Wesley Clark: Still Not a Democrat

[demdave]

It may come as a surprise to some of his supporters, but Democratic Presidential candidate Wesley K. Clark still hasn't joined the Democratic Party. According to the Pulaski County (Ark.) Voter Registrar's office, the former four-star general remains a registered independent. Even though he has been a declared candidate for the Dem nomination for two weeks now, he has yet to officially change his party affiliation.



A Clark campaign spokesman at first told BusinessWeek that the former general had in fact updated his voter registration to reflect his newfound status as a Democrat. But a call to the Pulaski County Voter Registrar indicated otherwise. When asked to explain the discrepancy, campaign consultant Mark Fabiani says Clark hadn't yet had time to register as a Democrat.

Fabiani notes that Clark's independent record -- coupled with the fact that he voted for Ronald Reagan -- could boost his bipartisan appeal in a general election. And even if Clark doesn't get around to updating his registration, he'll be able to vote for himself in the Democratic primary. Arkansas, like many other states, allows everyone to vote in primaries regardless of party affiliation.


http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm

[Walt Starr]

1. Well, that's it then

Absolutely no way am I voting Clark now.

I want to vote for a Democrat who is a Democrat, not an independent running for the Democratic nomination because a Democrat is going to win in 2004.

[Jinx]

2. Clark

I believe Clark is there to weaken Bush NOW, not to win later. Of course, one never knows.

The 'liberal' press will be right there to misreport everything he says (aka the supposed time-travel comments) and it's possible that in time his ratings will go down. What's important is that the idea that Democrats CAN be strong on defense is nailed into people's heads NOW.

[Must_B_Free]

3. They are just plying Bushup for the return of Al Gore

If you think for one minute that Al Gore is not reentering the race think again. This is all show setting up the stage for the real uniter, not some General who can't decide if he's a democrat or not.

Al Gore will be President in 2005.

[Kira]

45. I have always been a huge Gore

supporter. Went to see him and Tipper in Chicago last November. I really thought that he was going to run. I asked him to when I got to shake his hand. And I was very disappointed when he decided not to. But I have to disagree with you. I don't think he is going to run. I just read that he is trying to buy a media outlet.

[Zhade]

56. Hell, he's President NOW.

NT!

[coralrf]

67. I did think...

and you did not.

AL GORE and HILLARY CLINTON are not running!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT RUNNING. Stop thinking my man and start reading. Clark has always identified with the Democrats (see Talkingpointsmemo.com today) but as a General has been REQUIRED to be apolitical. REQUIRED !!!!!!!!!!!!

IF you want a card carrying Dem vote for Joe or Zell...

[coralrf]

66. WTF???

Is that supposed to be an enlightened notion? Clark is there to weaken Bush? Let me get this right: we use Clark to weaken Bush then dump the candidate that could do that in favor of one that needed a stand in to do it?

How fucking stupid can we get in DU?

[Jinx]

83. clarky

"Is that supposed to be an enlightened notion? Clark is there to weaken Bush? Let me get this right: we use Clark to weaken Bush then dump the candidate that could do that in favor of one that needed a stand in to do it?"

Yes, Clark is there to weaken Bush. Because he's 'strong on military and defence' thus taking that issue away from Bush and spoiling the 'democrats don't care about national security' crap. If Clark wins, so be it, I'm just saying I don't expect him to be the nominee.

"How fucking stupid can we get in DU?"

You answered your own question.

[dusty64]

72. There IS something afoot.

Not sure what it is but the Dean/Clark meeting and the Clinton ties all point to some kind of strategy. It is confusing as hell, any ideas?

[ozone_man]

8. Really, he could register as a Republicrat or as a Demican.

Either way he would be likely to gain much of the crossover vote. But, I will vote for a real Democrat for real change from the road we're on.

[Cappurr]

47. Uh.......Until about a year ago, I was a registered independent.

Didn't make me less liberal. Just more mysterious ;)

[bhunt70]

4. um...

Why don't you support (or not support) the man because of his views, not his label.

[dfong63]

9. Clark's values, such as incompetence?

[w4rma]

19. If I were voting against Clark instead of for Dean, incompetence would be

the reason I'd vote against Clark in the Democratic primary. He's not ready for a campaign against Bush, IMHO. He would do well to accept a VP slot and learn the ropes for 4 - 8 years.

[coralrf]

71. JUst like Bush did ...

Right?

