Nobody ever says "Clark can't win".....Why is that?

[MIMStigator]

If everybody knows he can win, why aren't all DEMOS behind him?

[number six]

1. Oh, i think he can win, but is he liberal enough?

Though after the LIHOP business today, I'm very happy with the General. Hopefully that answers it for some.

[StephNW4Clark]

2. Sorry - what's LIHOP stand for?

[number six]

3. Let it happen on purpose - Bush and 9/11

Sorry, got a bit anal there!

[jokerman93]

7. I understand Clark to mean

that Bush must be held fully accountable for what happened on his watch as Commander and Chief -- no buck passing or dropping. I don't remember any statement that accuses the administration of malfeasance.

Link?

[number six]

9. sorry, i guess it should be Let it happen through negligence.

My mistake

[MoonRiver]

25. Whether Clark said it outright or not, I think it's a case of LIHOP.

And I bet deep down the General does too. Remember another General in CA who, right after 9/11, said "of course Bush knew"? The guy taught at a CA military school. Sorry I can't remember his name or the school. But, anyway, I bet a lot of military and intelligence personnel belive the same thing.

On edit, I found the missing link:

http://www.angelfire.com/linux/pearly/htmls/bush-911.html

[janekat]

4. He's more liberal than Dean and Dean's doing well

n/t

[boxster]

34. I agree - so why do so many people still believe he's a Republican?

His stances on traditional liberal values are just that - liberal. For this to be a facade, he would basically have to lie about everything that he claims to believe in. While I'm sure that would be possible (i.e. GWB), I just don't think it's likely.

I guess it's an easy write-off of him to just call him a Republican and provide nothing other than an opinion.

Not that this is a Clark-only tactic. It's just like the people that claim Dean is a flaming liberal, even with plenty of proof (especially on the fiscal side) to the contrary.

[FrenchieCat]

56. Because of what the Right Wing did as soon as Clark announced

Put out the video tape with his words at then end cut off....
Plus the fact that he was military scares pacifist
The fact that he has been a military non-partisan who was honest enough to reveal his voting record....and most took him at his word of voting for the Republicans, but don't believe that he voted Democratic for the last 3 presidential elections.
Plus the fact that mediawhores take their marching orders from this adminstration....

Here's is the speech and what he said again....that Drudge report was not leaked out for no good reasons you know....

Lincoln Day speech:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065
here is the full paragraph of contention:
------------------
You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.
----------------------
notice he says he is glad to have them in office for the challenges ahead in EUROPE!

Furthermore, if anyone bothered to really quote what he said and the context you would find that Clark was saying things to the Bush Administration that they truly didn't want to hear. Clark, always the diplomat threw in quite a few jabs at that dinner....
Please note the two paragraphs up from the maligned "praise":
------------------------
But we're also extremely vulnerable. Our economy--we're using three times--we've got three times as much foreign investment as we're investing--capital flow--as we're putting out there. They're investing here because they believe in us. We're using energy like it's going out of style. We're using five to eight times as much energy per capita as people in the rest of the world, twice as much as even the Europeans. We're vulnerable to security threats--everything from terrorism to the developing missiles that are--we know rogue states are developing to aim at us.

And so I think we have to have a new strategy, and we have to have a consensus on the strategy, and we have to have a bipartisan consensus, and politics has to stop in America at the water's edge. We've got to reach out, and we've got to find those people in the world and share our values and beliefs--and we've got to reinforce them. We've got to bring them here and let them experience the kind of life that we have. They've got to get an education here. They've got to be able to send their children here. They they've got to go home. And they've got to carry the burdens in their own lands, and to some extent we have to help them.
----------------------------
notice that in the first paragraph clark talks enviromentalism to a republican audience.
also note the warning about terrorism pre-9/11.
notice in the second paragraph he talks about bipartisanship, and reaching out to the world community. two traits that he shares spot on with his positions today.

in the next two paragraphs he further defines the european challenges:
-------------------------
We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans where we've still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United Sates and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest.
Look, in politics they told me--I don't know anything about politics now, I want to make that clear. But they told me--I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you've always got to protect your base. Well, for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe. And that means we've got to take care of NATO, we've got to make sure the Europeans stay in it, and we've got to stay with the problem in the Balkans, even though we don't like it. We will get it resolved, and we'll help bring democracy and Westernization to those countries there.

"IT'S YOUR ECONOMY AND YOUR WAR, STUPID!"
A REAL MILITARY HERO TELLS A GENUINE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

[boxster]

78. The funny thing about that Arkansas Republican meeting...

was that the anti-Clarks kept quoting one or two sentences out of a speech that went on forever. It was such a small part of a speech that really had nothing to do with the administration, as you noted.

In context, it was so obviously just lip service. You don't go to a Republican meeting and say, "Geez, I hate you guys. Now listen to the rest of my speech."

I love how he was interpreted to be a die-hard Republican, campaigning for them, supporting them, blah, blah, even though he made the comment, "Look, in politics they told me--I don't know anything about politics now, I want to make that clear."

It seems so obvious that non-partisanship would be a job requirement for a general. I'm not sure why people just don't see that.

What have also been consistently taken out of context are his comments on CNN during the war coverage. Clark would make a comment regarding how he was interpreting Bush's plans and actions, and his detractors would take them out of context and say that they were Clark's beliefs and not his interpretations of what Bush was doing.

That's like me saying, "Reagan wanted to bomb Cuba" and someone else saying, "boxster recently made a statement where he said, 'bomb Cuba'".

We're just shocked that I want to bomb Cuba!

Not quite the same. Hehe.

[Skwmom]

88. Dean is also responsible .

Remember the lie he told on Face the Nation (or some other news show) that Clark was a republican until 25 days ago. What a liar.

[Kahuna]

104. Dean repeated the same thing on the Today Show...

Katie asked him a totally unrelated question and he just snuck it in. Would have been a nice hit.... if only it was true.

[Kahuna]

101. The idiots did Clark a favor. Kinda like when...

they released Clinton's grand jury testimony of the eve of the'96 elections. The idiots never learn.

They only managed to portray Clark as being the same as the majority of the US voters...not an ideologue.

Sure some hardcore dems got mad and that anger was reflected in subsequent polls. That was to be expected. It is also to be expected that at least half of those who got mad would reconsider Clark once they simmered down and had a chance to think about it. So if Clark gets back only half of what he dropped in the short run, he comes back and is still number one.

Clark is loveable and dignified. There is nothing that either the Rethuglicans or lefties can do to change that.

[rman]

132. then why is DLC bashing Dean but not Clark,

if Clark is further from the center then Dean?

[childslibrarian]

5. I just said in another post that he may have entered too late

Dean has N.H. and possibly Iowa already...

[OKNancy]

13. So?

Those two states don't mean diddly in 2003-04. It's only in the minds of the media. They just can't seem to get out of the past.

One week after NH and Iowa it will be a whole new ballgame.

[boxster]

27. Clinton lost Iowa and NH in 1992.

Didn't matter. He won the nomination and was elected President.

[Renew Deal]

30. Already?

No one has anything. Anyoen can lose anything. Don't forget that. (I don't mean this to sound as snotty as it does).

[childslibrarian]

32. Hey its fine with me

I really like Clark!

