Clark impresses the toughest of liberals in Iowa...

[wyldwolf]

To the chagrin of Clark haters, Retired Gen. Wesley Clark stepped into one of the nation’s most intensely Democratic venues Monday night and — by many accounts — acquitted himself well as he fielded questions before voters who will participate in January’s key Iowa caucuses.

Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin who had held similar events for each of the other 2004 Democratic presidential candidates earlier this year, said afterward he gives Clark a favorable score for his performance under the glare of some of the nation’s most intensely liberal voters.

"I thought was very good," Harkin said afterward. "I thought at the right times he showed some humor, some levity, which I had not seen before — and just came across very well."

Earlier this year Harkin had questioned how seriously Clark should be viewed as a presidential candidate when he had not been willing to state whether he was a Democrat or Republican. Clark finally cleared the air on that issue Sept. 3, declaring himself a Democrat just two weeks before he formally announced his campaign for the presidency.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_National.php?storyid=43752

And since this is the last one, Clark gets the last word...

[phillybri]

1. Bravo, General

Glad to hear he did well...

(I hear footsteps.)

[alexwcovington]

2. "To the chagrin of Clark haters," is not a good way to start things out.

It only invites bashers to go straight to the bottom of the page and post...

It's nice to hear Clark has been proving himself well.

[wyldwolf]

3. As a veteran of the Clark Bash wars here...

... and a witness to the increasingly petty and "way out in left field" criticisms of him, I would say this is to their chagrin. And I'm really referring to the handful who use name associations with Clark the same way Ann Coulter used name associations to provide the "footnotes" in her books.

[RandomUser]

4. I liked it

I think he's improved his sense of humor and sense of working the room. I only regret he didn't use the same high energy charge that he used during the Fall Meeting over the weekend, where he out-energized Dean. Hopefully he'll learn to fuse the two approaches as he gets more comfortable in campaigning.

[Larkspur]

5. Wrong, Clark, it's about credibility

Clark then turned to the Fort Dodge attorney and added: "It’s not about how long you’ve been in a party; it’s about what your beliefs are. Let me tell you something, I’m going to bring a lot of new people to this party."

What kind of people are you going to bring into the party Clark? Neo-cons who want absolute power. You're a fraud, Clark, and always will be in my eyes.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Renew Deal]

25. Who is more of a fraud?

A guy who comes to the party and wants to participate or an ex governor that hides his records for longer than the customary time because "there might be some embarrassing stuff in there."

Who is more of a fraud? A guy who is willing to explain how he came to be a democrat or a guy who calls others Bush-lite and repub-lite and then cry's :cry: when someone questions his support of Gingrich's policies?

I would say the record sealing crybaby sounds like more of a fraud.

[Spazito]

6. I was also impressed with the Iowa citizens....

they asked very good questions about many issues!

[Spentastic]

8. So apart from this little bit

"Afterward, when asked if he was satisfied by Clark’s response, Mulholland said, "I’m not sure if I’m satisfied or not." He said Clark failed to address the premise of his question, that the tone of the Bush administration had been well established before that May 2001 GOP dinner in Little Rock. "

he did well.

The fact that he didn't have the foresight to see the Republican machine for what it is is no cause for concern?

[Rose Siding]

74. The slip up I noticed

was that Harken had to give him an assist at the end and ask his position on ethanol. It's a premier issue for Iowans and Clark had missed it in his answers.

[Padraig18]

9. He looked and sounded good

I'm not a "Clark-bashing Dean supporter", and I listened to the General last night. He came across as thoroughly credible, well-read, thoughtful and intelligent. Furthermore, he said all of the 'right things' on what I consider key "Democratic issues".

Sadly, there will always be the following people who will ALWAYS bash him: those who are blatantly anti-military, those who will never forgive him for saying kind words about Republicans he had personal or working relationships with (no matter how long ago that may have been), those who cannot accept any 'centrist' and those who cannot accept a 'new Democrat' who does not possess a 25+ year-long political pedigree. As for this last, I'm with Rev. Sharpton.

