A very simple arguement for Clark for President (with Dean as VP)

I met a Clark supporter (he was wearing a button) last night.
I asked him who he supported before Clark got in the race, his answer: "Nobody".

It occurs to me this morning that both Dean and Clark are drawing a lot of indifferent voters into the process, and that the enormous turnout for that ticket would be so strong that it would be more than any corrupt process could stifle.

The other...not so much

Dean. And some republicans too. In NH and Iowa, the best polling available because those people are familiar with the candidates, Dean is way ahead when it comes to independants. He also has very low negatives with them. Republicans I don't have polls for, but his fiscally conservative stances will go over very well with non-bloodthirsty fundamentalist republicans.

:kick:

People who felt that way were the beginning of the draft Clark effort.

If it weren't for Clark I would be in that "Dean's gonna
win it anyway" frame of mind by now....the I would've probably
said "good on Dean, at least he was the underdog".

But now, I have Clark and I am totally committed to him.
He such a smart sum'bitch and for a while I have yearned
for a real "non-politician" to take the reigns.

Not having any experience in elected office is not the same thing as being a non-politician.

For christ's sake the man was a defense lobbyist working with some of the most politicaly connected groups in the country. He went to republican fundraisers and heaped praise on the truly great leadership of reagan and bush sr.

This man is the very definition of an insider status quo power brokering politician.

he spoke at both Republican AND Democratic fundraisers.

is a two faced liar who'll tell a given audience what they want to hear?

And that's a defense?

have done something so stupid so as to give the fools
in the media something to bash him with (being nice to
both the "Hatfields and the McCoys").

If he were "a politician", he would have been "running" since
he got out of the military and wouldn't have gotten tangled
up by being diplomatous.

Sorry, but your dog is barking up the wrong tree.

"have done something so stupid so as to give the fools
in the media something to bash him with"

Nope the reason he did that is because he is a p0litician... the worst kind a two faced panderign liar who says one thing to one group and then does a 180 and say the exact oppsite to another group.

"(being nice to
both the "Hatfields and the McCoys")."

He wasn't just being nice... he said Reagan and Bush Sr. were truly great leaders with grand vision to whom we should all be thankful etc etc.

"If he were "a politician", he would have been "running" since
he got out of the military and wouldn't have gotten tangled
up by being diplomatous."


LOL when he got out of the military he was working as a defense lobbyist trying to profiteer off 9-11 and the war on terror. He'll pretend to be on whatever side he thinks can get him the best deal... this week that's the democratic party.

The man has no expereicne in the areas needed, and the expereicne he does have is in making war. which is exactly what we don't need in a president right now. We need a healer, not a killer.

Courtesy IranianDemocrat

Flip: In 1992, Dean said, "I don't support the death penalty for two reasons. One, you might have the wrong guy, and, two, the state is like a parent. Parents who smoke cigarettes can't really tell their children not to smoke and be taken seriously. If a state tells you not to murder people, a state shouldn't be in the business of taking people's lives." The Rutland Herald, a Vermont newspaper, says that in those days "Dean was an outspoken opponent of the death penalty."

Flop: In early June 2003, Dean issued a statement declaring, "As governor, I came to believe that the death penalty would be a just punishment for certain, especially heinous crimes, such as the murder of a child or the murder of a police officer. The events of Sept. 11 convinced me that terrorists also deserve the ultimate punishment."

Context: Dean's statement added, "I would instruct my attorney general to seek capital punishment only in very serious cases, including those involving vulnerable victims and those involving terrorism." On June 22, 2003, Dean said on Meet the Press, "The only instances that I support the death penalty are 1) murder of a child, 2) a mass murder like a terrorist, and 3) the shooting of a police officer." He cited a series of 1994 Vermont newspaper articles that documented his rethinking of capital punishment. Dean said the rape-murder of Polly Klaas by a previously convicted sex offender prompted his rethinking. He said he worried that life imprisonment without parole didn't guarantee justice because convicted murderers could still get out on a "technicality." He rejected deterrence (except for cop-killers) and vengeance as arguments for the death penalty. He said he came to support capital punishment because terrorists and child predators are "incapable of being rehabilitated," and "to let these people out is too dangerous."

Flip: On Feb. 28, 1995, Dean said on CNN's Crossfire that Social Security "absolutely" needed to "increase the retirement age." According to a March 3, 1995 Newhouse News Service report on a subsequent Dean breakfast with reporters, "The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else." In June 2003, Dean said on Meet the Press, "I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68."

Flop: At a presidential candidate forum on Aug. 5, 2003, Dean said, "I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."


DEAN FLIP-FLOPS ON COMPLETING MISSION IN IRAQ
March 2003: Dean Ducks Troops Question. “ repeatedly declined to say whether he thinks the United States should withdraw its troops immediately from Iraq, as some vocal war opponents urge. Responding to questions before and during the event, Dean declined to call for the troops’ return, saying he didn’t know the implications for geopolitics and soldiers’ safety and wasn’t privy to intelligence on the ground in Iraq. ‘I didn’t get us into this,’ Dean said. ‘Unfortunately, I’m not president now and I can’t get us out of this.’” (Joanna Weiss, “Dean Ducks Prescription For Quitting Iraq,” The Boston Globe, 3/27/03)

