Clark always wins the polls on here

[Mobius]

so what's with people picking him as second banana all the time?

Clark/Dean....that's my ticket...
:shrug:

[babylonsister]

1. What's with people picking Dean is my question. He's

running the DNC, not for prez or vp, AFAIK.

[billbuckhead]

2. M y dream ticket is Hillary/Clark

I would accept Gore but hardly anyone else.

[Cosmocat]

58. Flip it ...

Clark/Hillary would be a drop dead winner ...

[election_2004]

95. Clark doesn't need Hillary

As far as Democratic women who could be running mates for Clark:

Stabenow, Sebelius, Napolitano, or Blanco would be much better assets to Clark, as potential V.P.'s.

Hillary would drag down the ticket in red states and "swing" states.

[StClone]

3. Well just don't sit there DUers.

We must start a potent attack on Clark. He must have some flip-flops, flaws, skeletons or something we could beat him senseless about.

:sarcasm:

[Island Blue]

4. Well he was a Republican until he became a Democrat.

Not that I hold that against him, so was I. Some people might consider that a flip-flop though.

[LandOLincoln]

5. For the 1,687,365th time, that's a bald-faced lie.

HE VOTED REPUBLICAN a few times, during the Cold War, in the wake of Vietnam, when he was a junior officer and not paying much attention to politics.

He was never a registered Republican, he's been voting Dem since 1992, and he's easily the most liberal of the mainstream Dems today, and that includes Dr. Dean.

Thank you.

[I_am_Spartacus]

19. Reagan twice and Bush I?

And he's the most liberal main stream Democrat by what measure?

[LandOLincoln]

21. By any measure wielded by an open mind and a

truly Liberal heart. Guess that lets you out, huh?

[win_in_06]

39. Not paying much attention to politics?

If he voted in three consecutive Presidential elections (while busy serving in the Army as a high-ranking officer), he was paying a lot more attention than the average American.

[Jai4WKC08]

78. Ummm... no.....

He was only a field-grade officer during that time, mostly serving in troop units, trying to keep his tanks running and his soldiers trained and cared for. I doubt he was paying close attention to politics at all. Eighteen-plus hour duty-days make it sort of hard to keep track of much of anything.

[thinkingwoman]

43. Give it up, everybody knows

that Gore invented the internets, Dean is a screaming maniac, Hillary is a lesbian killing machine, and Clark is a Trojan Horse Republican.

Geesh, get with the program. :eyes:

</sarcasm>

[Totally Committed]

9. "Some people might consider that a flip-flop though."

Don't make me come over there.

TC

[xkenx]

37. The "Duck" Principle, Again

Ducks don't wear signs labeling them ducks. If it has a ducksbill, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then you know it's a duck.

Wes Clark is one of the Democratic Party's foremost progressives by virtue of his actions over the years, not by any labels that people want to throw at him simply because he had a career in the military.
It is time to appreciate just how lucky we are to have this national treasure. Just a few items:

--Clark was always butting heads with the stereotypical "macho" military Neanderthals because he saw the horrors of war firsthand in Vietnam and always espoused "diplomacy first."
--Clark was one of the leaders of the all-volunteer Army created after the Vietnam debacle. To keep personnel in you had to do a good job of providing for their family needs, health, education, equal opportunity.
--Clark actually won environmental awards at bases under his command.
--When Clark was working at the Pentagon in the mid-90s, he was virtually the only voice crying out to intervene in Rwanda.
--It was Clark's voice, along with Madeline Albright, who persuaded the Clinton Admin., over the objections of the Pentagon, to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Tell the Kosovar Albanians that Wes Clark isn't a liberal, progressive, humanitarian.
--It was Wes Clark's voice prior to the Iraq invasion who urged that we exhaust all possible diplomatic means before any military action, including in testimony to Congress.
--It was Wes Clark who filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the University
of Michigan affirmative action case.

Since when is it some kind of a black mark for someone to give to his country by serving in the military if he does so in a principled manner? Wes Clark felt that he could make the most impact by providing a progressive voice to that institution.

As for voting for Nixon and Reagan, he did so 20-30 years ago, simply because he felt they were strong on national security. Clark discovered that the modern Republican Party is so different they wouldn't have Nixon, and maybe not even Reagan. Clark evolved to where he started voting for Democrats, and then officially registering as a Democrat after registering as Independent for many years. Reagan WAS a democrat prior to running for Gov. of California. Are any Democrats wanting to say that Reagan, in his later years was a Democrat, simply because he started out that way?

So I'd have to say Wes Clark is my Democrat, liberal, progressive "DUCK" because he has proved it.

[neoteric lefty]

57. He is like a lot of moderate Republicans

they are used to having the 'R' on their voter ID but if they actually looked at the facts, they would find out that they share much more in common with the Democrats. For someone like Clark, better late than never.

[RandomUser]

60. Clark never had a (R) on his voter ID

Check your facts. Clark was never a republican.

[neoteric lefty]

98. I thought he said he was a registered Repub.

if not, my bad. Everything else I said still applies.

[RandomUser]

100. Nope

He never said that. He was a non-partisan independent (military regulations require that one be generally nonpartisan while in uniform -- the military serves the office of the president, not the Democrat or Republican in the oval office). Saying "Clark was a Republican" was a republican talking point used to try to stop Democrats from nominating Clark. Clark was never a Republican, and has never said he was.

As a matter of fact, Clark went on Bill Mahr and defended the word "liberal" when almost every single candidate (including Howard Dean) was running away from the word. And yet when Howard Dean got attacked with the "He doesn't speak for me" idiocy, Clark stood up and defended Dean.

Here's what George McGovern had to say when he endorsed Clark:
"I've been around the political block--and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. That's why he has my vote. There are a lot of good Democrats in this race, but Wes Clark is the best Democrat."

On the issues, Clark was to the left of everyone except Kucinich. And yet, by virtue of his military background, the media considered him moderate/conservative. This allowed him to build a broad base of support from George McGovern/Michael Moore's endorsement on the left to conservative southern bluedog democrats in the south to independents and moderate/ex-repubs. Of all the candidates, Clark had the most diverse base and broad appeal.

Heck, just look at the Clark supporters on DU -- hardly a monolithic group. If you ask Clark supporters who their second choice is, you'll see that choice splinter in all direction and ideologies across the political spectrum -- and yet they all united under Clark.

[neoteric lefty]

101. well, thank you for the info. In the words of the

late, great Johnny Carson, "I did not know that..."

[Clark2008]

73. LOL!!

That is usually what happens, isn't it.

:7

[IndianaGreen]

6. At least Clark doesn't wind surf

and he doesn't tell a respected author and media critic one thing and then turn around and denounce the author and retract what he said.

Clark is more of a leader than that other candidate I just referred to.

[sandnsea]

27. No he has weird eyes and never blinks

I could never support someone who doesn't blink appropriately. Or someone who yells "Mary" when he can't remember what he was supposed to say about his position on war.

I mean if we're going to get just totally stupid here...

