'08 fantacy poll: If Edwards and Clark were the final two

[WI_DEM]

Poll question: '08 fantacy poll: If Edwards and Clark were the final two

which would you want to be the 2008 Democratic nominee?

[ecstatic]

1. Very shallow, I know, but Clark's voice is too much like Dubya's

Have you ever turned away from screen while Clark was speaking? He sounds tooo similar to Bush for my tastes, and that alone eliminates him from the running. I can't discount the psychological trauma that Bush has put me through.

[nickinSTL]

3. listen half a second, and that'll pass...

it becomes clear quickly that Clark actually SPEAKS ENGLISH and doesn't sound like a complete moron.

Not that I've ever noticed any similarity.

[Cameron27]

4. I've listened to him without watching many times....

and he never, ever, even came close to sounding like the shrubbery to me.

[ecstatic]

9. um

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2yM0NqzRK8

[Cameron27]

29. Sorry, I closed my eyes and listened

and Clark sounds like someone with a accent from Arkansas, nothing at all like bush.

[demwing]

10. Seems like a plus

Clark is like Bush after a trip to the Wizard of OZ. He's got a brain, a heart, and courage.

[Lefta Dissenter]

12. HUH?

first of all, Clark's voice isn't anything like bush's, but more importantly, the instant bush opens his mouth, you know he's a morAn, yet you have to listen to Clark for only a moment to know that he has intellect and compassion and reason...

[kerry-is-my-prez]

23. You're hearing things....

and what a crazy reason not to vote for someone. I hope you're kidding.

[ICantBelieve]

24. Seriously...

Is it a southern thing? I'm a Yankee myself and it took some getting used to. Once you get used to that, Wes's voice is soothing. W's is grating.

[high density]

78. No I haven't noticed that

Though I do kind of giggle every time he says "Warshington."

[chimpymustgo]

95. Here's a poll: when will Clarkies accept John Edwards' popularity?

2006?
2008?
2010?
After a high quality 12-step program?
Never?

[BootinUp]

96. I could ask you the same as to Clark n/t

[chimpymustgo]

97. No comparison. And you know it. But It's an amusing question for you

guys to ponder LOL.

Let it go...primaries coming before you know it.

[BootinUp]

98. Hit and Run?

If your not up for the challenge why raise it in the first place?

[chimpymustgo]

100. If YOU'RE not up to the challenge, you shouldn't raise it.

You raised it...silly game. But you guys do so much better in FANTASY polls than real ones, so I do understand, in a way.

[BootinUp]

103. It seems to me

That once people are informed about and get to listen to both candidates its a pretty close match. Since Edwards was on the ticket last time I am not disputing his name recognition today. But Clark certainly gave him a close race having started a National campaign late in the game and not going to Iowa.

No, I think Clark in a race with no similar head starts for Edwards, would do quite nicely.

As to fantasy polls, I don't know why we should let you decide which are and are not fantasy. People are only allowed one vote here. Why don't you tell me why so many bloggers prefer Clark over Edwards, these are people who follow politics? You think we are paid or something?

[chimpymustgo]

106. Fantasy thing, I suppose. This is entertaining, but REAL WORLD rules!

Clark's not a bad guy, by any stretch. But the obsession of many of his supporters to knock down the very wonderful John Edwards has become laughable.

Go win some primaries.

[BootinUp]

looking forward to beating Johnny in some more

primaries. :)

[CarbonDate]

117. Huh?

How many primaries did Edwards win again? IIRC, Kerry pretty much ran away with it.

Pot, kettle.

I've got nothing against Edwards (although I do prefer Clark), but his strong showing in the final primaries was largely from staying in long after the contest was over.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. I like 'em both. But the nomination belongs to Al Gore, if he wants it.

That's the truth.

[yurbud]

99. couldn't you tell the difference as soon as he conjugated verbs correctly?

and doesn't say "mafeance" and "strategery"?

[BOSSHOG]

2. I would advise President Clark to appoint

John Edwards as Attorney General. Wouldn't that be an infusion of professionalism all around?

[bowens43]

5. If they are the final two, we'll have a Republican President.

[Clark2008]

6. Hardly.

Wes would flip Virginia, Tennessee, New Mexico and Arkansas.

[MissMillie]

58. Not to mention the fact that the GOP has been doing a terric job

of political suicide over the past year or so....

[Change has come]

85. and possibly

Colorado and Nevada!

[CarbonDate]

118. And you would support...?

Just asking. And while I like Kerry and Gore, please bear in mind that when they were the nominees, we ended up with a Republican President. But maybe you support Hillary. Straighten me out. What sure-fire winner do you support?

[jobycom]

7. I'd hate that choice, but I'd go Clark, just because he has experience

He has yet to convince me he's a liberal, but he has succeeded in convincing me he is experienced enough to make good decisions. Edwards, though I like him, has changed his positions so much on Iraq and on ideology in general that I'm not convinced he knows his own mind enough. I don't dislike Edwards in any way, I just don't trust that he's ready. It really is about more than who has the best ideas.

Interesting, though. Edwards supported the IWR well into his primary campaign, even blasting Kerry and Kucinich and others for not supporting the invasion. He finally turned when the polls started to turn. Clark gave a speech a couple months before the IWR urging the passage of a bill giving Bush the power to use force against Iraq if necessary. It's clear from Hillary's speech before her vote for the IWR that she was taking his advice, as did many other Dems. Yet somehow Kerry and Clinton get labeled as pro-invasion while Clark and Edwards are labeled as against it.

[Clark2008]

8. Clark didn't urge the passage of that bill.

He TESTIFIED against going into Iraq before the House Armed Services Committee in September 2002. I'm not quite sure what you mean, but Clark has always advocated that Saddam was a contained threat and that we should remain focused on Al Qaeda.

[jobycom]

13. He most certainly did. From the September 2002 speech you mentionL

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

Hillary's speech before voting for the IWR said the same thing: So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Read both speeches. It is clear Hillary Clinton was taking Wes Clark's advice.

[ICantBelieve]

15. NO NO NO

NOT A BLANK CHECK. The IWR gave Bush a blank check. That is not what Clark wanted.

[jobycom]

18. They did not give Bush a blank check.

Bush was claiming he had a blank check before the IWR was passed. He claimed he could invade any time he wanted, that the previous treaties and his own Constitutional role gave him all the power he needed.

Even the Republicans balked at this. The IWR was an attempt to put restrictions on Bush. It required Bush to go to the UN. It required Bush to follow a legal path. It only authorized the invasion if Bush exhausted other means of negotiations. It was very much what Clark said it should be.

Either you are too sold on Clark, or you don't grasp what the IWR was, but you are wrong if you think Clinton was voting for something substantially different than what Clark called for.

[ICantBelieve]

20. Yes...

it was a blank check--either that or they authorized going to war. Take your pick. We went to war. Didn't we??? I think we did. I think we're in the middle of a quagmire right now that occurred because congress did not stand up to Bush. Clark said time was on our side. He said not to go yet. But... we went. So, either congress gave him a blank check or they authorized going to war. AND CLARK DID NOT.

Clark testified against the war. He testified SO clearly against the war that Drudge felt compelled to fake what Clark said. He testified so clearly against the war that Perle said "Wes wants to wait." He testified so clearly against the war that when Clark and Perle testified again in 2005, it was Perle's feet they held to the fire and Wes who walked away looking like a prophetic genius.

The IWR enabled Bush to go to war. He did. We're fucked. And Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and John Kerry voted for it.

[Texas_Kat]

50. There was an alternate resolution

sponsored by Carl Levin that required Bush to go back to congress for an actual vote, and didn't leave it up to Bush to determine whether he "exhausted other means".

Because there were not enough votes to avoid the IWR altogether, Clark was trying to persuade Congresscritters (as attested to by Paul Wellstone and Teddy Kennedy) to vote for the the more restrictive version.

The OTHER bill (the one that passed) was co-sponsored by Lieberman and Edwards. Since it left the final decision to Bush's 'judgement' it might have well been a blank check.

[sybil]

22. Your quote is WAY out of context

...from Clark's testimony before HASC in Sept. of 2002, six months prior to the implementation of PNAC's war agenda: the invasion of Iraq come hell or high water. Wes advised against it. Saddam was NOT Wes's priority, binLaden/AlQeeda was:

"But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam's regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq."

Suggest you read the entire document rather than cherry-picking. Looks to me as if Hillary cherry-picked Wes's testimony as well. Shame on both of you!

[CarolNYC]

26. Well,

Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone both referenced Wes' testimony when explaining their decisions to vote no on the IWR, so they obviously heard it differently. I think there were others also....And in a recent interview, Kennedy stresed the importance of Wes' testimony in making his decision, I believe...I imagine someone could provide a link for that interview. I don't have it at hand.

[sybil]

32. and Senator Barbara Boxer,

among others...unfortunately only a minority of the minority party were "informed". "Duped" they were? "ooops" has become the standard excuse? Oh, an apology Mr. Edwards?

(I'm getting damned mad all over again...)

[jobycom]

176. YOU should read the whole thing

The quote I gave is completely in context, and I ignored nothing by quoting it. You ignore the rest of his speech by pretending he did not mean what his quote says.

[Adelante]

45. No, No, No

Kennedy, Wellstone, Levin and others have stated they voted AGAINST based on Clark's testimony. You've got this one wrong.

[Jai4WKC08]

55. You really think Hillary Clinton was taking Clark's advice??

That's pretty funny, since a rather significant number of senators who voted AGAINST the IWR cited Clark's testimony as the reason. Ted Kennedy said that he was inclined to vote for the resolution until he listened to Clark.

[BootinUp]

63. "The resolution need not..."

Go ahead read that sentence again the one that starts "The resolution need not..."

:eyes:

[Jai4WKC08]

70. You know, Clark went back before the HASC in April 05

I'm sorry if this seems like piling on, but I just remembered this and felt compelled to add it.

