I don't want a President who decided to run on a whim

[Eloriel]

And couldn't make up his mind about what party to run in.

And praised people who are clearly evil -- but at least no doubt collected a speaking fee while doing so, which makes him a whore or if not, not a very good Democrat long after he claimed he voted for Clinton. Hell, even Zell Miller hasn't been THAT much of a DINO. Which one is it, Wes?

And worked for Jackson Stephens and consulted for Axciom on selling surveillance to the government

And toyed with the electorate for months and months, playing coy, about whether or not he would even run.

And says he "doesn't know" why he was brought hom from the Balkans early, and didn't bother to ask.

And couldn't even bother to have some position papers ready when he announced even tho he had all those months while he was playing coy and trying to decide what party he belonged to. That's probably it -- he had to WAIT on doing position papers until he made up his mind about the party. That must be it.

And ruined John Edwards' formal announcement, sucking the air out of most of the press coverage he otherwise would have had, by floating his own little press release to completely cover up Edwards'.

And oh yes, spurns his own grassroots movement. That Dean grassroots organization must be scaring TPTB so badly that Clark's handlers told him to get rid of his.

And is probably being used by people who are absolutely unwilling to let The People choose their own candidate, take back their party, reinvigorate the democratic process and arrive in the White House unbought and unbidden.

And DUers by the truckload are falling for it. Of course, some of them are plants (remember the Clark Invasion???), but there are some oldtime DUers who are so afraid of Bush that they can't see straight too.

I'll tell the truth here. I am FAR more afraid of my fellow Dems and Greens and others on the left who are so afraid that they'd settle for ANYthing, even a REALLY bad deal (esp. when there's a really GOOD deal available), just because they perceive he's electable and (quite wrongly), that the other guy isn't.

My last hope is that Clark will reveal himself for what he is to ALL the people, and the efforts to propel him into office as a puppet for TPTB who cannot risk the thought of losing their power and influence, including the Clintons, will NOT succeed in the final analysis.

Eloriel

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Thanks For The Flame Bait

And every subsequent post will prove my point...

I'm through with negative people....

They just bring everybody down....

Ta Ta....

Brian

[wndycty]

10. It won't be flame bait. . .

. . .it bashes Clark not Dean. You know that is acceptable don't you?

[eileen_d]

2. Don't vote for him.

Say something positive about Dean instead.

[SWPAdem]

4. That is entirely too simple

n/t

[imax2268]

51. yea...don't vote for him then...

:eyes:

[seamarq]

3. More tired flamebait.

buhbye.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[gully]

5. Im with you Thanks!

:toast:

[bicentennial_baby]

9. You are very inconsistent

"BTW, I don't think Clark is a bad guy. I'm willing to give him a shot"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=422568#423013

[wyldwolf]

18. You know what? I'm really starting to like you, bicentennial_baby!

YOU are quick!

[Tinoire]

68. That was until Gully's eyes read facts & quotes in black and white

If anything, Gully is willing to look at the information and evolve. It's a welcome change from some of the head-burying that's sometimes displayed here.

Gully gave Clark a shot. He failed. Get over it. Inconsistency is not knowing if you're a Democrat or a Republican, eying both tickets on the same time, playing coy, and registering as a Democrat the a few days before you launch your Presidential bid.


Brilliant is having the DLC firmly behind you with everything so well greased that you're catapulted into the lime-light as a fore-runner within a few days when people barely know where you stand on the issues.

If you want more information, you can find some here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=423043#425445

Gully's change is not inconsistency, it's evolution brought about by discussion- something we need a lot more of around here instead of cheer-leading and propaganda.

[newsguyatl]

30. eloriel, eloriel, eloriel

what can i say girl, you never cease to amaze me with your words...


great post!


i will have more to say on this soon...



in the meantime, keep getting the word out... oh, and dean kicked major ass on face the whore this morning... he has declared war on clark, we can say bye-bye to the prospects of a dean-clark ticket and to that i say, THANK GOD!

