what does clark offer that bush does not?

clark is tough on national security and so is bush (according to the masses). why would voters vote for someone with out any experience governing, just to get what they perceive they have already? clark claims to be a democrat now and bush claims to be a compassionate conservative.

as i see it, clark offers no real advantage over bush (for the ordinary uneducated typical voter)

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

then deleted it because I realized this post is not worthy of a response

i dont think ill get many replies from clark supporters

We can choose Dean, who's perceived as terrible on national security and conservative in general (and please don't cite Democratic primary polls as evidence against this), or we can choose Clark, who has governed over at least as many people as Dean has, and is a liberal (although I'm sure you have plenty of "memes" to "disprove" that, though not much other his voting record which he himself admitted to AFTER he considered the Democratic primary). And remember, all they have to do is raise the terror alert to red or something to make national security the main issue (I think they'll do that, don't you?). I don't want to be stuck with Dean when that happens.
Lastly, as everyone used to say before Dean appeared, people will choose an far-right conservative over a "centrist" all the time. So let's go with liberal Clark.

no its about clarks electability, im not discussing dean in this thread

though i do see dean as a clearer alternative to bush

as far as clark being a liberal, i think that may be a stretch given his past, but that is not what this is about

without mentioning Bush, would you answer without bringing up Bush? Same goes to you challenging Clark's electability as a Dean supporter.

If we don't compete with Bush on national security, we might as well not run anyone, IMO. People absolutely need an alternative to Bush on that issue or they won't change. Clark is that alternative. He simply outmatches Bush on Bush's strongest issue.

supported the war. clark is at a clear disadvantage in many areas, including the war - remember the world is safer now that we caught saddam :eyes:

If someone wants to vote against Bush on his environmental record, on civil rights, on the Iraq debacle, on the deficit, etc., they need someone who is seen as tough. That's Clark.

And Clark brings every issue the other Dem candidates have to the party. With Clark, you are dealing with a Democrat who can save the environment and still be seen as "tough." But it will be a smart tough, not an ex-cheerleader, scarless weenie tough like Bush.

asage

also regarding civil rights, he voted for nixon. sorry dont see the clear advantage here, what i see is talk

bush talked alot before he was elected too
he promised us compassion
he promised he would not meddle in international affairs that were none of our business
he promised...

well you get the picture

If you think Clark wouldn't trounce Bush on the environment because of depleted uranium, there is no helping you. You still haven't said anything about your willingness to cede Bush the national security issue in 2004.

And your string of Bush "promised us this and that" lines has nothing to do with Clark.

The Republicans are going to make this all talk. Clark has bona fides.

hes not proven himself as a democrat much less a leader in the party
clark was a general that does not make him qualified on matters of national security
fighting wars is different than protecting americans from terrorism
its going to be hard for anyone to compete with bush on that issue
which is why we need much much more
clark is not it
perhaps vp, but not president material

This kind of all-lowercase, unpunctuated, poorly reasoned stuff you are jotting out helps Clark. A lame argument against something argues for it.

If you want to help the Democrats, you should infiltrate Freeperland and argue for Bush using the same style you are using here and in other DU threads.

well, id say thats in indicator that ive won the argument

depleted Uranium and other left conspiricies. They care about jobs and foreign policy. And they don't want a middle-class tax increase, they want progressive taxation, a proven formula. Win and Win, Clark has spent the last three years working in the private sector. When was the last time any of the other major candidates worked outside of the government?

thier levels of experience dont match.

also,
clark has enhancing factors...
such as international respect (ability to get cooperation)
and extreme-intelligence tempered with wisdom

thier abilities to deal with national security are not the same!
and i think the average peeps will see it like that... this one does at least heh

they will see clark as weaker on national matters because he was not in favor of the war, at least in the later part of the war anyhow.

If your saying Clark hasn't attacked Bushes record I think that is avoiding the facts.

Clark intends to convince the public he offers better leadership, integrity, and a progressive platform. And that he has the credentials to win the debate against the bushies.

bush as strong on defense and the iraq war as the right thing, clark hasnt much to offer by way of a clear alternative

people can say anything they want pre election but what one says/does are two different things

You're saying the average voter won't see a difference between Clark and Bush on National Security Issues, cause its too complex?

I am not sure I agree on that, Clark has clearly attacked the choice to go into Iraq. And point two Clark says to bring Bremer back and have an international control over the rebuilding of Iraq. And many other differences I won't list now.