On 4/6/05, Wes Clark and Richard Perle, both reappeared before the House Armed Services Committee. Pretty much ALL of the Democratic members of the committee, and most of the Repubs, congratulated him for being right in his 2002 testimony, when Perle was so wrong. So there really isn't much room for interpretation about what Clark was saying back in 2002. Honest.

I'm not sure whether you can find the transcript of the 2005 meeting on line. I seem to remember that Chairman Duncan Hunter (yuck) was so humiliated, he kept it from being posted in the committee webspace. Maybe that's changed by now, since it's an important historical document and all. If you want to look it up, google is your friend. ;)

But there was a kick-ass WaPo article article that pretty much summed it up. I'll post a excerpt to keep the DU mods happy, but I checked the link and it still works, if you want to read the whole thing.

Same Committee, Same Combatants, Different Tune
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page A10

...At the September 2002 hearing, GOP lawmakers joined in Perle's dismissal of Clark's argument that "time is on our side" in Iraq and that force should be used only as a "last resort."

Perle said Clark was "wildly optimistic" and called it "one of the dumber cliches, frankly, to say that force must always be a last resort." While Clark fiddled, "Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has."

In retrospect, Clark's forecasts proved more accurate than Perle's, and even Republicans on the committee made little effort yesterday to defend Perle or to undermine Clark. The exception was Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who pressed Clark to acknowledge that the Iraq invasion should get some credit for signs of democracy in the region.

"We've got to do a lot less crowing about the sunrise," Clark rejoined.

When Hunter's GOP colleagues didn't join his line of questioning, he took another turn grilling Clark. The chairman likened President Bush's Middle East policies to those of President Ronald Reagan in Eastern Europe.

"Reagan never invaded Eastern Europe," Clark retorted.

In another try, Hunter said Clark was "overstating" the risk in challenging other countries in the Middle East. Clark smiled and showed his trump card -- reminding Hunter of their exchange at the 2002 hearing. "I kept saying time was on our side," Clark said. "I could never quite satisfy you."

As for who proved correct, the general said, "I'll let the record speak for itself."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32440-2005Apr6.html

Nice smack-down, eh? Any wonder the transcript wasn't made public, and there was never any video for C-SPAN to play?

[Texas_Kat]

119. Just in case you want ALL the testimony

SecuringAmerica has it online. Looks like they may have skipped some of Perle's pontificating, but they are providing audio as well as transcripts (even the members individual questions).

http://securingamerica.com/hasc1

Here's another take on it -- from Campus Progress

The Arrogance of Power from Campus Progress
Reprinted with permission
By Todd Hill
Apr 8th, 2005

On Wednesday before the House Armed Services Committee, there was a 2nd showdown between former 4-star NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark, and chief Bush neocon Richard Perle, over the War in Iraq. These two individuals had an infamous showdown in 2002 in the ramp up to war before this same House committee. In their first encounter, Clark’s analysis of the impending conflict was full of warning signs to avoid a miscalculated detour from the war on terror, and should instead allow diplomacy to run its course.

“War should be an absolute last resort option,” Clark often repeated during his 2002 testimony. Perle and the many Republican committee members sarcastically mocked Clark then, but they turned face and attacked Richard Perle this time around. Walter Jones Jr, the conservative Republican from North Carolina, set crosshairs on Richard Perle, asking a number of times for “someone to apologize for the misinformation given.” Jones even went so far as to go into great detail of attending various military funerals throughout his district, often amplifying his tone and glaring at the Pentagon war hawk.

General Clark, in a noted exchange with chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), reminded the congressman that "I kept saying time was on our side," and "I could never quite satisfy you." It was quite clear during Wednesday’s testimony that the neoconservative Richard Perle had no intention in apologizing for his miscalculations, or apologizing on behalf of anyone within the administration. He was not humble, nor was he conciliatory. Am I surprised? Absolutely not, as Harry Reid said perfectly, it's that "arrogance of power" that Republicans hold.

Without a doubt there were very few individuals who stood up in those months after September 11th when it was clear that the ship was turning towards a conflict with Iraq. Men like Howard Dean, Bob Graham, and General Clark warned anyone who would listen that this was the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time. Now we are stuck in a never ending cycle of guerilla war, we’ve lost complete concentration and choked off vital resources toward the war on terror, our military is overextended and unable to quickly react to any new and impending national security issues, and the crippling debt we are incurring will serve to remind us for generations of the miscalculations that Richard Perle and the rest of his neoconservative brethren have cost the United States of America in vital economic and Foreign policy credibility.

As General Wesley Clark stated at the end of his testimony on Wednesday, "I'll let the record speak for itself."

[sandnsea]

28. He did encourage passage of *a* bill

The fact that he continues to refuse to take responsibility for that is a bit annoying. But dang near everybody has played politics with that vote so I'm not hardly going to hold it against him. Clark would be a better choice than Edwards, but I wish he'd denounce Reaganism too. We're not going to get any real change until somebody has the guts to stand up and say that Reagan may have been a nice guy, he was just WRONG. I won't trust Clark completely until he does that.

[ICantBelieve]

31. About the deficit?

Is that what you mean? About everything? About bringing the religious right into the picture? I don't think Wes will ever say he was wrong to have voted for him. I don't think Wes regrets the past like that. But I don't think Wes believes that what Reagan did with running up the debt was a good idea or that religion belongs in politics the way the Repubs have used it.

Wes did support passing *a* bill; it's true. He wanted to have a strong diplomatic tool. But he did not want to go to war. I think he thought, like I did, that Iraq *probably* had WMD. But I think he also thought, like I did, that there wasn't enough evidence to go to war. I don't know if you've ever listened to Wes talk about "engagement"--talking, being involved early, and war only as a last last last resort. Obviously, he's no pacifist, but there's no way he would have gotten us into this mess. In hindsight, I think it's pretty clear to see that we never would have gone to war if we'd just put it off as long as we could, by continuing inspections. We'd have figured out there were no WMD. It may seem like a small difference, between supporting *that* bill which allowed Bush to go to war virtually immediately and supporting *a* bill that would have pushed for more diplomacy. It may *seem* like a small difference, but it's all the difference in the world.

OK, back to Reagan, if you really feel like you could never trust Wes completely because of that, I wish you'd write him about it and get it discussed. You can contact him at WesPAC through [email protected]. Or, you could join the Clark Community Network and post a blog about it there. He ususally reads that stuff. Or you could write snail mail and send it to him at the address you'll find on the FEC reports. Wes Clark is a fantastic man and he's everything our parents promised us in a President. Don't let something like this get in the way without making an effort to understand it better--please. (EDIT: I meant understand "him" better, not "it" better; Wes is definitely not an "it." But the real reason I'm editting is that when I reread that very last part, it seemed like it may have been condescending and I didn't mean it that way at all.)

[sandnsea]

34. Everything about Reagan

And please, Wes is a smart enough man that he doesn't need me to tell him that ALL of Reagan's policies were wrong. If he believed it, he'd be saying it.

I agree with you completely on Clark's view of Iraq and WMD, and that's exactly what the IWR provided for - if Bush had abided by it. He didn't. It wasn't a vote for war, Bush himself said on many occasions it wasn't a vote for war. Twisting that vote into a vote for war was Rove's greatest bait and switch ever, with more than a little help from the far left and others for their own political purposes. It's been like a run-away train and most Democrats have chosen to just let the train run over their opponents rather than put it on the right track.

I think Clark's come around to a more liberal domestic and world view over time, but I'd really like him to clarify. He'd be fine as a candidate, I just prefer somebody who has gotten it right their whole life, not just in the last few years.

[ICantBelieve]

37. Wes agreed with a strong military

And that's why he voted for Reagan. That was a lifetime ago. Wes hasn't changed how he's felt about the issues over time. He's only changed his opinion of how the government could best implement the best things all around. I think he always felt that a strong defense was imperitive and all the rest was driven by the center anyway. The Dems at that time were very gun shy about defense because of Vietnam, so he voted for Republicans. My guess would be that if he regrets anything, he regrets not trying to influence the democrats to get beyond that faster.

But times have changed. The rest isn't being driven by the center anymore. It's being driven by the nuts. So, Wes's tactics have changed. But he hasn't. His liberal beliefs haven't. He's always been liberal. It's just that now, it's so much more important to be a Dem because the Repubs are off the wall. I don't think his opinions have ever changed. It's only his focus and tactics that have changed.

But this is silly. You should be discussing this with him, not with me. Try to meet him. Write to him. Talk to him about it. Hell, ICantBelieve is short for icantbelieveimvotingforageneral. But I've met him. And I've talked with him. And he's a liberal.

There were plenty of people who stood up against the IWR--who knew better--and they quoted what Wes said as an argument against voting for it. It was a vote for war--or at least a vote to let Bush make the decision, so at dead least, it was stupid.

[sandnsea]

46. Oh nonsense

That strong military stuff was bullshit then just like it's bullshit now. Liberal Democrats advocated a nuclear freeze and eventually arms reduction and test bans were signed. It was the talks leading to those treaties, and Soviet economic needs, that brought down the Soviet Union - not any military build-up bullshit the Reaganites claim. Conservatives are and always have been wrong on every damn thing. I know who the candidate is who has always gotten it right and it ain't Wes Clark. Glad he's finally got his head on straight, but I'll never trust somebody who could have been so completely stupid about Reagan.

[ICantBelieve]

47. Well, then...

You've shown your true colors. So stop pretending to be open minded. You never were. Neither I nor Wes ever gave credit to Reagan for winning the cold war. All I said was Wes believed in a strong military. But, it's clear that you were never listening. Go ahead and have a "never voted for a Republican" litmus test. You're going to be very lonely and powerless and you're going to walk away from a lot of very good leaders who could make this country a very nice place to live and make us proud to be Americans again.

It's truly a shame that given the opportunity to discuss these kinds of things with Wes, you've just shut down and started shouting "bullshit!" If one were to look up "liberal" in the dictionary, I don't think those are attributes one would find listed there. But, then, I guess that's why people on the left have chosen the word "progressive" over the word "liberal." The definition of liberal requires that one be open minded. The definition of progressive requires no such thing.

