Clark Supporters: How Do You Defend His Republican Voting Record?

Nixon (two terms) and Reagan (two terms). I'm sorry, but that is cause for deep concern, is it not? How could it not be? Not to mention his working with Cheney and Rumsfeld in the Ford administration and his barely contained elation for our military performance in Iraq during his stint as a CNN military analyst. I am not asking these questions with malice. But Clark worries me. I fear that he is a political opportunist and a died-in-the-wool military man. I think American militarism is perhaps the greatest threat to world peace, yet Clark is a product of that phenomenon.

Where am I going wrong here?

How pure should we require our candidate's voting records to be?

Heck, I voted for Reagan. Does that mean I can't be a good Democrat? Are people not allowed to change and grow and evolve?

Every candidate who has ever run for office has a voting record that is imperfect in some way. Idealogical purity is a form of political suicide, IMO.

People who don't change their positions based on reality are not people I want running the country. I think a good candidate should be able to change his positions and explain his thinking behind that change.

The whole concept of pillorying someone who changes his mind is anathemic to good governance.

FUCK BUSH Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

I'm a former republican myself. The only thing I was concerned was my pocket book. But people can change. Now I'm as liberal as they come and I'm going to be voting for Kucinich in the primary. I've also converted at least one family member over to our side.

I don't hold it against Clark that he voted Republican in the past. What matters is the present and I'm glad he decided to join the light side of the force.

A significant Republican voting record should be cause for concern in a Democratic candidate. I don't think that is unreasonable. In fact, it's frightening.

this as a reason not to vote for a candidate?

and I believe Bush I (correct me if I'm wrong).

We accept all to the Democratic party, but a candidate running for president is more closely scrutinized for his voting record.

Reagan and Bush I is very recent in my memory, a lot of painful memories, death squads in El Salvador, Iran/Contra, star wars, etc. If someone can vote for a guy like Reagan over Jimmy Carter for president, I have to question whether he has the character to lead the country. I have a friend or two who have voted for Reagan (and my own father), but they aren't running for Democratic candidate for president.

...is that you would prefer a candidate who was not a product and beneficiary of the military industrial complex. And one who has a voting record that reflects Democratic ideals and practices.

Clark is not such a man, but, IMHO, he would still be miles better than Bush in almost all resepcts. I would vote for Clark over Lieberman, for example.

FUCK BUSH Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

unlike every other candidate except Kucinich... but the difference is he's both more likely to get elected and to be able to actually CUT PENTAGON FUINDING.

Republicans like weapons systems & Democrats like people.

You know, John Kerry? The new-pro-war-democrat that was the old-anti-war-democrat that before that was the voted-for-IWR-now-is-against-it-democrat who was....

Never mind.

Except I wasn't trying to be negative in any way.

I've seen Dean say that he's voted for "good Republicans" before like Jim Jeffords (before he jumped ship), yet I don't see many Dems fretting over his lack of faith in the party-- much less the Deaniacs who post here regularly.

I myself have NEVER voted for a Republican, moderate, liberal or otherwise. Does that somehow make me a better Democrat than Howard Dean or Wesley Clark?

This is a non-issue.

It is mind-boggling to believe that Howard Dean ever said that he voted for the REPUBLICAN (then) Senator Jim Jeffords while he, Gov. Dean, was a DEMOCRAT!

Prove that he said such a thing--- I dare you.

VT is a odd place sometimes.

I've met senator Jeffords and his wife... they said they had a Dean sign in their yard while Jim was running for senate as a republican.

to show where he stands. Dean has a long record as a democrat in VT, and Clark has no such record.

This gets attention in Clark's case becase people have little else by which to judge his political standing. That's one of the drawbacks for someone running who has never held office before.

In Vermont, you'll find that more than half of the Democrats vote for him. He had a better voting record on liberal issues than the most liberal Democrats, a thorn on Reagan's side. In fact, he is an Independent now. He just was a liberal Republican in the Vermont tradition.

Reagan, on the other hand, well, there is no excuse for voting for him.

We should welcome people who had been voting Republican and have realized the error of their ways.

Also, Republicans never questioned Reagan's credentials even though he voted for FDR 4 times and for Harry Truman in 1948. Democrats never questioned FDR's loyalty even though he voted for his Republican cousin Teddy in 1904.

I like the Reagan analogy a lot.

I agree.

Until very recently he was offering support to republican administrations, including the current one. At very least this is bad judgment. Reagan had two terms as Governor of California before receiving the Republican nomination for President.

And I'd like to add something else. I am a veteran. Does that mean I cannot be trusted? Am I a part of the militart industrial complex? Am I a threat to world peace? I'm a liberal to the core, and have always been.

You weren't involved in billion dollar weapons system purchases. You aren't on the boards of military equipment makers.

Clark's past does concern me somewhat. I care less that he voted for Nixon and Reagan than that he raised money for Bush and praised his administration just a couple years ago.

Clark is high on my list, but that doesn't mean I don't think about it.

How in the hell did you make that jump? When did I imply that veterans "cannot be trusted."

MORE RECENTLY...Bill Clinton twice and Al Gore when he ran. Clark KNOWS the repercussions of war and will NEVER, ever take us into an illegal preemptive war, like the shrub did.

I worry more about the candidate who refuses to promise that he will NOT appoint pro-life federal judges to the bench. That troubles me much more than how Clark voted 30 years ago.

edited spelling..:(

Why did he not register as a Dem till September of this year? Oh yeah.. cause in arkansas, you dont have to.. blah blah blah... He campaigned for Bush because why exactly? Id love to hear you guy's answer to that one.

the quest for purity can lead to some pretty dire results. For one, it leads people to start looking at others to see how they measure up against the "pure" slate.

Like a guy who's anti-Nafta now, but not necessarily then.

Like a guy who had doubts about Medicare then, but claims to support it now.

And so forth and so on.

One might suppose from this that an adult who has not lived in a seminary of monks under a vow of silence, and who has not spent his life seeking the Presidency, might accumulate a certain number of things in the course of his life that seem questionable to people with a certain point of view, whatever it might be. Fortunately we still live in a free country, and everyone is individually enabled to decide on the value of issues like these on their own.

Three months from now, or so, all this will be moot as far as the primaries are concerned.

Let the voters decide, Steve.

I said nothing about ideological purity. This should not be a black and white issue.

I do expect my candidate to have strong and long-held progressive values. Reagan was a terrible abomination on this country. And less than two decades ago, Clark voted for him.

You feel your candidate has to have strong and long-held progressive values. How defined, and by whom? Is there a committee, like the French have regarding their language, that is empowered to evaluate the actions of an individual and pass judgment on whether or not he or she is sufficiently progressive? Are we supposed to hound the miscreant, like some politcally correct Inspector Javert, because he does not meet our standards?

Your comment does suggest there is some absolute standard that people must abide by in order to be authentially progressive. Ironically, RFK himself would not meet such standards at times in his career, as you should know. Would he be considered dubious were he alive and running in this electtion?

Reagan was not a progressive BUT he was elected twice, once by defeating an incumbent president and once by stomping his opponent into the mud. Clearly the American people wanted him as President, even though he was not up to DU standards.

So, if defeating Bush is our main priority then Clark's candidacy has to be judged on the basis of how likely it is that he will win if nominated. If his votes for Reagan outweigh that consideration, then you will have to excuse me, and most everyone else, in thinking that you are indeed proposing purity over practicality.

Enjoy yourself.

The final decision is not in your hands. The voters will decide and nothing said or done on DU is going to make any difference in their decision. Only action will serve, as I think Lenin may have said (or not).

Most people don't give a shit about stuff like that!

that while he was in the military, he voted for the candidate that he thought was strongest on National Security.

I find it interesting that this bothers people so much. I've voted Democratic all my life, but if I thought that we would truly be better off with a Republican, I'd vote that way. Put McCain against Zell Miller.

I'd say you have to give Clark credit for being honest and forthcoming. One of our rights as Americans is to have secret ballots - and it would have been his right to tell people it was none of their business how he voted in the past. But, even knowing that it would not be popular with the Democrats, he did reveal how he voted. That's one of the things I admire about him. He is definitely not afraid to tell it like he sees it, even if it rubs some people the wrong way.

