What's with all the Clark bashing around here?

[neuvocat]

I've seen less people go after Kerry when he told everyone to get over Selection 2000 and I've seen almost as many go after Lieberman because of his very conservative stances on many issues.

I don't care too much for either one and while I'm at it I don't like Gephardt as much either, but you know something, their names aren't mentioned very much anymore. Still, I happen to respect the efforts they''re making because it takes a lot of gumption to run. I still happen to respect all of them.

If Clark didn't raise all that money in a couple of weeks or if he didn't make such an impact so soon then you probably wouldn't give a damn about his military record or whether or not he wears shoes without socks.

And if you want to knock him over the head about his comments regarding the Bushes, you might as well save them for the elected democrats who not only called Bush their president but also said that they would stand behind him every step of the way in his war on terror that has effectively curtailed many of our fundamental civil liberties.

I will still argue that overall the democratic party has the finest group of people running in decades despite my own objections. I won't expect them to represent absolutely everything I stand for or want but I don't tell anyone that none of them shouldn't run for the nomination. If you want to turn around and say that no one should disparage them for that then you had better give Wesley Clark his due consideration for the same thing.

After all, he has every right to run for President, just like anyone else.

[gully]

1. The front runner(s) always get trashed/examined...

Dean was at the top of the hit list for months. I think as Lieberman said "Welcome to the Democratic Presidential Race General Clark."

[MasonJar]

2. Bashing Dems should stop

In my opinion the bashing of Dems should stop. Let them go after Bush. He is going to be tough to beat because of all the money he has raised and because of the Diebold crooked machines. If you want to complain, call your congressmen and rail about Bush. They probably would have been more attentive to the 87 billion if we had been more adamant.

[burythehatchet]

41. That's bad advice - dem candidates NEED to be trashed here.

because we need to toughen them up - expose everything thing that our opponents will unless we do it first and expose it on OUR terms.

[coralrf]

3. Neuvocat..dont be like that..

All that reason and tolerance. What is with you? You think you can just barge in here with a well thought out point? You think we are going to listen to your sanity and open-mindedness?

This is after all DU.

[chookie]

4. I like them all

I enjoy hearing their differing views. There is a spectrum of good ideas represented among them. I know that *any* of them would be a better president than the present chimpistration, and a few of them might very well become great presidents.

While I might agree with some more than others, I respect and support them all.

I wish them all the very best as we approach what is surely going to be the most difficult and contentious presidential election year ever. The Bushistas have an enormous war chest, and are totally unscrupulous, and already have experience in manipulating elections, and will stop at nothing to destroy any person who tries to expose their trained monkey princeling.

I urge all Democrats, and all those who seriously question the agenda of the Bush administration, to stand together in opposition.

[IndianaGreen]

5. "you probably wouldn't give a damn about his military record"

I beg to differ on that statement of yours, many of us do give a damn about Clark's military record particularly when war crimes and human rights are involved. It doesn't matter whether the man's name is Wesley Clark or Tommy Franks!

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch had plenty to say about NATO's dirty little war in the former Yugoslavia:

"Collateral Damage" or Unlawful Killings?
Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force

From 24 March to 10 June 1999 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) conducted an air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), codenamed Operation Allied Force. NATO aircraft conducted over 38,000 combat sorties, including 10,484 strike sorties, against targets in the provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina, Serbia proper and the Republic of Montenegro. Yugoslav media have stated that thousands of civilians were killed in NATO air raids. However, the civilian death tolls given in detailed FRY government accounts range from 400 to 600. NATO has not released official estimates of civilians or FRY combatants killed. No NATO forces were killed in hostile action during the air campaign. (07 May 2000)

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/kosovo/index.html

Full report:

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/kosovo/docs/nato_all.pdf

CIVILIAN DEATHS IN THE NATO AIR CAMPAIGN

SUMMARY

With respect to NATO violations of international humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch was concerned about a number of cases in which NATO forces:

· conducted air attacks using cluster bombs near populated areas;
· attacked targets of questionable military legitimacy, including Serb Radio and Television, heating plants, and bridges;
· did not take adequate precautions in warning civilians of attacks;
· took insufficient precautions identifying the presence of civilians when attacking convoys and mobile targets; and
· caused excessive civilian casualties by not taking sufficient measures to verify that military targets did not have concentrations of civilians (such as at Korisa).