[Walt Starr]

16. Well, if he's an independent, he should run as an independent

He's running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination but he's not a bleeding DEMOCRAT.

He's Naderizing the Democratic primaries and it stinks to high heaven.

[Castilleja]

29. I agree, why run as a Democrat if

you are an Independant. :shrug:

[cprise]

50. I'm borrowing that phrase!!

Thanks!

[piece sine]

64. yeah...

why ever should the Democratic nominee for President actually be a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party?! Have we set our standards too high by presuming our nominee actually be a Democrat?! Why burden our nominee with a LABEL like that?!

[clar]

5. I find this exceedingly strange

He's been thinking about running for at least six months. He had plenty of time to register. What's up with this?

[Demobrat]

13. What I wonder is why his campaign staff let this happen.

It seems like registering as a Democrat would be a no-brainer, considering he wants to lead the party.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[DeathvadeR]

22. agreed

What if he after winning the primary registers as Repuke????

[coralrf]

68. What will it change???

WHAT???

How is Clark a new man if he changes that damn little card in his wallet? What will it change if the man has liberalism in his heart? I can give you a list of DINO's in our govenement all of which carry DEMOCRAT on their voter registrations. I don’t care if Clark is a GOP'er as long as he acts like and leads like a Democrat.

[Tinoire]

75. Too busy filling out all those lobbyist papers for Axiom

2003 http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr_viewer.exe?20030

http://sopr.senate.gov/

[Kahuna]

90. That was then. Right now he is the only candidate who..

is going after PNAC and the BFEE. What does your candidate have to say about PNAC and BFEE?

[Tinoire]

94. Oh Plenty Plenty and he's been fighting them for years

and openly, acting upon it and fighting it - consistently.

As I recall, he even spoke out against that obscene war in Yugoslavia- you know, the one Clark waged.

He's got a track record a mile long with more substance and depth than anyone's when it comes to that. That's the one thing no one in their right mind would deny Kucinich who was the the only congressman to vote against Patriot Act.

But now that you've brought it up, what was that Clark was saying about the PNAC founders just 6 short months ago? Something about colleagues? Good friends? Would be proud to work with them again? Doing a great job and how they mustn't fail? Even Condy with her 16 little words made the honor list.

Give me a break... Words are so..... cheap.

Acxiom. Jackson Stephens. CSIS. Markle Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Homeland Security. Oh yeah, words are cheap and they're not fooling anyone.

That was then, this is now my ass. Clark's already published his willingness to go into any country we need to on the pretext of getting Al-Queda which is nothing more than PNAC's creation.


Right now Clark is the only candidate who has praised the PNAC guys and said he'd love to work with them again. Another compassionate conservative. :wow:

[tjdee]

6. Didn't bother Greens at all.

Ralph Nader never joined the Green Party.

As for Businessweek, they can kiss my butt. They went looking for a story and found one. I wish they were so diligent in regards to Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Harken/etc.

[dfong63]

7. face it, he's a 4-star flake

[tjdee]

10. Says you.

I think Dean, for example, is a punk.

But I bet that many others think differently, and my thinking doesn't necessarily make it so.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

14. I remember thinking at the time...

that if I were a Green, I would be a little pissed off that my nominee wasn't even a member of my party. I would have felt that my party was being used by an opportunist. I was told by several Greens at the time that they were fine with that, because, in return for supporting Nader, they felt he would bring them the type of national attention that they had been striving for for a very long time. So Nader was using the Greens and they were using him -- everyone was happy.

Well this Democrat is NOT happy.

[Forkboy]

61. Actually it did bother many Greens

[JaneQPublic]

11. Why did he have to lie about it?

I've long admired and respected Gen. Clark, but why didn't he just flat-out say the truth from the start -- that he hadn't gotten around yet to registering as a Democrat?

I mean, if indeed Clark's independent record and past voting Republican record "Could boost bipartisan appeal," as his spokesperson says, he should have been trumpeting these facts from the beginning, rather than let them ooze out like secrets.

[GemMom]

74. I'm with you there.

The truth is always better than fibbing/lying/getting into trouble over a lie.

[Kahuna]

91. You're breaking my heart.

:nopity: :eyes:

[Pastiche423]

12. The Democratic primaries

are held so that Democrats can elect a Democrat to go against a repug in the general election.

CLARK IS NOT A DEMOCRAT!