Dean Then Berated Bush For Suggesting American Troops Could Come In 18 Months. “If the President thinks our troops will be out in 18 months, he is smoking something he forgot about when he was at Yale.” (Rebecca Cook, “Howard Dean Rallies Supporters In Seattle,” The Associated Press, 5/15/03)

September 1: Dean Said U.S. Should Not Pull Troops Out Of Iraq. “We can’t leave Iraq. We can’t pull out, because if we do that, chaos ensues or else a fundamentalist Shiite regime may arise with undo Iranian influence, both of which would be more dangerous than Saddam Hussein.” (Howard Dean On CNN’s “Crossfire Goes Inside Politics,” 9/1/03)

ONLY THREE DAYS LATER: In Debate, Dean Said Our Troops Should Come Home From Iraq. DEAN: “We need more troops. They’re going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home.” (Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Albuquerque, NM, 9/4/03)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPS OVER AMERICAN LABOR STANDARDS

July 2003: Dean Called For Strict American Labor Standards For International Trade. “Unlike U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Dean doesn’t want to get rid of the North American Free Trade Agreement. ‘This trade is important to America. It’s important for our national defense,’ Dean said. ‘But we need the same labor standards in Mexico and China as you have in the United States, and the same environmental standards.’” (Lynn Okamoto, “Dean Calls Economy Top Issue For 2004 Race,” The Des Moines Register, 7/19/03)

Dean Backpedaled In Debate, Saying International Standards Could Work. LIEBERMAN: “ay I say just briefly that Governor Dean … referred to American standards, not international standards.” DEAN: “Either is fine with me.” LIEBERMAN: “Well, then that’s a reassuring change of position.” (Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Albuquerque, NM, 9/4/03)


…To an Ever-Growing List of Dean Flip-Flops:

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON PUBLIC FINANCING OF HIS 2004 CAMPAIGN

Summer 2003 Public Financing Flip-Flop: Dean “backed away from his pledge to adhere to spending limits, saying some advisers want to explore opting out of the Watergate-era public financing system because of his sudden fund-raising success. … ‘Could we change our mind? Sure,’ he said. … “Dean signed a letter to the promising to abide by the program’s rules, including its spending limits.” (Ron Fournier, “Dean Pulls Back On Spending Limits Pledge,” The Associated Press, 8/15/03)

DEAN ALSO FLIP-FLOPPED ON PUBLIC FINANCING OF HIS 2000 CAMPAIGN!

July 2000 Public Financing Flip: “Gov. Howard Dean is challenging his Republican opponents to accept a $300,000 campaign spending cap even if a federal judge overturns the limit. … ‘This law is important in restoring public faith in the election process,’ Dean said in a prepared statement. ‘Vermonters need to know that their small donations are just as important as a $1,000 check from a multi-national corporation or PAC (political action committee).’ Dean said he was at a financial disadvantage, first because he had a lower spending limit as an incumbent, but also because he faced two challengers who were likely to have at least $300,000 apiece.” (“Dean Challenges Republicans To Spending Limits,” The Associated Press, 7/21/00)

August 2000 Public Financing Flop: “Gov. Howard Dean abandoned public funding for his re-election campaign, saying he couldn’t take the chance he would be outspent 4-1 by his Republican opponent. Publicly financed campaigns were part of strict campaign finance reform legislation championed by Dean, who signed it into law in 1997. … Progressive Party gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina, the only candidate now using public funding, criticized Dean’s decision. ‘I am not surprised. In some way it shows his true colors,’ Pollina said. ‘Ultimately, it’s a victory for big money and bad for average citizens.’” (Wilson Ring, “Governor Abandons Public Funding,” The Associated Press, 8/18/00)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON LIFTING CUBA EMBARGO

Dean Once Favored Lifting Cuba Embargo, Now Says It Would Be Wrong. “Howard Dean, who sells himself as the presidential campaign’s straightest shooter, is starting to throw voters some curves. … Last weekend, Dean shifted his position on the trade embargo against Cuba. Dean, who had supported rolling back the embargo to foment human rights improvements, said he has become convinced such a move would be unwise. Cuban Americans, who generally support the embargo, are an important voting bloc in several states, including Florida.” (Jim VandeHei, “Dean Invites More Scrutiny By Switching Key Stances,” The Washington Post, 8/30/03)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON YUCCA MOUNTAIN

1996 Governor Dean Yucca Mountain Flip: “I am urging you to support changes in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that would ensure that the federal government meets its responsibility to electricity consumers to begin accepting spent fuel from commercial power plants in 1998. … Opponents assert that the shipment of nuclear waste is highly unsafe, but the facts prove otherwise. Over the past 30 years, more than 2000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have been made on the nation’s highways and railways. No shipment has ever resulted in a release of radioactivity or public harm. … I sincerely hope you will support S. 1271 to establish an integrated spent fuel management program that includes a centralized, interim storage facility, continued site characterization of the potential repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, and an appropriate transportation system to move spent fuel.” (Gov. Howard Dean, Letter To Sen. Patrick Leahy, 5/1/96)

2003 Candidate Dean Yucca Mountain Flop: REPORTER: “As governor, you supported a plan to store the nation’s waste at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Do you still think this is a good solution?” DEAN: “As governor of Vermont, it was a grand idea because it would get the waste out of Vermont. But now that I’m running for president, I’ve got to reassess it and see what the science looks like.” (Amanda Griscom, “Q&A: Howard Dean On The Environment,” Alternet Website, www.alternet.org, Accessed 6/4/03)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON DEATH PENALTY