One disturbing aspect of the matter of civilian deaths is how starkly the number of incidents and deaths contrasts with official U.S. and Yugoslav statements. U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, and Gen. Wesley Clark, have testified before Congress and stated publicly that there were only twenty to thirty incidents of "collateral damage" in the entire war. The number of incidents Human Rights Watch has been able to authenticate is three to four times this number. The seemingly cavalier U.S. statements regarding the civilian toll suggest a resistance to acknowledging the actual civilian effects and an indifference to evaluating their causes.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200.htm#P37_987

[captainamerica101]

10. No Way!

There has not BEEN a "war" where America did not spray with some chemical agent (like Agent Orange), drop cluster and other "illegal" bombs (like Napalm), targeting of civilian infrastructure (like water and electricity) machine gunning whole villiages of people and even much much worse.

I am not making excuses for Clark like war is war or he was just following orders, but if you really, and I mean REALLY look at all your claims obversely, you are saying that Clark ran a war with FAR LESS "overall" humanitarian and other violations than any of the wars that his predecessors were involved in for the last 60 years, PERIOD.
(Including the Gulf War.)

Need I say more?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. thank you captainamerica101!

"Clark ran a war with FAR LESS "overall" humanitarian and other violations than any of the wars that his predecessors were involved in for the last 60 years, PERIOD."

I've been trying to say this for months, but couldn't figure out how. You did a great job. I marched against the war in Kosovo, and I don't believe it was right, and I don't think the tactics were just.

The hypocrisy of Democrats who support the civilian leaders who ordered and supported the war attacking Clark for actually doing the killing is disgusting. War is ALWAYS a crime, and I bet Clark did more than any other military leader to minimize causualties in American history.

[WesWinger]

12. Grab hold of your senses

Hey IndianaGreen,

You can Clark bash until the cows come home. You can talk about "war crimes" for an age. You can rail against whatever you'd like. But I ask you this: Are you ready for another four years of Dubya? Is that what you want? Grab hold of yourself, have a drink of water and think about what you're saying.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but we are nowhere near utopia. The perfect world will never exist and perception is reality. (Check with Plato on that if you don't believe me.)
I love your ire and your passion, don't get me wrong, but there are some choices we need to make as DEMOCRATS to bring the reign of the Bush Reich to an end.
Perhaps you'd like to see Dennis Kucinich in the White House? Although he's respectable, he's got NO SHOT at 1600 PA Ave. Dean? Straight up with Bush - Dean goes down hard. Clark? I have news for you...he's not the war criminal you think he is. Stop reading the Amnesty propagada and start thinking for yourself on such vital issues. If you would take the time and do your OWN research, perhaps you'd find that Wes Clark, although trained as a "killing machine", is actually a humanitarian in the fullest sense. But you don't have to believe me, just watch Wes in action on the C-Span archive page and listen for yourself - without the "aid" of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.
Wes Clark is the only one in the Dem field who has the ability to stop the lies and the lying liers who tell them. (Thanks Al.)
Take a deep breath, click your heels together and say, "There's no place like home...there's no place like home...there's no place like home..."

[Pastiche423]

13. I'm not IG

but as I feel the same as she does, I would like to respond.

"...there are some choices we need to make as DEMOCRATS".

I agree. One of the 1st choices we should make, is to support a Democrat. Please notice that's Democrat w/ a big "D". Not someone that decided weeks after he announced he was a democrat, to finally REGISTER as a Democrat.

That Democrat should have a history of working for the Democratic Party, not the repug party.

You spoke of research. Well, IG is one of the best researchers on this site and she has been on the site for over two years doing just that. Ain't a thing wrong w/her research.

A few other DUers have also done research on clark. Surprise, surprise! We found the same history on clark that IG did. Face it. A large portion of this planet we all live on, believes Wesley K. Clark is a war criminal.

You can swallow that "he's not the only one that dropped cluster bombs and DU on innocent men, women and children, as well as on hospitals, schools and churches" garbage, but it won't work w/many other people. Hey, it din't work at Nuremberg, did it?

So no, I do not believe clark is the only one in the Dem field who has the ability to stop the lies and the lying liers who tell them. In fact, he is the very last person I would vote for.

