Clark could be our generations John F Kennedy

I remember when Kennedy won. The election was close, yet a year later even the republican-on-the-street liked him. He was a real uniter and brought the country together. Yes, I also remember the political infighting, the name calling, and the opposition to JFK, but that was from the party leadership. The ordinary American loved him in a way that I have not seen since then.

I am convinced that Clark has what it takes to do that again.

... any other potential candidate we have.

And I agree with your conclusion.

a reason for the NOT?
Or is this just a "hit & run"?

than the original poster gave for being convinced he IS the next JFK? Yes, I do have a reason.....if he had it in him he would have already have demonstrated that. I supported him when he first declared his candidacy and then I came to disagree with a number of his positions and became uncomfortable with supporting a retired general for president....ANY retired general.

our social safety net by lowering taxes on the richest?

No thanks.

Because Kennedy lowered their taxes and gave them play money, we have monsters like Scaife and Koch who have been able to fund the destruction of every protection working people in this country have ever had.

No more DLC Democrats. No more supply side Democrats. No more free trade dogma Democrats.

Been there, done that, got the shirt stolen.

Tis obvious you may not have looked into Wes Clark's tax policy. Isn't hard to find the facts on it. Just go to http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=taxonomy/term/9 and then click on Issues & Position Papers.

Granted this method will take at least 3 click but it's light excerise to be sure lol.

I could be wrong, but I believe the premise here was NOT a statement on policy per se, but a pointing out of the leadership ability of the 2 men mentioned.

edit for spelling

In many ways that is the job of the president. It takes much more than position papers and programs. The president has to motivate the American people. All of our great presidents have understood that well. As T. Roosevelt (Back when Republicans were populists.)observed, the presidency is a "bully pulpit".

Compare:

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. JFK

The American people have a malaise. JC

Or any other support for this:

"The American people have a malaise. JC"

I presume the JC refers to Jimmy Carter, and he never said this. It is a media myth perpetuated by his opponents both in and out of the party, especially by right-wing zealots.

If I am mistaken, please educate me. If you are mistaken, please stop spreading right-wing propaganda. Thanks.


:)

He didn't actually use the word malaise. I must conceed that specific point. What he did say was, "... too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/e_malaise.html

At first it was well recieved, but a few days later backlashed horribly. (That is one reason that I never trust immediate polls after an event. Wait about a week to see how the reaction settles in.)The public had decided that Carter was blaming them.

It is a tricky thing to inspire without blaming. Carter had approached the problem in the manner of a preacher who must first convict of sin before he offers redemption.

I think of Kerry as another JFK. :shrug: All the way from Kerry's anti-war protesting days to going against Bush. Yes he had flaws and all that but it was the closest race ever in our history and with a war time president. So everybody has an opinion on the next JFK. To me there's only one JFK and that's JFK himself.

"We need tax reform that asks the wealthiest Americans - those making more than $200,000 -- to give up the windfall they received under the Bush tax cuts. These tax cuts are weighing down our economy and mortgaging our children's futures.

Second, we need to take a hard look at spending in Washington to see where cuts are possible and find places where we can streamline government and improve efficiency. On defense, I will support every dime we need to keep America strong. But I will never tolerate billions of dollars of waste or inefficiency just because it has a military label on it. We should have the same standards with our domestic spending.

Third, we must get rid of corporate welfare and tax loopholes. These loopholes aren't just a waste of taxpayer's money, they're also bad for business. They encourage businesses to seek handouts instead of looking for better productivity."

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=speeches/2003-10-22

Kennedy supported lowering the upper brackets from 68%. In my view, that is probably a scooch excessive.

Your statement contrasts with reality in a hundred and eighty degree manner.

Even cursory analysis reveals that Clark is the most progressive (by far) of any potential D candidate with a chance of winning the general election.

His tax policy is the exact opposite of your assertion, which I presume is based on lack of knowledge rather than a deliberate distortion.

Besides having a very enlightened and very progressive platform, Clark has great vision and leadership qualities sorely needed by our country.

To see for yourself, watch BookTV/c-span2 at 3:30 EST today if you can. It is an inspiration to see Clark making his case for the optimal US role in the world today. He may not convert you, but if not, you will at least gain a better understanding of who you are against.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1687331

:)

under the 1981 Kemp Roth Tax Cut while lowering the bottom rate from 14% to 11%. Then Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986 lowered the top tax rate even further from 50% to 28% and raised the bottom rate from 11% to 15%!

FICA taxes were also raised considerably during Reagan's term of office--gotta make up the lost revenue coming into the federal coffers lost by lowering the top tax rates from 70% to 59% to 28%.

http://www.answers.com/topic/tax-reform-act-of-1986

my numbers in my "bullshit" response to this poster you addressed were wrong. :hi:

Clark's tax plan he proposed during the primaries. Your take on his tax stance is the exact opposite of what he actually proposed.

An excerpt from The editorial states "....what defined Clark as a Democrat was not longevity of membership but fidelity of principle. There was a time when tax fairness virtually defined the Democratic Party. It no longer does. The party is so wired into corporate corruption that it is a betrayal of everything for which it once stood. If a Democrat steps out of line long enough to support the poor and middle class, she or he is likely to be attacked by "leaders" like Joe Lieberman, who last year attacked Al Gore for Gore's halfhearted economic populism.

Clark tried to reverse that. Where other candidates tinkered with tax "reform" (every screwing of the public in the last 40 years has been done in the name of tax reform) he proposed a bold stroke to "restore progressivity to the tax system." A family of four with an income of up to $50,000 a year would have been exempted from the income tax altogether. A single parent with one child making up to $28,000 a year would also have been exempted (with a sliding scale to cover other circumstances).

The revenue lost would have been recovered by reversing the trend of cutting taxes paid by the rich. Clark would have increased taxes on the one percent of taxpayers at the top."

The last sentence reads...."when we see the imitation Democrats chasing after corporate campaign "contributions" while trying hard to forget Wesley Clark, who made the mistake of reminding them of what a real Democrat represents."

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

Thanks for posting it.

He is the only one who has the ability to actually win the White House and heal the divide in this country.

Enough already. Why don't all you Clarkies stop with this hero worshiping you do on DU? It actually is starting to turn me off to your good General.Rather than ever making me want to ever vote for him it is doing quite the opposite. I'm sure there is a Clark website around where you can drink your Clark-aide together. Comparing him to JFK is just plain disgusting.Clark ran a miserable campaign and didn't excite anyone outside of a few starry eyed DU'ers. You want me to pay attention to him....let him fix the voting machines. Without that even JFK himself couldn't beat the Pukes.

My .02

as a member of DU...as are "all us Clarkies".

How rude of you to imply that we should "go elswhere" to discuss the General.

There is nothing disgusting about voicing an opinion as to the similarities of these 2 Americans.

DU is a place FOR voicing opinions unless something has changed in the policy that I'm not aware of.

If it takes no more than the opinions of someone's supporters to "turn you off" then might I suggest you check out the man's position papers and ignore his supposedly (in your opinion) starry eyed supporters here at DU.

I don't understand why people who are excited about someone is such a turn off to you? Many, many Clark supporters are like me - either never involved in politics or had tuned out and were turned off by having to vote for "the lesser of two evils" every 4 years.

I'd understand if you said you had read/heard General Clark's position and beliefs and didn't agree with him but from your post it seems like you just don't like that we're actually inspired and motivated by him to be involved in taking back our country from the Radical Regressives.

And your last line - "You want me to pay attention to him... let him fix the voting machines." It's going to take all of us to do that. For me, having General Clark out there motivates me and many others to be involved in doing just that.

You guys actually turn me OFF from Clark. Gimme a break.

if you voice this same sentiment to everyone who may have a strong inclination to discuss their given "favorite", or is the GMAB only for us "radical" Clark supporters?

No one else talks about anyone quite the way people think Clark is a savior. Clark is very much part of the military-industrial complex, sure he's probably fine, and of course I'll vote for any Democrat over any Republican, but no one positively WORSHIPS their guy around here quite like people WORSHIP Clark.

I've seen much here on DU, both good, bad and indifferent when it comes to debating the merits of various Democrats.