[IndianaGreen]

56. The stupid thing is the Kerry-Mark Crispin Miller flap

another self-inflicted wound by the Presidential hopeful that needs a large staff just to explain what the hell he meant to say.

[sandnsea]

63. Oh to be perfect, yeeaaaarrggghh!! n/t

[IndianaGreen]

64. Over 2,000 dead GIs, and over 100,000 dead Iraqis, all thanks to IWR

and the cowardice of the Democratic establishment to confront Bush head on.

[sandnsea]

65. But Bush doesn't windsurf, thank heavens

Let's not forget that.

I ws responding to a specific post and I'm not going to go through the IWR again. Except to say there would have been no inspections for anybody to support to continue, without the IWR.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

68. Yeah, cuz Clark doesn't windsurf

:crazy:

Whatever.

[Mobius]

88. Amen to that Green!

If they put another loser in there, Im voting Green! I swear that to all I find Holy or Sacred.

[AntiCoup2K4]

7. The polls are rigged and Clark has no political experience.

Nobody is going to walk into the White House without serving in some other elected office. The idea that Hillary can do so after one Senate term is ludicrous enough.

And don't give me Eisenhower or Ulysses Grant or anything like that. Different times, and Clark was hardly the status of those two with the general public anyway.

[Auntie Bush]

8. Bush had political experience...a lot of good it did him. He botched

everything he EVER tried to do. Clark has succeeded in everything his whole life. (Not counting the last election)

Kerry had lots of political experience too...and he still lost.
I bet if Clark had been his running mate he would have won. Bush really knew nothing about nothing...and he won! :puke:

Clark has the intelligence, experience, know how, judgment and foresight to be a great and successful President. He's a good strategist and that's just what we need. In fact, WE NEED CLARK.
THE WHOLE WORLD NEEDS CLARK...not just the Democrats.

[Mobius]

10. How are the polls rigged?

People come on du, see my poll and vote...How is that rigged? :tinfoilhat:

[SONUVABUSH]

11. Wes is Smart

Wes is a whole lot smarter than dickbrain GWB. I would gladly vote for WC.

[BlueIris]

14. Yeah; Clark's...not my favorite Dem, but--what?

People?

Not "calling anyone out," but--the level of insanity on this board at the moment is officially out of control.

Suggesting that DU, of all places, has rigged polling--this is a website that is basically user-controlled. Rigged polling. Right.

My take on the DU Clark polls has always been that there are approximately 35 posters who can be counted on to reliably show up and vote for him in any poll posted in any forum anywhere. The "'08" polls I've seen almost invariably have at least that core 35 present. And good for them, I say, at least they're consistent.

Rigged polls. Now I've read it all.

[Mobius]

32. also, as far as I know

there is only one account per IP, you'd have to go through quite a bit to have multiple accounts.

[Skwmom]

12. Yeah. Those with "political" experience have done a great job of running

this country into the ground.

This country needs a LEADER, not another lousy, phony, self-serving politician.

Since you mentioned Eisenhower:

Wes Clark has the character and depth to be another Marshal or Eisenhower in time of war. Brigadier Gen William W. Crouch

Major Clark is the most capable White House Fellow I have known….He brought to his work a brilliant mind and rare common sense. He has initiative, style, imagination, moral courage, and integrity each in extraordinary degree...He has a rare sensitivity to others and a remarkable ability to motivate and lead them....."
James T. Lynn, Director, Office of Mgmt & Budget, 1976

I think the thing that makes Wes different from others is that he has been motivated not for personal gain - he’s been motivated because he feels generally for this country and always has. I think Wes Clark is an American hero. I know that’s a trite term and perhaps overused term but it’s a realistic term when you describe him. Capt. Gaines Dyer (Ret.)

[Donna Zen]

13. White House Fellow at OMB

...and two years policy and planning as the liasion to the White House.

3 years working in the White House.

Ran NATO, a head of state position.

Ya know...I don't demand that someone running for elected office have WHouse experience or military experience, never mind a four star general. I don't even demand that they are a Rhodes Scholar.

I want to know that they are leaders and that they love our country. I want to know that they have the skills to do the job.

Wes Clark wins DU polls because DUers spend hours keeping up with the issues, and actually know what the hell's going on.

[Larkspur]

18. General Grant's Admin was one of the most corrupt in US history

While Grant himself was not corrupt, his Admin staff were. His Admin also helped usher in the age of the Robber Barons.

The same could happen to Clark and most likely would. He would be way too dependent on the DLC clowns.

As I recall, one of the greatest US Presidents was FDR. He was never a general but he is one of the greatest Presidents in US history.

[Mobius]

30. The same could happen to Clark and most likely would. He would be way too

On WHAT do you make that conclusion???
GOOD LORDS MAN!

[Donna Zen]

34. Less logic

...more agenda.

I noticed that nonsense last night, but gave it a pass, believing that the majority of people here would see right through that statement. Nothing in General Clark's background, or current positions, equates him to Grant. Nevertheless, there are some posters who seeing a mention of Clark, can't miss the chance to bash him, even if is means sounding like a dunce.

[IndianaGreen]

69. George Washington was a General

and he is regarded as among the greatest presidents we ever had. Surely, the Republic would have died in its infancy had it not been for him.

[6th Borough]

107. Well, FDR was assistant secretary of the Navy...

He might not have been a uniformed general, however he was 2nd in command of a branch of the military whose influence during that time period is difficult to understate (given that the Navy was the sole means of projecting physical power at the time...very few nations could afford to keep up with the great naval powers, even colonial empires such as the Dutch fell by the wayside...being a naval power of import was somewhat similar to being a member of the "nuclear club" today).

TDR was also asst. sec. of the Navy...just an interesting little historical tibit if you didn't already know this.

(not to mention Churchill, FDR's wartime counterpart, who was Lord of the Admiralty...and planned and directed one of the greatest Allied debacles in WWI, the invasion of Galipoli.)

[Zynx]

17. James Buchanan had more experience than anyother president.

And you know what, HE SUCKED TOTAL ASS! Sorry to put it in a non-scholarly way, but he was a horrible president. Sometimes a career politician is not the way to go since they can be lacking judgement.

[LandOLincoln]

22. Clark is the most skilled Dem politician since Bill Clinton.

As long as he follows his instincts and doesn't listen to hired weasels like Chris Lehane, he's positively dazzling.

Please pay attention. It's getting old, having to school you neophytes every second of every day. ;-)

[AntiCoup2K4]

26. First of all, watch who you're calling a neophyte

...even though I'm sure you meant it in the kindest way possible.

Problem is that Clark DID listen to the weasel Chris Lehane last time. His political inexperience has a lot to do with how he got involved with that slimeball. And I'm sure the General learned from that experience, but it's a valid enough point. Thanks for bringing it up ;)

Understand that what I'm pointing out here about Clark's inexperience is more based on public perception than it is whether I personally believe he could do the job or not. Though I DO believe Clark would be a better President after a term as VP or as Governor of Arkansas (since I believe that's still his home base).

