IF Clark loses the nomination, and runs as an independant...

IF Clark loses the nomination, and runs as an independent, would you leave the Democratic party and vote for him?

ABB. If he does that, then he loses all of my respect.

Before he entered he said that he wouldn't run as an Independant

So obviously what he says doesn't really effect what he does.


But the question wasn;t will he run as an independant... I don't doubt that he would. The question is would you vote for him if he did.

You have provided no support for what he says doesn't really effect what he does.

People who have worked for Clark and that he has worked for have went on record praising the man's integrity. He is not a man that says one thing and does another unlike Howard Dean (whose position varies by who is asking the question).

yet going to republican fundraisers, praising Reagan, and working as a lobbyist for defense contractors, is what he does.

Clear enough?

yet appeasing Republicans and enacting their policies for 11 year and wanting Vermont to "overtake Bermuda" as the "world's largest" haven for corporate tax evaders is what he does.

Oh, he also said he tends to believe the president (Bush) and that gay marriage makes him nervous just as it does everyone else.

Clear enough?

he will probably get a job teaching in a college somewhere, and then try to become a golf pro at some course. Unlike some of the other candidates, he hasn't spent a lifetime working towards the goal of becoming President. If the people tell him they don't want him, its hardly likely he'll try and kick in the door.

Additionally, of course, he shows no great desire to "fix" the Democratic Party. He's not on a crusade. He's simply a man who sees a way to be of some help to this nation in a time when it faces some difficulty. I doubt he'll lose any sleep over losing this contest, if he does lose.

get real man, he'll go right back to corporate whoring and selling his influence with the defense department to the highest bidding defense contractors... like he has been doing for the last three years?

I call Dean H & R Puff N' Stuff... I get a warning.
YOU call Clark a whore and NOTHING.
This place is crap.
DEAN SUCKS! There... is that person gonna get shoved... or just me?
No wonder the Democratic Party loses.

I'm an Indie... you guys don't seem like the so-called BIG TENT you allege.

Media whore as well as corporate whore are oft used terms on DU.


And here's proof Clark is a corporate whore...

Wall Street Journal, 9/18/03

IN ANNOUNCING his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become : chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business. .

...

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications. One is Acxiom Corp., based in Gen. Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., where he formally launched his campaign yesterday. He joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information.

...

Stephens Inc., the large, politically connected Little Rock investment firm, hired him to boost its aerospace business shortly after he gave up his NATO command. He left Stephens last year and opened his own consultancy, Wesley K. Clark & Associates.
While Gen. Clark was at Stephens, the firm also marketed him to clients such as Silicon Energy-in which Stephens held a stake - "as a good person to help us understand the federal procurement process," says Mr. Woolard. The company was trying to enter the government market, and Gen. Clark explained the process "and contacted people at the Navy and Air Force and told them what we had," Mr. Woolard says. (Silicon Energy was acquired earlier this year by Itron Inc., and Gen. Clark no longer advises the firm).

_________________________________________________________

Howard Dean is fond of criticizing politicians who provide tax breaks to "large corporate interests," and one of his favorite campaign lines is a blast at the Bush administration for doling out tax cuts to top executives of Enron Corp.

But during Dean's 11 years as Vermont governor, he enacted tax breaks that attracted to the state a "Who's Who" of corporate America -- including Enron -- to set up insurance businesses. Indeed, Dean said in 2001 that he wanted Vermont to "overtake Bermuda" as the "world's largest" haven for a segment of the insurance industry known as "captives," which refers to firms that help insure their parent companies.

With little notice then -- and barely any mention now in the Democratic presidential campaign -- Dean succeeded in turning Vermont into the kingdom of captives. Vermont has more of these companies than the other 49 states combined. As part of the enticement, Dean led efforts to cut state taxes of such companies, and he helped defeat a Clinton administration effort that would have eliminated $100 million worth of federal tax deductions given to the industry.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2003/12/12/for_dean_captive_insurance_a_vt_boon/

Neither Clark nor Dean will run as independents, and the paranoia level here is just too damn high.

Note that AFTER has been changed to IF.

Both of these guys are running after Bush.

For Dean, imagine the smackdown he'd get from Gore and his other supporters. I can't imagine that Joe Trippi would let him do it. (That isn't meant to be as puppet-like as it sounds. But frankly, who in his inner circle would support him, much less egg him on, in this one).

For Clark, there are a number of scenarios, but none of them point to an independent run. He does no political good for himself, no personal good for himself, and no good for the goals he's fighting for. It won't happen.

I do not think for a second that Dean would run as an independent. However Clark has no such democratic record and only joined the dems to run for president. So CLark is another matter.