[maha]

17. Hammer. Nail. Head.

"Sadly, there will always be the following people who will ALWAYS bash him: those who are blatantly anti-military, those who will never forgive him for saying kind words about Republicans he had personal or working relationships with (no matter how long ago that may have been), those who cannot accept any 'centrist' and those who cannot accept a 'new Democrat' who does not possess a 25+ year-long political pedigree. As for this last, I'm with Rev. Sharpton."

Well said.

[Spentastic]

21. You know what?

Lets do this bit by bit and examine what are "allowable" reasons for opposing a Clark candidacy

"those who are blatantly anti-military" - Well, "blatantly" seems somewhat loaded term. However, it is I believe acceptable to be unimpressed with the MIC and those that willingly participate within it. There are those that grant the military a pass, there are those that do not. Neither position is necessarily unassailable.

"those who will never forgive him for saying kind words about Republicans he had personal or working relationships with (no matter how long ago that may have been)"

At the risk of falling to Godwins law, there are posters at this site decrying Arnold far more distant past. Having working / personal relationships with Republicans is exactly what some people are concerned about. How deep do they go, how much does Clark owe? Once again this is a valid avenue of investigation.

"those who cannot accept any 'centrist'" - That is true. The argument needs to be whether "centrists" are in fact Democrats in the accepted sense.

"a 'new Democrat' who does not possess a 25+ year-long political pedigree"

Yes, there are people that are concerned that someone previously unknown appears and wishes to be declared leader of their group. Anyone not asking these questions must be wilfully naive,

[maha]

38. You know what?

"There are those that grant the military a pass, there are those that do not. Neither position is necessarily unassailable."

In other words, you're either fer 'em or agin' 'em. And you are blatantly, knee-jerk, don't-even-want-to-think-about-it anti-military. Soldier = Evil in your world.

Believe it or not, there are those who look at individuals as they are without prejudice. Try it some time.

[Spentastic]

49. Fair enough

"In other words, you're either fer 'em or agin' 'em. And you are blatantly, knee-jerk, don't-even-want-to-think-about-it anti-military. Soldier = Evil in your world"

I'd qualify that with "and everybody in between".

I'd be careful about quantifying me as

"And you are blatantly, knee-jerk, don't-even-want-to-think-about-it anti-military. Soldier = Evil in your world."

Or I'll call you a baby killing war monger. Then we're no further foward are we? You're the one throwing labels not I. I have views on the military and the disposition thereof. I'm not knee jerk anti but I do think that it needs reform and I do think that those that serve bear some responsibility for the choices they make.

[maha]

52. The military needs reform?

Everything always needs reform. And as soon as it's reformed, the reforms need reform. This is the human condition.

But what do you want to do with the military, dear? Make it nicer so it doesn't hurt people?

[Spentastic]

57. Nope

I want it to be fit for purpose.

I'd also like to see the "it's a way out of poverty" reason for joining diminished somewhat.

Don't call me "dear" you patronising wanker (see it works both ways).

[Padraig18]

My response

"Lets do this bit by bit and examine what are "allowable" reasons for opposing a Clark candidacy

"those who are blatantly anti-military" - Well, "blatantly" seems somewhat loaded term. However, it is I believe acceptable to be unimpressed with the MIC and those that willingly participate within it. There are those that grant the military a pass, there are those that do not. Neither position is necessarily unassailable."

I used the term 'blatantly anti-military' deliberately, not accidentally. I agree that his military record is open for objective- civil discusion.

""those who will never forgive him for saying kind words about Republicans he had personal or working relationships with (no matter how long ago that may have been)"

At the risk of falling to Godwins law, there are posters at this site decrying Arnold far more distant past. Having working / personal relationships with Republicans is exactly what some people are concerned about. How deep do they go, how much does Clark owe? Once again this is a valid avenue of investigation."

Again, I used the word 'never' deliberately, not accidentally; I also agree that this is the subject for a fair and civilzed discussion.

""those who cannot accept any 'centrist'" - That is true. The argument needs to be whether "centrists" are in fact Democrats in the accepted sense. "

We agree.