[sandnsea]

49. "I won't trust Clark completely until he denounces Reagan"

I was very clear about my colors, I never pretended I was considering supporting Clark in the primaries. I did say I think he'd be a better choice than Edwards because he does have foreign policy and military experience and has been more right than Edwards in recent years.

I also never said a candidate had to have a 'never voted for a Republican' litmus test. You put a bunch of stuff on Clark that you thought were persuasive arguments. They aren't for me, not now, not then. I don't need to be open minded about Reagan's proxy wars and how they led us directly to the messes we have today, anymore than I need to be open minded about war with Iraq or Iran. Open minded to stupid ideas is not a liberal litmus test. And calling bullshit on bullshit isn't shouting anybody down either.

[ICantBelieve]

51. Yeah.. I keep editting this...

Cause I keep changing my mind about what I think about it... Might be different in person.

If you're thoughts against Wes are really that deeply thought out, that's ok. You don't have to like him. I don't think "denoucing Reagan" is what you're looking for though; that's a much more superficial requirement than what I think you're feeling. I wish you'd develop those thoughts more throughly and post them somewhere where Wes will see them. He might just present his thoughts in a way that would show you where he's coming from and you might not disagree with him as much as it seems.

[sandnsea]

59. Seriously, it's Reagan

It was Reagan in 2003 and it's Reagan now. It's the key reason I don't like Webb all that much either. I don't trust people who believe Reagan was right about economics or foreign policy, he wasn't. Not to mention Vietnam, which I don't think Clark has thoroughly denounced either. I don't trust these born-again Democrats, I just don't. Especially not when I can have the real thing. Which isn't to say I wouldn't prefer Clark as President over any Republican - way way over any Republican. I'm just not going to advocate for him to be the Dem candidate, that's all.

[BootinUp]

77. "the real thing"

The real thing is someone who can win and who shares the values of our party. Most Americans don't trust someone who is so locked into a party or an ideology that they can't honestly say there are at least some issues the other side has had right at least once, and some issues your own side has had wrong.

[sandnsea]

81. It's possible for both "sides" to be wrong

And new solutions to be right. I haven't found conservatives to be "right" on anything. Any time they have gotten something right, they've been brought to it kicking and screaming by Democrats. Which isn't to say Democrats are always right the first time; times change, needs change; but when new solutions are needed, it's always the Democrats that come up with the right ones. It is possible conservatives are just flat wrong, every time, all the time. Isn't Wes Clark the one who said he became a Democrat because he didn't agree with much of anything Republicans had to say and consequently would have been pretty lonely with them? Too bad it took him so long to figure it out, that's all.

[BootinUp]

83. "I haven't found conservatives to be right on anything"

Well thats an interesting statement. I am sure if I wanted to I could demonstrate that you aren't telling the truth. Regardless most voters would disagree with you. And its not the type of statement any successful politican would make. Both parties have gone too far in the past, abused their power in the name of special interests etc. And thats why we have a two party system. Back in 1980 the Democrats had all the power and the country was saying we were on the wrong track. Guess what, they wanted to try something a little different. No shock there.

[sandnsea]

86. After 12 years of Republicans

Carter had an economic and international mess to clean up. He didn't get it done fast enough, too bad for him, worse for the impatient country. Reagan played the dirty right wing tactics with US hostages. And yet Reagan still gets praised. Disgraceful. They aren't right on anything. Even when you do try to work with them on something, like NCLB or even NAFTA, they implement it so horribly as to completely destroy the intentions of the policy. They are just never right on anything.

[BootinUp]

88. The Dems had congress going back a generation

The economic problems were not all Nixons and Fords doing. And the economic policies in place were not working.

[sandnsea]

92. Point being

The economic problems didn't begin under Carter and Carter's economic policies actually were working. He created jobs and was paying down the debt. He had appointed Volcker who would have managed inflation and interest exactly the way he did anyway. It's possible without Reagan's tax cuts, enough money would have been in the budget to prevent 14% interest, tightening business loans, and job loss resulting in 10% unemployment. That was all under Reagan, not Carter.

Earlier you said Congress gives Presidents what they want which is why Reagan got his military and should be credited with it, but now it's Congress' fault if they gave Nixon and Ford what they wanted in economic policy. :crazy:

[BootinUp]

94. Its possible

Well hell a lot of things are possible. But what happened was after 3 years Carter didn't convince anyone he could fix it. Landslide.

As to who gets credit for what, and when economics policies are right or wrong. I believe that Democrats were too resistant to change in that time period and they got punished for it. I was only just beginning to pay attention to it so if my interpretation is different than yours so be it. The fact is Carter didn't just get beat he was massacred.

[sandnsea]

104. But we do know now

We know about the arms for hostages deal, we know the twin pillars strategy, we know what happened after we dumped weapons into Afghanistan, all over Central America and Africa. We know there was a stock market crash in 1987. We know about income disparity. We know what they will stoop to in elections. We know the bold-faced lies they will tell.

And people, especially Democrats, still want to pretend there was something inspiring about Reagan. He was just like Arnold or Jesse Ventura - a marketing image, a gimmick. The same sick bastards who screwed things up under Nixon are the same sick bastards who screwed things up under Reagan and they're the same sick bastards who are screwing things up today.

It's time we stopped listening to right wing fairy tales, and more importantly, stop telling them. This country, and the world, would be exceedingly better of had Carter been President.

[BootinUp]

107. pssst

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was on Carters term in fact his head of NSC brags that he lured them into it, as was the Iranian Embassy fiasco. Pretend? I am not pretending anything. I gave you a few facts about 1980 and the years preceding and you want to talk about 1987? Wtf? I thought we were talking about why Reagan creamed Carter in 1980?

[sandnsea]

112. No

We were talking about why Reagan was a crappy President, despite beating Carter. And why Republicans are always wrong, despite Carter losing.

And I was talking about creating Bin Laden with the Afghan proxy war, and Reagan using our hostages as a political tool. Varying things happen that no President can completely control, but it doesn't help when your political opponent interferes with the resolution of those things for their personal gain.

[BootinUp]

114. Well I never intended

to defend Reagans performance or policies once in office. I believe his election can be blamed, in part, on the Democrats performance prior to his election they did have something to do with the state of affairs and Carter

The October Surprise theory, Reagan delaying the hostage release, I think its extrememly weak.

What is far more likely is that the Death of the Shah, the Iraq invasion, the ongoing negotiations where Carter was making concessions and possibly the Iranians fear of Reagans new foreign policies, pressured them into making a deal to release the hostages. The timing makes sense in light of all those events. It would take a myopic conspiracy theorist to only focus on the US election when Iran was under attack from another foreign nation!

If you are interested here is some additional info debunking the aforementioned theory.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h911104-october2.htm

[sandnsea]

120. Released 2 hours after the swearing in

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/coupreaganbush.htm

Lee Hamilton headed up the House investigation.

I mean - come on!!

This is why I don't want a Reaganite in the White House. I'm tired of all this stuff swept under the rug. History is going to write that Bush just made a little mistake on WMD if we don't expose these Republicans for what they are and it's not just this bunch in the White House. It's all of them that march in lockstep behind them and always have.

[BootinUp]

122. I don't want a Reaganite either.

who you talkin about? and don't say Clark cause that would be uncalled for.

You should read the Newsweek article attached to the Congressional record.

[sandnsea]

124. This entire thread

You do nothing but rationalize and excuse every thing Reagan ever did because of some misplaced notion that telling lies about conservatism is going to win back those Reagan Democrats. That's exactly what we're going to get with this southern democrat bullshit and I've had quite enough of it. You want to promote Clark, maybe you better find another way to do it because I think lifelong Democrats have had quite enough of this compromising lurch to the right.

[BootinUp]

125. I did no such thing

please don't put words in my mouth.

[ICantBelieve]

129. OK, everyone...

This person is clearly not worth talking to. Give it up. All she wants to do is hate Reagan and anyone who ever had anything to do with him--including voting for him or even explain why someone would vote for him. She's willing to cut off her nose to spite her face; she doesn't want those voters back; she'd rather lose righteously in her hatred than accept people are human, value different things, and work together to accomplish the common good. She's not willing to discuss the issues or pursue some kind of understanding. She's turned down every opportunity to do so. She constantly twists the words of anyone who tries to suggest she do that. Give it up and move on.

[sandnsea]

143. Most Democrats hate Reagan

I lived under the man, not only as President, but also as Governor of California where he launched his war against the poor. Like Bush, anybody should have been able to see what he'd do as President when he cut mental health funding, welfare funding and implemented a tuition in California's higher education system which has done more to hurt the poor than any other single act in the state's history. I don't need anybody to "explain" Ronald Reagan to me, I lived through it. I sure as hell am not going to participate in the same right wing bullshit that's been destroying this country for 25 years and more. Unless you want to keep going through Bush-like Presidencies, I'd suggest you start telling the truth about conservative politics as well. Conservatism does not work. The only way to get those voters back - PERMANENTLY - is to quit pretending some other conservative might implement conservatism more "compassionately". It's pure and simple bullshit.

[BootinUp]

144. You would think

Clark or other current Democrats from around the country that voted for Reagan had campaigned for Reagan the way you go on. Reagan was an ultraconservative, not everyone knew that as well as Californians that followed politics.

Reagan captured 26 to 27% of the Democrat or self described liberal voters in 1980 according to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1980

People were voting for a change because they were concerned with the direction things were going. Carter only got 41% of the popular vote. The rest went to Reagan and Anderson a liberal Republican.

[sandnsea]

147. We know now

There are people who believe we've got a great economy going now. When somebody tells you about the great Bush economy in 12 years, are you going to let them get away with it? When somebody tells you about Bush saving the ME from Saddam, are you going to let them get away with it? When they say Bush was the first President to get a majority vote since Reagan, are you going to let them get away with the presumption that lying his way into the Presidency was a good thing?

When people tell me crap about Reagan and the 80's, I tell them the truth. The Democratic Party is in this mess because we've let this garbage sit unchallenged for 25 years. The same thing is true of Clinton's economy and foreign policy. If it isn't strenuously challenged, people will be treating him just like Carter in 30 years. It's the way Republicans operate.