“Opportunist” Dean Now Supports The Death Penalty In Some Cases. “Vermont liberals say Dean’s governing history suggests more of a political tactician, a strategic opportunist who will ultimately run a campaign that inspires the middle as well as the left. … Some years back, reversed his opposition to the death penalty and now supports it in some cases.” (Terry M. Neal, “Will The Real Howard Dean Please Stand Up?” Washingtonpost.com, 7/31/03)

In Disastrous ‘Meet The Press’ Appearance, Dean Admitted To Death Penalty Flip-Flop. “An appearance on ‘Meet the Press’ by Dr. Dean on Sunday, arranged by his aides as part of this announcement swing, turned into what even some Dean supporters described today as something of a debacle, highlighting many areas of attacks Dr. Dean would be subject to in a general election or a primary. … Dr. Dean also acknowledged that he had changed his position on the death penalty -- he now supports it in some cases, after once having been a strong opponent …” (Adam Nagourney, “After A Year Campaigning, Dean Officially Enters Race,” The New York Times, 6/24/03)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON FEDERAL MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM

1994 Federal Medical Liability Reform Flip: DEAN: “We’ve absolutely got to have malpractice reform. Absolutely. And I think it ought to be done at the federal level. In fact, that’s -- I think all 50 governors think that.” (CNN’s “Viewers Call In With Health Care Questions,” 7/18/94)

2002 Federal Medical Liability Reform Flop: DEAN: “As a doctor, I’d love to have all kinds of malpractice reform. That is not the federal government’s business. This administration, for all its talk about states’ prerogatives and local control, doesn’t believe in it. They simply substituted conservative micromanagement for what used to be liberal micromanagement. It’s like gun control. That is a state matter, not a federal matter.” (CNN’s “Capital Gang,” 10/5/02)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON RETIREMENT AGE

1995 Governor Dean Retirement Age Flip: DEAN: “Secondly, I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to … increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Senator Packwood is on exactly the right track. … ” (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 2/28/95)

2003 Candidate DeanRetirement Age Flop: RUSSERT: “Would you raise retirement age to 70?” DEAN: “No. No.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 6/22/03)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON CREATING
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

2002 Homeland Security Flip: Asked what he thought of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Dean said: “I don’t have a quarrel with bureaucracy. I wouldn’t do it that way, but I think everyone does their own thing. … I’m not going to attack the President for trying to create a homeland security office—it’s a reasonable thing to do.” (Ann Rostow, “Give ‘Em Hell Howard,” Texas Triangle, 9/5-10/02)

2003 Homeland Security Flop: Howard Dean “‘says the creation of a homeland security department was a mistake and that Tom Ridge is the wrong man for the job.’ In an interview with CQ Homeland Security’s Freedman, Dean said: ‘I would not have created the Department of Homeland Security.’ He added: ‘Creating a new bureaucracy is rarely the actual solution to creating efficiency.’” (“Dean Takes On Homeland Security, Tom Ridge,” The Hotline, 5/21/03)

DEAN FLIP-FLOPPED ON CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY

1995 Governor Dean Social Security Flip: “The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. ‘It would be tough but we could do it,’ he said.” (Miles Benson, “And Politicians Wonder Why They Aren’t Trusted,” Times-Picayune , 3/5/95)

2003 Candidate DeanSocial Security Flop: RUSSERT: “But you would no longer cut Social Security benefits?” DEAN: “But you don’t--no. I’m not ever going to cut Social Security benefits.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 6/22/03)

a two faced liar who'll tell a given audience what they want to hear, but then you knew that!


liberal fiscal conservative
moderate
dean=whatever the moment dictates!



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

;-)

DTH

entered I was considering Graham and Kerry.


:dem:

entered I was considering Graham and Kerry.


:dem:

.

:dem:

Rove/Cheney/Bush made national security/u.s military the main issue in the election as soon as they illegally invaded Iraq.
Dean has zero military experience or cred. I can only hope that his ego and his supporters will allow him to take the job...otherwise Edwards might be the best match-up with Wes.

or on the ticket at all, for that matter.

.. but I really don't think they belong on the same ticket. Both are outsiders and would need someone with legislative experience.

Dean/Graham makes sense
Clark/Edwards makes sense

but not Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean. IMHO.

but that's a winner too. For Massachusetts it's a loss though if they win. Republican Romney will appoint a moderate, electable Republican Senator to replace him. He may even appoint a really sicko conservative. :scared:

His last approval rating was in the 30%. He wants the national stage.

for one thing, He'd tower over Clark at mutual appearances, and that's never a good thing...it just looks awkward.
It may sound funny- although I could see and accept Kerry as the nominee(but he's my 3rd choice), I don't think that he's vice-presidential "material". I don't think that Clark would be a good VP choice either- If he's on the ticket, it's got to be at the top, and he's my first choice to head the ticket.
I could see Dean, who's my second choice, in either position P or VP(although an all-new england Kerry/Dean ticket would be suicide).

It'd be waste to lose him AND his seat only to have him Veep. If Kerry's not the nominee then he stays Senator.

and a Kerry/Edwards ticket is wa-a-y too DLC for me, and means the loss of two senate seats(One for sure- because romney would name kerry's replacement). I honestly don't know who I'd match kerry up with, actually...I hand't given it a lot of thought, because nobody ever really expects the second runner up to end up wearing the crown.