Most of the people who show up to vote don't research candidates and issues to the level those of us at DU do. They go by soundbites and what they get from the whore media. And in the times we live in - the climate of fear created by the Bush Criminal Empire and hyped by the whore media themselves - A candidate's inexperience WILL be made into an issue.

That said, I'll vote for Clark without reservation if he does get the nomination. And that's more than I can promise about some of the potential candidates.

[Moochy]

54. But but he's got experience with guns.

The guns man THINK OF THE GUNS!!! :patriot: He'll save us!!
What was that living color song again? Cult of personality?

[Jai4WKC08]

75. What exactly is a "cult of personality"?

Except maybe an empty insult to Clark's supporters?

Lots of negative connotations in the word, "cult." But what exactly is "cult-like" about the fact that we support Wes Clark?

I mean, it's not like we have to shave our heads, move into compounds in Idaho, break off relationships with our families... I don't even hang out in airports to sell flowers. Come to think of it, we don't do anything different than the supporters of any other political leader, except that maybe there are more of us.

We admire the man. We respect him. For his character and his accomplishments. We think he has the greatest potential to set this country back on course. If you happen to disagree, it doesn't make us a cult.

Sounds to me like you're resorting to simple name-calling because you can't or won't discuss issues and qualifications.

[Moochy]

97. Not saying you are a cult

Cult of personality is a term for what is perceived to be excessive adulation of a single living leader, especially a head of state. The term was coined by the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party Nikita Khrushchev in his 1956 "Secret Speech" denouncing Joseph Stalin to 20th Party Congress. The phenomenon that Khrushchev described, however, is much older.

A cult of personality differs from charismatic authority in that it has a negative connotation by definition, and is thus a pejorative term. It also differs from general hero worship in that it is specifically built around political leaders. However, the term cult of personality is often applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders.

Cult of personality defined by wikipedia, and that matches what I intended by that phrase. I don't support Clark for several reasons, but I won't convince you or others of that so I won't elaborate.

His prosecution of the Bosnian war is sufficient reason for me to not support an ex-general war veteran. My decision, my reasons. we disagree. Fair enough.

[Jai4WKC08]

99. That's a contradictory answer

On one hand, you claim not to be calling us a cult. Then you quote a definition that says the term "cult" is used specifically because it "has a negative connotation" (from wikapedia).

But you don't answer the basic question. How do we differ -- that is, how is our "adulation" excessive (again, from wikapedia) -- compared to the supporters of any other political leader?

The only difference I can see is that YOU don't approve of it.

Oh, and fwiw, Clark prosecuted the Kosovo War, not the Bosnian War. In fact, he helped negotiate the peace treaty that ended the Bosnian War. Also, Clark is not an "ex-general." I'll assume you are just being imprecise and not ignorant.

But thanks for the clarification. I can't get too concerned about how my character is judged by someone who thinks letting a million people, give or take, be slaughtered would have an ok thing to do.

[Moochy]

102. Ok

self delete.. I give up, since now if i dont approve of clark's role in Kosovo, Im approving of genocide..

Have fun at those clark meet-ups!

[Jai4WKC08]

104. Didn't say you approve of genocide

I said you don't seem to approve of intervening to stop genocide.

There is a difference, but I have have always held to the maxim that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

One of the very reasons I respect Clark as much as I do is because of the actions he has taken to attempt to prevent genocide, in Kosovo, Rwanda and Northern Iraq, how he is speaking out now about what is going on in Darfur, and how his position on what we should do in Iraq now is based on what he foresees as the likelihood of genocide among the Shi'a and Sunni if full-scale civil war should break out. He would have advocated for US intervention in Saddam's destruction of the so-called "Marsh Arabs" (Shi'a) in the early '90s had he been in a position to do so. It is an issue about which he has always been consistent.

Perhaps where you and I differ is I believe that, altho going to war was not his decision to make (hold that thought--I will come back to it), Clark was instumental in sucessfully halting the genocide of Kosovars, and creating a climate that allowed the politicians to make the right decision. Many on the left claim not to believe these people were at risk; some even say that it was our actions that prompted the Serbs to begin or accelerate the killing. But the Kosovars and other Albanians don't seem to think so, nor does Samantha Power who is widely considered an expert on the subject, nor Sadako Okata who was the UN High Commissioner for Refugees at the time.

But IF your complaint with Clark is not THAT he conducted the war, but only in HOW he conducted it, I can only submit that I don't see how he could have done it any "better." This may be because I am retired military and know something about the system, the personalities and inter-service politics, the capabilities and limitations of military operations, and the resources he had to work with.

Were mistakes made and innoscents killed? Of course. That happens in every war, no matter how well it's prosecuted (altho certainly far worse when the leadership, political or military, is incompetent or doesn't give a shit). That's why war, as Clark has said over and over, should always be the LAST resort. There are always unintended consequences, and in war, most of 'em are bad.

But to the extent that anyone can get into another person's head, I am completely confident that Clark regrets the loss of life as much as anyone (save the families of the dead).

He also believes, as do I, that every other diplomatic course of action was tried before the bombing began. Given that there was no way of knowing for sure whether air power alone would suffice and that it takes time to deploy ground forces, much less convince the politicians that they are necessary, further delay could have exposed over a million Kosovars, already driven from their homes into the mountains where they had little food and no shelter at all, to winter weather that would have killed who knows how many, especially among the very young and very old.

Point being, if you accept the premise that intervention was necessary, you cannot reasonably argue that Clark was not successful or that loss of Serb lives was excessive compared to similar campaigns in the past, or compared to the potential casualties of Kosovar civilians.

And if you do NOT accept that premise, I do not understand why you, or anyone, would single out Clark as the culprit behind the intervention. As I said above, it was a political decision, albeit one Clark was happy to implement. Bill Clinton's not running for anything, but where is the outrage against the Democrats in the Senate and House who voted to fund the war? Why do some on the left always seem to hold Clark as solely responsible, saying they could not support him, but have no trouble at all with a Biden, or Kerry, or even Kucinich? Or pretty much any of the others who would have voted for it had they held office at the time.

Hell, what about Paul Wellstone? He went so far as to call Clark "my general" and quoted him extensively in his arguments against the Iraq War. Hardly a better liberal than that fine man.

Perhaps I am making a bad assumption. Perhaps you are a green or socialist or something else who doesn't support any Democrat, and just happened to mention Clark because this thread is about him. If that's the case, I would appreciate seeing where you have criticized the others for their support of the Kosovo War. Because ultimately, Clark is the least militaristic of the vast majority of mainstream Democrats. Ironically, military people often are.

[Moochy]

106. Thank you for clarifying why you support him

I appreciate that you explained this, and regret how personally you took my first post. Your passion is very reasoned, and you *have* outlined why you support him. If I had said "I feel Clark supporters are guilty of excessive adulation, because I think we should be supporting policies and positions over people" This would have been the more constructive way of expressing my "cult of personality" remark.

Being generally opposed to the recent UStendency to wage foreign wars and my opposition to militarism is a guiding principle. Your comment about the people who have served in the military being more men of peace is taken to heart. ... specifically thinking of the current White House administration's pack of chickenhawks.

