General Clark is great on Letterman

Dave is doing a great job of letting Clark tell his story....
I've never seen Dave better...asking the right questions...

I grow more impressed with him each time I see him.

He had a great line... When Dave asked him what he'd do about the environment, he replied "I'd start by enforcing the laws that are on the books". How sad, and how true.

:hi:

It took 6 posts, but I've been noticed. I feel so accepted. :) I can't wait until I can actually start a topic. I've got this little itch to scratch regarding outsourcing and some freepers. :)

On the topic... has anyone read Clark's book? Is it worth reading? I just finished Franken and Moore's books, and I really liked Franken's, but Moore's didn't do it for me nearly as well.

I attended a lecture about how we're doing on the war on terrorism, and I then lent my copy of Clark's book to the professor who gave the lecture. He's still reading it, but he told me he thinks Clark is brilliant. He's totally behind him for president, especially after reading his book. BTW, the one I have is his most recent.

It's also nice to hear an audience respond to common sense like that.

Welcome from a fellow newbie:-)

:hi:

There's a lot of "sad but true" going around.

I think he did awesome. But hey, what do I know? :)

haven't ever seen him on TV, but he's definitely got presence and answers. Good looks to boot!
Could be a great contendah...
so, are he and Dean going to get together? Seems like an unbeatable combination.
And, v. nice to see a TV "personsality" giving a dem his props.

Good to have ya here. Hope you stick around.

startling....Clark would be a fantastic president....I'm not American, but if I was I'd vote for him....There's something so straiaght forward and honest about him....

Clark "WILL" be a fantastic president.

How can anyone not see the difference between the stumbling moran that some call pResident and a man that actually has the answeres for a better tomarrow?


retyred in fla
so i read this book

Wait until the Roves-by-proxy finish trashing him and his personality and his character. It'll be damn ugly.

it cannot hurt him, pointing a finger and asking for claification of an unsubstantiated accusation will only prove they have nothing.



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
read the book

Who uses his mind to answer questions instead of reciting programmed responses.

debates.
He looked like he was struggling in one of the earlier debates because he was either trying to explain things in a simpler way or is too right-brain dominant.

One strategy in the the Army: do an After-Action Review, see what can be done to change and improve upon the process and then repeat.

etc.

Right-brain is the one with sensitivity, emotion, artistic focus,

etc.

Right-brain is the one with sensitivity, emotion, artistic focus,

etc.

Right-brain is the one with sensitivity, emotion, artistic focus,

etc.

Right-brain is the one with sensitivity, emotion, artistic focus,

I missed it. Could you repost?

Just kidding :hi:

TOP 10 REASONS CLARK WILL WIN IN 04!
10)because Wes believes War should be the "last resort", but DON'T YOU DARE TWIST HIS WORDS!
9) because someone thinks voters can not remember that phrase "I am a son of a mill worker"!
8) because he doesn't believe in rolling up his sleeves to his armpits!
7) because not only can he spell Slobodan Milosevic, but he can pronounce it too!
6) because his Military Uniform is government issued, not Rove issued!
5) because those other guys are terrorizing each other!
4) because "compassionate conservative" is not in the dictionary!
3) because he wrote the book on "Winning Modern War"!
2)because that one guys favorite beer actually is bush light!
1) because the only time he says "bring it on" is when he is talking to Fox!

:hi:

thanks and welcome to DU!

That's a winning issue for the General, I think...

:hi:

What's the son of a mill worker line about?

I assume that's what it is a reference to.

B-)

Thumbs up to Clark! He's gonna have a hell of a mess to clean up, but in times of great crises, men like Clark have stepped forward to save our Great Nation!

Probably won over some folks.

WES IS THE BEST!

welcome to DU :hi:

I have been hoping for Dean/Clark since the Gen. announced his candidacy. I think it is and unbeatable pair. I like how Clark looked in Letterman's eyes the whole interview, he was very straight forward, and I think that the audience was definitely won over. Good for him for debunking Stormin' Norman's personal attacks, he was definitely on the ball tonight!

Wish me luck, Sat. I am campaigning for Dean in the Grove at Ole Miss before the UM vs LSU game. Even though I am from MS, I still kind of feel like I am stepping into the lion's den. We will have a table with information, coffee, and voter registration forms, hopefully all will go well.

But they are facing a tough, tough team... By the way, welcome to DU!

I'm in Canton, about 2 hours south of you. Good luck Saturday to you and the Rebels. Welcome to DU. We have several Mississippians here so you'll be among family.

and let us know how things went with the Dean work.

Unlike other times, this year there are two great candidates--Clark and Dean--and 3 or 4 other near great ones--Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt. The only turkey in the bunch is Lieberman. It's very hard for me to actually pick one out of this great lot. I guess I went for Clark because I think his military record will put the Repukes on the defensive about Chimpy's glaring cowardice and blatant falseness. But Dean? Well, it won't break my heart if he gets the nomination.

Just kidding - Welcome to DU, Melodybe!! :D

:toast:

The next election may be won or lost in the South ...

Really appreciate your post.

It is nice to listen to somone with a brain
connected to his mouth. Can you imagine
the Pretend President sitting for that
length of time and answering questions?

Good luck Saturday!
I share your high opinion of Gov Dean.

