Clark supporters: Could you tell me why he isn't a "Spoiler."

[KoKo]

A candidate being run as a "Military Man" as an alternative to all the other Dem candidates and particularly to foil John Kerry's candidacy.

How was his "political action committee" able to raise money for an ad for a candidate who hasn't even declared yet. Where did these big bucks come from when other candidates like Dean and Kuchinich had to start off with the "tin cup" held out just to get donations from us "little guys?"

If he declares as a Democratic Candidate and picks up votes in places like SC and other military loving states then he will cancel out the other strong candidates. He could be like a Ross Perot syphoning off votes and splitting our party.

I saw his ad on CNN today. I didn't like it. It was alarming to me. Flags and military music making him look like Bush appearances at the height of the Iraq invasion. The ad seemed to be designed to appeal to the "tough military types," out there. It said nothing but that we needed Wesley Clark "to save our country." Excuse Me? This ad really turned me off.

So who's giving the big bucks to the Clark campaign, huh?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Ralph Nader

George Wallace, and to some extent Ross Perot were spoilers.

A spoiler is somone who by definition can't win but can spoil the aspirations of someone else.

Wes Clark can win...

Your logic is flawed....

[KoKo]

2. How are you so sure he can win? Coming in at this late date when other

candidates have been out there working their butts off? Why would I not see him as a spoiler?

He already has an ad......and he's not a declared candidate?

[mcd1982]

6. How are you so sure he can't win?

As has been pointed out by many others, Clinton didn't get into the race until very late in the game -- everyone has a shot. Besides, I think a lot of people will give a good look at Wesley Clark when primaries come around, he is different from every major candidate in the pack -- he's not a politician.

Should Clark announce, and provided his policies don't stink, I will support him 100%. Everytime I see him on TV I am VERY impressed. He's good looking, VERY articulate, says the right things without seeming pompous or arrogant, and just very smooth.

As for Dean and Kerry, the two "frontrunners" I can't say they impress me in the same manner. Dean, in my opinion sticks his foot in his mouth way too often, and then has to apologize once the damage has been done. Kerry, eh, he just doesn't strike me as eloquent as Clark.

Just my two cents...

Matthew

[tsipple]

13. Clinton Started EARLY

Where did you hear that Bill Clinton started late? Clinton courted Democratic supporters around the country very early on.

[mcd1982]

14. I've read on DU many times...

That Clinton entered the race in October. Of course, I was 10 in 1992, and haven't researched it myself, so I could be wrong...

Matthew

[tsipple]

29. Clinton Officially Announced in Late 1991

However, that official announcement occurred long after Bill Clinton started campaigning for the presidency. Some would argue he started campaigning at age 16 (when he shook hands with President Kennedy) or his early 20s (with his now-famous letter to his draft board). I wouldn't go that far, but he certainly started very early.

[TacticalPeek]

27. Clinton officially anNOUNCed "late"

and announcing is what all the discussion (and coverage, hehe) is about.

And in this case, Democratic supporters are courting Clark, and have been for months, a not bad situation if you're Clark.

There is no way to now know if he will run, or how well he will campaign; but, boyyyyhidie, if he goes at it like it seems he could, watch out Repug empire.

[dfong63]

52. not only that,

... Clinton, unlike Clark, entered the race as a seasoned politician with a fine track record in electoral politics.

[Kahuna]

60. So? Don't the voters get to decide?

You seem to be afraid of the voters.

[dfong63]

143. Clark is the one who seems to be afraid

So? Don't the voters get to decide? You seem to be afraid of the voters.

HAHAHAHA, afraid of the voters? that's rich coming from a supporter of the guy who's afraid to announce his candidacy, and who won't even declare himself a democrat.

i say, sure, let the voters decide, i don't have any problem with that. just like i don't have any problem with sharpton running. let the voters decide! but, speaking as a voter myself, i do have a problem with a guy who can't make up his mind to sh*t or get off the can. Clark is the one who's not letting the voters decide.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Our Campaigs Are Too Long

Somebody can correct me but I think campaigns in England are six weeks long.


Also, another reason candidates of both parties have problems running in the general election and governing is because they have to make promises to all kinds of interest groups.

I have no problems with interest groups but one of the knocks on both parties is they are prisoners of different interest groups.

[tameszu]

55. They are

"Somebody can correct me but I think campaigns in England are six weeks long."

That's true.

In Canada, they can be as short as 4 weeks. The Prime Minister has the right to dissolve Parliament call a snap election almost anytime he or she wants.

In 2000, Chretien announced a snap election right around U.S. election day in November, and it was wrapped up a month later, the entire campaign, the vote, the count, whatever recounts needed to be done, before anyone had any idea how Florida would end.

[liberalnurse]

16. KoKo...I have to go with you on this one.

I may be experiencing a PTS response from the 2000 Nader storm but I do get a gut feeling at this late phase of campaigning. Yes, late phase as there indeed have been some real sweat-n-tears work going on. We need to beat *bush and the regime at their 250 million! We had to start early.....

I don't know what to make of Clark. I don't sense he is Presidential. I do think he is brilliant and would be a real asset to a democratic administration.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. "I Don't Sense He Is Presidential"

I guess no more presidential than that other Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight David Eisenhower.

Respectfully, what is lacking in General Clark that makes him un-presidential.

I doubt there are more than or two three Dems running that most dispassionate folks would say would make a credible commander in chief.

[dfong63]

54. what's lacking in Clark

Respectfully, what is lacking in General Clark that makes him un-presidential.

what's lacking is any track record in electoral politics. what's also lacking is the guts to make an announcement, the commitment to choose a party, and the amount of respect for the party to at least let them know his intentions.

and don't compare Clark to Eisenhower. Clark has an impressive military record, but Eisenhower's was monumental. they're not in the same league. Eisenhower was the strategist behind the allied victory in a mortal struggle between two more-or-less evenly matched sides. Eisenhower wasn't just handed a bunch of tanks and ships and planes and armies, and told to win the war. Eisenhower had to figure out how to build up the military over a period of years, how to draw upon and mobilize the resources of the whole nation into the war effort.

in contrast, Clark was a man who happened to be in the right place at the right time, to take over the reins of an overwhelming military machine, and preside over a lightning "victory" over a two-bit enemy that never posed any threat to the US, let alone the world.

Clark is a piker compared to Ike.

[Kahuna]

61. Where is it written in the consitution or electoral laws that

a candidate has to have a political track record? Our first president was a general and there have been others since. You keep conveniently leaving out that FACT.

What if after Washington, people said, 'Oh no, can't have that guy. He was never a general.' :eyes:

[KoKo]

82. So....you're saying an "Unknown" with no voting record is better than

a known? Just vote for a "pig in a poke?" Any "unknown" is better than a "known." And, you are here on DU? Clark says "Vote for Me!" I'm a General........you're gonna' Love Me.....because you don't know what I think on any issue except what I say???? You've got to be kidding me??????

[dfong63]

144. bingo

[Pepperbelly]

66. i think that lack is a plus ...

and your post reflects some historical inaccuracies, particularly Ike's role in mobilization ...

[KoKo]

84. Pepperbelly....what was Ike's role in "Mobilization?"

How does that transfer to Clark's candidacy.......and what are you talking about? :shrug:

[Pepperbelly]

94. i was responding to dfong above ...

and quibbling over history.

Relax.

[Kahuna]

59. If it's too late for him to get the nomination, who is he hurting?

Please explain. The voters will either accept him or reject him. If he gets the party's nomination why don't you think it's legit? Please explain.

You seem to be saying that he is so strong a candidate that it's unfair to the other candidates. :wtf:

[KoKo]

133. If he's running as the "Military alternative to Bush in his Flight Suit"

he could get alot of attention in the South. He might also attract Repugs to cross-vote in primaries to screw up our Dem primaries.