I've worked on 7 or 8 campaigns for Dems with all my heart and soul. Can YOU say the same? Am I less worthy than you are?

Reagan last ran for office in 1984 - that was almost 20 years ago. More than 60% of the country voted for him.

Are you saying that people are not redeemable and that they cannot change? A rather harsh, rigid (and Republican-like) style of thinking.

I guess under your line of reasoning - all prisoners should just be kept in prison for the rest of their lives because THEY can't change. Alcoholics and drug addicts should also just be locked up because they can't change.

If you do a 360 you end up pointing in the same direction from which you started. ;)

thanks for the tip.

Clark would....

"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

Dean did...

Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

Howard Dean
June 22, 2003

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:JRAbrHmxaVQJ:www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp+Howard+Dean+russert+transcript&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Not only that... the link you cite goes to the May 11h crossfire and has nothing from Dean.

SO I went and looked up the real link to that quote in context, and as usual the context shows that the bashers took the quote out of context to dishonestly attack Dean.

As anybody can see, you cut out the very next line where Dean points out that the claims coming from the whitehouse were not true. And again in the answer before that one, Dean points out that the white house had lied.

Yet you leave those lines out and try to present that one line as if Dean was supporting Bush. One again we see the truth and context are the enemy of the Dean basher.


http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~gabriel/dean2004blog/Dean_MTP_June_22_2003.htm

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq, and this is what you said in April. "We've gotten rid of , and I suppose that's a good thing."

"Suppose"?

DR. DEAN: Here's the problem. We don't know whether in the long run the Iraqi people are better off, and the most important thing is we don't know whether we're better off. This president told us that we were going to go into Iraq because they might have--they had atomic weapons. That turned out not to be so. The secretary of Defense told us that he knew where there were weapons of mass destruction around Tikrit and around Baghdad. We've been in control of Iraq for 50 days. We haven't been able to find any such thing.

MR. RUSSERT: But you also said...

DR. DEAN: So...

MR. RUSSERT: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

MR. RUSSERT: But the Iraqi people are not better off without Saddam Hussein?

DR. DEAN: I think right now they are. Here's the problem. If we can't get our act together in Iraq, and if we can't build Iraq into a democracy, then the alternative is chaos or a fundamentalist regime. That is certainly not a safer situation for the United States of America. And we don't know for sure if it is or not. Saddam Hussein is a dreadful human being. He's a mass murderer. I think it's terrific that he's gone. But the fact is, that in the long term, we went into Iraq for reasons the president of the United States still has not made clear. And because of that, we really don't know what the outcome is going to be.

... as usual, you don't see a problem with "pot calling kettle black" syndrome many Dean supporters have.

the link you cite goes to the May 11h crossfire and has nothing from Dean.

No, not Crossfire - Meet The Press. And so my link was wrong. The quote still stands.

He said he tends to believe the president and that he thinks most Americans believe the president. It is irrelevant whether he changed his mind.

At one point, DEAN BELIEVED THE PRESIDENT.

And I feel I must also point out your Clark quote was out of context, too. But that's ok for Deanies, right?

I just quoted the full context to show that in fact Dean was saying that the information from the whtie house was false in those statements. Which is a direct contradiction to what you claim Dean was saying about Bush.

"He said he tends to believe the president and that he thinks most Americans believe the president. It is irrelevant whether he changed his mind."


LOL! Since when is something said in the very next f-ing line a "change of mind"? Are you saying that Dean beleived Bush in the first half of the paragraph and then somewhere in the middle of his statement he changed hi mind and then said the information fromt eh white house had not been true?

DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...


All Dean was doing was saying that people tend to beleive the president, to hammer home the fact BUSH LIED TO US! Bush betrayed that trust.

Dean said "I tend to believe the President."

You can spin that anyway you like. More of that famous Deanie psychic ability (... what he actually meant was...) LOL!

"Dean said "I tend to believe the President."

You can spin that anyway you like. More of that famous Deanie psychic ability (... what he actually meant was...) LOL!"

No, I'm not saying WHAT HE MEANT... I am saying WHAT HE SAID AND YOU CUT OUT IN ORDER TO MISREPRESNT HIS POSITION. If your claim were valid, you wouldn't need to edit out the parts of the quote which show Dean's words in context.

I'm posting the whole statement, you are the one editing out the part that contradicts your claim.


DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

..that that wasn't what he really meant.

All Dean was doing was saying that people tend to beleive the president...

No. He said HE tends to believe the president.

you would not need to edit out parts that directly contradict your claim.


DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

That is what he said. Doesn't matter what he prefaces it with and added to the end. Fact remains, he said, emphatically, "I tend to believe the president."

Anything you dream up to alter the meaning is just spin.

"That is what he said. Doesn't matter what he prefaces it with and added to the end. Fact remains, he said, emphatically, "I tend to believe the president."


Yes it most certianly does matter what he prefaced the statement with and what he said in the next line after that statement. That's called context and in the English language is effects the meaning of a given set of words.

Spin is choing one line out of a statement about the White House claims being flase, and trying to claim it shows that Dean is praising Bush.


DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

... when the words speak for themselves.

"I tend to believe the president..."

The words to speak for themselves... which is why bashers have to delete them in order to claim that say soemthing else.


DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

He believed the president. Regardless of whether what the president said turned out to be not so.

Dean believed him.

then when on to point out that this president and his administration were making false claims.


The words to speak for themselves... which is why bashers have to delete them in order to claim that say soemthing else.


DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered. "

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Then there was that flip flop on whether he would or wouldnt have supported Bush's decision to go to war.. as well as the praise he reigned on the whole Bush team, Colin, Condy, Rummy, Shrub...

But dont listen to that Crazy talk! He did an about face in the last 2 years.. er 10 months.. er 8 months.. yeah.

Most of the article is in praise of our military. But like many of Clark's positions (and my own) it is not an either black-or-white perspective regarding the Iraq war. The quote you included suggested that Bush was "almost irrational".

In the article you cite, Clark cautions about the isolationism brought on by the war:

"...Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome..."

In the article you cite, Clark suggests that the war on terror has not been advanced and remains an "open" question. Further, he cautions about how the occupation will be handled, suggesting that it could "emerge as a lasting humiliation".

Right after the paragraph you quoted, Clark questions whether we truly achieved "victory" in Iraq, as the war was about WMD and the war against terror. He questions whether those goals could be met through this war:

"...Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed..."

As a progressive person, I also had mixed feelings about the war in Iraq. I don't see how ANY progressive person could be unhappy that Saddam Hussein is no longer suppressing the people. Saddam Hussein is about as far from the progressive camp and its celebration of human rights as one can get. I think that anytime a ruthless dictator, especially one who has caused as much suffering as Saddam Hussein is taken down, that progressive people should rejoice. I am not saying that you are not, either. I don't think, however, that praising the removal of Saddam should necessarily be seen as praise for Bush. For me, it was the way Bush went about it. It involved the lies, the assertions that this was about the war against terror, the lies about the WMD, the arrogance of his "my way or the highway" attitude that roused my hatred for the Bush Administration and they way he went about this war. These are the somewhat subtle criticisms that Wes Clark is expressing in this article. If Bush had argued that Hussein should go because he was a bloody dictator, I would have perhaps been more supportive of the war. But that would have been a lie by Bush, as I don't think he's interested in what Wes Clark is interested in, namely bringing freedom to Iraq. I do criticize Clark for not coming out and expressing hostility against Bush. But you cannot deny that this article does criticize Bush's policy regarding the Iraq war and cautions us on its future effects.

...compared to what Dean said the other day:

"This is a great day of pride in the American military, a great day for the Iraqis and a great day for the American people -- and frankly a great day for the administration," said Howard Dean. "I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration."

But we know the meme:

Clark gives credit for a military success, it's "bad"

Dean gives credit for a military success, it's "good".

Whatever :eyes:

that's okay. But if someone has questions about Dean, that's not okay? Why the double standard? I'm not flaming you, because although I prefer Clark, hell, I'd vote for Dean in a heartbeat. I like them both. I just wonder why the double standard?

in no way constitutesa defense of Clark;s words or actions.