During the the primaries there was a good deal of "gnashing of teeth" on the part of the various candidates supporters...I saw little there on anyone's part that could be construed as "worship", and yet I saw strong statements of support, strong documentation for policies, and a lot of folks were throwing about the "hero worship" lable against everyone else but never me lol.

I guess it's not metro to believe there could still be heroes in this world...unless they happen to be steriod/coke/booze laden athetes of course.

I say again...ignore the supporters if you must...look at the man and his positions.

I discovered it during the final election (Kerry/Bush), so I can't speak to what things were like then. I can only give my impression since then, and in my opinion the people talk about Clark differently than the people who talk about their other guys---much more like WORSHIP.

During the primaries those of us who became Clark supporters were inclined to investigate the policy papers, both foreign and domestic, of ALL the candidates.

Compare/contrast = conviction.

There's a HUGE difference between conviction and "idol worship".

Wes Clark was the only candidate with sane-humane foreign policy expertise and whose domestic policies btw, warm the heart of any progressive who bothers to inform themselves.

We only want to win back our country and we're convinced WKC can do it...it's that simple.

Most of us who prefer Clark do so on the basis of his adherence to stances on the issues that are reality-based yet humanitarian. Whether it is related to foreign or domestic policy, he usually, overall, embodies what we had come to expect from politicians, obviously incorrectly, when we were children: rationalism, idealism, enlightenment values, multilateralism, honesty, intelligence, and concern for the plight of humanity, including US citizens, but also those living elsewhere.

Many of us are academics, scientists, government officials etc. who are tired of the recent anti-intellectualism of the Bushites. I suppose we may come across as "worshipers" to some because we have remained cohesive, unlike the grassroots supporters of many other candidates--but the perception is incorrect. We are, however, gloriously happy to find someone who typifies our values. But so many of us as academics, scientists etc have been taught to always, always question everything--don't take anything for granted, that it is unlikely we would worship anyone.

(Edited to get rid of wayward tag)

I don't relate to him that way at all. I am simply sincerely convinced that he should be the POTUS. There is no equivocation; there is no doubt in my mind; there is nothing but sheer admiration, respect, and trust in him.

There will never be another President who is not a part of the military-industrial complex. Face it, the world has changed. If we are ever going to win the White House back again, we need someone who can take the national security and foreign policy concerns of the American people, and make them feel safe and secure. At least with Wes, I trust his compassiona nd humanity. I have heard him say repeatedly, he would be reluyctant to use force -- and "only, only, only as a last resort". I trust him to mean it.

He's a good, decent, and compassionate man. This is refelcted in his social policy. So, it follows, at least in my mind, that he will show this same compassion for his and our "fellow man" when it comes to using his military.

In my mind, there is no worship, again... just admiration, respect, and trust. We need him now more than ever. I believe that.

TC

There will never be another President who is not a part of the military-industrial complex. Face it, the world has changed.

I refuse to even entertain the idea that this is true, okay or something that I as a democrat would ever accept.
If this is true then it is time for the revolution, America is dead.

is the most accurate in all that you have posted.

We need to give up on America if every President is now going to be a part of the MIC. Why are you still supporting Clark?

in this bizarre verbal dance of yours that must have you convinced you that you possess a superior clever wit (not) is how Democracy is dead or dying. But I don't agree with any of the other bullshit sarcastic comments you have made.

You just appear as a "got nothing to do" detractor to me.

I support Clark because I think he's got more integrity in his little finger than the politicians you most likely admire. Because politics is the art of the possible. And it's possible that maybe enough Democrats will wake up and recognize a good man when one is presented to them. With some Democrats, I give up. Those are the ones that reason, discussion and debate have absolutely no effect.

The president is Commander-in-Chief. Wouldn't that be part of the "military-industrial complex" on its own?

The president needs to be effective on matters of national defense. I suppose that means being part of the military-industrial complex, too.

There are many liberal Democrats who are veterans and who've fought for active military as well as veterans' benefits. Are they part of the military-industrial complex?

What about liberal Democrats who've advocated some weapons systems over others, who voted in favor of military action, who ordered military action as presidents, who sponsored legislation regarding security identification systems for airlines, etc. etc...? All part of the military-industrial complex?

"Clark is very much part of the military-industrial complex"

How would that be? Being in the military makes you part of a complex or what? Please substantiate this statement made in such matter of fact.

Worship is a relative word. If respect and admiration equals worship, then maybe that's is what it is. However, I don't see how respect and admiration are a negative thing. I would have preferred if Kerry would have had more "ardent" worshippers pushing for him everywhere during the election. I think it could have only helped.

Would you concede at least that?

Simple as that for me.

let Clark turn you on himself. Watch the Book TV thing at 3:30, OK?

Thanks

Upon which to base a decision on whether to support a potential candidate or any policial leader? Because some of his base are TOO ardent for your tastes? C'mon...

I was just 6yo when JFK was elected President, so I don't remember much about it, but it seems strange to me that you would be "disgusted" at the comparison because Clark "ran a miserable campaign"? Is that what you're saying? As if JFK's greatest gift was his political skill?

Not that I agree that Clark's campaign was "miserable" considering all the circumstances. Or that campaign skills can't be learned and improved, whereas qualities such as integrity and courage cannot. And if you think his only support is lies in a few "starry eyed DU'ers," you're only foolin' yourself.

What-ever. I may not remember JFK, but I do remember RFK. Lot of simalarity there. Especially in his ability to inspire passion in his supporters. The very quality you seem to dislike so much in Clark. Just doesn't make much sense to me, so I gotta wonder if you're not being purposely misleading and just trying to squelch the free expression of opinions here at DU.

Fwiw, Clark has spoken at some length, even back during his campaign, or the need for verifiable, transparent elections. I doubt you'd find any of us "hero-worshippers" who disagree, and personally know of Clarkies who are working hard on that very issue. But ultimately it's up to the legislatures to fix the system, to us voters to demand it, and to the courts to enforce the laws that already exist. No one man or woman can do it alone. I would submit that Clark, by keeping his base active and involved, is doing more than most.

Please don't throw the baby out with what you call "bathwater" (Clarkies). Every candidate has ardent followers, and it is important to focus on the candidate. General Clark is a sturdy leader, and I have concluded after researching him extensively that if the Democrats want a President in 2008, Clark is the one to make it happen--if he gets an early enough start.

It was, perhaps, a mistake for Clark to run in 2004. He came in late when it looked at the time as if Democrats didn't have a strong candidate in the field. He didn't have a big choice of staff and little money (although he was able to raise millions in a hurry). Strategic mistakes were made and he was unfamiliar with how to act like a politician. He is a quick study, I must say.

So, please keep watching the man himself. Like me, you will likely be very impressed.

who let it be known that she was on the fence in regard to Schiavo, only to have fundamentalist speaking in tongues and bowing down to her as their savior. She back away from their position so fast she left skid marks.

Okay, maybe not that bad, but that's the image I got from your words.

This coming from a former Clarkie, of course. God bless him, but he was my "starter candidate." Politics with training wheels. He said something I liked early on and so I started with him. Turned to Mr. Styrofoam Personality after that, only to fall in love with the guy. And though I sometimes think JFK is my JFK, that's a personal thing. He's MY JFK, he doesn't have to be anyone elses. It will determine how hard I will work for him if he runs again. Others will have to make their own decision.

Clark needs to get some political chops. I will take a look at him and the other candidates, whoever they are, when we get closer to that time.

I started looking at JRE but came to the conclusion that he didn't have a broad enough resume. My attention turned to the rising candidacy of Kerry but although I had no problem with his anti- VN War stand, I knew it would be a liability with the broader electorate. As the draft Clark movement built, I looked at a man I had respected and realized he did not have Kerry's baggage. I naturally returned to support Kerry, just like Clark and the majority of his supporters. I am now supporting Clark again because I feel my original inclinations have been born out and I feel Clark is our greatest hope. I think Kerry has given it his best and it is time to go forward. As you say it is early and by 2008 the choices may not be the same. If Clark is in the running, he will definitely have my support.He gets better with time. He has not wavered and he has understanding and leadership that this Party needs.