""a 'new Democrat' who does not possess a 25+ year-long political pedigree"

Yes, there are people that are concerned that someone previously unknown appears and wishes to be declared leader of their group. Anyone not asking these questions must be wilfully naive,"

Again, we agree.

My reason for attempting to define/deliniate what I personally perceive as being the characteristics of a hard-core group of "Clark haters" is to simply point out that there are SOME here at DU who will *never* accept any answer from Gen. Clark on these subjects, no matter how reasonable, valid or truthful those answers are.

:hi:

[RandomUser]

46. There is a difference

between saying,

hmm...he's been in the military, this might be something that needs to be examined, and possible cause for concern. I need to know his stances on PNAC, MIC, etc.

and saying,

no one who has ever been in the military should be president. They are all fanatical republican automatons. How can they be in such a restrictive authoritarian culture and still be able to think for themselves? Only idiots join the military. They are killers. Only someone who has no morals would ever join the military. No one who has ever been involved in the military is a respectable person unless he gets out and denounces it and repents and swears to abolish it because we shouldn't have soldiers. If he won't swear to dissolve the military, and leave us defenseless, he's not human.

Admittedly hyperbole, but too much so, and I hope my point is clear. There are many good people in the military. They serve out of a sense of patriotism, pride in their country, desire to serve their fellow countryman, to make the world a better place. Many have sacrificed their lives, and we democrats should not treat our veterans and soldiers as republican doormats. Does that mean we shouldn't examine someone just because they were in the military? Of course not. I've been very pleased with what I've seen regarding Clark's stances on PNAC and MIC.

Others won't even bother, because their minds are made up. And they want to make up the minds of other people for them. If they support clark, they must be assailed until they repent and see Clark for the great satan that he is. Obviously, no one can hold a different opinion about Clark, unless it's the opinion the (small group of ten, you'll know who they are if you hangout here) Anti-clarkers have.

I think people have a right to not choose Clark or to withhold judgment until they know more, and I would not label them as rabid anti-clarkers. But this is something different. There are indeed a handful of ten rabid anticlarkers (a observation by a dean-supporter I respect, no less).

[Padraig18]

54. The single most uncivil anti-Clark epithet:

"War criminal". Other than calling someone a child molester or wife-beater, e.g., I can think of no more disgusting and defamatory term that could be applied to an individual in modern society--- it is positively VILE! The facts of the matter are that General Clark's handling of the Kosovo campaign has been examined in minute detail, and not one body with competent legal jurisdiction--- not *ONE*--- has ever even hinted that either NATO or General Clark was the subject of an investigation, much less an indictment.

Unless and until such time as that changes, I will *VIGOROUSLY* defend General Clark in this regard.

On edit: corrected grammatical error

[Julien Sorel]

40. You left out a group:

those who feel their own preferred candidate is threatened by Clark. Otherwise, a great post =)

[Padraig18]

45. A deliberate omission

But thanks! :hi:

[Q]

10. Hmm. I have nothing against Clark...

...and I don't support any particular candidate as of yet...but it's a little silly to label those who DON'T support Clark as "haters". This is a decidedly RWing tactic that doesn't belong in a sincere debate about Dem candidates.

[wyldwolf]

11. No, it is not silly...

Look at Larkspur's post #5 in this thread as an example. Witness "seventhson's" daily "war criminal" mantras.

"haters" is a very appropriate word. Or would you feel better if I said "severely dislikers."

As padraig18 said above:

"those who bash Clark are those who are blatantly anti-military, those who will never forgive him for saying kind words about Republicans he had personal or working relationships with (no matter how long ago that may have been), those who cannot accept any 'centrist' and those who cannot accept a 'new Democrat' who does not possess a 25+ year-long political pedigree. As for this last, I'm with Rev. Sharpton."

[Q]

12. It's not about 'feeling better'...

...but how to initiate a civil debate.

[wyldwolf]

13. Something Clark haters know nothing about...

"civil debate" on the subject of Wesley Clark.

[Cocoa]

22. every candidate has "haters"

the Clark supporters are by far the worst at dealing with it.