I don't doubt that he would run as an independent if he thought he could win.

Is that why people in Vermont refer to Dean as a Republican? Is that why people say the GOP did not offer any real opposition while Dean was Gov because they ALREADY had a Republican in office? Is that why some of the Democrats branched into a separate group to oppose Dean?

I bet not, since those are the same people who said that there was no difference between gore and bush.

Vermont is one of the most liberal states in the union and they reelected Dean 5 times.

He'll stick with the party that he has grown up with.

No, wait. Bush is already running on that party's ticket.

As a yeller dog Democrat it does trouble me a bit to be supporting a guy who just starting walking and talking like us a few years ago (years, not months--his performance in Kosovo and his support for Clinton tells me exactly where his heart was in the 90s). But at the same time, I have to respect a man who spent a 34 year professional career in the army and came out talking about and believing the things he does. He's put his country first--ahead of party--his whole life.

I wouldn't be a very good liberal if I decided to be closeminded about Wesley Clark's commitment to our party. I wouldn't be a very good humanist if I refused to believe that a man can change for the better in the way he views the world. And I wouldn't be a very good pragmatist if I waited for a candidate to come along who perfectly matched my tastes.

are you?
You know, his parents were Republican.

Oh, wait. I forgot. We can't talk against the "annointed" one.

and served under Republican and Democratic presidents so being a partisan hack would not have been a good thing. Oh wait, being a partisan hack period has done nothing but damage this country.

Clark believes in democracy and is well aware that we are losing it, and losing it quickly. Why else do you think he is running? Personal gain? He could have made as much money as he wanted to in his life, but chose to remain in a system that only pays the highest person 10 times the entry rate. You know why? Because he believes that is a fair ratio. He left the Army after 34 years earning 145,000. Most of those 34 years he made far less. Power? He has had more power than most people will ever realize. And he certainly isn't it this so a group of strangers can just hate him because he was in military.

I am sorry you are unwilling to understand exactly who this man is.

He, more than many people on the board, realizes just how important it is to get rid of the regime currently in power. So "give it up." Clark will not run as an independent. In fact, I would venture to predict that if we are so foolish as to fail to nominate this man, he will do everything he can to get Democrats elected in the South in an effort to save the national Democratic party.

but more importantly, I am curious if his supporters would abandon the democratic party to vote for Clark, and it looks like a lot of them would.



"Clark believes in democracy and is well aware that we are losing it, and losing it quickly. Why else do you think he is running? Personal gain?"

Exactly, personal gain, ego, and a desire for POWER.


"He could have made as much money as he wanted to in his life, but chose to remain in a system that only pays the highest person 10 times the entry rate. You know why?"

Because he got a sick thrill from killing people by the thousands?

You can;t really get away with blowing up civilians and journalists in normal corporate jobs, even if they do pay more.



"He left the Army after 34 years earning 145,000."


Yeah and went to work as a defense lobbyist selling his influence as just another DC corporate whore. Now he's looking for more power and more influence.

So i do not doubt that if he did not get it from the dems, he'd seek it as an independent.

Thank you for insulting half of my family.

But nice attempt at a straw man.

People usually specify.

On edit: Asking a second time what TLM edited out (?)

that's a bit odd.


Edited to say: it is none of your business what I edited.

I don't want to further upset you. :-)

Maybe I misunderstood. Could you explain a little more thoroughly?

highly driven by testosterone and heavy "Type A's" as are most politicians, many truely do believe in the 'noble god and country' defensive posture. I myself have very little use for offensive or even neutral militaries that have enough fire power to make the 'rubble bounce', or kick ass temperment and aggression many of the higher officers display; however to class them all as 'sick thrill' wantabe killers, to me seems a bit harsh. I do understand the harshness you feel as I have felt it many times myself. I cannot remember a war ever fought that could not have been prevented by resricting economics and weapons from the perps; or without inducing the conditions of war for national and/or individual economic power at others expense. And our country does have a history of abusing the later.

I said what I said about Clark based on Clark's words and actions.

Please do not twist my words.

sorry, 'his' should have been used instead of 'all' and therefore I assume you base his 'words and actions' on Kosovo. Fair enough though I'll not assume to know what Clarks motives were, your perspective is shared by some and not by others. It was a time and circumstance that has been debated by many.

Get off your damn high horse, will ya?!
I KNOW more people than Dean governed!
There.

Hell the stories on it aren't even new.


Nov 26 03

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean describes himself as "a nice New England Congregationalist."