And when Clark supporters can not defend what Clark has said, they try to change the subject by attacking Dean.

But please don't paint all Clark supporters with the same brush. I'm not an anti-anyone, except Bush. I don't defend Clark, I let him and his campaign define him. (Every candidate running has something questionable about them, in my opinion. I'm trying to see the better points of each and weigh the good against the bad, and they are all 100,000 times better than W.) Some like him, some don't (I do). To each his own. (Until after the nomination, and then we all better stick together.)

and boy that's pretty easy to do when you aren't in Washington serving on Intelligence Committess and all that. It makes sense for Dean to want to believe Bush, because he wasn't privy to information that showed he shouldn't be. I just can't understand why Kerry, the Investigative mastermind didn't warn us all being that he's so wise and all. What was Kerry thinking? I guess he just doesn't care about us little pee-ons.

:shrug:

that Bush had lied, that the infor from his adminstration was flase.

When you see the statement in context, you can see how misleading the claim is that Dean;s word we somehow in defense of or in support of Bush's claims.

DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

in context...some people here will still butcher what he says to imply fault. The fact is, it's just a lame attempt to bait Dean supporters into reacting while someone sits anxiously with their cursor over the alert button. There's no sense not to call it what it is. But you'll have that when someone's candidate really has nothing to offer voters. It would seem their only alternative would be to seek ways to silence the competition. We should take care not to play into that. :shrug:

60% of the American people thought Reagan did a pretty good job, and a lot of military people thought so as well. Knocking a guy because he voted the same way as the majority of Americans did is hardly a good political tactic.

Even today a lot of people think the Gipper was okay, despite it all.

Holding Clark's feet to the fire because he held the same opinions as the majority of the citizens in this country doesn't make much sense to me.

"60% of the American people thought Reagan did a pretty good job,"

So you're defense is that Clark, along with about 10% of the middle, sided with republicans?

And Clark did not just say Reagan did a pretty good job.

Clark went to a repuke fundraiser and said...


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."



TRULY A GREAT AMERICAN LEADER! CLARK LOVED HIM, RESPECTED HIM, AND TREMENDOUSLY ADMIRED HIM FOR HIS GREAT LEADERSHIP!

You find me a democrat who has said that kind of shit in the last two years. Go ahead.

Did I imply that you are "not worthy"? I was asking about Clark. I don't even know who you are. You feel the need to pull rank on me with your campaign service. Man, I really must have hit a nerve. I said that there was no malice in my post--just genuine concern. Clark could be a fine person and candidate. I'm not ruling that out. There was nothing harsh or "Republican-like" in my post. My gosh!

Feathered hair? 8-Track Tapes?

People change. Move on.

Reagan is the foundation of the modern right wing revolution that Bush is continuing. A big difference. And I know that people can change. But Clark's voting history makes me uncomfortable, as does his unconcealed enthusiasm for the modern machinery of death.

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

First it was his "non-progressive" voting record, now its "enthusiasm" for the "modern machinery of death." Is it possible that you don't grasp the value laden nature of your words?

If you are uncomfortable with Clark, don't vote for him. I'm sure he won't mind.

But please just come out and say what's on your mind. If you're looking for information, its readily available on the various threads posted by DU's who are "just honestly concerned."

If you are simply looking to argue, why bother? Ninety days from now we'll know if Clark is our nominee, no matter what you say. The voters will have spoken and we'll have a candidate. This is just a waste of bandwidth.

... conscientious and thoughtful Republicans to the Democrats. Do we really want a candidate who only appeals to Democrats? That is the kind of candidate that loses or leads a bitterly divided country.

Clark has made his principles clear in writing and in major policy speeches. He is clearly a Democrat now, probably the only Democrat who can win, certainly the only Democrat who has wide appeal outside the party (as well as within it).

I have voted for Republicans too. Not anymore though. Not as long as there is a Bush or anything resembling one in any office in the country. I'm a strong Democrat, but I try to weigh the candidates on the issues. But I'm straight Democratic ticket as long as the Republicans stay willing to elect a scuz-bucket doofus to the presidency just because he wears an R on his lapel.

People change. I'm a former Libertarian, and didn't vote for a Democratic choise for President until Clinton's first run. Does that mean that somehow I'm not a "real" Democrat??

And, quite frankly, I'd rather have as Commander in Chief somebody who actually knows the horror of war, than the current crop of chickenhawks, who didn't serve in the military, but have no problems sending our troops over to die for them.

Steven,

Good questions. I'll only speak from a very personal perspective. I spent 12 years (my formative adulthood) in the military. Before, during and after my service, I was a die hard liberal on almost every social issue but I'm from a small farm town and the military was seen as an honorable career.

Like Clark, my time in the service was during the Cold War. At any time in one's life some issues are more central than others. We lived the hardships and the mission so politically you are drawn towards CiC that seemed more sympathetic to your mission and lifestyle. Also, just like Deanies, Clarkies, etc. come to loggerheads here, you tend to respond reflexively against those who "oppose" you in society: being called killers, baby killers, etc. As a disclaimer, I also voted for Reagan (once) and Poppy Bush.

The military is a hierarchy but it is also one of our society's great meritocracies. Individual achievement mattered more than background or race. It has socialism at the core of many of its services: healthcare, housing, etc. In the big picture, leaving out that training for warfare is its central mission, as a society it embodies many of the progressive stands advocated for the U.S. as a whole by Dennis Kucinich. An odd irony.

Clark was very, very senior in the Army. Part of a hard to reach elite group of upper managers so of course he worked with Pentagon leadership (Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al.) That isn't a political indictment.

While I was avidly pro-Gore in 2000, I remember early after Bush's election being at least mildly relieved that he tapped folks like Tommy Thompson, Colin Powell and YES, even Don Rumsfeld. These guys seemed to offset his own weakness and inexperience. Little did we know!

I've paid very close attention to Wes Clark and I don't catch a whiff of B.S. from the man. I believe he is behind the many liberal policy positions he's taken. When you couple his incredible foreign policy experience, hands-on executive experience, leadership achievement, intelligence, warmth, humanity and liberalism, I do believe that he will make an exceptional Democratic American President.

That was exactly the type of thoughtful and informative response I was looking for.

Steve

The military is a hierarchy but it is also one of our society's great meritocracies. Individual achievement mattered more than background or race. It has socialism at the core of many of its services: healthcare, housing, etc. In the big picture, leaving out that training for warfare is its central mission, as a society it embodies many of the progressive stands advocated for the U.S. as a whole by Dennis Kucinich. An odd irony.

I've heard the military referred to as "Little Sweden" buried in the US system of dog eat dog. Clark is horrified that everyone doesn't have insurance in the richest country in the world. Originally he said that this is not a long term fix. What he is proposing is 100% of the children plus preventive medicine. A good foundation for building the healthcare we need. To mention this on the campaign trail, in a climate of huge deficits, would be folly. Nevertheless, I think that Clark would surprise everyone by being one of the most socially progressive liberals this country has every seen.

And forget who Clark voted for 20 years ago... what about the things he said at a REPUBLICAN fundraiser only 2 years ago.

Ask yourself if Dean or Kerry or Gephardt went to a republican fundraiser in 2001 and said this crap, would you even consider voting for them?


"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."




"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."




"President George Bush (sr) had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."



The same folks who will defend these statements will then turn right around and attack Howard Dean for saying something 10 years ago about social security in response to a hypothetical question... or freak out because Dean said "the soviet union" instead of "the former soviet union."

quotes, you should remind people that he made those statements PRIOR to 911 and the PNAC taking over our country. Clark saw the light when it comes to the damn republican party. He isn't even CLOSE to being a republican.

While this is true, and would make his comments regarding W not seem as misguided... it doesdn't change the fact that just 2 years ago this guy was cheering for the other team.

And 9-11 doesn't change the shit that Clark said about Reagan being a truly great leader whom he admired. Nor does it change what he said about Bush I.


"Clark saw the light when it comes to the damn republican party."

Oh can you point me to the quote where he said Reagan was not a great leader and he was wrong?

Face it, either Clark was lying to them or he is lying to us...

Just when between March 23 2003 and September 21(?) 2003 (when he finally registered as a Democrat, did he see the light?