During the kosovo war, DU didn't exist, and the topic hasn't come up. I would not support a military leader, only because of my gut feelings of being anti-war.

I do support candidates when they support policies which I agree with. Universal Health Care, getting congress to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, breaking up monopolistic media companies, MEANINGFUL electoral reform without electronic machines. The things I care about.

I'm not a military person, my father served in the Navy. I'm opposed to the Iraq war. I've voted green, socialist and democrat. and I like organic vegetables.

I'm just not sold on his bona fides, perhaps his opponents have been successful in smearing him, but reading some things said about him by his fellow officers seemed to paint an unflattering picture of a career climber. However, I don't have links, and I'm sorry if this is seen by you as a swipe. I'm just not encyclopedic link saver in my opposition to Clark, so I didn't save the reference.

Peace and let us hope we get some common ground across all the Clark supporters, Edwards supporters, Kerry supporters, Gore supporters, progressive utopians, and everyone else to get the troops out of Iraq, and more dems into both houses. That I'm sure we agree on.

[Jai4WKC08]

111. There is much we agree on.

I even like organic vegetables. :)

As well as universal health care, the Fairness Doctrine and media reform, electoral reform, and probably many other things.

I am so glad that you've taken the time to read my replies and respond thoughtfully and open-mindedly. We don't ever have to agree about Clark, or any other specific person or topic, but it's good when there be open, two-way dialogue. And that we can work together for the things we do agree on. The forces arrayed against us are far too powerful for us to waste time and energy sniping at each other, and I apologize for however I may have contributed.

There are a few things I would like to say about points you made, not in any particular order.

I believe that most of the generals who spoke out against Clark as being opportunistic were firmly in the Republican camp and doing their bidding. The army generals who eventually endorsed Kerry had nothing but good things to say. No need for links--I'm sure I've read them all, good and bad.

But I have supported Clark's units back when I was in the Army, and met many of his subordinates, both then and during the campaign, and they pretty much all thought highly of him. General officers are funny animals. They're ALL ambitious or they wouldn't get to be generals--the competition is tough. But some are willing to walk over others to get what they want and some aren't. Subordinates tend to be able to tell the difference better than peers.

You might be interested to know that we Clarkies generally believe that the reason Clark was all but blacked out by the corporate media in Jan 04, shortly before the primaries began, was because of a speech he gave about the dangers of media consolidation and the need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. He's on the media shit-list, but he's never backed down on this opinion. I'm sure I could dig up a link to that speech if you're interested. I don't recall hearing any of the other '04 candidates talk about it at all, but I could have easily missed it if they did--the media, afterall, didn't cover Clark's. Wonder why? Ha.

He did just help win a big victory to get Ed Schultz on Armed Forces radio. :) There's a DU thread floating around, I think. Maybe several. We're all pretty thrilled about it.

I agree with you that issues are important. But it takes people to act upon issues. One way that I hope to affect the issues that matter to me is by supporting Clark. But I also write to my (worthless) Repub senators and (pretty good) Dem rep, as well as to my local newpaper, I volunteer for the local party, and I was even a campaign manager for a candidate for our state senate last time around.

I happen to agree with Clark about the issues that are most important to me, and I like his priorities as well. For me those would be the fundamental nature our democracy and protecting the environment, both of which I think are in real trouble. Of course, media and election reform are critical to the health of our system of government, but so is transparency and the checks and balances that are supposed to exist with the separation of powers. We've lost all that completely.

That's why I've come to believe character is an issue of its own. Not the Repub preoccupation with sexual misconduct, but qualities like integrity. And backbone (to fight the Repub machine--can't effect change if you can't get elected). And just plain good judgment.

I've seen enough of Clark in action to be convinced he has all of these in spades. But if you do not agree, I will not try to change your opinion. I would only ask that you recognize that I have reason for mine.

I guess I found the "cult of personality" charge so offensive because it puts me in the catagory of some sort of rock or movie star fan. Yeah, people in politics often use entertainment industry words... don't they say politics is like Hollywood for ugly people? Something like that.

But most "Clarkies" I've met (and I sort of hate that term, but it's stuck... oh well) care deeply about this country and the world and what helps people live better lives. We don't support Clark or any other candidate because it's "cool" or whatever other reason a fan might follow a celebrity--I never have quite figured out what that is. We do it because we think he (or she) can help make the world a better place for the people living in it. And we want make our own smaller contribution.

[Clark2008]

80. Dear Lord.

There is no way to "rig" these polls. You have to be a registered DUer (or Kossack or MyDDer) to vote. It's just that informed, intelligent Democrats prefer Clark.

And, I honestly think, after eight years of crony politics, people will be ready to support someone who has never served in elected office, particularly if that person has shown leadership abilities in both the military and in the private sector.

[Jamison]

15. I support Clark b/c he is tough.

I think he has the cajones it takes to win. I'd like to see some swift-boat style group try and smear him like they did to Kerry. Clark would lay the smack down on them.

[LandOLincoln]

24. Yes he would. The man has major COjones. n/t

[Dinger]

16. Woohoo - Hi Mobius!

Yup, some people are a little touchy on that subject, but not everybody.
He is bu$h's silver bullet, that's for damn sure.

[Mobius]

31. Gives props to Ding

:patriot:

[union_maid]

20. Clark/Edwards

That would be my dream team. Clark to fix the mess Bush has made globally and Edwards to work on the domestic one. Dean would be great, too, but I think it's important to have him where he is for now. I think should be very beneficial have a party chairman who is from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

[DanCa]

23. I am thinking of Clark Reid, and clark was never a rethug.

I will bash anyone with my walker who says that :D

[wiley]

25. I'm thinking you're absolutely right

[terrya]

28. Is there even any hint that he wants to run?

I don't see him making any stops in New Hampshire, like Edwards and Bayh have done. I've not seen him form any committees or organizations for fund raising.

Just wondering if he's even interested in 2008.

[kevsand]

49. He's actually done all those things,

and started doing most of them before anyone else. He's had major appearances in New Hampshire this year, and WesPAC has been steadily raising money for Clark and other candidates for a year and a half.

He also has made it quite clear to attendees at his speaking engagements and fundraisers that he is not only keeping the option open, but is very interested in running in 08.

[Adelante]

108. Here's what he's been doing, terrya

You may draw your own conclusions. As far as I know, he won't decide about it until after 2006.