People were duped by Reagan and his lies just like they were duped by Bush and his lies. It's what happened, it's time for Reagan Democrats to accept it so that it doesn't happen again.

[BootinUp]

149. I haven't said one thing

to defend his economic policies, neither has Clark, I agree with you that he was way to heavy handed on spending cuts for programs that helped the lower class. I agree that he did damage and we should remember that.

Now, there should ALSO be a realization from the liberal Dems on how we got to the point our party was at as well where so many people voted for the SOB. ARE YOU READING ANY OF THIS?

[sandnsea]

152. IRAN

I know why, others have posted why, you insist there was no conspiracy to hold the hostages to keep Carter's numbers low. You insist 12 years of Republican Presidential economic policy had nothing to do with the late 70's. No matter what's going on, blame the Democrats. You're living through it right now and you still can't see it's the same thing that happened then. I don't know why Americans are so susceptible to being bullshitted by Republicans. Greed is my guess.

[BootinUp]

153. I think we are going into replay mode.

and my response must be higher up the thread.

[sandnsea]

155. Yeah, you don't believe it

Which is why I question the benefit in a Clark campaign if its simply going to validate the views of people who still have their heads in the sand about Reagan and the core corruption of the Republican Party.

[BootinUp]

157. Clark will run a very liberal campaign

He'll be pushing policies that are every bit as liberal as John Kerry. Like his proposal to eliminate Federal income tax on families of 4 that make less than 50,000. It will be the kind of campaign that only brings more credibility to the Democratic party. You should stop looking a gift horse in the mouth.

[sandnsea]

162. So he should say Reagan was wrong

What's so hard about that? Carter sure didn't support policies like that. If those kinds of liberal policies drove people to Reagan, why would you want Clark to bring them back?

Denounce Reagan, then I'll trust him.

[BootinUp]

164. I would like you

to watch this video of Bill Clintons current speech he is giving around the country and it was on MSNBC today. It might be good for us to stop for awhile. Besides this is a good speech and is worth watching.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/18/bill-clinton-the-common-good/

cya later.

[sandnsea]

172. He's running for Hillary?

Yeah, I know. He's all about the rising tide when the wind's in that direction. But the second the boat gets tossed around a little, he's looking for a life ring and will grab on to whatever one looks most politically expedient. He's a great talker and I will give him that, but that's about all he's good for.

[Jai4WKC08]

179. Yup

That's pretty much the way I see it.

[BootinUp]

130. An analysis of the events leading up to 1980

Does not equal rationalizing and excusing everything Reagan ever did. THat is just nonsense.


Winning back Reagan Democrats means convincing them that we are the party of fiscal responsibility and a Strong/intelligent National Defense and putting forth a candidate that is perceived as sharing the values of a broad crossection of the country.

[1932]

133. Carter was ahead in '80 polling for most of the year, IIRC

and it was the failure to get hostages out of Iran that pulled him down and not the economy. The Republicans didn't steal the "good on the economy" thing from Dems until Reagan when, because he listened to Milton Friedman and used the money supply to fight inflation, he pulled the economy down so far that it had nowhere to go but up once Greenspan became Fed chair and stopped using money supply. Nixon was perceived as being even worse on the economy than Johnson or Carter. At least Carter's problems were perceived as being caused by OPEC. Nixon proposed price controls when he was president (which was the only time that was proposed as a solution to inflation since WW2).

Seeing the hostages freed on the day Reagan was inaugurated should remind people of the way Kissinger promissed N. Vietnam a better deal if they didn't sine a peace treaty with Johnson but waited for Nixon (but then didn't sign any treaty for years, and, when they finally did, it was the same treaty that Johnson had offered).

The Democrats' problems in '68 and '80 didn't have as much to do with resistance to change (whatever that means). They had to do with Republicans doing what was best for their party rather than what was best for America. By the way, what did Clark think of Vietnam and Iran? Doesn't he say that Vietnam was winnable?

[BootinUp]

134. Your analysis of the polls meaning is somewhat

flawed imo. Reagans rise in polls coincides with people learning more about him. Carter was the President, of course he would be leading in polls against a new person on the national stage. In addition Carter's main attack was that Reagan was pushing radical policies to keep him from gaining an advantage.

But to claim the economy was not a factor is to ignore reality. That was the number one Reagan campaign issue. Foreign policy national security being second. The hostage crisis was not something Reagan campaigned on, it was the elephant in the room and lowered peoples confidence in Carter.

The Iran Hostage crisis was a major factor it had been going on for a year. As I already said I don't believe in that conspiracy theory, the claims made by certain individuals about secret meetings and deals have been discredited by long term investigations, there is a link above that you can use to find that information.

Resistance to change. Like when the Democrats were blindsided in the 70's and 80's by the tax and spend charge which still tends to hurt us today. Now you see Democrats are much more in tune to peoples concerns about taxes after being clubbed over the head with it.

[1932]

135. Nope. Reagan was very well-known before '80. He'd run for his party's

nomination something like three times by then, had been governor of CA, and had been a Hollywood actor. People weren't learning about him in '80 the way Americans were learning about any of the Democratic nominees in '04, or the way they learned about Clinton in '92.

Carter's polling was high DESPITE the worst economic news of his administration already being part of the consideration. It was Iran and the hostages that took him down the most in my opinion, since that was the only thing that was wearing on at that point, and that was one of the biggest ways Reagain was portraying Carter as weak. Had Carter gotten them out before election day, he would have taken away Reagan's biggest card.

I think you saying that there's no way Republicans had a hand in that is like people saying that there's no way Kissinger convinced the N.Vietnemese not to sign a peace treaty. Guess what? The facts are now pretty solid on that one. Maybe we need another twelve years before we know the final word on what appears to be obvious with Iran '80.

[BootinUp]

138. Well known B movie actor from the 40 thru early 60's.

Other than that on the political stage he was very similar to any other former Governor that was trying for a national nomination. Losing a nomination does not make you a widely known politician to the masses in the same way as a general election or as politicians in the federal government. But its silly to debate this much further.

[Jai4WKC08]

180. He had also been on TV heh

And we didn't have as much TV to watch back then, so most everybody knew him.

Thing is, everybody thought he was a Democrat. He had been. BIG-time backer of FDR. No one, or at least no one from outside of CA, thought he would turn out to be such a far-right-wing Repub. Hell, even to this day, I'm not so sure he was right-wing, as that he was old and tired and let loose the dogs of the religious right and some of the other extremists who were kept under control by previous administrations.

Check that. I will grant that he was very right-wing when it came to the Soviet Union, but he had sort of gotten his start in politics when, as president of the Screen Actors Guild, he tried to drive all the communists out of Hollywood. Strange tho... as far to the right in foreign policy as Reagan seemed at the time, he was willing to talk to the "evil empire" and never invaded another country with US troops. I'd rather have Reagan Republicans compared to the current crop. But then, I'd rather have Nixon's than either of 'em.

[IA_Seth]

142. Well, then you don't trust me...

And you don't trust a wide swath of the Democratic base if you can't trust someone who voted for a Republican at some point in their life. It's a shame too, because it makes the rest of us, you know - the progressive ones, look silly.

I would be willing to bet that those 'pure' Democrats that you need to satisfy you make up...oh lets see...less than 20% or so of the US Population, but hey maybe I'm wrong.

[sandnsea]

145. The word "vote" isn't even in that post

So stop putting words in my mouth.

[IA_Seth]

146. "I don't trust these born-again Democrats, I just don't. "

"I don't trust these born-again Democrats, I just don't."

You DID say that though, and to me that is what it is saying? I mean, if I am a born-again Democrat I must have been a R at one time, right? Following that I would imagine I would have voted for one, right?

Sheesh. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, so if that isn't what you meant, feel free to clarify.

[sandnsea]

148. Clark, Webb

People who were in Reagan's adminisration and are currently running for office as 'seen the light' Democrats. I was quite clear.

[BootinUp]

150. Correction!

Clark was not in Reagans administration. He was not a political appointee. Thats like saying all people who served in Vietnam from 68 to 72 were in Nixons administration.

[sandnsea]

154. He supported Reagan policies

He carried them out militarily. He has not denounced them. That's what I said. I reject the idea that Democrats should let this slide in order to win back Reagan Democrats because we end up with people like Jim Webb, who is going to be another Joe Lieberman if he wins. Good to have the D, but is going to be a royal pain in the ass if he wins. Reagan was wrong, conservatism is wrong, and the only way to make permanent change is to start challenging it. Clark does more than Webb, as it relates to policies today. I'd like to see him do it as it relates to the 80's too. A lot of Democrats would.

[BootinUp]

156. "He carried them out militarily..."

Uh, he took an oath and did his duty.

Your wrong here period. Hell your whole premise is wrong. A vote for a repuke 26 years ago invalidates him as a candidate in your eyes. I can't wait for the primaries to see how many disagree with you.

[sandnsea]

159. The issue is Reaganism

and denouncing it, which you keep avoiding or twisting into any given citizen's vote. I'll save my views of the primary when the primary gets here, he hasn't even announced his candidacy and I suspect he'll jump behind Hillary anyway.

[BootinUp]

161. You don't have to call out a former president

to denounce his policies. There's a point where going back and blaming Presidents past does not help. Books will be written, historians will study, and the Democratic party will go on trying to win some elections. The question is which one of us refuses to learn from the past? Clark has learned. I am not sure you have.

[sandnsea]

163. My god, THEY ARE

They're STILL trying to destroy FDR for chrissake. They're trying to claim Jefferson as a Republican. An elephant never forgets and they never forget that they have to bury everything that ever came from the people or distort it into godless communism or socialism. I don't think you realize the real political dynamics at play in this country. It is a constant fight for rule by and for the people - or rule by and for the historically monied-royal interests.

[BootinUp]

165. Clark is on Fox News

regulary spreading the truth, in the lions den. I don't tell him what to say, I watch and learn, its my opinion he is going to do some teaching over the next couple of years.