[WesWinger]

16. Your mind is your own - don't forget that!

You spoke of research. Well, IG is one of the best researchers on this site and she has been on the site for over two years doing just that. Ain't a thing wrong w/her research. (Pastiche423)
______________________________________________________________________
Now that's what I call backing up facts! So if someone has done research for more than two years it's legitimate? Hmmm. I guess this person is a friend of yours?

George Bush and Karl Rove(enstien) have been feeding us lies for the past two and a half years...I don't hear you speaking out against that. But perhaps you'd prefer them in the White House. That's your right, dear.

Have you ever done your own research regarding any candidate? Snippets, sound bites and yes, even friends, don't always provide the answers we're looking for. But it is so much more convenient to rely on "reliable" sources for information that we are unwilling to do ourselves. It's quick, easy and much less time consuming.

If you are as passionate as I think you are, you might well spend some time fact-finding on your own, and making your own decisions about what is important. Letting people think for you is how we got into this mess in the first place.

You've got to take back your mind before you can take back your country!

[Pastiche423]

18. IIRC, IG and I

have never spoken (typed) w/one another. I admire her intelligence and integrity, though.

If you re-read my post, you will find that I stated that IG has been on this site for over two years, not that she has been doing research for only two years.

Yes, I have done my own research. I began when I 1st heard clark might run. I had never heard of him before, so I began to google. My opinion of him came after that.

[WesWinger]

19. Wes & Jeff

I had never heard of him before, so I began to google. (Pastiche423)
____________________________________________________________________

You began to Goggle...and so that is your definitive answer on the matter? So now you claim to be a Clark expert, I suppose?
Have you researched anything on C-Span, have you read his books, have you seen him speak in public? I guess you were too busy googling.

But no matter. You are quite willing to let "her intelligence and integrity" speak for you as well. And the lemmings will jump over the cliff like the rest…

Your quote at the bottom of your email was from Thomas Jefferson, whom I admire greatly and who YOU should research greatly. There’s more to this man than a quote. But perhaps that’s too taxing to research. If you knew more about him, you may find that you don’t like him either.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
Guess what? Wes Clark said the same thing! Funny that.

So the question remains…are you voting for Bush next year? Oh wait…you probably have your sources researching it for you. My apologies.

[Shakespeare]

21. How long someone has been at DU has no correlation whatsoever...

...with the verity of their research. I'm glad you admire IG, and many of us do, but she certainly has her biases. And your comment is an oblique but unmistakeable attempt to silence a low-post-count DUer. Shame on you for that. I've been at this site since January 2001, finally came out of lurk mode, and have a very low post count myself.

But I'm as familiar with our large community of DUers as you are.

Clark had his military career cut short for doing an end-run against the good old boy network Pentagon brass, because he wanted a battle approach in Kosovo that would spare more civilian lives than the plans the Pentagon wanted to use (and ended up using).

And I know IG knows this, and I'm pretty sure you know it, too. So to try to paint him as somehow being reckless in the execution of the Kosovo conflict is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

[Pastiche423]

22. I am painting nothing

I have done my very own research, completely apart form IG. Actually, I began to post what I found from my research BEFORE IG posted hers. (You can check the archives.)

clark was asked to step down two months before his term was up. When asked why on broadcast television, he said he did not know why, nor did he ask. I found that quite odd.

I do not trust clark. I do not want him to be president. I do not want him to be vice president. I will continue to offer my opinion of him when and as often as I so choose.

P.S. Where the hell did you pull the silence the low post garbage from? And why?

[Shakespeare]

23. Your emphasis on IG's tenure at DU as an attempt to validate her comments

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who read it that way.

I did not say anywhere in my post that you are wrong to dislike Clark or that your own research is invalid. What I said is the particular snippet IG offers attempts to paint him as a war criminal in Kosovo who gleefully oversaw the deaths of countless civilians.

It has been extensively reported in the last six months--and particularly well-detailed in Sidney Blumenthal's book The Clinton Wars that Cohen and the rest of the Pentagon brass were furious with Clark for his attempts to force a different battle plan--specifically one involving apache helicopters and more ground troops--as a means of keeping civilian casualties at a minimum. He wasn't "asked to step down early," he was relieved of duty. The military equivalent of being fired, his career was "dead-ended," and he had little choice but to retire. That was his punishment for wanting a battle plan that emphasized minimizing civilian casualties.

