Who is the better 'Democrat" - Clark or Lieberman ?

I was tempted to ask which candidate is the most intelligent but I thought that might be a little too subjective. :) But there are those that question the General's Democratic credentials because he has not been a registered Democrat for that long. However, to listen to him talk, he sounds like the best "Democrat" in the race. Whether he is sincere or not, his message is one that our Party has needed for a long time and I hope he stays in the race for that reason alone, if nothing else.

I was just listening to Lieberman's daughter on the Sean Hannity show and Hannity was talking about how Joe Lieberman was the only Democrat in the race that he respected. Does that make him a better Democrat than Wes Clark? Not in my opinion, but how do we measure a "good' Democrat?

I had a signed photo of when I met him.
I burned it.
That SOB.

Clark is just a better Democrat, even if he is newer to the Party. Lieberman wants to hold on to the Clinton model, which I don't think is going to work in this election.

how do we measure a "good' Democrat?
By the vision of their policies.

Hannity is pumping Lieberman while Fox is berating Clark. That speaks volumes.

Lieberman's been a Democrat for over forty years. Surely his lifetime commitment to core Democratic causes -- civil rights, the environment, expanding opportunities for the poor and middle class -- ought to resolve any doubts as to whether or not he's a good Democrats. Sure, there will be people who are repulsed by his religious faith, and some will argue (as they did in 1968 with regard to LBJ and Humphrey) that hawks don't belong in the Democratic Party. But most DU'ers should consider themselves better than that, no?

As for Clark, he's obviously new to the Democratic Party. But he seems to have a good understanding of what the Democratic Party is, and he seems committed to advancing Democratic ideals.

Lieberman and Clark both pass my test for what makes a good Democrat. It's just a shame that so many DU'ers -- including some who didn't even vote for Al Gore in 2000 -- want to define the Democratic Party by exclusion, not inclusion.

I think Wes Clark, at this moment anyway, represents better the core values of the Democratic Party as expressed in the Democratic Platform. I like Joe Lieberman very much, he is a loyal Democrat and very socially Liberal.

Which is a better Democrat: one who has been a long-term member of the party, but no longer represents the positions and values of the Democratic party or one who has seen the light and represents the positions and values of the Democratic party?

Zell Miller is much maligned, and deservedly so. However, once upon a time, ol' Zell was actually a pretty progressive Democratic Governor of Georgia who made great strides in the areas of (early childhood) education and civil rights. Look what he's become now. Nothing but a puppet of Bush. Does the fact that he's had a "D" behind his name longer make him a better Democrat than Wes Clark? I don't think so. Just as Zell has fallen into the Dark Side, Clark has seen the light... and I think that elucidation and conviction is what makes him one of the best Democratic candidates.

He knows the wrongness of neo-con/Republican thought and is the best weapon we have to persuade Republicans over to our way of the thinking. He's a living, breathing example of someone who refused the lure of big dollars to fight for what is right and needs to be changed in America.

Lieberman is almost as bad as Zell Miller. :puke:

Doesn't that make him a better Democrat than Clark? never mind that he thinks like a modern neo-con...

in 2002 Lieberman voted 95% of the time with the Democratic Caucus. In the same year Zell Miller voted 85% of the time with the Republicans. There is a very, very big difference.

(My source is the Americans for Democratic Action. The percentages may not be exactly correct but they are within 5%)

If people were only interested in the facts, then DU'ers would have reached a concensus long ago that Lieberman is a moderate-to-liberal Democrat, perhaps more hawkish than most, but well within the Democratic mainstream.

I think a lot of the Joe bashers simply can't accept that someone as devoutly religious as Joe Lieberman could be a Democrat. And others simply assume that he is incapable of dealing objectively with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. And then there are those who believe that Democrats should never criticize the entertainment industry, no matter how indefensible some of their actions may be. Personally, I think it's sad that these views hold such sway over the DU community. But that's a fact, and I for one will not pretend otherwise.

I for one have absolutely no problem with his religion, honestly could not care less. You're right on the I/P question though, and Joe showed himself for what he really is during the New York debate a few months ago when he trashed Dean for saying he would be "even handed" when dealing with this matter.

During the NH debate Joe's argument for voting for him was that this administration could not attack him because he voted with them on almost every issue....???????? Joe may have served the party well for a longer period of time, and our tent is big enough for a hawkish dem like him, but I don't think he deserves the mantel of leading the democratic party. Clark would gladly get my vote before Joe does.

...inherently mistrust a military man, no? :shrug:

I saw her on C-SPAN campaigning in NH a few weeks ago and she couldn't even get people to talk to her. Granted, she is getting paid about $80K for the indignity, but it was still sad.

To think that she had to go on Hannity is almost too much to bear. I'd ask for a raise.

That is like Black folk wanting to know if a person "acts black" or "acts white"

IF you have to ask then you are judging, if you are judging then you are wrong. The Democratic party is supposed to be a party about people. IF we start behaving as though some are in and some are out you'll kill the party.

IF this is how Democrats want their party to be then they can count the Black vote out. We'll start our own. I really haven't seen anyone speak to what is important to me or The African American commnity. I'm taking it on faith that the Democratic party will do better than it has to speak to my needs and the needs of my community.

But If we are gonna start a club and entrance into the club is some standard by which one's democratic-ness is judged. Then ya'll can have it. That doesn't seem to be democratic to me.


With that said, I don't agree with Joe or Zell. But if they wanna say they are Democrats and give us seats towards the majority in Congress. I don't give a crap.

Lieberman's voting record:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0141103


Clark's voting record:
Nixon
(1976 ?)
Reagan
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Gore

is Dennis

and looking to the future not the past. Voted for Gore/Lieberman last time around, and they won. But he's not getting my vote this time around (atleast not unless he wins the nomination).

Even though I disagree with him, I do believe he's done more for Democrats over the years, than Clark. JMO

To me it doesn't matter what party they belong to. Both great people with a record of trying to help the middle class and do a good job.