The Repugs might cross back over for the general election after screwing up the Dem primary..... There is evidence of some of this in the Georgia race with Cynthia McKinney. (I don't have all the info at hand, but if PM DemActivist, Eloriel or CatWoman, you will probably get an answer about how this happened.....they have all the links).

I see him as more of a distraction in the military leaning states and running ads like that one shown on CNN makes it look like we Dems are desperate for a Bush Clone. If his supporters hadn't run that ad....I wouldn't have become concerned. But, the flags ,uniform and "Saving our Country," seemed more like a Repug ad than a Dem ad. If Lieberman isn't militaristic enough (even thought he's never served) do we really need Wesley Clark to prove that Dems are tough and support the military.?

[alfredo]

90. A good general picks the battle, the time, and the place.

He's got what it takes it appears.

The most right wing pro military vet on my list just announced his support for Clark.
He was a Bush supporter.

[Nashyra]

105. He's getting the money from people like me

who has followed him since he was an analyst on the war for CNN and liked what they saw. I will also work for any candidate that wins the nomination.

[bicentennial_baby]

3. No such thing

"So who's giving the big bucks to the Clark campaign, huh?"

The ad was made by the people at DraftWesleyClark, which is not affilited with the General directly.

"In the 4 months since it launched, DraftWesleyClark.com has spurred tens of thousands of letters to General Clark, urging him to run for president. It has gained national and international media coverage on TV (CBS, NBC, CNN), in print, online, and on radio. It has raised over $500,000 in pledges And it has helped to launch local Clark chapters ("MeetUps") in over 100 cities across America. As hard as we have worked, however, we believe the real credit for the explosion of this movement belongs to General Clark himself -- who has shown himself to be a powerfully compelling alternative to the current roster of candidates.

We are not affiliated with Wesley Clark -- we are just impressed by his solid record of leadership and achievement. Former supreme commander of NATO. First in his class at West Point. Vietnam combat veteran. A Rhodes Scholar. A necessary voice of common sense and moderation on the foreign policy front. We like what we see -- and we want to see more."

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/

Also:

"(Washington, DC), August 13, 2003- DraftWesleyClark.com, the campaign to draft former General Wesley Clark for President, today announced that it is launching a television ad campaign in key primary states. The 60-second ad, “Preserve, Protect and Defend,” was funded by donations from Clark supporters. Even in advance of its launch, it has already gained significant national attention. Portions of the ad will be shown this Thursday (tomorrow) on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

-snip-

"The ad was produced by the Jackson Group. The firm’s principal, Bud Jackson, a former partner of Bob Beckel and Associates, has advised and produced award-winning paid media campaigns for local, congressional and statewide Democratic candidates."

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/press_release_081303.htm

[Brazosboomer]

7. Thanks!

Those were the numbers I was looking for. I guess I don't see $500,000 as "big bucks" as compared to other folks running for office.

I just pledged $100. myself. All I want in return for my money is a a good man in the White House.

[Kahuna]

62. Don't forget to also give money to...

draftwesleyclark.com. They are paying for those ads. They are paying for the campaign headquarters. The pledge is for General Clark's campaign if he runs. But the draft Clark people need money for the ads and expenses.

[Brazosboomer]

4. Hummm.....

I think the ad was meant to contrast a real hero against a action figure hero. Clark is not taking on his fellow Democrats; he's taking on Bush. I like that.

I'm completely unaware of "big bucks" the Draft Clark campaign has. Can you give me numbers on that as compared to other Democratic candidates and Bush? I'd be interested.

He's a pure populist. When he talked about the process of politics vs. the ideas a candidate has, he spoke to the heart of the Democratic party.

Plus, I loved watching him slap DeLay upside the head.

[TacticalPeek]

19. Ab-so-lutely...watching him hammer the Hammer was delish!

And the way he did it was dead-center bull's-eye. He even restrained himself from spanking the chickenhawk's absurd military service excuses.

I hope that coward sticks his beetle head back up for more punishment.

Made my day.

[GOPFighter]

5. I'm not a Clark supporter, but...

...I think many Democrats know the Democratic Party is viewed with suspicion among Republican and Independent voters that we are soft on national security. I think some believe a man with Clark's background and reputation will resonate among non-Democrats. I think they're right. The ad for Clark that they just played on CNN during his interview, IMO, will appeal to the Americans who quiver with pride over the flag and the military.

However, at this point I would rather see Clark support one of the nine current candidates and work his tail off for him or her, giving speeches critical of this administration

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I Don't Think Popularity Or Military Experience Is Something

you can transfer....

[Mz Pip]

15. Bush had little experience

Texas Governors don't do much. Thier legislature only meets 4 months every two years. Someone from Texas can correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Bush's popularity was completely engineered with sound bites and photo ops. He was and still is an empty suit and all that seemed to transfer. Enough voters were taken in.

Clark is not just about military experience and I think he's so much more genuine than Bush. He doesn't seem phoney or staged to me. We shall see how this plays out.

MzPip
:dem:

[mcd1982]

18. The Texas Lege

meets for 140 days, every other year. With the Gov. able to call unlimited 30 day special sessions after that.

Matthew

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Bush Won* Because He Had A Pedigree

that's all


If he was George Smith he wouldn't even have become governor of Texas. Hell, he wouldn't have got the sweetheart deal to buy the Texas Rangers.


Wes Clark is a self made man. He deserves our props.



*and we all know he had a contested win.

[Kahuna]

64. Ditto.

[John_H]

9. He certainly spoils it for Lieberman and that's good enough for me

nt

[tsipple]

11. Too Early to Tell

I could easily see Clark turning into the Democratic Party's version of Colin Powell, meaning someone who serves in a senior cabinet position and who assures the public that Democrats will keep them safer than the other party. I could also see him gunning for the VP spot, although Democrats have some fantastic choices -- Landrieu and Graham my favorites, if Graham does not win the nomination.

I don't see how Clark wins the Democratic nomination unless a couple things happen: (1) one or more Democratic frontrunners implode; (2) some external event shakes up the Democratic electorate and causes them to reconsider. Anyone giving him odds on Iowa or New Hampshire? Iowa he's got Dean and neighbor Gephardt to contend with, and in New Hampshire he's got neighbors Dean and Kerry. A good showing would be third in both. Then what?

Unlike Powell, Clark isn't a household name (yet). (The first Gulf War made Powell, while Clark didn't get as much fame from Kosovo.) Inside the Washington beltway, maybe.

All that said, the more the merrier. If he wants to run, he should. He would add yet another dimension to the Democratic field, and at a minimum he'll be on the short list for a senior cabinet post.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. What If Graham And Edwards Drop Out

Then General Clark is the only southerner in the race.

[roughsatori]

12. The "General" and "Doctor" titles seem rather fawning to me

When I read: "The General this, the General that, or " "The good Doctor this, the good Doctor that," I want to barf. I know this has nothing to do with your topic, and the people who write that do so because they think it enhances their candidate.


I am not saying there is anything wrong with being a General, or a Doctor--just that it is odd the way some posters love using those words, and it creeps me out a bit.

[clar]

17. d'accord

it's so transparent that people are trying to impress you with their candidate's qualifications. I understand it, just with they didn't do it so much here at DU

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I Give The Good Doctor And The General

their props just as I would give anybody who distinguished him or her self their props.

[roughsatori]

32. I am a Dean supporter

Giving a person credit for life achievement is fine and constructive. I am not talking about that at all.

Throwing around titles in posts does not strike me a very Democratic, but seems possibly indicative of a longing for Royal Titles that I thought our Revolution had abolished. But some people love saying titles, and consider my opinion silly and crankish, that is their right.