[FrenchieCat]

168. This is soooo sad.....

That you would attempt to boost John Kerry (this is a Clark/Edwards thread) by denying Clark as being a Democrat by utilitizing his honest admission of voting for Reagan to attack him for posts after posts on this thread. Jimmy Carter encouraged Wes Clark's run.....and he was the one that lost to Reagan.....so obviously he had no problem with Wes Clark's vote nor has he ever questioned Clark's Democratic credentials.

You can concentrate on this if you want, use Wes Clark's vote from years ago as your foil, but it doesn't make John Kerry look the stronger for it......but makes you look desperate.

Hell, Edwards parents were Republicans, and Edwards can't seem to recall whether he voted for Nixon or not....but hell, instead....let's give Clark unforgiveness because at the time of his vote was an independent army lifer who voted for Ronald Reagan like the majority of Americans did . Wes Clark doesn't "need" to renounce his vote for Reagan....just like, I doubt that John Kerry would have the courage to renounce Ronald Reagan today.....cause it wouldn't serve him politically. So whatever either did in reference to Reagan in the past, I'm sure that neither's priority is "denouncing" a dead President who was voted into office twice by significant margins! :eyes:

Quote
"President Reagan's greatest monument isn't any building or any structure that bears his name, but it is the absence of the Berlin Wall."
Sen. John Kerry, on Mr. Reagan's role in ending communism

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry lauded Ronald Reagan's legacy of bipartisanship Sunday and canceled five days of campaign events in honor of the former president's death.

"We lost one of our great optimists," Kerry told graduating seniors at Bedford High School. "President Reagan's belief in America was infectious. And because of the way he led, he taught us that there was a difference between strong beliefs and bitter partisanship."
snip
Kerry called Reagan "the voice of America in good times and in grief." He remembered Reagan's tribute to the men who fought at Normandy on D-Day - whose 60th anniversary was Sunday - his challenge to bring down the Berlin Wall and his poignant remembrance of the Challenger space shuttle astronauts.

"Free men and women everywhere will forever remember and honor President Reagan's role in ending the Cold War," Kerry said. "He really did believe that communism could be ended in his lifetime, and he helped to make it happen.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/06/politics/main621345.shtml

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass: “Even when he was breaking Democrats hearts, he did so with a smile and in the spirit of honest and open debate,” Kerry said. “The differences were real, but because of the way President Reagan led, he taught us that there is a big difference between strong beliefs and bitter partisanship,” Kerry said. “Today in the face of new challenges his example reminds us that we must move forward with optimism and resolve. He was our oldest president, but he made America young again.”
http://pcfootball.net/Ronald%20Reagan.htm

Wes Clark did as much as he could for John Kerry during the General Election 2004....so what you are doing is a sad commentary. If you think that John Kerry will be recognized for the great man he is, and he will rise to the top during the 2008 primaries, win the nomination and become President, so be it. If you think the time you have spent debating Clark's alleged (by you) reaganism, you are sadly mistaken.

Also, McGovern endorsed Wes Clark in 2004, not John Kerry during the primaries. He's never support Reaganism, and he seem to understand that Wes Clark was pretty much apolitical during most of his time in the Army, and that his vote for Reagan was not based on Reagan's domestic policies as much as the fact that Reagan continued to provide the money that the military required.

You and your "Clark must Denounce Reaganism or else" need to get a room. I'm sure that John Kerry ain't gonna be stepping through that door anytime soon, though! :crazy:

[IA_Seth]

158. No, you weren't....

And that is why I misunderstood. Excuse me for asking for a clarification, but I think you have me confused with "the enemy" somehow. I am not attacking you, I was just trying to point out a flaw in your thinking.

If you have your mind made up that Clark, as a general, was wrong to carry out the orders he was given...then I don't think there is a lot to talk about.

[sandnsea]

160. Post #49, I was clear

Clark's not in the military anymore, he's free to say anything he wants about the 80's proxy wars. He was also free to resign then and didn't do it, although I've never said he should have, those are words you're trying to put in my mouth too.

[Jai4WKC08]

60. No, it wasn't bullshit, but it's also not relevant

You're absolutely right that it was economics that brought down the Soviet Union. Part of that was the money they had to spend to keep up militarily, but even then, it was bound to happen and had nothing to do with Reagan's "tough talk." Wes Clark believes that too, and has said as much on a number of occassions. In fact, he regularly cites predictions made in the '50s that the Soviet Union couldn't last, and claims to have used them when he taught at West Point.

But that said, the military was in a BAD way after Vietnam. I was there and I remember. Hell, the only reason we women made so many in-roads was because it had gotten so bad the men didn't want to be there anymore. The pay was awful, the equipment was falling apart (much of the new stuff we got under Reagan was developed during the Carter years, but most people didn't know that), and professional soldiers had a real bad feeling about who and what we were, and how the American people viewed us. Reagan did a lot to change all that, even tho it was a Democratic Congress that was actually giving us the money. But as always, the President gets the credit, especially in the military where he is the commander-in-chief and the "face" of the civilian government.

There's a reason that so many military members are Republicans today. It started with Vietnam and the years immediately after, and the changes that were made in the 1980s. Some of us woke up to reality earlier than others. According to Clark, he began to see the light after the Berlin Wall fell, in 1991, and when he saw what the Bush41 Dept of Defense (early neocons) had in mind for the next 30 years. But it also probably had a lot to do with being raised as a Democrat, whose dad had run for office as a Democrat, and who had been inspired to go to West Point in the first place because of his admiration for JFK.

Clark's Democratic roots run a lot deeper than you give him credit for. It was really only a relatively short period of time that he voted for Republicans.

[sandnsea]

65. What a hysterical post

You got equipment - developed under Carter - and still credit it to Reagan. Congress gave you the money for military improvements - and you still credit it to Reagan. NO, Presidents do not get the credit when people know they don't deserve it. Only in upsidedown right wing talking point world does that happen - with the help of people like you, which is the ONLY reason military members are Republicans. The Generals like to get the toys and to hell with the troops, and their bullshit views trickle down.

The only thing all those toys did was to create Reagan's phony economic recovery, based on deficit spending to feed the military. Just like we've got today.

The Soviet economic downfall did not have anything to do with that spending either, it had to do with closed economies, just like our own Depression and every other closed economy in history. See N Korea who would have no economy even if it weren't spending money on its military. Economies just don't work that way.

Reagan sucked, all the way around. I knew that then, he should have too.

[Jai4WKC08]

67. You're not reading what I wrote

I'm trying to explain to you why the average soldier, sailor etc in the '80s loved Reagan. I'm not condoning it, I'm just trying to explain why it happened.

But if you don't want to believe me, fine. Go off and think about how right you are, and never understand why other people might rationally think differently. And don't do a damn thing to help us win back the military, now when we stand a good chance of doing so.

Oh, and btw... military hardware might be "toys" to you, but to those of us who go into battle, they save our lives. And they save the lives of troops, which is why the generals like them.

[sandnsea]

71. I know why

My husband was in the military in the 70's, my son was born on a military base, I am well aware of the attitude of the military and military people.

Duke Cunningham. About sums it up. The Generals know where their "toys" come from. Not what the troops actually need, which we've seen in Iraq - but the toys, wanting 75 B2's instead of the 20 we've got which are more than sufficient to blow up swaths of land but not too great for actually winning wars.

The last thing we need is to run someone who has to justify Reagan because he supported him, and also advocate for a different world security view. We do not need to spend $4-500 billion on our military every year. We don't need to be dumping weapons into third world countries and then stand back and tsk tsk that "those people" are always at war. I don't see how Wes Clark can truly address this wrong-headed policy when he was in the midst of it for so many years.

[Jai4WKC08]

72. Oh bullshit

Most senior military people have NOTHING to do with the likes of Duke Cunningham. That is a totally unfair characterization. I really really resent that. You don't honestly think John Kerry looks at the military that way, do you? I know better.

Look, I will fully admit that the wrong weapons systems often get bought. But I would submit that more often than not, it is the Congress that causes it, not anyone in the military. It's called pork. I can remember Gingrich's House appropriating for more and different aircraft than what the military was asking for. And sure, sometimes you find military people who want to retire to a job with a defense contractor playing along, that is by far the exception. And NOT Clark. He took a completely different path, when he could have made big bucks in the MIC.

But you're wrong if you think big-ticket items don't potentially save soldiers lives in combat. Not every war for which we must be prepared is against third-world insurgents throwing home-made bombs. We're lucky we have no industrialized adversary now, but it hasn't always been thus, nor will it ever be. Back in the '80s, we all thought we'd be pitted against the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact for a very long time. And you know what? Russia ain't exactly our friend today.

In any case, I don't believe you can say Clark "was in the midst" of anything you claim he was, just because he was a general. You're showing how little you know about how the system works at the upper levels.

Clark was never in the procurement or development side of the military -- he was always an operational commander. And I challenge you to find ONE historical document where he testified or wrote any sort of written request for a new system or the purchase of more than what he had already been authorized as a commander. About the closest you'll find is when he wanted the Apaches for Kosovo, but they already existed in theater; he just wanted permission to use 'em (a good example, btw, of a big-ticket system that could have saved lives). Clark may have helped coordinate the delivery of and training on military hardware to allied countries when he was a regional commander, but as with new weapons for US forces, it's Congress who decides and the military follows orders.

Clark has never tried to "justify" Reagan and I doubt he ever will. But it would be just plain stupid for him to condemn Reagan publicly. The EXACT voters we want to win back to our party, the ones we need if we want to win elections, are the Democrats who left the party to vote for Reagan. Why the hell would you want to piss them off. Just to make YOU feel better?

[BootinUp]

75. Its amazing how we forget

the Reagan Democrats. The very voters who we need today.

[sandnsea]

79. I want a new country

Reagan Democrats were duped. I don't want to get them back by perpetuating a falsehood. What good does that do the country or the world?

