This game is getting old

Take one sentence someone once said, without any context, and use it to completely define that person.

I imagine you could destroy every Democratic office holder in the US if you dig deep enough.

If you do not like Clark, fine, that is your right. In fact, if you have something of substance to add to the debate I am interested in hearing it, because I am still undecided.

But please, for one moment, consider that Clark may represent something very big that is happening out there, maybe a major political realignment, where old beliefs are being shaken to their core by the incredible incompetence of the Bush regime.

It has happened before.

Hope and pray it is happening again.

For a change, how about everyone who reads here posting
something that you used to believe or you said that doesn't
hold water now because you are more mature and educated.

Hmmm. I can't think of a thing for me. I'm a crustacean
Democrat. Never met a repug that I liked. <Except Tom
McCall of Oregon and I was too young to vote for him.> :)

I've been thinking the same meself.

thinking of? What would that mean for our country....and for those of us who Prostested the Invasion of Iraq and the killing of all involved with Bush's Folly.......what would Clark bring as something New and Big...that we haven't seen before? :shrug:

I just watched Max Cleland, another guy who represents the military to me, rip Bush and his Iraq war to pieces on Aaron Brown's show on CNN.

I think it is very significant that people in the military, or with military backgrounds, are turning on Bush.

Speaking as one who also protested the war.

than what Bush did in smearing him in '02. I mean - for God's sake, they claimed that a man who lost limbs in Vietnam was unpatriotic.

Bush is a made-for-TV commander-in-chief. Clark entering the race (and Kerry already there) plus Cleland and other veterans speaking out makes Bush look like the phony he is.

other issues? He's so far removed from Bush that it isn't even worth comparing the two.

Keep in mind - we're not only in trouble here because of the military. We are in trouble because non-military idiots like Rumsfeld and Bush think they can run the military remotely and make better decisions than the military leaders. They ignored tons of advice from military leaders and made decisions those leaders would have never made in a million years.

Bush needs to go. He is incompetent. His administration is incompetent. Clark would most certainly benefit the country were he to replace Bush. As would any of the other 9 candidates.

this is a speech that Clark gave a mere five months ago . . . five months is a rather short interval for the kind of epiphany that seems to have taken place just in time for a presidential campaign . . .

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

"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."

this is the Bush Doctrine/PNAC ideology almost to a tee . . . that the Democrats may nominate someone with this outlook on world affairs distresses me . . . been there, done that, thank you very much . . .

"But please, for one moment, consider that Clark may represent something very big that is happening out there, maybe a major political realignment, where old beliefs are being shaken to their core by the incredible incompetence of the Bush regime."

Most big things require the support of alot of small things. I haven't heard too many of those from Clark yet. Let's see if this works out:

"But please, for one moment, consider that (Schwarzenegger) may represent something very big that is happening out there, maybe a major political realignment, where old beliefs are being shaken to their core by the incredible incompetence of the (Davis) regime."

I love a man in a uniform, but I also am quite fond of health care, too.

I think he has a lot of explaining to do on a number of fronts. But I am willing to listen to those explainations before I pass judgement (though my patience is wearing a little thin)

As far as the article he wrote on the war, one of the last paragraphs reads;

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.

Maybe he trusted Bush to tell the truth. Maybe he is mad he was lied to (I know a number of Democrats are). Maybe that has changed his world view. Maybe a whole lot of others are coming to the same conclusion.

Or maybe not.

In any case, I have a number of fine choices in the Dem field to chose from. And if Clark can bring others who supported Bush in the past over to our side, whether he is the nominee or not, I say great! What is so wrong with that?

Look at this quote I found by him/her:

"I...could destroy every Democratic office holder in the US...It has happened before. Hope and pray it is happening again."

See? It's obvious from this quote I found right here on DU, right here in this thread, in fact, that xray s is "hoping and praying" that every Democratic office holder in the US is "destroyed"!

:evilgrin:

Sorry, I just wanted to help prove your point. :hi:

Now I have to don my fire protection suit! It weights a ton! :)

Please mods....don't tombstone me! :) :)

I don't like or dislike Clark. He obviously excites some people. If there is a reason beyond the implied, and IMO false, security his military experience represents, I'd like to hear about it. His candidacy makes me uncomfortable. If I were to rank our candidates, he would be #10 on my list. My reasons are definitely personal; they may not reflect the average american opinion or experience, and that's fine with me.

I have 3 issues:

1. The military connection. Plaid Adder explained it as well as I an awhile back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=363593

I think we have suffered enough already from the fact that the White House and the Pentagon are now virtually indistinguishable and war has become our entire domestic and foreign policy. I think we need to seriously reconsider the role that the military has played not only in our foreign policy but in the domestic arena and I don't see that someone who has spent a lifetime working inside this particular box is going to be the one to get us out of it.

Plus, there is the fact that since Selection 2000 I have increasingly gotten the impression that America has devolved into a banana republic. Having a general at the helm is only going to increase my anxiety on that score.

2. Not enough info on domestic policy; I'm not sure what he really wants/plans to do domestically, and I'm concerned that our focus will be on international issues while we let our own nation decay.

3. This one is trivial, I know. But if he wanted me to take him seriously, where was he when the rest of the candidates were working to get a real message out? He is entering too late, and not giving me enough substance on the issues that are important to me.

I agree that we are on the brink of a possible shift in political alignment; but Clark does not represent the direction, attitudes, or energy I want to shift towards. Or the energy behind the shift. I want true, profound, significant change in a more positive direction, both globally and at home. I've chosen a candidate working for that shift. I hope and pray it is happening again.

I don't know if this is adding substance or not. I'm not here on attack, just giving my perspective.

Similarly, just because someone said something 5 years ago, instead of yesterday, does not mean it is irrelevant.