Then it's really unfortunate. As a Vermonter I have been pretty appalled by some of the misinformation and straight out lies I've seen posted here about my governor and my state. Dean is a good man, a great leader and he would be a damn great president that the majority of America would end up very, very proud of. You wouldn't agree with him on plenty of things, but in the end, you would respect and appreciate his long term vision, even if you originially didn't like what he was doing. Dean doesn't think only in terms of tomorrow, next week or even next year. He thinks in terms of constant and long term progress through incremental steps that are actually attainable. This has always proven to be the most direct route to progress because radical change is just too frightening to too many people. Dean has a way of accomplishing things by easing people into them one step at a time and before you know it, real progress has been made. You won't find anyone who will work harder or give more of himself for this country than Howard Dean. If he becomes the president he won't stop and relax and bask in the glory. He'll get right to work and keep working his butt off as long as he is in office.

I want Clark overseeing the military, but I don't want him as president. He was my second choice until one of his supporters reminded me that he was a military commander and cited that as "governing" experience. I was a Navy wife and know full well that the last thing this country wants or needs is for our country to be run like a military base. Yikes! Clark is very good at what he does, and could do a lot of good in resolving the mess in Iraq, but not as president. We need him to focus on our military problems and only that. We need Dean to take care of the domestic issues and bring together an administration as effective as his campaign. With how great his campaign is, there should be no doubt whatsoever that he can pull together an administration who will get the job done right and work hard.

but as far as "radical change" and looking towards the future goes Indiana, my state, could go blue for the first time since the 60's with Clark on the ballot here. I respect your oppinion emensely being a Navy wife. IMO This election is going to be about Iraq. * will try to make gay marraige a wedge issue. Vermont is different than the rest of the country. I think it is important to look at the whole picture with General Clark and Dean.
"should be no doubt whatsoever that he can pull together an administration who will get the job done right and work hard."
I have no question in my mind that Dean would pull a great group of people together and work hard. Indiana just would never vote for him. Maybe Indiana doesn't matter right now because the primary is not until May, but the long-term implications for democrats if we go blue will be huge.

I've lived in 7 different states. Maine, NH, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida and Mississippi. The people in all of those states care about the same things and are essentially the same. Dean historically does very well with swing voters, Independents and moderate Republicans. He has a very broad appeal. He can win Indiana and anywhere else, and he will make the effort to do so.

Civil Unions is not going to be a wedge issue. I've seen this play out first hand before, and it's not going to be a problem IF Howard Dean is the nominee. He signed the Civil Unions bill in Vermont just 6 months before re-election when about 70% of the state strongly opposed it. National and influential religious right wingers came to my state and set out to destroy Dean with the nastiest hate campaign I've ever witnessed run against someone. Dean took it in stride. He didn't hide from the uproar, he faced it head on and talked about it. He addressed the concerns and issues and framed the issue brilliantly. He's already won this fight and what you need to realize is that voters are much more offended by hatred and bigotry than they are by homosexuality. On top of this, EVERYONE knows someone who is gay. Everyone has either a family member, friend, co-worker, family member of a friend or someone they know who is gay. This puts a human face on homosexuality and when that happens, it's a lot easier to talk sense to people and win them over about the importance of giving homosexuals the same civil and human rights as everyone else. You don't have to approve of homosexuality or be comfortable with it to agree that we all deserve the same civil rights and to be free from discrimination. All of the candidates favor Civil Unions, and you're right, there will be ads and an attempt by the right to frighten voters into voting for Bush over this issue. The question is this...who do you want fighting that battle? Someone who has already fought it before and won or someone who is untried and untested? I'll choose someone who has experience fighting the battle and who is comfortable and eloquent as well as convincing talking to people about this issue.

"The question is this...who do you want fighting that battle? Someone who has already fought it before and won or someone who is untried and untested? I'll choose someone who has experience fighting the battle and who is comfortable and eloquent as well as convincing talking to people about this issue."

I never said that Dean wasn't a great leader and good at concvincing people. I am simply saying that there will be a "battle". * will make sure of that. It will be an issue. Unfortunately, parts of this country will not be convinced.

I am not one of them. I am not just for Civil Unions, but for Gay Marriages as well. I hope you were not implying anything else.

Furthermore, I respect your passion for your candidate.

doesn't cut it.

It'll take more than "a lot" to win. It will take "the most votes".

What is it about Dean that makes him so unacceptable? I'd gladly support Clark (but half heartedly) if he gets the nod. I certainly wouldn't work against him.

Who can hit the ground running in all the areas that need desperate attention.

please continue. I realize the case for Clark has to be more than "a lot of people like him, and he's a 4 star general".

In this crazy media world it certianly worked for W.

But, since he is a Democratic candidate that voted for Reagan twice, Bush Sr. twice and Bush Jr... I just dunno.

And the people on here have the AUDACITY to bash NADER supporters. For shame...



Ohhhh... but now he wants to be a democrat and catch all the swing democratic voters. Great.

..I'd also except vise verse (but I thinkthe other way has more chance of winning the election)..

all I hope is that Dean or Clark are not too proud to take VP,

I read here at DU that Clark voted for Clinton and Gore. Anyone got a link?

He voted for Clinton and for Gore

Jeez, you've been watching too much Faux.

still will not make it true.

Voted Clinton twice and Gore.