[RichV]

22. Senator, etc.?

Does it bother you when they say "Senator" Lieberman or "Congressman" Gephardt? Or "Reverand" Sharpton? Or "Ambassador" Braun? General and Doctor are legitimate titles too. I don't see the problem.

[roughsatori]

26. No it does not bother me when elected officials use that title.

But yes, Ambassador is appointed and annoying, and I don't like Reverend titles thrown around either.

You don't have to see the problem. It is a fact of how I look at it. You can think and feel differently. It is totally annoying if ones candidate claims to be a populist and is constantly referred to by a title.

[Trajan]

25. I do agree with that ....

I would prefer "Mr. President" for Wesley Clark ....

My ONLY problem with Clark is: ... so far: ... he isnt an official candidate, ... and he should be: ....

I dont view him as a military NUTCASE strutting around in medals or putting on martial airs like the Little Lord Bushleroy .... But I do agree with others: ... He CAN alleviate the false notion that Democrats are 'weak' on security issues ....

Hell: .. the WHOLE NOTION of the Democrats being WEAK on security issues is FALSE, and based on the REFUSAL of the leading candidates AND the Party to explain that being STONG on defense doesnt mean we attack ANY nation on the slightest pretext .... but to ACTUALLY defend our borders vigorously, to secure the blessings of liberty at home, and to protect the homefront using the amazing technical prowess that a free nation can rally in times of need ....

Clark seems to be one of the few RATIONAL voices in the national sphere in this regard ..... yet: .... he MUST put his name on the list to REALLY gain support ..... He allows the individual minds of the collective electorate to gel around other possibilities .... he shouldnt allow that ... he should declare ....

Time is growing short ....

[TacticalPeek]

38. The only title I'll revere for any of these dems is "BUSHWHACKER". n/t

[Kahuna]

65. I see your point. I don't refer to General Clark as, "The General.."

but I do call him, General Clark. That's who he is. :shrug:

[tjdee]

21. A spoiler to whom? Come on, KoKo, LOL.

There are already 2 or 3 candidates wasting our time right now.
What's another guy going to hurt?
Do we want to win or not?

I'm not particularly excited by the fact that all this money was potentially diverted elsewhere and spinning of wheels was done while Wesley took his sweet time to announce.

But what would he be spoiling by entering? The other candidates' egos?


The voters will decide whether they want him or not, it's not like the alternative is someone like George W. Bush.

And for the hundredth time, LOL, Howard Dean isn't holding out the tin cup to AOL, Goldman Sachs, IBM, etc., who are some of his biggest donors.
I don't think Clark has any more questionable donors than anyone else.

Oh, and that's not his ad. He had nothing to do with it. Keep in mind one of the guys behind it, though, is a Republican--no doubt he's the one who wanted the more pukey parts of it, LOL!

[KoKo]

33. tj, which of the guys behind his ad is a Repuglican? I saw Bob Bekel's

name, but he's not a Repug by any means. ???

[tjdee]

35. Oh...I mean the "Draft Clark" guys.

The two guys who were on C-Span, running the Draft Clark 'campaign'... one of them is a Republican.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Bob Beckel Was Walter Mondale's 1984 Campaign Manager

bless his soul.

[KoKo]

78. Yes! Beckel was a good guy.......that's why I asked t.j. didn't know who

she was talking about who was behind (what I thought) was a dreadful ad for Clark.

[Kahuna]

72. Kerry? A couple of weeks ago, a poster said..

it would be unfair to Kerry and somehow hurt his feelings if Clark ran. That one was a doozy. }(

On edit: I'm a little slow today. I know see that KOKO's concerns are for Kerry and he/she may have been the poster of the other thread I referred to above. How do I begin to explain that Kerry, just like all the other candidates mudy present his case to the VOTERS and let the voters decide. How did Clark's running become personal against Kerry? I never looked at it that way and I'm sure that If General Clark runs, he won't see it that way. It's about giving the VOTERS a choice. If the voters want Kerry he will prevail. If he doesn't it's because the voters didn't want him. that's the way it works in a real democracy.

[VolcanoJen]

30. At the very least, you could enjoy his cheap shots at Tom Delay

As a political and news junkie, I'm avidly watching the Clark appearances and subsequent discussions. Regardless of whether you support a Clark candidacy or not, please let me know how we can't support the comments made by Clark on Wolf Blitzer today, or how they somehow don't help us and instead do us harm.

I remain undecided, but listening to a man with Clark's credentials say what he says actually does me proud. At least he seems like he's on our side.

Here are two boisterous GD threads about this topic:

Clark on CNN at noon EST

Wesley Clark on CNN now 12:55 EDT

[Pepperbelly]

36. no cheap shots, Jen ...

What we saw was a Harry Truman style truth telling.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. What Did HST

say...

I don't give them Hell.... I just tell the truth and they think it's Hell.

[VolcanoJen]

50. HST didn't say it, but he probably *would have.*

Here's what Gen. Clark said about DeLay:

Transcript Where He Rips DeLay... GREAT STUFF!!!!!

[VolcanoJen]

48. you're absolutely right, they were in no way "cheap"

I "sexed up" my subject line.

;-)
Jennifer, who loved all that Gen. Clark said about Rep. DeLay today

[Pepperbelly]

57. he did the unforgivable for the media goons ...

he called the twerp gop bitch on his two-faced crap when no one else is doing so.

I say, Run, Wesley, run!

[Kahuna]

69. So! You've finally decided! BTW,,,

I love your avatar. :7

[mcd1982]

31. Okay...

With primaries still 5 months or so away and most Americans not even paying attention to the presidential race except for hardcore political junkies, why does it matter if Clark announces in September? I see someone like himself attracting a lot of attention and $$$ once he does announce...

Matthew

[Trek234]

137. Because

where is his money and infrastructure? He should be campaigning getting donations, and setting up offices.

What's better? Getting a call to a fire and having no fire truck or fire fighters ready, or having the truck and fire fighters ready at a moments notice? With the latter by the time you get at the fire all you're going to see is a pile of ash. Same thing in politics.

And guess what - political junkies are usually the main voters at any primary. You want to get in early so you can get the nomination. Oh but that's right... Clark is god among all nine candidates, and should just be given the nomination. Sorry, forgot.

Remember - Bush has a f***ing quarter BILLION dollars so far. Clark should be getting as much money as he can possibly get if he really intends to be the nominee.

[Dookus]

139. no...

bush has nowhere close to that "so far".

Check out Opensecrets.com

[Pepperbelly]

34. I have finally decided that Wesley is, by far, the best possible ...

candidate, both politically and in pursuing rational and benevolent policy. He is the class in the field.

[Wickster]

37. Too early for anyone to be a Spoiler!

Well, I am not (at least not yet) a "Clark supporter" because I am not "wedded" to any one candidate yet. The one I will fully support is the Democrat nominated at the convention. Perhaps I do not fully understand the term "Spoiler" but I thought that would only apply at the National Election Campaign. At this point I would say the more the merrier -- this way if the votes at the convention are more evenly divided on the 1st and 2nd ballot, we might actually have:
1. a VERY interesting convention, a la' 1960, and
2. A REAL Democratic consensus on a candidate.

I like to think that by waiting until I have THE candidate to support I retain my objectivity, (but I must admit that for at least a couple of the current list of candidates, I would support him/her but with my fingers firmly holding my nose). At least I do not get offended if someone insults a candidate (or even a potential candidate) at this juncture. What I do find offensive/pitiable is when someone - and particularly a Democrat -intimates that President-elect Gore lost the last election and that the Democratic Party is a losing party - NOT! Strangely, when Republicans say something like that, I consider the source and patiently explain fraud, thievery, corporate corruption thusly: "Are you better off today than 4 years ago? No, then who really lost the last presidential selection? Yup, you and I did."