Raised an Episcopalian, Dean switched after a dispute 25 years ago over a bike path. The church refused to cede control 1 1/2 miles of railroad bed needed for the trail.

"I'm comfortable talking about my faith but I don't bring it up unless I'm asked," Dean said during a recent conversation aboard his chartered campaign jet. "My religion does not inform my public policy, but it does inform my values."




http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16613-2003Nov26?language=printer

Nov 27, 03


The trick for Democrats, Dean said, is to push the debate beyond abortion and gay rights, which he believes are the two biggest issues dividing Democrats from many Evangelicals and Catholics. "The Bible isn't fixated on homosexuality. We shouldn't be either," said Dean, who said he has read the Bible from cover to cover.

...

As part of his strategy to broaden his appeal, Dean has started spreading a secular political message at black churches after singing and swaying along with gospel choirs and praying with mostly black congregations.

"Democrats should not write off communities of faith, including Evangelicals," Dean said. If he wins the nomination, Dean said, he will seek "common ground" with Christians on helping the poor get jobs, housing and health insurance.



Dec 8 03

WOODRUFF: At the same time, Governor, I'm sure you know the Republicans are already starting to talk about the fact that you -- I think by your own acknowledgment, left the Episcopal Church in some dispute over a bike path, and you switched to another denomination, the Congregationalist denomination.

They're asking what does this say about the depth of your commitment to your own faith?

DEAN: You know what it really says? It says the Republicans are talking like they're out of the Pharisees. Because if you're a Christian, you're a Christian. I don't believe it ought to matter what kind of a denomination you are.

So people who talk like that are what Jesus would call the Pharisees. And I think that's enough of that kind of stuff in the Republican Party. We are all in this together.

WOODRUFF: And you don't believe, Governor, the Republicans are going to have a field day with comments like these?

DEAN: The Republicans always have a field day with things like this. That's the reason Democrats lose, is because they're so afraid of the Republicans having a field day with comments like this or like that, that they never make any comments.

WOODRUFF: But we know today there were people who went to Vietnam who had back pain.

DEAN: So your argument is that I could have lied to the draft board and gotten in.

WOODRUFF: No, I'm -- no. That's not what I'm -- I'm just asking if you have any twinge of any feeling about it.

DEAN: I have a lot of twinge about the terrible policy that sent our young people to Vietnam for an exercise that turned out not to be justified, as we're doing right now in Iraq. Yes, I have twinges about that.

It makes their heads hurt... :)

Longer thaat Clarke has been a Democrat!

if Dean is the nominee.

And yet it goes on here daily. The smearing is remarkable and the amount of completely counter-productive nonsense is all over the place.

As to your post, some interesting thoughts you wrote:

Clark believes in democracy and is well aware that we are losing it, and losing it quickly. Why else do you think he is running?

Yes, that's it, self-sacrifice. It is such a sacrifice to assume the most powerful position on earth. ;-) I just can't bring myself to believe that the General decides to run for President because a few thousand e-mailed him, urging him to do so. Is the logical next step in this thought/decision process that these pleas from the common-folk awakened some yearning in him to declare himself a Dem and run for President?? In my mind that is a bit of a stretch.


Personal gain? He could have made as much money as he wanted to in his life, but chose to remain in a system that only pays the highest person 10 times the entry rate. You know why? Because he believes that is a fair ratio. He left the Army after 34 years earning 145,000. Most of those 34 years he made far less.

I see. So it was just his selfless sense of sacrifice for country that kept him in his career. But wait....this next comment from you seems to counter what you just said here....

Power? He has had more power than most people will ever realize.

Ah! "more power than most people will ever realize" doesn't exactly fit with the picture you are trying to paint above. Power is highly intoxicating, as much so as any drug or wealth.

And he certainly isn't it this so a group of strangers can just hate him because he was in military.

So from this remark, are we to deduce that all who do not support Clark choose not to simply because "he was in the military"?? Can we then take this reasoning a logical step forward to the next point? Wouldn't that be that all those who do support Clark do so simply "because he was in the military"?

I am sorry you are unwilling to understand exactly who this man is.

Well after your guidance here it's clear as mud.

He, more than many people on the board, realizes just how important it is to get rid of the regime currently in power.

Ah yes, that would certainly explain past praise of Team Bush and his remark that if Rove had returned his calls he'd be a Repub now. Not. Yes, he realizes NOW what we knew all along. Seems a little slow off the mark to me.

So "give it up." Clark will not run as an independent.

Here is a point I agree with you on.

In fact, I would venture to predict that if we are so foolish as to fail to nominate this man, he will do everything he can to get Democrats elected in the South in an effort to save the national Democratic party.