I've got another 1/2 hour...on the West Coast.

Thanks for the build up!

And Welcome to Clarkie Newbies........

We're bringing them in from the main blog......

Clarkies are smart, that's something I've noticed!


BU-BUY BUSH

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

I don't think this post warranted that; and, frankly, I think an allusion to how long she/he has been here is divisive. Why in the world would you refer to newbies as reinforcements. We are all democrats here, well, mostly.

in previous posts it has even been revealed as a measure to drown out all other voices in the progressive community . Yes it is true, they are anti-Bush forces, but not particularly well-informed or strong advocates for renewing the identity of the Democratic party away from it's DLC control. It would be a shame to see some of our most progressive voices driven out, and in that case, what is the point of having a progressive Democratic underground? Beating Bush is only part of the battle.

the dozen "progressive" voices like yours. I'm sure our "not particularly well-informed" opinions are troublesome to you because they divert your attention from your goal of "renewing the identity of the Democratic party..."

Absolutely sickening elitist bullshit. What a shame it would be to see some of "our most progressive voices" (arrogant, demanding, rude assholes) driven away.

Don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass...

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

to drown out all the non-Clark people not only shows how desperate and ineffective the Clark campaign is, but it is also a violation of DU rules if I'm not mistaken.

Dean's campaign, Kerry's campaign, and Kucinich’s campaign all have excited people into supporting them and that is reflected on the board. Yet Clark had so little support that his blog has to send in the troops to invade DU and pacify the opposition.


I can only imagine the fit that people would throw if the Dean blog sent out a call for people to come support Dean on DU, and a few hundred Dean supporters showed up. The walls would echo with cries of Kool-aid.

But then Dean campaign is more focused on winning by building real support, not trying to hype up message boards.

what does it say about Deans which failed to beat Clark in gathering 10 thousand signatures to get the top spot on the virginia ballot? Clarks campaign, which is a few days over 2 months old, is already outorganizing Dean. Thats laughable, but a testiment to Clarks strength.

Clark's been able to focus more on Virginia because he ran away from Iowa for fear of getting so badly beaten it would make him look like a fool. As a result he lost key union support to Dean.

And you're braging about ballot position?

Thanks for proving my point.

that a novice candidate 2 months into the race outorganized Dean because Dean was too busy with Iowa? Hopefully the Dean campaign isnt that linear, because if that is the case and he unfortunatly gets the nomination, he will be trounced by Bush.

be trounced by Bush. I hate to say it, but it's so. Clark can beat Bush, but Dean won't be able to. His fans are turning people off. Dean isn't a viable candidate, except to his very vocal followers.

and maybe it will come true.


Never mind the record breaking support the record breaking fundraising and the record breaking activism.

Just keep repeating Dean can't win without giving a single example as to why.

are the States where nobody else is campainging yet.

Dean's campaign filed 19,000+ signatures to Clark's 10,000 a few hours later. Every one of those Dean sigs was collected by Virginia volunteers and the whole stack of petitions was delivered by a volunteer who drove 2 hours through the mountains after work to get them to the clerk.

Out-organizing Dean? I think not.

Dean got almost twice the number of signatures.

Thanks.

Let the Clarkies flood DU and bash bash bash away... it won't make any difference. The truth is more powerful than a thousand meme spewing Clarkies.

The Clarkies were smarter about it and are now reaping the rewards. 19,000 and everyone is talking about Clark. Too bad.
:nopity:

Clark has only been in the race for two months. He's doing quite well, considering that fact.

Just kept following linkks, exactly the way the internet is designed. Would you rather that new people didn't find DU? Please factor in that this is the most impassioned Presidential election since 1992, or maybe 1980. A lot of Democrats are searching the internet right now to engage in discussion about the campaign. Whenever I was over at the Clark blog I never saw any effort to recruit for a DU invasion. Sure there was the occaisional "There's a poll happening about who you support as your choice for President, go here to vote" type of post. This is an election campaign, you honestly can't expect that type of thing not to happen. But nowhere did I see a hint of a strategy even remotley mentioned to invade DU or any other such nonsense. All the partisans for any of the candidate are out there trying to win activist backing for their candidate. What do you think the candidates themsleves have been doing in Iowa and New Hampshire? I think you should stick to the issues rather than deviding us into politically correct and incorrect camps.

the problem is when they come on and bully others or shout others down or gang up on others or attack supporters of other candidates and expect everyone to make glowing speeches about their own favorite, thread after thread after thread. And then jeer when they take over the threads, as they have done on a number of occasions.

Even if they are misguided enough to support Clark... :P


But I have noticed that a lot of newbies for clark show up and jump right into the same threads, spewing the same attack memes as the other resident bashers. It is like they are 3rd shift on the 24/7 clark corps bash crew. When folks are rolling in here just to help bash and attack non-clark folks, that's lame.

Why don't we all declare this weekend a recruit for DU open enrollment period, and have everyone invite any democrat they know to join in the discussions here, even the ones who are ACTUALLY ALREADY BACKING A CLIENT? Radical. Of course no one should do it unless everyone can do it, we have to be fair about this. Maybe we should wait untill Noon tommorrow exactly, to give all the partisans time to prepare their respective invasion invitations so that everyone has an equal chance to compete in the market place of ideas. That's the idea behind public financing of campaigns, isn't it? Preserving a level playing field so no one has undo influence. Doesn't everyone support that? Or are there some people who think who ever can raise the most money gets to spend as much as they want to win votes? Gee, that would be just as unfair as whoever spends the most time turning people on to DU participation getting to toute all the votes those people cast in candidate preference polls, and the like. How dasterdly!