Wes Clark was my "starter candidate" too. In fact, my husband bought me a copy of his book for Christmas in 2003. It is called Winning Modern Wars. From it I can tell he'd be a first-rate commander in chief, but what about the many other aspects of being president, I thought. What about domestic issues, what about diplomacy, what about fighting terrorism, what about all the rest of it?
I came to the conclusion that John Kerry was far more experienced at a broad range of governmental problems, with his 20 years in the Senate. And like you, the more I learned about him, the more confidence I had that he was the best candidate. And I still think so today.

I also was made uncomfortable reading some of the things Clark wrote in his book--so admiring of the military and how capable it was, etc. I thought, "this guy would just love to use that military again." True or not, I went with the more dovish guy who had told the truth about and protested the Vietnam war.

He needs to work on his domestic issues.

I do appreciate how Clark feels about the neocons, and I appreciated how he helped Kerry esp. with his foreign policy speeches.

But he is going to have to go to school a bit. I think being fairly fresh out of the military has something to do with his domestic issues, but we shall see. He has the same chance as anyone to impress.

policy posted on his website. It seems disingenuous for you to say he needs to go to school when he has a Masters Degree in Economics and served a fellowship in the OMB.

and he needs to be able to sound convincing in an interview or in a debate. Kerry had several positions posted on his site too, but the Bush campaign went around saying he didn't have a plan when he did. People just don't necessarily go and glean this information off of a website.

Marketing, baby. Clark needs to get started alot earlier than he did last time, and he needs a good strong ad campaign. And he needs to be more polished, something he was getting the hang of by the end of the campaign. So this year was good experience for him. He just needs to keep it up. That's the kind of "schooling" I was talking about. You can be book smart as all hell, but that's no substitute for experience.

He'll have the same chance to impress as anyone.

By the way he also has a Masters Degree in Politics. He was a Rhodes Scholar and has one in Philosophy too. He was Captain of his debate team at West Point. His problem is he has not mastered the "sound bite" yet. If you watch who is out in public, speaking to the issues, he is in the forefront. He was one of the most visible spokesmen for the Kerry campaign. It is interesting to read the accounts of people who have seen him speak. Most are quite impressed.

a firm grip on first principles concerning Clark, Ginny. Unfortunately, I get the impression there are a fair few here who would like to see more US "gunboat diplomacy" under Clark's direction; but successful - which it wouldn't be under any President. Now, less than ever.

The hero worship is a bit much.

I remember reading somewhere soon after Clark declared that Clark supporters weren't just supporters, they were Clark evangelists. :)

I suppose it may seem a bit much to those who haven't gotten a chance to see in him what we "evangelists" see in him...but it's really hard, when you've found someone who inspires you so, whom you trust and admire greatly and who you just feel so strongly about, not to want to shout about it from the rooftops sometimes, especially when you've found that someone at a time when you thought you'd never have hope again. And for a lot of us, this is our first time being involved in politics. So we're enthusiastic. Sorry if it makes us sound like hero worshipper, sorry if it annoys you....but please don't blame Clark for that.

Peace, Carol

If you don't like admiration discussions about General Clarke, why would you open this thread?

Unless your mission is to disrupt.

I learned of General Clark originally through Michael Moore. The more I learned of him and heard from him the more involved I became in politics for the first time in my life. No one has ever inspired me like he has and no one running for office has ever had my trust.

I was only 7 when Kennedy was killed and will admit from what I've heard and read I don't think I would have felt the same passion for him that General Clark inspires in me. The fact that General Clark is not a politician is to me a positive.

Yes, I also remember the political infighting, the name calling, and the opposition to JFK, but that was from the party leadership.

There was also a lot of that from the Democratic voters, too.

When people look back on past events, or rely on heresay and books, the get a misguided impression that the Dem party used to be always united.

Couldn't be further from the truth.

Just in more recent history: FDR had detractors in the party, JFK had detractors in the party, the battles between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy in 1980 were VERY bad for the party.

There was bit of infighting during every Dems run, nomination, and election to President.

I agree with you about Clark - but even he will/would have detractors in party (as evidenced by the section of DU that do not like him.)

:silly:

It's slightly irritating when people call X or Y the "next JFK". There was only one JFK. One RFK. Are there similarities between them and some of the current crop of politicians? Sure, but they're not Tinker Bells you can shake to get some magic on the candidate of your choice. It's overdone (I go cuckoo bonkers when I see John Kerry called JFK).

It's kind of insulting to X or Y, too....why can't they be their own man, the first X or Y?

I like Clark, btw.

or any positive Democratic thread a turnoff, perhaps you might save yourself the misery by not reading them.

Perhaps thats a bit radical (after all, then you'd have nothing to bitch about) but it might save you the misery of seeing Democrats supporting Democratic political figures-that must really hurt.

Thanks, Silverhair. I too, am old enough to remember JFK and your comparison is spot-on!

someone at an unmentionable URL has declared the the DU Clark movement will end...

and we would never hang in and support him for the long run. We're just here to stir up shit during the campaign. Oh, wait, the campaign is over isn't it. Guess I didn't get the memo to just fade away.... (((hopefully evident sarcasm-I know at least wyldwolf will get it)))

I've already been "snitched" on somewhere else.

I wouldn't want you to be hauled in to to the True Liberal Court!

So far, so good.

DNC chairman, I got to the point where I simply could not read another word about "Dr. Dean;" therefore, rather than just spend my day posting comments about him (and I don't MIND that he's chairman, I just got tired of reading about it), I skipped those threads.
Sounds like a good idea to me, rowdyboy!

His stances are quite liberal, and his life experiences are a solid basis for drawing in the moderates and - dare I say - more than a few conservatives.

I find it amusing that so many DUers are afraid of having a hero. Why does it bother you that people are inspired by Clark? Is that somehow wrong? Has it been so long since a public figure actually inspired people that we've lost sight of the fact that it's a good thing?

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." -- JFK

"When you can do good, you should." -- Bill Clinton

It's not wrong to support a candidate for his ideals rather than merely for his positions. That's the difference between Clark supporters and the people who so strongly dislike Clark supporters. We support our candidate not because his positions happen to agree with ours but because his values agree with ours. Clark supporters have found that happy place--the place where you can TRUST a candidate to do what's right because you know underneath it all, you share the same philosophy of life. If that bothers you, I suggest you take a good hard look at yourself and your relationship with your Party.

I do have to add a disclaimer here that I certainly think other people can inspire this type of trust. For me, though, Clark has been the only one who has managed to do it. I'm guessing that people who have compared him to JFK are people who felt that way about Kennedy and haven't felt that way about anyone since, until they discovered Wesley Clark.

"When you can do good, you should." -- Bill Clinton

The Big Dog obviously believes and may well have said this, and may have said it before Clark, but just googling around I find attribution only to Clark. I heard him say it when he kicked off his "Grits" tour. I could tell he meant it.

During the Dan Rather interview on 60 minutes.

But I'm pretty sure I've since heard him say he got it, not in the same exact words, from Clinton. I'm sorry I can't give a source for that. Might have been something reported from the Clinton library dedication--that seems about the right time in my memory.

It's a true statement, whoever said it first. And one that Clark lives his life by, which counts for more than just mouthing the words.

Although Clark was the first person I ever heard say it. In the Ogata discussion (which is on CSPAN2 at 3:30 EST today), he attributes a very similar quote to Clinton, regarding intervention in humanitarian crises.

...and B.C. can have it. It's pretty much stating the obvious isn't it?

...and similarly, Kennedy said, "One person can make a difference and every person should try." (Just a bit more articulate IMO)

And OT: for those who don't trust Clark with their tax-brackets,

WKC said, "George W. Bush has helped those who have most, hurt those who have least and ignored everyone in between."

While I tink Gen. Clark WILL make a great President someday, hes not my hero. My hero is John F Kerry I cant say that he is like John F Kennedy because I wasnt alive during his Presidency but the simularities in his policies are there also including the most obvious thing their name and initials.

All I ask is that people don't attack Clarkies for "hero worship."

As a youth I was active in the Kennedy campaign passing literature door to door. I was discouraged by the assasination and my experience in the VN War made me cynical. I felt renewed inspiration from Clark. As a supporter I have come across a number of supporters with the same experience. There were others who stayed politically active and worked in a number of other campaigns, yet felt Clark was unique. My own feeling is that Clark was inspired in life by Kennedy and much of his personal political view was formed by that fact, much like Clinton's.