So all who do not support Clark are "foolish"?

Julie

:kick:

You wrote:

I just can't bring myself to believe that the General decides to run for President because a few thousand e-mailed him, urging him to do so. Is the logical next step in this thought/decision process that these pleas from the common-folk awakened some yearning in him to declare himself a Dem and run for President?? In my mind that is a bit of a stretch.
___________________________

This supposition would rely entirely upon your own projection as to "why" Clark is running and discounting any reasoning beyond your own distrust of any other stated rationale. I am sorry you see
people as suspect, or prehaps you are reserving that distain for people of the military. However, broadening your knowledge base to include the statements of those associated with Clark at the time of his decision, and reading the accounts of journalists who had interviewed Clark's closest friends and family over the summer, would begin to discount your pre-conceived notion. As for myself, I was able to contact a close friend who is very close to Clark and his wife.

There were many reasons Clark did not want to answer those "few thousand" as in 40,000, letters or requests from Democratic party elected officials. We know that Rangel was among those, but I know of a few others. No, not the Clintons.

As for the reasons not to run, Clark had always maintained a strictly non-partisan stance, although once Reagan had fullfilled the promise of pouring money into rebuilding the military, Clark began drifting toward the Democratic side of the aisle. Also, he has always had more friends on the "D" side, and relied upon those connections when advocating for the "people" centered social policies effecting the military.

Nevertheless, Clark thought that wearing USA on your collar meant everyone in the country, not a particular party. He also found it very difficult to cross that mental line and come out in open opposition to the commander in chief even when he could see that all was going terribly wrong. But by Spring he was speaking out.

He also felt that the Democratic party with its unease with the military would never accept anyone who was a General. Gert being against the idea is no small thing. She had moved 31 times in 34 years. For most of those years, she had done without. For the past two years, they had finally settled down, made friends, and had a life. If you have ever seen them together, prehaps you have some understanding of their relationship. Those two are joined in mind and spirit.

And overarching this entire decision was Clark's firm belief that this could not be about him. (see the Esquire profile, although this is what I was told as well) Philosophically, Clark felt that if a run for the presidency is about "you" then the reason becomes a failure in and of its self. As he pondered his decision, he knew, at least for him, that the goal of elected office must be about a vision, about what one would hope to accomplish once the initial goal was reached. Notice he begins his formal approach with the "One Year Vision Statement." Believe or not, that is how he thinks.

Try to put it in his perspective. As a trained strategist the goal is never personal, it is political. Then add to that, his knowledge of philosophy with a special admiration for the philosophers of the Enlightenment. Finally add the current horizon, the what going wrong and how to put it right. At the point where those things intercept, you will find Clark's focus: the Constitution, the people, and the environment.
_____________________

You said with a comment by me:

I see. So it was just his selfless sense of sacrifice for country that kept him in his career. But wait....this next comment from you seems to counter what you just said here....

Power? He has had more power than most people will ever realize.

Ah! "more power than most people will ever realize" doesn't exactly fit with the picture you are trying to paint above. Power is highly intoxicating, as much so as any drug or wealth.
____________________

You are assuming that the two are incompatable. If Clark wanted power, then the career path he chose is not necessarily the quickest or best way to achieve it. He certainly didn't care about money. Power can be intoxicating, and just as some may become addicted to drugs, some others do not. Let's put it this way, there was a time when one of his cars was an armoured Mercedes, while the other one was a Volvo with 360,000 miles on it. I would guess he enjoyed keeping the Volvo running. Clark is a person of ideas, and he writes about his love of learning from all of life's situations. What he cares about personally is the challenge to stretch ones capacity. Watching him, I think he is actually enjoying the rigors of the campaign. Again, you are free to assign any negative qualities you wish to this man, I just have difficulty understanding why you would want to. There is no there.
_______________

You said:

Ah yes, that would certainly explain past praise of Team Bush and his remark that if Rove had returned his calls he'd be a Repub now. Not. Yes, he realizes NOW what we knew all along. Seems a little slow off the mark to me.
___________________________________
Read the rest of the speech.

Talking Points has debunked the Rove call, as has the evidence from the WH records. No call...joke. People with especially dry senses of humor are often taken out of context. It sometimes requires some thought to understand that type of humor.

_________________
You said:

So all who do not support Clark are "foolish"?

____________________

I think we should elect the best person for the job. That includes but is not limited to: intellect, temperment, policy, political skill, gravitas, charisma, and vision. Conason said in one column (paraphrase) that America often complained that people of outstanding quality rarely run for elected office. He said, that Clark, one of our best and brightest, was running, and he was curious to see how we would treat him. From the looks of DU today, tomorrow, and every other day, I would think the verdict is: not very well. I find the entire thing sad. Read this thread.