Anyone who comes here and doesn't trash other people and is sincere in their convictions is cool by me.

As one who's working on the Clark campaign - thanks alot.

Watch that doorknob! Safety first!

new to the world....or new to Democratic Politics.

I cast my first vote for a Democrat years before I ever
heard of DU.

And to further illuminate, I spend a lot of time on the
main Clark blog and I am not aware of any effort to recruit
Clarkies to DU.

DU is mentioned there often, so people coming here
is likely a by-product of that.

----

As usual, the same nattering chorus is here (nearly on-time)
to either bash Clark or Clark supporters. I think the incessant
negativity of some is the real problem of DU.

That is a great concern to many of us and was a concern before the General showed up with his packaged DLC act.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to address the way your candidate really stands on the issues, because on the few occasions when he actually takes a clear stand and not just a bunch of Democratic-sounding platitudes, it betrays the real agenda he represents.

You can count on me to oppose him and those who seek to promote him to keep their fingers tightly controlling the reins.

it doesn't matter....

Oppose him if you wish, it's a free country. Keep at it,
right here on DU if you think it helps your cause.

I think you are way off the mark in your analysis of Clark.
I also think you are way off in your analysis of what it
means to "be a Democrat". But you know, CWebster, just keep
at it...but the more people see of Clark (not your skewed
interpretation), generally the more they like him.

You know why?

Because people recognize earnestness, intelligence, and good
character when they see it.

yet?

yet?

Dont play the elitism card. I laughed when you called others "not particularly well-informed"

Right-wing sites.

Truly ridiculous!

Bat Area, West Coast where many felt even voting for Democrats in elections was suspect (though most did in Presidential elections when it really came down to it). Mostly I was active there in the late 70's and 80's, live in upstate NY now. No one there and then would even consider campaigning for a Democratic candidate. People had great fun, with each other, planning demonstrations and political theater. Everyone felt they were more progressive than thou. It was a wonderful bubble to be active within. We scored points, but won very few converts. Progressive litmus tests can be almost as restrictive as Jim Crow voting laws. Progressives have been losing ground for decades. Yes we have to stand for something, but we have to expand our base, and we have to vote Bush out of office. The world is getting more dangerous, it is increasingly a matter of life and death.

If progressives are annoyed about having to debate issues and priorities with people who are showing up here motivated to support Democrats, well, it looks like more self destructive behavior to me.

If you've read my posts you know I support Clark. I think he can sell most of our agenda to a much broader cross section of the public than we are currently reaching. I think he can win. I think he has integrity and compassion. Remember Earl Warran started out as a Republican Gov., and Teddy Rossevelt ended up as the biggest trust buster the nation has seen, migrating from the Republican Party to an independent Progressive one. Don't judge a book by its cover, but the right cover does attract attention. The nice thing about Clark's "cover" is it gets attention from a lot of people who normally have nothing to do with progressive politics. We need more of those people, not less.

I think he can sell most of our agenda to a much broader cross section of the public than we are currently reaching. I think he can win.

So true...if we don't win, how much progress can we make?

While that POV marks the beginning of my interest in Clark, it is but the first step of a long journey. He is an amazing person. Each time I hear him, I learn of things that are above cynicism, an appeal to my better angels.

I will say, that you among others do have more of an inclination to debate, though. As for your points, you tend to marginalize progressives which is a well-recognised tactic of the Right and corporate Centrists. I think we have seen enough of what their domination has wrought. Kucinich may be politically in line with my own views but I do recognize the futility of his campaign, or even Moseley Braun's, at this time, but that doesn't mean I am going to turn to a Republican model to attract a perceived swing vote, because there is the built in perception that the Democrats can not sell themselves.

And Dean is a perfectly good, solid Democrat who rallies his own party to feel self confident in their own identity. Let that be the first battle won.

He is my second choice, probably Edwards is my third. My argument isn't meant to marginalize progressives, it is a concern that too many progressives tend to marginalize themselves. Honest, we may disagree on tactics and strategy, but I am not a centrist! I love the cartoon you posted by the way. Does it surprise you that I fully agree with it? That is one strong reason why I have little use for Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman. I give Edwards only a partial pass because he was not an influential Democratic leader, and he is a populist on economic issues. I take the position that Clark has consistently been against this Iraq invasion. He admits he got tripped up in that interview during the first few days of his campaign. I think Clark's complete record of public statements including those made throughout the year preceeding the resolution vote are consistent in opposition to Bush's, as Clark calls it, "elective war" and "sideshow".

We strongly differ on Clark's progressive potential. I think he is in reality an intellectual free agent, currently being advised by ex Clinton people because he would be dead meat if he couldn't fluently articulate any comprehensive economic vision during the campaign. I mentioned Earl Warran and Theodore Roosevelt for a reason in my earlier post. I believe Clark's progressive instincts are sound, and they will continue to emerge.