<Snip> We support our candidate not because his positions happen to agree with ours but because his values agree with ours. <Snip>


Your quote above sounds very familiar. "Values" ...sounds like a Carl Rove talking point.


I vote for the positions. Those are easier to Gage than values. They are what good "values" conclude as. Howard Dean had more positions than I agreed with than Kerry, Edwards or Clark.

Don't Democratic values count for anything? I know Rove would tell you they don't. Let's not let the Repubs own that word too, ok?

Policy positions are important. But you can't anticipate every issue a president or other elected official is going to be faced with. Shit happens. That we can't trust our government to be guided by the "values" this nation is supposed to stand for is one of biggest reasons our country is so screwed up.

Our values aren't screwed up in this country...our positions are. Quayle and the Conservatives started this "Values" BS and it blindly motivates people who don't know a "value" from a talking point.

Show me some good positions and screw the "values" BS. I "value" good positions. I didn't care that President Clinton was a poor husband and a poorer father...his positions were ones I generally agreed with (except NAFTA).It was his over all job positions and judgments I found important. The rest was BS.

than I suggest that you actually look at Clark's. I don't think you will be let down.

When I say "values" I don't mean whether Clinton slept around or not. I believe Clinton's values are better than any of the current crop of Republicans, or almost any Republicans for that matter. Clark's statement of values is "We lift people up." Clinton felt that way too. Let me go find the link to his speech about it and part of the transcript. Then you'll see that we're not talking about the Republicans' definition of values.

Here is the link to the video:

http://homepage.mac.com/poolec/FileSharing4.html

And here's some of the speech:

"WE know what Americans thirst for - is their identification with their own values, ...

WE believe in the values of spirit, ...
WE believe in not discriminating! ...
WE believe taking care of people, ...
WE believe in helping them be all that they can be, ...

WE believe in lifting people up and inspiring them to do more, ...

We don't write people off! ...
We don't fence people out! ...
We don't put people down, ..

WE Lift Them Up!


There are no greater values, but somehow that message has to resonate with the American people...." -Wesley Clark (DC 1.12.05)

Which positions of Dean's did you agree with more than Clark?

we're just scared to have a hero.

Or maybe we're just inspired by different folks than y'all. I'm inspired by my hero, John Kerry.

Some consider Kusinich quite heroic in the stances he takes.

Obviously several are intensely inspired by Dean.

We're not afraid of heros. We just have different ones than you.

Perhaps you should look at my response to the person who said they had a different hero than I did. Oh, and perhaps you should read the post I was responding to that accused us of "hero worship" and told us to essentially go away. Perhaps you shouldn't be so paranoid and so rude.

On a public forum?

So far in the long thread which I'm just sort of skimming at the moment, I've seen someone who said that we should concentrate on 06, and suggest that Clark needs to beef up his political savy. Nothing too offensive there yet. But I have dialup so I'm not sure if I'm going to go at the 100 + post monster one by one.

But the heading doesn't just say that the OP considers Clark their own JFK but suggests that he's inspirational enough to be the JFK for a generation. A few in that generation are commenting in the negative.

Perhaps I was being rude in reacting to your comment as I did. I'm sorry if I was. But I think that to push one candidate or another this early, and to not be able to forget past grudges against this candidate or that weakens us for the fight right before us: the battle for Congress in 2006.

If Clark emerges as that inspirational person who leads the way in 2006 and 2008, more power to him. I will keep as open a mind to him as I will to the other candidates. Since he was my starter candidate, and I'm not incredibly knowledgeable about him or attached to him, he may have to impress me all over again. He doesn't have as steep a climb with me as Hillary will, I can tell you that.



(rodneyking)Can't we all just get along?(/rodneyking)

Each one responds to a specific prior post, not to the whole forum. It even says up in the top corner of each, "Response to reply #XXX"

I'm on dial-up too, but I just scroll thru the whole thing at once. Takes a little while for the thread to fill the screen before I can start, but it's much easier (and quicker) to keep track of the conversational flow.

Now, if you're not interested enough to read it all, that's fine and dandy. Lots of threads I just scan thru, or read bits and pieces. But if you're gonna chime in, you really need to know the context of the post you're responding to.

I for one admired several democrats through the years for their ideals and their positions on issues, and after several years of being disappointed by others, I have been highly inspired by Wesley Clark after researching him extensively and listening to him speak in interviews and in debates. I see nothing wrong with finally having a national figure, and potential presidential candidate that makes me proud and thrilled to support!

I have been convinced of that from the beginning.

Absolutely.

TC

It was one of the major highlights in my life. JFK was the best in my lifetime.

IMO, a WKC presidency (if he runs/wins of course), could very likely exceed JFK's presidency. (It's the FP/NS thing in his favor I believe.)

...someone who wasn't around during the Kennedy years likened jfk to JFK...not by a long shot!

After listening, reading, and attending WKC speeches, there is no doubt in my mind, that this man will lead us to a better America! Those that have their pick of candidate, I respect their wishes. I on the other hand, always listen to what prospective candidates policy goals are. Prior to the 2004 election, I listened with an open mind to WKC,JK, JE, and in fact went to their rallies, when it was possible..As I wanted to an honest decision in what was best for America. That person was Wes Clark! When WKC dropped out of the race, I supported JK, as WKC did totally.
Now it is time to really what is in the best interest of our Country. I believe only one man can lead us out of this hole the BushCo has dug us into.Wes Clark..Keep an open mind, listen, read, research..go to his apprearences. Be fair...open...and honest...We must save our Country..!!!

a supreme politician and leader. Bobby Kennedy was less of a politician, but a true believer in the American people, a true believer in doing right by the American people, particularly protecting the disadvantaged and less fortunate. He was inspirational to his followers because of that quality. Bobby could be TRUSTED to do the right thing. Not since Bobby Kennedy have I been so inspired by a public figure as I have been by Wes Clark. That is not worship, but most Clarkies have discovered Wes Clark in a similar manner. If Wes Clark were my president, I can TRUST that he will get up every day and make decisions that are doing his best for the American people. I can't say that about anyone else in the public arena. I don't even have to agree with every one of his policies (though I mostly do), but, again, I TRUST HIM. One person who has posted here mentioned that Wes Clark is the only person with whom she would TRUST with her military son's life!

Mario Cuomo said, "Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

Great Cuomo quote. Here's what Hersh, another man of courage imo, said to Goodman in a "Democray Now" interview, talking about Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan:

"Everybody denied the story like crazy. And Wes Clark, to his credit, told a bunch of newspapers, "Look, I know this is right." I had said 13 people were hurt and he said 12 was the number that he had. I saw in him somebody with a great streak of integrity, difficult he may be. In any case, I called him about this story while I was doing it. He encouraged me to write it. I didn't write it. About a year-and-a-half later, he's running for president. I mention this in the book, and I bump into him, and he jumped all over me. He said, "Why didn't you do that story?" I said, "Well, I just thought, it just would have been -- I just didn't do it." He said, "You should have done it. That was your job." Pretty scary. You know, he was right." (emphasis added)

Might be worth noting that Hersh says this conversation took place long before Clark was even thinking of running for president. Seems to me if he were a Republican back then, as some on DU seem to think, he would hardly have come to Hersh's defense publicly. You don't get very far with the Repubs by standing up for a whistle-blower. Or an effective journalist--one reason we have so few of 'em.

a journalist in every sense of the word, couldn't have said it to a person more deserving of hearing about Wes Clark's integrity than Amy Goodman!

I do admire Goodman muchly, but she would really prefer not to cut a break for former NATO Commander Wes Clark.

...on Goodman's face. She immediately changed the subject.

I think the biggest difference between Hersh and Goodman, vis-a-vis Clark anyway, is that Hersh has actually met the General, on numerous occassions. He knows what he's talking about first-hand and isn't resorting to stereotypes and second- or third-hand accounts from far-left sources.

Another difference is Hersh is used to working with all sorts of people from the military community and KNOWS that many (if not most) of us do NOT support much of what goes on within the Pentagon.

It's not only "What's the Matter With Kansas"...there is a whole other faction who simply will shoot themselves in the foot...repeatedly!