March 23, 2003 Gen. Wesley Clark, unplugged

Salon: Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ...

Clark: I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.

Salon: Do you disagree with them on their worldview?

<snip>

Clark: But the views that President Bush espoused recently at the American Enterprise Institute, if his predecessor had espoused that view he'd have been hooted off the stage, laughed at, accused of being incredibly idealistic about the hard-nosed practical politics of the Middle East. So this is an administration that's moving in a certain direction, and now that that's the direction they've picked they've got to make it work. Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail.

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/?ref=null

((Watch the ad and get a day pass if you don't have a Salon subscription))

rather than just look at the bolded words.

For instance, let's fill in that snip:

I disagreed with them on some specific aspects. I would not have gone after the war on terror exactly as did and I laid that out in the . But I also know there's no single best plan. You have to pick a plan that might work and make it work. That means you've got to avoid the plans with the fatal flaws. This administration came into office predisposed to use American troops for war fighting and to realign American foreign policy so it focused on a more robust, more realistic view of the world than the supposedly idealistic view of the previous administration.

Combined with your bolded words, here's the gist: The Bush Administration has locked themselves on a course that is less than ideal. Now that we're on that course, we have to stay on it and do our best to make it work.

Unless you have a magic wand to go back in time before the Bush Administration took office, this is an accurate sentiment.

While we're at it, let's look at what he said about the people you bolded: "I like this people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues."

He worked with them previously, in public office. Is it a horrible thing that he's too civil to foam at the mouth about how they are Satan incarnate? Perhaps he's able to relate to people who don't agree with him. Let us cast him out, quickly!

And believe it or not, Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld all were relatively qualified for the offices they hold. No one here can challenge their efficacy at their jobs.

Yes - we all agree that we don't like what they are doing, but they are do an astonishingly good job. There's a difference between respect and agreement.

...they can't handle it.

And you still haven't answered the question. When did he see the tremendous flash of light that took him from heaping roses on the dear friends and colleagues with whom he'd work again to their No 1 arch-enemy as Clark suporters would have me believe? It's just not very impressed with the brilliance of this Rhodes scholar if it took him that long to see the blinding light that most of us have seen for decades. We have 16 year olds on this forum who haven't even finished High School who saw it way before Clark.

I really love Tapper's question though. What do you think the unspoken, understood word was? I'd wager to say it was "Administration" seeing that in March 2003, Clark was still being 'coy' with the world about what he was (D, I or R) and what he was going to run as.

Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ...

It doesn't matter how many words you add before or after it. The bolded phrases stand on their own and need no explanation. Excusing or rationalizing only makes it worse because it adds insult to my injury.

I dunno, maybe it's just me. I never liked those people one bit. Not in the 1970's. Not in the 1980's. Not in the 1990's. And certainly not in the 21st century. That must be why all the extra words around those phrases don't mitigate the praise for me.
Not once have I wished Bush and his boys luck and not once have I wished they wouldn't fail because they already had in my book. They failed America and they failed the world. By then they were long past any point of redemption because everyone knew what was going on. For months we'd been protesting them and their actions, the Stock Market was as dead as a door-knob and our civil rights were disappearing right and left.

Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith- these names send SHIVERS down my back. They were evil then and they are evil now- unless you'd like me to believe that they went blind a little before Clark saw the light but that back in the days they were working with Clark they were decent people- that is something I'll never believe.

I've always been against the war against Yugoslavia because before words like PNAC were even fashionable, it was clear to me that that was step one of the plan to destablize and dominate that region. Clark worked with the very architects of the mess we're in now, on the very first step of the PNAC plan and apparently believes in it- he just disagrees with the technique they used. All the rest, the false war on terror, he seems perfectly comfortable with. My belief is that there's no terror in this world except the terror we and our allies cause. Nobody hates us for our freedom- they hate us because we destroy their freedoms and go half-way around the world to impose our will and plunder their wealth while calling it a humanitarian mission or self-defense. This entire thing is such a fraud.

So... to like these people a lot. To say they're old colleagues and that you would work with them again is too much. Not on my watch. Those people, and people like them, must never ever again be in any positions of authority. They should all be tried for war crimes and reviled as the scum they are. If Clark says he could work with these people again, especially after seeing what they had done by March of 2003, that really scares me. Additionally (not that you asked but it does tie in to this), his stance on Israel/Palestine is down-right frightening to me.

And also... I totally disagree. They are not doing an astonishingly good job. What is astonishingly good about a ruined economy, tens of thousands of dead, a destroyed civilization, loss of our rights? I fail to see anything that falls into the category of "astonishingly good job".

help in Yugoslavia. Don't you remember the thousands and thousand of people being run out of their country? Living in tents, not knowing if their husbands, sons or fathers had been killed by Milosevic's thugs? I do. I remember it like it was yesterday and we did the right thing by going in there and helping those people. Who are you to tell those people that they should have been slaughtered? You honestly believe that we destroyed the freedom of the Kosovar Albanians? They didn't look very unhappy when President Clinton was there visiting a few months ago. MILLIONS of people were celebrating his visit. THEY are happy about it, why do you begrudge them happiness?

<snip>
Clark's Kosovo: Why he's testifying at the Hague

Kosovar Albanians were watching closely as General Wesley Clark testified against Slobodan Milosevic before the International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague this week. Shpend Ahmeti, a Kosovar graduate student, was particularly interested since he credits Clark with saving his family.

"We thought that the world did not care about us, a small place like Kosovo," the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government student said. "We thought that Kosovo would never be on anyone's map. However, we found out that some people cared about Kosovars who were in trouble. Every Kosovar knows that General Clark was leading that group of people."

In the spring of 1999, Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. He oversaw the military campaign that resulted in Milosevic's fall from power, saving 1.5 million Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing.

"You could have asked any three-year-old kid in Kosovo in 1999 after NATO troops entered Kosovo about who the most famous people are," Ahmeti said. "They would raise two fingers making the sign of 'v' for victory, shout 'democracy' and 'NATO' and mention the names of Clinton, Albright, but more than anyone, the name of General Wesley Clark."

"You don't appreciate freedom until you are deprived of it," Ahmeti said.<snip>

http://www.americansforclark.com/story/47/

As for Clark being part of PNAC. Prove it. Is his name on the members list on PNAC's web site? Has he ever been a member? Of course he worked with Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith...they were DOD and Pentagon
people. He WAS in the military for 34 years. He's had to work with 100's of people over the years. That does NOT mean he was in cahoots with PNAC. That is just a ridiculous thing to say.

I trust Clark a hell of a lot more than a candidate who refuses to promise that he WILL NOT appoint pro-life federal judges to the bench.

As for Israel, I think Clark would be the one to finally broker a peace agreement. If anyone can do it, Clark can.

edit....forgot the link

along with thousands of other people to include Veterans for Peace.

We must have witnessed 2 different wars.

This is what I was doing in the Spring of 1999



Now on the Israel issue, I'm going to have to beg to differ and just leave it at this- all of the Jews/Israelis I know (and there are many)whose stance on Israel/Palestine I respect or can tolerate have lined up behind Dean or Kucinich. Clark did not live up to their idea of someone under whom a fair, just peace would take place. The e-mail/fax campaign that Clark supporters have undertaken to try to frighten more progressive Jews into abandoning Dean for the good of Israel don't do anything to change that observation. You can view one of the e-mails at the end of this post. One that was apparently even worse than the one I posted below has already been identified as coming from Clark Supporters though the Clark campaign maintains that well, "It's a free country. People are allowed to do whatever they want." The faxes are along the same vein.
The article about the e-mails and who they came from can be found here: www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.12.05/news6.campaigncon.html

-----

Yugoslavia:

"The pilot attacked what he believed to be military vehicles," said Mr Shea (spokesman for NATO, as reported on 1999-04-15 by the BBC). "He dropped his bomb in good faith, as you would expect of a trained pilot from a democratic country. ... The bomb destroyed the lead vehicle, which we now believe to have been a civilian vehicle."

"NATO deeply regrets" the death of five people when missiles fell 600m short of their target and hit residences in the mining town of Aleksinac on April 5.