Dean has progressive support among Democrats because he resounds with a D(d)emocratic message. Clark has the rhetoric down, to a certain extent, but he takes no risks, only echoing the sentiment shared by most of the candidates and he has no record in the Democratic party, None.

It is debatable that he has held a consistant perspective on the Iraq invasion, and his words are on the record claiming he would've supported the resolution along with admiring Bush and Blair's resolve. His initial disagreement was only in a tactical sense---how he would've handled the invasion differently from a military standpoint. During the build-up to the war, did you hear any news reports about Clark protesting the Iraqi war? If you did, can you provide a link? That is when it mattered, not after the fact, when it is easy to use it in opposition to Bush.

What is there to trust?

It strikes me that you would admire Edwards for his "populist economics" and then brush off Clark's Clinton advisors to "fluently articulate any comprehensive economic vision", when Clark seemed so DLC scripted he rejected Dean's calls for imposing serious regulatory controls on corporate America.

So much for progressive vision. He blew it right there, and for me, the issue of corporate domination of our politics, media and culture is as important as waging war based on a lie.

Clark had this to say before the House Armed Services Committee in September 2002:

"Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities... Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

"Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as 'preemptive.'"

http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

Clark's position has been consistent from the get-go.

We both know that. I'm glad he entered the race and has had a voice at the table so to speak. As to Clark's early statements on the Iraq war, I have read some, enough to make me comfortable with the consistency of his position. To be honest, I have been avoiding many work deadlines all day, spending time here when I should be there. I'm not trying to duck your request, but I don't have time right now to research links to interviews etc.

I will say though that in general, so long as a Democrat was not a strong supporter of backing Bush all the way (such as Lieberman), I factor in their current position as well as their past in my overall judgement of them as a viable current candidate. They lose many many points though if they were a leading voice in the Party and blew it when they had a chance to speak and be heard against this Administration, both on Iraq and other issues.

I made a long post on the "Clark attacks Dean" thread about how I perceive Clark, and have made some comments here about that also in my earlier posts. So I won't go on about it now, especially given my current time constraints. On the face of it, Dean has taken a stronger stand about the need to regulate corporate America, but your characterization of their two positions is unfair and distorted. A phrase such as "serious regulatory controls" is a sound bite. There are thousands of ways in which corporations are theoretically controlled, but no specifics are provided. Saying Clark rejects regulatory control is unfair, he has literally said otherwise (specifically he stated that there is a need to impose regulatory controls beyond what Clinton did in some important areas). The devil is in the details. Clark starts out with the Clinton play book, but I think he will shift it in a progressive direction. Say what you will about Clark, but he did not spend most of his adult life personally beholden to corporate interests. Most politicians can't even say the same.

Yes I like the populist things Edwards has to say, which as I noted in a post, is one reason I rank him third. I don't think Edwards would be as strong a candidate as Clark in the General election, especially not now with the Republicans all fired up to conduct the campaign on national security fears and an attack on the patriotism of opponents. I think Dean would be a stronger overall candidate than Edwards, even though I think Edwards would do better in the South than Dean which is a big concern of mine.

Where did you get that one?

Clark was the FIRST candidate to question Bush on 9/11. I have YET to hear Dean do the same thing. Considering that Chimpy's rep is built on that day, I would consider that a serious risk indeed.

I also like and support Dean I like a Clark/Dean Dean/Clark ticket but I don't see one as being more "Progressive" at all. Dean is conservative in many things and liberal in some and so is Clark. I don't get where people are labeling him with the tag "Liberal" or Progressive. If you want someone Progressive - you should go for Kucinich or Sharpton.

Kerry is also much more Liberal/Progressive than Dean also.

Liberals and dems alike have been marginalized by the media and have been forced to get their information from the internet as well as communicate with one another.

Most of the Clark supporters here found out about him through DU (just like I did) and you want to accuse him of an attempted coup? Strange.

No, I don't know what you mean, and your post is an embarrassment. Welcome to DU all. Glad to have you.


BTW, Clark did a great job.

Perfect start. :hi::grouphug:

when there's a positive Clark thread on the board. Lighten up.

RL stories along this line too hun.

Julie

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

I got here through the Daily Kos.

that somebody on the blog is calling for folks to come to DU to flood out the non-clark voices.

It is not that new posters are not welcome, but when there is a clear intent to try and flood DU with Clark supporters from the candidate's blog to try and make it look as if Clark has overwhelming support on DU, that's underhanded, desperate and dishonest.

I still remember when folks were attacking the Dean supporters and claiming we were being sent in to flood DU, yet the vast majority of us were posting here before ever hearing about Dean.

It might be funny though to put a call out on the Dean blog and have a few hundred Dean supporters roll in here. I bet if we did, the Clark folks would bash them for it.

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

then in the next line to defend it happening.

Make up your mind.


And frienchie just posted that they're bringing in folks from the blog. Are you calling him a liar?

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

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

I am no Dean basher. You came to this thread and started whining. Should I not respond? Is that one of the rules of Dean Underground?

first, I am a woman....and a good looking one at that. We're talking Sophia Loren crossed with Catherine Zeta Jones.....so there!

second, what I said was that Clark Newbies were coming over from the main blog...not because of a conspiracy, but because some of us go back and forth between blogs and have linked subject matters for DU to the main blog, including polls, etc.... Some have come on their own, some have come via other blogs, some have come and liked the format here and wish to participate.