I didn't "discover" RFK until long after he was gone but, I admit, I've idolized him since I did discover him. I've read every possible thing I could find about him and I've lamented for the part of my life that I've been aware of RFK that I'd never get the chance to meet him, to see him live, to be involved like those who worked with and for him were involved. I never thought I'd find a living politician that would make me feel the way I felt about RFK...and then I researched and met Gen Clark. I still lament never having the chance to meet RFK, to look into his eyes, to shake his hand and tell him how much I admire him....but I think I might at least have a little idea how it would have felt if I could have.

Oh, and I LOVE that Mario quote.

I don't feel he has the political accumen to be compared to JFK.

Of course it's also far too early to be placing bets on '08 when there is so much work to be done on '06.

Wouldn't it be better to focus on getting more Dems in the House and Senate first and working on the immediate changes?

You'd also get some arguments on this from JFK's brother, Ted Kennedy who feels there is another who comes closest to being like his brother.

I disagree wholeheartedly, and Kerry is my Senator. And, Wes gave your guy 1000% during the election. Sounds a bit ungrateful to me.

As I see it now, Kerry talks a good game, but can't walk the walk that goes with his talk. I've seen it over and over for years. I was one of his most loyal supporters at one time. He started out in '72 with fire and passion, and, imo... burned out. He is but a shadow of what he was then.

FWIW, I believe Teddy supports him because he was his mentor for years, and to abandon him at this point would diminish the time and effort that he's invested in Kerry. Just my opinion, but I've "known" them both for a very long time, and that's how I see it.

That having been said, I respect your right to feel as you do, so I hope you respect mine to feel that Wes CLark will be a great and historic POTUS should this Party find the 'nads to nominate him.

TC

If you want a thread only Clark fans post on, shouldn't you post it on some Clark message board?

Yes.

I was only speaking for myself, and said so several times in that post. I don't own DU. Post what you want.

I find it disappointing to read anything with the tenor of that post from a Kerry supporter, that's all. I feel Wes really pulled out all the stops to get him elected, and should be treated better than that. That's my own opinion, and no one else has to agree with it.

What most of you don't know about Wes is that he e-mailed all of us and blogged personally on his blog asking all of us to please give Kerry our vote. I had vowed several years ago never to vote for Kerry again, even for dog-catcher. I would have stayed home on election day, but made the effort to go out and vote for Kerry because Wes asked me to, and I felt it was one last way to honor him for his effort.

So, to see him denegrated by a Kerry supporter is just a bitter pill for me, personally. That's all.

TC

I don't have any idea who I will support in 2008. I hope it is a liberal female or a rabid populist or both.

there's bashing and there's criticism. I didn't think she passed that line.

And I do agree that I wish we'd all concentrate on 06.

And Clark does need to learn and improve politically. Nothing wrong with that. If he emerges as a leader, cool beans. But no one's going to give him a hand up. He's gotta earn it. So far, there's been nary a peep publically.

I'm as open to him as anyone next time around.

Not all the Kennedy's are in love with Kerry. Here's an article where Bobby Kennedy, Jr., doesn't have such glowing things to say... here's a clip:

"The young Kennedy attended the ceremony.

We asked him what he thought of President Bush naming the building after his dad.

He said he wouldn't comment on the record.

But he did call President Bush 'the most corrupt and immoral President that we have had in American history.'

Not that he was enamored with Senator John Kerry.

Early in the campaign, Kennedy endorsed Senator John Kerry for President, but last month he expressed disappointment in Kerry's campaign and in the Democratic Party.

'The Republicans are 95 percent corrupt and the Democrats are 75 percent corrupt,' Kennedy. 'They are accepting money from the same corporations. And of course, that is going to corrupt you.'"

So, if the DNC is almost as corrupt as the RNC, I am voting the man, not the Party from now on.

And, for me, that man will be Wes Clark, should he choose to run.

Here's the link for that article, btw:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7804.htm


TC

We don't even do the Cat Killer bad down here. Just curious.

Basically, and politely, it boils down to the fact that he became a disappointment to me over the years.

TC

I guess you can't please everyone. It's sad that people turn on their own in favor of someone else. You should stop bashing Kerry. :nopity:

I have not even come close to bashing Kerry here. That's your characterization.

I supported Kerry since I met him in the early 70's. I have worked on his campaigns and I have given him more money than I will be able to leave my kids when I die. I have every right in the world to feel any damned way I want to about him, and since it's America, I have every right to say so. It wasn't until his last campaign for Senator that I threw in the towel on him.

So, don't you dare tell me what I should and shouldn't do concerning the Senator, please. Until you have 25+ years of supporting him and campaigning for him, and donating to him, don't you dare "should" me about him. Thank you very much.

TC

What's your problem with "doing the Cat Killer bad"?

where he/she should post, maybe you, the kettle, are calling the pot black?

If the poster hadn't said it first.
Question: Why do you feel a need to answer every post that might not be positive about Clark? Is this going to win him support here in cyberspace?

Do you have a problem with it? And if you do, do you think I give a flying cyberspace fig?

And if one's support for a candidate can be measured by the fact that his supporters can counter stupid sarcastic posts, than Wes Clark is way ahead.

Those effected negatively by the fact that Clark supporters know how to respond to negativity probably wouldn't support Clark if the continuation of our universe depended on it. Right?

:silly:

during Kerry's concession speech, because he just can't give up on an investment, disappointing though it might be.

I don't see what Kerrygoddess said that was so disloyal. I honor the commitment that Clark made to helping Kerry get elected. It does not diminish my regard for him to say that he needs more political savy. He's learning quickly, and we shall see in a year or two.

If she'd said simply "Clark sux -- go Kerry" or got personal about it I could see what you were talking about, but it looks to me like she just gave an honest opinion. Sorry it differs from yours. And I'm really sorry you see that as a lack of loyalty.

But I agree with her. It would be quite productive of us as a party if we could concentrate on getting more Dems in Congress this next year before we worry about who is going to be our next presidential candidate.

Nevertheless, I'm glad Clark inspires you. That's cool. It's inspiration like that which gets folks involved in the process. I met Veterans for Kerry who were equally as inspired, and who then worked on their first campaign ever. You just can't expect us all to agree with you re: Clark and JFK. Some of us just don't see it. Our inspiration lies elsewhere.

and I also want to point out that he won't have the "political accument" that you speak of until he is elected as President and has a chance to do what I think would be a great service for this country.

JFK did not have so much "political accument" until he was elected. So the fact that some speak of General Clark's potential in similarities as great as those of JFK is valid and reasonable.

KerryGoddess, your post is kind of contradictory, as you give Clark supporters advice as to what they should concern themselves with (2006 elections), while the only threads you seem to post about always have something to do with Kerry and how great he is, at all times (hence your name).

I would say that Ted Kennedy is a fine fellow, but I will not be relying on his recommendations on who to support to win an election against Republicans in 2008. I listened to him in 2004, when he recommended John Kerry. This time, I have decided to follow my own instincts, and those instincts tell me that Clark shares more of the qualities that represent what I want in a President.

If Clark is on any ticket in 2008, I will be voting for that ticket.

i'm not a Clark supporter (i like Kerry) but as someone who agrees with you when it comes to the anti Kerry crap we should show the same respect to those who support someone else, especially if we call on others to do that with those we like.

And it was more about uniting, not about politics.

That aside, I think that we need that kind of uniter in a prominent position NOW in order to help us win back seats in the House and the Senate. Dems aren't going to win back seats until we regain some popularity. Geez, we can't even stand each other right now.

Clark is really a uniter. Lots of people at all sorts of different places on the political spectrum identify with him. If we had someone like him running around pushing our candidates in 06, we'd be a lot more likely to get seats. And he plans to do that, I'm sure. But he needs to be a recognizable figure for it to mean as much.

...NO DOUBT!

Surely they know how badly they screwed up with the "annointment" of lowercase.

One more obvious reason we DON'T need another Washington-congressional-insider to represent our party. I'm sick of "business- as-usual" from the beltway boys.

Hopefully Dean will turn the party upside-down and shake hell out of it...but I'm not holding my breath

considering he's been among the first to say "Kerry 2008!" at a gathering a couple of months ago. He looked so sad at the concession. I think Kennedy considers Kerry like a little brother.

I still think Kerry could be a magnificent president given the chance. The problem is his credentials as a campaigner are not so good. If only we weren't so into the marketing of our candidates.