Faux news my bottom.

He changed his tune with: "I voted for the man, not the party."

When he magically remembered casting a vote for Clinton the second time.

He magically couldnt remember if he voted for Regan in a Washington Post article...

Then, Clark said he sometimes didnt make it to vote. That's great.

"County records show that Clark registered to vote here in 2002, casting a ballot in the Democratic primary then voted in the general election. Before 2002, Clark said he was registered in nearby Saline County while serving in the military but acknowledged “sometimes I didn’t make it” to vote."
http://www.jsonline.com/election2000/ap/sep03/ap-clark092003.asp

Oh that's nice...

I also liked when he said: “I think I may have voted for Nixon"

Ill spend time pulling up the links when you show me yours. Since his voting records arent public and all we have are a bunch of statements that he waffles back and forth on. These were a few easy to find ones.

Put this guy on your "Ignored" list

Ill badly miss your feedback.

Ive never posted this "over and over" or even ONE SINGLE OTHER TIME. And I challenge anyone to show me where I have.

Oh, and Im not a guy.

Nice egocentric, sexist centric view.

Keep it up.

Can I please have some of the wool you guys have pulled over your eyes. It's awfully cold outside.

Clark should be president because: random blabber thathas nothing to do with the subject line.
Clark had his chance to become Dean's VP. He turned it down. Now he's gonna get nothing instead.

"Clark had his chance to become Dean's VP. He turned it down. Now he's gonna get nothing instead."

Why do some of you Deanies make hateful blanket statements like this!

a movie starring Ben Affleck and co-starring Tom Hanks

and costaring someone who has never been in a movie before and has no expereince acting, but spent 30 years working in a movie theater.

Dude did you watch Hardball? Dean's foreign policy experience - "uhhh I live near Canada." C'mon man that ain't gonna get it done. How about a little intellectual honesty? Clark spend 34 years fighting for his country.

Why should the guy who's never been in a movie get the staring role?

"Dude did you watch Hardball? Dean's foreign policy experience - "uhhh I live near Canada." C'mon man that ain't gonna get it done."

Nice try at spin. Dean has had international experience far beyond simply Dealing with Canada. He's also met with several other world leaders, traveled to over 50 countries, and here's the big point... Dean's experience with other world leaders isn't from BOMBING THEM or working with them to BOMB other people.

And Clark's FP knowledge can't be that great, since he supported the IWR and was the one on CNN saying the rest of the world needed to "belly up to the bar" and get behind bush. Yeah, sounds like a real FP wiz.

Clark is really good at blowing shit up... that's about it. And come to think of it, he's not THAT good at blowing shit up, which is why he was fired from his command. 20,000 bombs on kosovo and they took out 13 fucking tanks, a shitload of microwave ovens, and a bunch of wooden decoys.... oh and 1500 civilians.


" How about a little intellectual honesty? Clark spend 34 years fighting for his country. "

That's an argument for why he would make a good sec of defense... not a good president.

I want a president who spent his life working to save lives, not take them. And Dean is just what the doctor ordered.

And Dean is sorely lacking in that area. On Hardball at best he came off as very vague and indifferent (the Hague, Osama, Iraq).

I wouldn't worry about Clark's experience. First of all, he has masters degrees in economics and philosophy.

He has managed military populations greater than the state of Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island combined.

He speaks four languages, is a Rhodes Scholar, and of course, a 4-star General. You don't get to be that rank by being an incompetent fool.

You know and I know General Clark is a smart guy. So is Dean. They could both do 100 times better than Bush.

My point is that in this geopolitical climate, Clark has a wider appeal. Just my opinion. And the opinion of many others.

and was intimately familiar with all aspects of how movies are made, including how they were funded, how to promote them, how to feed and house the stars and crew and provide for their families -- and someone who was so knowledgeable about the business and the history of motion pictures (both here in the US and other countries) that he could engage people in a discussion about a variety of topics on those issues.

I know you would like people to believe Wes Clark's been selling popcorn and milkduds behind the counter -- but that just ain't true.

Howard Dean is a fine person - but he doesn't look better by making others look worse.

It's so perfect!!!!

Nice way to belittle armed conflict.

Clark or Dean at the top, but whether you like it or not Clark needs to be on the Dem ticket. The Repukes are going to make national security an issue and Clark has the best credentials to rebutt them, doesn't mean you have to like it but it helps the Dem party to accept it. Acceptance doesn't mean you have to like or agree with something it just happens to be a fact, with Clark and Dean running 1st and 2nd it would be my best guess that they would appeal to the largest segment og the population.

I've certainly seen this among the Dean supporters, and I believe it's true for Clark too. They are both bringing in people who otherwise would sit on the sidelines. This is a huge, huge factor in this election.

He has no political experience. Whether you believe he can do the job or not, it's a wide open door for Rove & team BCE to play with.

Just imagine the following ad ....

George Bush has led our nation through one of the most trying times in our history. Now the Democrats want you to turn the nation over to a man with no experience. Can you trust an untested leader during America's greatest challenging crisis, The War On Terrorism!!

Complete and utter bullshit? Of course it is. But the same people who buy the lie that Saddam Hussein is Osama's golfing partner will buy that one too.

The Dean/Clark ticket - with Dean at the top - will cancel out both candidates percieved "weaknesses" and minimize the vulnerability to attack from the Rove-ing Lunatics. Not that those bastards won't try something else, but why give them an open door?

really.

