Wouldn't Clark do better running as an independent?

[burr]

He has plenty of independent and Republican backers along with some Democrats. But what chance does he really have of raising the money necessary to beat the other well-funded primary contenders?

Even if he does raise enough money to accomplish this, he would have to reraise it after the primaries..when running as the nominee! And then any Democratic challenger would lack the factor helping Clinton, which was a third party candidate to take away dissatified conservative and independent votes from the incumbent.

Clark, as an independent, could spend the entire primary period raising money and getting his name on the ballot in all 50 states. All of this money being raised could be saved for the main contest against shrub and our nominee. He would have a ten in ten shot getting that nomination, because he would be the independant. And if he did not drop out like Perot in 1992, he would be a genuine challenge for the two party system in 2004!

[Divernan]

1. There is already a lethal challenge to the 2 party system - BUSH!

The 2004 election is about saving our political system and our civil rights and our social security system and the environment, and on and on. Nothing the GOP would love more than an attractive 3rd party candidate to split the independent and dem vote. As you well know.

[burr]

6. Imagine this...

A Dean-Shrub-Clark race, Kerry-Shrub-Clark race, or a Gephardt-Shrub-Clark race. We can't lose!!!

The we would win all the states in the regions Clinton won, from Maine to Missouri..from Washington state to New Mexico.

[Divernan]

7. What are you ON today? And who's the "we"?

You should review our electoral system. You seem to think that a dem and an independent can pool their votes to beat a Repub. ON EDIT:
We don't have a co-presidency.

[burr]

10. My thought is just the opposite!!

Clark will do best in the same areas where shrub has strong support. The south, border states like West Virginia, and western states like Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona. States which would of been sure bets for shrub in 2004 could be up for grabs with Clark running as an independent.

[renie408]

40. You know

You sound so normal sometimes.

DUDE! Reality check!! Clark will definitely siphon off votes...OURS! Leaving the Dems a sad and lonely third. Which really would kill off the party.

[robbedvoter]

18. Yes, we can lose easier by dividing the anti-bush vote.

Let the independents. GOP-ers vote for a Dem once in a while. We need to all stand behind ONE person only.

[burr]

21. In 1992, do you feel Perot helped the Clinton/Gore ticket or hurt it?

:shrug:

[renie408]

47. Is that really

the kind of crap shoot you are willing to take?

[onehandle]

2. Yeah...

That worked out really well for Nader.

America really benefitted.

Clark is a Democrat.

[molly]

3. That would be lethal for DEMS

[JI7]

8. agree

he is making the right moves. and maybe his personal views are with those of the democratic party so in the end he would want a democrat to win no matter who the candidate is.

[burr]

9. Why???

Nader was always a well-known liberal. Clark's political positions have yet to be defined with the average voter, he is what Perot was when he ran in 1992...a political unknown.

Voters do not view Clark as another Nader, Nader and Clark are very unlike both personally and in terms of perception. Nader is seen as an idealogical consumer advocate, Clark is seen as a more pragmatic type of military person.

Clark could win votes in the south and west as an independent which he never could running as a Democrat, this is why he would give the Democratic nominee such a large boost!

[JI7]

14. clark's personal views are democratic party

because maybe clark's personal views are similar to the democratic party. he did say he has voted in the democratic primary in the last elections. so it would also mean he doesn't want to hurt the democratic party in the end. that he actually wants us to win (with or without him as the candidate) against bush in 2004.

[burr]

15. I can think of many independants for which this was the case...

started out as life-long party members, wanted to help the party, ran on a third party ticket because of some differences, and helped the party even more as a result!!!

[JI7]

16. can you give examples ?

can you give examples of what you said ? also, do you think only clark can do this or one or more of the other democrats running in the primary right now also ?

[burr]

17. you really ought to start doing your own homework!!!

But since you asked, there are three I can give!

1948-Thurmond runs against Truman as a dixiecrat, wins southern bigots all pissed about the integration of the armed services..prevents these states from going to Dewey as they went to Goldwater in 1964. Henry Wallace draws white collar votes away from Dewey in the northeast and midwest, helps give Truman his 5% margin of victory over Dewey.

1960-Harry Byrd wins in Mississippi and Alabama. The only issue in these states this year is Jim Crow. Without Byrd running as the dixiecrat they would have backed Nixon as they backed Goldwater in 1964.