But lastly, its not so much the clear difference, its whether he is a viable alternative

cheers

i would hope/think so, however there is no way to know that. also with bushs high approval rating, we need a clear proven alternative to compete, i dont see that being clark

again im speaking in terms of the average american here

general consensus seems to be that he is.

I'm a Dean supporter, but I have to dive in and support the General on this one. He has had years of experience in military matters, and Bush.... Clark has been saying that Bush dropped the ball by not going after Osama bin Laden, and I think this is a very strong point. He has said that the Iraqi adventure has been a waste of manpower and money because it doesn't really help us stop terrorism. I think that when he makes his plans known for fighting terrorism and dealing with Iraq, voters will sit up and listen.

As for the 'compassionate conservative' label-the undecided voters I know think this is a joke. They are really mad that the Guardsmen are going to Iraq without needed supplies, and they are angry that veterans have been treated badly by the Administration (in letters to the editor in our local paper, not one conservative questioned my contention that Bush cut funding to disabled vets. It helps to cite American Legion and DAV.). The people I've been talking to don't like Bush. They are looking for someone who will talk straight with them. Personally, I think Clark would, and I know Dean will. I really hope that they are a team on the ticket.

will care about bush also has/had experience governing, which is different then making post war arrangements for kosovo

serving in the military is quite different than national defense issues

i agree that compassionate conservatism is a joke, but your average uneducated voter wont have much reason to vote for clark instead of bush

policies. Clark, the liberal candidate, would reverse the damage * has caused. If you don't think that all things regarding national security being equal people wouldn't go for liberal Clark over farrightwing reactionary corporate robber baron born and bred *, I think you're just plain wrong.

seems moderate would be a better description

i dont see clark bringing the people we need to into this process to beat bush

he is not going to be a clear enough alternative to what we have to win

The majority of votes in this country are moderate votes, that is a fact. That doesn't mean that moderates won't support policies more to the left, but the candidate to beat Bush must be attractive to moderates

First off, no matter what happens in Iraq between now and election day, the world has become a scarier place. North Korea has nukes and likely has missles that can reach our West Coast. Al Queda might attack the U.S. at any time. Pakistan could desolve into a hot bed of hard core dogmatic Islamic beliefs, in fact militants almost suceded in assasinating Pakistan's President twice over the last 10 or so days, check out today's news. Granted Howard Dean can make a strong claim that he knew better than to invade Iraq when we did, and he was onto that sooner than other Democrats in Congress. I was too, but that doesn't qualify me as an expert in foreign policy and National Security. Right now the Iraq war is a big Primary issue for us Democrats. We are still arguing about the past, and who knows what Americans will be paying most attention to in September?

I know one thing they will care about then. It will still be America's overall security in a dangerous world. Sure it most likely will still be a mess in Iraq, and on that point alone Bush deserves to be fired for squandering 150 Billion dollars and for allowing Al Queda to regroup. But Americans will be nervously looking forward more so than glancing back. And what if the news from Iraq is actually "hopeful" for a few weeks in October?

Instinctively Americans trust Republicans to handle foreign policy. Maybe it is because Democrats are seen as worrying about people all the time, always a nice card to play with domestic issues, but not so much with foreign ones. Americans call central casting and ask for some tough looking Republican type to protect America from its enemies, unless they don't see any enemies around. Then they might relax and vote Democratic.

We now have the good fortune of having a Democratic Presidential Candidate who has more credibility on security issues than an incumbent Republican President. AND he is at the very worse moderate, but far more frequently progressive, on the full range of domestic issues. Democrats know how to take on Republicans around Domestic issues. If Clark is the nominee there are many voices in our Democratic Choir who can back him up there. One of them will be his Vice Presidential candidate, and there is a wealth of talent for Clark to choose from. But no one can take it to old Chickenhawk George like Wes can and will. Whether the issue of the moment is still Iraq, or has become North Korea, or Pakistan, or the Sudan, or the terrorist attack On Washington D.C., Clark is up to speed on the global picture and the American people will sense that immediately. It will give them the confidence they need to vote Democratic in 2004.

You aren't arguing that there is no substantial difference between Clark's domestic agenda and Bush's are you? Are you a closet Clark is really a Republican poster? I also doubt that you are so dissmissive of the American public that you don't think they can see through the difference between Bush's "compassionate conservative" rhetoric and his give away to the rich reality.

number one

i am also arguing that clark is not a clear alternative to bush
bush had a domestic agenda too before he stole the election
clark is seen as weak on national matters because he has changed his position on the war
the average joe will not see much of a difference between clark and bush

Do we have to keep going on and on about this?