Clark has a world of opportunities ahead of him if he does not get the nomination. And I'm sure he wouldn't tarnish his name by going against the Democratic party.

He doesn't need the nomination, but I think he would be one hell of a president.

I plan on voting for whomever has the best chance of beating Bush.

I'm really not convinced that Clark is not just an opportunist. If Al Gore was in the White House I think Clark would be running for the repuke nomination. Not trying to cause a flame war, but he just hasn't been a dem for very long. That makes me uneasy.

Clark saw an opportunity to gain power, and took it.


After the things he said at that republican fundraiser it is clear Clark will say anything to anybody to gain power and influence. He has no integrity at all, and says whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.

The man was a defense lobbyist... the worst kind of corporate whore sucking at the tax payer teat. Then he just up and decided he was a democrat, yet wouldn't say so publicly until he was sure he was going to run in this party.

I have o doubt he'd play a republican just as well as he plays a democrat because it is all a show. The man cares about nothing but power.

I thought YOU had the power?!
:hurts:

that's why Clark's losing.

The Clinton/Gore administration was the best thing that ever happened to Wes Clark. That's why so many people who don't buy this "he's a Republican" crap assumed that he was really a stalking horse for Hillary, or the DLC's pick as the "anti-Dean".

If Al Gore had been allowed to assume office Clark would have made a whole lot more money in his business dealings than he ever would under a GOP administration.

The irony here is that some of the chronic anti-Clark posters think he is a tool of the GOP and others think he is a tool of the Clintons. So one camp has difficulty accepting him as a Democrat, while the other camp uses his Democratic leanings as an explanation for his working for the CLintons.

I wish people would get their prejudices lined up so it would be clearer to others just where they are coming from.

Simply put, Clark thinks the country is in trouble, and he doesn't think the current crop of candidates is suited to beat Bush in November, even if they can win the plurality of Democratic primary votes needed to win the nomination. He's running because he thinks he can win and that he would be a far superior President than the pResident currently occupying the White House. Clearly he also thinks he has the best chance of beating Bush, or why even try? Certainly, he had no need to run. He could easily have joined all of those other people who are (as one poster here describes it) "whoring" for the MIC and made much more money than he ever could as President.

Clark wants to be president. The party affiliation is unimportant to him. If Gore were in office , he would be running as a republican. Clark isn't anyones tool, he's for Clark, no one else matters.

<crickets chirping>

the only verifiable history the man has indicates that he has always been a supporter of republican administrations and ideals. He even supported the most vile republican administrations (Nixon, Reagan and the idiot) His recent about face certainly seems to be either an indication of his desire to grab power by any means available (including deceiving the American people) or that he was a complete moron in the past. We know he isn't a moron.

being a moron. You may recall that the Republicans Clark voted for all won, as did the Democrats he voted for.

To some of us that suggests that he was in the mainstream of American political thought at the time.

The American voters put those guys in office, you know. I have seen posts on DU that describe the people who disagree with the Party line as "morons", "sheeple" and the like. How inconvenient that people like that should have a voice in who their leaders are.

It would be so much better if the truly wise could just make those decisions for them.

It seems to me that Clark was much closer to the thinking of the majority of the people in this nation for a couple of decades now. No wonder he isn't acceptable to the more "elitist" political thinkers around here.

Amazing...

Channeling no doubt...and projecting. How clever!

How insulting.

I think Clark took so long to tell us what party he was because he was trying to determine which he would run for. He fit the rhetoric to the democratic run because it was unrealistic to think he could get the nomination from Bush.

Edited" and it is still none of your business what I edited.

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

foolish. Want to try staying on topic?

PS... why did you take the Clark graphics out of your sig line?

C'mon, it's a compliment. Smile!

Why are you getting personal here Eileen?

is that your post is based on conjecture about what you "think" Clark is doing, not fact. I didn't mean it as a personal attack. You were quite literally using your imagination and I was describing what you were doing.

Yikes.

I think he might just be the best candidate to go against dubya. But I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that turns out to be. This election is much too important to play third-party games.

Anyone but Bush.

Because this has to be about replacing Bush in the White House. The last real indy campaign, Perot, imploded and probably destroyed to real possibility of a third party or indy win for a generation.

A vote for an independent is a vote for the incumbent (see 2000 for examples)

Earlier I saw the "What if Dean loses the nomination, would he run on a third party ticket?" thread before and tried to post to it but it got locked. I wanted to say that I didn't believe Dean would do that. I don't believe Clark would either.