[elperromagico]

100. Iowa might go

to Gephardt... New Hampshire is more than likely Dean's.

[Cocoa]

6. I think he can win

but right now, he's my #9 choice, though he's gaining on Lieberman lately.

[jafap]

8. there is a difference between can and will

Let's say I am Dean or Kucinich - in the analogy. I am a 150 pound man, and the scouts look at me and say "he can't hit home-runs."

On the other hand, my friend Jeff (Clark) is 6'5" and 230 pounds. Nobody is saying that he can't hit home-runs. Still, let's watch him in batting practice and let him show that he can.

Also, to continue the analogy, Dean, in spite of his size, has knocked a few out of the park in his audition.

[lastliberalintexas]

10. I'm actually not sure he can

Let me say this first- as things stand right now, I think several of our candidates can easily beat Shrub (absent voting "irregularities" of course!).

However, while I think most (tho not all) disenchanted progressives will return to the fold for 2004, I am afraid that Clark is the one candidate most likely to keep the most of those away. For example, I am ABB, but even I have very serious concerns with Clark. While there is a certain number of "I will never vote for" types in connection with each candidate, I personally have the most concerns about Clark being able to energize our activists for the campaign.

At the same time, we are all just looking into our crystal balls at this point when people say "X candidate could NEVER win" or "Y candidate will win in a landslide." We don't know this yet, and it's really far too early to make those kinds of predictions.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Because they can't say he can't win......so, at least, they don't

Which is a good way to approach it....

Look, the General election is not the problem for Clark....it's the democratic nomination, and the fact that he came in late...and a lot of people had been working pretty hard for the candidate they had already picked.

Me, I was in the Draft Clark movement...Why? Cause I didn't see anybody there that could be Bush unquestionably....

So I wrote my letter, and hoped that this man would heed the call of duty.

Kerry was the one I was going to align myself with, if Clark didn't run....But I realized that Kerry's problem was a superficial one, but very real.

When beating BUSH is the Primary Goal...then not picking Clark is taking a very large gamble! Me, I ain't gambling on this one. Getting Bush outofthere is too important to my health, literally!

[Pastiche423]

12. Because he isn't a "DEMO"?

I do not believe he can win. Furthermore, I do not want him to win. I want a DEMOCRAT to win.

[IranianDemocrat]

18. Standard right wing tactic.

Use debunked lies over and over again in order to smear a candidate.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[boxster]

49. Want to provide some examples there, roughsatori?

Or are you just going to post meaningless personal attacks with no substance and no documentation?

This adds nothing to this debate. It only makes you look silly.

[CWebster]

71. You're the one who looks silly

Roughsatori is correct. Everyone knows that.

[boxster]

80. So, that makes him a RW wacko supporting a liberal, huh?

[IranianDemocrat]

87. I appreciate you trying to stand up for me boxster...

...but don't waste your time.

[retyred]

116. Those that think their

right all the time, are very annoying to those of us who are!



Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

[boxster]

22. The only part of your statement that really matters is:

"I do not want him to win." The rest is an opinion that I do not believe you can confirm with facts.

Since you're so convinced that he's a Republican, why don't you provide us with some links to Clark's stances on traditional liberal issues and then explain to us why they prove he's a Republican?

[Pastiche423]

28. Talk means jack

when you haven't walked the walk.

[FrenchieCat]

33. This guy fought a war on humanitarian grounds.....

He fought the war against the pentagon...and was fired for it.
He walked the walk by writing part of the army Amicaes brief supporting Affirmative Action
He walked the walk in rethreading the army and it's various programs
He walked the walk by putting his candidacy on the line by daring to say Bush needs to fess up and take responsibility for 9/11
He walked the walk when he voted for Clinton and Gore
He walked the walk when he was on CNN - see article here:
Because, as a General, he did come off as being against this war....
As was reported here....on March 28, 2003....THIS IS DURING THE WAR AND ON PATRIOTIC GUNHO "LET'S GET OUR WAR ON" TV, YET HIS COMMENTARY WERE CRITICAL...AND HE WAS ROUNDLY CRITICIZED FOR IT.
http://www.spectator.org/article.asp?art_id=2003_3_27_22_49_18
CLARK TANKS
By The Prowler
Published 3/28/2003 12:03:00 AM
DEAN-DUMB
So much for the Democrats' hope that retired General Wesley Clark was going to be their Colin Powell. "He's more Benedict Arnold than anything else, if you believe the mail we've been getting here," says the Democratic National Committee staffer who, only a month ago was touting Clark as his party's answer to the military star power aligned with Republicans.

"Any cachet he might have had he's pretty much pissed away on TV," says the staffer.

Since the outbreak of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Clark has been on CNN, bemoaning the Pentagon and Gen. Tommy Franks's strategy in the opening days of taking down Saddam. And while several other senior retired military men have made critical comments about the ongoing fighting -- Ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, another former Clinton-era official, has been quick to criticize during his stints on MSNBC --Clark has by far been the most vocal.

"It just looks really bad that he's knocking the troops and the way we're executing this war," says the DNC staffer. "He's taking hits everywhere, on TV, in the newspapers, on talk radio. People are furious at him. We can't fundraise off performances like this.
The only presidential candidate that would probably want to be seen with him is Howard Dean."

Prior to Clark's "tanking" on CNN, the DNC had Clark pegged for political stardom. He'd visited New Hampshire, and had hinted that he was interested in perhaps running for president as a Democrat. Now, the DNC isn't sure what they can do with the man who directed Bill Clinton's military machinations in Kosovo.

[Pastiche423]

44. lol!

You don't even know what walking the walk means!

It has nothing to do w/his uniform and shiny medals. It has everything to do w/having a history of doing for and being an ideological DEMOCRAT!

HE HAS NO RECORD!

Well, except that he is a war criminal.

[boxster]

55. Again, show me the money - let's see some proof that he's a Republican.

Just because you make no effort whatsoever to ever do any research does not mean Clark does not have a record. But, of course, you believe every word the man has ever said is a lie, so we can't let facts get in the way.

Besides, researching would take too much time away from making continual unsubstantiated claims about Clark's party affiliation.

[wyldwolf]

61. You should know not to ask these people for proof...

...they never give it.

[boxster]

74. But, they've done "extensive research" so we're just supposed to

accept everything they say at face value because they KNOW what they're talking about. They KNOW they're right.

Oh, and they're positive that they posted a link once, so that's all the proof they need.

Funny how Copy/Paste works so well for them with the talking points, but it doesn't seem to work with the documentation they're asked for.

Clark is a Republican.Clark is a Republican.Clark is a Republican.Clark is a Republican.Clark is a Republican.Clark is a Republican.Clark is a Republican.Clark is a Republican.Clark is a Republican.Clark is a Republican.Clark is a Republican.Clark is a Republican.Clark is a Republican.Clark is a Republican.Clark is a Republican.

}(

[wyldwolf]

111. I had one of them call me lazy today because I wouldn't...

...provide links to prove HIS point. I was just supposed to believe him and if I wanted proof, I'd have to look for it myself.

Really, this far left paranoia of Wesley Clark springs from a bizarre mix of wishful thinking, "what if's," conjecture, and really odd "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon-style name association" google searches that is then wrapped up into a sloppy package and labeled as "extensive research."