[Ohio_Norm]

15. Personally

I am voting for the Democratic Party candidate. If Clark has the best chance of winning this crucial election, then I hope he is that candidate.

[Pastiche423]

17. Personally

I am voting for a DEMOCRAT.

[Tinoire]

79. Personally

I am voting for a DEMOCRAT with a record I can examine.

[chadm]

21. Right, but all that election stuff is just show

The winners will be decided by our media. They are already saying Clark is the guy, so I think its over.

[Rose Siding]

24. If we allow the media to pick it is

Of more concern to me is his hawking of CAPPS II. Imagine- A corporate lobbyist in the WH. I've worried about the influence lobbyists have in govt for decades and now -when we are so desperate- my own party is giving one the keys to the kingdom.

[GalleryGod]

18. 4 More for IGNORE

Thanks:nopity:

[chadm]

20. If Clark or Gore is the guy, the Greens will be in your face

I guess you guys didn't learn your lesson the first time. Run a Republican like Clark and you'll pay.

[coralrf]

69. BULLSHIT...

read a bit my man. The greens have no intention of repeating 2000 it killed them. Nader is politically dead and any good Democrat should hope that he does run. Its time that a Democrat waxed him and Bush in the same hand.

Bring em on Nader!

[Kahuna]

93. Amen! I'm down with that!

Bring 'em on. :grr:

[Kahuna]

92. I really don't CARE what the greens do. Okay?

If Clark runs he will render the Green party totally useless and with even less power than they think they have now. One more reason to support him.

You're a Green. Tend to your party and leave mine alone.

[loudnclear]

23. Maybe we don't need a Democrat in the WH...or a Republican for that matter

How about just a decent, honest person with enough nerve to stand up to the Israeli and other special lobbies that control our elected representatives? Clark is just another candidate owned by the Israel...I like most of his positions but his position on the ME leaves a lot to be desired. I can't vote for him for this reason alone. He would not be an honest broker of the I/P issue. To me, you can't be an honest Christian if you support Israel in their ethinic cleansing and terrorism against the Palestinians and this occupation by Israel is both.

[Zhade]

58. Technically, he can't even proclaim to follow Christ if he engages in war.

I mean, if we want to drill down to the basics. It's always struck me as ludicrous for soldiers to profess themselves Christian, as those of said faith are not supposed to kill. It's somewhere in the Bible, I hear.

I know, I know, that's another can of worms. Still, it's one of those cognatively dissonant realities the real world creates.

[tinnypriv]

25. "Clark is not a Democrat" is ACCURATE

Until he registers as a Dem. Simple.

[Lurking Dem]

26. So I'm not a Democrat?

You CAN'T "register as a Dem" in my state.

[tinnypriv]

27. Are you running for the Democratic nomination?

:shrug:

[Lurking Dem]

28. According to you I wouldn't be able to.

Nor would any registered voter in most of the Southern tier states.

[tinnypriv]

31. We're talking about Clark

1. Clark comes from a state where you can register as a Democrat.
2. Clark is running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.
3. Clark is not registered as a Democrat.

Hence, he is not a Democrat. He is an independent running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

Fact.

If you were running for the democratic nomination for President of the United States, and were not able to register as a Democrat, it wouldn't be an issue. Clark can, and hasn't, so it is.

[JaneQPublic]

32. Here's a PDF of the Arkansas Voter Registration Form

http://www.sosweb.state.ar.us/elections/elections_pdfs/voter/voter_reg_ap_ar.pdf

Note Block #6. It's where you indicate Party Affiliation.

[tinnypriv]

35. I assume Clark has his people right on it now

Expect a fan-fare announcement of his filling in that box.

Thanks for the heads-up. :)

[leetrisck]

54. When I lived in Arkansas one did not

register with a party. You were simply a registered voter.

[tinnypriv]

55. See post #32

:)

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

62. And The Box Says "Optional"

Have you actually seen Wesley Clark's registration form? Does it say "independent" or is it blank? Registration in Arkansas allows one to leave the box blank. If it's blank, but if the press in its usual spin is calling a blank box "independent" then this means nothing. Before I could even register to vote, when I was in High School, I called myself a Democrat and belonged to Democrat Clubs. Filling or not filling in a box doesn't either make you a Democrat or someone who has no Democrat values. If I could see any real legitimate criticism of Wesley Clark's ideas at this point, I would take these attacks seriously. So far, I've mainly seen the weak opinions of people who have developed an emotional attachment to the personality of a rival of Clark's. We can't afford to develop any cults of personality in this race, neither for Howard Dean or Wesley Clark or anyone else. The stakes are too high. We have to elect the person who combines the best progressive ideas with the highest electability factor. We must beat Bush. Personally, I like the ideas of both men and will fully support the one who wins the nomination.