If either man tried that I would stick with the Democratic Party deep into the Election, and would only break ranks for a third party if I became convinced that only the third party had a chance to defeat Bush, that the Democrats were running a week third in other words. Very, very, unlikely scenarios.

was locked because it posed the question "After Clark loses the nomination" or something to that effect. The person posting this one stated that he (or she) had to change the word "AFTER" to "IF".

A divided party in the face of a yuppie fascist threat to American democracy. Just what the Democrats and the Americans need.

The question is moot. He won't do it.

and vote for an independent unless there were extraordianry conditions. As I said many many times I am ABB. In the other thread I stated it in different words but maybe this time its clearer.

Any of you folks care to explain why you'd leave the party for Clark?

I don't know any that would leave and I read the Clark blogs. I do know people off line who are Indy, Green, and repub. who support Clark but will not vote for Dean.

Clark will not break with the Democrats. And since you refuse to believe that, it may not matter to you. I have a connection with Clark, the person, not some figment of someone's imagination overwhelmed by wishfully thinking the worst about a fine individual. I'll tell you something that will really shock you; Clark is a person who values honor above anything. He does not lie. Laugh about all you want to, but the truth is truth.

that you personally know or have had dealings, with Clark? Or is the 'connection' you speak of a studied admiration of what you have learned about his personal and professional history?

And in neither case is the association casual. From my end, I would say that I've known the person since birth. In her case, she has known Clark and his wife for over thirty years. She is the one of the best of Democrats, and one of the best people I've ever known. I contacted her before I wrote a letter on behalf of the draft movement. Clark is not a saint, but he is an extraordinary human being who has lived his life as honorably as any of us can hope to do. As strange as it may seem to many of us, Honor, Duty, Country, are his guide posts. That's all.

When I have to read the horrible postings on these threads, written by those who know little, and could care less about the damage they do, it makes me sick. Whatever their personal agenda, either in a false belief that somehow their ravings will improve the chances of their chosen candidate, or out of malice aforethought, they have stepped into territory designated as "the politics of personal destruction." That is the club used by the enemy, and it has no place in this forum if we wish to use this forum as an organizing and information source to improve America, and not lose it.

Clark is the real deal. I defend him, because I am a person who respects the truth, and because of that, will do anything I can to stop the "big lie."

Clark will not run as a third party candidate. This thread is not meant to discover anything; it is meant as a new form of slander meant to create doubt and slip past the moderators.

There is no way of knowing if the lesser number of "yes" votes are legitimate supporters of Clark's candidacy rather than people whose dislike and hatred for him exceed all reason.

I do not know any person who would follow any candidate into a run as an independent, but I would suspect the largest number of those who might are those who are personally and emotionally invested in their candidate, as opposed to making a political decision to support him (or her).

Most Clark supporters I know are essentially ABB, as is Clark himself. We look to him to be a good president if elected but our first concern is to defeat George Bush. As it stands now most of us are in no way convinced any of the other candidates can pull off that job, especially when some of them seem to draw support mostly from newcomers to the political process who believe that their candidate will make everything all right and share some of "the POWER!" were they ever to achieve the Presidency. Us old hands have seen all this before, and it is as bogus today as it was then.

Since all of the other candidates, other than Sharpton and Braun, are professional politicians (no matter how "new" and "innovative" and "exciting" they try to portray themselves) it is very unlikely that any of them would try the independent route either.

At the end of the day they will all fall in and march together to try and beat Bush, and Clark will do just that as well.

He votes republican, but he's a democrat, he's a general, but he's a supporter of the Bill of Rights. I really don't have a clue what he would do if given the chance.

Otherwise it I can't fault anyone with questions. I honestly have questions for every top-tier candidate.

during those elections.

Of course, there are those who feel he is lying about that but telling the truth about voting for Reagan. Why feel that he was lying about Clinton/Gore when he could just as easily have claimed he was voting democrat since puberty?

I guess its because he's just an evil, evil person. I guess that's why lots of folks call him a "war criminal" though not too many of them are Kosovan Muslims. Those million and a half folks think he's something of a hero for helping save them from genocide.

You have to wonder, sometimes, where the Clark critics are coming from in their own heads.