[Pastiche423]

65. See this word at the top of the forums?

Simply click on it and type in my screen name + clark, and you will find the extensive research I, as well as others, have done on clark.

He "became" a democrat on September 17, 2003.

He ain't done any walking.

[boxster]

72. He voted for Clinton twice and Gore. So, for 12 years, he's been a

Republican who just happened to vote for Democrats for President?

Not likely.

If you've done so much research, you shouldn't have any trouble posting them then, should you?

Here's a hint, since you so condescendingly pointed out the Search function: CTRL+C is for Copy. CTRL+V is for Paste.

That's all it takes to provide documentation, especially in light of the "extensive research" you have done.

[Trek234]

109. So?

I would bet money he ONLY voted (supposedly) for Clinton & Gore because he saw prospect of a position in those administrations.

Which would explain why he changed his voting pattern of Nixon/Raygun.

Looking out for number one as he does is shameful.

[wyldwolf]

110. Conjecture...

He was still in the military when he voted for Clinton. He wasn't up for any civilian positions.

But this is how your ilk arrive at your conclusions - a bizarre mix of wishful thinking, "what if's," conjecture, and really odd "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon-style name association" google searches that is then wrapped up into a sloppy package and labeled as "extensive research."

[boxster]

138. Uh, sure.

Of course, it's easier to bitch about what he did 20 years ago than to actually research who he is now and what he stands for.

Here's a suggestion - how about if we hold everything each one of the candidates did 20 years ago against them? Let's see who comes out of that alive.

The only reason this gets any press at all is because Clark openly admitted to it. Gee, the guy is honest, so let's blast him for not lying about his past. Let's see YOUR candidate openly admit to everything he or she did 20 years ago and we'll all pick that apart.

By the way, your post is just about the largest leap of logic I've seen yet to explain away voting Democratic for 12 years. You win the prize.

[roughsatori]

45. Imperialist cultures ALWAYS fight wars for "humanitarian" reasons

That is what the current Administration believes too. "Humanitarian" reasoning for wars is also aways used to co-opt and shut up the Left.

[FrenchieCat]

60. I see....so WWII should have been left to finish itself out

the way that the Germans had in mind? hey?

[JVS]

69. The Germans lost because they fucked with Russia

And Russia was not fighting for humanitarian reasons. It was a matter of survival. In fact all the allied powers (excepting possibly the USA) sold out other countries for the sake of survival. The French and British let the Czechs get crushed and the Russians let the Poles take a beating.

[boxster]

42. Wow, that's an incredibly convincing argument.

Ah, the standard "here's a cliché" argument. Wow, I'm awed.

Your meaningless claim that he's a Republican (ignoring the TONS of available information to the contrary) certainly isn't going to sway anyone else to accept your opinion.

Show us some proof.

[Trek234]

108. There are two things to look at with Clark

His ACTIONS and his TALK.

You show me some ACTIONS that reflect liberal views. So far all he has in that regard is TALK.

On the other hand he has a variety of ACTIONS that reflect conservative views.

[FrenchieCat]

112. He walks the walk...

So he wrote the Affirmative Action brief (not all by himself).....supported by the Army.....and that case went to the USSC and the case was won. As a person of color, with children of color....that was a lot done for me. What has your candidate done that affected my life for the better???????

Also, you can catch him here.......and enjoy!
http://tinyurl.com/t4t7

[Pastiche423]

118. What does that have to do

w/walking the Democratic walk?

NOTHING!

[FrenchieCat]

120. What is the Democratic Walk anyway? I see

I see people talking in the senate, then voting for blank checks to Bush and Halliburton........I see Dean not supporting AA......I see a lot of Looking like a Duck and quacking like a duck....but acting like ostriches with head in the sand....
Apart from Kucinich & Sharpton & CMB, I haven't seen many walking.....but I do see a lot of talking.......
I'am from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party....yup! OK!

[roughsatori]

37. I'm with you, if Clark wins the nomination he will lose the election

Clark's entrance into the race indicates the weakness of the party as a separate and distinct force against the Republicans.

[MIMStigator]

43. You're the only person in the universe who believes that.

n.t

[Pastiche423]

50. No, he/she isn't

[roughsatori]

52. That does not mean I'm wrong

But I know for a fact that your statement is wrong, because in this very thread Pastiche says the same thing. I am sure you will adapt your faulty reasoning and now claim we are the "only 2" who think that. We are not. I know many others who think the same thing.

It is now obvious you only wanted re-enforcement for your own opinion by your post.

[JVS]

51. Correct as usual, roughsatori

How can we claim to be a real contending party if we need to outsource for the major leadership role. We might as well strike the tent if that is the case.

[Pastiche423]

68. "outsource"

What a great word! That is exactly what is being done.

[FrenchieCat]

113. You are with him....2 wrongs don't make a right....

Well if you believe some other candidate can win and he can't then maybe your 2 wrongs may a "RIGHT" wing Bush President for 4 more long tortured nightmarish years.........

[mlawson]

14. Because he CAN win.

Both the nomination, and the election. Dumbo comes off as a stupid, childish, fraud, compared to Clark.

But many many Dems do not choose their nominee with the criterion of "Who can best beat bush", so they are not necessarily behind Clark at this juncture. And we don't know yet, if he has the BEST chance in 2004, either.

[boxster]

15. Good point. Even those against him usually just say that...

they don't want him to win, not that he can't.

I guess it then becomes a matter of what is more important here - fielding a candidate who has the best chance of beating Bush or fielding a candidate who best represents the party's ideals (or, as in many cases with DUers, represents his or her personal ideals).

I think Clark likely has the best opportunity to beat Bush, primarily because of the current political and cultural climate in the U.S.

As far as Clark meeting the party ideals, it all depends on whom you ask. Many people take him at his word, as do I. Many claim that he is a Republican running as a Democrat or is a Rove operative. Everyone's entitled to his or her own opinion, but I think those arguments have begun to look pretty silly, considering the issues Clark is addressing and how he is addressing them.

[MIMStigator]

19. Right. No luxury of TAKING THE RISK this time even if.....

the candidate isn't perfct. I thought EVERYBODY agreed on that?

[boxster]

29. It depends on whom you want us to take that risk.

And, I think we've more than proven that no candidate is perfect, thank you very much. Clark certainly isn't perfect, and I don't see anywhere where I (or anyone else, for that matter) said that he was.

[lastliberalintexas]

35. Not necessarily

If I believe that a Clark win would do more long term damage to my country and my party than enduring 4 more years of Shrub, then it may be a risk I am willing to take. I am sorry that some Clark supporters (and some Dean supporters, and some Kerry supporters) don't understand why we don't all act like Stepford children and fall in line behind their candidate of choice. But as long as I have a brain capable of rational thought, I will actually use it!

From everything that I have seen, Clark is just a kinder, gentler face of the PNAC/military industrial complex than Shrub. Right now, I will vote for him. But if things don't change and I don't see a REAL reason to vote for him (as opposed to against Shrub), I may go 3d party.

Please- dispense with the flames and hyperventilating. My vote doesn't count in November anyway.