You don't like Clark--we get that. And I'm not suggesting your reasons aren't valid. I'm just saying that this particular bit of information is being used to trash Clark where he actually deserves our admiration. Clark's not the anti-christ--you don't have to want him to be president, but at least don't contribute to the Gore-ing of the man. If your reasons for disliking him are valid, there should be no need to do that.

On edit for disclosure purposes: I'm not sure who I'm supporting for president yet. I have donated to Kucinich's campaign (twice) and currently have a Kucinich bumper sticker on my car. I'm very impressed with Clark, too, however, and am watching his candidacy with great interest. We have an exceptionally strong field of candidates, and I think the bashing going on at DU is pathetic. It's one thing to ask hard, serious questions of candidates, but a large percentage of what goes on here is just out-and-out smearing.

[WesWinger]

24. A nickel's worth of nothing...

P.S. Where the hell did you pull the silence the low post garbage from? And why? Pastiche423
______________________________________________________________________
Don’t you just despise “the silence the low post garbage from.”

Seems Shakespeare has caught you out, my friend. (Not to mention a billion of us everywhere.)
There is one thing that still troubles me, however. You never offered an endorsement of another candidate as far as I can tell. So what’s it to be then? Four more years of Bush? Is this what you really want? Or would you rather search goggle for the next President?

Beware the lemmings!

[DemExpat]

20. Where in the world do you get this idea?

"A large portion of this planet we all live on, believes Wesley K. Clark is a war criminal".

This is utter bullshit IMHO.....a portion, maybe, but certainly not a large portion.

Looks like research done on the Internet - not a very balanced course of info.

DemEx

It seems to me that some DUers find hundreds of sites backing their view of an issue...and think because of the sheer volume, and because of some of them being reputable sources (distinguished human rights organizations) that a majority of the planet thinks in these terms.....

[AP]

6. The bashing started from the top down - Rove - Media - DU

A lot of people here are exploiting it to prop up their own candidates.

But they're striking a bargain with the devil. They play into it now, they give credibility to the sources, like David Brooks and Eric Westervelt, and it'll get Clark out of the way. But those same people will have the power to take down their candidate next thanks to the fact that we enabled them today.

I think people should wake up. Why the hell do you think they're tearing down Clark first?

Even if he doesn't get the nomination in the end, they want to make sure that he doesn't have credibility while he's participating in the primaries because they know, win or lose, it's going to hurt Bush a lot.

Also, people, do you really want to let the media pick your candidates? Even if it fits into your short-term plans, it's crazy. Let Democrats hear all the candidates' ideas. Lets have fully informed opinions, without having the whore media telling us how to think.

[Aleesha]

7. Clark will be the one!

I really like Dean for his gumption, I love Edwards for his simple honest beliefs, I can't stand Lieberman, Kerry is too scripted, sounds rehearsed, Gephart is a Bush ass kisser, but Clark is the one the American people will trust in the long run. Clark will pull in alot of Independants and Repubs at the polls. Clark took three bullets for his country, is an outstanding military leader, and is a fresh face among the candidates. People are tired of the Washington politicians, they want change, and Wesley Clark is the new voice.

[Larkspur]

8. I don't like Clark because he's a political mercenary

He's got no credibility with me about being a Democrat. Lip syncing Democratic platforms, when one has a history of supporting previous Republicans, including the current Occupant of the WH, does not qualify one on being a Democrat. He should run for and win a lower political office, like Governor, Senator, or US Rep, before running for President. This way he'd have a record we can fairly judge to back up his newfound Democratic positions.

Clark has no experience running a civilian political campaign and it shows to his detriment, nor has he experienced holding a civilian politcal office.

The nomination and general election will be won by the best campaigner and Clark is a horrible campaigner.

[boxster]

11. Yeah, horrible campaigner. He only raised $3.5 million in

a couple of weeks. Sounds horrible to me. If he keeps up this "horrible" pace, he'll beat Dean in fundraising in the 4th quarter.

He's got no credibility with me about being a Democrat.

Hmm, and you're supporting a fiscal conservative. Interesting.

Speaking of campaigning, who recently referred to all of Congress as "cockroaches"?

Hmm, that would be Dean.

Yeah, that's effective campaigning. Just alienate the people who can help you win. Good idea.