There isn't just one thing about Reagan that was wrong. He was wrong on everything, as I already said. You brought up the military readiness fallacy and I responded, never indicated that that was the only issue I have with the Reagan years. You bet I do believe there is a whole lot more Duke Cunningham bullshit going on than we'll ever know, and you bet the Generals are right smack in the middle of it. You don't get that far up in any bureaucracy without political skills and part of that is spreading pork or getting pork, just like in Congress.

I don't see how Clark can run without getting into all of this, differentiating between failed conservative policies that he's been in the middle of and a completely new direction that many of us were fighting for even in the 80's. I never believed we were going to be pitted against the Soviet Union forever. It was too obvious change would come through cultural and economic exchanges in the end. I would hope Clark realized it too, there was no need for any of Reagan's bluster or military debt, the Soviet Union was ready to fall.

I'm tired of the world constantly being at war and I haven't head anything from Clark that indicates to me that he's ready to completely change course and stop using the military as corporate cops.

[BootinUp]

80. "using the military as corporate cops."

I don't know what that means. I don't think Clark would be quick to use the military, I believe he would live up to his statement about only in a last resort. He has seen war up close and personal, and like Kerry knows its not a decision to be taken lightly.

"...Generals right smack in the middle of it."

can you explain what you mean by this?

"I don't see how Clark can run without getting into all of this..."

Reagan's foreign policy is still regarded highly by the majority of your countrymen and women. If you mean in the primaries, sure the left can beat Clark up a little, he's a General, he voted for Reagan 26 yrs ago all that. Now lets talk about what he has done since then. I think he is ready to have that discussion.

[sandnsea]

82. Don't know what that means?

And that about sums it up. I know what it means. John Kerry knows what it means. This is just one example.

"In recent years U.S. forces had to help protect the pipeline in Colombia. Our military had to train indigenous forces to protect the pipeline in Georgia. We plan to spend $100 million on a special network of police officers and special forces units to guard oil facilities around the Caspian Sea, and continue to search for bases in Africa so we can protect oil facilities there. Our navy patrolled tanker routes in the Indian Ocean, South China Sea, and the western Pacific."

I don't care what Americans believe to be true about Reagan's foreign policy, they're wrong. I want to start correcting the mess those years created, from Iraq to Central America to Northern Africa. We keep putting bullies in the White House, we're just going to keep creating more enemies. We want to change the dynamics in the world, we have to have somebody who sees the world in a completely different way. I just don't think that person is Wes Clark.

[BootinUp]

84. snark aside

you said:

"In recent years U.S. forces had to help protect the pipeline in Colombia. Our military had to train indigenous forces to protect the pipeline in Georgia. We plan to spend $100 million on a special network of police officers and special forces units to guard oil facilities around the Caspian Sea, and continue to search for bases in Africa so we can protect oil facilities there. Our navy patrolled tanker routes in the Indian Ocean, South China Sea, and the western Pacific."


Has Clark made a statement on these issues I don't know. There are going to be some issues he has not been asked to addressed, but I think he would work with Congress to address the energy dependance on foreign oil problem and reduce unnecessary uses of the military where possible. I am unaware of any conflicts or disagreements he has had with other Democrats on these issues.

[sandnsea]

87. I don't have to wait for Kerry

that's the difference. Consistent policies for 30 years, I know where he stands, I don't have to guess. He'll defend the country miliarily if necessary. He'll make sure we succeed in any mission we undertake, he knows what being the last man to die means. He's learned the lessons of Vietnam, both militarily and diplomatically. Normalization didn't happen by accident. Other people don't have that world view, fine. I do and I'm still willing to fight for it.

[BootinUp]

89. This party

Will not go with another Northern Strategy candidate.

[sandnsea]

93. This country

can't afford to be hijacked by a southern strategy that clearly leads to a low standard of living, low education results, high crime, pollution, etc etc.

[BootinUp]

102. I didn't say to run Zell Miller, lol.

Or are you refering to Bill Clinton with that slam?

[sandnsea]

105. Maybe Mary Landrieu??

:eyes:

If I wanted to live in Alabama, I'd go there. If we want the country to turn into Alabama, why not just elect Republicans across the board? We'd get there a lot faster.

[BootinUp]

108. No but there is a good choice. n/t

[sandnsea]

113. To turn us into Alabama? n/t

[BootinUp]

115. I don't think thats a realistic argument you seem

to be making.

Wesley Clark does not want to change the whole country to be like Alabama.

[Clark2008]

68. How in the hell did you get this out of Jai's post?

She never said that SHE gave Reagan credit. She said it is what people believe (and they do). She never said that SHE gave Reagan credit for jack diddly.

And, I'm sorry if you think a good defense boils down to nothing but "toys." That's a bit immature on your part. Do we need everything the military has - probably not, but we do need enough to protect the innocent soldiers who are sent into battle by civilian - mostly Republican - governmental officials who like to pad their contributors' pockets with military contracts.

Reagan did suck - but a lot of of people didn't realize that until after the fact.

[BootinUp]

74. When a candidate has core campaign issues

like investing heavily in the defense/military, and wins Big, congress normally passes the agenda figuring the people have spoken. Thats the way it works.

[BootinUp]

73. You're looking at it quite different

than an officer in the army who was trying to build up a volunteer army in 1980 and saw Reagan as the best chance to get the most funding in that pursuit it was one of his main campaign issues.

But beyond that, its a shame that you choose to ignore someones whole record and focus on one decision from 26 years ago.

[ICantBelieve]

11. Why We Are Dems...

http://www.runwesrun.org/wes_whywearedems.wmv

Wes is a liberal.

[jobycom]

16. Zell Miller made a great speech like that once.

Clark's much better than Zell Miller, but he has not been a clear liberal, and his most liberal views have developed sicne he began running for president. He made several speeches praising Bush and even thanking God that Bush was our president. Sorry, he's got a lot of good qualities, but some people have been fooled.

[ICantBelieve]

19. OK

Clearly you have no f'ing clue what you're talking about and all you're here to do is disparage Clark.

Clark is a liberal. He's running his ass off all around this country getting dems elected. He had just about the most progressive platform of the Dem candidates in 04. The people who talk about Wes here--they've met him, they've looked him in the eye, they've seen how he feels about the current state of things.

Zell Miller... you've shown where you're coming from. All you want to do is hurt Clark. Go right ahead and do that. But don't claim to not have an agenda.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

25. Clark never said anything of the kind.....

n/t

[CarolNYC]

27. Can you be a little more specific?

Please list the occasions of the "several" speeches and links to their transcripts.

Thanks much!

[kaycesf]

36. Huh? You compare Wes to Zell Miller? Pot calling kettle....

Wasn't it Edwards who hired Andrews, the campaign consultant who was "friends" with Zell Miller and even had Miller as a client?

"Andrews is one of the most accomplished and committed campaign strategists in politics today," Palmieri said. "Edwards and the whole campaign are thrilled to have him as part of our team."

[Jai4WKC08]

64. Clark made only ONE speech

That praised Bush. He was a guest at his hometown (Pulaski County Arkansas) Repub party meeting. He had just moved back to town after retiring from the military and living in DC for a while. He also spoke to the local Democratic party a week or so later. He was trying to meet people and make contacts, as any "celebrity," especially one of Clark's stature, would do. He wasn't in politics at the time, but he wanted to meet and greet the local movers and shakers on both sides of the political fence.

And the funny thing is, Clark didn't really praise Bush that much. Oh, he said a few of the obligatory polite things they all say, which is what seems to get posted over and over on DU. I've heard just as much praise of Bush from Dean, Gore, Kerry... all of 'em back then. But if you read Clark's entire speech, he was advocating a policy of engagement and interdependence with allies that is about 180 degrees out from what the Bushies implemented. And Clark was quite pointed in advocating against their go-it-alone, opt-out anti-NATO, anti-UN world-view.

[BootinUp]

56. Care to back up your interpretation

with some actual quotes? Maybe you just need to read them yourself a few times, I don't know three or twenty until you figure them out.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

14. Clark has been getting alot of experience campaigning for other Dems

He's going around the country like a little spitfire. He's also rasing money for them.

[On the Road]

17. Edwards Position on Iraq Turns Me Off

Otherwise, I believe he's a good candidate.

My concern about Clark is not about substance -- he would make a wonderful president. It's about whether he is a good enough campaigner. I don't think he exudes the presidential aura that Clinton or Reagan had. It's possible to win without it (witness Bush!), but it's an uphill battle.

[WA98296]

21. Wes Clark UNLESS his ticket includes Hillary Clinton

[Mass]

30. Clark without hesitation.

[kaycesf]

33. Vote for Edwards on blind faith?

Who is John Edwards?

Edwards just has trial lawyers, their secretaries rooting for him, again. Ok. Add a few flaming females who think his looks will save the day. I don't get it. It's not enough.

Edwards' pro-Iraq war position leaves him no solid base of support within the Democratic Party. What a red flag! Wesley Clark's entrance into the race will emphasize - repeatedly - that Edwards endorsed patently misleading neocon arguments for invading Iraq. Wes Clark's run will also remind folks that Edwards is very shallow on issues of foreign policy and national security. Sorry friends, but Edwards may fly to the Middle East to try to cram for national security debates, but I prefer to support someone who has LIVED national security and foreign policy issues all his life. Give me Wes Clark any day.

Edwards has never really demonstrated a solid base of support among Democratic voters and may I say that those who did support him where I live were sorely disappointed in him during '04 and have decided he's weak on everything but trying to swoon voters into the voting booth. I don't think many are swooning for Edwards... he only has name recognition and a lot of, what was the word he used often in '04? Oh! "Hope!"

Edwards was a stranger to Democratic gatherings prior to '04, a casual voter and a millionaire who didn't give a dime to Democratic Senate candidates and the noteworthy info that he missed voting in 6 of the previous 13 elections, including the one in 1994 that handed the U.S. House to Republicans, well, that's an eye-opener. How do you vote for someone who was apathetic about voting himself? How dedicated is this man to America? Or is this just a big opportunity for him if he runs? I don't have to ask these questions of Wesley Clark. He's dedicated his whole life to America, and almost gave his life in the process in Vietnam.