[FrenchieCat]

47. I believe you to be wrong....

But you have evidenced the easy sale that the Right wing made when you bought their lines. That's what they were betting on....cause they are scared sh*tless of Clark.
"IT'S YOUR ECONOMY AND YOUR WAR, STUPID!"
A REAL MILITARY HERO TELLS A GENUINE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

[lastliberalintexas]

67. Then provide the proof

Don't just make the personal attack implying that I am so stupid that I have fallen for RW talking points.

Prove to me that Clark has a history of fighting for Democratic values. Prove to me that he has a history of campaigning for Democratic candidates. Prove to me that he has actually been involved in the Democratic party. Prove to me that Clark political experience necessary to run a CIVILIAN gov't. Prove to me that Clark has spoken at more fundraisers for Dems than repubs.

The fact that I have been a party member and activist longer than Clark would not be troubling to me if he were running for Governor or Senator. But he's not. He's running for the Presidency and the leader of my party. By God, I expect more than just "Take my/our word for it- Clark's a Dem!"

You see, some Dems ARE upset that he praised the Shrub regime JUST THIS YEAR. Some Dems are upset that he was paid to speak at repub fundraisers AFTER THE 2000 ELECTION. Some Dems are upset about his ties to the military industrial complex (NOT the military- there is a HUGE difference!).

But rather than address those concerns, Clark supporters have consistently blown my questions off or simply attacked me instead. I am looking for real information, not some knee jerk response claiming that I am just stupid for falling for the RNC memos.

[lastliberalintexas]

89. No takers?

Why am I not surprised? *sigh*

[boxster]

92. He voted for Clinton twice and for Gore. That makes him a Republican?

That's 11 years, certainly more than the "he's been a Dem since September" claim others have made.

Clark has personally stated that he was non-partisan throughout his military career. Frankly, I can see how that would almost certainly be a job requirement, because you serve under administrations of both parties and you certainly have to work together with them.

Regarding his paid appearances at Republican fundraisers, the key word is "paid". So he gave them a little lip service. So what? You don't get people to listen to your speech if you start with, "Geez, I really hate Republicans. Now listen to the rest of my speech about NATO and a bunch of other topics." He was very much in the public eye at the time and very much in demand for all kinds of speaking engagements, not just one fundraiser in Arkansas.

87% of the American public was in full support of Bush after 9/11. Should we write them all off, too? I realize that they are not running for President. My point is - most people said nice things about Bush post-9/11. I guarantee that if people dug hard enough, they could find statements made by each and every candidate in favor of Bush or other Republicans.

For me, it's not a make-or-break issue. I look at Clark based on his stances on the issues and the things he says he will do.

You are certainly open to believe whatever you want to believe about him. Clark supporters are not likely to change your mind if you truly believe he is not a Democrat.

[JVS]

93. He was registered independent. That makes him an independent.

[RandomUser]

133. Wrong, he didn't register as an independent.

He did not go and register as independent on his voter registration card. He didn't register as anything on it, because it was illegal to register as Democrat or Republican. Until 1996, Arkansas had no party affiliation registration.

That means that people aren't registered with any party, not that they filled in "independent" on their voter registration card. Currently, over 95% of registered Arkansas voters have no party affiliation in their records. A few years ago, 100% of them had no party affiliation on their registration card. And in some other states, 100% of registered voters STILL don't have a party affiliation on their registration card, because it's not legal.

And yes, that means Bill Clinton had no party affiliation on his voter registration card when he ran for governor and president -- because it wasn't allowed by Arkansas law. Wes Clark's voter registration card was identical to Clinton's -- no party affiliation legally allowed! But you didn't see people claiming Clinton was an "independent" and not a democrat when he ran for governor and later president.

[JVS]

142. Nonesense, Clinton had affiliation with the party.

He was an elected official and party member. Being registered as a Democrat is the weakest possible claim on membership, being an elected official is a much stronger claim. Don't get mad at me because your guy had no connection to the party.

[lastliberalintexas]

136. "So what?"

That's your response to someone fundraising for the republican party? This was not just some paid speech at a non-partisan event where repubs just happened to be present. This was him helping the repubs raise money to USE TO DEFEAT DEMS- to use to defeat my party. That's why it's important.

I didn't say that he hasn't converted to the Dem party, and I would prefer him in our party than the repubs. I said that I have concerns about his ACTIONS, not his party affiliation.

I didn't say it bothered me and others that he made comments favorable to Shrub post-9/11. I said it bothered me and others that he said good things about them THIS VERY YEAR. In 2003. Alone, that would not be all that troubling. However, when I look at his record as a whole, I have very legitimate concerns about him.

I have not ruled Clark out entirely, and I have tried to keep my criticisms of him focused and non-flame worthy. I don't refer to him as a war criminal, I don't say he's a repub, and I don't say he's a Rove operative. Hopefully you can see the difference in my posts than in others who do use such tactics. (I'm NOT saying I am perfect by any stretch, as I lost my temper on this thread last night!)

[boxster]

139. He wasn't fundraising for the party. He was a paid guest speaker.

Have you actually read the speech? Do you have any idea how little of that speech had anything to do with the Bush Administration?

I have read it. Several times. In an hour-plus speech, Clark mentions George W. Bush exactly ONCE.

Immediately after mentioning Bush, he says:

"We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe."

That's it. That's the sole reference to the W. Administration in the entire speech. He was leading into a discussion about NATO, Europe and the rest of the world from a security standpoint.

He says absolutely NOTHING about how great W is, contrary to the claims of countless posters on this board. In fact, he says NOTHING about W's job performance at all, and he certainly isn't heaping praise on the administration, as many have claimed. He was a paid guest speaker who wanted to ensure that his audience actually bothered to listen to the important topics of his speech.

Perhaps you should actually read his speech - below is a link - to understand how incredibly meaningless this statement is in the context of the speech itself. It IS lip service and it IS meaningless. It is nothing other than a common public speaking practice - it's called regaining your audience's attention.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065

[lastliberalintexas]

141. My problem is not with what he said at this fundraiser

It's that he spoke at it AT ALL. He was paid to speak at an event designed to help them raise money- money which would be used to defeat Democratic candidates for elected office. Can you at least understand why some people have a problem with that?

boxster, from your posts you seem like a very reasonable supporter of Clark. But please don't turn into a blind supporter unable to see your guy's faults. If he is the nominee, we're going to have to deal with these issues. Just brushing people's concerns aside won't work.

Just as with Kerry and his IWR, I'd be more than happy if Clark admitted that it probably wasn't that smart for a Democrat to speak at a repub fundraiser. Pull a mea culpa, promise to not do it again, and it becomes a non-issue.

And FWIW, although I am a Dean supporter, I can see why people have problems with his stance on gun control and the death penalty. (tho the gun control stance is one of the things I like about Dean AND Clark). I don't think he's perfect, and legitimate criticism- as opposed to "he's too short to win"- does make me think about the issues we'll have to face if Dean is our candidate. I don't turn a blind eye to any of their faults, since those faults are problems I'll have to deal with when and if I campaign for them in SE Texas.

[boxster]

146. In a way, I think the whole fundraiser issue could help Clark.

We tend to get so caught up in primary politics that we neglect to acknowledge that the run for the presidency is not just about Democrats.