:eyes:

[jumptheshadow]

27. It's been one month

Clark has been in the race for one month. During that time he has:

* Unveiled thought-provoking issues papers
* Shot up to the win, place or show positions in major states
* Raised lots of money

Clark is the one candidate in this race who has the credibility and the heft to damage Bush & Co. on the major issues. People will believe him because of his background and the years of public service he has given to this country.

Clark, in person, is a charismatic man whose personal aura seems to stretch throughout an entire room. When this man hits his stride -- watch out! -- he's going to shine.

As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I welcome his candidacy. I truly believe he can beat Bush and start this country on a more constructive path. A path, by the way, that minimizes the poisonous polarization we have been seeing.

[Larkspur]

45. Clark charismatic?

Only if you think Dr. Strangelove is charismatic.

Clark is a good lip sync-er but hardly credible as a Democrat and has no credibility as an effective civilian political leader.

Clark will always have a credibility problem with me and that negates whatever charisma he may naturally have.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Didn't Al Gore Say Get Over 2000?

After months of dang nasty attacks, the Dean people are on my crap list. But Clark, despite his inexperience, seems like a genuinely decent guy. Although I still believe Kerry is the best candidate on a number of reasons, I put Clark squarely tied for 2nd with Edwrds at this point. The drop from there is steep.

[dsc]

14. No that would have been Kerry

though this nasty Dean person DEFENDED HIM at the time. I am so glad that was remembered.

[DrFunkenstein]

15. True That

After awhile, Dean supporters begin to meld together. How scary is that? But the truth is there are plenty of decent people who support Dean, despite some of his more zealous zealots.

We have spared in the past, dsc, but we have also found common ground from time to time. Here's to gentler days...

:toast:

[eddieNH]

17. Lieberman's a hypocrite. Here's why:

“America’s great military strength, including particularly the precision air attack and special forces capabilities built up by President Clinton during the 1990s, and commanded so well by President Bush over the past year, has been stunningly impressive in this war to date.

— Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Jan 14, 2002, Georgetown University lecture

“Our actions under President Bush’s strong leadership since September 11th have gone a long way toward forestalling this new iron curtain.”

— Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Jan 14, 2002, Georgetown University lecture

“I strongly support President Bush's appointment of Governor Tom Ridge as Director of Homeland Security. The fact that Governor Ridge has President Bush's ear will make a very difficult job easier.”

— Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Jan 15, 2002, University of Oklahoma

[KG]

25. well, some of us here don't like and don't trust clark.

and some don't like what his candidacy represents.

the assertion that only clark can win is merely that, and his recent joining the Dem. party smacks of opportunism.

[Donna Zen]

26. Redistricting, Recall, Rumor, Rove

R=Republican

Why so much Clark bashing? While some be sincere in their motives to educate and put forward their research, many have used their keyboards to spread false logic, and thereby, advance their own prejudices. To do so without concern for fracturing alliances among the faithful is one thing, to do so without realizing the damage they are doing is truly worrisome. But then, let's look at the master of spew; the man who is pushing the buttons because he knows every button to push.

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=398

Bush's Hit Man

Karl Rove wins . . . by any means necessary

BY LOUIS DUBOSE

n early December 1999, George W. Bush’s chief political strategist, Karl Rove, and Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne Slater squared off in the Manchester, New Hampshire, airport. Rove was angry over a story Slater had written suggesting that it was plausible that Rove was behind the whisper campaign that warned that Senator John McCain–then soaring in the GOP presidential primary polls–might any day unravel, because he had been under so much pressure when he was tortured as a POW in Vietnam.

I for one will rue the day when DU picks over the bones of the 2004 elections with angry posts of "should have" and "could have" prefixing our tales of remorse.
_______________

Stalking horse, Trojan horse, war criminal, PNAC, Waco, Bush-lite, no experience, NED, Kissinger, Pristina, Shelton, Cohen, flip-flop....

So who's pushing your buttons today? First they came for Clark and people said it's not MY candidate, then they came for______

Who will be there for you?

[CWebster]

28. What you might refer to bashing

may be others not simply falling in line to buy the product.

What is with the insistance that Clark should be immune from the process all candidates are expected to undergo?

[jumptheshadow]

34. Debate and discussion are welcome

However I get mighty suspicious when Drudge unveils Rove's latest talking points and they are instantly spammed across many different DU forums by posters who never seem to hang around for true discussion.

[CWebster]

29. Also, something y'all might want to think about

Indiana Green, Pastiche, Larkspur and I are all women.