July 5-10th: Aspen Institute Ideas Seminar

July 11th: USA Today Op-Ed on Iraq and terrorism

July 15th-18th: National Clark Community Meet-Up, Little Rock AR

July 19th: Nextel Communications business forum, Indianapolis IN, spoke on emergency communications and Iraq War

July 20th: Democratic national security advisory group report

July 22nd: Endorsed Democratic candidate for US Congress, Paul Hackett Ohio-02

July 29th: Audio message for Maine Democrats re Muskie Lobster Fest 8/7


August 2nd: GOTV audio message for Paul Hackett OH-02

August 3rd - Congressman Charlie Rangel's 75th Birthday Gala, Tavern on the Green, NYC, Special Guest

August 7th - Maine Democratic Party Ed Muskie Annual Lobster Festival, Brunswick ME, Keynote Speaker

August 8th - Radio Interview, KPCC Radio (NPR Affiliate), 11-12pm PDT, "Air Talk" with Larry Mantle; "The Future of the Democratic Party"

August 10th - NewsRadio 620 KTAR (Phoenix) - "Real Life with David Leibowitz"

August 10th - Arizona Technology Council, keynote speaker

August 11th - WesPac Fundraiser, Washington DC

August 12th - George Soros 75th Birthday Party, Hamptons, New York

August 13th - 2005 Clark County Clinton Day Dinner, Arkadelphia AR, Keynote Speaker

August 14th: 9:25PM - History Channel's VJ Day 60th Anniversary Celebration

August 22nd: NPR "Morning Edition" interview - NATO and Darfur

August 26th: Washington Post Op-Ed "Before It's Too Late in Iraq" - Online Q&A

August 28th: "Meet the Press" - "War Council" with General McCaffrey; General Meigs and General Downing discussing the war on terror/Iraq

August 29th-September 2nd: Blogging at Talking Points Memo Cafe

August 30th: Wisconsin Public Radio - Iraq and the war on terror

August 30th: 11AM - Madison WI, WesPac Fundraiser, American Table Family Restaurant

August 30th: 12PM - Madison, WI, Fundraiser luncheon for the Wisconsin Democratic Party, Inn on the Park; press conference with veterans; will endorse endorse Gov Doyle/Lt Gov Lawton

August 30th: 3 PM - Boys & Girls Club, La Crosse with U.S. Rep Ron Kind

August 30th: 5PM - Private fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Ron Kind

August 30th: 6:00PM - La Crosse, WI, 4th Annual Wisconsin Corn Roast at the La Crosse County Fairground, West Salem

August 31st: Air America's "The Majority Report" - on terrorism, Hurricane Katrina and the National Guard

August 31st: Iowa Democratic Party fundraising breakfast, Decorah

August 31st: 12PM - Democratic Activists Lunch, Mason City, Iowa

August 31st: 4PM - Democratic Activists Meeting, Emmetsburg, Iowa

August 31st: 6PM - Iowa Democratic Party fundraiser, Okoboji, Iowa


September 1st: Iowa Democratic Party fundraising breakfast, Sioux City

September 1st: Alan Colmes radio show - Global Warming, Bush's poor handling of New Orleans disaster, and against timelines with respect to Iraq

September 2nd-4th: Villa d'Este International Workshop, Ambrosetti Strategic Workshop on Global Economy, Cernobbio, Italy

September 5th: Fox News, "Rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina"

September 6th-7th: Terrorism, Security & America's Purpose Conference, Washington DC, Featured Speaker

September 10th: Clark Policy Brief introduced on CCN

September 11th: Amsterdam, Netherlands review of flood control

September 12th: Constitution Day, Rider University, New Jersey - keynote, "Impact of the Patriot Act on the U.S. Constitution"

September 13th: Fundraiser for Virginia House Democratic Caucus Chairman Brian Moran, Alexandria

September 14th: University of Florida, Gainesville, fourth anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001 commemoration

September 15th-17th: Clinton Global Initiative, climate change technology advisory board, New York City

September 20th: 'Out of Iraq' Congressional Caucus, Washington DC

September 23rd: Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference, Washington DC

September 29th: Atlantic Treaty Association 51st General Assembly, Tallinn, Estonia


October 10th: Alabama Democratic Party Rally, WorkPlay, Birmingham

October 10th: Alabama House Democrats, Keynote, Alabama Sports Hall of Fame, Birmingham

October 11th-12th: Campaigning with Tim Kaine, Virginia Governor's race

October 12th: Fredericksburg Forum, Virginia - "The Role of the United States in World Affairs" with Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former U.S. Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, University of Mary Washington

October 13th: Payne County Democrats fall celebration, the Brayfest, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

October 13th: Oklahoma Democratic Party reception/fundraiser, Keynote, Payne County Expo Center, Stillwater

October 20th: WesPac fundraiser, Denver CO

October 21st: 3:30PM, Third annual Clash of the Titans, “Is the Bush strategy working in Iraq?” Communication & Performing Arts Center, Regent University, Virginia Beach VA

October 22nd: AFSCME Congressional Candidate Boot Camp, Guest Speaker, Phoenix, AZ,

October 28th: 7PM, 4 Star Democratic Club of Los Angeles, "An Evening With General Wesley K. Clark," Los Angeles CA

October 31st: 7PM, Indiana University Union Board Lecture and Q&A, Bloomington


November 1st: 10AM, Bipartisan Conference on Human Rights: Uncommon Leadership for Common Values, Panelist, "Putting the 'Never' in 'Never Again.' Halting Genocide." Georgetown University, ICC Auditorium, Washington DC

November 1st: 6:30PM, Fundraiser for Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York City, Special Guest

November 11th: Campaigning with Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida; breakfast in Orlando, lunch in Sarasota, and an evening reception in Miami

November 15th: WesPac Annual Meeting, Washington Court Hotel, Washington DC

November 18th: International Policy Forum, Dayton Peace Accord Tenth Anniversary, Dayton Convention Center, Dayton OH

November 18th: 7:30 PM, Dayton Peace Accord Gala Dinner, Featured Speaker, National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, Dayton, Ohio

[Totally Committed]

29. Time to Talk ISSUES!

Because once we know what the issues are, the perfect "ticket" will be evident!

One of my dearest and most respected friends on this board is forever writing posts about the need for talking issues over personalities. He feels that we all get mired in the cult of candidate and never get beyond it long enough to see the real issues that need to be addressed in this country no matter who the candidate in 2008 is. Before going on with my point, let me say that I agree with him about 95% on his assertion, but I know what he's up against on this board, where issue threads sink like a lead balloon, and candidate popularity contest or flamebait threads go on for hundreds of posts.

This particular thread is a perfect example of wasted energy and spinning wheels that he (and I) abhor. The energy it is taking to respond to this thread is truly wasted, as almost all the "pro" posts contain information that has been posted before in response to threads exactly like this one, and the "anti" posts comtain the same old/same old Clark smears and flames as usual.