...sometimes it takes awhile to admit you made a bad choice.

I'm sure the senior senator from MA is genuinely fond of the junior one.

your opinion onto Mr. Kennedy. He talks like he doesn't think he made a bad choice.

Actually, though perhaps not as "flash" as some expected, I think the Jr. Senator from Mass. has distinguished himself fairly well though his investigations and his foreign policy knowledge and such. Being a wonk means sometimes you're not part of the dog and pony show.

And that's okay. Esp. if you tend toward wonkishness yourself, as I do. Of course, I'm just learning.

Or is that wishful thinking on your part? Perhaps Teddy Kennedy supported Kerry because they are senators from the same state.

Remember that T.K. also supported Swartzenegger. Was he like JFK too?

some Kennedy family members did, but Ted Kennedy was not one of them, he supported Davis.

from the Kennedy center:

"John has said that my brothers, Jack and Bob, inspired him to pursue public service, and John has brilliantly picked up the torch to inspire a new generation." He then talked about knowing John as a friend, a soldier, an antiwar activist, a prosecutor, Lt gov, and as a Senator, and "I had hoped as President" "Maybe in 2008"

I can't think of any President who could aptly be referred to as "a second (any earlier President). I don't think that Kennedy is saying that Kerry is a second JFK, but clearly Kerry was inspired by all 3 Kennedys.

JFK was a young, fresh, inspiring leader who was a junior Senator from Massachusetts. A better analogy to Clark might be Eishenhower - a man sought by both parties as a candidate because his own politics were not known, who was a general, and in his warning on the military industrial complex.

He didn't even say Kerry was like JFK. He said Kerry inspired people as did his brothers.

It was a very nice compliment to Kerry, where saying either he was this generation's JFK or saying that they were similar people (when they aren't) would have seemed false and would have meant far less.

(Because Kennedy was connected via phone, C-SPAN showed Kerry who was clearly very very touched by Kennedy's words.)

Than is he not like JFK and RFK or would you prefer he not be?

So Ted Kennedy can say that someone (in this case John Kerry) inspires people the way his brothers did, and you have no problem with that? No snideness about Kerry lacking an identity of his own? No comparisons to Hitler?

But heaven forfend that anyone else should suggest that someone (Wes Clark) inspires people the way Ted Kennedy's brothers did, eh?

:toast: You're a hoot, Ms. Snark. Keep 'em coming...

That is my specific problem with what the OP stated. Why is it so difficult to stick to the point? You have made about five passes around the point and it still stands.

There was an interview with Mary beth Cahill well over a year ago where she said something to the effect that Kennedy felt that JK getting elected was closing the circle on the Kennedy family legacy.

Many people from MA see him as being much like a Kennedy. His career is far more similar to JFK's than Clark's.

What a country we could be under his leadership.

I'm the last person to fall into the trap of adoration or hero worship. But Clark? Yes, I greatly admire (not adore) Clark ... yes, more than I have any politician to date. Why? Because he's brilliant but still seemingly holds on to his humble nature of showing respect toward everyone he addresses. Such a "good temperament" and true self control combined with high intelligence!?! Can't we all see that such commendable traits are so damn rare in "any aspect" of our Country's Leadership ranks today?

No joke fellow progressives: We are in need of another FDR or JFK type leader. We need to get back our honor and good reputation in the world community. That will take at least a generation to achieve in a best case scenario. :(

I hope Clark can help bring honorable behavior and self-respect back to our Country.

Unfortunately, our corrupt USA Corporate Media could seemingly make "a saint" look like "the devil."

But we can dream ... and strive for better. :-)

Are they going to transplant JFK's brain, soul, fimily and whole life experience?

I personally see no harm, nor foul in the statement made by the original poster.

Many compare who they support to JFK. Edwards supporters do it all of the time (and compared Edwards to Clinton as well) and so do John Kerry supporters.

In fact, the statement does not take away from politicians that are not Clark.

Doesn't Clark have a life and identity of his own?

Please pay attention.

He doesn't have an identity of his own since he needs to be sold to the rest of us as the "next someone else".
That could be a clue as to why he did so poorly in the primaries.

Then you need to apologize to us all for the use of the word "pimped."

Thank you.

thank you

So you got the part about transcending politics and uniting people, right? Seems to me that's something we need again.

I don't think he does that in general, much less like some 2nd coming of JFK.

The OP was using JFK to promote Clark. Back peddling is no use.

He transcends politics because he's not a politician. He isn't beholden to anyone, hasn't made deals or sold out, hasn't gotten strings attached, isn't jaded or cagey or phony or vague or anything else that many politicians are.

He has the capability to unite people not only because of his background in forming alliances and building teams and creating cooperation among diverse groups of people, but also because where he's been, what he believes, and who he IS appeals to a broad array of people, from extreme liberal to conservative, across all geographical areas from New England and LA to Oklahoma and Arkansas, across generations from MTV to seniors... I think that can't be underestimated, considering how much damage GOP divisive tactics and labels have wrought.

Clearly you don't.

Peachy. It's still a free country, at least in theory.

What's curious to me, however, is the amount of time you're willing to spend to let us know you disagree.

*****

See that guy in my avatar? An Elektra PR honcho said something to me once that I've never forgotten:

He said that he'd never known anyone to be neutral about Jim, that everyone seemed either to love him or to hate him, and that in itself made Jim important.

You might want to give that some thought, take a good long look at the length of this thread--and then maybe rethink your "strategery?"

I don't hate him and he really isn't that important.
I'm just trying to let you know how silly it is to call anyone the "next someone else".
Also, this is a message board and I can answer as long as it entertains me.

by insisting that it's wrong or silly to call someone the "next someone else". John F Kennedy was president over 40 years ago during a different time in America. General Clark is a different person, with his own unique background and leadership style who will face the challenges of today if he becomes president. The statement "I believe he will the next JFK" refers to common qualities that Wesley Clark and John F Kennedy share, such as the ideals of fairness, civil rights, bringing people out of poverty, concern for this nation, and the courage to stand up for those ideals. So, help me understand what your problem with that is.

Ms. Literal! :silly:

The original post said that Clark could be the next JFK. No one should answer except those who believe? If you weren't campaigning for 2008 already no one would pay attention.

I didn't say you shouldn't answer, just pointing out how it's not worth getting all in a tizzy over and over again over a figure of speech. And there wouldn't even be a thread for scores of people to answer if there wasn't a possibility of Clark running in '08, so it all works out... :)

He came in first, second or third (with the exception of South Carolina) in ever primary in which he ran. He didn't compete in Iowa and dropped out after the Feb. 10 primaries.
I don't call coming in first, second or third in at least 10 states doing "poorly" in the primaries.
He did better than Dean and Edwards in states in which all three competed.

He was one of the first to drop out and he ended up with less delegates than either Dean or Edwards.

Interesting that you should see that as a negative.

He saw the writing on the wall, dropped out gracefully, and immediately closed ranks with John Kerry. I would have thought a lot more of Dean and Edwards if they'd done the same.

First you say he did well. Then you say that he did in fact do poorly and dropped out early to "close ranks" (tell me again about how he is not all about the military)with Kerry. So which is it?

who stayed in. Why rehash this?

He did as well in the primaries as anyone but Kerry UP UNTIL THE TIME HE DROPPED OUT (Dean and Edwards kept going, so of course they got more delegates); saw the writing on the wall (it said, "John Kerry" too); withdrew gracefully on 2/11 and on 2/13 closed ranks with Kerry by endorsing him at a rally in Wisconsin.

And my use of the phrase "closed ranks" somehow translates in your mind to Clark being "all about the military?" :eyes:

I see too you haven't bothered to check out the responses on the other thread to your silly assertion about Clark's experience, so here's a link for your convenience:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1687331#1688173

tha is one of the reasons he dropped out. If Dean and Edwards had been doing as poorly they would have dropped out earlier too.

Dean dropped out February 18, and quit actively campaigning before then. Clark dropped out February 11, I believe.

So why do those 6 days make you think less? Did Dean not drop out gracefully? Did he not keep working as well for the party?

Edwards dropped out March 3, very gracefully.

I do not like what you said about Dean and Edwards, it was uncalled for.