If Clark wins the nomination and can somehow use these events to show that he can work equally well with both parties, doesn't that make him more appealing to Independents, swing voters, and disillusioned Republicans? Obviously, the "change the tone" BS worked for Bush, and I think Clark is a hell of a lot more sincere about changing America for the better than Bush was. And, I certainly think that it's a better strategy than calling Democrats and Republicans in Congress "cockroaches" and pandering to Confederate flag supporters.

No offense, but just because you think the fundraiser should be a huge issue doesn't mean everyone else should, as well. Yes, I agree that it's an issue, but I don't have a problem with it. He voted for Clinton twice and for Gore, so obviously, he (at the very least) has been leaning Democrat for at least 11 years. His views on traditional liberal issues are just that - liberal. I chalk the fundraiser up to pandering to the specific audience as a paid guest speaker. To me, it's not enough of a reason to not vote for him.

if Clark admitted that it probably wasn't that smart for a Democrat

Clark has discussed this issue. He has discussed at length the fact that he was non-partisan during his military career. He has discussed that when he began to contemplate a run for the presidency, he looked at the parties and their stances on the issues and confirmed his belief that the Democratic Party matched his views on the issues.

In the NYC debate, he said:

I was never partisan in the military. I served under Democratic presidents, I served under Republican presidents. But as I looked at this country and looked which way we were headed, I knew that I needed to speak out. And when I needed to speak out, there was only one party to come to.

I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I'm pro-environment, pro-health. I believe the United States should engage with allies. We should be a good player in the international community. And we should use force only as a last resort. That's why I'm proud to be a Democrat.

People have labeled him as a Republican for no reason other than the fundraiser. If one issue makes a Republican, then I guarantee that we could find stances taken or statements made by every candidate, and we could blindly label them as Republicans for that one stance or statement. Several of the candidates could be summarily dismissed by anti-war Democrats because they voted for the IWR or other Bush agenda items. Dean's pro-NRA and keeps bringing up the Confederate flag. Kucinich was pro-life until very recently.

Should we discount them solely for those issues? I certainly don't think so. I think that it is necessary to look at the candidate as a whole and not look to sound bytes or single issues to define our candidates. That is my opinion, and everyone else is entitled to his or hers.

The bottom line is that I think it's ridiculous to focus on a speech he made as a paid guest speaker as "the" issue and ignore that his stances on the issues make him a Democrat.

I'm not blind to Clark's faults. I've questioned his decision to skip Iowa and New Hampshire, though the polls in SC and other states may be proving me wrong. I have some concern that he wasn't making public policy statements quickly enough, though he seems to be making up for that in quality and not quantity. I think he still needs to work on his debating skills, but he's new and I think he's held his own thus far.

I'm not blind to his faults, but I also don't think the Republican fundraiser should be considered "the" fault. That's my opinion, and you are certainly entitled to yours.

[FrenchieCat]

114. watch this interview......

from yesterday.....PBS NewsHour....
http://tinyurl.com/t4t7

[Julien Sorel]

130. Prove to me that any of this pap is relevant:

Prove to me that Clark has a history of fighting for Democratic values. Prove to me that he has a history of campaigning for Democratic candidates. Prove to me that he has actually been involved in the Democratic party. Prove to me that Clark political experience necessary to run a CIVILIAN gov't. Prove to me that Clark has spoken at more fundraisers for Dems than repubs.

I say it's all irrelevant,except the part about 'civilian leadership,' which is your own opinion (which I value not at all).

[dfong63]

16. some of us have standards

If everybody knows he can win, why aren't all DEMOS behind him?

some of us have standards. some of us would rather not vote for a war criminal.

[MIMStigator]

23. If you don't want a war criminal....

then why wouldn't you vote for the one who everyone knows can beat Bush?

[FrenchieCat]

115. and since he's not a war criminal except to fanatics...

who can always twist facts to call people names....
Read the NewYork book review article........
Calling names makes you as bad as the RW.

Did Clark call any Dem opponents any names????????
since he doesn't use RW practices, he isn't one....get it?
Here's the plan, chum!

General Clark is a brilliant strategist. The final goal is to remove Bush/Cheney from the Oval office. Four more years of this administration will be very harmful to the US. There's no need for me to explain why, we all know the reasons.

When General Clark plans a *war* he plans 2 parallel tracks ...so if
there is a fork in the road he has a plan for either choice.

Way back in the early summer, Wes Jr. posted to Kos's site. "His
father knows he can beat Bush in the general election, but wasn't
sure if he could win the Dem nomination.

There are a few reasons why the General will not "beat up" on his
fellow Dems, but the most important one is that they are all on the same "team". Why do the GOP's work for them and try to destroy a fellow democrat who *may* go on to win the nomination, when the end goal is to remove Bush from office.(Joe Lieberman does not understand this, but then Joe's only reason for running is for "ego")

Don't misunderstand, the General is out to Win the nomination and
general election - as he has said before he has never lost anything that he has put his mind to win. His reasons for winning is NOT because of ego, but because Clark took an oath many years ago - to defend this nation from all enemies, domestic or abroad (that would be George Bush). Bush is on a path to destroy all the goodwill and foreign policy that every President for the last 50 years have been building,....Bush/Cheney foreign polices are very dangerous for the US and the world as a whole, plus he's slowly destroying many domestic policies here at home.

Should the General fail to get the nomination, at least he has
mortally wounded Bush in the area that only a 4 star General has the credentials to do.........leaving a weakened opponent for the
Democratic nominee for the general election.

If the General wins the nomination (which feel he will, with all his supporters' help) he has the potential to be one of the Best Presidents in our history. General Clark is the candidate running who's motivation is dedication to public service and betterment of America and her citizens. Many other top tier candidates have similar a noble goal but some will try and claw their way to the top and will denigrate other Dems in the process.

That's the strategy of a man of honor and integrity....that's why he is a winner.

[Tinoire]

131. Protest NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark!

Too bad there are TONS of those fanatics out there who woke up to the horrors of unjust imperialistic wars before it was... fashionable to do so.

Protest NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark! Stop the US-backed War Against the Palestinian People!

Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2000, 6:30 pm
Berkeley Community Theater
1930 Allston Way, Berkeley (@ MLK)
(Part of International Days of Protest to Abolish NATO -- Oct. 17-28)

On October 17, Gen. Wesley Clark will be appearing at Berkeley's Community Theater. It is an outrage that this war criminal is speaking here!

Clark resided over NATO's murderous 1999 war against the people of Yugoslavia. US Generals directing NATO admit to specifically targetting civilians.

During the war on Yugoslavia, Clark proposed bombing oil pipelines in Hungary, as well as Russian ships in the vicinity. During his stand- off between NATO and the Russian troops, Clark attempted to have British paratroopers storm the Pristina airport. He was ultimately responsible for the use of such outlawed weaponry as cluster bombs.

Clark was trained for his role at the US War College and began his killing career as an officer in Vietnam. As chief of the US Souther Command in Panama, he was in charge of US intervention in Latin America.

Gen. Wesley Clark is one of the leaders of the US military industrial complex that carried out a war of aggression against the Yugoslav people in 1999 and has built up the Israeil arsenal used to occupy and repress the Palestinian people, now leading to a virtual declaration of war on Palestine.

Join in a protest to expose Clark as a war criminal and demand:

Abolish NATO! Stop the Occupation of Kosovo! US/NATO Out of Yugoslavia! Stop the Occupation of Kosovo! US out of the Middle East! End the Bombing and Sanctions of Iraq! Justice for the Palestinian People! Stop the Pentagon's Plan Colombia! US Troops OUT!