[Hamlette]

40. everyone's a spoiler at this point

and what is wrong with patriotism? I'm a complete peacenik but we can't "keep the peace" without a strong defense. Otherwise some lunitic like Bush in a foreign country will effectuate a regime change in the US to gain access to the oil in Alaska.

[samsingh]

42. he's only a spoiler if he runs outside the party.

[TacticalPeek]

43. There it is. You nail it, samsingh.

Elsewise, he may spoil the ultimate ambitions of other Dem candidates, which is cool, that's Democracy. And he may spoil to putritude the Abomination in the WH, which is supercool, that's democracy.

Ain't NO way he'll go third party.

[tameszu]

44. Because he's going to run for the Democratic nomination

and because he has a reasonable chance of winning it. There's nothing in that definition that makes him a spoiler.

The draft Clark movement is a sincere online draft movement. No, it's not huge like Ike's was, but these days, if you have enough of a critical mass, then you can do amazing things with a small constituency that find one another through the Internet. And the people who founded draft Clark know the Internet--one (John Hlinko) helped found MoveOn, and another (who had to leave the movement because his firm got hired by Howard Dean) is Kos of the popular Dem blog Daily Kos.

So that's where we got the money.

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of the ad either, and I agree with the people who think we should see much more of Wes in a suit. But I was watching his interview on Capitol Report the other day with my moderate Republican roommate--who's very skeptical; thinks Clark is too late--saw the military cheesiness and just totally stopped, his jaw basically dropped:

"Middle Americans would just eat this stuff up. It's just amazingly powerful. I could see Clark taking the general election; I just don't think he'll get through the primaries."

Then we argued for a bunch about whether Clark had a real chance in the primaries--he think Clark's name recognition is too low and that most people who've heard of him think he's British. :dunce:

Anyway, the point is that the ad wasn't for us liberals--we know that on the substance, he's very progressive. But the reason why he looks so good as a candidate is that he can catch swing voters, and yes, boys who have too much testoterone and who love to run around with the flag and so on with the military schtick. Sad but true--but excusable, perhaps, since Clark's military schtick will at least be genuine, as opposed to Bush's BS.

[tjdee]

46. I could have *sworn* that one of the Draft Clark guys was GOP.

He was on C-Span a few days ago, with another of the (Dem) Draft Clark guys.
Right? Anyone?

[tameszu]

47. Yeah, that's right--Josh Margulies

who's John Hlinko's brother-in-law.

I like John's message a lot more--Josh just seems to be a bit too enamored with Clark's personality, as well as with the whole draft project. But I still think they've done a great job.

Note that those two guys are in no way the be-all and end-all of the movement. It has many, disparite moving parts. There's different people leading the New Hampshire office, and three other major web portals that are very significant. None of them "answer" to John and Josh hierarchally, although they do try to coordinate their work.

When I referred to Kos as one of the "founders" of the movement, it was because he started the original http://www.draftclark.com">Draft Clark website, one of the major portals I mentioned above, now run by Stirling Newberry. That site actually preceded John and Josh's involvement.

[tjdee]

49. Thanks--and there are other people at the Draft Wesley Clark site.

I clicked on "about us/DWC" and got about 4 or 5 folks--it was impossible to tell which was the Republican, LOL!

As you said, it seems to be a lot of people 'at the top' of the movement...but I'd still argue that the more conservative/moderate Dems and the liberal Republicans were all about that flag waving in the ad, LOL!

[KoKo]

86. Agree t.j. They may not be DLC.....but they aren't "Left like Me!"

So, I am very suspicious of their motives..........

[TheBigGuy]

67. I agree w. your republican friend.

"Middle Americans would just eat this stuff up. It's just amazingly powerful. I could see Clark taking the general election; I just don't think he'll get through the primaries."

Clark would be very competetive with Bush, but he simply is too late for the primarys. The party/activist infrastructure has already chosen sides from the various candidates.

[qanda]

45. Honestly,

Up to this point, I am extremely disappointed in the choices being offered by the Democratic party-- I am ABB, but I am afraid that none of the nine currently running are going to be able to beat Bush*. I think Clark will be able to pull voters from the right and center, which will be needed in the next election.

[grasswire]

51. what's the difference...

....between a "spoiler" and a "dark horse"?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. Dark House Was A Pretty Good Song

A dark horse come out of nowhere and wins....


A spolier by definition can not win and can only harm the aspirations of others.

The best analogy is football where teams that have been eliminated from the playoffs beat teams that need a win to make them.

[Kahuna]

56. I'm giving "big bucks" to the Clark campaign and people like me.

You know, you could have gone to draftwesleyclark.com website to see where the money was coming from before your attempt to cast the movement in an unfavorable light. Why didn't you?

You seem to be saying, Dean can have grassroots supporters giving money for HIS ads, but Clark can't. Unbelievable, the lengths you Deanies will go to to slander Clark.

If Clark runs as a Democrat, how does that make him a spoiler? It seems that some of you are suggesting that he would be a "spoiler" if he wins the Democratic party's nomination. Please explain this logic.

Spoilers are third party candidates who siphon off part of one particular party's block. How would Clark be a spoiler as the Democratic nominee?

[tameszu]

58. Hey,Kahuna, you can't be sure he's a Deanie

And even if he is, go easy on him.

Whomever the nominee is will need all of the Dem he can get in '04. And if it's Clark or Dean, then the other's serious 'Net-ops will fit right in.

I think this could seriously be very big--a primary season that actually <i>helps</i> the opposition party,rather than draining it of its energy, because it has given them such a reason and time to become mobilized, with the Internet as the enabler. I mean, between Dean-Kerry-Kucinic-Clark, the Dems have, what 100,000 MeetUp participants? Bush has under 1,000. Beatings!

[Kahuna]

71. Hi tameszu...

I wasn't saying that KOKO is a Deanie. I was saying that KOKO was assuming that only Dean can have grassroots supporters while Clark must be getting "big money donors" from dark and nefarious sources. :scared:

If I sounded harsh, I don't apologize in this case. It was wrong for KOKO to make such ridiculous accusations without doing a little readily available research first.

on edit: Oops Tameszu.. I did say, "you Deanies." Well I shouldn't have said, "you Deanies." I could be guilty of the same faux pas that I'm accusing KOKO of. That being...ASSuming. My bad.

[tameszu]

89. S'OK

I forgive you. ;-)

I think your posts are generally pretty cool, BTW...

Cheers!

:toast:

[tjdee]

68. But Clark's supporters are all....lawyers....um....military people....er..

Or...um...politicans...or...

They're not *really* grassroots.

:P

[Nashyra]

106. I am a supporter and I am a Union member

and I am encouraging all my fellow union members to look at at Clark, most like what they have seen.

[KoKo]

119. I'm not a Deanie.......but I donated to him. I'm undecided but leaning

between Dean and Kucinich........Kerry.........is fading for me. I like parts of all of our candidates.

But, Dean was first to attack Bush. Dean got attacked by the DLC who attacked us "aniti-Iraq Invasion protestors." That's why Dean got my $$$'s. But, he doesn't have my vote yet.........I don't need to decide yet. I probably am going to give Kucinich a donation. He's standing up to Bush.....he attended an "Anti-Invasion Protest." He's sounding better and better in the debates.
We have good candidates, already. But, I want the ones who are as angry as I am over "Selection 2000" and the rest of this crap we've lived through.

But, no......I've not been partisan here on DU.......I've asked questions, though. And, I will continue to ask questions.

[TheBigGuy]

63. Why would he be a spoiler?

Are there their not alot of undecided Democrats out there, as well as independents that could vote in Democratic primarys?

Clark might be appealing to folks who are independent, undecided, or lukewarm about the rest of the field. That doesnt necessarily make him a spoiler.

