My biggest Clark fear

I posted this in a thread, but this really is what I worry most about. Well, I personally wonder about other things with Clark, but as far as the General Election:

This meme: "The Democratic Party is so pathetic they had to get a Republican to run."

I suppose Clark could just say the Republican party is so pathetic that he had to leave it, but would he have actually done that if he hadn't run for President?

I really want a strong Democratic nominee with strong Democratic values to take on Bush.

for the media whores to steal another one if we can't buy ad time. I have nothing but respect for the general but he should have opted out. Kerry and Dean are our only viable candidates.

I don't think the "Clark is one of us" idea will float because he served in Dem administrations, is left on policy, and why make people think that the REAL military guy is a Republican too--might make some moderates/republicans actually vote for the guy.

I have voted Democrat my whole life, come from a Democratic family, & don't have the least bit problem like the rest of my family on voting for Clark.

What Clark is saying I happen to agree with. To me Clark sounds more Liberal than Dean. Being in the military & being ah high up as Clark was, no problem here.

He voted for Clinton twice and Gore once. He served as NATO commander during the Clinton administration.

He never left the Republican Party because he was never a member of the party. End of meme.

and they got it on tape. That's all they need.

didn't he make that speech praising Condi & the team at a GOP FUNDRAISER??? God I hope not. That would NOT look good

They already have all the footage they need.

Where SHE played the tape of Clark praising Shrub at a GOP Fundraiser.

They shouldn't have done that and I hope they don't do it again. But they should ask the legitimate questions about Clark's views of the Reagan years. I want the answers before I can whole-heartedly support him.

Should we nominate someone who runs as the guy who represents "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party"? Personally, I think having a clip of Dean saying that would work better for them. They could help Dean solidify the 45% Democratic base, while alienating anyone else who was considering voting Democrat and win in a landslide. Good thing you're not a Democratic Party strategist. People, we've got to get smart about this election.

A Democrat would be good.

First off, Clark is a Democrat. Period. He's been voting Democrat for at least the last 12 years, he's running for the Democratic nomination, and his positions and policy proposals reflect Democratic values. He went to the Supreme Court to defend affirmative action before he decided to run for president. What's Dean done to promote affirmative action? Nothing? Should that prevent him from running as a Democrat? Look at Clark's positions and proposals. That's all you have to do.

Secondly, if republicans make the mistake of going after Clark for supporting republicans and saying that the Dems are so bankrupt that the had to get a republican to run, Democrats could say that the republican were so bad that a decorated 4 star General refused to be called a republican and run as one. This brilliant Rhodes Scholar saw that the Democrats are a better party. But they won't go after him for saying good things about their party and they would also risk losing moderate republicans who might think Clark is better than Bush. I happen to know that there are already a growing number like that.

i doubt whether karl rove and his gang of thieves care how long someone has been a republican. they gladly take all comers.

this 'blue-blooded' democratic attitude is why i happily stay an independent. i refuse to join any party that has such an attitude of exclusion.

having said that, i like john kerry and would vote for him if he were the nominee. there are only two dems that bother me enough that i would have to hold my nose to vote for, but in the end i would because anyone is better than BU$H.

First, it appears he left the Republican party, as far as his voting history is concerned, in 1992.

Imagine Clark's acceptance speech. The whole country is tuned in. He explains point by point why he is a Democrat, and why someone who voted Republican in the 80's should vote Democratic this year. He counters Bush's politics of fear with a politics of hope. And he makes the case for a strong progressive agenda.

That could start a whole lot of cognitive dissonance shakin' out there in the American political psyche.

those video tapes of Clark praising Bush being played at the GOP convention for the nation to see. Yikes!!

indicates just how weak a position we would be in.

Like I've said, I really do want to hear what he thinks about the Reagan years. Lots of questions about all of that.

But I'm talking more about the Rovian ridicule. But maybe they wouldn't bring it up at all, too many swing voters that would take a look at Clark if they knew he'd voted for Reagan. That's a point.

he is a Democrat with strong Democratic values. He did not leave the Republican party - in the past Clark has voted for both parties (however, he has voted for the Democratic presidential candidate for the last THREE elections). As an officer in the military (especially as one as high up in the ranks as Clark he had to be non partisan). If this keeps up one thing I fear - some independents (including those that have faithfully voted for Democrats), and yes even some life long Democrats won't be voting for the Democratic nominee in the general election.

...Don't Tell.

That's a 1980s policy, something Bush 1 would have done.

A DISMISSED General will be played by the Pentagon like a fiddle!

that mean that he would get all the votes from Bush's VERY disgruntled base. I am hearing LOTS & LOTS of republicans complaining about Bush and his "fiscal Conservative" bull shit. Why do you think that Rove is scared shitless of this man. He may be the only one that can win in November. I'm still undecided though

would be nervous about is Kerry. He just doesn't seem to have the baggage some of these others have.

...again!

But unlike Lieberman or some others in this race, Clark can portray himself as formerly apolitical and someone who wants to speak for all Americans. Lieberman, for example, has actually proven to be a DINO, all they have on Clark is a tape of him saying nice things about the * team in an apolitcal, personal matter.

that seems pretty political to me. However I'm not positive it was a fundraiser - its just what I heard. Can anyone verify? (the speech in Arkansas)

Clark reminds me of Bush and his desire to foster "liberal democracy" around the world.