1980-John Anderson leaves the Republican party and runs as an independant. Considered liberal...he draws many unhappy white-collar female votes in the northeast and the Pacific Coast away from Carter. Carter only wins in six states as a result, Anderson takes so many votes from Carter that Carter's margin of defeat is 10 points. Otherwise it would of been a close race!

If you search around, I'm sure there are plenty of examples you can find which are very similar!

[JI7]

19. doesn't follow

in the cases you mention there was a big difference between the candidates on issues such as race who ran on major party ticket and those who ran as indies. you are assuming clark differs with democrats on a major issue or issues which would appeal to those who would almost certainly vote republican unless clark enters the race. in this case it could maybe help democrats. but where does clark differ or which voting group most likely to vote republican could he take away from bush ?

[burr]

23. I don't know...

as I have stated, he is still a political unknown!

[DrFunkenstein]

4. It Would Be Much Harder For Him To Get The VP Slot

;-)

[Rowdyboy]

5. Thank God Clark isn't considering this...

Might as well just name Bush pResident for life.

[burr]

13. Is that what you want???

:shrug:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

31. Exactly What Part of "Thank God Clark ISN'T Considering This"

Do you not understand?

:crazy:

DTH

[Rowdyboy]

36. I thought it was clear, but I'll spell it out...

If Clark was foolish enough to run as an independent, that would siphon many votes away from the Democratic party. That would make it very likely that George Bush would be reelected. The "pResident for life" was an exaggeration intended to imply that I think George Bush would like to remain as commander in chief for the rest of his life.

Hope I have cleared up any misconceptions about the meaning of my previous post....

[burr]

37. No apology necessary friend...

;)

[TacticalPeek]

11. Bum idea. But if you could talk Pat into running, that might be fun.

(Buchanan or Robertson)

[burr]

12. I agree...

Buchanan would be a fun GOP primary candidate, as would Quayle.

But Buchanan did not make an effective third party candidate in 2004, too right-wing to win any independents!

[robbedvoter]

20. Pat was a cardboard candidate- designated to neutralize Perot's party.

After he halved it (somehow getting the half with the matching funds and the wingnuts) he nominated a black woman as VP - thereby ensuring that his 'constituency" won't vote and then proceeded to...not campaign at all (saying later he had a gallbladder operation). All that while Nader was diligently dividing the left.

[burr]

22. Interesting...

that is how I view Clark...as the cardboard candidate. A multipurpose accessory!!

[OKNancy]

26. Ah-ha

that's the real reason for such a proposal.

Clark is the kind of man who wants to win. He's a Democrat and wants to win the Presidency as a Democrat with all the trappings that it bestows.

If he doesn't win the primary, then so be it. I'm sure Clark will accept the outcome as will his supporters.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

32. Gee, We Never Would Have Guessed

:eyes:

Clark's entire life and career evoke substance. Your comment is ignorant.

DTH

[burr]

35. Ok, what is his specific plan to provide universal healthcare?

:shrug:

What is his plan to balance the budget?

What is his position on abolishing the Electoral College?

Give me those detailed answers on Clark, and I will concede that you have the necessary knowledge to call me ignorant and Clark substantive.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

42. Clark's Positions

Clark supports the concept of universal health care, as he has spoken very favorably of it in the army. In terms of specifics, he hasn't laid those out yet, to the best of my knowledge.

He is definitely opposed to Bush's tax cut and in favor of a balanced budget, he just doesn't want to balance it on the backs of the poor and middle-class.

I have no idea on his position on the Electoral College, but I doubt any of the other 9 contenders have prioritized this issue to the point of outlining it as a campaign promise (but I could be wrong).

DTH

[burr]

50. I'm glad to read the last part...

balancing the budget on the backs of the middleclass and poor would mean block-granting medicaid, reducing funding for job training programs, passing the federal tax burden onto the regressive state tax structures, and destroying any hope of having a universal healthcare system...all of this just to keep a few of shrub's sorry taxcuts. As Clinton said we shouldn't be giving him a taxcut that results in the laying off of several thousand NYC police officers.

We were all supposed to sacrifice according to shrub after 9/11, but instead we get rebates and taxcuts which mean little to the uninsured and unemployed. Get rid of this garbage so we can have something tangible, like a future we can count on or a house we know that we can someday own!