[Bud Good]

81. EXACTLY!

I've been a registered voter since I was 18, but I have never been a "Registered" member of any political party.

[Khephra]

30. Soooooo...obviously, any new rule about DEMOCRATIC

candidates that might be made shouldn't apply to Clark....He ISN'T a Democrat. There's no avoiding it now. No tin-foil hats. It's a statement of fact now.

Clark is an INDEPENDENT runing for the Democratic primary slot...nothing he says or does until he switches parties can make that statement untrue.

Like Bush with the "*" after his name, I think we should refer to Clark properly until he switches teams fully.

It's Clark (I) from now on for me.

And the funny thing is this: it's a totally accurate statement


(I missed an update on the new rules...nevermind most of the above. ;-) )

[David Zephyr]

86. Good Point, Mr. Khephra About Clark (I)

And a point that can't be argued against in any way whatsoever.

It's gonna be Clark (I) for the immediate future. Anything less would be dishonest.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

33. difference between registered "independent" and with Independent Party

I worked in a campaign office last year in upstate NY and there is a difference. A registered "independent" is considered a BLANK voter and not permitted to vote in General Primary but a registered Independent Party person can.

"independent" means NO party affilation!

[Khephra]

34. True point...

.

[MGKrebs]

36. Jeez, will the Dems even put him on the ballots?

[maxanne]

37. this is exactly why

I changed my voter registration, before I ran for office in 2002. I was a registered Independant for over 20 years, but I chose to run as a Democrat because I embrace the party ideals, and I needed the party support. I was afraid of this happening to me - and I was only running for the NH House!!

[robbedvoter]

38. But, hey, Deanies, he wasn't a Republican! As Maher said:

"General Wesley Clark participated in the debate with the Democrats.
He was the new star. And he had to answer the question 'Why is he
suddenly a Democrat?' He said he did not fit in with the Republicans
because he is pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, and once when he
was young and impressionable, he fought in a war." —Bill Maher

[MGKrebs]

41. I don't call him a Repub.

And I have (mostly) stayed out of the Clark criticism threads. But there is a critical mass of information that starts to make one wonder.

He voted for repubs, he raised money for Repubs (recently), he took a long time to declare that he was a Dem, and now he's not even technically or formally or officially a Dem.

He better be careful. This is no way to run a campaign. Or at least to win a Dem primary.

P.S.- There was a fair amount of criticism (on DU) of Clark because of his delay in deciding he was a Dem. In response, some said it was a brilliant strategy to keep the tension and attention heightened. What is happening now is the downside of that strategy, and it's downside because he hasn't gotten the ducks in a row. If his strategy really was to keep the tension high, he damn sure should have been taking care of business like this in the meantime.

It makes me think more and more that he really was undecided and unsure, and not even really that committed, but somebody made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

[Khephra]

39. If nothing else

This shows major problems with the campaign staff's competence. This is the type of thing that should have been handled months ago, epecially for someone with Clark's mixed-party background.

Clark might have "it", but I'm wondering if he's got the people to take help get him there. The political side of the campaign is where he's going to need the most help, and if they're making rookie mistakes like this, well.....

:shrug:

[sal]

40. I saw Joe Biden on Cspan today

saying he was miffed at *, but he would vote for the 87 b no questions asked to "support the president and the troops." Now THAT guy is still not a Democrat. Vichy traitor faux Democrat, maybe.

[malachi]

85. Joe Biden's an asshole

I think that the glue that they used to secure his hair plugs somehow seeped thru his skull into his brain and damaged his brain to the point that he has become a republican.

[David__77]

42. So what?

I don't know if I would support Clark, but this matters not in the least to me. It's his platform that matters. In fact, I think that a little spirit of "independence" is not a bad thing at all. Many people don't identify as party militants and we should welcome them. So long as Clark is held to the right platform, I could care less.