I saw Clark immediately e-mail his supporters to please join him in fully supporting Kerry and then join Kerry on stage in Wisconsin with a 100% no strings attached endorsement. I think it's uncalled for when a poster implies Clark was a less successful candidacy because he did not run for his own ego or some power position.

A poster is not posting the truth, I correct him, and you jump me.

If you guys want to go back to the primaries, I am ready. I will never start it, but I will correct if you are wrong.

From Land:
"He saw the writing on the wall, dropped out gracefully, and immediately closed ranks with John Kerry. I would have thought a lot more of Dean and Edwards if they'd done the same."

Now if you wish to agree with Dean did not support Kerry at once, did not drop out gracefully 6 days later, and that Edwards was not graceful either.....then I will differ. You are wrong. He is wrong.

If you were in more races, you would have more votes. If you didn't immediately throw your unconditional support to another you would have more votes. To rerun the Primaries is hijacking the thread from the OP. It's not too unusual though.

No, it was not me. I was just posting correction. You continue to let it stand that Dean and Edwards were not gracious and did not drop out fast enough to suit you.

I was not about to post in this thread, but that statement was just dead wrong. You are wrong in defending it.

Again, you two seem to be replaying by criticizing Dean and Edwards. If you continue, I will assume that is what you want to do.

It is wrong to do that. It is wrong of all of you on this thread to let it stand the Dean and Edwards were not gracious and supportive. It should not be allowed to slide by. That is why I am saying it is wrong. Someone has to do so.

I don't care for the ridiculous post trying to compare Primary numbers. You have your analyses of those numbers, others have different. The analyses are dependent on opinion since we cannot poll each voter. As I stated this is a hijacking of the OP. I was not aware that only your opinions are correct. So sorry.

And Clark was, and they were not. That is simply not true. I am not hijacking, and I will not let you guys pull that on me when I am correcting something that is wrong.

I did not come in here and say a word of criticism about Clark. I remember what happened to me the last time I was critical. I paid dearly.

I will stand up for Dean and Edwards though when they are treated respectfully.

Someone needs to correct the implication that Edwards and Dean did not drop out graciously. Also someone needs to quit implying they were not supportive of Kerry. Or course they were.

And I am not hijacking the thread. I am asking that an incorrect statement be corrected.

In response to Clark being "one of the first to drop out," a poster said: "He saw the writing on the wall, dropped out gracefully, and immediately closed ranks with John Kerry. I would have thought a lot more of Dean and Edwards if they'd done the same."

Nobody accused anybody of being "not gracious." The poster gave an opinion.

(Geez, being "not gracious" should be the worst General Clark was ever accused of!!!)

Looks like someone would stand up and say it is wrong to say that about our VP nominee and our DNC chair. But I guess not.

Instead you put the blame on me for entering this thread. Think back, I have been very respectful for a long time. I don't even express my opinions on some subjects anymore.

I think it is wrong for 3 of you to go along and think it ok to imply, say, state, whatever that Clark was more gracious than they were.

I think someone should have the courage to stand up and correct the statement.

I think people are entitled to their opinions, and to state them.

I'm not blaming you for entering the thread.

Nobody said Clark was "more gracious than they were."

This is making a mountain out of a molehill. Somebody dissed Clark for bowing out early, somebody else said they saw it as a positive and would have had more respect for the others if they'd done so at the same time.

That's ALL. Please don't read more into it.

"He saw the writing on the wall, dropped out gracefully, and immediately closed ranks with John Kerry. I would have thought a lot more of Dean and Edwards if they'd done the same."

I think it would be better to just say that Dean and Edwards were as gracious and hard-working as Clark. Don't you?

Period.

It's a fact that he dropped out earlier (and he was being criticized for it). The rest is stated as an opinion.

I think it would be better to let people have their own opinions, don't you?

Some things are wrong or right. Dean and Edwards DID drop out very graciously, and they very passionately worked for Kerry. In fact Edwards was the nominee. Dean is chair. They are hard workers, good men.

That statement was NOT opinion, it was just plain not factual.

and that's the only fact cited.

The next sentence was a FACT about how the poster FELT -- an opinion.

I'll let others answer for themselves. My only problem is with those who try to use phony statistics to back their claims. I respect both candidates. I don't respect their campaigns, but that is for reasons other than how and when they got out. If Clark had stayed longer and not immediately endorsed Kerry his vote count would undoubtedly have been higher.

You can freely say you do not respect the campaigns of Dean and Edwards. That is ok if you say that. No one goes after you, no one blasts you outside of this thread. There are no consequences for you because you did not respect Dean and Edwards.

I am not free to criticize someone, as there are consequences...severe ones. That is not right.

I find it odd that no one here will stand up for two good men like Dean and Edwards, and that I must do it alone.

Please note I have not once criticized Wesley Clark.

The poster stated an opinion. Just because you didn't like it is no reason to bring out the violins and pretend everybody's ganging up on Dean and Edwards.
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

Dean and Edwards dropped out very graciously. They worked very hard for Kerry. It is not factual to say they did not.

Except by you. Nobody said they didn't work hard for Kerry. Your statements are really twisting what was said.

Dean and Edwards both acted just as "gracefully" as Clark in their manner of dropping out and supporting Kerry. That is fact whatever word you choose.

Boy, I can see not one soul but me will defend them, but that is ok. They are good men.

That's entirely beside the point. One would have to buy into the idea that somebody said something horrible about them -- even that they're not "good men" -- in order to "defend" them.

Nobody did that. They didn't drop out when Clark did. Somebody said they'd have thought more of them if they had. Period.

you're just picking fly sh*t out of pepper at this point

Dean and Edwards were every bit as supportive of Kerry as Clark was. It is just plain wrong to say otherwise.

Why not correct the statement instead of trying to make me out the bad guy?

I said I respected both candidates, I did not respect their campaigns. I do not attack those who criticize Clark's campaign, it certainly could have been better.

"I don't respect their campaigns, but that is for reasons other than how and when they got out."

That is fine for you to say that. Both are good men, they are in good places now. Edwards I am sure will run again in 08.

Not one single person is addressing the issue that a statement needs to be corrected. Instead the blame is being put on me for asking that it be corrected.

Please note I have not said one bad thing about Clark, just asked that the false statement about Dean and Edwards be corrected. My original post was addressed to someone who made that statement, but I see you are continuing to deny it was wrong.

unless you contend the poster is lying and really would NOT have thought more of Dean and Edwards if they'd dropped out when Clark did.

I made my point. I defended Dean and Edwards, I did not criticize Clark. I also showed that no one will defend them but me. It was an unfair thing to say about both of them, yet all you guys have done is get mad at me.

I made my point, and I have not said a single bad word against Clark. I know better.

Nobody attacked them.

Someone said Clark dropped out "gracefully", and that he would have respected Dean and Edwards more if they had done the same. That is an untrue statement, but they did do the same. To claim otherwise is foolish.

My point is made. I was criticized for questioning a statement made by one of you. The statement is still wrong, and you are still in denial about it.

I may have misinterpreted your post. My comments were not regarding their decisions, it was in response to your implication that a short time did not make a difference. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you post. Obviously we are talking about good Democrats. They did not run good enough campaigns or were found lacking by the electorate. Otherwise they would have won. My point was, and is, if you are in the race longer you tend to get more votes. That is not a measure of qualification for a future run unles you were in the whole time and finished last or near last. Even that does not make you a bad person only a poor candidate.

and I'm sorry to have to say this, but offending you is not something over which I'm liable to lose any sleep. You are much too easily offended.

And Dean may have dropped out a week after Clark, but perhaps you might tell us how long it was before he actually got around to endorsing John Kerry...?

Or would you rather I refreshed your memory?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4580606/

Because he supposedly endorsed Kerry before Dean did? That is digging the hole deeper.

Not a one of you worries about offending me, and that bothers me not one bit. It does not matter to me at all. We are busy here locally, working for DFA and the DEC. Both are growing in our area now, and guess what. Most of the DEC are respectful of us and of Dean. We work together well.

I know the date Dean endorsed Kerry, and I don't see how that could cause you to lose respect for him. I really don't.

Now you are still standing by your statement that Dean and Edwards are not as worthy of respect as Clark because he dropped out first?