[wyldwolf]

26. Yeah, we sure have a problem with...

...shoddy research, loose interpretations, and Ann Coulter-like search engine name association tactics the Clark haters use.

Look! Google "Wesley Clark Genghis Kahn" and you'll plainly see Clark once worked for Genghis Kahn! :eyes:

[RandomUser]

28. The sad part is

this is actually true. That last sentence was almost word for word what was posted in one thread.

[Cocoa]

31. I see very little of that

most of the criticism and questions about Clark are valid considering how little we know about him, since he is so new to the race.

And when I do see that kind of thing you're talking about, I refute it just like I do when I see it about Kerry, though Clark is my #10 choice at this point.

If you choose to blur all Clark criticism together with the very small amount of extreme stuff, you're not being fair.

[Julien Sorel]

47. No candidate has 'haters' like Clark does.

Next you'll be blaming the victim: 'Oh, if Clark supporters wouldn't overreact, he wouldn't have so many 'haters.' In actual fact, there has been a small group here that has been attacking Clark since the draft Clark movement started, using some of the most scurrilous nonsense imaginable in their attacks; when Clark declared and started polling well, a small, but vocal, group of Dean supporters joined them, and has essentially done nothing except attack Clark since. No other candidate has such a dedicated core of detractors, and to pretend otherwise suggests a rather unusual sense of perception.

[noiretextatique]

53. al shaprton eom

[wyldwolf]

55. I've seen ZERO evidence of that...

It's more like Sharpton disinterest.

[noiretextatique]

58. LOL...stick around ...some people do HATE sharpton

the person, and the politician. but you are right, there is little interest in his campaign here.

[wyldwolf]

60. Stick around? I've been here 2 years...

and still have seen no evidence that Sharpton has "haters" like Clark does.

[noiretextatique]

61. twanna brawley...you've never noticed?

perhaps you avoided the many threads about shaprton. he has been called everything from a race-baiter to a murderer because of that incident. he is similar to clark in that some people will never "forgive" his past, no matter how great he sounds now.

[wyldwolf]

62. I'm not denying those sentiments exist, but that wasn't the proposition...

..of this discussion.

The point was whether Sharpton has haters on the level of Clark's.

And again, no evidence of that.

[noiretextatique]

67. because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean there isn't evidence

that is my point. i think both of them are controversial candidates here. the difference is: shaprton doesn't have a chance in hell of winning.

[wyldwolf]

69. Did you notice me saying, "I've SEEN no evidence?"

and then me saying, "I'm not denying those sentiments exist?"

But, again, where is the same level of hatred at Sharpton that is being leveled at Clark?

You'd think that, because they're both candidates and we'd see more mud being slung at Sharpton.

Could it be Sharpton doesn't threaten the candidacy of any other candidates?

Which throws the motivation of the Clark bashers in a negative light, huh?

[indigo32]

70. Billy..

not that I don't feel your pain... but you should check out P & C sometime....you'll find the same for Dean there.

[Spentastic]

15. This isn't about debating

It's about supressing dissent. It's organised and spiteful.

I have no axe to grind. I'm in the U.K and the candidates all look better that the moron in charge.

However, if you had to rank the candidates by the tactics of their supporters you'd get an interesting picture.

[RandomUser]

16. If you'll examine

my answer in some other threads, you'll see that I go out of my way to be civil and polite. Trying to keep an openmind, tolerating differences of opinion, and see the other guy's point of view.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=52972#53301

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=470739#471896

As a matter of fact, I take care not to go into any threads bashing other candidates. Yet, nonetheless, the previous poster is correct. There is a small subset of "haters" who will not allow for civil debate. This analysis of the "clark-haters" was made by a dean-supporter whom I respect (Paidrag), so it's not as if this perception of the haters is an attempt by clark supporters to shut down discussion.

If you hang around a bit, or view the old archives, you'll see what I mean. They're not interested in civil debate, but in smearing.

[noiretextatique]

20. i can post several examples of very uncivil clark "lovers"

i find using the alert function works wonders to elevate the debate. and i don't care for the "tactic" of calling people "haters"...it's as ridiculous as the opposite term "lovers."