On the EC, I hope the candidates get specific on this because I believe this could be our winning issue in 2004. If most voters had a clue what happened in 2000, this issue would be enough to win us a landslide. And voters would to listen this, because it is not a partison or an ideological issue! Even Perot made it into an issue in 1992, proposing in his United We Stand to..."replace the electoral college with the popular vote."

[kang]

24. Question about campaign funds

although McCain-Feingold is being considered by the Supreme Ct. right now, what's the rule on funds raised by primary candidates that drop out of the race? Can they pledge over their unspent hard money to the eventual nominee? I was wondering since people seem very concerned about Clark's "money" issue.

[burr]

25. Most losing primary candidates have debts to pay off...

so it's a bogus question. I'm sure they could donate what little they have to the DNC, and that could be used in issue ads for the nominee.

[kang]

27. Debts for Kerry and Edwards? No problem ;)

Those guys are loaded!! Just kidding for anybody who think's that's a dig. Now don't get me wrong, I know it's a long-shot that Clark is the nominee, but what I wanted to know is can candidates legally give their hard money to another candidate or not. I know the FEC is a joke, but I wasn't sure what kind of issue ads the DNC can run still under McCain-Feingold. The only part of that law that I understand is the $2,000 indiv. cap and the ban on soft money.

[burr]

30. Here are the details,

and why it isn't likely to happen!!!

It takes the legal cooperation of the candidates who have money, their campaign committees, and their donors. Suppose Edwards loses the nomination, but still has $2 million...highly unlikely in my opinion!!! Here is what the DNC can do. Go to the Edwards campaign committee and say we will give you some nice jobs for your law firms if you appoint our DNC people to chair this campaign committee. So the Edwards people get their high paying legal work, and the DNC people are running the now defunct Edwards Campaign. They make a decision, lets rename it the Committee on Boosting the (Democratic Ticket) #1. If the same thing happens to Kerry's campaign, they make an arrangement with the DNC and it is renamed the Committee on Boosting the (Democratic Ticket) #2..and so forth. Then all this remaining hard money is used for issue ads to help the nominee!

[kang]

28. Another question for Burr

Sorry, no PM for me just yet, but why did you pick Burr as your signature picture and name? I was just wondering.

[Donna Zen]

55. No

however, they can use that money to campaign FOR the nominated candidate.

[Avalux]

29. UH NO

You obviously haven't listened to Clark speak. He's proud to be a democrat (his words) - one of his talking points is the continuation of the two party system.
Regardless, running as a independent would be plain stupid. It would assure a * win in 2004.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

33. This Is a Dumb Idea, Even Dumber Than the "Clark/Thug Primary" Idea

Clark has expressed very liberal positions. You appear to be blinded by his four stars much more so than any of the Clark supporters I've seen here. Running as an Independent means splitting the left/liberal/independent vote, while Shrub gets his entire base plus a few independents. He wins in a walk, in this scenario.

At least with the stupid "Clark should enter the Thug primary" idea, it wouldn't hurt Dems in the general; it would "just" be a complete waste of an excellent candidate for the Dems (which is bad enough).

DTH

[burr]

34. In case you've forgotten...

In 1992 Perot came out against NAFTA...a liberal position. Perot favored raising tax rates on the wealthy and the gasoline tax, while both Bush and Clinton campaigned on their taxcuts as usual. Perot ripped the corruption of Bush's conduct saying "if you buildup Saddamm Hussain and then give him the northern border to Kuwait, step up to the plate and admit your mistake. That's leadership folks!"

Clinton "I think we should give Bush the benefit of the doubt on this, after all the Persian Gulf War was a truly remarkable operation."

The point is..even though Perot seemed more liberal some of the time than Clinton, exit polls have shown that most of his votes came from Bush not Clinton. And that his 19% of the vote was more than enough to demolish Clinton's 5% margin of victory in 1992. I feel the same would be true with Clark. He would be a benefit to us running as an independent, not a burden!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

41. You Have My Apologies for Snapping at You

To explain, I am really sick of people slamming Clark all of the time. I think I was just taking it out on you, which was unfair of me.

To address the issue at hand, my understanding was that Perot actually took from both parties, and that when you look at a state-by-state breakdown, his electoral impact was nil.