As for who he "hurts"...he would be taking votes from across the field..with the exception of Dean and Kucinich, who have more ideologically driven supporters, or more comitted supporters.

[eleny]

70. Where are the funds coming from

I believe that many donations are coming in from people like
myself. I saw the Clark ad and immediately made a donation via
PayPal. I was always impressed by Clark on CNN. I was not for
the war with Iraq but so far, Clark has my trust. I have also
pledged financial support should he run for office. The day he
throws his hat in the ring is the day I will contribute.

If folks are turned off by the patriotic ad, just wait till
Bush exploits 9/11. The ad developed by the Draft Clark folks
will seem "lite" compared to what the GOP will
produce.

As far as I'm concerned, America does need saving from the
Bush/Rove/GOP policies. Clark is my choice for the one who can
help dig us out with his leadership skills. A lot different
from Bush who requires leading.

It's time to prune the Bushes.

Eleny
Fair and Balnaced

[Kahuna]

73. "Prune the Bushes.." It's so obvious, yet I'm seeing that phrase..

for the first time.

Welcome to DU! Your first post is faaaaaa--bu-lous! :hi: :congrats:

[eleny]

75. Prune the Bushes

Hi Kahuna and thanks!

Here's another saying I made up too many years ago:
"High horses have slippery saddles"
Seems like that one fits our W exactly. Him and his whole crew. Pfui.

All the best,
Eleny in Colorado

[KoKo]

76. Eleny! Have you heard Eisenhauer's Quote: "Beware the Military Industrial

Complex?"

What do you think we have today with Halliburton, GE, Boots & Coots (Texas Oil Well fire fighters), and the other Bush and Carlyle connected Military suppliers?

Why would anyone want a "former General" as President? You have got to be kidding. What kind of "governing" experience does he have? Military folks are trained to be loyal to the "Commander in Chief!" Who will tell Clark what to do? I remember stories that Eisenhauer depended too much on his "advisors" because he was a "Military Man." This is from people of that generation who knew. And, folks who fought in WWII. He was Pres. when I was too young to have my own opinions from observation......but I had a family who argued politics constantly....

My "little ears" picked up alot, during that time.

I don't get why when we have so many wonderful candidates Clark would want to go into the "Military states" and try to take votes from our other candidates........unless he's a "spoiler."

Frankly, if he ran as a Repug. I would have more respect for him. I have not heard that he is out supporting our Democratic Ideals......but that he's holding back......His supporters here on DU claim he's a Dem, but if he is....why isn't he proud of it enouch to come out and say it ........like Howard Dean has first! WHY?

[Julien Sorel]

80. It was a former general who coined the phrase

'military-industrial' complex. Move along with the paranoid nonsense, unless you have some sort of evidence that indicates Clark is a tool of the arms industry.

As for the rest of your post, perhaps your 'little ears' should prick up a little better. How can Clark 'take votes' and 'spoil' in a primary????????. It's foolishness. The more I see the irrational sputterings of Clark's detractors, the more certain I become that he's the right guy at the right time. You know why? Because it's the irrational, the extremists, who have alienated this party from the minds of many mainstream voters. If that crowd is opposing Clark, more rational minds are likely to see what I see.

[KoKo]

91. Billy Bunter, here's an interesting article from "Forbes" for you........

just for a little background:

Military-Industrial Complex, 2003
Peter Huber, 05.12.03, 12:00 AM ET

It is civilian demand for PCs, cell phones, high-tech cars and smart
appliances that has madeprecision bombcomponents ascheap and
disposable as bullets.

The U.S. armaments industry today looks
more the way it did when Dwight Eisenhower
entered West Point in 1911 than it did 50
years later, when, in a farewell speech, he
famously warned Americans to beware the
"military-industrial complex."

Until World War II, Eisenhower reflected, the
U.S. had no real weapons
industry--"American makers of plowshares
could, with time and as required, make
swords as well." By 1961, however, the U.S.
had formed "a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions," overseen by a
huge work force "directly engaged in the
defense establishment." This development implicated "our toil, resources
and livelihood." At stake was "the very structure of our society."

Both halves of Eisenhower's dark vision are now rapidly fading into history. It
takes far fewer people to fight and direct wars today than it did even a decade
ago. That's because the speed and power of the front-line soldier have been
so greatly amplified by smart weapons and smart delivery systems, and
because accurate information now moves so easily up the chain of
command. Our distant wars are now fought, once again, by the few, the band
of brothers, while most of the rest of us lie abed, watching their progress on
CNN.

The center of gravity of defense manufacturing has shifted decisively back
into the civilian sector, as well. Large contractors still assemble the guidance
system and explosive in a smart bomb and the complex mix of steel and
silicon that makes up a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. But the components that
account for much of the cost and all of the astounding precision and agility of
the new weapons--powerful chips, together with the countless layers of
software that make them function--are manufactured by the same companies
that build microprocessors for PCs and amplifiers for cell phones. It is the
huge civilian demand for PCs, digital assistants, cell phones, high-tech cars
and smart appliances that has made these components as cheap and
disposable as bullets.

This isn't to say that the technology moves only in one direction. Integrated
circuits emerged from aerospace programs in the 1960s; gallium arsenide
semiconductor amplifiers that make possible the compact, cheap cell phone
were pioneered by TRW for defense purposes a decade ago. The indium
phosphide, gallium nitride and silicon carbide power chips that will land in
consumer electronics a decade hence are being developed today in R&D
programs funded by the military.

http://www.forbes.com/columnists/global/2003/0512/019.html

[eleny]

104. Sorry KOKO! but....

I don't think that we have "so many wonderful candidates". I could run down each of our candidates and tell you why each of them troubles me in one way or the other or why I don't think they can beat Bush in the general election. But let me say this - I see Clark as a moderate. And a moderate Democrat is the candidate that will not only appeal to the swing voter but also take votes away from Bush.

Here in my state of Colorado, there's a huge military presence and many retired military folks. It's a GOP leaning state to the point where the Dems don't even show up much to stump. And I don't blame them a bit. But if Clark runs for office, I believe that Colorado will no longer be in the GOP hip pocket. Our GOP governor will have his work cut out for him convincing the electorate to turn away from Clark's calm demeanor and sincerity - something Bush clearly lacks.

Clark comes from someplace in himself that's honest and direct. He will have the GOP strategists burning the midnight oil trying to find something to use against him. And when they do, it will only make them look bad. How can you put down Clark and also espose supporting the troops? It's a Catch 22 that's almost impossible to wiggle out of. They'd have to dig up something like Clark hiding Osama in their love nest to do successful damage.

Eleny - who, at 56, has enough experience to make up her own mind, thank you very much.

[loyalsister]

74. He should have announced

Is it possible that there are people who have given a lot of money to candidates who might drop out with him in the race? I think it is. There are people who have donated to Lieberman. I can't imagine he would stay in. The fact that his candidacy would change things so markedly makes it disrespectful for him to not declare to the people who are ready to support a candidate with their donations.

[diplomats]

77. I'm not sure it's too late for him to win

aren't there are a lot of undecided Dem voters? Also, Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said Clark would be a great addition to the primary mix, and I don't think she would've made that comment if she didn't believe it. I see him as a kind of Democratic Colin Powell. Many people think the Dems are wimpy on security/defense issues, and he lends automatic credibility on that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. "Many people think the Dems are wimpy on security/defense issues"

Right , if the Democratic candidate doesn't disabuse the masses of that notion they won't listen to what we have to say on anything else.

Nothing but the truth....

[KoKo]

79. Are most of you posting here, former Military? I'm trying to understand

your posts and not getting why Clark should be President. But, if many of you are former military, then I understand your sympathies. I know we have many who have served in the military here on DU......and maybe Clark would be important to them.