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[noiretextatique]

24. you do realize this is a personal attack, don't you?

feel free to use the alert function on any of my posts...thanks.
on edit: you did use the "term" haters in your original post, so apparently that "focus" was important to you.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[noiretextatique]

29. i don't want him to be the nominee, because there are better choices

it has little to do with "liking" or "disliking" him because i don't know him, and i am pretty sure you don't either. in other words, it's not PERSONAL. "hate" "dislike" and so on...are personal, as are other overblown emotions of "support"...which are more like cheerleading than actual debate.

[wyldwolf]

30. Oh, pardon me! You HATE his politics...

... will you vote for him if he is the nominee?

[noiretextatique]

33. i probably would...and no, i don't "HATE" anything about him

i know that may be difficult for you to grasp. the primary process will determine which candidate is the nominee. unlike some who support or oppose with overblown emotion...i am a realist. there will be little choice except to vote for the eventual democratic nominee to unseat bush, inc. even i, a registered green know that...just as i knew it in 2000.
my personal opinion is clark that would NOT be the best choice for president, but i think even he (and you, for that matter) would be a better choice for america than bush. i'd prefer to see him in either the VP slot, or with a position in the new dem administration.

[noiretextatique]

34. dupe eom

[noiretextatique]

35. dupe eom

[noiretextatique]

36. dupe eom

[Cocoa]

41. if you consider noiretblu to be a hater

you've lost your mind.

Much better to listen to what she's saying. Even if you disagree, it will be a good discussion.

I know this from experience. :-)

[noiretextatique]

44. thanks, cocoa...and the feeling is mutual

:hi: none of us are perfect, but i am pretty tired of some of the "tactics" i've seen used by a few people here.

[Kahuna]

14. There are some rabid Clark haters on DU. The term has not

been used arbitrarily. Stick around and watch.

Also, no one said that people who don't "support" Clark are haters. If you believe someone said that, please point it out because I fail to see it. This is about people who troll google and post any anti-Clark screed they can find, regardless of the source or the political agenda of the source.

[RandomUser]

18. Exactly

In some of my posts, I've even encourage people to support other candidates and not fall into despair when their candidates seem to be floundering. I've urged them on, to keep supporting their (non-clark) candidate. I've told them that they should take their time in choosing a candidate and not feel rushed into it. I want them to believe in Clark because they've seen him as I have, not because I pressure them into it. I accept differences of opinion and stay openminded.

Now contrast my approach to that of the clark haters (a small group of around ten) who think it's their divine duty to make clark supporters repent and see the light and turn away from the great satan who is clark.

[Padraig18]

19. I would agree the group is small

There are around ten ultra-hard-core Clark bashers who remind me of fundy preachers screaming the political equivalent of "REPENT, SINNER!" at anyone who in any way promotes, supports or even defends General Clark. *sigh* :eyes:

[janekat]

32. It's more "military" haters IMO

n/t

[Eurobabe]

42. they're over on smirking chimp too

i have been on that site since 2000, and the clark-bashers are going strong at SC. <sigh>

i just defend and refuse to be drawn into the poison.

[graham67]

37. I thought...

the General was fantastic last night. The crowd was much different than the NH Town Hall...more sedate, reserved, older crowd, etc. etc. He handled it all very well. I'm still surprised that nobody asked any Agriculture questions until it was all over. Isn't farming still a huge issue in Iowa?

One thing that didn't impress me at all were the campaign staffers who were dragging him away from the people after it was all over....

[kentuck]

39. I would like to hear Clark say he would reform the military and....

military contracting. Every penny spent on the military should be scrutinized. But Bush asked Congress for $87 billion and Congress only gave him $86.3? The MID has our Congress and government by the balls. There is no way in hell that each GI in Iraq needs a $million dollars in support that they have received in the last 6 months.

[graham67]

43. I'm pretty sure...

he has said something to the effect that military spending needs to be looked at. I don't have the exact quote, but I bet someone here will come up with it :)

[stickdog]

48. Good for Clark. I'd like to believe in him.

His supporters keep me chagrinning like Jimmy Carter.