Perot was also a Texan and viewed as more conservative, especially on business issues, than Clinton, so he was more inclined to exploit the Republican leaners than the Democratic leaners, who were so desperate to eject Bush I after 12 years of Republican rule that they had adopted a more unified front.

For the current election, there is a strong ABB mood right now, but my impression is that it's not as strong as it was after 12 years under Reagan/Bush. I also believe that given Clark's fait accompli of declaring as a Democrat, and his strong anti-war and other liberal stances, he would unquestionably siphon more votes from Democratic leaners than Republican leaners. It's just like Nader, only less extreme.

DTH

[burr]

45. good points...

although I have always found it interesting that Clinton and Perot in fact grew up less than 15 miles away from each other, one in Texarkana and the other in Hope.

I know this thread has gotten a little heated, and apologize any insulting remarks made in my postings. I do think this topic is an important one to have before Clark announces this week. First, it will again allow Clark supporters to share the many reasons they have for supporting him. Second, I am interested if they are backing Clark the man or Clark the Democrat. Many say the two go together, but what if he did run as an independent? And finally, what impact would any independent have on the race whether it was Clark, Perot, or whoever?

These all could become critical factors which might determine the outcome of the next election.

[Veek]

48. Tough questions

"...it will again allow Clark supporters to share the many reasons they have for supporting him. Second, I am interested if they are backing Clark the man or Clark the Democrat. Many say the two go together, but what if he did run as an independent?"

I really like Clark the Man, yet I'm an ideological Democrat. If he ran as an independent with a platform that fit squarely with a progressive agenda, I'd probably and sadly vote Democratic.
Why? Because I believe BushCo is taking us down the road of ruin, and I wouldn't want the anti-Bx vote split. If Clark the Independent were running against a moderate Republican, and the country and world were in a more peaceful and prosperous condition (conditions routed by BushCo), and Clark carried a progressive platform, then I'd vote for Clark (first time not voting Democratic).

It wouldn't make much sense for Clark to run on a progressive platform and as an Independent if the nation and world were in a more stable state than now. He could still just run as a Democrat which already fits him well.

[Veek]

38. Clinton Didn't Enter the Race Until October '91,

didn't win NH or IA, but grabbed the prize anyway.

Clark has a clear shot at the presidency. Why screw
around with 3rd party experimentation when, with Clark
as Democratic nominee, we can oust Bush? Unless
you don't mind another 4 years going deeper into the abyss.

:shrug:

[burr]

39. yes and he was the third candidate to get in...

and the first incumbent officeholder to get in. Wilder, Harkin, and Kerrey would jump in much later..but would not have the time or money to put together the organizational structure which Clinton had forged in each primary state necessary to win.

This made him the early frontrunner despite Harkin's win in Iowa and Tsongas's win in New Hampshire. His victory was won with his message, organization, and entering the race long before Harkin and Kerrey.

[Veek]

43. Equivalent Circumstances

"and the first incumbent officeholder to get in. Wilder, Harkin, and Kerrey would jump in much later..but would not have the time or money to put together the organizational structure which Clinton had forged in each primary state necessary to win.

This made him the early frontrunner despite Harkin's win in Iowa and Tsongas's win in New Hampshire. His victory was won with his message, organization, and entering the race long before Harkin and Kerrey."

Another purpose of the Draft Clark movement, other than to persuade Clark to run, has been to put a turnkey structure on the ground that could quickly transition from draft to campaign
organization.

Many of the Democratic big money donors (such as the AFL-CIO) have held back, awaiting either a strong frontrunner or Clark himself. Also, there is no doubt that Clinton's influence will coax
money from his own supporters. And George Suros has started a fund for the Democrats that will be used to help oust the chimp from office.

I firmly believe that Clark is not naive -- would not enter this race without a reasonable assurance of early effective structure and money.

[burr]

49. AFL-CIO is hardly a big money donor...

they sometimes run ads, have members who donate large amounts of time and small amounts of money, and bring their many working members out to the polls. Their top commitment is to organize workers and help their members.

Hardly what I would call a "moneyed interest!"

[Veek]

51. Depends on what you call "big money"

Well, if $998,000 from the AFL-CIO doesn't constitute
a large donation, then you're awfully hard to please.

Overall labor gave contributions of more than $58,000,000 in 1999-2000.

[renie408]

59. Hey, with that million and the million he's got...

he'll only be about 12 million behind!!