"NATO deeply regrets" the death of at least ten people when NATO jets hit a Yugoslav passenger train travelling from Belgrade to Salonika on a bridge near Leskovac on April 12.

"NATO deeply regrets" the deaths of 80 people which occurred when NATO attacked two refugee columns in Western Kosovo on April 14.

At the conclusion of the NATO bombing campaign (instigated, like the bombing of Afghanistan and the War on Iraq, by the United States and Britain, and planned and carried out by then General Wesley Clark) several thousand Yugoslavs had been killed, about 1600 of them civilians. Not a single NATO soldier died in action. As with the Gulf "War", this was not a war but a campaign of destruction and murder carried out from a safe distance (and under the hypocritical pretence of conducting a "humanitarian war"). It was in fact a terrorist campaign directed against the Serb people and its political leadership.

In this disgraceful action NATO displayed no honor, and its troops exhibited no bravery. In the end it was a war to save NATO itself (since defeat would have been a fatal blow to its credibility). To the politicians of Britain and the United States of America who brought us to this point, to the politicians of the European countries who collaborated with them and to the American generals who directed this war, only dishonor and disgrace is due, and the blame for creating a humanitarian disaster which did not end with the bombing.

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

On March 24, 1999, NATO attacked the Republic of Serbia with bombers and cruise missiles. The "war" (really more of a bombing campaign) marked the first time in over fifty years that European powers (as part of the U.S.-dominated NATO) attacked another European country. The bombing and missile attacks initially occured nightly, then day-and-night, and went on for eleven weeks, causing major damage to Yugoslav society. NATO deliberately bombed water and power supplies, hospitals and prisons, knowing full well that without electricity and water the people of Yugoslavia would suffer great hardship and some (such as people in hospitals with no power) would die. This war was illegal under international law from the beginning. Deliberate infliction of suffering upon civilians is a war crime, <snip>

((Anyone interested and antiwar can read the rest and more about this war here: http://www.serendipity.li/nato.htm ))

===============

> > HOWARD DEAN PROMISED THAT IF HE IS ELECTED
> > PRESIDENT, THE UNITED STATES WILL NO LONGER
> > SUPPORT ISRAEL THE WAY IT HAS IN THE PAST
> > UNDER BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN
> > PRESIDENTS.
> > IN HIS OWN WORDS HE WILL INSIST THAT THE
> > UNITED STATES BE "EVEN HANDED" . THIS IS A
> > TERM REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY ARAFAT AND HIS
> > COTERIE OF ADHERENTS THAT MEANS TO BE
> > ANTI-ISRAEL!!
> > GOVERNOR DEAN MADE THESE COMMENTS ON CNN
> > ON SEPTEMBER 10,2003 ON THE WOLF BLITZER
> > SHOW. HE HAS REPEATED THOSE WORDS SINCE.
> > &n! bsp; IF THIS WERE NOT ENOUGH, GOVERNOR DEAN ON
> > THAT SAME SHOW CHARACTERIZED THE HAMAS
> > TERRORISTS AS "SOLDIERS".
> > FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 9/11 WE HAVE SOMEONE
> > RUNNING FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE
> > UNITED STATES CALLING TERRORISTS SOLDIERS.
> > I URGE YOU THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY LOVE FOR
> > AMERICA AND ISRAEL YOU SHOULD NOT AND CANNOT
> > VOTE FOR HOWARD DEAN FOR THE OFFICE OF
> > PRESIDENT.
> > THIS COMING ELECTION MAY VERY WELL BE ONE OF
> > THE MOST IMPORTANT IN DECADES.
> > PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO AS MANY OF
> > YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS AS YOU CAN.

"I" know (and there's many) are supporting Lieberman and Clark, but I don't travel in anti-war activist crowds, just the congregation at the synagogue....hundreds of members. Dean is NOT their choice. Maybe it's a matter of demographics? How do you know that that "worse" email or the one below was not written by a Jewish person supporting Clark? You don't.

You see the Kosovo war as a war crime and the people who live there see it as saving their lives. Interesting. People die in wars. That is an unfortunate fact, but the Muslims who were being slaughtered welcomed the intervention...if you read the article that I posted, you would realize that. Clinton and Clark are LOVED over there. They saved MILLIONS of lives by stopping Milosevic's ethnic cleansing.

He never said they were his No. 1 arch-enemy, nor did he imply so. He believes their policies are wrong.

You toss around the word "evil" just as easily as W. does - I have a problem when he does it, and I have a problem when anyone else does as well.

As for this - this is inexcusable.

My belief is that there's no terror in this world except the terror we and our allies cause.

So that plane that crashed into my father's workplace wasn't terrorism?

We wonder why liberals have problems getting elected - it's stupid statements like that. There's a difference between understanding the causes of terrorism and ameliorating them, or simply excusing them away.

but the feeling I'm getting is that he didn't really see any light, contrary to the claim in post 134 (not yours) because the only bad thing about those neo-cons are their policies- not their greed, not their absolute disregard for international law or a facsimile of fairness but their policies and mostly the techniques they used.

Well we have our great victory now. I am not one of the ones celebrating it and even though I'm a retired vet, I feel no sense of pride for what we did in Iraq, the price the Iraqis paid and the price our own young men and women paid.

Clark's article below only pains me. His excitement at the thought of conquering Iraq and "liberating" the Iraqis is painful to read. Liberating the Iraqis? I have yet to hear any of our other Presidential candidates repeat that painful lie. I was in Berlin when the wall came down. To hear that compared to the "Liberation" of Iraq is too horrible. One was an occasion of joy and laughter- the other is one of tears and mourning. How can anyone confuse the two?

What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by General Wesley Clark
Published on Thursday, April 10, 2003 by the Times/UK

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air.

<snip>

I'm still waiting for this part: Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express.

<snip>
But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

<snip>

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

<snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

I responded to you on this the other night, but got no response. In the Salon article you cite, you fail to mention the following:

(1) Clark promoted Colin Powell's proposal for targeted or "smart" sanctions in Iraq instead of going to war, suggesting that Bush ignored Powell's suggested approach
(2) Clark described any prospective occupation of Iraq as a "colonial presence" (no current Republican I've heard would ever call it that)
(3) Clark stated flatly that in his opinion, invading and occupying Iraq would NOT have the beneficial "domino effect" for spreading democracy in the region that Bush anticipated, a further suggestion in this Salon article by Clark that Bush was all wet

Furthermore, in that article, Clark stated the following, regarding the likely fruits of an unwise war in Iraq for the Arab world:

"The most likely outcome is a stuttering instability in the region, intensified repression by some states, marginal moderation in others, and for the region more uncertainty".

These certainly aren't the words of any warmongering Republican or Neocon, at least not any that I've read lately.

IF I also thought they could win against *! WAKE UP! That's why we Clark supporters are working tooth and nail for the General!

We're all just too stupid to get that Clark is the only one who can win because he's the big strong general who can protect us better than Bush.

We will not win by trying to out hawk the right wing. We will not win in a who is the strongest warrior pissing contest.


We will win by running a democrat... not a guy who was a republican 2 f-ing years ago and spent the last 3 years working as a lobbyist for defense contractors.

what I'm concerned about, TLM. Jeez, thank you!

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

that Reagan was truly a great leader whom he loved, respected, and is tremendously admired him for his great leadership is a republican.

Clark wasn't a republican "2 f-ing years ago."

And, there is nothing undemocratic about working as a lobbyist for defense contractors.

:yourock:

that is disgusting...to me, clark is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Used to bees don't count anymore, they just lay on the floor til we sweep them away.

Make a list of Democrats who have done unconscionable things before, and tell us when to stop hating them for it. Clinton and Gore were against abortion in their past. Gore was against gay rights. Carter voted for segregation in Georgia. JFK opposed several Civil Rights demonstrations. LBJ voted against Civil Rights as a Representative. Henry Hyde was in the KKK.

Kucinich's voting record on abortion looks like Bob Barr's, and he didn't change his opinion until he began running for president and found he couldn't dodge the issue. Forgive him, or not? Jimmy Carter says Dean is conservative on many issues and will reveal that once he begins running in the general election. Will we turn on him then?