[dolstein]

43. Stupid and careless? Yep. Disqualifying, no.

Clark announced that he was a Democrat shortly before he declared his candidacy. Obviously, that would have been an appropriate time for him to march down to the registrar's office (preferably with camera crew in tow) and formally change his voter affiliation. But in a state where registered independents are able to vote in Democratic primaries (and apparently Clark has voted in the Democratic primary before), this kind of oversight simply isn't a dealbreaker for me.

[tinnypriv]

44. Which is more important, ethically?

1. Announcing you're a democrat to the media.
2. Actually registering as one.

(2) should have happened before (1), period.

The fact (2) still hasn't happened is way beyond stupid and careless.

Of course it isn't a dealbreaker. The dealbreaker is whether an adequate explanation can possibly be given for this "oversight".

[DoveTurnedHawk]

46. I Can't Believe What Passes for an "Issue" Around Here

Big. Fucking. Deal. I'm sure this is an oversight that will be rectified immediately.

Busy people who have lives occasionally forget to dot an 'i'. Yes, this was an error, but hardly a large one.

DTH

[joshcryer]

48. Don't let others concerns bother you.

If you find something to be an issue, post about it. Threads about candidates will invariably lead to lots of discussion, though. Everyone has their choices and they'll pick at every little thing sometimes.

[tinnypriv]

49. Whoops, better change your image

"Rhodes Scholar, Oxford Educated, West Point Valedictorian, NATO Commander.............Not Registered As A Democrat"

;-)

[Katie]

52. Zell Miller is a "real Democrat" & You can keep him! Go Clark!

I dont know what a "real" democrat means anymore. Clark is pro affirmative action, pro choice, pro gays in the military, & "pro" enough issues to qualify as a "democrat" for me. There are some "real" democrats I can do without!

[dfong63]

60. it smacks of incompetence, lack of preparedness, unprofessionalism,

... like the day he announced and his campaign immediately flip-flopped on whether he'd be at the next dem debate. funny thing, you don't see the other 9 dems making screwups like this. only Clark, first-in-his-west-point-class, the rhodes scholar, the "genius". for months while Clark flirted with running, we were told he was preparing for the run and once he announced his campaign would be super well organized. but instead of hitting the ground running, Clark immediately fumbled. now we're hearing the lame excuse that "he's only been running for a few weeks". sheesh.

[robbedvoter]

51. Out , in the real world, documentation not needed. Arizona numbers:

Arizona Poll of Hispanic Voters, scientific poll:

Clark 25%

Dean 19%

Lieberman 17%

Gephardt 14%

Edwards 10%

All others single digits.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/breaking/10_1_03dems.html

[bhunt70]

53. ???

If the guy has viewpoints that match yours would it matter that he was a democrat, independant, green, republican, or alien?

If what he says makes sense to you then what does the label matter?

In most of his positions he is right there with Dean. Check it out for yourself.

http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

http://www.issues2000.org/Howard_Dean.htm

[cally]

57. Both of these stories were leaked by *'s campaign!!!

According to Newsweek in a long story on chimp's re-election strategy.


WORRIED BY WESLEY?
Clark may pose a special danger to the commander in chief: a battle-tested general with his own, internationalist theory for fighting terrorism and experience deploying it. Bush insiders won’t talk about Clark for the record, but the decibels rise in private. They cite Pentagon scuttlebutt that the general is too hard-charging and manipulative to wear well for long. “He is a little too tightly wrapped,” said one adviser. GOP operatives unearthed and released a two-year-old video in which the general lavishly praises the early leadership of President Bush and his administration. Still, the general’s commando raid of a campaign is showing signs of taking hold. Unschooled in domestic matters (though he is being tutored by teams of former Clinton administration experts), he has inched ahead in his role as front runner among Democrats, with 16 percent support, compared with 12 percent for his closest rival, Dean.


It's about a page down.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/972982.asp?0cv=KB10&cp1=1

[bicentennial_baby]

59. Ding! Ding! Ding!

I knew that the second I saw that video, with the little "RNC" logo in the bottom corner...

[Tinoire]

78. Does it really matter who leaked it?

There shouldn't have been anything there to leak... They're only leaking things that are already known in certain circles and Clark's own words and actions. What concerns me is that this is only the beginning and Clark is not someone I would ever want to fight for- people at Clark's level in the military have files thicker than a set of encylclopedias and little you do or say doesn't end up in those files. When the JCS starts leaking what they have on him, the results will be devastating. It's bad enough that a bunch of amateurs using google are finding disconcerting things- what can we expect from years of security investigations and tracking?