It's bold-lie politics.

Clark only TOLD us he voted for Gore.

...only SAYS he supports abortions at any time
(Repubs will say "Baby killer!")

...only PROMISES to promote universal healthcare.
("fiscally irresponsible, big government!")

...only EXPRESSED his intention to make certain segments of the middle-class tax-free
("radical! tax reactionary!")

This would be election suicide for a Democrat. The derision and constant put-downs from the press would be constant, esp. if they had a trend of gaining in the polls.

Anyone could have a feast on this before they started in on his ACTIONS. The press would keep slapping him over civil liberties being compromised by his paid lobbying activities (axciom), and the Repubs. would go to town on the "dismissed general" and work from there. An image would start to form of a flake who is obsessed with turning our private information over to the military.

This awful scenario may not happen because Clark is not a liberal. He doesn't even want to breakup conglomerates that are establishing media monopolies in various markets. Clark would perpetuate the phony Washington media circus we had under Clinton, times 2. That way, liberals can adopt Clark as another martyr while he simultaneously pushes our economic life further to the Right.

Good questions. I hate sounding like I'm making pat answers, but the truth is pretty simple really. Clark's journey parallels the journey of many people who mature in their understanding of the world.

Was Clark ever truly a Republican? Essentially I see this as a wedge argument by his opponents. It's not accurate to say this, but it's an argument, not an attack, because it is a fair question to ask. But what the record shows is that he voted for Republicans in the 80s, but never really joined the party. He strongly affiliated with the military tradition of not being partisan. He was, near as I can tell, never what you'd call a Republican.

When he left the service he was intent on being politically active. He seems to have planned to continue his nonpartisan affiliation. But when called upon to pick sides, his political viewpoints made him a natural Democrat. His partisan affiliation is ex post facto. That is, he doesn't hold the views he holds because he's a Democrat. He became a Democrat because of his political views.

He'll take on Bush with strong values and a strong message. He's been doing that all along. He says is exactly what Bush has done wrong. When he says what he'll do different as president, he really does sound like a Democrat--cooperate with allies, respect civil rights, promote and enforce fair voting standards even in Florida, and go after terrorists instead of just whatever brown people happen to be sitting their sand on our oil.

He might be less partisan than Bush as he governs, but I want to argue that's a good thing. He doesn't anchor his arguments on partisan affiliation, but upon fundamental human rights, democratic traditions and values, and commond sense. I think that makes him a stronger candidate because he says what we've been saying all along. If you want a safer community you should use the strength of government to plan out how to fix existing problems and prevent future ones. If you want better teachers, you need to freakin' pay for 'em. This isn't partisan at all, it's common sense. He can sell it to middle America and show them how it works.

What I want to argue is that Clark doesn't just carry the possibility of a stronger party to win the election. I think he carries the possibility of a real realignment in the country's politics. Imagine the political power if the Democrats were finally recognized by middle America as the party of a secure national defense and the Republicans as the party of reckless adventurism. That's the soul of why I'm for Clark. Not that he sees things as this 5th Generation Dem sees things, but that he can help the rest of the country see things our way too.

I'm not worried about the he's really a Republican attack, and I've even written the Kerry campaign to say it's lame. I do have legitimate questions about why he ever continued to vote for Reagan and what he thinks about the 80's in general.

But that's not what I'm referring to here. I'm referring to the Rovian smear attack. Hahahaha, they had to run a Republican, hahahaha. I think Clark is strong enough to counter it, but I sure hate to even have it out there. Stuff like that seems to make elections these days.

abortion rights, affirmative action, overhauling the health care system, doing away with No Child Left Behind, investigating George Bush, more funding for alternative energy research, improving pollution standards, the list goes on and on. Do you think the republicans want to do that? You might as well worry that the sky is falling. Besides, if they go around calling Clark a republican, they risk losing moderate republicans wanting an alternative to Bush. Believe me, there are a lot out there and they will be pivotal to winning this election.

nt

Voting Republican doesn't make you any more Republican than voting Democrat makes you Democrat, he voted both ways at different times in his life for different reasons, and he did it registered as neither.

It's a non issue, I support him, I believe him, until he does something that proves me wrong about him I will defend the obvious smears against him without merit.

Your free to vote or not vote for him for whatever reason, but please don't follow suit with those that claim he is Republican simply because he voted for a Republican.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

It's a non-issue. Look at the man, his positions on issues and his policy proposals. They're hardly republican.

But I will say this. If we want to win this election we're going to have to attract some of those moderates who have voted republican in the past.

"I really want a strong Democratic nominee with strong Democratic values to take on Bush."

Good. Clark's your man.

Period.

People like me see that he voted for Nixon, he voted for Reagan, he argued to justify invading Iraq. He may be a good man. I can NOT vote for him; in my view, he screwed up on important issues.

He may be a good man, but I can not, I will not vote for him. He insisted Hussein had biological weapons. He was very wrong. Too wrong for me. Kudos to those of you who still think he would make a good leader.

If Clark becomes President, we are all gonna be so
happy that Bush got his that I doubt you'll be feeling
sad.

I like Kerry (although he could be a little less sniping of
others) so if he wins it, great.