Purism is for zealots, terrorists and Republicans.

And jeez, who sounds like a zealot.

They all held lower office before running for president.

The reason their past was forgiven by so many is that they had a record of democratic service and votes to point to since their previous actions to show improvement.

CLark has no such record yet feels he should get to just march into the white house... sorry no.

...if you know where I can see an official DNC list of just what qualifies one to be a democrat and a democratic presidential nominee, please pass it along to us.

Clark has no democratic record... the fact that doesn't prevent him from claiming to be a democrat and running for president does not make him a democrat.

Newt Gingrinch could show up and claim to have seen the light too... and I wouldn't vote for his republican ass either.

But, of course, you know what being Supreme Allied Commander involves, right?

HINT: More than running a state the size of a medium size city.

Clark supporters have set the bar so low that Clark could trip over the damn thing.

Suddenly we have no standards at all for our candidate?

Sorry no sale.


I do not know about Clark supporters... but I still have standards for the democratic candidate.

The man who will get my vote has to actualy meet those standards.

Clark does not.


"you know what being Supreme Allied Commander involves, right?"


That would be the command from which CLark was fired via being forced to retire early? The command of the air war that killed so many civilians that the UN human rights director said the following.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".




But what did Clark have to say about the bombing of that TV station and the murder of those civilains.

"NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. 'We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces,' U.S. General Wesley Clark explained - 'his,' of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians... The targeting of the studio was a war crime, perhaps the most indisputable of several war crimes committed by NATO in its war against Yugoslavia."

I'm saying the bar you've taken it upon yourself to set for a Democrat is unrealistic accept to those on the fringe far left.

Clark is the only guy running who I would seriously consdier not voting for if he got the dem nomination.

I'd vote for Lieberman or Kerry Or Gephardt... even if i have disagreements with them, they are democrats.


I can not say the same for Wes "That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."Clark

and your "I tend to believe the President (Bush)" Howard Dean.

:)

i didn't vote for raygun and i won't vote for clark for the very freakin same reason.

I think it's important to make a distinction between the military and Militarism. The military is a tool, and it's always a good idea to keep your tools sharp, just in case you need it. The problem is when you have someone like Shrub who decides to use a broadsword like a scalpel and use it often.

They were in the guard too. Makes them a military threat?
I guess, in some cases, you aren't allowed to grow and change.
Sounds like W to me.

We're not attacking the act of switching from republican to demcorat... rather saying that someone who says they made the switch and yet has no record a of demcoratic service or votes to stand on, shouldn't be president.

...if you know where I can see an official DNC list of just what qualifies one to be a democrat and a democratic presidential nominee, please pass it along to us.

is a bad thing.


Although in Clark's case a necessary thing as well I suppose.

1) he fought for, and then won, a war to stop a war criminal and ethnic clensing

2) he fought for this country

3) he believes in inclustion, democracy, tolerance, and the rights AND responcibilities of US citizens

4) he is a brilliant scholar who had a briliant military career

5) he has governing experiance as NATO comander

for you anti-Clark people to get a clue??? Clark having voted Repub once or twice is NOT a crime. In fact it gives him credibility with the right for having considered their side of the political equation; and makes him a hero on the left for having permanently seen the light. If anyone doubts that remember he voted for Bill Clinton and Al Gore, along with running as a Democratic presidential candidate!!

He doesn't, either. It's a free country and everybody gets to vote the way they think best. I will say, and I think this is your main concern, if anybody knows the MIC and how to rein the thing in, it's Wes Clark. It was a another soldier president who said, "Beware the military industrial complex." Clark talks about it quite a lot. He knows it is something to be feared and controlled. He knows it better than any other candidate.

who have been swayed by the repug party, they have seen the way.

MICHAEL MOORE, ON GENERAL WESLEY CLARK

(audio of this transcript available at: www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3)

And then people say, well (in a mocking voice): "But Mike, but Mike, he voted for Reagan, Clark voted for Reagan!"

Yeah? So? So did most of America! You know? Do you wanna win? I mean, the only way you win, you see, is if you get most of America on your side. And if someone who voted for Reagan now says, "I'm joining your team, I don't believe in that any more," we have to open up our arms! This is why people don't like the left! This is why people don't like liberals! You know?

(In a mocking voice): "No, no, no, no, no, he, he voted for Reagan, no, no, not pure, not pure, don't like him, no, no!"

That's why nobody wants to join our side, we're so, like, up on our high horse! You know? What do you say to working class America, there's all these people who voted for Reagan, that now realize, they were duped! They were had! They're worse off now after 20 years of Republicanism!

You know? You, what do you say (in a mocking voice): "Nope, can't come to our side, you voted for Reagan!"

Jeez! I mean, come on, folks! You know? I don't know.

(In a mocking voice): "He was the Butcher of Kosovo!" That's the other one. (In a mocking voice): "He was the Butcher…Clark was the butcher of Kosovo!"

I've heard, I've heard an alternate version of the story, that was in the New York Times and the Washington Post last week. About why he was fired. Because he was trying to stop the genocide in Kosovo, in a way that would cost, even, that would cost, that would result in fewer civilian losses. I'd like to hear the story, I don't know, I mean, I'm just saying, I don't know, that's why I'm waiting to see, you know, what's being said here. I'd like to know.

But I'll tell you this much, folks. We're not fighting the Kosovo war right now. Don't let the professional left drag you into an argument that is a sideshow. We are fighting the Iraq war right now, that's the war we've gotta stop, and that's the war he says he will stop! That's the war he says he'll tell the American people the truth about how Bush has fought an immoral war! And that's what we need, we need that on our side.

DTH

and Bush II. Bush II!! That is not significant or cause for concern?

And I'll decide what I believe is an issue and a non-issue, thank you.

And, dammit, for the last time, I am not aksing for ideological purity. There is a big difference between ideological purity and voting for and praising f***ing Reagan and Bush II.

My word!

..but of course, only you know just what amount of kind words for Bush is too much to qualify as a good dem.

Please tell us when has Dean gone to a republican fundraiser and said that Reagan was a truly great leader who won the cold war and saved the military?

The question was whether Dean has praised Reagan and, more emphatically, Bush II.

Also, the question wasn't concerned about where such praise for Bush II was given.

Clark Has Had Recent and Effusive Praise for Reagan and Bush II. Bush II!! That is not significant or cause for concern?

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban. I thought that group was a clear and present danger to the United States, and I supported what the President did.

Howard Dean
May 22, 2003

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052203A.shtml

Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

Howard Dean
June 22, 2003

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:JRAbrHmxaVQJ:www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp+Howard+Dean+russert+transcript&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Other dems praise Bush...

http://www.rnc.org/media/pdfs/dems043001.pdf

Let me know when you can find some other democrats going to republican fundraisers and saying...

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."



"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

___________________________________

So this is your example of Dean prasing Bush? LOL!!!!


"I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban. I thought that group was a clear and present danger to the United States, and I supported what the President did."


I supported what the president did... that's supposed to compare to "He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."




"Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. "

Oh oops, i already showed that you've edited this quote out of context. Here is the whole statement.

"DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So..."

Is that your idea of praising Bush?

Of course, we should thank you and your psychic dean connection for clarifying what he really meant.

to show Dean was in fact clearly pointing out the White House claims were flase.


DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...


When one sees the whole quote and not just a few words edited out of context, they can see the level of misrepresntation taking palce.


Although I find it very amusing that when I point out the Sycophantic praise that Clark had for Reagan… you claimed that Dean had said similar things. And this is the most glowing praise of Bush you could find from Dean.

I didn't. Wonder why Dean did?

Which is why bashers have to delete them in order to claim that say something else.


DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

Clark is sincere, he has long-held beliefs in favor of affirmative action, the right to choose, the environment, internationalism and a sane and just foreign policy.

It's a complete non-issue as far as I'm concerned, and Michael Moore as well, apparently. You think MM didn't know about Clark's comments? He certainly did. He just doesn't care, just like most Americans don't care. Or no longer care, anyway. This is a dead issue that is just resurrected occasionally by partisans looking to slam Clark. Maybe you're not one, but that's my perception, generally speaking.