Dean prides himself on bringing forth a whole set of voters who have not voted before.

What is wrong, at the beginning of an election as important as this one, that Clark supporter would eventually find themselves at DU?

I smell a certain stench of elitism here......some who find themselves superior....legends in their own minds, I say.

I found Du via the main blog.....a while ago. It's all about the internet and the increase in it's use. Well you are witnessing an increase in DU's membership for good reasons.

Dean's campaign has been going on for months, so I am sure that his supporters that found this site months ago are above 1000 comments. However, since the Clark campaign just recently started, why would it not make sense that his supporters are just now discovering the DU site, hence low post number for many.

LIKE GENERAL SMACKDOWN SAID.....DO NOT DISTORT MY WORDS.....ALRITE???

Surely you can go to the Clark site and find the demand that people flood DU and drive out the Dean crowd, right?

You would never make such a serious accusation, much less repeat it every five minutes, if you didn't have any evidence, would you?

But don't let that little slip keep you from accusing me of making it up.

to the notion that there is some dark conspiracy to silence the "progressives" at DU?

That might not be "making it up" but it's definitely a stretch, to put it politely.

http://campaign.forclark.com/story/2003/11/21/2196/4065

I've been getting a plethora of links by cruising around on the Democratic Underground forums. It's sort of like a Democratic convention in Internet form. There are tons of Clark supporters so take a look and drop some Clark science on fellow Democrats.

Supporters of a Democratic candidate going to a place where Democrats hang out to campaign for their candidate!

I am clutching my pearls even as we speak!

Sorry, but we are now lost in the world of the drama queens.

you try to downplay what you orginaly claimed wasn't happeneing.

I'm still trying to figure out how you got from Point A (an invitation to Clark supporters to come to DU) to Point B (OH MY GOD the Clark people are conspiring against us they want to silence us and send us to the labor camps and oh my God what will we do!!!!!!!!).

This "conversation" has grown tiresome. If you want to present an innocuous statement as proof of a grand conspiracy, you can do it without me.

I do have a question for you, though. Do you honestly think that this sort of thing helps your candidate? I like Howard Dean quite a lot and was following his career back before he was running for president, thanks to his stand on the marriage issue. I can read his remarks or listen to a speech and feel all fired up, but then I can spend a half-hour at DU and find myself fighting the urge to judge him by his more irritating followers.

And I am not alone in this. I was talking last night with a friend in Boston who worked on the marriage campaign in Vermont. He is a firm Dean booster, has gone to New Hampshire to campaign for him, organized meetups, and the like. He never gets tired of making the case for Dean's candidacy. But even he confessed to me last night that he is losing patience with *some* of Dean's supporters and fears that they will drive away people we need next year. He specifically cited DU as a place where that sort of thing is happening.

I like both Dean and Clark and especially like the thought of putting them both on the ticket, but if I were new to DU and my only impression of Howard Dean came from the childish antics that I have seen in this thread, I would leave with a very negative impression of him.

Is that the way to help a candidate?

n/t

in post #153 above?

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

Simmer down Francis.

naturally attracted to DU? (Heaven knows why, with a greeting like yours) "We're brining them in" does not necessarily indicate a conspiracy.

I swear, the Clark supporters on this board seem like the most genuine human beings of the whole lot.

to DU. An new blogger came on and wrote: I just found this great site that has tons of information and links, it is called DemocraticUnderground.com.

I am pretty active on the blog and I have NEVER seen any kind of talk about spamming, etc.

DU is great. I love being here and I recommend it to everyone. I have recommended it to Clark, Dean, and Kucinich people. I have also recommended DU to my county legislator and his campaign manager. I have recommended DU at Democratic Party events. I think many of us recommend DU because it is the place to be for organized Democratic Party (and "progressive") politics. We cover all issues and almost all news events here.

Someone called DU a 30K+ person think tank. And that this think tank scares the pukes. I agree with that. DU is a critical part of the democratic party. Just think of some of the things we have accmplished as a group.

There is no "invasion" or "coup." Clark supporters are Dems or dem-leaners. I guess you would like to rename DU to Dean Underground? Get over yourself.

This needs it's own thread.

I really like this site for some of the reasons stated, I actually hang out here more than at the Clark blog which is due to the fact I want to stay in tune with what others think no matter the candidate they support. Its not Clark that brought Clark supporters here. It is the desire to replace our current president with the best democrat for the job. How better to determine the best candidate than being here?

word for word.

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

The more DUers the better, no matter from where they come. According to Dean supporters, the revolution will be on the internet; please PLEASE explain to me why the rules are different for Clark supporters.

It's this kind of crazed reaction that is such a turn-off.

suddenly you've got a dozen Clarkies falling in to attack them.

I haven't decided who I will support.

The cult of Dean just can't take the competition, though.

but just happen to bash Dean or his supporters in every other post.

Got it.

http://campaign.forclark.com/story/2003/11/21/2196/4065


"I've been getting a plethora of links by cruising around on the Democratic Underground forums. It's sort of like a Democratic convention in Internet form. There are tons of Clark supporters so take a look and drop some Clark science on fellow Democrats. "

a nefarious plot to drive the Dean devotées out of DU?