In about three weeks we'll find out who wins Iowa, then we'll see how NH plays out, and then the February primaries. Ten weeks from now we may well have a nominee.

The main fact in that scenario is that nothing said here on DU is likely to have any effect on that process.

Why keep going over the same ground?

I don't care for Howard Dean. I consider him a political hustler who has come up with some clever strategies and now finds himself in a spotlight he is not prepared for. He's a small time professional politician who was well suited to running a 700,000 population state but is woefully unprepared to be President of the United States.

I expect he will be trounced thoroughly in November if we end up with him as our nominee. I will still work for him if he is but I have no expectations that he will be able to displace the current pResident.

Do you really think any of your muling posts will influence people like me? Wake up.

While Bush is shredding the Constitution he is to defend, he also had a war of aggression that violated international law. The question is to offense or to defend. Bush is a war criminal and still holds a neocon policy of pre-emptive war which in Iraq was more about robbery and instilling fear than any defense. It was the American taxpayer that was robbed. It was the Iraqis that got killed and wounded.

but clark is considered a war criminal in some circles as well
so it will be war criminal against war criminal
national hero versus national hero
one who took out saddam vs one who was against the measure

i think the average american will not consider wc a clear advantage over bush

Given the holiday season and all I don't feel in the mood to debate the particulars right now. Suffice it to say that the circles within which Clark "is considered a war criminal" are not the ones frequented by "average americans". You slide is so slippery beween "but clark is considered a war criminal in some circles" and
"so it will be war criminal against war criminal". Again, this might be the terms within some segments of leftist circles (not all because many leftists were strongly opposed to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo etc.) but you are not representing the American electorate with those characterizatons. I am off to celebrate Christmas. Peace.

a clear enough alternative to bush to vote for him

clark is competing with bush where he is clearly stronger (perception wise) national security

as for the rest, clark has proven nothing
he is not a clear alternative
he will not motivate change

The environment
Affirmative action
Womens' rights
Foreign policy
National security


Whatever, this is boring, do you own homework.

MzPip
:dem:

not quite

wc doesn't think depleted uranium is harmful to the environment
regarding his positions on aa and womens rights, they are not in synch with his votes for Nixon and the lot
he has zero foreign policy experience, he has experience fighting wars
regarding national security again he is not as experienced as bush

for now its all talk with clark
he has proven nothing to voters
he is not a clear alternative to bush

about a hundred things that Clark offers that Bush doesn't but I'll start with integrity, honor, intellegence, honesty, a proven record in leadership, he is not a politician which is the major drawing point for me and many many people I talk to. Whether your a congressman, senator, or govenor or whatever in my opinion you are tainted already. Clark has style, elegence and flair when he speaks and everytime I listen to him I learn something about something. He is a teacher and a leader and a hero. America needs a hero because frankly I think we have enough assholes in Government to last us a lifetime.

american will see clark as a clear alternative

remember bush was going to restore integrity to the wh :eyes:

clark is not the solution to the problem we face defeating bush.

I think the average American is looking for something different and I happen to think Clark is as different as they get. He can be labeled a Republican but to the average American that won't matter. It didn't matter a stitch to me and I supported Nader in 2000. Most "Average Americans" don't vote along party lines, we vote for the person we can most identify with and to the person we want to believe is telling us the truth. People will tend to believe someone like Clark over a seasoned Politician like Kerry, Dean, Lieberman, and the others. To die hard political junkies it matters but to the Average Joe & Josephine, most don't even know who the candidates are at this point. I speak to hundreds of people every week at my job of all ages but mostly seniors and they are very taken by the General because of his military record which to them stands as a badge of honor and patriotism. When I relate his scholastic achievements they do clearly see him as an alternative to George II Idiot in Chief and I think the demographic here is very telling. Small Northern Wisconsin town of under 4,000 people. Clark is most definitely an alternative to not just Bush but to all the plastic politicians running in this race with the exception of CMB, Sharpton, & DK.

about wanting to know, but further reading on this thread makes it clear that just started it for an opportunity to throw out Clark-bashing memes, so I'll pass.

i dont think clark is a proven alternative to bush, that was my point. i dont think anyone can prove other wise to the voters of our nation.

im leaving now, happy holidays.

