Debate helps cinch one Dem's status

[drfemoe]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/1012robb12.html

As the debate on Thursday night in Phoenix illustrated, the Iraq war continues to be the defining issue in the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

And while there was no "winner," Howard Dean probably advanced his cause the most, since the debate again underscored the purity and consistency of his position on the race's defining issue.

Although the country was largely united behind President Bush's march to war in Iraq, Democratic activists were not. Dean's vociferous opposition to the war when that was politically unpopular and risky made an emotional connection with a large segment of the Democratic base.
....snip....

Clark was obviously on the grill in the Phoenix debate but for reasons that have been misunderstood. Despite his favorable poll numbers, it's implausible that Democratic primary voters, who are disproportionately partisans and liberal activists, are going to choose someone who voted for Reagan and Nixon and was saying nice things about Bush as late as 2001 as their standard-bearer.

....snip.... continued ....

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/1012robb12.html

[WillyBrandt]

1. When in doubt, quote a wingnut!

How is it that all the "real" Democrats looking to snipe at Clark are so nimble at finding wingnut article to cut and paste?

The author of the article quoted above is Robert Robb, an "expert" at the--get this--Goldwater Institute!

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/experts.php/25.html

Why, exactly, are we letting the Republicans dictate who our candidate is going to be?

And as for this:

"It's implausible that Democratic primary voters, who are disproportionately partisans and liberal activists, are going to choose someone who voted for Reagan and Nixon and was saying nice things about Bush as late as 2001 as their standard-bearer."

It's implausible only if you're a wingnut--or a Democratic stooge quoting said wingnut--looking to sink a winner. Or only if you're allergic to the numbers. Here's Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031010.asp

Let's see, he polls more than twice as well among blacks--a vital Democratic base--than the good Doctor, and he's got lots of support among the poor, seniors, and good numbers from the ideological spectrum of the Democratic party.

Nah, totally implausible.

(edit: typo)

[Rowdyboy]

2. 65-80% of the anti-Clark threads on DU are directly linked

to right-wing sites or authors. I check sources-constantly-because Clark haters will post ANYTHING that justifies their opinion and I have no interest in allowing my enemies on the right to define my choices. The anti-Clark movement seems to be primarily neo-cons, career military, with the rest linked primarily to leftist-Naderite sites supported by people who believe we must tear down our curent system and rebuilt it from the ground up. People are welcome to have this opinion, I simply don't share it and it will not lead to the nomination of a candidate who can beat Bush.

But does the source really matter if we can savage a candidate who can possibly appeal to the middle class? The danger of nominating an electable candidate is that the left will shrink in importance. Clark/Edwards/Kerry/Edwards/Gephart are obvious shills for PNAC, we must hold out for revolution!

And so it goes...

[WillyBrandt]

3. Amen, brother

Couldn't have said it better myself. On a different thread I was "refuted" with a Washington Times story, which just sent me into a tizzy of despair.

I mean, I would NEVER consider going after Dean with an article out of the National Review or the W. Times, but why is it the Clark hates have no such compunctions?

[WillyBrandt]

4. Also, some of us Clarkies are "left"

"The danger of nominating an electable candidate is that the left will shrink in importance."

Some of us consider ourselves left--or maybe center-left is a better word. Wellstone left might be right.

Part of my reason for liking Clark is that he can offer liberal and progressive ideas to a mainstream audience without alienating them. I want to bring the center leftwards.

But most of all, I want to deny power to the far right that has hijacked this nation's politics. And Clark can deny them that power, I believe, more effectively than any other candidate.

[cindyw]

6. You have hit a very important point.

I am a Kerry supporter, who really likes Clark. I get tired of people assuming I am a centrist or bush-lite. I'm a tried and true lefty. I don't think Kerry/Clark and progressive/liberal are conflicting things.

[Padraig18]

8. I'm a Dean supporter

I'm quite left, socially, I'm fiscally conservative and I'm also an extreme civil libertarian, all of which probably make me a 'populist'. I, too, have come to resent the almost desparate nature of the attacks on General Clark and have noticed that virtually all 'crtical' articles about him come from wingnut sources.

[Rowdyboy]

7. My intention was not the "left" but

the more radical left. I consider myself a leftist Democrat but I'm definitely to the right of the average DU poster.

[drfemoe]

5. "Note from General Clark"

.snip.
"I also want to assure you that we're 100 percent moving forward. To help drive this effort, I have brought in Eli Segal to be the Chairman and CEO and Dick Sklar to be the COO.
.snip.
Posted by Gen. Wes Clark (Ret.) at 03:41 PM "
http://blog.clark04.com/ .. dated 10/09/2003

I seriously doubt your link statistics . but here's one from 'his' site, which may qualify as r-w. I'm more hesitant to jump to judgments as some of you, so I'll leave the labeling to you.

But what I want to know is why does the General's campaign have a CEO and COO? This is a corporation? These terms are unheard of in political campaigns. All I can figure is, corporate politics as usual.

My opinion is, that is not good enough .. take a look at corporate owned america.

[Padraig18]

9. It doesn't bother me

My doctor is the CEO of his medical corporation, and his office manager (his sister-in-law) is the CEO, and I'm quite sure that he takes in less $$$ than the Clark campaign will; this is simply a good business model to use with any organization that will be handling millions of dollars and tens (hundreds?) of thousands of separate transactions and communications. I see nothing sinister, evil or even 'odd' about it.

[blm]

11. Deanut Gallery is privileged in posting wingnut opinions.

They don't realize that the rightwing wants Dean to be the nominee for theor OWN purposes that run counter to Democratic values.

[DrFunkenstein]

10. This Article Smears Kerry, Too

"Kerry is the most disingenuous of the group. He has joined the bandwagon of those saying that Bush misled the American people into war. Kerry, however, was saying much the same things about Saddam, not only before this war, but in support of a similar 1998 congressional authorization of force for President Clinton.

Kerry now says he only voted for the war resolution to strengthen Bush's diplomatic hand. But no sentient member of Congress could have voted for that authority without knowing that Bush was going to use it."

---

Kerry has consistently followed the principle that Clinton laid out in 1998:

"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War."

This was Kerry's position going back at least to 1997. That said, Kerry also strongly advocated being honest and clear with the American people about the only legitimate rationale of military action - ensuring unfettered inspections leading to disarmament as per the terms of the Gulf War resolution Saddam signed.

Kerry never felt the threat was imminent, but felt Saddam was failing to allow unfettered access. However, Kerry did not believe this constituted the exhaustion of a peaceful solution before blood and treasure were committed.

Kerry was tortured over his vote, but felt that he had given the most responsible vote in a no-win situation. As reluctant as he was, he had to trust the UN process to tangle up Bush enough to see that justice was done. He had overwhelmingly preferred Biden-Lugar until Gephardt and Lieberman cut the legs from under it. Unfortunately, when you have to actually vote in a position of responsibility, you are confronted with nothing more than two shitty options.

Both Kerry and Dean were right - Bush had misled America into war. Had Bush misled Kerry into voting for authorization? The answer is no. Kerry voted over his own clear reservations because he felt it was the responsible vote to demand Saddam's compliance.

[genius]

12. He said he'd he'd pady the $87 billion. That makes him pro-war.

No longer can he claim anti--war status. He wants our guys to stick around and get killed. He has not a care in the wolrd that most of the $87 billion he wants to give away of our money will go to Halliburton. Bush isn't Halliburton's only best friend. Now the company has got Howard doing its bidding.