There are links to DU all over the place, and I myself have invited people here. I was doing that back when most people in America had never heard of Clark or Dean. (I don't invite people here anymore, though, given how poisonously negative the atmosphere has become.)

It's freaky concept, I know, but it would be nice if all of the more rabid followers of all the candidates would try to remind themselves now and then that our enemy right now is the sonofabitch in the White House, not our fellow Democrats.

that shows that folks ont he ofcial Clark blog are calling for Clark supporters to come to DU... and so you retreat into semantics.

The point of flooding the group with Clark supporters is to shout down the non-clark folks, as the Clarkies are doing in just about every thread.

Again, it is common for supporters of Democratic candidates to go to places where Democrats congregate in order to campaign for their candidates. This is the biggest Democratic site on the web--why wouldn't supporters of Clark, or Dean, or Kucinich, or whoever come here?

One shouldn't have to point this out, but this is not a Dean site any more than it is the property of any other candidate. And all the candidates have zealous supporters who run around attacking other candidates and attempting to hijack threads. Frankly, I do not think that you are in a position to complain about that.

from the official blog. Yet when I show it is happening, is the accusation that I made it up retracted... nope.

Instead there is rationalization as to why it OK for the Clark folks to be calling in other Clark folks. Now you can make all the excuses you want about why it is OK for the Clark folks to do this... that's not the point.

The point is that what I said was true, Clark folks are doing this, and the quote proves it.

:scared:

since that last Dean v Clark poll where out of nowhere all these folks started showing up with post numbers in the single digits.


They've got to bring in folks from their blog to flood DU and take turns bashing Dean in shifts.

Whereas most of the Dean supporters were long time DU members before ever learning about Dean.

They're everywhere. The elitist behavior on display by a few people here is disdusting. Yep, Dean is for growing the party. I see it in his supporters. :puke:

and the attacks against other Dems by him and some of his zealous supporters are turning the party against him. He better hope that he recieves a clear majority of the votes, because the delegates of Kerry, Edwards, etc. will not go to him.

I have no right to try to influence anyone here, since I'm not American and it's your business who you elect...but I do seem to notice that he just states his positions and doesn't knock other candidates! :shrug:

He is a general after all... and used to giving orders to others to do his dirty work.

How did you intercept the secret communique's? Drat!

and his smirk is almost as bad as Bush's.

Would vote for him in the general, but wouldn't like it.

An "invasion?" Good lord...I'm glad we didn't couch it in those terms when we picked up members from places like Salon's table talk or democrats.com or Smirking Chimp.

We're all in this together--no matter how much we love our particular candidates, don't ever forget that.

And lastly, how dare you. Just...how dare you.

Welcome to ANYBODY who wants to join DU and contribute to the ongoing dialogue.

edited for typo

Then you must never post to this board. Were you around when usenet, the precursor to the web, was the forum of choice? Then came the intial wave as the AOLer's crashed the party. It was bad for a few months before things stabilzed again. You'll live:).

he was focused and sharp. I am feeling some hope.

his questions were perfunctory, and he sometimes didn't respond, didn't help Clark very much, though Clark was very good, didn't need any help.

When Tommy Franks was on, Dave was sucking up big time, totally in awe of being in the presence of a general. Very very different than the way he was with Clark, and I don't see a good reason for it other than politics.

Sort of like a job interview.

and introduce himself to the public. He asked HELPFUL straightfoward questions which seemed intentionally designed to give Clark an opportunity to clear his name & defend his reputation.

Dave allowed Clark to answer fully and gave him 3 segments which seemed really generous.

It had the feel of a serious interview more than anything else. So perhaps Dave didn't want to smooze and detract from the candidate or his message.

I watched it (thank you Digital Cable) and Clark looked great. The studio audience got into it very nicely with some of the rousing things he said about what he'd do if he was President now. He's just such an amazing contrast to Bush*. This interview proves that Wesley Clark could be 1000 times the leader Bush* is. Letterman asked coherant and generally useful questions that weren't "Did Bill Clinton make your decision to run?".

but hasn't started really paying attention to the race.

She actually watched and listened and said, 'Y'know, I'm not much for the military running the government, but I like this guy.'

A lot of Democrats really haven't started to pay attention to the potential nominees yet, especially here in NY where there is a large undecided vote. And they do tend to get stuck on that General thing until they actually watch and listen to the guy.

If I were on Clark's marketing team I would probably go more with a Rock the Vote ad than the military background ad in the more liberal states.

I think it will be easy to overplay his military background. It's a balancing act.

who have their eye on Clark.
For Americans living abroad he may well be the most popular Dem candidate because, among his many qualities, he has International, multi-lateral experiences.

DemEx

NH is full of vets and senior independant/libertarian types. That ad is very good for NH.

My personal experience, however, is that a lot of undecided Democrats I know just can't get past the fact that he's an ex-General. They haven't seen enough of him to understand his depth. I thought the Rock the Vote ad was a brilliant way to convey his stands on core issues and to humanize him. It had a great "cool" factor as well that would be appreciated in both NYC and upstate NY.

The RTV ad got a smarmy review on Page 6 of the Post which further ads to its appeal.