Initial Sponsors: International Action Center, Lake Merritt Neighbors Oganized for Peace, Middle East Children's Alliance Call [phone] for more info

Colombia Today: Behind the US Media Lies Saturday, Oct. 21, 7:00 pm 362 Capp Street, San Francisco (btwn 18th & 19th Streets, 1 block east of Mission. #14, 49, 22, 33 MUNI, 16th St. BART)

Special Video Showing -- Direct from Colombia "The History of the Struggle of the FARC-EP" (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - People's Army)

Speakers Include: Andy McInerney - journalist and contributor to Worlers World Newspaper ion Colombia Alicia Jrapko - IAC, speaking on Colombia and the rising struggle in Latin America Rosa Penate - Moderator, IAC

Colombia has become the 3rd largest recipient of US military aid in the world. US Special Forces troops are already on the ground in Colombia, involved in combat with popular insurgencies. Colombia's government uses paramilitary death squads as a matter of counter- insurgency policy.

The US has recently designated a massive $7.5 billion aid program called "Plan Colombia." They attempt to justify this dramatic escalation in intervetion under the guise of a phony "War on Drugs."

Sponsored by International Action Center [phone]

http://www.iacenter.org/demo_clark.htm

[onebigbadwulf]

17. I don't know

...why anyone says that anyone can't win. Once the primaries are over, it doesn't matter WHO it is, they WILL win.


By NOV 2004, a JAR OF MAYONAISE will be able to beat bush. It's a very simple concept I don't know why people think this will be a close election.

Every soldier that dies is correlated to Bush losing an approval point.

Every job that is lost is correlated to Bush losing an approval point.

The nation will be so screwed up a year from now, there won't be a question as to if anyone can win, it will be , how much of the Bush admin's blood will spill.

[dutihampi]

96. Let me tell you...

The reason that not just anyone can beat W. is easy. You're not just up against Bush but Carl Rove and Rove is a genuis at manipulating the public. If you paid attention to the 2000 debacle you'll know why not just anyone can beat Bush.

I thought the same way. I was saying, after watching the Bush/Gore debates, "Man this is great!! How could anyone vote for this idiot?", but wait a minute. Gore is not the president. Although he won the popular vote he still isn't in the White House. In my opinion the popular vote should not have been THAT close... And I don't attribute Bush's success to him but to Rove and his team. So I say let's not underestimate Bush's team again and go through another 4 yrs of this madness.

We need to make sure we have the best possible candidate to get these radicals outta the White House...

[LoneStarLiberal]

20. For A Variety of Reasons

Probably for the same reason we aren't all behind Dean: Notions of who can win and who can't are fairly specific to supporters and detractors of specific candidates.

For some he will never be a Democrat.

For some he will never be too liberal enough.

For some he is tainted by his military service.

Those of us who support him think he can win, just as those who support Dean think he can win.

For a number of reasons there's a good possibility that whomever "wins" our party's nomination this election isn't going to "win" when it counts, i.e. the general election.

That's the only winning I care for.

[MIMStigator]

But a lot of people say Dean can't win. No one says Clark can't. n/t

n/t

[FrenchieCat]

26. You just gave 3 good issues that would help in win in the General Election

1. For some he will never be a Democrat.

2. For some he will never be too liberal enough.

3. For some he is tainted by his military service.

1. That notion would help attract many Independents and Rehabilitated Republicans vote for the Democratic candidate.

2. That notion would help him by again attracting many moderates (who are in the plurality)

3. This notion would help get the military vote and the vote of those who want strong foreign policies to make Bush's claim for it a moot point.

[boxster]

31. Yep.

It seems that many, many DUers are more than happy to assume that we can win with nothing other than the liberal left. As more and more people remain Independents, it is going to become more and more important that we field a candidate that appeals to as much of the political spectrum as possible.

The importance of the military vote can not be underestimated. If Clark (or Kerry, for that matter) could swing a significant percentage of military voters, states like Florida could be a real possibility.

[CWebster]

21. No one cares?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[DrFunkenstein]

24. I've Been Waiting For Him To Sharpen Up

But I haven't seen it yet. He has few negatives, but I'm still waiting for more positives. After the last few weeks, he is slipping behind Edwards as my #2 choice.

[FrenchieCat]

41. What is it that you want him to do.....

He called Bush out on 9/11
He called Bush out on the Iraq War
He called Bush out on the enconomy
He put out 3 policy papers thus far, all well received
He has the foreign policy experience that Edwards doesn't have
He called out Rice today

The Republican Convention is slated to occur in New York.... the last day of that convention is 9/11...now why do you think that is?
Think Bush is going to give a big speech on that day about What?

Foreign policy is going to be their main mantra.....and that's why they have tried so hard, to date, to trash Clark....and then to ignore him.....but it ain't working. Cause many really, really want to beat Bush...and they understand, as I do, that he is their best chance.

Kerry is good too, but he just doesn't have the appeal to get cross over votes and independents nor the South.

[MIMStigator]

48. I want to see him walk on water before i decide

n/t

[boxster]

66. Hehe.

Ok, that one made me laugh. Too funny.

I'm surprised that Bush hasn't hired a magician to make it appear that he (Bush) can do exactly that! In front of a big banner.

[DrFunkenstein]

70. I Don't Want To Be Difficult

I actually like him. This is not scientific or anything, I just don't feel that he has really "clicked" with what he is saying. I like what he is saying, it's just that it doesn't feel like it's coming from his gut. Maybe I just have to get used to his style or something. Maybe my expectations of what a General would be like was more "man of iron" than Clark is. Clark is very thoughtful, and it seems to me like you can watch him thinking about the words coming out of his mouth, rather than a completely natural performance.

I would be thrilled to have him go against Bush, but for now Kerry is definitely ahead and Edwards is pretty close (I like him too, with minor reservations).

Maybe I am just playing hard to get...;)

[FrenchieCat]

117. Well I have a surprise for you......and I am excited!

watch this interview....then tell me if you don't think what he is saying didn't come from out of his mouth from his guts....OK???:loveya:

http://tinyurl.com/t4t7

[Trek234]

119. Oh you mean

"He called Bush out on 9/11
He called Bush out on the Iraq War
He called Bush out on the enconomy
He put out 3 policy papers thus far, all well received"

The things everyone else before him (short of Lieberman) has already done? Well that deserves a congratulations! Good job Clark! Would you like a cookie?

Or maybe you are too busy looking over transcripts from real Dems and cutting/pasting? Hey maybe that's why he took so long to become a Dem (wink wink)! He needed the real Dem material to look over.

[FrenchieCat]

121. Yea, like six weeks is forever!!!

and how long did your candidate take??????

I think that I heard his ideas coming out of other candidates' mouth at the last debate.....Dissent is Patriotic, Service to country is patriotic.

His Health Care program is not like Edwards, who's program looks a lot like the DLC program anyway.....please, spare us!

I guess he borrowed his 34 years of foreign policy experience from somebody else as well.

So when The Repug convention taking place in New York...closing date to be 9/11/04....when Bush will give his "BIG" Speech...the topic of the speech will be anything but Foreign policy?