[Sterling]

63. Maybe we can get W to switch parties?

That would make many people on DU happy cuz they could actually vote for Bush instead of just wanting to be like him and the rest of the PNACers.

[coralrf]

65. A few CLARK QUOTES...

"""I voted for Al Gore in the election of 2000.
I had voted for Bill Clinton previously."""

"""And it was clear as I looked at the parties,
looked at the culture, watched the dialogue, it wasn't
just that I had voted for Al Gore, I really believed
in what the Democratic party stood for. And so when
it came time to choose a political party, I chose the
Democratic party."""

These are the mans words today. I dont give a shit whats on a card he has in his pocket. Zell Miller has Democrat.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031042

[ozone_man]

73. Don't believe everything you hear.

This guy may have a lot of sleletons in his closet. If even a fraction of these stories are true, then he is one foul ball. For me it is enough that he contracted for $300,000 to a Homeland Security company (Acxiom), something that I am very opposed to. Much more, of course I can't vouch for the accuracy.

--snip--

* Clark Worked for Personal Data Firm: Acxiom Role Part of Airline Passenger Privacy Debate (posted 9/27)

The Washington Post, September 27, 2003

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government. Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents. Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom’s board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000. Clark’s consulting role at Acxiom puts him near the center of a national debate over expanded government authority to use personal data and surveillance technology to fight the war on terrorism and protect homeland security.


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

[Dr Fate]

76. Thanks for the advice Ozone- I'll be sure to only believe anti-DEM

info about Clark, instead of his own words.

Thanks for "doing me a favor" pal.

[ozone_man]

88. They're not anti-dem, just on the left wing. They're pro Kucinich.

They also say that Dean is not a liberal, which he really isn't. But he is pretty darn good on all the issues that are important to me.

Don't you believe the Washington Post about Clark's Homelend Security contracting? I don't really want a guy like that running the government. I can't vouch for the veracity of any of the other war stories, but I would like to learn more.

[Gingergal]

98. E-mail the DNC about Clark participating in Democratic debates

without being a registered Democrat. No way is that right!

[Terwilliger]

77. Welllllllllllll................

I'm glad Nader's inconsistencies are measured by his lack of willingness to become a member of the Green party!

[tlb]

80. When Howard Dean said Clark was a republican only 25 days ago

it seems he was giving Clark too much credit. You won't pin the general down that easily.

By the way, Clark saying he voted for Gore and the rest of his pitch about being a dem in 2000, that ties in with speaking at Bush fundraisers,... how ?

[Blue_Roses]

82. I just registered to vote in ARKANSAS

after moving from Texas a couple of months ago and I wasn't asked for my party affliation on my voter's registration card. Even though I have been a registered Democrat in Texas for the past 10 years, it still didn't come up as that when I received my voter's registration card a few weeks ago. There wasn't even a question on the card as to which party I chose to be affiliated with, so this doesn't surprise me

I asked someone at the voter's registar and they said that once I voted Democratic in any race, THEN I would be considered a registered Democrat...go figure...

[beyurslf]

84. As a registered Democrat....

It bothers me to know that General Clark is not registered to my party. This bothers me not because he needs that "D" on his voter card but because he has no record to back what he says. He says he believes in the Democratic ideals but there is nothing for him to offer as proof. At least a voter ID card with Democrat marked would show he has supported the party.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

89. You Have To Dig For It

Back in 2002, Clark was critical of the Bush administration's draft resolution on the possible use of force in Iraq, maintaining that it was too broad. His position against the war has been consistent, although he didn't communicate it very well in the early part of his campaign. He stumped for at least 2 Democratic candidates in 2002, including Max Cleland. And he also joined in an Amicus Curiae brief supporting affirmative action, in support of the University of Michigan's case. How many Republicans would come out in support of affirmative action?

[JaneQPublic]

87. Here's a PDF of the Arkansas Voter Registration Form

http://www.sosweb.state.ar.us/elections/elections_pdfs/voter/voter_reg_ap_ar.pdf

Note Block #6. It's where you can identify you Party Affiliation, if you so desire.

[catforclark2004]

95. The right is playing us....one against the other..and it's kinda working.

My proof is that Tucker Carlson was real nice about Dean today on Crossfire...said he should be the primary candidate.......but said it in a very sweet way....almost sincere.

