout from the conservative policies that have taken over our country. I think he leans Dean and that's fine. What bothered me was when I said I was supporting Clark he'd only heard about the negatives. He immediately said that Clark voted for Reagan. He didn't know, and was surprised to hear, that he'd voted for Clinton and Gore. He had no idea about the detailed and complex discussions that Clark has had, both in interviews and in his own writings, where he discredits so much that this administration is up to. He certainly didn't know that Clark's expressed views are easily as liberal as anyone who's likely to get this nomination. He knew that Clark was a general and had never held elective office, but didn't seem aware of the vast diplomatic and administrative experience that Clark has. I'm not saying that knowing all those things should necessarily make the difference. What I am concerned about is that the RW talking points are getting through to people who never access the RW media and that Clark is being smeared by soundbites and headlines.