Oh, my goodness. So if you are standing by your statement that you think Clark deserves respect for dropping out first, and endorsing Kerry first, and the other two don't.....then you have not hurt me one bit.

Please notice I have not been critical of Clark at all. I do not intend to be either. Your statement was dismissive of two good men.

And continue to blame me for things you say. It carries its own weight of evidence.

I have made my point, no one else defended Dean and Edwards, not one person in this thread. Instead, I was jumped on for saying your statement was wrong. Go figure.

My opinion.

Not "factual."

Is that really what you meant to say?

because Clark dropped out first. They were very suppportive of Kerry, very active in his behalf. Both are still working hard for the party.

If I say it is a rainy day, and it is not raining...then I am wrong.

I think we have both made our points. On this whole thread, I was the only one to take up for them. The rest of you got mad at me for taking up for them and crossing you guys.

Point made, and I never said a bad word about Clark to make my point.

not wrong. "Wrong" is a value judgment; "mistaken" is simply a statement of indisputable fact.

If I say--or imply--that I have more respect for Wes Clark because he was quicker to see that Kerry was going to sweep the primaries, and therefore quicker to withdraw and quicker to throw his support behind Kerry, that's my OPINION, and opinions by definition cannot be "wrong" or "right," "correct" or "incorrect."

You may agree with my opinion or you may not, but what you may not do--if you want to claim any kind of intellectual legitimacy--is to characterize my opinion as "wrong."

****

I believe you've said you're a teacher. Please tell me I'm mistaken.

The hole will just get deeper. My point is made. I was not at all critical, just defending.

but it's arguable that he dropped out gracefully. There was a lot of back and forth about him being on the brink of dropping out, and whether he would drop out before Wisconson or not (which really didn't bother me because I believe he was entitled to stay in as long as he wants, but it did not appear 'graceful'), and then it did take him some weeks to endorse a candidate.

Why is no one correcting the false impression instead of making me the bad guy?

I went to my precinct, county, and state conventions as a Kerry delegate even though I was for Clark. That kind of affects outcomes, you know? (For those of you on here who are trumpeting about how baaaaaaad a candidate Clark was based on performance in elelctions or in number of delegates after he dropped out)

One maybe refused to switch.

This is all so silly. We have so much to do for 06, our local area DEC and DFA are already meeting to find candidates to run.

I had to run my precinct convention and I led my delegates to the county convention, so I know this for a fact. Not that I minded--I found many of the Dean delegates to be thoughtful people on the issues at the conventions and later, as soon as they had time to heal, good campaigners for Kerry. Here in Austin, at least, there were three candidates who had substantial grassroots followings: Clark, Dean, and Kucinich. It took the Dean people a little longer to come around than the Clark people and only about half of the Kucinich people remained active, but I walked many a block walk and attended many a rally for Kerry with good Dean people.

I don't think we have to concentrate on '06 to the absolute exclusion of '08.

I made my point about Dean and Edwards being criticized because Clark did it first.

There is so much more I could say about all that happened, but I am not going to do it anymore.

I have also learned the very hard way not to be critical of Clark at all, though it does not seem to work both ways.

Hilary, Edwards, Clark, Kerry...they all have their PACs now for 08. Some friends and I were talking about how that might strip the DNC of needed funds. DFA does not really conflict as they support more local candidates on the whole. We donate to both. It is worth it to us. I hope it is not going to hurt the DNC financially, all these PACs being set up so very soon....but many in our area are very concerned that the money from the grassroots is being spread too thin.

I am getting requests now from nearly everyone for money. Somehow just a few months after the election that seems like money that could to the Democratic Party to rebuild. But, that is the way the ball bounces and the way the cookie crumbles.

Most of our group here will support Feingold if he runs, which I think he will.

Again, I am not going into the primaries. I defended two good men. I made my point. I just think they should all be upfront, say I will probably run in 08 and I am taking up money now. We know they are all planning runs.

Your post in response to mine doesn't even acknowledge the topic I was talking about or respond to it in any way. Instead you return to what was initially bugging you.

My original post wasn't directed at you but at others discussing votes and delegates.

I know you have been having a running verbal battle with others about one comment that someone made, but "Hey, 'twern't me."

I tried to make my point about the numbers and still show respect for the supporters of Dean and what they did during the general elections. I actually like Dean very much and he would have been my second choice for the nominee. I know you must be tired by now, but that response was rather ungracious.

The original assessment that Clark was more deserving of respect that Dean or Edwards apparently still stands. The post you refer just now....it is quite a good post. It is quite a true post, and in the real world others are discussing the issue of all the PACs being formed so early with such push to donate.

Not one of you in this thread has said that it was wrong for Edwards and Dean to be said not to be as worthy as Clark.

We need money for the DNC in 2006. It is 3 years away from 2008, and we have many congressional seats to fill.

Putting down two good men because of the time they dropped out and the date they endorsed....is just wrong.

In addition to his placement in states at the time he dropped out, before Iowa he'd also raised more money than anybody but Dean, and raised it at a faster rate. He was also 2nd in New Hampshire until Iowa.

The primaries were ALL about Iowa, unfortunately.

by JFK and RFK know exactly what Silverhair is talking about.

And just as clearly, those who weren't, don't. :hi:

and met RFK later on. I know exactly what Silverhair is talking about and could not agree more.

Wes is a great man in his own right, as well.

Of that, there is no doubt.

TC

I don't remember them ever being called "this generation's someone else". I have never known a great public figure who was anything but an original.

I knew when Kerry supporters on Kos and other sites were refering him to him as "JFK", that bush was going to get another four years.

but don't let a minor detail like that stand in the way of your pontificating.

and tell you that it was pathetic to see people try to tie him to JFK by using the initials which are extremely meaningful to anyone over the age of 45. Even Kerry's staff had the sense to use JK rather than JFK.

Time to move on.

or The expert on what "IN" and what's "OUT"?

Why you stopped to post this will be a mystery until the end of time.

But please keep moving, as we don't want to hold you up and make you late.

You wouldn't be posting here if he was truly over, but maybe you just don't see that yet.

Clark is here to stay, and what he brings to the table is very important for this Party's survival.

TC

If you think that a candidate would make a great president, why should that change? I suppose if you are looking for the candidate that can win, you might go looking for a new dog to hunt. But if a Clarkie still thinks Clark would be good, then I don't think the fact that he didn't make it out of the primaries should mean that much.

Any of these people can be made new again with they are put across properly to the people and strike the right chord, even Kerry. I think buyers remorse might set in there, for instance.

Sadly, it's all about marketing, baby. But I can tell you right now I'm not going with any one candidate SIMPLY because I think they can win, and for no other reason. I probably wouldn't be interested in Bayh, for instance. Neither am I excited by Hillary. But then I was none to excited about Kerry at first either, and now look at me.

And as for Clark, I know a few Republicans who thought they could vote for him. So I think he'd have a better chance than Hillary. He will have to impress between now and 2008 though, just like the rest of the maybe people.

What make a candidate "so over"? Why do we need a completely clean slate. Why do none of the former candidates ever get to use what they learned in the last run. Esp. for those used to running local campaigns, I would think the experience they gleaned from 2004 would be invaluable in 2008.

Go Wes! I met Wes in NH about 1 year ago. Although he had just given a 45 minute stump speech and was being swarmed by scores, he spent a good 5 minutes talking with my son and I.

snarf

Clark has some interesting traits, but he's NO John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

There are DUers who tried to use the initials JFK to refer to John Kerry. I tried to tell them what a mistake that was, since the immediate comparison to the real JFK left Kerry in the dust, big time. I mean, it's just not a contest he could have won against the LIVE JFK, let alone the now nearly sainted dead (martyred) JFK.

Don't make the same mistake with Clark. There are a lot of very nasty skeletons in his closet, but even aside from that, NO ONE benefits from a comparison with JFK except JFK. Get it?

Kennedy attracted lots of young people because he was so different that the "OLD WHITE MEN" who had been President. He had a charisam that every politician dreams of, and a wife who everyone in the world fell in love with.

Those days are in the past, and I doubt we'll ever see them again!

to know Wes is to see the similarity.

TC

It seeme to be elusive to the Bush family. Some see America for its potential for good.

The Clark worship on this board gets so tiring.