I thought he handled himself and the questions very well.

Letterman was oddly serious and asked the tough questions. Clark was confident and unfazed.

I'm uncommitted, but have narrowed my choices to those I think have a chance to win: Dean, Gephardt, and Clark. Tonight adds a few points to Clark's column, in my book!

please don't fight amongst ourselves..whoever is the Dem candidates we shall all be behind them even if they aren't the ones you wanted..
but Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean..could not possibly lose.

last night with Letterman. I loved it when he said he was hoping to just go into the working world, make some money and go be a working "golf teacher." Cute! He just couldn't stay away from public service when he saw his country NEEDED him. <sigh> The guy's a winner!

I saw David's interview a little differently than others posted here. "I" looked at it as David giving the General the "opportunity" to debunk rumors. The glass was half full for me. :) He was given as much time as needed to answer the questions and I thought he explained them all well.

When Dave asked him, "If you were president, would we have Osama by now?" Clark, "Yes, we would." So there! VERY confident man, very self assured and oh my goodness, is he smart!

I thought the interview was great and Clark looked very comfortable and most importantly, PRESIDENTIAL!

Don't forget to tune in Sunday to "Face the Nation" and CNN's Wolf Blitzer at 11:00 A.M. Central Time. :bounce:

of how he plans to enforce the de-regulated excesses of corporate media and energy without re-regulation?

Perhaps voluntary compliance?

He is a corporate hack who, along with Lieberman, went on public record in opposition of more regulatory controls and lauded business-labor cooperation. Guess who always lost that compromise? Labor should stay clear of this guy.

Last I heard, it was an entertainment show - not effing C-SPAN.

It isn't one of the things that matter.

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

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

There are existing laws to cover the 'excesses' you speak of (but don't name), which are currently being under-enforced. Neither Clark nor Lieberman, to my knowledge, has called for a decrease in regulation. Whoreard Dean's vague talk about regulation was just vague talk: he has no specific proposals anyone can look over to draw judgments on his talk. Until he does, it's just rhetoric to keep people like yourself wound up and contributing tothat monument to charlatanism that is his campaign. Can you show where Clark or Lieberman, or any of the other candidates who have not embraced Whoreard's empty rhetoric, are in support of more deregulation? Can you even demonstrate, to get away from the wife-beating fallacy in which you are shamelessly indulging, that deregulation is always bad? Of course not.


Blah blah blah.

You mean the "existing laws" we are going after Ken Lay with? Or the ones that prevent the corporate interests from dominating our airwaves so that we have to turn to the slternate press of the internet or the foreign press for the truth?

Yeah, just a bunch of rhetoric like when Dean was "too angry" until the general(or should I play your juvenile little game and refer to him as "Weasely"?) showed a little fire on Fox--then it became an admired trait.

After all, Clark was anxious to differentiate and distance himself from Dean on the issue, so the "rhetoric" must've been significant enough for him to join Lieberman---who is not known for his regulatory restraint when it comes to the accountability of the accountants.

Actually Ken Lay could be charged with numerous federal charges
of stock fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.

But, the attorney general of the US would have to investigate and file such charges.

Perhaps, Ashcroft is probably too busy pursuing traitorgate to have time
to charge Ken Lay, and perhaps pigs might soon fly.

That said, I think Dean is right that we need more regulatory laws to reign in out-of-control companies, like credit-card companies, companies that share out private information, and copyright law. I hope Clark, and all the candidates will consider such regulation as well. That said, I think that Dean should phrase his effort not as "re-regulation" which sounds regressive but as: "better regulation" to ensure fairness and protect individual rights which have been trampled by some large corporations.

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

Your greatest contribution to the democratic party is getting arrested. Those are your words not mine. Billy Bunter will vote for the nominee, whoever it is. Will you Mr. Democrat?

and it quacks like a duck...

I am not sure if this party needs your type of attitude.

or the party Clark belongs to?

for a middle-school student.

Thank God, the vast majority of Dean supporters show more class. Some of us do have Dean as a second choice, you know, in spite of attack-dogs like you.

retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
read the book

on what regulations we are talking about and exactly
what they all propose.

Without those details, you can't make an argument.

He was funny, intelligent, self-assured, down-to-earth...

I think he will be great for the country and will grow the Democratic party.

Clark will grow, nurture, and improve the Democratic party!

:kick:

DemEx

NEW YORK - Late night talk show host David Letterman touched a nerve Thursday when he asked Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark about criticism from a former military colleague.

Letterman was referring to retired Gen. Hugh Shelton's assertion in September that Clark was relieved as NATO's supreme commander in 1999 because of "integrity and character issues." Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not elaborate.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/7312471.htm

I watched the Letterman interview expected to see a repeat of a Fox News/Asman type encounter. I didn't see any "nerves" getting "touched". It seemed like a very calm interview to me.

the General say it was a political smear that had no basis of fact and until those making that claim explained it he felt it needed to be discussed in order to expose it for what it was...just a smear.

Shelton, Franks and Schwarzkopf are right wing cowards and envious little men, if there was basis for their comments they wouldn't hide behind an accusation without the honor or integrity to back up their claims. It is their Honor and Integrity I question!



retyred in fla
so i read this book

It stirs up memories of the attacks by Clinton haters and rings their bells so they will tack that claim onto Clark. So far it is all they can do to hurt him and since they refuse to explain theirselves it hasn't hurt Clark much in Dem cirles.