[DemCam]

50. Wow, Stickdog...

I'm glad to see you're open. I had mistakenly labeled you as a Clark-disser. I understand where you're coming from now. Pays to pay closer attention.

[Julien Sorel]

56. LOL

I'm tempted to go find some of your posts and link to them to show just how much you'd 'like to believe in him.'

[stickdog]

59. Please do. Be sure to look back a few weeks for a complete picture.

I liked Clark a lot until I met the likes of you.

[retyred]

63. I for one

am willing to wait and see if your new found "Fair and Balanced" look at Clark is as it appears.

It would be hypocritical of me to believe Clark has changed then blast those that soften their negative stance.

Time will tell.....


CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site
Read The Book

[Julien Sorel]

64. I see.

So all your nonsensical attacks on Clark were prompted by me.

If you're going to waste night after night posting nonsense and then defending it with the pretense of logic (which you need a lot of work on), at least have the courage and integrity to accept responsibility for your actions.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

66. sounds like a threat to me...

[Julien Sorel]

68. ROFL.

Such a tough guy! Kicking my ass? Just like you did here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=452711#453157


Where I had to correct your mis-use of logical terms several times. My ass is still smarting over that one! Mr. Logic Man, at it again.

This post shows, by the way, just how much you want to give Clark a chance, but those mean old Clark supporters just won't let you.

[wyldwolf]

71. I just wish two things...

1. he'd said that to me and, 2. He lived next door.

[stickdog]

72. 0

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

73. Was the first time I've seen a clark hater threaten violence...

What a social revolutionary you are!

[stickdog]

78. Yeah, I threatened literal violence over a message board by suggesting

that I'd been kicking Clarkies' asses around the block for some time.

:eyes:

My keyboard is begging for mercy.

[stickdog]

76. Thanks for making my point.

That's one of my all-time favorite threads.

[bicentennial_baby]

75. -Snarf-

If I were to base my opinion of a candidate solely on the behavior of his/her supporters (esp. on DU), Dean, Kerry, and even my own man Wes would be off the list in a heartbeat.

It's one thing to just not support a candidate because you don't agree with his/her positions or background, etc. It's a whole other thing when you go out of your way to seek out possibly negative information on that candidate and post about it endlessly. You are not the worst offender by far in this respect, but please be honest about your actions thus far. If you do this solely because you hate Clark supporters, then maybe you need to examine your motivations and the efficacy of such actions.

[noiretextatique]

51. a story from the local paper: Clark touts building bridges

http://www.messengernews.net/top_stories_full.asp?1461

Clark touts building bridges
He promotes teamwork between U.S. and allies, rebuilding economy
By BILL SHEA Messenger Staff Writer

Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark described how he would reunite the United States with its allies abroad and rebuild the economy at home during a Monday evening forum in Fort Dodge that attracted national attention.

The former four-star Army general, who once commanded all NATO troops, in Europe talked at length about foreign policy and the importance of diplomacy in securing a peaceful world. He said that if he becomes president he would ‘‘build bridges outward and help others achieve some of what we have.’’

Although he waged a successful campaign in Kosovo in 1998 that ended ethnic cleansing without losing a single American life, Clark vowed that as president he would use force ‘‘only, only, only as a last resort and never because it is expedient or because a win is certain.’’

Clark pronounced the economic policies of President George W. Bush as a ‘‘failure.’’ He said he would repeal Bush’s tax cut for the wealthiest Americans and use the money to create jobs with investments in homeland security, direct aid to states and local communities, and employment tax credits for small businesses.

He had little to say about health care, retirement security or the environment. However, Clark said he would introduce policies on those issues in the near future.

[Skinner]

77. I'm locking this thread.

It appears that the author of the thread deliberately changed the article to add an inflammatory dig right at the beginning.

That is a violation of the new rules.

This would be a perfectly legitimate topic for discussion. But I feel that I have to lock this due to the deliberate baiting.

Please take a moment to review the new rules, which are posted at the top of the General discussion forum.

Skinner
DU Admin