Edwards' roots in Democratic circles are way too shallow for my liking to support him in a Presidential run in 2008. As far as I can tell (unless I'm missing something here), in '04 he completely missed the boat on connecting with the Southern swing voters (many who were angry at textile industry job losses - which is really strange, given his father's history as a textile mill supervisor).

Let's not forget Edwards' 2000 vote in favor of most-favored-nation trade status for China was indistinguishable from the Bush administration's position.

I could name a few more items of interest concerning Edwards... But I can't name one negative about Wes Clark. I'll stick with Clark. He's accomplished, has integrity, extraordinarily smart on all the issues, and has a WORLD of experience. Let Edwards get some real experience under his belt before we decide to gamble our future in America away to someone who has not shown he has more but a JD and one term in the Senate.

Last word.... NO MORE SENATORS for candidates!

[Lex]

35. There are more than a few DU'ers who support Edwards

who have a different opinion about him than you do.

I don't have to trash any other candidate to explain why I support another.

[kaycesf]

38. Not trashing, just sorting out the facts Lex.

Sorry... do your homework.

[Lex]

39. Those were mostly your opinions and feelings.

Your very first sentence was just that, and was wrong, and went downhill from there:

"Edwards just has trial lawyers, their secretaries rooting for him . . . "

[Pithy Cherub]

40. Edwards fundraising was mainly trial lawyers in 2004.

Maybe that's where it originated. Good thing that everyone is allowed an opinion and the freedom to say it out loud - for now. :)

[kaycesf]

41. No one can express their feelings here? How democratic,

Democratic Underground!

I didn't know one person in my community that supported the man but for attorneys and their staffers.... oh, but then when the delegates were chosen to go to Boston, poor JE had one person sitting in his side of the auditorium, no delegates. And the ones that are my friends that supported him were sorely disappointed and said they should have listened to me and should have voted for WKC, instead. Yeah, that said, it is a personal statement. You'll have to take my word for it... or not.

JE is not a bad person, he's just not right for the job. :)

[Lex]

43. Umm. Sure they can. Just don't confuse your feelings with facts.

Then you'll get along fine here. Anecdotes are not facts, btw.

That is all.

:hi:

[sybil]

42. thread topic: Clark or Edwards?

If that's trashing, then Clark got trashed in a big way upthread.

[Lex]

44. I was specifically responding to post #33, not the thread topic

:hi:

[sybil]

48. uh huh, and I was referring to the "misinformation campaign"

going on upthread regarding Clark...it cuts both ways doesn't it


:hi:

[Lex]

54. Sure it does and I don't like misinformation about *any*

Dem candidate. That's why it's distressing to see that some feel the need trash-talk about other candidates instead of just saying why they are FOR the person they support.

I'd be happy to vote for either Edwards or Clark. Very happy to!

[trillian]

52. Clark! No question in my mind.

Personally I'm sick to death of politicians. Most of them are more interested in their personal ambitions than doing what's right for the country. Wes Clark, on the other hand, will have the welfare of the country writ large in his consciousness if he is elected. And he will always choose country over party.

Edwards on the other hand didn't seem too interested in governing when he was in the Senate. The last four years of his term, he was off campaigning for Prez instead of taking care of business for the people who elected him in NC. I believe his approval ratings were in the 30s and there was doubt he would be re-elected even if he ran. (all this from an acquaintance who lives in NC) He appears to me to be more interested in the glamor part of running for office but not so much in the daily grind of governing.

[greguganus]

90. You are right on about Edwards

I am in/from NC and there was a joke going around that "you better vote for Edwards so he will leave the state".
He was more interested in campaigning than doing his job. In 2003 Edwards was absent for 52 of the 115 days that the Senate cast votes, and in 2004 he missed EVERY vote in July, September, and October, which amounts to 59 missed votes in a row. I don't think NC would ever elect Edwards for anything again.
You are right he is more interested in running for office than doing the job. Edwards has no experience, including senatorial experience for NC. He's a good trial lawyer and good at raising money but that's all. He can't hold a candle to Clark.

[bigwillq]

53. Edwards (nt)

[saltpoint]

57. Two dynamite Democrats ya got there.

'Went with John Edwards, the rightly-elected Vice President of the United States.

[Rosco T.]

61. why does it have to be or??? Clark/Edwards '08? n/m

[rainbowblue]

62. Edwards by far

I think I would have to stand by Edwards as he has more of a very friendly stance on the environment and that is a big thing for me.

[Jai4WKC08]

66. You're kidding, right?

I don't think I've ever heard Edwards say anything about the environment. Oh, I'd be surprised if he hasn't, but when was the last time? It's never been a central campaign theme of his campaigning.

Clark, otoh, is VERY devoted to environmental causes. It is one of the two pillars of his 100 Year Vision, which was the first policy document published during him '04 campaign, and is still probably THE fundamental document of his leadership PAC (please see http://securingamerica.com/vision ). Clark won a very coveted Audubon Society award for what he accomplished in habitat protection back as a one-star in the early '90s. Clark was endorsed by Gaylord Nelson, who was Mr Earth Day and one of the true heroes of environmentalism. Clark is a participant in the Clinton Global Initiative on Global Warming, was one of the very first sponsors of Laurie David's Virtual March to Stop Global Warming (and the largest single team-leader), and he is helping to raise funds for the Green reconstruction on NOLA.

I assure you Clark has the superior environmental record of the two. Both in word and deed.

[Mass]

91. I was very surprised to hear that as well. Clark is good on environment.

Edwards has never spoken a lot about that.

[MrSlayer]

69. Clark has nearly everything over Edwards.

Not to disparage Edwards whom I think is fine man but Clark rules him in every catagory both foreign and domestic. Edwards has youth and looks over Clark and that's it.

[ThomWV]

76. Clark's History is Simply Astounding

I'm not trying to take anything away from Edwards, but Clark is almost a dream candidate. Smart, good looking, work ethic and moral character beyond reproach. Did I say smart? Look at his involvement in education, on both the student and teaching ends.

[femmocrat]

101. I'm still holding out hope for Gore/Clark '08... I don't think

Edwards would accept #2 again.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. They're both good men. But Al Gore should be the nominee.

After Gore, I'd probably take Wes. I like Edwards, but I don't think he has enough experience to be at the top of the ticket.

[FrenchieCat]

111. It's Clark for me, that's for sure!

This is for 2008, and 2008 will still be about national security, even more so, because the Republicans will be trying to recapture the Congress as well as stay in the White House. It is their only schtick and they will exploit it till there's nothing left.

To run someone who can't give us an edge in this issue, (and don't think it still is not our weakest point, cause it is) --would be a phenomenally stupid thing for the Dems to even want to do. We cannot afford to run on our strong points and let the Gop run on theirs. We must run on all of it, and have the most advantages as possible! Why Handicap ourselves? Aren't we supposed to be concerned about saving our democracy not electing 1960s Camelot redux? :shrug:

Wes Clark will never need to "look" strong on Terrorism and War, cause he has little to prove in those arenas. He's been there, done that! Wes Clark CAN reform the pentagon budget which is where there is a lot of money to fund those "programs for the poor" that Edwards keeps talking about. John Edwards won't reform a pentagon budget...hell, they might barely let him look at it.

Wes Clark, on the other hand can also repair the damage that Bush has caused to our reputation in the world...and he would do just that, while doing a great many other things....cause that man has the stamina of a 35 years old and appears to be a serious multi-tasker extraordinaire! Also keep in mind that whatever Wes Clark does, he gives it his all, and ends up doing quite well at it, and that is what we need, desperately. It ain't about one person for me, but it is about the best person for the big job that will await whomever gets into that White House in January of 2009! Keep in mind that Wes Clark is also an emergency Preparedness expert who is part of Witt & Associates as well as Nextel's emergency communications advisor-- http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_March_23/ai_n13467014

http://www.wittassociates.com/index.xml


Wes also been a professor and understands education very well. He just turned down an offer to be the President of Auburn University. The point is, they made the offer, so they understood that he has the executive experience required to do such a job, something John Edwards just doesn't have! http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/060827/clark.shtml

He has also created budgets, dones strategic planning, understand physics and philosophy and has a masters in Economics. Wes Clark is a renaissance man (he reads voraciously and has Chomsky and Plato on his bookshelves), a champion swimmer, can built a car engine and don't forget, is the most highly decorated officer since Eisenhower. Those are facts that should not escape any of us. He's received 20 medals from countries all over the world, and saved 1.8 million MUSLIM Albanians. That should help us with our image in the Muslim world! Being that he is 1/2 Jewish, maybe he can persuade the various parties that he can be an honest broker.

The General has negotiated peace treaties that still hold 10 years later, for goodness sakes! Held a 19 national coalition through artful negotiations and persuation all the while fending the Washington long knives that were aiming at his back (Def Sec. Cohen--GOP) and still came out smelling the best out of the bunch. He planned, led and won a war......That's not minor. He threatened Milosovic with a ground invasion and low altitude bombing (all the while, Washington was telling him that he couldn't do it) which is what broke Milosovic; his diplomatic threats! Clark knows how to persuade, so folks will believe him when says he's gonna do something. He also took 4 bullets, was seriously wounded and almost died. Plus he takes no shit from those dillitents at Fox and anywhere else.

Yeah.....Wes Clark is one tough hombre! :patriot:

Wes Clark is a man for these times....while I don't think, honestly, that John Edwards has the wherewithall and the fortitude to do what needs to be done. Maybe when we are at peace, John Edwards will get his turn.

speaking of John Edwards, somehow co-sponsoring that resolution that Lieberman wrote wasn't exactly the smartest thing that Edwards ever did. Why would I reward him for realizing 3 years too late that his participation in encouraging that vote was a mistake. Why would I want him to become President based on those actions? Why reward someone who made that kind of an error in judgement with the life and death of others as well as our monentary treasures? Good he speaks of poverty, but the Hawk in him didn't realize at the time that the war he supported would deplete our coffers! So yes, talk of poverty is good, but lets not fool ourselves, he didn't really help save those programs now cut (cause we can't afford them--cause our money goes to Iraq) when he was talking big on the war.