DTH

You most certainly are knocking CLark because he is not sufficiently "progressive" to meet your standards because he exercised his right as an American and voted the way he chose.

Is that only valid if he votes the way you beleive he should?

There is a big difference between ideological purity and holding an election. The people who insist on one, lose the other.

I've seen it before and I'm seeing it here.

If you were shown positive evidence, either through polls or other sources, that Clark was the absolute strongest candidate for the task of dethroning the current pResident, would you still oppose him because he voted for Reagan? Or made speeches at a Republican fundraiser? Or served on corporate boards? If the answer to that question is "yes" then you are advocating ideological purity and that, Steve, is the sure and certain road to disaster.

Of course, you might say, that could never happen, but the primary system is the way voters decide who they beleive will be the best candidate against Bush. If, after his five years of running, and his half-million supporters and his millions upon millions of dollars raised, Dean loses the nomination to Clark, what will you do?

What will you do?

Clark said Clinton was better than Reagan and Bush.

Because he voted republican three times, yet has voted Dem consistently for the last fifteen years, he's not allowed be in the Democratic Party or to run for office as a Democrat? That defies logic...

the question is should demcorats vote for him to be president.

Well, we'll soon find out if they do or don't won't we.

If they do, what then?

so I KNOW that honest change is possible. I can't condemn someone else for being a repub when I was once one too. I am a hardcore Yellow-dog Democrat and I don't like the idea that because once you thought the wrong way that you can't change which some people here seem to think. Everyone in this World isn't perhaps lucky enough or smart enough to be born already knowing what is correct politically, some of us have a longer road to travel in that respect and our intentions and commitment shouldn't be doubted once we find our way.

Glad to have you with us. :)

...not the faux extreme zealot version a few of the posters in this thread belong to.

Was head of the Princeton Republican Club in college. He saw the light during the New Deal.
We win elections by pursuading the majority of the voters to cast their ballots for us. I think Clark will bring the great middle and moderate right to our side -- leaving the greedheads, the Yahoos, the mouth-breathers and the KKKrispies for Bush.
We can discuss any purity and purge issues after the 2004 elections. For now, I just want to get Dopey out of there.
John
Anyhow, I'm voting for Clark.

I guess I would say he had the right to vote like he did just as he had the right to vote like he did from '92 on. By the way, was bush a military man? So much for easily disproven theories.

What year did you turn 18 and how have you voted?

I've voted for more republicans for president than democrats. I guess I'm a bad guy too. (All things considered.)

Based on my voting record, I'm a hypocrite and not to be trusted. My motives should be suspect.

Or.... it could be that I changed.

People change. Values change. Hearts and minds change. I think all this worry about Clark's previous presidential voting records is a bit overdone and over played.

-- Allen

:)

but I wouldn't vote for you to be the presidential nominee for the demcoratic party.


Why is it that folks are trying so hard to act as if when someone says Clark's voting record makes him a bad choice for out candidate, that's the same as sayign that anybody who voted for republicans int he past is a bad person?

You've got that divine dancing duck. :D

in a heartbeat. My first vote for president was Richard Nixon in 1972. Is 31 years long enough to regret or should I still be considered a Republican?

but could please put Queer Duck on the ticket, too? I think he'd make a fab Vice Prez.

I want to note that while this thread was addressed to Clark supporters, in what I assume was a sincere attempt to promote dialogue, there has been multiple posts from some Clark detractors making their same points over and over. I'm not saying that only Clark supporters can respond just because we were the ones addressed, but I will say that it defeats the underlying request behind this thread if the same individuals keep making their same anti Clark arguments repeatedly here. It becomes just another attack and respond exercise. One out of every 6 posts here so far has been by TLC. I already counted 11 TLC posts before I started writing this. It is hard for me to ignore what I feel are unfair distortions that have been written about Clark on this thread already, Instead of answering you, I get drawn towards a war of words with Clark opponents, which I don't think is what you originally intended. You can either have antoher attack Clark thread with all the give and take that sets up, or you can give us space to explain our position without always having to respond to the critical post made right before ours. Both serve a function, but you can't have it both ways.

had thought this way about Reagan, they would never have let him into their party after being a Democrat, they would never have nominated him for President and there would have been no Reagan candidacy for Clark or all those Reagan Democrats to vote for. Maybe the Democrats should get smart and thank their lucky stars that a man with Clark's experience and integrity chose the Democratic Party.

He just sticks his wet finger in the air, and turns whichever way the wind is blowing. He will change his positions based on politics du jour.

VOTE the only TRUE DEMOCRAT, DR. DEAN!! We know where HE stands.

He is called "Weasly Clark" by the rightwing - just as they call Howard Dean "Coward Dean."

Dean, the only true Democrat? Complete shit.

: "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."



"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

And you support DEAN!!!

BWAH-HAHAHAHAHAHA!

OMG!

This is the most hilarious post EVER!

DTH

Thanks for reminding me.

If the Dean supporters are correct, ninety days or so from now General Clark will be an entry in a history book.

So why get bent out of shape?

Of course, if Dean's supporters are proven wrong, and Clark wins the nomination, whatever will they do then?

It's a waste of time defending something that happened 20 years ago and doesn't bother me, I really don't care. And about him fundraising for republicans, same thing.

He's the "ONLY" one that stands a chance against bush!


george bush…pResident?

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

voted Republican? Should we not want former Republicans in the party or is this just a "born Democrat" party?

but there is a HUGE difference between wanting him in the party and giving him the nomination.

because they want a strong military and Republicans have typically pressed for strong militaries.

clark is a fairly liberal person. all he speaks shows this.

he has a perspective that dovetails with most of what a majority of us here believe are the important current issues that face this nation and the american society in the 21st century.

i've given money to both the dean and clark campaigns, but i have to say that i hope dean is not like his more goofy and stupid supporters who seem to me to be gross ideologues who think the world is all black or white.

those are the folks who scare me, not a man who voted for what he believed was the right course of action who now disavows that path for america.

I changed after I looked really hard at my opinions vs. the Republicans. It took time, but it was worth the introspection and examination.

What I like about Clark is his promise not to use the US military for pre-emptive wars, not to engage without a clear exit plan, etc. I think having been in battle, he is more likely not to want to send others unless it is truly a defense of the nation.

But this is just my opinion.

Do you think that Clark's prior record as an Independent who voted for Reagan as well as Clinton, with him having made statements prior to entering politics that contained specific positive comments about leading Republicans including Bush, as well as specific positive comments about leading Democrats, will work to his advantage or disadvantage in the General Election if Clark wins the Democratic nomination?

Must commit suicide now!

Joking aside, yup, I voted for him the first time around. Not the second, but I did the first. I'm not sure why, now. Something to do with the recession, sense that things were going downhill economically and otherwise, and the thought that maybe a change of party would be good. Who knows. Long time ago, and hey, I was 24, what did I know.

Boy, did I learn my lesson.
No third party for me.
John
No way. No how.

This is not a concern of mine in regard to Clark.

He ain't a dummy...saw the writin' on the wall.

Can't blame a guy who finally decided that Democratic values are the way to go.

And look at his position. He was a career miitary guy, in an era where Democratic candidates were seen as weak on military and foreign affairs (70s and 80s). Between Johnson and Clinton, ther was a great divide, with much of the active military favoring guys like Nixon and Reagan.

And at least he voted, which is always a plus in my book.

But also won;t vote for a guy who was at a republican fundraiser only 2 years ago saying...

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."



"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."


Let Clark serve a few terms as Gov of a state or in teh senate to establish a democratic voting record and then I'll consider him for the highest office in the land.

Sorry but you don't switch teams AND walk into the highest office in the land without ever having held public office.

I think some of these CLark supporters would vote for Newt if he showed up all of a sudden with a D by his name. They'd be in here screaming "Newt is the only democrat who can win!"

Your problem with Clark goes way beyond his voting record.

He has more in common with the average voter with his voting record than a hardcore dem or repug. Only those with purity tests care about who someone voted for 10+ years ago.

He voted for Clinton and Gore. That's good enough for me.

Nixon on election day in 1960....because my parents liked Nixon. I was pro-Vietnam war in high school...but when I got to college, I learned a few things. I've voted for Republicans in the past...long ago.