Someone points out, quite correctly, that Clark has no experience... and that will make him easy for the Bush's to attack. Clark will try to hang his hat on beign a general, and Bush Co will simply hammer that he was fired from his command for MAKING BAD DECISIONS... and then say to we really want someone who can't make decisions and has no expereicne in any office to be running the country is such a dangerous time?

And CLark will be fucked because his whole game plan seems to be to try and leave the Bush fear mongering in play, and simply present himself as the better protector... but they'll use that against him and paint him as being unable to protect anybody. Once they smear the general status Clark depends on, he's out of the race. He will lose because he has nothing else to go on.

So your response is not to address Clark's huge problems, but instead to whine that Dean seems to you like he has no experience... yeah that must be why he's wining.

However, this week marks a turning point, with the Boston Herald exposing his lie about WHY he sealed the documents.

"George Bush has led our nation through one of the most trying times in our history. Now the Democrats want you to turn the nation over to a man with no experience. Can you trust an untested leader during America's greatest challenging crisis, The War On Terrorism!!"

Bush will say the same thing about Dean.

Dean's organizational and fundraising advantages come from running the show.

I know some Clark supporters like Dean too, but he is from a small state and doesn't bring many advantages for Wes in that spot. If the Clark campaign finds a way to win the nomination, I would encourage someone from a swing state like Edwards or Landrieu.

Dean as Clark both have cross over apeal... but the groups they apeal to are different.

Clark appeals to some republicans and war hawks.

Dean appeals to indi voters, privacy rights and gun rights republicans, as well as greens.

Dean, without Clark, can pull most of the same folks Clark would pull based on Dean's gun rights and states rights positions.

Whereas Clark might pull those groups, but Clark also drives off the dem base and the greens that doesn't want a conservative war hawk in the white house, regardless of what letter he decided to put by his name this week. Clark drives off as many folks from our base as he pulls in from outside the base.

While Dean is pulling people in from all over, while also getting the base excited and motivated.

No, we need a Dean/Edwards or Dean/Graham ticket... and maybe CLark could be sec of defence. Since defense policy is what everybody says makes CLark so great, but the fact is that's about all he has to offer, so why not put Clark in the job most suited to his skills... sec of defence. THat's a position where you want a hawk.

Most Democrats will vote for Dweeberman if they had to. And Clark would help give Dean credibility on Defense, which is important in the general election. This implies ruling out Dean-Clark is unwise.

on the question of Defense(and the complete mess the Reps have made of it--they boggled everything),the Dems should be demonstrating they are stronger on Defense by operating with greater integrity and intelligence, rather than allowing,(without question or scrutiny), the Reps to define the framework of the issue.

Why do so many Democrats automatically accept the Reps are stronger-- without question and search for a hawk-like model, even though under the Republicans we have become isolated and despised in the world?

Sure, he can emphasize his patience and judgment, and compare himself to Reagan, Bush Junior, and Clinton, and so forth, but picking up a VP with credibility on this issue will take Howard a long way.

but if CLark is in the top slot, you can expect all the greens to stay home or vote 3rd party... a hell of a lot of the dems who do not want ex-military leadership as CinC will stay home or vote 3rd party... the anti-MIC folks would stay home.

The guns rights and privacy rights repulicans/libratarians won't turn out for Clark like they would for Dean.

I really think CLark would be a disaster... he has no expereinc and he's easy to smear.

Clark would make a good sec of defense. That's where his skills would best serve this country.

I would much rather see Dean/Graham or Dean/Edwards or even a Dean/Kucinich ticket.

and my son (poli sci major who works for a Dem U.S. Senator) is a Dem/Greenie - we're both convinced that Clark is the best man for the job and the only one capable of ousting bush. Why do some Deanies keep insisting to the Dem Base Clark supporters that Clark drives off the Dem Base?? :shrug:

Divisiveness = Bush reelection

It is what his campaign is all about. And no one denies the strength and effectiveness of his campaign.

To Clark driving off the dem-base.

The question "Why do some Deanies keep insisting to the Dem Base Clark supporters that Clark drives off the Dem Base?" remains unanswered.

:kick:

the way Clark supporters just dismiss the significance of Dean's campaign. They often casually talk about transferring all of Dean's money and support as if it was a small matter. It is unreal. Go look at the Daily Democrat thread on Dean to find the reasons Dean resonates with DEMOCRATIC voters and you will get a clue as to why the success of the campaign is tied to Dean and not some phenenomenom that can switch gears for anybody. Dean is always out there on that fighting cutting edge and we like it. The Right calls it anger when the Democrats demonstrate some backbone, and it's sad and tragic when some on the Left accept their pronouncements. Right, Wesley Clark?

Is that I corrected the mis-statement made earlier, that the statement did not equate, yet somehow this new out of the sky statement appeared.

I don't dismiss anything - I HATE the word dismiss - it is used by the Bush adminstration every week to slap down a legitimate criticism.

I've read the Daily Democrat. It is wonderful. I have a clue. It is wonderful that voters are energized by Dean's campaign. I am glad you like what Dean is saying.

I noted that you posted in yesterday's daily democrat for clark - and that was great. I plan to do the same for Dean today.

Don't undo the progress the daily democrat is making on DU by going off like this. Turn that support for Dean into more support for Dean - not very defensive sounding stuff.