What do you suppose it is we see (or don't see) that many of you guys, so impressed with the General's military status, don't?

[Donna Zen]

30. All's well_

While some be sincere in their motives to educate and put forward their research (my post)

Granted...

Indiana Green, Pastiche, Larkspur and I are all women.
What do you suppose it is we see (or don't see) that many of you guys, so impressed with the General's military status, don't?

Well, the last time I looked...hmmmm?

Also, assuming that support of Clark by either the men or women on this board is based on his military accomplishments, would negate the intellectual abilities of fellow posters.

[CWebster]

38. You might want to check your research--it is a national trend

Clark does not poll well among women.

Two things I see broadcast all over this board in this current sweep of Clark cheerleading: His military status and his advantageous position in the South.

Why is the Afro-American vote always disregarded in the calculation of the Southern PRIMARY vote? It is as if the entire strategy has to be one to pander to the redneck stereotype. That is not only an insult to the South, but it discounts the overwhelming influence of the Afro-American perspective - which was against waging an invasion of Iraq.

[Donna Zen]

50. I know the polling data

I simply said 1) I'm a woman 2) Many people on this board both men and women, are not blinded by his stars. It was you who assumed that we were.

The stars do nothing for me. Actually, since I've been shot at by the American military, they do less than nothing.

My interest in Clark is based on his calling for Constitutional Legitimacy...that means checks and balances and accountability. Personally, I see that we are losing that which keeps us free and democratic. No other candidate is talking about this. Also, I've read and listened to much about and by Clark, and find his views very progressive. Plus...and I think this is important, because he is thought of as a "military" guy, he can implement those policies with some success. The pubs will have a much harder time spinning his programs than they would with someone who the public thought of as a Dem liberal.

I did so much research, I actually started to like Clark. I mean as a person. I like that one of his good friends is an X-Jesuit socialist. He's a reader and a scholar. I like that. I started liking him enough that before he announced, I posted in this and other forums that I hoped he would not run. Any Dem candidate is going to be hung or worse before the junta gives up power. Clark doesn't deserve that.

As far as other woman go, I can't think for them. I suppose one could reduce other's thoughts to some common denominator, but personally, I stay away from putting anyone in neat boxes. Really. I am the only person who controls my mind, and thus, I take full responsibility for what I think. I think Clark is a strong candidate with good ideas.

[jumptheshadow]

32. I'm a woman

And roughly half of the people I saw at the Meetup were women. And women comprised a large number of the most vocal supporters at his speech here.

Could it be that we did research and reading of our own? And that we listened to Clark's analysis during the pre-war build-up on CNN? And that we have watched as many candidates as possible? And that we concluded that intellectually, strategically and philosophically Clark was the best candidate, the one who could hurt Bush the most, and the guy who could set our country on a constructive path again?

[boxster]

35. Oh, yes, all anyone sees in Clark is the uniform. (sarcasm)

Gee, perhaps some of us have actually bothered to look at his positions on the issues. He's pretty socially liberal (more so than many of the candidates) and certainly more fiscally liberal than Dean.

But, of course, he's lying about all of his positions, because he's not trustworthy, apparently because he was in the military, right?

People who dislike Clark often cite nothing other than the fact he was in the military as the reason for their dislike/distrust and, as you just did, assume that it's also the only reason any of his supporters like him.

Well, you're wrong. Many support him because he's a liberal and because they accept him at face value on the issues. The fact he was in the military is icing on the cake, as it trumps Bush on his stuffed-flightsuit, C-in-C facade.

[Larkspur]

47. No completely true

People who dislike Clark often cite nothing other than the fact he was in the military as the reason for their dislike/distrust

My opposition to Clark for the Dem Prez nomination is based upon
1) his sudden conversion to the Democratic Party while still praising Bush recently,
2) his lack of experience campaigning for civilian political office, and
3) his lack of experience winning and managing the affairs of a civilian political office.

Clark supporters brag about how Clark will demolish Bush in a debate, but there is no guarentee that Bush will ever debate the Dem nominee, whoever that is. Assuming that Bush will not debate, then the Dem candidate definitely needs to be an effective and innovative campaigner. The only one who has demonstrated both effectivenes and innovation is Howard Dean. He is running a brilliant campaign. Unlike Clark, Dean was an asterick in most polls at the beginning of this year and pulled himself up to the frontrunner spot by building a loyal political base from scratch and combining traditional campaign tactics with new technology and new business leadership model -- decentralized network of empowered teams. Unlike Clark, Dean had to earn his frontrunner status. It was not handed to him and I think that is a big reason why I have more respect for Dean than Clark.