I have a few things that make me uneasy, here are a couple. He has stated he felt Reagan was a great president and it makes me wonder if he was in the states and witnessed the economic destruction of the lower middle class and poor. It makes me wonder how he felt about that administration's involvement in the illegal Iran/Contra war and the back haul, which granted he might have been unaware.
He also I believe at a repub fund raiser thought GHW Bush was a good president, who was no economic wizard of compassion for the lower middle class and poor, and was also a major player in Iran/Contra. Many belive those initial negotiations for the hostages was an act of treason, as Carter's State Department was trying to secure their release, and domestic politics should not have been an obstacle to that end.
If his views of these two president's economic policies are favorable, this I am uneasy with. If he feels their foreign policy was proper, I am again uneasy.

SOme on this board would assume he was lying if he said water was wet. Others give him the same benefit of the doubt they give Dean or Kerry or the others.

Clark has stated that he supported Reagan and Nixon and Bush based on their strong pro-military policies, i.e. building up the Army and supporting soldiers and sailors, something that had gone out of favor during and after the VietNam War.

As to Iran-Contra, it is questionable that he was even aware of that until the rest of us found out about it. The general public was also unaware of possible RR interference with the release of the hostages until far after the event. Many did not beleive it even after all the published reports. Many still do not beleive it.

The thing to recall, as I mentioned elsewhere, is that the ONLY reason we know that Clark voted for these people is the HE told us he did. If he were the mad-dog power seeker his detractors claim him to be it would have been easy to simply say he was consistently and totally a Democratic supporter. It would certainly be as easy as a candidate claiming to be anti-free trade when the record shows he wsa in favor of NAFTA when he was a Governor.

So Clark's real problem is he hasn't learned to lie with ease and dispatch, which is considered a prerequirement to be a professional politician like a Senator or a Governor. He tells the truth as he sees it and while we may not agree with what he thinks you really have to give him credit for being honest about it.

And that's why I beleive him when he says he is running as a Democrat. I think the idea he might run as a third party candidate is just another straw man put up by the rabid opposition.

I will be voting for the DEM candidate, and I find the question offensive.

By the way, do you really think you're helping your candidate by posting these sorts of things. I want to enthusiastically support Dean if he gets the nomination, but the sorts of things that you post about my candidate is being a major turnoff to me. Are you trying to alienate as many Clark supporters as possible? Do you really think that will help Dean in the general election? If you're trying to damage Dean and alienate potential supporters you are doing a bang up job.

I would never say the sorts of things about Dean that you do about Clark. :grr: :grr: :grr:

I wouldn't vote for Clark or Dean if they went independent... unless Dean got the Democratic nomination and Clark went independent, I might consider it if I thought Clark could win in that scenario. However, that's a scenario that I do not believe will happen, and even if it did, it would take a pretty compelling show from Clark to convince me he would win as an independent.

Sorry, but Dean does not impress me. I have made an honest effort to learn more about him by reading one of the books about him (Howard Dean: A Citizen's Guide to the Man Who Would Be President) but I remain unimpressed. I am no DLC hack, just an ordinary American who has voted for Democrats since I was able to vote. Sorry if that messes up anyone's worldview. :shrug:

(Edit: Of course I have read more of Dean's words than the single book I cite, but I turned to the book for some spin-free information on his record in Vermont. If I should turn elsewhere, let me know.)

Clark can beat Bush head to head. Bush hasn't the ammo to fight him. Bush would have to run on his record which is miserable to say the least.
Dean will not win in a head to head with Bush. I'm certain that Bush is hopeful it will be Dean instead of Clark he will be up against.

The only scenario which could lead to a Clark victory is for him to hold onto most of the Democratic base, and pick up indy and GOP votes.

A third party or indy run would just guarantee Bush's victory.

If Clark did something like that I think we would all be justified in hitting him with a custard pie. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!

With apologies to the Three Stooges!

What happened to the "center"?

Seems to me that your comment is in direct contradiction to one of Clark's supposed strength. That he is such a powerful candidate to attract the center. But if this were true, than it would be true regardless of him being a Democrat or not. And it would seem that a significant portion of Clark supporters would agree with this.

TLM's point seems not only to be valid, but striking as well.

Asking Clark supporters if they would vote for Dean?

Enough already.

My suspicions are that most Clark supporters are stauncher Democrats than those in some other candidates' camps.

Yes, I will vote for Dean even though I believe he is a weak candidate who is not the right person for this country at this point in time.

Do we really need that again? I don't think clark would stab america in the back by doing that... he's no nader.

Clark is for Clark. He wants to be the president, he doesn't care how he gets there.

Oh, that's right. You don't.

at how many people on this board seem consumed with hatred for Wesley Clark. I may think someone is a poorer candidate, or has an obvious weakness, or has a personal history that should preclude him even running for national office, but I don't hate any of them.