If 20% of the base is driven off, and 80% stays and votes dem, he's still driving off the base in that he's driving off enough of the base to lose the election.

He won't drive off every dem, but he will drive off enough that the war hawk republicans he pulls in won't make a difference.


Add to that what support Clark will lose when the repukes turn his time as a general against him... and we lose the election.

Remember what they did to McCain... not only was he a fucking POW, he was on their side. Multiply that by 1000 and you'll get somewhere near what they'll do to Clark.

"...but he will drive off enough that the war hawk republicans he pulls in won't make a difference."

I don't buy into that argument. Especially cuz the 20% figure you cite as being "driven off" is without substantiation.

I don't deny Clark alienates some Dem base voters. But I think the overall concern is a bit inflated.

I don't see that this will change no matter who the nominee is.



I remember what they did to McCain - and remember what they did to Gore, and remember what they did to Cleland, and remember McGovern.

Come on - the operative word is THEY.

This is going to be a battle no matter who the nominee is - we aren't going to win by fighting with each other.

Support your guy - great. Don't make him look bad by bashing others.

except maybe lieberman

That anger, they will tell you is not limited to Bush, but to their own party. The Democratic base is ANGRY and disatisfied with their own leadership, that is why Dean attracted so many supporters, because he connected to the base and it's issues.

Democrats will vote against Bush, but if given a choice they would rather vote FOR a Democrat as well, so why would their likely choice be among the candidates who represent the leadership they are angry with? There are varying degrees of the Left and their willingness to support Democrats lessens the closer the choices are to the Republican-lite models.

so he'll lose them... he'll lose the anti-war folks... he'll lose the greens... he'll lose the gun and privacy issues voters all through the mid-west.

Clark's campaign is being built on the idea of being a better warior than Bush and being better suited to protect us etc. However when Bush Co go after CLark's military record, and paint him as incompetent and prone to bad decisions... his campaign is over.

Because he's got nothing else to run on but the fact he was a general and can protect us all. That is a losing strategy.

In the end, the dems will vote against bush.

These are two strong candidates, both with extremely strong attributes, both with a few areas of vulnerability (real and imagined).

Clark's campaign is built on leadership, foreign policy experience, diplomacy with other countries, including our allies, and his 34 year career in our armed forces.

Dean's campaign is built on his strong record as governor of Vermont, his leadership on health care, education and on tough issues like civil unions. His fiscal record.

The only real question is how to choose? Some go one way, some go other. No amount of blustering is going to change minds. The men and how they campaign will determine the outcome.

We have real problems in this country - we've got to solve them with a democrat in the WH. Let's not be foolish and petty.

Clark and Dean - they are like chocolate and peanut butter - they belong together. The only question is how.

Im a virginian liberal who like Clark. I think the fallacy in your argument is with thinking a military man has to be a hawk to be in the military. Not necessarily true.

now thinks he'd be OK as a VP? Now suddenly thinks Dean might be bringing in some outsiders?

.


That's not a period up there, that's a grain of salt.

that he has crippled himself against Bush's fundraising machine, a machine that will skewer him between March and August, when Clark will not be able to campaign after spending $45 million. Clark's fundraising is not up to defeating Bush in 2004 and most likely will not be able to defeat Dean for the nomination, so Clark on the ticket anywhere is putting an albatross on the Dem ticket.

because that will definitely damage him, no matter what the other Clarkites say about third-parties fundraising for Clark during that time.

Last week you said you could'nt support Clark b/c of what he said about Dean skiing during Vietnam...So which is it?

and Issue Advocacy?

So you disagree with public financing?

but spin away.

Even my rightwing, Citadel graduate friend, who bleeds Republican, said he would consider voting for Clark. He's a bankable, bankable candidate and we need to think in terms of WINNING.

and drives off a big chunk on liberals and dems who do not want a war hawk.

bad idea

and in fact I think clark and dean are pretty much "just a liberal" as each other. Clark maybe moreso. Look past your clouded views of a man in the military and see what he's saying.

I was considering moving to Canada

www.wisconsinforclark2004.com

My daughter is one year from graduation, and looking at Canada. She believes that Clark can win, so do I. To her, this election is about whether or not she will continue to live in the country of her birth.

we are looking at overseas jobs for both wife and I in Canada, Australia or New Zealand if Bush slithers his way into office. We have a five year old and a three year old and do not want them growing up fascist.

I believe Clark is the better choice because the people that will swing the election one way or the other vote emotionally, not intellectually. I believe that Clark will be the more emotionally comforting candidate.

The thing about Dean that troubles me is that I don't get the emotional vibe from him that is needed, he does not give the emotional satisfaction that a President MUST provide. The whole reason Reagan was successful was that the nation needed cheering up and to stop feeling like a loser, and he was a good enough actor to do it. Bush Sr. lost because he was not as compelling as Clinton (oh, and Ross Perot). Gore won because Bush is so totally inept at emotion (although he IS getting better at aping emotions).

People want to be safe and will turn blatantly to fascism to ensure it (I believe we live in a barely disguised fascist state as it is). White people decide elections in this country and white folks are scared, how else could a rodent like Tom DeLay have gained so much power. I think the Democratic Party "establishment" scares a lot of white people because they are so scared of change, however beneficial that might be. Most white folks are tired of being told (deservedly or not) that all the ills of the world can be attributed to their ancestors, they themselves, and their descendants. Hence the popularity of Rush and Republican Rule.