Clark wants to be the next President Eisenhower, but Eisenhower was not a great President. He helped overthrow Iran's democracy in 1953 and overthrew democratically elected socialist presidents in South America. He also got the US involved in Vietnam.

If Clark wants to be like Ike, I don't want him for the Dem Prez nominee nor for President.

[roguevalley]

49. Here's what I see here from my viewpoint:

{My opposition to Clark for the Dem Prez nomination is based upon
1) his sudden conversion to the Democratic Party while still praising Bush recently,}

I've been a dem all my life and my family has been dems back to the
beginning of the party. Union, dems, liberals for over a hundred
years that we can remember. Time in party has little to do with what
I am searching for. He's a social liberal, a man who supported dem
candidates for years and has a brain. Those count to me.

{2) his lack of experience campaigning for civilian political office, and}

If I wanted to run for president, I couldn't because I've never held other offices? He was in the military for 37 years. He had a day job.
Serving his country again shouldn't be dependent upon having been a mayor or whatever before. I don't recall the part in the Constitution where it says you have to. We are the party of inclusion last time I looked. This seems more repug than dem to me, IMHO.

{3) his lack of experience winning and managing the affairs of a civilian political office.}

Again, is not holding other offices discounting you from running?
George Washington didn't hold other offices if I recall. <Correct me if I'm wrong.> He went from General to President. Nice precedent for Wesley if you ask me. :)

[bicentennial_baby]

36. NIce try...not

I'm a woman too...so are a lot of Clark supporters, both on DU and elsewhere. My support of Clark has very little, if anything, to do with his military career.

[CWebster]

39. Perhaps you should read the post

just above your own--which seems to accept Clark's socially liberal positions on their "face value" but lauds military status as the be- all and end-all to show up Bush. Why would I be impressed with anyone whose greatest assets are what Bush dreams of as most important. Since when did military grandstanding become the priority of Democrats--especially when military solutions are becoming increasingly dangerous and outrageously costly.

[roguevalley]

48. I'm a woman leaning for Clark.

I am genuinely curious here. Are those with deep suspicions about
Clark under 30 or over? I can't tell you how amazed I am to support
a general being a child of the Viet Nam era. I do. Why? Because he's
smart, decent and cares.

No one is holding a gun to someone's head to support him. Don't.
But think really hard if he becomes our candidate in 2004. I would
vote for Satan against Bush. Better the devil you know ... ;)

[tlb]

31. I just watched the latest Clark video praising Bush.

The 2002 one, and a republican pollster commenting on the tape was praising Clark for his good judgement in praising Bush.

THAT is what "the big dog" calls one of two stars in the democratic party, back when he wasn't even a democrat.

And you need to ask why Clark is bashed ?

MAYBE people are getting tired of the DNC/DLC crap.

[bearfan454]

33. Clark voted for Nixon and Reagan

that should ring a bell somewhere to everyone.

[Donna Zen]

37. And

Clinton, Clinton, Gore, and Pryor...

[Hep]

40. He's leading

What do you expect? Look at the Dean bashing going on. Not surprising.

[John_H]

42. In short, fear.

Rethug trolls and the one-percenters are scared shitless of Clark.

The rethugs are shitting their pantalones because clark takes away chimpy's sole campaign issue and the one percenters are quaking in their panties at the thought that dems will be able to beat chimpy without them, resulting in the end to their intra-party influence since they will have actively opposed the election of a democratic president.

[RichM]

46. Every time you post, it's about people "shitting their pants in fear," or

people "quaking in their panties," or somebody "kicking somebody's ass." It must be a total coincidence that a Clark supporter like you would resort so consistently to the language of bullies. Yep, just a total coincidence... :eyes:

[salin]

43. Full Scale (smearing) bashing of Dem candidates

is the new vogue of the day. Those most likely to indulge either choose to ignore that the very hostile divisions they are sowing will make the job of electing ANY dem much harder - as they are sowing hostility among camps - and no DEm will win by the big involvement in the campaign being "going to the polls and holding my nose to vote D". Either they miss this dynamic - or they prefer to feed into it. :shrug: