Did Clark lie about being a democrat? Consider this:

[Zorra]

It is possible that Clark has not lied about this. I am absolutely not a Clark supporter but:

I have noticed that Clark is very slick with language. Consider these Dictionary definitions of "democrat" and "Democrat".

1) democrat: One who advocates democracy
2) Democrat: One belonging to the Democratic Party

Clark never said "I am proud to be a member of the Democratic Party" to my knowledge.

He said "I am proud to be a democrat". Or "I am proud to be a Democrat"

So what did he mean? Technically, Clark can honestly state, "I am proud to be a democrat" without meaning that he is a member of the Democratic Party.

Now, consider these excerpts from CNN:

Clark had not declared his party affiliation before Wednesday. In an interview on CNN's "Inside Politics", the retired four-star general said, "I'd be proud, and I am proud, to be a Democrat."

"It's a party that stands for internationalism. It's a party that stands for ordinary men and women," he said. "It's a party that stands for fair play and equity and justice and common sense and reasonable dialogue. It's a party that has had a great tradition in our country. I'm very attracted to it, and that's the party I will belong to."

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/clark.democrats/

Now, although the article quotes him as saying, "I am proud to be a Democrat", it is a possible misinterpretation of his intended meaning of the word "Democrat". He may have meant "democrat".

Notice, in the excerpt above, that Clark states, "that's the party I will belong to. He does not say "that's the party I belong too".

Technically, Clark did not lie. However, my information is incomplete, and Clark may have stated at some time that he is a member of the Democratic Party. But I am not aware of this information. Is anyone else?

On the other hand, if the statement was intended to be ambiguous, it seems to me that this is not a good thing. A more candid statement on his standing as Democrat would have been, in my opinion, "I believe in democratic principles, and although I am not yet a member of the Democratic Party, I plan to join the Democratic Party very soon."

I believe that Clark must register as a member of the Democratic Party ASAP to retain credibility, and that he is too smart not to realize this, unless he believes that Democrats will accept his candidacy as an Independent. Make no mistake, Clark is highly intelligent, and appears to me to have a gift for logic.

Be very careful when you read or listen to Clark. He is extremely talented in the use of language. I have read a number of his speeches and writings, and he frequently seems to me to be ambiguous in his statements.

:dem:

[Skwmom]

1. I read Clark filled out the paperwork

but by mistake it was never filed. Big deal. This is really grasping for straws.

[Zorra]

2. What I was saying is

that Clark did not lie, as some people are saying. In what way is this grasping for straws?

[StopTheMorans]

3. it's not, but since it's about Clark

you'll get that :eyes: I guess that it's too much to ask these days for a candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination for president to actually decide that he is a democratic in no uncertain terms a few months before the primary:)

[maha]

10. Oh, please

It's still the "stealth candidate" theory, no matter how you dress it up, and it's still crap.

[Cheswick2.0]

11. It is a big deal to me if the Democratic candidate for President

is a democrat. That is the very least I expect from a candidate.

[KoKo]

4. His Campaign Managers and Grassroots supporters, seem to have overlooked

a very important point. Instead of spending so much time on pushing him forward everywhere, they might have gotten his party affiliations straightened out and come up with a consistent story.

This is very offputting to those of us who might have supported him.....but this is appearing to be a Campaign put together "on the fly," as they make it up day by day. It looks bad for us Democrats and it's disrupting the campaigns of the other Dems who've been in there for a long time who have done so much groundwork that the Clark folks haven't.

And, I'm personally so turned off by Clark's one spokeperson (campaign manager) Ron Klain.....that I'm getting to the point that if he becomes the final Democratic Candidate against Bush......I would wonder what the hell is going on with the Democratic Party......and I would be very disillusioned that we can ever accomplish anything again with this much disorganization.

[KoKo]

5. Removed....double post, bug.

[dfong63]

6. so he's not a liar, only a deceiver?

[Pastiche423]

7. What is the difference

between a liar and a deceiver? Aren't both dishonest?

clark lied when he avered to the world he was a Democrat, knowing full well that he was and is an Independent.

Whether the paperwork eventually is done or not, he still lied on September 17, 2003.

[Gringo]

8. That kind of slickness, if you're right is not an endearing quality

Dean is straightforward and to the point. Another point for Dean, IMO.

[Nikia]

9. It bothers me somewhat

When I was younger, a local candidate did the same thing. He changed parties to increase his chances of getting elected since he knew that he could not beat the incumbent in the primary. i'll wait and see how this turns out before making absolute judgement. I probably won't support him unless he becomes the Democratic nominee.