[burr]

66. Bullshit!!

they gave no $58 million.

Here is the list for the 1999-2000 cycle

American Federation of state County and municipal employees...$3,671,809
Communication Workers of America $3,593,815
NEA $2,075,913
AFT $2,075,913
Service Employees International Union $1,978,691
United Food and Commercial Workers $1,789,064
AFL-CIO $1,397,161


But look at the Top Companies

Phillip Morris $6,211,508
Amway Corporation $4,518,500
Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation. $13.5 million.

Now thats big money, made off of the hard labor of hard working Americans..and taken right out of their company paychecks. And don't tell me it will result in higher wages or more job security!!

[renie408]

44. This has been disputed already

Clinton did not OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCE until October of '91. He opened a Presidential exploratory committee thingy in '98, which allowed him to organize a campaign committee, raise money, blah blah blah.

By the standard you appear to be espousing, Edwards is not running right now either (any smartass Edwards jokes can be accepted as given) because he does not make his official announcement until tomorrow.

Clark has not even done the exploratory committee thing. He cannot raise any money until he does, he cannot really put together a campaign committee or anything like that.

And is he a 'real' candidate? The man just decided to let us all in on the little fact that he is actually a Democrat. He has been jerking everybody around about whether or not he would run for months. I don't like him just for that.

[Veek]

46. Again, no real dispute in light of equivalent circumstances

We'll know Wednesday about his candidacy, and I will bet the farm that he's running.

And as far as "jerking everybody round" -- (my, you're hostile) I wouldn't call it being coy; he was attending "campaign college" as he indirectly noted time and time and time again. Clark has indeed been exploring a candidacy. I hope you don't think he's been sitting around the pool the last year or so contemplating his navel.

The Draft Clark movement has been taking pledges rather than actual contributions. When Clark declares, those pledges will be honored, and the movement will turn all that money over to his campaign. Had the Draft movement (a PAC) collected the money up front, they would only have been able to give him $2000 out of the million collected.

Anyway read my previous post regarding campaign structure and money.

Clark didn't ask to be a guest on numerous TV and radio programs, he was instead invited. Of course he had no control over the questions asked, and the journalists involved were hoping he'd announce on their show. Thus the repetitious "I haven't decided yet."

Nevertheless, I hope you were listening to what he said, even though he was annoying you to no end.

[renie408]

53. You are going to need a thicker skin than that

if you are going to make it here or anywhere long. I am sorry my vernacular offended you. I think its bizarre that he has waited this long and he does not appear to have the depth, personality or qualifications to make it as a candidate. Not to mention Waco, Kosovo or his waiting to declare that he is a Democrat until about ten days ago. But even if I don't mention them, you can be damn sure that everybody else will. I also don't think that Clark adds any depth to the pool of candidates available. In other words, what has he got to offer that the others don't? He was in the army a really long time. Great. Nobody else has that...ummm...going for them. If he gets the Democratic nomination, I will vote for him. I am Edwards first and ABB second. But just cause he blows the wind up your skirt, don't expect everybody else to jump for joy because he is toying with running. I don't think we need him.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

54. So Don't Jump for Joy, But at Least Educate Yourself

The fact that you even deign to mention "Waco" makes it quite clear to everyone with a Clark clue that you are ignorant, and probably have bitten into some rotten fairy tales told by either the far right or the far left.

DTH

[renie408]

56. Your guy is not even running yet

And you are already having to fend stuff off. That is not a great start.

Truth?? I don't believe it. If you read another thread, you can see where I wrote that I had looked into it and couldn't find any evidence that proved that Clark was at Waco. But did you know that up until very recently, when you searched 'Wesley Clark' on Google, one of the first things that came up was a site that was entitled "Wesley Clark, War Hero or War Criminal?" That is the kind of stuff that simply isn't going to get ignored if he runs for President (again, I read the article and didn't give it much credence, but there are people who will or already do). And he does not have as much time to get past that stuff as other candidates that have been running awhile. This isn't like skipping rope, you don't just jump in when you see an opening. My comments are mild compared to what will get said when the gloves come off. God, look at Dean and Kerry. People are ripping them to pieces. And there are many MANY people who are neither going to be impressed nor are they going to be attracted by Clark's military career. I know that if Edwards comes on, they will be ripping at him. I hope he can stand up to it. I hope that we can stand up to it as supporters. But just look! You are already on the defensive and your candidate is not even a candidate yet.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

60. We're Only on the Defensive Against Wackjobs

I've seen no credible mud flung at Clark, and that's after well over a month of certain people trying their hardest.