But the party has changed. Reagan was the start of it and it has gotten much worse, in my opinion.

Clark says he voted for Reagan because at the time, as a military man, military issues were his main concern.

Twenty years later, I believe this very smart man, very good man, has grown into his new role. His perspective as a mature man with a world view is something to revel in, compared to what's out there now.

While in the military, it's obvious that he was concerned about the welfare of those he commanded, being involved in all sorts of issues like getting money for education, housing, etc. I truly believe that now that he's out of the military, he's looked around and see the same problems in the nation....and it's natural for him to be concerned about them in the broader world. And, that's why he's a Democrat...because the Republicans have abandoned being concerned about the issues that affect the average person.

On the Daily Show, Clark also clearly showed that he knows what a bureacracy the military is and he said he "purred, begged etc" to get things he needed. I don't seem him as being brainwashed military. Heck, he bucked the powers that be and got dumped for it....

Bush in his youth: Alcoholic, snorted coke, carousing, Skull and Bones, went AWOL, utter failure in business who was always bailed out by his dad's buddies.

Clark in his youth: Uhhh...voted Republican?

Ok, so Clark was a little more immature than Bush. </sarcasm>

I know tons of people who voted for Reagan. He won by a landslide.

American militarism is not the problem. The folks controlling it are. I perfer someone who's seen it from the inside and is willing to tell it like it is than just some fool who blabblers pacifistic jingoism with no experience in foreign policy to back it up.

MzPip
:dem:

The man is the man we need now. Who gives a flying F if he can grasp the issues that we are confronting now and come down on the side of logic and fairness and intelligence and justice....and just rightness.

The contrast is with Bush/Cheney.

This argument is absurd.

How do you defend Howard Dean's incessant flip-flopping on the war?

How do you defend Howard Dean advocating a cut in the rate of growth of Medicare?

How do you defend Howard Dean advocating an increased retirement age for social security?

These are REAL ISSUES. You didn't bring up real issues.

when he has criticism of them, in my view. He has detailed economic, environmental, and foreign policy plans. All I had to do was listen to his plans and vision, and then either agree or disagree, regardless of his party. I agree with his vision, his plans.

Besides, tens of thousands (millions?) of Democrats voted for Reagan. Those were the days of Jimmy Carter and 18% to 20% inflation rate. No one could even buy a house. I voted for Reagan the first time, in desperation. But Reagan's policies had a devastating effect on the local economy where I'm from, so I went back to the Democrat in the next election. I didn't make a Reagan mistake twice. So I can understand people voting for Reagan in those days and times. I can understand Clark voting for Daddy Bush, it being right after the Gulf War, since he's a military man. But Clark did the right thing in voting for Gore. He's his own man. Something we need.

(I went on to vote for Clinton both times and Gore.)

I'm reading through the honest, thoughtful responses with care, and skipping past the rest. Why? Because I have the same questions. I've been conflicted over Clark since the beginning. I know that some of that is personal bias; I don't expect others to understand the deep, visceral distrust I have of the military industrial complex. Not servicemen and women, but the power structure. I live in the middle of it. I've spent a lifetime with friends and family working for them in civilian and military capacities. And I don't trust them.

Yet, I like much of what Clark has to say. I'm interested. He won't get my primary vote; that goes to a different kind of champion. But I'd like to know enough about each candidate to feel comfortable supporting whoever wins the nomination. And it helps to read thoughtful, reasoned responses. Thank you, posters who offered them!

Reagan voted for FDR, Truman, and every other Dem candidate until he switched parties. The Bush camopaign tried to smear him with it in 1980. But since the Rethugs were samrt enough to recognize that Reagan was the guy at the time to beat Carter, they didn't make a big deal out of it.

Today, we can have a Democrat who has witched to our side and who can beat Chimp or we can have Howard Dean.

To the point that I voted 'no' on one of the 'anyone but bush' loyalty polls. If the election were held today and Clark was the nominee, I would probably vote Green or stay home. There is no way a man rises to rank of General in the US military by being a progressive or a liberal. I can think of nothing less appropriate then having our civilian government run by a career military man.

I spent almost 10 years in the USAF, and you are right NOT TO trust career military officers. All that rhetoric about honor and integrity is just that -- rhetoric. It owes more to Tom Clancy novels and WWII-era flicks starring John Wayne than to real-life events. Believe me, they're no more honest or noble than anyone else.

Clark is just an opportunist, who would probably have declared himself a Repug if the current president were a Democrat. I suspect that many here know it, but support him anyway just because they think he's the only one who can win next November. Sorry, but that just ain't enough for me. Some of these people would jubilantly back Trent Lott if he switched parties and threw his hat in the ring. They'd send him money and put his campaign signs in his yard, yelling "He can carry the south!! He can carry the south!!"

People feeling the way you do helps explain why career Military people tend to vote Republican. Only one of the two major political parties harbors a significant percentage of voters who inherently distrust the military. Much earlier on this thread I gave a one line reply, saying I explained Clark's votes by growth and human nature. This is the human nature point.

People do not feel welcome at a Party (think cocktail party rather than political for a moment) where they sense distrust, disrespect, and even hostility directed towards them by a noticable number of those present. They will go instead where they feel welcomed and appreciated. Now if you repeat that experience over and over a kind of "culture" sets in. Once all of your military friends regularly attend a different party across town where they feel honored and accepted, that is more likely where you will show up also.

Clark has related his personal experience of coming back wounded from Viet Nam, having in his mind at the very least, fought and risked his life for his country, only to find significant elements of the public attacking him personally for that service. Clark always understood that it is an American's right to protest and form their own opinions of right and wrong, but he could not easily associate with people who felt that way about him. It pushed him away from the Democratic Party at an early age. That choice was reenforced by the officer culture around him, where Senior Officers and role models generally adopted a Republican orientation.

Despite this, Clark evolved as an Independent, voting for Republicans sometimes, and Democrats other times. Clark has said that he was drawn towards John Kennedy, but Kennedy was assasinated before he was old enough to vote for him. When Clarkfirst voted for Nixon for example, Nixon had a ("secret") plan to end the Viet Nam War. Nixon was light years more adept at foreign affairs than Bush Jr. Nixon pursued detente, and Nixon brought about the opening to China. For the average American, the evil civil liberties destroying aspect of Nixon's reign did not come to light untill after the last time he ran for President and overwhelmingly swamped McGovern. Many Nixon supporters felt betrayed by Watergate, but by the next Presidential Election the Republicans had a basically decent man, Gerald Ford, as their standard bearer.

Clarks Presidential voting record mirrors most of America. Reagan was a very popular President, and even more so within the military to which he gave strong support during the Cold War days. I am not surprised that Clark voted for Reagan along with the majority of voters. What surpises me is that Clark broke with the military culture and supported Clinton in 1992. That is the real eye opener for me.

There are a number of reasons Clark has had difficulty rallying strong support from upper officers in the face of Shelton's smear, including a military culture bias of not getting involved in politics period. But high on that list of reasons is the fact that Clark was too much of an independent thinker for many in that circle. He was not cut from the same mold. Most of those guys REALLY ARE Republicans. Giving supprot to Clark now is giving support to their political enemy. I find it discouraging that Clark is blasted by some for not having strong support from the military, including some here at DU who fully buy into the Republican talking points about Wes, and at the same time he is blasted for having been assiciated with that Republican dominated military upper brass.

Clark lost a lot of personal military friends who are outraged that he is now going around the country blasting Bush and pushing a Democratic agenda (he's talked about that). Most current Democrats who once voted for a Republican, like those who have posted here, never had to face alienating large segments of their professional and peer circles to become Democrats. Clark did. I think he's been courageous.

Edited for a typo

In my first presidential election. I regret that decision now, but at the time my only exposure to politics was from family who were (and still are) Dittoheads. I actually started out in 2000 supporting Bush, and it wasn't until I started having political discussions with a friend of mine that I learned the error of my ways. I'm happy to say that I cast my vote in the 2000 election for Gore/Lieberman, and I haven't looked back to my once conservative past. I'd like to think that I could run for office one day as a Democrat, and not have my previous voting record held against me. People do change their minds.