But, being that I'm NOT former military.........I really am concerned......I don't have some sort of awe of the guy. I've tried to watch him and I never get where he's coming from. Why would I vote for him instead of any of the other candicates??

[Pepperbelly]

81. read some of the other threads and maybe you will see ...

and one thing is for damned sure: he resonnates with many people. There is absolutely no denying that.

[KoKo]

83. "Pepperbelly" are you saying a "Strong Man" is what you want? Someone to

counter Bush......who is seen as a "Strong Man?"

In other words........A Dem "Strong Man" is better than a Repug "Strong Man?"

Then you are saying that Al Gore and Bill Clinton were not "Strong." They didn't land on a flight deck with their crotches "jacked up or enhanced" and make a disgrace of themselves .......but America wants a Man with Big Apparatus to Lead us......so Wesley Clark will be the "foil" to Bush who is a fake and will overwhelm the Clinton/Gore folks who aren't really "Big Men" like a GENERAl.....like Wesley Clark......who is a REAL MAN........

In other words the Freepers will be foaming at the mouth and ready to run for the caves if Wesley Clark runs and becomes President. And, we will have Won.....because we got rid of our perceived "weakness" on military affairs forever with a Clark presidency no matter that we don't know how he "really feels" about any issue since he doesn't have a record to examine....except his military one?

Is this what I hear you saying?? :shrug:

[Pepperbelly]

92. what are you smoking?

The only person here I have seen use the phrase 'strong man' is you. I think you are projecting something that should be between you and whomever it is in whom you confide.

I said read the other threads and be aware that a Clark candidacy resonates. Where in the fuck did you get 'srongman' out of that?

:eyes:

[KoKo]

95. ROFL, Pepperbelly..........Military Man......Strong Man.......Straw Man...

Whatever........So many here seem to think that Clark will appeal to the Military Supporters out there who see Dems as weak.

That was my point! :-)'s

[Pepperbelly]

97. if you had read my thread re: changing my avatar and

tthe original post there ... at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=190262&mesg_id=190262

you would perhaps see MY reasoning.

:hi:

[KoKo]

108. I just read your link......thanks. I understand why you would want some

one "fresh" not tainted by the "Political Machine." I do.......I'm one of the folks on DU who is very angry at our Dem Machine and the politicians who were as "in bed with lobbyists for corporations" as the Repugs.

What I'm worried about is Us Dem's being played for "suckers."

That's why I want to know which faction on which end of the poltical spectrum is funding and promoting drafting Wesley Clark.

Not being the trusting person I was most of my life before the 2000 Selection......I question everyone at this point. No one is the "perfect" candidate......politicians must compromise.

But, if Clark was so concerned about the "plight of America." Why the "big tease?" Why didn't he declare his candidacy instead of this "testing the waters" bit......now?

If he is trying to appeal to the "None of the Above" voter .......then I still say.......who is "running him.....and what are their motives."

I think it's a legitimate question. We have been through much debate and flame wars on DU discussing who is "running" the other candidates.....Why is Clark exempt?

[Pastiche423]

96. IMHO

the people that are foaming at the mouth over Clark, are the ones that have bought into the constant diet of FEAR that * and his enablers have been feeding to the citizens 24/7 since they stole the White House.

Our "military weakness" is a myth perpetuated for eons by the repugs. Why any Democrat on a Democratic board would continue to abet that myth, is beyond me.

What are they so afraid of? Why would they choose to support someone that is not a Democrat (as of August 17, 2003)?

And although there are a few Clarkie DUers that have been here awhile, most are very new members.

Makes you wonder, huh?

[eleny]

107. IMHO...

... In the first place, I'm a Clark supporter and am not foaming at the mouth. I simply have found A Democrat that I can vote for with full confidence that they would win the presidential election. I've read Clark's own words where he defends the public school system and has put forth his idea for how to fix it's wekanesses. So, military issues aren't the only things he's talked about. But we are in a conflict right now. And our military folks are coming home in caskets every week. So, the issue of war is center stage as it should be. Lest we've become so jaded that Iraq is already yesterday's news.

And yes, I'm a new member here and a new Clark supporter. That shouldn't be a problem for any Democrat. Makes me wonder why it's a problem for you. But I don't plan on dwelling on that. I'm going to use my time to work for Clark if he declares. And if he does not, I will find a Dem candidate I feel I can support and have at it.

So, if this is a web site for all Democrats, I think it's best that we are all encouraged to participate even if they don't agree with your choice of candidate. Your suspicion is nothing short of being off base.

Eleny

[Julien Sorel]

136. Wonder about what?

His ability to appeal to new people? Because that's what it says to me. Most people here are polarized; most of these 'new people' who support Clark seem to be more moderate. But that's something to 'wonder' about?

Reason Democrats have been getting their asses kicked #137: posts like these. :/

[Avalux]

85. Not former military

I'm a medical professional, vegetarian, environmentalist....Clark being a general is part of who he is, but not everything. It doesn't bother me one bit, especially when he can use his military experience for the betterment of this country, which I believe he will.

[MiltonLeBerle]

87. The reason that Clark isn't a "spoiler"-

Is because he's the BEST candidate.

[Proletariat]

88. Yup

[KoKo]

93. Well, Milton, when someone on this tread finally tells me why he's best

candidate......I might think about him and his "undeclared" candidacy further. Until then....I have to say, I'm as puzzled about him as I was when I started this thread. I think he's a "Spoiler," and have not been convinced otherwise.

Sorry......haven't heard anything about what he will do about any of the problems we here on DU are concerned about........:shrug:

[Avalux]

98. Why don't we wait

until Clark declares and speaks in detail about how he will help the country.
Seems to me you are arguing with the pro-Clark statements and don't want to see him in a different light. A bit narrow-minded.

[chaska]

99. Hi Koko.

Respecfully, you can't ask someone else to do your research for you. Google his name and there's lots of stuff out there.

All I ask is that you keep an open mind, and when the time comes vote for the nominee - whoever that may turns out to be.

I promise to do the same.

[tjdee]

101. But again--a spoiler to WHOM?

If he gets in, and can't make the money, speaks horribly, etc., then he won't get any votes. It's not like the primaries are tomorrow. He won't be 'stealing' any votes in 5 months or whatever, he'll have to earn them like anyone else.

If he hits it out of the park, and he gets the nomination, who is he hurting?

I don't understand your 'spoiler' charge. The military in NC, for example, isn't going to run to him and keep their ears closed until the primary, are they?

[KoKo]

103. Candidates running in the South Carolina primary.....for one!

Running a "John McCain" type against the rest of the Dems who will be in that primary. At this late date......Clark is trying to come in? Why.......Why is he better and what does he want to do for America that the other candidates haven't already addressed on the Dem side.

At least McCain had a record that could be examined. Where's Clarks? And, why does he think he's better than the rest of the Dems?

That's what I wanted to know. So, far......not getting answers..

[tameszu]

109. For Koko--why he isn't a spoiler

Well, given that I've been touting Clark, I am willing to do some research for you--but just this once.

So what's "the deal" with Clark? I like Clark a lot because:

-He has consistently articulated since last summer a coherent and realistic critique of the war and the Bush Admin's policy.

-But he hasn't just been saying "Bush is bad." Or "war is bad." Clark has clearly and intelligently articulated why he thinks war was unnecesary AND presented a realistic, multilateral alternative that would be better for both America and the world community, in both terms of both morality and law.

-These points alone are hugely important for the Democrats, who suffer a 40% trust gap among the electorate on defense. This is a massive vulnerability, of which Bush is fully aware

-He is a very clear speaker who is able to communicate complex positions in terms normal people can understand, but without dumbing down his message. He's quick on his feet and does very well in interviews. He doesn't mince words and he doesn't come across as whiny or negative.