[MIMStigator]

6. Well you're going to get one n/t

:)

[ComerPerro]

7. lol

n/t

[janx]

8. I really didn't mind that Clark voted for Nixon and Reagan.

A lot of people who are now Dems bolted the Republican party after finding out what Reagan was about...

But I have a tougher time with Clark's elaborate praise of the PNAC crowd, which was as recent as two years ago.

[carpetbagger]

15. His speech is like the teacher who starts everyone with an A.

Or, perhaps, like the 90% of Americans who gave The Boy Who Cried Wolf (R-TX) the benefit of the doubt in September of 2001. It's not wrong to want our leaders to succeed. Notice in the speech how Clark used a Clinton/Albright measure of success. And it wasn't wrong to assume that a senior cabinet of Desert Shield era people would believe in multilateralism and a balanced and humanitarian involvement in foreign affairs.

The simple point here is that given the benefit of the doubt, Bush failed.

[Kahuna]

28. The same PNAC crowd he NOW wants to take down...

I guess you conveniently overlook that part. Typical.

[Tinoire]

69. See post 65 and tell me when between March 03 and now

does he talk about talking this same crowd down?

I've seen the praise and willingness to work with them again now let's see what you've got?

Quotes, quotes, and links please and from a respected publication not from some blog or "draft" site so that later on people can say, oh but that wasn't official, that person was only speaking for themselves.

We've already been through that.

So please, when between March 2003 and today, September 28, 2003, did Clark say he is going to take the same PNAC crowd down?

[Tinoire]

65. Janx- it's worse- the Salon quote is from a March 2003 interview

I went and double-checked. This is worse than if it was in 2001. This was in 2003

If you are not subscribed, PM me

Jake Tapper interview on March 23, 2003

"Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ..." ((what's the understood word there? Administration???))

Clark:

"I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues. ((Awesome! The entire PNAC crowd!))

<snip>
But the views that President Bush espoused recently at the American Enterprise Institute, if his predecessor had espoused that view he'd have been hooted off the stage, laughed at, accused of being incredibly idealistic about the hard-nosed practical politics of the Middle East. So this is an administration that's moving in a certain direction, and now that that's the direction they've picked they've got to make it work. Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail. ((WHO IS EVERYONE HERE??))

<snip>
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark

[Pepperbelly]

11. I'm SHOCKED!

I thought you were firmly in Wesley's corner! :eyes:

[Demobrat]

12. I don't want a president who waited until his opponent looked vulnerable

to jump into the fray. If Bush was still at 90%, would the guy be running? Hmmmm.....

[imhotep]

13. thanks eloriel

your facts can not be refuted.

[DEMActivist]

14. Well said, Eloriel! Clark=PNAC

Let us not forget these pronouncements made in February, 2003. We are now seeing them enacted:

Indeed, he already is. In the vacuum before the party's nominee is chosen next year, Clinton's footprints are all around--coaching presidential wannabes, offering broad policy prescriptions and encouraging his former White House lieutenants to do the same. Some of them are trying to create new campaign vehicles that will help the minority party get out the anti-Bush message and, not coincidentally, defend the Clinton orthodoxy. "Bill is desperate to establish himself as the strategy guy for the Democratic Party, the guy who shapes the message," said one hostile Democrat. The message, as Clinton reassured loyal fans at the Democratic Leadership Council, is: "We don't have to be more liberal, but we do have to be more relevant in a progressive way."

A darker scenario was suggested by a Democratic lobbyist who described "Team Clinton" scurrying around Washington, setting up independent money pots and "issue" fronts to pre-empt other voices and to define the broad agenda for 2004 in Clinton's New Democrat terms. The ultimate objective, in this scenario, is to prepare the ground for Senator Hillary Clinton's eventual run for the presidency (when Mr. Bill might return to the White House as First Spouse). This insider chatter sounds melodramatic and way ahead of the story, but it's not exactly paranoid fantasy. The Clinton circle is busy building things.