[roughsatori]

36. If he wins the nomination he will lose the election

and we will be stuck with Bush* for 4 more years. He will not activate the base to get out and vote. The so called swing Republican voters like Bush*, their not going to vote for a Dem no matter how much we pretend otherwise.

[MIMStigator]

38. Huh? He'd win all Gore's voters and a big chunk of Bush's n/t

n/t

[JVS]

58. That is the spin. The reality may be quite different.

[FrenchieCat]

122. May?

OK...Sure.

[JVS]

144. Ok. He WON'T get all Gore voters. I voted for Gore, I won't vote for him

So there, I'm right. The truth is that you don't know if he will get all Gore voters and you don't know that he will get a "big chunk" of Bush voters.

[lastliberalintexas]

40. I'm afraid I agree

I'm afraid that Clark could potentially drive away the most progressives, and I certainly haven't seen anything to show that he'll motivate our activists to actually campaign for him.

But I guess you, Pastiche, several others and I don't count, since NO ONE has said that Clark could have problems winning. :)

[MIMStigator]

46. The base hates Bush. They won't stay home.

maybe 1%. Clark makes that up with probably 20 % of Bush's voters

[lastliberalintexas]

57. You don't KNOW that

It's pure speculation at this point to say ANY of our candidates will get a significant portion of former Shrub voters. We might, but that's not something you want to count on in a campaign.

And I have seen many moderate Dem activists in my area who don't like Clark, and probably wouldn't work for his campaign the way they would for others. And I'm in Texas for God's sake.

And you also make a big mistake in assuming that the base will get out to vote. The base hated Shrub when he ran for Governor in 1994, but they weren't thrilled with Richards either. Guess what? They stayed home.


BTW- the polls actually show Dean doing better with the independents than any other candidate. Sorry, but it's not Clark.

[Skwmom]

91. Clark will NOT drive away the progressives

once they come to realize that Clark is much more progressive than Dean. Don't you think the progressives will turn on Dean once the Rove Machine exposes the "real" Dean. It's kind of ironic that to turn off part of the Dean supporters all Rove will have to do is tell the truth about Dean.

[JVS]

95. Dean has a record. Clark is the candidate behind door 2.

Safety dictates Dean

[FrenchieCat]

134. Problem with Dean are those damn taxes...

The tax increase on everybody is a deal killer for a Dean Election...apart from lack of Foreign policy experience and last but not least.....his lack of demographical versitility; in The South, The military and with minority vote. Young people are going to want the "General Dude" (as quoted by an 18 year old young man on CNN).

Look, Dean's great.....but not a winner this time around. the facts and circumstances just don't support the supporter's hoped conclusion. I know that many worked hard to get to where they are, but the day of practiced pragmatism is nearing! and ABB should become the motto shortly.

[JVS]

143. The problem with Clark is he has no record.

[Julien Sorel]

129. Truer words...

But I guess you, Pastiche, several others and I don't count...

[lastliberalintexas]

137. So glad to see

from your replies to me on this thread that you can take constructive criticism and legitimate concerns about your candidate without resorting to personal attacks. /sarcasm/

Sorry that I can't add more, but I'd hate for my reply to be deleted. :)

[mlawson]

54. If they are repukes, are they 'swing'???

I think of swing voters as more or less apolitical. They vote for whom they LIKE, true enough, but I am not coinvinced that by next November they will still like bush all that much, especially if the quagmire in Iraq is going on as it is now.

...they are not going to vote for a Dem, no matter how much we pretend otherwise. Again, I really don't think that these voters think along that line. They typically vote for the PERSON, rather than the party -- otherwise they would not be 'swing' voters. I can't see any reason right now, to predict that Clark would lose the general election; imagine how pathetic Junior would look, next to the General! And such visuals really MATTER to the genuine swing voter.

[roughsatori]

64. Republicans think of Bush* as some kind of hero

We have been screaming and letter writing abut his AWOL status for 3 years it has not made a dent in the Psyche of the "apolitical" voters you write about in your post. I do not think his stars will change that perception of Shrub, he will have the media on his side and the "apolitical" seem to follow the media's lead.

I do not think primarily courting the "apolitical" is a way to improve our Country.

[mlawson]

77. Unfortunatey, the 'apolitical' are the critical mass on election day

who elect the president (unless the supreme court is doing it). Ignoring them is electoral suicide.

The 40% repooks and the 40% Dems typically vote party line. But the 20% or so apoliticals vote as well, and their criteria are probably as varied as their numbers. You are right, AWOL has not made dent on them, and it probably won't. But even they will not ignore a failed war, that goes on and on and on. It isn't necessarily political to them, the way it is to us, but they can learn to hate bush over it, and that is what we most need.

[JVS]

81. We need to convince the apolitical not to vote. They tend conservative.

[mlawson]

90. That is fine with me, but how????

Failing that, we need a candidate with *personal* appeal, like Big Dog, Ronnie, and Ike. But who is a progressive, of course.

Not 'boring', not without human emotion, not personally unattractive; all those qualities are deadly on election day.

[JVS]

94. Throw a carnival on election days. Bread and Circuses for the people

[mlawson]

97. Well, either delay the World Series, or

move the Super Bowl up. Have them BOTH on election day!!!! Yeah, that would do it!

Agreed. Let's get to work on it! :-)

[JVS]

53. Because saying "_____ can't win" is typical of the supporters of shitty...

candidates.

Saying "______ can't lose" is similar.

[roughsatori]

59. IT is odd that it is so ACCEPTABLE, to say Kucinich

Sharpton or Braun can't win. People have said the from the start. But if you read this whole thread you will see how those of us who doubt Clark are shouted down.

It troubles me when people say, "He is the soul of the party, but I will vote for a Repuke-lite candidate who is electable."

[FrenchieCat]

63. I didn't hear any screaming....

Thank goodness Debate is still a 2 way street in this country.

If screaming means substantiating what I believe....
GUESS I AM SCREAMING THEN?????????????

[boxster]

103. Just because people say it doesn't mean you have to believe it.

But I also don't think people are saying they're not going to win without some justification.

People who are saying Kucinich, for example, can't win are likely looking at two things: polls and fundraising numbers.

In the latest Gallup poll, he's at 1%. No offense, but not a lot of people outside of his organization and supporters believe that his current position in the polls can be converted into a win, especially considering the huge fundraising edge Dean and others have on him.

'Money drives politics' is the unfortunate truth. I personally don't think he can overcome the financial disadvantage; many believe he can.

I'm sure DK's supporters would label me a defeatist. But, I think it's more likely that I'm a realist.

And, please understand, people say nice things about the underdog just out of human nature. Al Sharpton was a favorite around here until a few days ago when he bashed Dean, at which time he became all kinds of nasty words.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

62. Nobody Credible Ever Says "Clark Can't Win" (eom)

DTH

[livinontheedge]

73. Weasly Clark will has flipped-flopped so many times, Karl Rove

will have an absolute field-day spending $200 million destroying Clark's credibility.

[Rowdyboy]

76. They love that phrase "Weasley Clark"

over on FreeRepublic. Its kind of a characteristic of their members to try to denigrate our Democratic candidates. I'm sure you only had a misspelling.