If indeed the Fascist junta in charge these days try to increase fear by sniping at Clark's inexperience or being removed from the Balkans, then we will have to counteract the emotional argument with an appeal to duty and honor that the junta will have a hard time overcoming. And we'll need lots of cash, lots and lots of cash.

HEIL BUSH

unfortunatley you just described my "out-laws" and some real family members. It is sad. But true. They have been hijacked. Clark can take them back. Or just make them look stupid. Either way it is a win!


:bounce:

Quote

"So Clark brings in a sliver of republican war hawks...

and drives off a big chunk on liberals and dems who do not want a war hawk.bad idea"



who does he drive off .. you?
you are in a minority

I'm as liberal as they come and I was a long time deanoid.. It only took me a few minutes of listening to clark speak to realise that he is more liberal than Dean..

Tell me one issue of Clark that you disagree with? One!

(and don't give me the "flag burning ammendment", thats only a stunt to get more republicans onto our team.. when I heard that line about that guy's friend who bleeds republican but would consider Clark it made me smile)

Seriously, if we want to be really smart and recieve the biggest win in decades - a four star general who is for peace is the only way along with a Vermont Doctor who is able to balance the books!

I just can't wait to see the debate,,

The thing about Dean that troubles me is that I don't get the emotional vibe from him that is needed, he does not give the emotional satisfaction that a President MUST provide.

To me, Clark behaves like a manikin -- he's a puppet for a group of Clintonistas who know that their days are numbered and they will be booted out when Dean wins the nomination.

Clark appeals to those who are inclined to want what appears to be a strong leader. Dean appeals to those who want to be empowered politically and treated like partners or shareholders.

"Clark appeals to those who are inclined to want what appears to be a strong leader. Dean appeals to those who want to be empowered politically and treated like partners or shareholders."

I think they both appeal to someone who wants a strong leader. I think they both appeal to people who want to be empowered also. Clark was urged by 50,000 of us to run and he recoginizes us ever time he speaks. I feel like a shareholder and a partner. Every time he gives an answer to a question he gives the history of the argument, gives both sides of it, and tells you which side he is on and why. Many people feel empowered politically by that type of exchange. It is new and very refreshing. Clark is not a puppet. On the contrary. Clinton and him had major policy disagreements.

"To me, Clark behaves like a manikin "

I have to disagree here. I think he has proven that he is very passionate. (FOX,Dan Rather,Debates)

I think one could make the argument of whether he is sincere or not, but never a manikin. Judging someones motives will always be subjective.

Agreed. Not agreed on who is pulling his strings. I dont think the Clintonistas are the half of it.

He says what he is told, whatever is popular....

Like a good lil soldier.

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

This has always intrigued me. Dean's supporters are always saying that they have direct input into how the campaign is run. So does that mean they will get to vote on the vice presidential candidate? During the General Election will Dean poll his supporters before he makes major decisions? If he is elected President will he ask U.S. citizens to vote before we go to war? How would such a poll be conducted fairly and accurately?

If you're a shareholder and a partner you should be able to help the President make all the critical decisions, right?

The General is a military guy and doesn't have a lot of "non-verbal" cues, hence you may think mannikin. Is he aligned with the Clintonistas? Yeah, pretty much, but then, they do know how to win...something we have not done much lately.

I think that in the face of our common enemies, foreign and domestic (Bush, Al Quada, and an ever-growing list of others) strong leadership is needed. I think I would rather be empowered through winning than to think I was a trusted partner in a noble defeat. I hate noble defeat, a good loser is still a loser.

Or, I would like to Dean select someone not a candidate. Say, Patty Murray (my senator), Barbara Boxer, or Nancy Pelosi. A woman on the ticket would look pretty good to fortify the women's and progressive vote.

Clark was just recently praising Reagan and Bush. Dr. Dean has NEVER praised either. Dr. Dean is a doctor--- a MEDICAL doctor--- therefore we know he is very smart. He has his own radio show that is syndicated across the country. He is a leader in the fight against circumcision. I listen to him each Sunday morning and he is the smartest doctor in America.

Wesly Clark is just a general. You don't have to be smart to be a general---you just have to kiss the right army asses.

DON'T BE FOOLED--- DR. DEAN HAS DEMOCRATIC DNA!!!!

That is so the mentality that gets Rove aroused. Yes let's be the anti-military party and live under "tough on terror" administrations for the next 100 years. Very strategic.

very good too! :)

I'd prefer Dean-Clark over Clark-Dean. But yes, either of those combinations would be a freakin' powerhouse.

Although I prefer Clark-Dean. But I really, really like both men, I think both men are honorable Democrats, and I will ACTIVELY campaign for whichever of the two wins the nomination.

He just became a democrat on October 17, 2003.

He has done nothing for liberal Democrats. Hell, there is no proof that he is even liberal.

He was fired from the military and went straight into working for Stepthens Corp and lobbying for Acxiom. In the latter, he worked for the invasion of the people's privacy.

Saying he is a honerable democrat is laughable.

I want him nowhere near Dean!

I don't WANT this person...this...this...person who will bring people together and propel the democratic party into the 21st century. Keep him away from Dean so we can be the anti-military party forever! And so what if I'm reciting Rove's own talking points? I still want him nowhere near Dean - even though Dean himself has gone out of his way to arrange several private meetings with The General...