I know we all want to be able to look to the future with some semblence of hope. And, to a certain extent, discussing who could best run our country after such a disastrous turn by the Republicans may give us that sure shot we need, but it is at the expense of real substantive discussion so badly needed about a lot of things. Instead of this thread, couldn't/shouldn't we discuss, say, our overdependence on fossil fuels, and the wars that result? Have any of you considered what this country will be like when there is no more oil, and we have nothing to replace it? Famine, job loss, economic collapse are just the beginning of what could happen. Instead of discussing Wes's ability to govern, if you must, perhaps you could discuss his thoughts and plans for alternative energy sources, and plans to develop those. He has definite thoughts and a plan, you know. But, even as a supporter of Wes Clark, I hope you'll just leave all this candidate stuff out of it, and discuss THE ISSUE not the candidate. If you MUST discuss candidates, discuss an issue and how each of the candidates would handle that issue. What are their plans? Do they even have plans? Who supports their plans? (Just as you can judge a man by the company he keeps, you can judge a candidate by the people who support them on each issue. As an example: Since the founder of Earth Day endorsed Wes in the primaries last tiem out for his postion/plan for the environment and his plan for alternate energy sources, I think we could we could safely assume that Wes is a real force in this area. If we were so willing we'd look up his plan, get educated on the subject, and then decide if his plan had merit. That would be ideal, and a truly better use of the energy itis taking to sit around and pontificate about all sorts of Clark minutia and misinformation. Wouldn't it?)

Then there is the energy needed to defend the candidate in question. That takes time, too. With the exception of one canidate's supporters here on this board, most of us prefer not to push the agenda of our candidate very aggressively at this time. Why? Because most of us, I believe, WOULD rather discuss substantive issues, even as regards the candidate we support rather than read a litany of fluff posts aggrandizing our candidate for everything but blowing his nose. We see the importance for some sort Party-wide discussion other than "Breaking: Candidate X Prefers Kleenex over Puffs When Blowing his Nose!", and then this one, directly afterward, "Candidate X Denies He Ever Said Preferred Kleenex over Puffs", and the resulting posts in both threads about flip-flopping on the issue, how the reporter was lying, why the candidate may have fibbed for political expediency, and on and on, yadda, yadda, yadda. This is just an example of why this cult of personality takes our attention away from the real issues, uses up valuable time and energy, and keeps us from talking about the real issues.

I could go on and on about this, but trust you all to get to the conclusions yourselves. The overwhelming majority of posters on this Board are extremely well-informed, very intelligent, and have good and decent hearts. You know where you want to see this country go in the future... isn't it time to discuss WHAT IT WILL TAKE to get it there? Because if we keep discussing WHO will take it there, we are never going to get past that. All these popularity contest threads are just indulgent, divisive, and destructive exercizes in nothingness at the moment. And so are the gratuitous thread after thread after thread about everything but the bodily functions of a candidate. If a candidate does something of note, and something of interest, I have no problem with discussing it. But, all this throwing as much shit at the side of the building to see how much of it sticks is nothing but an irritating distraction from what should be being discussed.

LET'S REALLY TALK TO EACH OTHER. Please. It's necessary, and time's flying by.

[Donna Zen]

38. A winner!

Although I don't know the poster you're referring to, I agree with both of you. It's the issues! As the republicans prepared to morph our tax code into yet another regressive gift to the rich, as Cheney continues to advocate for torture, and as bush continues his macho-unilateral foreign policy, we need to be fighting, not each other, but the right-wing agenda.

Democrats who agree with the right, who are too willing to compromise American principles, or who wait for the next poll, need to be pressured or called-out, because they stand in the way of our future and squander our lives and livelihoods.

Knowing what we, the netroots, stand for, enables us to have our voices heard. Without focus on the issues, how will we develop a clarion call as opposed to a grumble of confusion? Supporting those who support our positions is doable if we suppress the desire to spin.

[nickshepDEM]

33. Probably because he would best serve on a ticket as

VP to a Governor lacking foreign policy credentials. :)

[Totally Committed]

35. This is so unnecessarily disrespectful and self-serving,

it borders on being blatantly offensive.

TC

[nickshepDEM]

44. Well, Im sorry if that comment offended you or Clark, but...

it most definitely was not meant to be offensive. Its simply my opinion that Clark would be a better VP than Presidential candidate. I have my reasons, but Im at work now so I cant really go into detail. My main reason being that I believe Governors are by far the best presidential candidates, and we happen to have quite a few planning a run in 2008.

And since when was it disrespectful to have an opinion... Im just curious?

[Totally Committed]

47. Having an opinion is not offensive.

But, the perceived underlying snakiness is/was. If you didn't mean it the way I took it, I'll take you at your word, and say the misinterpretaion was mine.

As fr governors, I know which ones you favor, and I do not support their middle-to-right leanings. So having Wes second to one of them is something I would not favor.

What you may want to think about is this: The VP is the Leader of the Senate, and would therefore deal with domestic issues. While Wes is strong on domestic issues, that is not where he is needed most. He is needed at the top of the ticket as Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, I naturally see a governeor being a better VP in this case.

TC

[Totally Committed]

70. Just noticed, but too late to edit:

Word "snakiness" was meant to be "snarkiness". My apologies.

TC

[Jai4WKC08]

67. My two cents

Its simply my opinion that Clark would be a better VP than Presidential candidate. I have my reasons, but Im at work now so I cant really go into detail.

Please don't. We've heard it all before.

...I believe Governors are by far the best presidential candidates...

Here's a question you should probably ask yourself: What exactly is it about being a govorner that potentially makes someone a good president?

I would think it would be executive experience. That is, being in charge of a large organization, administering the state bureacracy, working with the federal bureaucracy and making it work for you and your organization, making decisions which affect the lives of large numbers of people and which have consequences which long outlive one's tenure in office.

Now, which of these things has Clark not done, extremely well, and over a longer period of time than most state governors?

I won't go into detail on the rather obvious point that damn few governors have one day's experience with anything having to do with foreign policy, diplomacy or national defense. Richardson being the exception for the first two, but not the last.

And since when was it disrespectful to have an opinion...

Depends on the opinion. Not that you don't have a right to disrepectful opinions, but let's recognize them for what they are.

But saying that Clark should only be subordinate to a governor, with the implication that that's all he's qualified for, is disrepectful of the position in government that he held and of his job performance in that position.

It always baffles me that people are so out of touch with history and the structure of our alliances that they do not understand that NATO SAC is a higher position than any state office. NO ONE would have dreamed of asking Eisenhower to run for governor first. And while sure, WWII was a bigger war, and thus public feelings toward him were far greater, the status of the position and the level of responsibility are the same.

As a matter of fact, Clark's responsibilities may even be greater, because Eisenhower never had to mess around with families, civilian employees (and their unions), independent contractors, etc; and he very little interaction with allied heads of state or host country local officials.

[Mobius]

90. thank you

:loveya:

[LandOLincoln]

36. Guess you missed the part about

Wes Clark being NOBODY's second banana.

But there are several governors who would be just peachy as his second banana...

[nickshepDEM]

40. Second banana sure beats his current position...

FOX news correspondent. But if he's happy there, more power to him.

[Totally Committed]

41. He is not a "correspondent"...

He is a military and foreign affairs analyst. He is on infrequently, not on a regular basis.

TC

[nickshepDEM]

42. I rarely watch Fox... Thanks for the correction.

[LandOLincoln]

45. As a matter of fact, after Wes roundly

spanked InsHannity and O'Loofah twice each, Faux relegated him to the early morning Blonde Bimbo Brigage--where he continues to soldier on, stolid patriot/soldier that he is.

And then he takes their money, only to use it against 'em.