For the average, ordinary, uneducated typical voter (you don't find anything elitist in the way you phrased that, by the way, do you?) you have a guy who has little going for him other than the fact that he is already the president opposed by a military hero who is smarter, faster, nicer and just all around more impressive than Bozo the Wonder Chimp.

The authentic outshines the faux everytime.

The BushCo supporters are uneasy because of the war in Iraq. the "war" with al Queda, the huge deficit, the growing unemployment, the outsourcing of jobs, the flu, mad cow and any number of other individual small cuts that makes them feel like they're being tortured with a thousand blades.

A standard, run-of-the-mill, same-old-same-old professional politician isn't going to give them anything to inspire them to push down the Democratic lever, especially when its the same Democratic stuff they've heard and rejected for decades. (and you will be surprised, and I suspect disheartened, at how quickly the standard professional politician who is likely to be our nominee reverts to the same old gameplan)

Clark is different and authentic and that is why we supported think he will make the difference.

on national security
i dont see clark edging out bush in an election

C: A proven negotiator...negotiated for two years with Slobo, before using force and only because evidence of ethic cleansing was proven. (read...Powers or Hedges)

B: Lied to the American people

C: fought a war for humanitarian reasons. (BTW, I am Serbian and agree with Clark v Milosovic...just saving you time.)

B: bush fought a war for oil

C: Lost no American lives

B: still counting

C: End strategy

B: Still no strategy

Clark doesn't get invited to foreign policy meetings because he's a light weight.

As Clark said when asked the difference between he and junior: "I read." And according to Powell whose comments are recorded on tape and in writing, Clark is brilliant. (I doubt even Powell could stretch the truth far enough to use that adjective for junior.)

If we do not take the Foreign Policy issue off the table, we lose. That's it. It's the truth, it's here...get use to it.

If you want to run on Democratic strengths, then you must control the dialogue. No Clark...you lose control and the election. Now if you want to give up without a fight, that is your business. I want to beat the junta like a bad drum.

Note: Read ALL of Clark's writing, and then listen to ALL of Clark's videos. What you will discover is a man who has been extremely consistent, and foretold the unfolding events in Iraq as if he had a crystal ball. Until you do your homework, this thread will remain unqualified because of it lack of factual information, and candor. Out of contex remarks, do not qualify as an informed discussion.

who is very concerned about solving our many domestic problems

clark is not the only one with a crystal ball regarding iraq but he is the only one who hasnt served the party
he is also the only one with out domestic policy experience

Let us not forget that McGovern's main selling point was also his military experience.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... when Dems try to win by out hawking the right wingers, they lose.

Clark has nothing to run on other than his military service.
The capture of Saddam took away Clark's only advantage. Now the choice is between the right wing war hawk who got fired from his command after f-ing up in kosovo and now claims to be a dem... and the right wing war hawk who caught Saddam.

Clark can not win an "I'm a better warrior than you" contest with Bush. Clark can not win in the GE because he'll drive off the greens and the left end of the democratic party that doesn't want a war hawk... and the right wing war hawks who Clark supporters think will flock to vote for the general are going to vote for Bush. Maybe Clark would have had a chance if Bush was still f-ing up in Iraq and Saddam and Osama were still on the loose.

However since Bush caught Saddam, Clark has nothing to run on at all.

I guess there might be some lefties left who think that Nader was right and there was no difference between Gore and Bush, so what the hell, just go third party.

I guess there might be some greens out there who think that sitting this one out and helping Bush win an election without the help of the SC will be of no consequence to the environment, or any of the other issues the Greens are supposed to favor.

I guess there are some people out there who have such an unremitting hatred for Wesley Clark that they would prefer four more years of George Bush than electing a man they consider a war hawk and war criminal (you might want to check with the Kosovans about that one, however--a lot of them seem to think Clark a hero. Go figure!).

I guess there are some people who cannot see the danger to everyone's civil liberties if the Bush administration gets the chance to pack the Supreme Court during the next four years.

There's nothing to say to someone who would take a position like that, and boast about it on an internet website. You might think of them as just being too principled for words.

If Clark ends up with the nomination, I guess he'll just have to do without all those "purists" voting for him. Too bad.

Hopefully we'll prevail without them. If not, at least we'll know just how committed they are to the survival of democracy and our Constitution.

on the economy, civil liberties, social issues, and every other issue americans care about.

so consequently the rest is moot.