Yet there are several people who regularly post on threads like this who seem to foam at the mouth with their rage at the very idea that someone like Clark, or more specifically Clark himself, would dare to defile the sacred precincts of the Democratic Party by putting himself forward as a candidate.

There is little doubt that such people would rather vote for Bush than Clark, and that is just incredible.

I'm not one of them, but I don't know why you're amazed. This is a progressive site. Anti-war people congregate with other progressives. Generals and Anti-war activists generally don't mix well. Generals have spent their life training to do many things anti-war activists believe can be done without violence.

Kind of an oil and water thing.

Sooooooo, Nader would be the antichrist, but the General would be a justifiable third party option to siphon off votes and split the Democratic chances? Here is what I have to say: mission accomplished....for those with eyes to see.

Howard Dean!

The numbers make it LOOK like Clark's supporters include a significant number who are disloyal to the party.

But is this true?

I am not sure, since a thread like this is just too tempting a target for disruptors.

wonder how many of the yes votes are Clark supporters?

nt

that. Maybe a show of virtual hands would be better?

It is extremely difficult to be loyal to a Party that tries to "anoint" a candidate that has turned his back on the "Clinton" centrist ideas that saved the Democrats from becoming just another Green Party.

If this Party wants loyalty it needs to become more mainstream in its ideas, vision, and message. This blind hatred of Bush is no way to lead in these times. It's unfortunate that few Dems actually understand that Bush is such a prime target for a substantial challenge next year and the best they have to offer is a pissed off elitist with "a hole in his resume".

If I need to I will vote against the Party as will thousands of other moderates.

Maybe the next poll should be "Name the Last Great Liberal President?"

I thought so....

Clark supporters are a devoted bunch. The man is nice very looking you know.

I do not know any Clark supporters who would back an independent candidacy. We are supporting Clark because we think he has the best chance of winning.

Certainly he is a great guy and all that, but the issue is who is going to take on Bush in November. An independent run would all but guarantee a Bush victory.

It will be difficult enough to beat the incumbent as it is. I'm sure Clark doesn't want to be considered 2004's Ralph Nader.

And I have no idea why you think the guy is good looking.

That's what's you're inferring. Clark supporters would never leave the party but lots of supporters of other candidates are liars who would say he would.

He is AWESOME!!!!

to characterize Clark supporters as "girlish fans". It seems a little derogatory to me. Not that "girlish" is automatically a negative thing to be, but I suspect you intended it to be.

nothing in this poll for them, so they are free to attack with thier clicks.
no biggie =)

This poll is divisive and useless and hurts Clark for no good reason.

Clark is running to be the nominee of the Democratic party.

Just as I believe no other candidate will run as an independent if not selected as nominee, I can't see Clark doing that either.

Forgive me if this is not okay to conjecture; but, this thread wouldn't be flamebait, would it?

For Clark to bolt out of the Democratic Party and run as an independent would be to negate everything that Clark has said about himself since he jumped in the race.

Clark has a lot more character than some people give him credit for!

I frankly think some people are voting in a manner intended to make Gen. Clark look bad, and deliberately skewing the poll results; with a FEW exceptions, virtually all of the Clark supporters I know (and I know quite a few) are either solid Democrats, or Democratic-leaning independents.

This poll's results do NOT pass Paddy's 'smell test'. :eyes:

While I like Clark a lot and agree with his positions 95% of the time, the consequences of another Bush term are simply too dire to permit any "protest", "statement", or "conscience" voting.

Clark's support is strong, but I don't think he has enough support to wage an independent campaign that would substantially draw votes away from the incumbent.

Don't forget we are talking about GENERATIONS of Americans who would have to live under a Supreme Court polluted by even a single Bush nominee.

We cannot let that happen.

but there is no way i would vote against a democrat

a republican and opposing Bush*. He has way to much republican baggage to win dem nomination.

I mean, doesn't it suggest that they're not, in fact, Democrats if they'd be willing to vote for someone who's not in the Democratic party? That's what I was told.

I wasn't here so I don't remember.

considering you were defending a Nader candidacy the other night.

But I didn't say you should be banned. I was...unhappy about the prospect of Nader splitting the dem vote, and suggested there might be a rule infraction if people actively "worked" so to speak for a Nader campaign.

Since then I have tried to be better...

:hi:

I'm sure that the mods are capable of tracking down people who voted a particular way in a poll, and if perchance, some or most of the "yes" votes were actually supporters of a different candidate who wanted to make Clark supporters look bad...well, I don't think they would be such a great loss to this board.

Clarks my man but I won't vote for someone who isn't running in the Democratic Party unless there was no Democrat running, then I would vote for anyone other than a repuke. I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever he/she is.