John Edwards should have known if he was such a great and smart man, but his actions illustrate that, far from it, he obviously didn't have a clue....or else his co-sponsorship of the IWR and his vote were done for political purpose, which is just as bad! That's called leading from the rear. I Don't want it! Edwards is to many "heart and kindness", which does not for me make presidential material. Plus the Corporate media likes him just a bit too much. There something about that which doesn't sit well with me. Me, personally, I want heart and prescience....and that's what Clark has IN SPADES.

Wes Clark did not want to give Bush a blank check, and those who try to distort his record on this will not impress me.

Here's some information about Wes Clark, Iraq and the Resolution:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I went to several Senators, including I think a couple who later ran for office, and, for the Presidency. I said, "Don't believe him." (laughs) "He's made up his mind to go to war. Don't give him a blank check."

Al Franken: Mm Hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But they gave him a blank check. I said it on CNN, "You can't give him a blank check." And I said it in the testimony that you have to make sure that there's a resolution. It's got to be a broad resolution so we can go to the United Nations, but it doesn't and shouldn't be a blank check.
http://securingamerica.com/node/932
===============

b]We desperately need a leader who Acts rather than Reacts!

Examples as to what I mean--

On August 2, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "We seem to have skipped some steps in the logic of the debate. And, as the American people are brought into this, they're asking these questions." CNN, 8/2/02

On August 29, 2002, Clark said regarding a proposed invasion of Iraq, "Well, taking it to the United Nations doesn't put America's foreign policy into the hands of the French. What you have to do as the United States is you have to get other nations to commit and come in with you, and so you've got to provide the evidence, and the convincing of the French and the French public, and the leadership elite. Look, there's a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth. Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn't know when they're going to get nuclear weapons. They've been trying to get nuclear weapons for -- for 20 years.So if there's some smoking gun, if there's some really key piece of information that hasn't been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French." CNN, 8/29/02

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, "I think -- but I think that underneath, what you're going to have is you're going to have more boiling in the street. You're going to have deeper anger and you're going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we're at here. The question is what's the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we're facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can't win that war alone." CNN, 8/29/02

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. CNN, 8/29/02

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one." CNN, 8/30/02

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "It seems that way to me. It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this. We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world." CNN, 8/30/02

September 16, 2002:
Clark said Congress shouldn't give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq.

On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force, "Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?" CNN 9/16/02

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

On September 23, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization for the use of force, "When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon... you want to be sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives in treasure as the ultimate last resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions." Senate Committee on Armed Forces 9/23/02
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

On October 5, 2002, Clark said, regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq, "The way the debate has emerged, it's appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed." CNN 10/5/02

On January 23, 2003, Clark said, regarding the case the United States had made for war against Iraq to the United Nations, "There are problems with the case that the U.S. is making, because the U.S. hasn't presented publicly the clear, overwhelming sense of urgency to galvanize the world community to immediate military action now."CNN 1/23/03
http://www.clark04.com/faq/iraq.html

-----------
There were some of our prominent leaders who chose to listen to the wise words of Wes Clark, and reacted the better for it!

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King pretty recently....

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

and Sen. Levin, here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

and the late great Sen. Paul Wellstone–
“As General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

[OnionPatch]

116. Clark

I'll probably get flamed for this, but he seems so much more genuine to me. Edwards comes across a little more, well, like a politician to me sometimes. Sorry. :shrug:

[deacon]

121. This country is in DIRE need of a man like Clark either at the top

or VP.

[CarbonDate]

123. I truly like both of them.

I prefer Clark because I believe him to be more substantive, but I think Edwards' heart is in the right place.

[LWolf]

126. It's fantasy.

And since it's fantasy, I'll say neither. If it's a fantasy vote, I'll spend it on my true choice or not at all. That's not a reflection on Clark or Edwards one way or the other. It's just this: I don't like having my choices dictated by someone else. When it's fantasy, I don't have to.

[sendero]

127. Wesley Clark...

... is awesome beyond words. He's smart, he can handle himself in an interview and he can speak before a crowd and be understood.

I don't agree with his every position but I trust him. And there just aren't many politician I feel that way about :(

[DiverDave]

128. John Edwards speaks for ME!

and my family. period.

I voted for him in our primary, and would again, given the chance.

[JNelson6563]

131. Funny stuff

A DU icon with a large cult like following against a considerably minor player with a far more modest fan base here at DU.

How sad that with all the ways Clark is making a name for himself during this important mid-term by helping many good Dems, we're still seeing this laughable stuff.

Julie

[Mass]

136. It seems to me Clark is winning the poll handily?

[JNelson6563]

139. Gee Edwards vs Clark on DU?

What a shock! I don't know if I can ever get over such a stunning surprise!

:sarcasm:

Perhaps you are out of the loop on the way it works, maybe you're being deliberately obtuse, how can I know? I'll go with "out of the loop" and 'splain it to ya. The cult of Clark tends to dominate on-line polls (calling out the troops as needed, see "to Freep a poll" for how it works) but really, no need for such effort when it's Clark against only one guy who's not got the whole cult at DU thing goin' on. Like I said, it just seems kinda sad. Clark's so rockin' in politics these days, one would hope such silly tactics would be the stuff of yester-year when it was a strech to come up with ways to make him seem relevent on the political scene.

Julie

[Mass]

140. OK, I may be obtuse, but what I do not get is why you have a pb

with THIS particular poll when DU has been full of this type of stupid polls this week?

I have seen at least 10 of the same vein since Warner has dropped out of the race. So, why this one?

(I thought your pb was with the attacks on Clark ahead in the thread. I clearly misread you).

[JNelson6563]

170. I don't think I can break it down any simpler

sorry.

And I don't usually bother commenting on such behavior for several reasons. First off I am pretty busy lately and (thankfully) miss much of the stupid stuff on DU, only having time to skim LBN and quickly glance at GD and GDP. This particular poll was just so ridiculously blatant I clicked on it and then had to comment.

As to attacks on Clark, didn't read 'em so can't comment on those. Frankly I am a big fan of all that Clark has bween doing on behalf of Dems everywhere this season. Again, that's one reason I was surprised and disappointed to see this lame ass poll.

Julie

[CarolNYC]

177. I'm confused

I'm confused by your distress about this poll, Julie. The person who posted the poll isn't even a Clarkie. Or are you upset that Clark supporters dared to vote in a poll that mentioned Clark or dared to comment on this thread and defend him when he was being misrepresented? Come on, there are much bigger things to worry about than if Clarkies participate in a Clark thread and poll on DU, aren't there????? Perhaps not for some, I guess. :shrug:

[BootinUp]

141. I resent your description

of people that support Clark as cultists, its mean spirited. If I choose to show my support in an online poll like 10s of thousands of other bloggers over the internets it doesn't make me part of a cult anymore than the rest of the blogger community. Every prospective candidate has a desire to garner support from the netroots, why don't you spread your criticism around some more.

[JNelson6563]

166. This from one who

makes his on-line identity in part his hero's name. I love irony.

[BootinUp]

169. Hey, if the user name distracts you from reading english

and comprehending then try covering it with your thumb.

[Texas_Kat]

151. Are you complaining about Clark supporters being organized?

or are you complaining that they are organized effectively?

If so, save some of the 'wag the finger' admonishments for Gore supporters. They actively 'call out' members to 'freep' polls.

http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=273&board=120.0

Here are 2 such 'alerts" specifically targeted at DU

http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=273&topic=4801.0

http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=273&topic=5342.0

[JNelson6563]

167. I think it's sad for all to do

I believe working to create a facade of majority on the part of any is sad and deceitvul activity. Almost as sad as "but they do it too!!"

Oy.

[BootinUp]

171. Im bookmarking this

for future reference there Julie. Lessons in irony are good for posterity too.

[FrenchieCat]

173. It's not anything! It's politics....and you, better than anyone should

understand it. To act "naive" about the Internet and politics and corporate media, etc., etc., etc. is silly.

Freeping polls means what exactly? Does it means that folks are voting more than once thereby cheating, or does it mean that folks are telling others like-minds about the poll? And if so, isn't that what DU does constantly, and so, why in the fuck does it even matter to you....whether Clark or Gore or Dean or Edwards or Clinton supporters do this? This ain't the real world......and isn't that what will count, in the end, anyways? If I recall, you supported Howard Dean who it appears had a greater following on the Internet than of those who actually voted in Iowa. So where there polls being "freeped" then by Dean Supporters, or was Iowa "Freeped" cause most of Dean supporters there were imported in? My point is that I'm not sure why you are even trying to make any of this a point.

But look....you can take great comfort and satisfaction to know that the national Corporate media doesn't even report on Wes Clark no matter what he does. :shrug: He could work himself to death, and no one would ever figure it out except for his supporters whose quest in life in simply to "Freep" polls on his behalf all over the Internet. :eyes: In the meantime, when John Edwards bats a lash or his wife embarks on a book tour, the Corporate media is right there reporting on it and lavishing praise of utter perfection.

My point is you shouldn't feel so threatened by so few Internet supporters of Wesley Clark.

[CarolNYC]

178. the Al Gore forum

haha! The Al Gore forum has a whole section devoted to "Rapid Response...Online Polls"? That's kind of funny, considering the shit Clarkies get for daring to vote in any polls mentioning Clark...

[geek tragedy]

132. Clark. He has executive experience, and opposed the Iraq war. eom

[sampsonblk]

137. Clark, no question

Gen Clark was in Florida this week, campaigning in Foley's old district for the Dem candidate. The General is everywhere, doing all the things we need in order to actually win this thing.

It looks like we are in good position to win the House and maybe even the Senate. But we still have to all push as hard as we can in order to actually make it happen. Gen Clark is pulling his weight and then some.

[Roxy66]

174. Edwards !!

[Cameron27]

175. Clark absolutely, Clark

And I'm so glad that I missed the damned hatchet job done to a good man and a good democrat.