I heard Rush admitting to coming on the internet to see what goes on with the dems....I wouldn't be surprised if many of them do. I believe that is how they get insight as to the pulse of the party at any given time.

What they've been reading so far tells them some Dems, especially those supporting Dean (who had to fight hard to get to the top) are suspicious of Clark's real intent (the guy who came out of nowhere and is doing remarkably well in most polls), based on the "republican till 25 days ago" routine. So now they are reinforcing suspicions by making nice to Dean. Since Dean supporters do not believe for one minute that Repugs want Dean to actually win, they believe that Repugs are using reversed Psychology....which makes Dean supporters believe that Repugs are actually afraid of Dean....and goating him on......which makes Dean supporters even more loyal and ardent to Dean.

At the same token, Right wing radio hosts are talking about Clark as though he just plain crazy....a real loony. They are not so much highlighting the party alliance issue...as that would be problematic for right wingers to think that Clark was a closet Republican...might make them want to vote for him if things get really bad with Dimsun....so on the talk shows.....Clark is portrayed as just a closet loony who believes in Time Travel. They also attempt to diminish his credentials by saying he's no Ike...He's Hillary's puppet....and He's Clinton's general.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#100203302pm

So the right wingers are working both sides of the aisles....but manipulating Dean supporters into staying suspicious of Clark...to attempt stopping Clark prior to the Primaries....and discounting Clark as a loony on their side of the aisle in case plan A doesn't work and Clark makes it to the General election.

Although it's not a complicated strategy......their Dem assessments on the vibes from the internet (wouldn't be surprised if they came here often enough) gives them the idea that this may just work.

I strongly believe that we should stop bashing each other's candidate, and instead allow each of them to perform at the next debate. That debate will give us plenty of ammunition to discuss the issues and policy matters. From that point, we can run with the policy debates...which is what the elections should really be about any way.

Based on each individual's view of their conclusion on the policy debates, each should then vote for the candidate who he/she believes to be the best man for the job.....and hopes that man wins....and may that man beat Bush during the general election!

[ozone_man]

96. There is a fine line between bashing and discussion.

There are many candidates (9 at this point) and there has to be lots of discussion and debates among candidates and fans of candidates that needs to take place. Inevitably, some discussion can turn to bashing.

Most of these candidates are unknowns and their present and past ideas and performance has to come out on the table for discussion. Some of these things are hidden and need to be extracted from past records, or even the Drudge report. Dredged or Drudged (past tense)?

If this discussion doesn't take place early, then you wind up with candidates like Scharzenegger at the convention. Looks like the Democrats have held out a few last minute surprises for him in the news, but it may be too little, too late.

I see that you are a Clark fan, so I will say that he is an unknown for me, as he has been in the military for so long and has not much of a paper trail. My best guess is that his entry into the race was an emergency plan made by the DLC, to avoid a Dean win. I don't really trust the Clintons (DLC) much more than I trust the Bushes.

It certainly is interesting to speculate on Republican support for Dean, but I have to agree that they are afraid of him as are the Clintons, because there is no dirt trail to sink him. Consequently, he is truly dangerous.

Clark on the other hand has quite alot of potential dirt and I think Pentagon insiders probably can sink him when the time comes. So he may be offered as sort of a trojan horse that they can spring out of whenever they (DLC or RNC) want to. I don't know, who really knows, somebody knows.

[Tinoire]

97. Gen when did you register as a Dem? "On Sept 3" Lol the Lie

gotta put this in this thread because this thread is book-marked!

Oct 2, 2003

THE MISTAKEN REGISTRATION. Is Wesley Clark right about his voter registration status, or is the voter registrar in his home Pulaski County, Ark., and his own campaign consultant right?

Last Friday in Manchester, we conducted a one-on-one interview with the new Democratic Presidential candidate.

We asked Clark (quoting now from our own tape): “How long have you been a registered Democrat?”

Clark answered, “About, um, oh, I think it was maybe the third of September. Prior to that I wasn’t anything. In Arkansas, you don’t register for parties, you vote in primaries and, of course, I voted in the Democratic primary.”

Yesterday, we checked this week’s edition of Business Week, dated Oct. 1. It reports that Clark has yet to register as a Democrat, even though he’s running for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

snip

Clark spokesman Kym Spell told us last night that Clark was mistaken about his registration in his Union Leader interview. “He had filled out the paperwork but it never got down to the office,” she said.

http://www.theunionleader.com/granite_show.html?article=27079