God, I love that guy. Such a civilized, agreeable killer that the fools don't even know they've been kilt, 'til they look down and see all the blood on the floor... :bounce:

[nickshepDEM]

46. I like em' too. I just happen to have someone else in mind

as our presidential candidate in 2008. Actually I have a couple in mind.

[LandOLincoln]

48. That's fine. Got no problem with that atall, as long

as you don't slag my guy(s) in order to promote your own.

[nickshepDEM]

51. Ditto.

:)

[phylla]

50. Foreign Policy/war will be the most important issue in '08. Wes leads all

Let Mark Warner of Va. be the VP backup on domestic issues ( although Wes is more than qualified in that area too).

CLARK/WARNER 2008 is the best of all worlds

[nickshepDEM]

52. Clark more qualified on domestic issues than Warner?

Were you being serious, cocky, or both?

[Texas_Kat]

53. So other than one term as a Governor of VA

what other public service positions has Mark Warner had? I'm asking 'cos I really don't know. I know he was term limited as Gov and he's said that he might return to campaign for Gov again after an intervening term.

My recollection is that he made a boatload of money from Nextel, but I don't think that's a qualifier as "public service".

Does 4 years as Gov of VA qualify him more than Clark (who's had 34 years of executive experience providing schools, medical care, housing and dealing with civil rights, affirmative action, family issues, emergency management, gender isses, etc) on national domestic policy?

How is Warner's experience qualitativly better than Clark's?

[phylla]

55. He absolutely doesn't...I said BACKUP

Wes Clark is the most qualified qualitatively and quantitatively IMHO in every respect -domestic and foreign- to be our President. He certainly does not need any leadership/foreign policy help.

Since he would have to name a VP, why not a popular red state governor who has shown enormous ability in solving fiscal/organizational problems in Virginia and has a proven ability to work with both sides of the political spectrum?

Being Wes's VP for 8 years would give Mark Warner foreign policy experience and thus set him up as President for the 8 years subsequent.

[nickshepDEM]

62. Well, he was chairmain of the of the VA Democratic party.

He also founded the Virgina Health Care Foundation, which has help to provide over 400,000 underprivileged with health insurance. He has also been chairman of the Nat'l Governors Association and Southern Governors Association.

Governor Warner's domestic accomplishments:

-In 2005 VA was ranked as THE BEST MANGED STATE IN THE NATION.

-Chairman of the Nat'l Governors Association.

-Chairman of the Souther Governors Association.

-"Governing Magazine was so impressed with Mark Warner’s abilities and bipartisn style of governing, they named him and Republican Senate Finance Chairman John Chichester “Public Officials of the Year” in 2004.

-"Navigated Virginia through a $6 billion revenue shortfall, and making choices and investments in education from pre-school to graduate school to create a Commonwealth of opportunity for all."

-"Education for a Lifetime." The pre-school through grad school and beyond into workforce training measures are designed to move students another rung up the ladder of educational achievement, demonstrating the linkage between degrees and other markers of academic achievement and economic prosperity. The Governor also committed to fully funding the $525 million needed to re-benchmark the Standards of Quality for K-12 education, as established by the State Board of Education."

-"Governor Warner has also brought common sense business principles to the way the state purchases goods and services, manages its vehicle fleet and real estate holdings, and maintains information technology functions, with an appropriate emphasis on including those who own small, women- and minority-owned businesses."

-"Governor Warner is working hard to build a foundation to bring economic prosperity to all corners of Virginia. Economic development and job creation are top priorities for Governor Warner. Since January 2002, during difficult economic times, he has helped recruit more than 100,000 jobs and $9.5 billion in new investment in every region of Virginia."

-"He helped found the Virginia Health Care Foundation, which has provided health care to more than 476,000 underserved Virginians in rural and urban areas."

-"In 1997, he developed the Virginia High-Tech Partnership, which helps students from Virginia's five Historically Black Colleges and Universities pursue technology careers through a summer internship and job placement program."

-"Provided the largest increase in education funding in Virginia history."

-"Increased the personal income tax exemption and standard deduction enabling 140,000 to no longer have to file any state income tax, and will cut the food tax from 4% to 2.5 %
in July, 2005."

All of that accomplished while working with a staunchly conservative state legislature. Thats what I can an ability to get things done.

Read more about Governor Mark Warner:

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/
http://www.draftmarkwarner.com /

And thats just a taste. The list above happens to be out of date. Since then he has signed programs into law that insure all underprivileged children in the state of VA have access health insurance. He also signed a bill into law that takes a strong stand against illegal immigration, which will be a huge issue in 2008.

He is argueably the most successful Governor in the country. Governor Warner has accomplished more in 4 years than most Governors accomplish in 8. Ask anyone from VA, everything the man touches, turns to gold.

He will leave Virginia in 2006 with he highest approval rating for a departing governor recorded by Mason-Dixon in the polling organization's two-decade history. 74% APPROVAL.

"Does 4 years as Gov of VA qualify him more than Clark (who's had 34 years of executive experience providing schools, medical care, housing and dealing with civil rights, affirmative action, family issues, emergency management, gender isses, etc) on national domestic policy?"

Links? I seriously was not aware a General/NATO Commander worked with legislatures on a domestic agenda for the United States.

[Jai4WKC08]

71. Then let me inform you

I seriously was not aware a General/NATO Commander worked with legislatures on a domestic agenda for the United States.

I assume you mean a domestic agenda for a single state?

A NATO Commander works directly with Congress for an agenda to support all of the Americans living within within his region, which in Clark's case was some 160,000 families spread out over 90+ foreign nations. That support includes health care, education and child care, housing, and a whole host of other quality of life issues, none significantly different from what a governor does except the NATO commander hasn't got the private sector taking care of much of those responsibilities. For example, how many governors are responsible for a large chain of what are essentially grocery stores (commissaries) and shopping malls (post and base exchanges)?

He did the same thing as commander of US Southern Command. Consider it comparable to having had two terms as "governor."

A post commander works with a state legislature for many of the same things, plus environmental law and regulation. Clark did that too, at Ft Irwin CA. Somewhat akin to being the mayor of a very large city.

[Totally Committed]

79. And he talked about this experience, at length, during the primaries...

mostly in his Town Halls, but Jai is right. His experience is equal to haveing been a governor two or three times. Since he also was one of the main negotiators and signitaries of the Dayton accords, he has also technically, had experience as a State Department diplomat.

So, his record in both foreign and domestic experience is extensive.

TC

[IndianaGreen]

59. Ending the war is the litmus test in 2008

The Left will reject any candidate that will not end the war ASAP. No "finish the mission" or "peace with honor" will fly!

[Texas_Kat]

110. So you are advocating following the Bush/Cheney model?

That was exactly the argument for Cheney as VP among right wingers.

I'd say skip the middle man and elect someone who already has foreign policy credentials.

[zulchzulu]

61. We'll see what happens in the primaries...

Support your candidate. Do the best you can to get them votes. Just don't start some infantile circular firing squad.

Thanks!