[livinontheedge]

79. No, Weasley was for the war, against the war, for the war, against the war

He is trying to be Dean lite and I don't appreciate it.

[Pastiche423]

86. Dean lite

lol!

You are correct. He's trying to copy Dean, but it ain't working.

[FrenchieCat]

124. Go to the William Pitt commentary on Clark' stance on the war

Thread, and read that. Black & White is the way of BushSpeak.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=615330#615356

Another thing .....Clark ain't no Dean-lite...
and Dean surely is no General Wesley Clark, not even close
As a person of color, I know the difference between these 2 men.

[Pastiche423]

128. What does being a person of color

have to do w/knowing the difference between the two? Seriously, I would like to know. I had no idea that the color of my skin would make a difference in our I would perceive two human beings.

[FrenchieCat]

135. Because I know that

most People of color prefer Clark. It's just not that difficult really. That's enough people to make a difference, wouldn't you say?

[Pastiche423]

145. WOW!

How did you get to talk to all of those people of color that prefer clark? Was it at a meet up? Nah, couldn't have been, meet ups are too small. Did they all call you? Did you host a poll?

Please tell me how you did it!

[DrFunkenstein]

106. If "Insiders" Are Roaches, Clark Must Be A Rat Or A Booger Or Something

You can always count on a Dean supporter for levity.

[ozone_man]

75. He can win, but he's a republican.

So, what have we gained?

Seriously, anyone who voted for Reagan, is not a friend of mine. Well, my father voted for Reagan, so I make an exception for him.

[FrenchieCat]

125. So why does a "Republican" get so much positive Progressive

Press?

Clark has captured support from some illustrious Progressive publications and liberal writers. Gene Lyons, Joe Conason, Michael Moore, Robert Scheer, Josh Marshall, Michelle Goldberg, McCrudder, Bill Maher, Salon, Mediawhoresonline.com, dailygusto, Tnr, Buzzflash,New York Book Review, The Prospect, and others.
http://aggressive-voice.com/zz585.html
http://www.winternet.com/~trashman/
http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000298.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/scheer/2003/10/08/clark/index_np.html
http://salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/23/clark/index_np.html
http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=851
http://www.dailygusto.com/news/october/democrats-101503.html
http://www.dailygusto.com/news/july/wesley-clark-072803.html
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20031103&s=lizza110303&e=1
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=bjq57awwJ36hUmhMuLKmgm%3D%3D
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_09_28.html#002033
http://demwatch.blogspot.com/2003_10_12_demwatch_archive.html#106619446353495555
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102703.shtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/14/wclark14.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/14/ixworld.html
http://aggressive-voice.com/zz590.html
http://aggressive-voice.com/zz584.html Satire....Why I hate Wesley Clark

[Kamika]

82. because everyone doesnt want Clark??

ALOT of other ppl have a better chance then clar or even dean


Seriously we nominate a wrestler that says that hes gonna bomb arabs and well win a landslide. Should we all be behind that guy too?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. Cuz The Most Electable Dem Dosn't Always Get The Nomination...

[Donna Zen]

84. will or can?

This thread is devoted to the premise that General Clark can win.

First, I think we must face what will be coming at us by next Spring. The regimes friends will be hiring, if only for the short term, to move the numbers. Also, they will do everything they can to make the economy look like one on the rebound. They have the money and they can do it.

The corporate media can not be taken too lightly...not at all. Iraq could be in flames with 50,000 dead Americans lying in the streets and they will avoid reporting the fact. Shit, they are hardly talking now. Oh sure, we will know...but then we are just a focus group.

Top that with the political pulpit.

That means perception is everything. Will a General take your guns away? Who is better on national security?

Read the Prospect article posted in the thread re: Clinton's advice on how to win.

By taking national security off the table, the electorate is free to look at our issues. Clark is liberal on our issues as is the electorate.

Clark makes bushco fight for many states, especially those in the heartland that he now takes for granted. The South? While it is hard to say for sure, we could put up a good fight for Arkansas and Tennessee.

My experience with moderate reps has been that they don't appreciate the rightwing, religion-driven social agenda. It scares them. They are aware that we are now hated world wide. That creeps them out.

Clinton talks about the "sweet spot" of American politics, that 10% of the swing voters. Both parties will be fighting for it. I was also reading about this same demographic in Miller's "The 2% Solution." We need that vote to win. The question is who can take it? Personally, I think Clark is the only Dem in the race who can both hold the blue states and get enough of the swing voters to put a D on the White House door. I believe that even knowing what will be thrown at us, because perceptions are going to be very important in this race.

BTW, I do not dismiss a few of the other candidates as being able to make the right moves to change my take, but I'd prefer to hedge my bets. Also, I've looked at the policies and history of the major players, and I am perfectly satisfied with Clark's liberal credentials.

Last, it is important that whoever gets the nomination and then the win, be able to govern. They need to understand the inside moves and have the allies they will need to make something happen for the progressive movement. I give Clark the nod on that count as well.

[Trek234]

127. Are you kidding?

"Will a General take your guns away?"

I suggest you look at history. It is the first thing most of the ex-military types do when they come to power.

[Donna Zen]

140. 1 out of 4

We've had 11 generals in the White House out of 42 elected presidents, so far, everyone still has their guns. Besides, perception is everything when the election becomes about "who." In this case, the who-general is on the record in support of the Second Amendment.

[Scairp]

85. It's hardly a foregone conclusion

Frankly, I think that the best way for Dems to win the presidency next year is to have a Dean/Clark ticket. That is, IMHO, our best hope.

[roguevalley]

98. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks or says. 33333 people on a board

are only a drop in the bucket of who is going to be making the choice. I think Clark will be among the two finishers. I think
the great mass of dems, including my family of 14 voters, will
be the decider.

Clark is a dem. You don't have to be a dem for fourteen generations
to be a dem. My family have been dems since the party became one.
That doesn't make me more dem than Clark. So what if he voted for
other people. Part of the glory and greatness of the dems is the
right to think and to change your mind.

There is no trial period where you have to prove your dem-ness.
If there is, show me the handbook.

Clark will win, or not, because millions of dems are going to choose.
Nothing else matters.

[VermontDem2004]

99. You convinced me! I am now a clark backer!

But seriously I have no idea who would win and who would lose, hopefully someone can lend me their crystal ball so I know for sure.

[maha]

102. Why are we here?

Who are "we"? What is it that causes some people to call themselves "Democrats"? And what is it "we" want to "win"? Why do "we" want to "win" "it"?

Is the whole world just about randomly choosing up sides and playing a big game to see who wins? I don't think so.

That being said -- I like Wesley Clark a lot, but some people who are Dems don't agree with him on issues and/or don't like his background, for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with Clark as a person or as a potential president. This means they probably want some other guy to get the nomination.

Is that difficult to grasp?

[FrenchieCat]

123. Well many

Black folks, military members, their families, and a large part of the south don't like Dean....so, let's just wait and see how it turns out.

The point was not Can Clark win the nomination...the point was that Clark can win the General election.....

and in my opinion, the second point is more important than the first.

[Upfront]

105. Clark Can't Win.

He would have to beat Dean. Won't happen. Good man though.

[Bread and Circus]

107. Because he Will WIN~!!

He will win

[FrenchieCat]

126. With a big amen......

and with the "IT" factor kicking in....