Whatever the intention, one consequence could be to smother any internal debate about what the party really believes and how to enlarge its sense of purpose. Democrats and allied constituencies are deeply riven on that question--some wishing to revive an aggressive reform spirit and the big progressive ideas that Clintonism effectively dismantled with its small, symbolic answers to big problems. Congressional Democrats are beginning to understand that Clinton's "rope a dope" style no longer works in the Bush II era (when they make a smart gesture, Bush simply grabs it as his own). On the other hand, most Dems seem to have internalized Clinton's conservative economic doctrine as party gospel--fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets are the first principle of governing, and managing the economy for growth is ceded to the Federal Reserve. This doctrine conveniently has wide appeal among the major contributors from business and finance, but it doesn't promise much for the folks who vote.

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030217&s=greider

Still Clinton's Show?

by WILLIAM GREIDER

[Kahuna]

29. If Clark = PNAC, why oh why does he want them out of

the White House? There is absolutely no logic or substance to this ridiculous meme you've attached yourself to. Clark has spoken out against PNAC. And IS speaking out against it.

[Tinoire]

70. Here's your answer. Brilliantly summed up by Cheswick

with a the dossier part added by me.

They will go after him with insider information. Can we believe for a minute that Rove won't bring out the information about Clark's calls to him and all the information they have in the meticulously kept dossiers they have on all high-ranking military officers and lobbyists? Clark is their insurance. They get him the Democratic nomination and then they sabotage him. In the off chance that he actually wins, he's one of them anyway. One of them with less ties to the religious right which is going to abandon Bush to some extent anyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=423043#424808 Post 143 & 151

[blondeatlast]

16. A whim?!

He thought about it longer than I considered my major in college . . .

[Jolene]

19. I don't want one who lies

and engages in personal attack instead of focusing on beating the republicans.

If I wanted a liar, I'd vote Bush.

Could someone please buy Dean a clue, and ask him how long ago it was, that the media was dogging Clark to get him to declare political affiliation? I'd appreciate that, because either Dean misled us, or the media did.

It would also be nice if Dean could tell us all how many republicans he's met who voted for President Clinton twice. I'd like to meet them and shake their hands--wait, there IS Lieb...

[Tinoire]

67. Dean didn't mis-lead you . Clark registered Democratic Sept 2003

And God knows, there are 10,000 DUers who will vouch that I'm no huge Dean fan but the man is no fool, neither are those on his staff. Clark only registered as a Democrat this month- September 2003. Here is some confirmation of what Dean said and it well explains why he said it. Dean is not the only one to have these concerns- you can find this on Republican boards where they're laughing their heads off at this charade, on Green boards where they're appalled saying this only confirms that there really is no difference between the two parties if we're willing to buy this, and on progressive boards (publications, web-sites). People can like Clark- they can vote for him if they want but damn it, let's make it an informed vote and let's be prepared to watch Nader laughing his head off over this one.

Thursday, September 18, 2003

Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day.

Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark:" "Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list -- his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton."

Clark told CNN's Judy Woodruff earlier this month that he had decided to register as a Democrat. Left unsaid and unknown at this point is exactly when and why he decided to become a Democrat.

http://www.politicsus.com/front%20page%20archive/091803.html

[Jolene]

74. What's that got to do with it?

Dean said Clark was a republican. Perhaps Dean should tell us when Clark registered as a republican, if he's going to tell us he was one.

Perhaps you can tell me. When did Clark register republican?

[Classical_Liberal]

20. Who are TPTB

?

[tinnypriv]

41. The Powers That Be

I think everyone else is too busy eating each other alive to answer, so I will ;-)

[Tinoire]

71. Thanks! I was wondering too n/t

:hi:

[Kahuna]

21. You didn't like Clinton or Gore either...

Just keeping it real here. There are not too many politicians that you do like unless they have a "G" for Green after their name. So why is who we "DEMOCRATS" choose to support of any interest to you?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

24. Clarkies are attacking Deanies as Greens - like Deanies did to Kucinich

it's just getting better and better!

6 months ago:

Deanie: If you don't get Kucinich, aren't you just going to vote for Nader again?

Today:

Clarkie: If you don't get Dean, aren't you just going to vote for Nader again?

hilarious

[Kahuna]

33. No! Just this particular one who IS a Green.

Just happens to be a fact! She has stated on numerous occasions her affiliations. She did not support Clinton or Gore, democrats. So who is she to tell us, DEMOCRATS who we should endorse? You think I care about who a Greens wants to win? Please.

[Eloriel]

54. If you're talking about me, no I'm not

a Green. Oh, for a few months I was so totally fed up with our courageous nincompoops in Washington, and so fed up with the Green bashing here that I considered myself a Green. But after a while I noticed I really wasn't identifying personally with being a Green.

You'd be very hard pressed to find any "evidence" of my party affiliation being Green for probably he last, oh, 5, 6 maybe more months.

I AM a member of the Georgia Green Party, but I'm a registered Democrat and for now plan to stay that way, tho I have at times toyed with the idea of re-registering as an Independent. Can't register Green here.

Eloriel

[jiacinto]

66. Which one is it?

You are trying to have it both ways.

[Eloriel]

73. Not at all.

I'm a Democrat who gave $25 to the GA Green Party and therefore am on their mailing list. I could, if I wanted to, attend their meetings and vote as a member. I could even run for office as a Green (assuming I got enough signatures to get on the ballot, and GA is one of if not THE hardest state).

But I am a registered Democrat, for quite some time now.

Got it yet? Or is it too nuanced for ya?

Eloriel

[JohnKleeb]

58. its interesting for me

Its interesting. and no to that question I sure would love Kucinich though.

[noiretextatique]

26. spoken like a TRUE WORSHIPPER

:eyes:

[Kahuna]

37. Another Green pipes in.

Gimme a break, okay? :eyes:

[noiretextatique]

39. sure...you're a TRUE DEMOCRAT too

unlike...well, anyone who disagrees with you. i think you should give everyone else a break.

[DemCam]

22. As long as the "whim"

is coupled with relieving Rummy from his command...can only say...

Whim it, Wes!

[KoKo]

23. Eloriel....what happened to Dean's "Grassroots Movement" I didn't hear

about it having problems because I thought they were all here on DU....? Could you fill me in?

Quote from your post:

"And oh yes, spurns his own grassroots movement. That Dean grassroots organization must be scaring TPTB so badly
that Clark's handlers told him to get rid of his."
-------------------------------------
BTW: I thought it was a good post and needed to be said. I worry about some of our long time DU posters feeling we need "a strong Military Man....to bring down Bush.....and feeling Clark qualifies...without realizing his background just isn't what we might need for a Democratic Presidential Contender.

He should run for the House or Senate if he wants to get something done as a New Convert to the Democratic Party......he shouldn't just barge in and assume he gets automatic support because he's a General and "some group" is trying to paint Democrats as Soft on Defense.

He doesn't get a pass on his past record! It should be scrutinized as heavily (and more, perhaps) than any of the other candidates where a "paper trail" already exists.

[hedda_foil]

46. Nothing's happened to DEAN's grass roots movement except growth!

It's Clark's grass roots draft movement folks that have been reported to have been somewhat dissed by the big boys on his campaign team. Whether or not his has been or will be worked out is not quite clear at this point.

Here's where Dean's grass roots movement gathers, KoKo. http://blog.deanforamerica.com\

And here's where it stands as of this morning

and dollars (note the total number of contributors as well as the amount.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/thebat

[KoKo]

52. I typed in the wrong name.....it's Clark's Grassroots...not Dean's! Sorry!

Typo.......kept coming back here.....wondering why I got "NO ANSWER" and thanks Hedda....I typed wrong name.......but it was an honest mistake since Eloriel's original post had talked about "Clark's Grass Roots" having problems.

My bad :-( I didn't catch that MAJOR TYPO in my reply!

[Abe Linkman]

25. I don't want posters who can't write sans lots of acronyms

What the hay is TPTB?

And what exactly is it that you are hoping Clark will "reveal himself to be"?

btw- Clark is a latter day "American Caesar" (Douglas MacArthur) - so I wouldn't vote for him no matter. Furthermore, his association with the Clintons is enough to turn me off. We don't need another "moderate" Republican, who characterizes himself as a liberal Democrat. George Bunnypants claimed he is a compassionate conservative, and Clark's history (current and past) suggests he's every bit as phony as bush.

[bpilgrim]

32. i would vote for CAESAR!

he was for the people and REFORM principals our leaders seem to be lacking these days :bounce:

peace

[ima_sinnic]

35. the powers that be -- ?

I think I just figured it out

[Closer]

27. Spot On!! Eloriel

Damn you're good! This one gets bookmarked!

[noiretextatique]

31. i agree, eloriel

and who is surprised? remember the DLC statement after the 2002 mid-terms? "energizing the democratic base (as in giving it a palatable candidate) only serves to energize the republicans base." clark is the triangulation candidate...his republican past is actually an asset. and once again, the "base" is supposed to adopt this "centrist purity" strategy of the DLC, which is to attract white males and republicans...because this election is so critical.
will anyone be surprised when the greens decide to run a candidate?

[Julien Sorel]

34. Will anyone care?

Is there any Democrat the Greens won't run a candidate against except Kucinich? No? So why did you bother?

[noiretextatique]

36. as far as i know, greens didn't have plans to run a candidate

and i "bother" because this is a political discussion board, not a pro-clark rally. and yes, i think a lot of you will care very much if the greens DO decide to run a candidate. many are STILL caring about nader's run.

[Kahuna]

40. I won't care if you Greens run a candidate....

I recognize that you are not Democrats and that you have your very own party. I have never had a problem with Greens having a party. I just have a problem when that party (Greens) try to interfere with my party when I know they want nothing more than the demise of my party.

And what really scares you Greens is that you know that if a moderate Democrate can pull in the indies and repuke lites, the Greens become irrelevant. And you'll be relegated to doing just what you're doing now. Taking swipes and making ad hominem attacks on Democrats.

[noiretextatique]

43. perhaps...

is that why people are STILL whining about nader? and though i am registered green, i routinely vote for democrats, including al gore. ad hominem attacks?!?! considering what YOU JUST WROTE...this is fucking LAUGHABLE. pot..meet kettle.

[JohnKleeb]

60. noriet

I am a dem but I really dont mind the greens, hell their platform should be ours.

[jiacinto]

72. Yeah right

A vast majority of Americans does not support the Green agenda. While I do think some parts of it are interesting, taken as a whole, most of America would never support it.

[JasonBerry]

76. Carlos, Carlos....What is **Leadership** All About???

What is leadership about then? Just finding out if the American people will "support" something and then adopt it in our platform? If that's the case, I am glad several presidents declined to listen to those same arguments about civil rights. There's other examples, but you get my idea. Leadership = standing for what's right and the American people will follow leadership, not the other way around.

[dfong63]

45. why is it that all the clarkies talk about is "fear"?

the answer to every reasoned objection to Clark is met with, "You're AFRAID of X about Clark," or "Karl Rove is shitting his pants in FEAR of Clark because of Y." this FEAR motif resurfaces time and time again. if you go by what the supporters say, Clark is clearly the candidate of INTIMIDATION and FEAR. personally i can tell you, i'm not falling for that, and it's a real turnoff.

[Justice]

50. Optimism Not Fear

One of Clark's best attributes is his ability to inspire optimism - that we can be more as a country, a nation and as individuals than we are today.

I don't support Clark because of fear or intimidation. I support Clark because he is honest, inspiring and sincere.

I appreciate you may not agree with me. But don't tell me why I support Clark.

[tridim]

38. 100% in agreement Eloriel

I'm afraid that all these recent Clark revelations aren't reaching the average (non-DU) Democrats. It's a serious concern.

Get wise people, he's not as advertised. Sadly.

[eleny]

42. Don't worry...

Voting mnachines will make our decisions for us because Dems are wasting our precious energies bashing each other.

[starroute]

44. Freepers laughing at us over falling for Clark

I hadn't known that Clark was associated with Jackson Stephens, and that in itself is scary enough that I tried Googling to find out more. When I clicked on the fourth link down, I found myself in the middle of a Freeper thread, with someone saying:

I could care less about who they pick but Clark is a war criminal and I'm amazed all those peace-loving liberals are even considering him. If that guy got the Dem nod and won, our streets would look just like Tel Avivs. NO THANK YOU DEMOCRATS! This is almost hilarious. I was at DU one night and the mods couldn't delete the Clark people's posts fast enough.

<snip>

How can a bunch of self-declared "smart" people fall for someone linked to everything they say they hate? Privacy-intruding companies like Axciom, DARPA, Jackson Stephens, Homeland Security... What a bunch of idiots. They think Republicans will drop Bush and go vote for a man who doesn't even have a political record and is all show. It's the Perfumed Prince bringing paranoia to the Dems. What a hilarious show.

The Dems might nominate him seeing how easy it is to blind them with "such an impressive resume" but Bush would crush him in an instant. There are so many skeletons in that guys closet I can't even believe they're considering it.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/965922/posts

I don't know what the truth is about Clark, and I'm not trying to take sides, but it makes me very nervous when the Freepers find what's going on here hilarious to the point of unbelievability.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. We're Supposed To Worry What Ann Coulter And Her Crowd

Think About Us...

We better just nominate Lieberman then since he's the least objectionable to the Freepers....

[Pastiche423]

48. In this upcoming election

we are fighting for the life of our democracy.

(Putting aside BBV, for the sake of this post.)

We must elect a Democrat. We must elect a Democrat that has lived and breathed Democratic ideology. We must elect a Democrat that has proven he/she has fought for issues that are dear to Democrats. We must elect a Democrat that has a history we can examine that shows what he/she has done for our party.

This is not the time to support someone out of fear. As has been said here before, the repugs set the fear rules. They provoked and let happen the attacks on out soil on September 11, 2001. Since that time, they have encouraged and promoted the fear.

Why in hell do some here want to continue that fear? Why do you want to continue to lay down and roll over for the repugs? Haven't you had enough of eating repug shit?

I know that many of the clarkites have come from other boards, after being invited to DU. There have and are posting URLs to DU threads on other boards w/encouragement to swamp this Democratic board w/clark spam. I know because I have seen them.

In 1972, I voted for the 1st time. I voted for Democrats then as I have in every electon since then. I've never voted for a repug and I WON'T NOW!

WE NEED A REAL DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2005!

[blm]

49. That was very well stated...

and the exact reason why I trust Kerry and Kucinich the most. Noone has fought for longer or harder for Dem ideals than those two for over 30 years.

Gephardt also carried alot of Dem water in his career. So has Graham. Edwards LIVED his life as a Democrat.

[JohnKleeb]

61. those two I must say are my favorites

[iangb]

53. No.....What you want is.....

.....a President who's had a burning ambition to be President for decades, who's locked into his party by his family and connections no matter if he agrees with its platform and who's incapable of making decisions based on critical analysis..........You've got one of those.......great isn't it?

[Eloriel]

57. ???

Your post is in reply to "Original Message," but I don't understand it at all, esp. relative to my own post.

:shrug:

Eloriel

[bitchkitty]

55. Even if I

didn't know the things about Clark that turn me off of him, I would be turned off by his supporters. I didn't know that Pee Wee Herman was a role model, but judging by their responses to any post that questions Clark's suggestions, I was wrong. It's all "Well, don't vote for him then" or "Not as silly as your post, LOL! (god, I hate AOL acronyms) or somesuch bullshit. Address the points? Never! I'm surprised I haven't read, "I know you are but what am I?"

[Clovis Sangrail]

56. I like cheese n/t

[SweetZombieJesus]

59. Thanks for making me proud to be a Dean supporter

:eyes:

[Ruby Newsbee]

62. I think you have made some valid points, Eloriel

and there's much I can agree with you about. You mentioned everything that made me go "hmmm". I'm also waiting to see how he weathers the storm and if the truth about him will be fully revealed and debated openly.

As Dean well knows by now, the tide changes quickly.

[Padraig18]

63. Another thread this is needed for

[Bombtrack]

64. I don't want to have a nominee who is clearly an easy challange

and more than what you said is complete guesswork.

There is no evidence that Clark is a puppet of any kind.

He was a public servant when Dean was partying at Yale. He's been a bussinessman for a couple of years.

Nominating Dean over Clark or Kerry or Edwards would be a tremendous gift to every greedy Bush-loving asshole.

Clark is a Rhodes Scholar and a general, but not an actor, which he would clearly have to be to fool the dozens of veteran liberal elected democrats and the thousands of volunteers over enlightened people like yourself.

[Tinoire]

75. Excellent thread and thanks Eloriel

I book-marked this early on and just came back to read the latests posts.

Great points and lots of information here!

Peace

[sweetheart]

77. why do we need a big baddie general?

I ask the same question eloriel. It seems we are to suspend our democratic impulses to vote for "a winner". As far as i'm concerned, that philosophy is old as of Mr. Gore's withdrawl. Prior to that, i would have supported Gore as a gesture of unity.

I wonder eloriel, if we are not too-left on this forum to suggest that our views really will determine a candidacy, and that indeed it may take a much more centrist candidate than my kucinich inspiration.... it is about winning after all.... just at the moment, as the democratic party is leaderless, it is important we speak out and demand democracy that our coalition be one that supports liberal principals.

It does indeed seem a swamping of clark.. "get over it" posters recently... and my question is, in all honesty.

What candidate will win in 2004... and will that candidate remember that the extreme left did not splinter to support them... will that candidate use their position to make sure the nation state never again gets perverted by criminals... by establishing proportional representation in national elections.

I would be much more inspired my Mr. Clark if he hooked up supporting an existing candidate... as it stands, he has NO experience in elected office no matter what dictatorship positions he's held in the military... i don't need a benevolent dictator for a president to undo the crimes of the previous caesars.

Clark may indeed be a good candidate.... and maybe a benevolent dictator is all america can handle having tossed democracy out years ago.

[Shanty Oilish]

78. Eloriel, if you are flame, I must be Ronson.

I think he's a mole. "And DUers by the truckload are falling for it." Normally I don't take every opportunity to bash another DUer's choice, but this man does not count in my book as a Democrat, and it's not flaming to entreat people to open their eyes.

His entry into the race was accompanied by a floating rumor from the right, that he was a Clinton puppet. That alone aroused my suspicions, it was typical Republican shell game sleight-of-hand. Everything I've heard about Clark since, especially from his own mouth, leaves me baffled that anyone here could take him seriously.

[JCMach1]

79. Or who is a Democrat for shear opportunistic reasons

...

I wholeheartedly concur....

[rhite5]

80. Thank you, Eloriel

It is incredible to me that people consider the Democratic Party so weak and dead that they think we should choose a person with NO track record in politics, NO voting history to look at on important issues, NO evidence of publicservice on the issues Democrats care about, ..... as the best person to represent OUR party in the contest for the highest office in the land.

If that's the best we can do, our party is indeed dead.

Now, as we learn that this man was lavishing praise on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfie, et al, as recently as March 2003 and lauding them both for the decision to invade Iraq and for the initial conduct of the war, we realize that he (or someone) has seriously misled the DraftClark people. An entire grassroots movement sprang up based on a lie. (anti-war General)

I know this must be hard for them to swallow. It will take some time.