-He takes a long-term view of the environment, political institutions, and the economy. He thinks in terms of 5-, 20-, 50- and 100-year timeframes. He's a progressive who can articulate his positions in terms that make them seem reasonable to moderate conservatives. So even though he's not officially a Dem, that's the only party right now he'd consider running for. Most Clark supporters agree that his unwillingness to say he's a Dem is partially a smart ploy and partially sincere. It's true that he's spent most of his life in a non-partisan public service position, so he really has never been a member of a party. But holding off declaring as long as possible is a pretty smart way to attract independents and moderate GOPers and not get labelled by the SCLM. And it makes it easier for him to keep getting media gigs as a "non-political" military commentator (although those are getting harder, since people always ask him if he's decided to run even if it's totally unrelated to the topic).

-Some positions: Opposes ANWR drilling; supports Kyoto and alternative energy development; think the Bush tax cuts were unfair and inefficient; would make funding education and health care a key part of his economic platform; opposes "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; opposes the PATRIOT Act; supports involvement with the UN and international legal and political organizations.

-He's from the south, he's telegenic, has great academic, military, and business credentials. He has a moderate position on guns, no political record, and a background as a general, so it's very hard to paint him as a "librul radical," even though his values are quite progressive. People know him from his stint as CNN war analyst. And of course can speak to security issues with a great deal of credibility. All of this gives him a prima facie great profile in terms of electability.

-Clinton likes him and thinks he'd make a good prez. A good number of traditional lefty Dems are among his supporters. He has a burgeoning Internet draft movement that's generating a lot of buzz and some money, and he's done nothing to promote it. So between the Big Dog and grassroots supporters, he has a lot of support waiting for him.

For all of these reasons, we think Clark has a legitimate shot at winning both the nomination and the candidacy. And this is why he's no spoiler. He'll be a genuine contendah...

Aside: it's funny--usually, partisans are blasted for closemindedly thinking that their candidate will definitely win, not for willingly supporting a spoiler!

If you're really curious, you'll start at this great http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_1.html">Esquire profile and this http://wesleyclark.blogspot.com/">blog.

Edited to add positions

[Pastiche423]

114. Do you vote in this country?

[KoKo]

118. Yes, Pastiche, I vote in this country.

:shrug:

[tameszu]

121. Heh, Koko, that may have been for me...

...but I can't be at all sure, because her repetitive droning is now on ignore.

I didn't use to believe in that function, but then DU taught me that with such people, there are indeed limits to rational discourse. Such bliss!

[Pastiche423]

126. So, if you don't vote in this country

why are you supporting Clark?

[tameszu]

141. Is someone trying to say something to me?

Because I can't hear you! Keep going on if it makes you happy, though. Far be it from me to interfere with anyone's catharsis.

Wow--and I think it actually has improved my ability to deliberate...this might go right into my dissertation on how sometimes knowledge constraints can improve deliberation...

[Pastiche423]

123. Koko, I know you vote in this country, dear

That question was meant for tameszu.

[KoKo]

116. tameszu, you're the first Clark supporter who has told me exactly why you

support him. You didn't answer why he wouldn't be a "spoiler" for other candidates who have a record they can stand on whethere we like it or not. But, you were honest in your feelings for why you supported him.

I wanted opinions of DU'ers about why they supported him....not Clarks website with opinions of himself and his operatives as to why Clark should be a candidate. I wanted you folks here, who support him to tell me.

Thank you for your honest answer to part of my question.

Peace.
koko

[tameszu]

120. Uh, I don't understand your definition of a "spoiler"

"You didn't answer why he wouldn't be a "spoiler" for other candidates who have a record they can stand on whethere we like it or not."

A "spoiler," as many people on this thread have pointed out, is someone who campaigns with no chance of winning him or herself, but can tip the scales toward one side or another due to his or her efforts.

This is like Nader or Perot, who couldn't win themselves, but could play "spoiler" or "kingmaker" by siphoning off votes from another candidate.

Right now, the race is not at all firm and Clark has a legitimate chance of winning--as the latest DU poll (unscientifically) demonstrates. So he is no spoiler simply because Democrats seem to be taking him serious. Being a spoiler is unrelated to having a voting record--unless you feel that it is actually impossible (note: this is a distinct concept from "undesirable") for any candidate to win without a voting record. But actual history shows that this is untrue--Eisenhower, Grant, many others.

But I'm glad you appreciated my post! Please keep reading and keep and open mind.

[KoKo]

125. A candidate who comes in at the last minute and by appealing to an angry

or disenfranchised part of the voters in a party, takes votes away from candidates who are front runners for the first primaries. The candidate would be run by those who want to influence things so that a majority of support or consensus can't be reached in an early primary. Pat Buchanan was a "Spoiler" in my opinion in the last election......because he was supported by "libertarians and those who may have realized what Bush was all about.

It's not necessarily a negative term. But, it depends on which side you are on, whether it's positive or negative.

[tameszu]

138. Hmm...

I think I sort of get your definition...I guess such a candidate would "spoil" a decisive victory for a frontrunner during those early primaries.

But here's the thing: there are a goodly number of people who think Clark has a legitimate shot at winning, and so many undecideds and so much time that you cannot dismiss him as a spoiler. You can decide that you don't want to support him because you don't like or don't know enough about his views, but you can't say he's a spoiler. Unlike Buchanan, who runs to influence direction and not to win (and therefore is happy to play a true spoiler as a 3rd party candidate, like Nader), if Clark enters, he is running to win and has a realistic chance to do so--check out the support he's already getting at DU. So by definition, he is not a spoiler. None of us who are supporting him are extreme or narrow-focus people like Buchanan's base--we want to run Clark because we think he can beat Bush.

I also think that the "last minute-ness" of a candidate has nothing to do with people being spoiler, unless they enter the race so late that they have no chance of winning. As we've seen, this does not appear to be true for Clark.

[LTR]

127. My reasons

I have tried for months to get excited about the nine that are running. And quite honestly, I really can't.

I consider myself to be somewhat moderate. I do favor many progressinve issues, such as protecting our environment, caring for the elderly and our veterans who have given so much to this country, strong education to teach the leaders of tomorrow, an economic system that rewards hard work and not just friends of the president.

I also favor small government. And by small government, I mean a government that does not waste money by persecuting political rivals and by trying to pass ridiculous laws regarding treatment of the flag and prayer in schools. I believe that the government has no right legislating religious issues. Doing so makes us little different than the Taliban. I also do not approve of our government snooping into our personal lives. People should be able to do what they want, say what they want, and be what they want. What others do in their lives is none of my concern. I don't favor puninshing others for their race, religion or sexual persuasion. That is none of the government's business.

I feel that supporting the troops is sending them plenty of fresh water and supplies and keeping them and their families off food stamps. I also want them brought home to enjoy their families. Waving pom-poms and singing Lee Greenwood songs is NOT supporting the troops.

I also favor a responsible taxation system, but not one that cripples our economy and makes our paychecks smaller. I also believe in maintaining a strong miitary so we can feel protected against terrorism and other enemies, but I also feel war should be a last resort.

I am also pro-business. Not pro-monopoly and corruption, but I favor encouraging the next Steve Jobs or Ted Turner (as crazy as this may sound). America is the land of opportunity, and we should not be crippled by government favoring the big guy.

I also don't like lying or snow jobs when those lies kill other Americans. Yet there is a big difference between a blow job and waging a phony war.

Wesley Clark speaks for me. And he does it well. He is also, I feel, to throw out that fraud of a presidential regime that is ruling our country. He also has energy, enthusiasm, confidence, intelligence, and charisma. All important things for sending Bush his walking papers in 2004.