[Catchawave]

72. Clark always wins the polls here....

Why ? Yet I know nothing about him, other than his DU Supporters hate everyone else :shrug:

[Totally Committed]

76. Now, there's a blanket statement, and one hell of a

sweeping generalization if I ever read one! Since we Clark supporters are not one monolithic group, we all have favorites and non-favorites, and like any other group of people, they are sometimes different, person to person.

I, for example, have a distinct disaffection for any candidate with DLC ties. Not every Clarkie feels that way.

If Wes decided not to run, I would support a Democratic candidate who was not a DLC-er, had a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and had the guts to use the mouth he/she was born with to defend him/herself. I now draw the line at supporting just anyone who runs against the Republicans ever again. Never again. I will never solely vote against the Republicans again, supporting a wimp-ass Democrat solely because he/she is a Democrat. Not every Clarkie feels that way, either.

As for other Democrats I really admire and like: Barbara Boxer, John Conyers, Howard Dean, Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, and most of the Congressional Black Caucus stand out among many.

So, do I hate everyone but Wes? Not by a longshot. Does it mean I will never again allow the Democratic Party to take my vote for granted? Damned straight it does. But, not every Clarkies will feel that way, for sure.

TC

[Catchawave]

84. Can you say "Clash of the Titans" ?

Didn't think so. :groan:

[Clark2008]

85. What does that have to do with anything?

Clark participated in a debate against some neo-cons called Clash of the Titans, yes.

And, from everything I saw, he bitch-slapped Ollie and Newt.

Clark said he did not think the war on terrorism involved invading Iraq and criticized the Bush administration for sending inadequate military forces into Iraq without a follow-through plan.

“It’s high time this administration came forward with a regional plan that will work,” Clark said. “'Staying the course’ is not a plan. It’s a slogan.”

The general suggested that fighting terrorism in the Middle East requires that conditions be created to defeat, on Muslim territory, ideologies among some Muslims.

“You use force as your last resort,” Clark said. “Your first weapon is the weapon of ideology. We have to sharpen up that weapon and get it deployed because we’re behind.”

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=94090&ran=60085

What's the problem?

[Jai4WKC08]

81. If you know nothing about Clark

You sort of owe it to yourself, your party, and your country to go out of your way to learn something. Not because he might the party nominee someday (altho he might) and not because he might someone you could support (altho that too), but because he's making a difference in where our party is headed--working with our Congressional caucuses on policy issues, campaigning for state and local candidates, carrying water for the DNC.

It really isn't hard. Any one of us would be happy to point you toward plenty of information, or videos of speeches, interviews, etc, if you'd rather make up your mind from first-hand exposure.

But you're just plain wrong to say "his DU supporters hate everyone else." I can only think of one potential 08 candidate I "hate" (and that's really too strong of a word), and I never bad-mouth him because I think it's devicive and ultimately damaging to the interests we all share.

For that matter, I've never seen Clark supporters pile on another Democratic leader, altho I have seen one or two who have a special animosity towards one or another (usually when they're from the same state and have some sort of history outside of their Clark support).

Clark says we should defend other Democrats, and mostly we do.

What we don't do is let others pile on Clark without defending him. There is a difference.

[Catchawave]

83. But Bashing Edwards threads is okay ?

:shrug:

[Clark2008]

86. As far as I know, Clarkies don't start Edwards-bashing

threads.

That said, I don't support Edwards because I don't think he's appealing to the people the corporate media thinks he's appealing to (red staters). I know this because he didn't do much on the Kerry ticket to flip any red states.

I applaud his efforts in combating poverty and I really like his wife, but, as a candidate, I think he's very much pre-9/11 and that won't get us anywhere in those borderline red states that might flip with a strong Democratic candidate who has demonstrated leadership abilities that red-staters can relate to.

It has less to do with not liking him and more to do with not winning - which is also why I don't support a Hillary ticket in 2008. She won't win, either.

[Catchawave]

87. meh.

[Clark2008]

93. Well, it wasn't bashing him.

Maybe his candidacy, but not him.

For what that's worth.

[Jai4WKC08]

89. Bashing Edwards or "bashing" an Edwards thread?

I never bash Edwards. Not since he became the VP nominee, anyway. I challenge you to do a search and show me where I have.

But if you mean that thread about a poorly conducted and imo meaningless poll, I certainly reserve the right to bash the pollsters. Or to debate any conclusions you might draw from it.

That's not the same as bashing the man.

No one at DU gets to say, "This thread is only for (fill in the blank) supporters" or "Only people who agree with me may post here."

[Mobius]

92. This is not an Edwards thread

I have nothing against the man. I humbly suggest you start your own "Why not Edwards?" thread and stop riding the coattails of this one :hug:

[Moochy]

103. with a passion it seems

[JVS]

109. That's not true, when he was clearly out of the primaries they made much..

show of kissing Kerry's ass. So don't go telling fibs and saying that they hate everyone else.

[New Earth]

74. he always wins because

the Clarkies here go run to other sites and tell people to come vote in the polls here whenever there is one :o i'm not making that up, one of them told me that once :o :spank: :P

[Totally Committed]

77. What part of that is wrong?

We are a large group of well-organized people. If it's the "large" part of that equasion that bothers you, shouldn't Democrats have large groups of supporters? And shouldn't those numbers translate into winning things like polls? One person, one vote. Our numbers are larger, so...

If it's the "well-organized" part of the equasion you denounce, think twice. Why is it wrong for a Democratic candidate to be able to mobilize a large group of highly motivated, well-informed grassrooters for a number of projects and campaigns, and why isn't that a good thing?

I am not ashamed of supporting Wes Clark, or being inspired by him. I am not ashamed of the organization or dedication we have. I am not ashamed of trying, along with a huge number of committed people, to take this country back. So, while you try and make it sound vaguely illegal or dishonest, numbers and organization often translate, in real life, to winning the day. When you genuinely have both of those things, the cheating your post implies is unnecessary.

Those who come here and cast their votes for Clark are DU members. If Wes has more supporters that are DU members, it follows his winning in the polls is indicative of support on this site.

TC

[globalvillage]

96. I know that it's against the rules

for DUers to rally other DU members within the forum to jump on a thread. I don't believe the rules apply to bringing others from outside. So, I guess it's technically OK (actually I don't get the inter-DU rule exactly, but I know it exists. I've been warned.)
It does explain a lot, though.
Hey, BTW.

:hi:

[Jai4WKC08]

82. Supporters of other prospective candidates do that too

There's really not a thing wrong with it.

You can't vote here unless you're a registered DU member.

[Mobius]

91. I have NEVER been approached in that manner

Im sure other supporters of the same people get together and do the same thing, so it all comes out in the wash.
People don't have to approach me to support my candidate. I am already there.

[election_2004]

94. Clark/Feingold would be a juggernaut!

...if Clark ends up being the nominee.

And if Clark wants to consider a woman, there are much more appealing women than Senator Clinton whom Clark could (and should) consider.

Debbie Stabenow or Kathleen Sebelius, for starters!

[Clark2008]

105. I'd work my ass off for that ticket!

:loveya: