Continuing the conversation from the NYPOST Editorial locked thread

*Note: this isnt a continuation of a flamewar, but an extention of a seperate conversation within that thread.

in response to my post:

W13rd0

Im sorry if ive offended you, but coming from someone who holds Dean as a good #2 Choice along with Kerry for the Dem nom, ive been upset lately with his attacks on others. He has been running a negative campaign lately, and im bothered by it.

w13rd0 wrote:

No, he hasn't...

...check his Capitol Report CNBC appearance. Once again, Dean has taken the comments of his supporters into account and done a great job of being responsive to them. Most of the candidates are doing their fair share of attacking, in one manner or another, if that is what one wants to call it. Attacking, doing politics, whatever. Everyone is a little ruffled under the collar I'm sure, I just wish people thought things through a little more before they hit the post button...

You must acknowledge his recent unsolicited offensive against Clark where he said that "Clark was a republican until 25 days ago" and from The NYTimes article where he prefaced his negativite comments about Clark by saying "General Clark has not attacked me and I'm not going to start by attacking him" These types of comments show that he is campaigning by trying to tear down another candidate to boost his campaign, and i dont like it. Im sorry if that offends you but that doesnt change my opinion. I have no problem with him having policy clashes, but when he attacks the character of others he not only isnt above reproach, he actually encourages it.

I'm an avid Dean supporter, and I just want to ask a few questions.

You must acknowledge his recent unsolicited offensive against Clark where he said that "Clark was a republican until 25 days ago"


I know he said it, but I need to be refreshed on when and where he said it. And the reason is because it's baffling to me. Why the claim would be made. Was it off the cuff, a bad joke? I could forgive that. I mean it's a tough forum to engage in jocular embellishment. But if he slipped up, then I don't want to make a big deal of it.

But if it was part of some kind of strategy, then I need to know what possible gain anyone thinks a move like this would make. Any ideas? I can't think of one. My understanding is that Clark was independent until a week or so ago. Which is funny, but not a big deal. And I imagine Dean knew more about Clark than I do now. So either the number of days is significant, or he WAS a republican, or it was bad humor. Any insight that can be shared would be appreciated. I'm just flummoxed.


and from The NYTimes article where he prefaced his negativite comments about Clark by saying "General Clark has not attacked me and I'm not going to start by attacking him"


Yeah, but negative is interpretive. And it wasn't an attack on character as I saw it. And I'll concede my bias right now. It's fine, I'm not trying to deny anyone's being offended here. The hair stood up on my neck when I read that. But I mean, if the comment is honest and verifiable, then frankly, it's fair game. So the next question is, was Dean lying?

The problem isn't that I think it was negative. The thing is that I don't know if I should CARE about the claim Dean makes. If Dean is right, then does anyone care if Clark advised someone to vote for the resolution?


These types of comments show that he is campaigning by trying to tear down another candidate to boost his campaign, and i dont like it.


Well, it's one thing to be torn down by lies, as Gore was. It's another thing to be torn down by truth. I mean, if there is actually any tearing going on, of course. I really doubt if this is going to affect Clarks campaign. But if some people WOULD think twice about Clark based on this information, then isn't it important that it get out? Some liberals don't want to vote for Dean because he's weak on gun control. I don't think it should have been kept secret.


Im sorry if that offends you but that doesnt change my opinion. I have no problem with him having policy clashes, but when he attacks the character of others he not only isnt above reproach, he actually encourages it.

I think that's true. And I'm terribly bothered that we have to be having this discussion. I knew it would be like this with Gephardt and Lieberman, but I feel a real comaradery with Clark supporters here and locally. This is just a shame.

Please do not start threads calling out another member of DU.

Thank you
AnnabelLee
DU Moderator