These reasons are why I hope he runs, and wins.

[KoKo]

129. Thanks, RatTerrier, for explaining your postion....I'm much more liberal

than you. Probably more socialistic. I believe Government has to protect the "little guy as well as the big guy. And unrestrained Capitalism" is what the Bush's believe in.

Thanks for sharing. You seem somewhat Libertarian in your views of government. Perhaps Clark appeals to that view, in some way.
If none of the other candidates came close to what you are looking for......I hope Clark will be the one for you. I won't try to convince you otherwise.....As I said, I wanted to know reasons why DU'ers were supporting him.
Peace.
koko

[Clark Can WIN]

115. Better? Because he can win.

Why are any/all the other candidates better? What do they want to do for America that Clark could not do? I don't understand the "spoiler" label either. What campaigning against other dems are you referring to by him? When did you hear him say he was better than the rest of the dems? If you throw the accusation out there the onus is upon you for proof.

Clarks positions on issues are readily available.

Clark can win more Republicans and independents because he will be a "safe" alternative for them
His patriotism cannot be attacked
They cannot accuse him of partisanship
They cannot attack him on the "special interest" angle

I know for a fact, sure as I know my mothers laugh, that no other candidate on the block has a shadows chance in hell of carrying my state away from GW. It's ugly but true. Clark can carry enough borderline states and reclaim states lost in the last debacle.

I think Clark is Karl Rove's worst nightmare come to life. That's enough to make me love the man alone.

[eleny]

110. Hmmmm....

"Sorry......haven't heard anything about what he will do about any of the problems we here on DU are concerned about"

Frankly, you need to do your own legwork and read about Clark on your own. It's the responsible way for any voter to conduct a search for a candidate who speaks to their concerns. Leave the spoon feeding to the Republican Party. As a Dem, I would think that you'd like to educate your own self.

Eleny

[KoKo]

111. Eleny.....I would like to have some voting record, personally. Why should

I believe what he says. I could say alot of things on a web site.....who will hold me to them?

[tameszu]

112. I love that DU is becoming so philosophical

Well, if I don't believe that anyone will vote consistently with what they have said in their past public statements and writings, then why should we be more willing to believe that they will vote consistenly with their past votes? Do you not think that their votes might not change at any time? Why is it so much easier to hold someone to their publicly recorded statements than their voting record?

Looking for absolute certainty is like trying to find the motion that precedes the first motion.

So much zen on DU! I love it!

[KoKo]

117. Ah......not looking for "absolutes." But "patterns." Clark is "unknown."

That is appealing to his supporters......taking him at "his word." It's not enough for me and others who like to have more of a "pattern."

[eleny]

113. Before I go watch Ann Richard's on Larry King....

"I believe what he says. I could say alot of things on a web site.....who will hold me to them?"

I think you know the answer to that one.

Thanks for starting this thread. I've enjoyed expressing my thoughts on Clark and hope that it's been fun for everyone else, too. It's been nice finding a candidate I feel I can trust and a venue where I can jabber about it.

Good luck making up your own mind!
Eleny

[dArKeR]

102. CNN ticker, 'War executed on false assumptions'. This broke on the DU

about 3 days ago. Why just today, Sunday, it starts on CNN?

(paraphrase quote)

[VoteClark]

122. Who is paying for the Clark ads?

I will tell you who. Private citizens that want to see Clark as President. The DraftwesleyClark.com Campaign has raised a great deal of money through private donations.

People all over the country believe in this man, and are willing to put up their own money to have a choice in the 2004 election

:kick:
J4Clark

[IndianaGreen]

124. I don't support Clark

but I welcome his entry into the race, although I think he is a bit late (unless Edwards and Lieberman drop out).

[snyttri]

128. Clark's appeal is that he has the qualities to win.

Clark is the only candidate who comes off as Presidential on TV. He is articulate, doesn't put his foot in his mouth, deftly responds to hostile questions and has an engaging TV personality. Superficial as it may sound, no Democrat is likely to overcome the Republican money advantage without making the most of free TV and press exposure. (DigitalClark.com has TV appearances)

His 4 star general and NATO commander background is certainly comparable to the Daddy's boy, small state governor, movie actor and one term governor who are 4 of the last 5 Presidents.

The long hours of hard work, political committments and millions the declared candidates have as an advantage over Clark are not enough to
get them the Presidency if they are not appealing to a broad spectrum of voters. Clark gets Michael Moore and McCain supporters juiced up.

Clark has the strongest anti-war record in the field. He said on Meet the Press and elsewhere that he was contacted by people around the White House on 9/11 and asked to say on CNN that Saddam was behind the attacks. The statement has gone unchallenged. He also said that Iraq was the biggest foreign policy blunder since the end of the cold war (or WWII?).

His absence of a record on domestic policy gives him the great advantage of being able to define himself instead of being defined by Karl Rove. Republicans admit they will be voting in Iowa and New Hampshire for a candidate they can easily smear, Dean.

[jiacinto]

130. Give me a break

I think Clark has every right to run. If he gets the most votes then so be it. What is so alarming about having a general running? Not everyone in the military is a "baby killer".

[Dookus]

140. exactly right, jiacinto....

unfortunately, some people here believe the Democrats can win by running an anti-military campaign. it ain't gonna happen.

[Democat]

131. He's a candidate, not a spoiler

If he loses the primary and doesn't drop out, then he becomes a spoiler.

I think it's possible Clark can beat Bush.

[Pastiche423]

132. Clark is a candidate?

When did he declare?

[Fescue4u]

142. good point (nt)

nt

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

134. If We Care About America

We owe it to ourselves to take time, examine the candidates, and make an intelligent choice. Why be so rushed at this point? If and when Wesley Clark jumps into the race as a Democrat, let's give him the same chance we would give anyone else. How can there be a "spoiler" when we haven't even yet had primaries? There is no incumbant and, to my knowledge, there are no smoke-filled backroom deals going on amongst insiders to force a candidate upon us (unlike the Bush machine). This is a completely wide-open race where (hopefully) the best idea-man or woman will win out. This nominating process will be an exercise in natural selection, where we are challenged to select the best approach to help this country out of its mess. Personally, I'm sick of American politics turning into popularity contests where candidates are sold like goods and where marketing firms try to extract the best sound bite to appeal to the emotions instead of to the mind. I don't think anyone yet should have made a permanent choice. Perhaps (or perhaps not) you already have emotionally fallen in love with a candidate and therefore won't open up to any other points of view and therefore any new messager at this point spoils your now immutable choice. Car salesmen and real estate agents love to exploit this tendency in the American public. Please don't take this as a personal attack because you probably continue to have an open mind, or you would not even bother to post this question. I support Wesley Clark, but I like Dean very much and would vote for him if Clark does not run. In fact, I am ready to support any candidate who runs against Bush. I don't see it as an either/or at this point and I want to give the process every chance to find the best possible candidate for the party. I didn't like Clark's ad, but I don't think he had anything whatsoever to do with it. As for the big money, I myself pledged $2000 to his campaign if he runs and will immediately write the check if he declares. It's A GREAT DEAL of money to me, but the further collapse of America is in the balance. I know of no more satisfying way of spending my hard-earned money than to try to defeat George Bush. I have attended Clark Meet-Ups and find a cross-section of concerned Americans in attendance. All of them are highly motivated and ready to pledge whatever they can. They certainly are not lawyers or military people. This is a grass roots movement, believe me.

[Bread and Circus]

135. Currently, I have pledged $500...

But I am raising that to $2000 when he announces,
which I am hoping for by the 1st or 2nd week in
September.

[Fescue4u]

145. Im not a support of Clark,

I favor dean myself, however I Clark just doesnt fit the definition of spoiler. He is a Democrat right?