No one is going to bite on Waco, because it's ludicrous. The only thing that might require an answer is the whole "WW3" thing which is also ludicrous once you do some investigation.

I'm not sweating it. But thanks so much for your obviously sincere concern for General Clark.

DTH

[renie408]

62. I didn't pull Waco

out of my ass. It has already been mentioned by more than one person here. Again, I didn't believe it, but then I don't believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 either. What I am saying is that there are problems out there, it is useless to pretend that there aren't. I also didn't really know a whole lot about Clark in Kosovo until it got brought up here by somebody else.

Ok, convince me. What has Clark got to offer other than his military career that nobody running has already offered? Cause I see his military career as a cleft stick. It will help him with many people, but it is going to kill him with others. What are his policies on the economy, jobs, gay rights, gun control, etc?

I am sorry that I picked on your guy. I don't like it when people pick on mine, so maybe I shot off too soon. But it seems pretty far down the road, after other candidate have had two debates, for him to jump into politics. He isn't like a Hillary or a Gore getting into things because they have track records in this venue (not that I think they would neccessarily be the track records that would help them out, but at least they have them.) Everybody else running has proven that they can win an election and some of them under tough circumstances. I just think that starting with PRESIDENT is a little bit like learning to swim by jumping into the deep end. It seems weird and maybe whimsical? That is not the precise word I want, but I have a feeling that he is going to do more damage than good if he runs. I see his candidacy as being divisive. I think he has a lot to offer as a VP running mate, which makes more sense to me.

[Veek]

70. Off the deep end

"I just think that starting with PRESIDENT is a little bit like learning to swim by jumping into the deep end."

That's how I learned to swim at age 6!

[renie408]

74. That is also how

a large number of children die every year. They get in over their heads and drown.

[Donna Zen]

58. Whoa!

Another Milosevic lover!

[renie408]

61. Oh yeah

that's me. And after Milosevic, I love Hussein, Qaddafi...Oh, the Saudis...oooh baby.....

Can you READ?? Did you even TRY to understand what I wrote?

[Donna Zen]

63. Yes...

My reaction comes from the endless threads bringing it up. First, because the charges disregard the facts. Every Dem in the Clinton administration gets labeled Waco.

My apologies.

And yes...those charges will be made and filtered and endlessly distorted by the right and Clark's primary opponents will leak using third parties.

If Clark doesn't have a tight "War Room" then he will suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous nutcases. That being out of my control means I cannot worry about it. Nevertheless, the regime can easily make even more damaging charges about any of the candidates. Dean=soft on defense...wants your money and higher taxes...liberal...North East..liberal...trial lawyer Edwards...wants your money...liberal...North East...elite...Kerry...threw his medals...voted blah AND there will be more. Much, much more. The one thing we can be sure of is that they will say anything and do anything.

Clark is not alone in his need for a war room. Nope. What I do find offensive is that these charges are made by people on these boards where they sit waiting to work their influence on whomever takes the bait.

[renie408]

64. You make a good point...

I was probably too quick to blow Clark off. I see his waiting to even so much as start an exploratory committee as a media ploy, which bugs me. Maybe I am wrong; I promise, it won't be the first time. I was also not real wild with the way it was 'announced' that he was a Democrat. It just felt...again, like a media ploy. It seems to me that being a Democrat is not something that you have to be in the closet over.

I don't know much about Clark. If he has something new to offer, I am willing to look at it. What I do know of him does avoid some of the pitfalls of other candidates that I am not real wild about. I think he would be canny and measured in his speech and actions. I need to know where he stands on the issues, also, and if he can put together a cogent campaign plan.

[Veek]

52. You've got the dates wrong

Disputed by whom?

Bill Clinton didn't declare himself until October '91, and he didn't even set up an exploratory committee until August of '91.

[renie408]

57. Here

We went over this awhile back. I cannot remember who it was, but they posted a thread that basically asked Clark supporters to stop saying that Clinton didn't join the race until October. I will hunt it up and you can argue facts with that.

[theshadow]

65. Can you say "John Anderson"?

[renie408]

69. Well, yeah. I just don't know what the hell it means.

[southern democrat]

67. Clark wouldn't run as an independant

because he's a Democrat.He's been a Democrat for quite some time.If he had been an independant or republican ,he, with his credentials wouuld currently have a position on Bush's team.With all this military action going on under their watch they would love to have him,if not any other reason not to have him agianst them.Do the math he has voted in Democratic primaries,been promoted under Democratic adminstrations,has Democratic principals,and is intellegent.That pretty much sums it up,he's a Democrat,that why he is not running as an independant.

[burr]

68. don't take this analysis personally, but this funky math doesn't add up!

Surely you must have some other logic for thinking he's a Democrat, unless you've been peeking into his voting booth during every primary.

[renie408]

72. That was kind of what I thought

I thought he just came out of the closet as a Dem last week or something.

[southern democrat]

75. You don't have to be in the booth,it's in the public voting record

and he has said that he is a democrat.I'm telling you he is going agianst the grain in Ark. most white males in the south are Republicans.To some he probabally will never prove he's a democrat.But I researched him way before this draft deal started,winter of 02.I also took notice of him during the Kosovo campaign.Now, while he was doing news conferences back then he didn't say he was a democrat,but there was a stark difference between him and what we're hearing now.Clark brings much more to the table.President Clinton seen this and if Clinton puts him in the spotlight that pretty much tells you he's a democrat.I'll tell you another thing anybody,especally a white male from the south who doesn't run from the word liberal gets alot of respect from me.He also didn't support this war when it was pouplar with many longtime declared democrats.Now that the wars turned to shit they want to come back to the last resort war side of the party.They got screwed by Bush now they have to live with it.I guess if this war would have went smooth as whistle-asses bunch portrayed it they would have been in position to get re-elected to their seneate and congressonal seats.But Dean opposed the war,Kuncinich opposed the war and Clark opposed the war.Each probabaly had different reasons but you can't say they were wrong.And of all of the one's opposing the war Clark's opposition carries the most weight.Simply because he knows the extent of the threat by Saddam.Clark has been in the Iraq threat assement circle for years.So when he says what his opinion is about Iraq I take it seriously and when he say he a democrat I believe him.

[renie408]

76. I believe him

I just find it weird that if he was entertaining any political aspirations as a Democrat, that he would keep the fact that he was one a secret until ten days before he decided to run for that party's Presidential nomination. But then, I was kind of startled that his campaign was so serious. I had heard people talking about him for awhile, but the way he dodged the question of whether he would run made me think he wasn't going to.

[southern democrat]

78. Well in the south all things are political.Democrats wont buy cars

from car dealerships that are owned by republicans and vise versa.In the private sector he was working at an investment firm.They probabally have both Dem and Rep clients.The best poloicy is to stay publicly neutral.Once he went so far out on a limb critizing Bush his bed was made.He passed the point of no return and could have declared party affiliation earlier,but I think he milked it out for the press coverage more than anything else.It was just part of a strategy.

[renie408]

71. Not being a smartass

but what are his credentials? All I know about him is that he was in the army for a really long time and was a general.

[southern democrat]

77. He's got the goods ,you can go to any of the draft sites and get

the list.But what makes Clark special is not what you read about him.It's the presence of the man that stands out.He knows where he stands and he's not afraid to say it.He took on Bush's lack of action before 9/11.None of the others have done this.He may be a General,But he's just a man like any other man.I shook his hand on Saturday and spoke to him.It was like shaking my brothers hand and talking to him.Unlike so many of these other politicans,he gets it.Clarks potential is great.Wesley Clark is geniunely concerned about America and that is somthing George Bush is not. The main reason I'm for Clark is that he cares about all of America.Not just the choosen few.And coming from the outside in to politics he won't be nearly as influnced by the special intrests as the traditional candidates are.

[Bread and Circus]

73. I believe Clark ...

will do best for himself, his party, and
his country by running as a Democrat.

But if he were to run as an Independent, I would
vote for him and let the chips fall where they
may.

I actually think he could win as an independent
in the popular vote. I am not much on electoral
calculus so I am not sure whether he would do
well electorally.

Above all, I think Clark is just great and I want
him to be my President and my leader. I think he
is the best thing out there right now, taking both pragmatic
and idealistic concerns into account.