I was hoping to see some lighter stuff, especially in the second or third segment (not vaudeville like Leno's Kerry on the motorcycle, tho). My wife pointed out correctly that Letterman very seldom gives three segments to a guest and he will very seldom do a straight, serious interview unless he is really into that guest.

I am looking forward to the Daily Show interview, if that can be arranged. I imagine all the candidates will be on the Daily Show at some point soon.

I thought he was very relaxed. Letterman did a good job in letting him explain fully. Thanks Dave. Also I wonder if someone from his campaign is checking out DU. When he mentioned Rwanda it made me wonder.

while it was taking place. It was one of the reasons he fought so hard for Kosovo.

As he said..."When you can do good, you should."

The buck stops, imo, at the door of the Republican Congress, their hatred of Clinton, and their obsession with Monica.

and other foreign countries....such as mine, Canada....The first time I really watched an interview with Clark, he said he was greatly concerned with how Bush has alienated your former allies...This is true with my country and is already effecting trade issues...I started this thread and went to bed shortly after....From what I've read this morning most of you liked the interview too....Letterman was at his best with Clark, I thought....He didn't act like a smart ass which he often does...He was serious....The more I see Clark the better I like him...By the way...the Republicans keep saying he doesn't have a chance, which must mean they are scared of him!!!

means a lot actually. Just look at the damage Dummy has done in the short time(it seems like a lifetime) since he has been in office. He has managed through his arrogance, insensitivity and lack of any kind of historical background to damage relaltionships that have evolved over many decades.

Clark is smart,was an economics professor, a 4 star general and from what I have seen and read about him will be more than able to heal some of the many wounds this administration has inflicted on the "global" community.

No one is perfect, but he and Dean would make a dynamite team and IMHO be able to earn some of the respect lost over the last 3 years.

And, I believe, he would already have many allies due to his past diplomatic experience.

Europe would sigh a huge sigh of relief IMO.

DemEx

and African americans.

How often do you hear a politician even mention Rwanda, let alone suggest we should have intervened? Last election, both Bush and Gore agreed we were correct not to have intervened.

Still waiting, however, for any of them to metion the Congo...

Clark sees the global picture...I'm more and more impressed with him...

This thread, on the other hand, is a huge disappointment. :P

I see some notorious Deanies have crawled out of their holes to scold the "hundreds of people" (grossly exaggerate much?) that have infiltrated DU and will soon proceed to sow the seeds of foul Republicanism throughout the site. Obviously Clark would have no support among REAL DUers, so all of his supporters must have been sent here to corrupt us - especially the elite Deanies, who have thus established a rule that one must not find DU through a political blog. Apparently it must be stumbled upon accidentally for one to be a legitimate, uncorrupt poster.

It's really, really disgusting. Before I left last night, people were actually talking about how Clark did on Letterman. I think. Is this even the same thread? :shrug:

/end sarcasm

They must not be real liberals.

:7

.

it seems some Deans supporters are afraid of that, for some reason, they need there to be war. :shrug:

it the ticket to put the fear of god(s)(zilla) or atheist facsimile in freepers

play to win

let the people decide who gets to put their name first. co-presidents sound like a fair compromise? heh heh too much scotch tonight. why am I on DU my wife is right I am obsessing.

that his military experience involves more than weaponry, as he explained how being in command involves all sorts of areas related to human resources issues...housing, education of the children of personnel, healthcare, etc.
....and politics.

I am really liking Clark. It's the sense of depth and world experience that he has...he's angry, too...he's straightforward and comes across as very sincere.

Hats off to Letterman for conducting a straight interview addressing major questions about Clark and the state of the nation....and for letting Clark explain without snide interruptions.

since the rest of his campaigning is stalling due to his inexperience.

you or your comment? Clark is tied for first. He is leading and trailing in some polls but all have him in the top 2 nationally. He has even almost doubled his support in NH.

now tell the press that he has answered the "integrity/character" question and if they want any more discussion on the matter they should talk to General Shelton. THAT has been going on for at least a month and he has answered it and answered it and answered it. I think he needs to put a stop to it.

Remember when daddy Bush was asked about his mistress by a reporter? He said, "that is ridiculous and I will not respond to such foolisness"...and that was that. The press dropped it. That is all Clark has to do now...send the press to Shelton. What do you think? I'm tired of hearing about it. What say you?

..am I the only one SURE that Dave Letterman is a Clarkie?

n/t

General Wesley K. Clark will attend a fundraiser hosted by www.illinoisforclark2004.com and “C” Company’s Chicago chapter on Sunday, November 23 at 4:00 PM, at the Rock Bottom Brewery, One West Grand Ave., in Chicago. Recommended contribution to attend this event is $75.00. Please RSVP by e-mailing: rsvp@illinoisforclark2004.com. A copy of the invite as well as a contribution form is available at: http://www.illinoisforclark2004.com/downloads/1123rockbottom.pdf. We ask that you bring the contribution form with you. We look forward to seeing on Sunday!

and I am so excited about it! I finally get to meet him. I can't wait. Should be a great day. :bounce: