Is Clark the Right Message to Send to the World?

[lib 4 all]

After having just started two wars under Bush, would electing a military General as President be sending the world the right message?

[John_H]

1. Electing a Democrat sends the right message.

Nominating Howard Dean and electing Chimp with a mandate sends the world the wrong message.

[lib 4 all]

4. I'm assuming any Democrat will defeat Bush

Though I am not assuming that Clark is the most electable. He has never been tested in an election. Someone as politically inexperienced as he is could really blow it in the main event.

So it's just a mistake to think that he has the best chance. Once the GE begins, Clark the candidate will be running, not merely his resume or his image. He has no political experience to draw on at all. This is a concern for me as it is.

[Rowdyboy]

26. Then your assumptions are flawed

It's going to be nearly impossible to beat Bush. Clark can, Edwards possibly. The rest? Don't make me laugh. You wanna see a Nixon landslide like 1972? Well, you're not alone, lots of people here are rushing lemming-like to see if they can get lower than McGovern's numbers. At the rate they're going, they'll get their wish

[lib 4 all]

this confirms my suspicion about Clark supporters

Clark supporters are people who have no faith in the Democratic party or our Democratic leaders. That is why they are rallying behind a recent Republican. If you can't beat 'em join 'em, huh?

[The Magistrate]

48. That Is Simply Silly, Fellow

Your statement above that you assume practically any Democrat would win the general election this year ought to excuse you from further discussion of the subject, as you could not have made it if you possessed any awareness of the voting tendencies and patterns among the people of our country.

Your apparent belief we should all fall into line behind our "Democratic leaders" is humorous. No candidate has an overwhelmng edge in endorsements, and these are of small moment anyway. We must all make our own judgement of which candidate enjoys the best prospect of victory, and ought to employ no other criteria but that, as the need of the hour, indisputeably, is to remove from office the extreme reactionaries currently ensconced there. That will not be achieved by running a candidate dreamed of by the "lefter than thou", particularly one who can be savaged on issues of national security and war-fighting capability. The enemy will make every effort to through the election onto such questions, as it is one where the Republican Party enjoys a certain "brand loyalty" among the people.

[HumanPatriot]

52. Its hardley that congitive...

Rather, they are people whos ideaology has change due to the extermist right's push from the center in the last few years, and such a military facade truly appeals to them. Some of these people think such a man will appeal to the whole country, which is on the verge of militaristic fascism. Rather than change America, they opt for simply changing a president and hoping for the best in the new right-leaning America. They are in fact a part of this new America, and not left on the outside (the true left), so they percieve his candidacy as perfectly normal. Hence, no amount of pointing out the obvious will do it. They could never parrelel these times to Pre-Nazi Germany, and derive what candidates would appeal subconciously to both societies due to political undercurrents. They refuse to see themselves as part of the lost sheep that they can condemn in a historical scenerio, but applaud in a current one.


Perhaps some are people who have no faith in the ability of the left to change Ameria to a point where a non-military candidate would be "electable". Perhaps others simply do not want to change their new America, as their heart never felt so free at the sight of a flag before, and at the sound of the anthem. This my friend, is the new American Patriotism in the New America that has been founded by Bush, but it is not the America I want to live in, nor should any other free-thinking progressive.

[lib 4 all]

53. very thoughtful post

[The Magistrate]

55. Cute, Fellow, But No Cigar

Faith is, by definition, belief unsupported by fact. You may have as much of it as you please: it will not change political realities one whit. If you imagine "the true left" can alter the political landscape in nine months, it would be interesting to know why you think it has not succeeded in doing so over the past several decades.

Your attempt to link persons with whom you disagree to supporters of Hitler reveals a genuine bankruptcy of both thought and forensics. It is the trademark of persons without the least capability of crafting arguments able to appeal to the broad mass of the people, but rather prefer to preen before a little clot of fellow true believers in splendid isolation from the real currents of political life.

[lib 4 all]

57. all of this "Fellow" stuff seems a bit condescending to me

please refrain from talking down to people. Thanks.

[returnable]

73. LOL!

"please refrain from talking down to people. Thanks."

This coming from the person who refered to a candidate's supporters as "Clarktown Kool-Aiders." :eyes:

[HumanPatriot]

58. In response...

"If you imagine "the true left" can alter the political landscape in nine months, it would be interesting to know why you think it has not succeeded in doing so over the past several decades."

Because their main focus is the protection of liberalism rather than the advancement of such. They act as a deteriorating safegaurd rahter than an offensive machine. The Dems ave also lost their connection with the people and have become an ineffective force. They attempt to rally the people by pandering to issues rather than defining them, so inevitably, the right, which practices the opposite tactics, has won. If they woke up, Id follow, along with many others. I have as much faith in this belief as you have in the belief that Clark is a true democrat. :)


"Your attempt to link persons with whom you disagree to supporters of Hitler reveals a genuine bankruptcy of both thought and forensics. "

You can twist my words like a right-wing talk show host, but that in itself will not invalidate them. Lets take this slowly...I am parrelelling Bush's America the Hitler's Germany. In each, there were extreme polar environment where not everyone supported who was in charge. But with that said, look at Germany. Hitler revieved the Prussian imperialistic spirit in the masses and incited a newfound nationalism and pride in the Fatherland. Even if some did not support Hitler, these people felt a newfound connection with the fatherland and the Prussian ideals. If they could have voted against him in such a polarized climate, they most assuredly could have picked a general above a politician to lead their fight. Such militarism appealed in a such an environemnt when the media and government was fueling the society with military based propaganda.

Fogive me to venture so far to parelell such a climate to today. Forgive me to suggest those undercurrents exist now, influencing, perhaps subconsciously, people's choice of a candidate. But not for one moment did I associate Clark supporters with Hitler. Rather, I associated Bush with Hitler. I associated Clark's supporters with those who were perhaps opposed to Hitler in Germany, but were also quite influenced by the media propaganda that was rampant at the time. But alas, twist my words, more so and more so, and never should you have to consider yourself as a sheep that perhaps is in opposition of the main authority, but a sheep no less.

[The Magistrate]

79. Better Than Expected, Sir

Welcome to the forum.

Your analysis of late Weimar Germany, however, sadly lacks specificity, that it very sorely needs. The situation of the German people at the time, and of world politics in general, was hugely different than anything applicable to the present day United States.

To deal just with the first of those two factors of difference. Germany was an utterly defeated power at the time. Its people had had their pride in their nation wholly broken by events. The after effects of the Great War cannot be underrated, as it killed or maimed about every sixth male of military age during it, and damaged psychologically a great proportion of the rest. The economic chaos to which the German people were subjected was tremendous. All savings were wiped out during the inflation of the early tewnties: pensions which had comfortably maintained many were reduced to less than the price of a marchbox, and persons found bank accounts that had been substantial closed out because they contained less money than the price of the stamp on the letter notifying them the account was closed. The world-wide Depression barely five years later struck early in Germany, and put almost two-fifths of the population out of work. Political life in Weimar Germany had been a sphere of violence from its inception. Two major attempts at revolution had been made from the left, along with the Nazi putsch. Private armed political forces were the predominant feature, and engaged in open warfare among themselves. All parties, including the Social Democrats, maintained of necessity armed party militias.

These were the realities influencing events leading to the rise of Hitler. The polarization of our politics currently is a group sing of Kumbaya by compare. Media manipulation had no discernable effect, though it bulks large today. There really is no useful parallel to the present-day United States and Weimar Germany, ot the early days of the Reich. It is a parallel which appeals to some, as they feel it will be of use in stampeding people to agreement with them, but this hope fails among the general populace, who consider it mere hysteria, and rightly so. Accordingly, they dismiss as fringe elements any who resort to it.

[Qutzupalotl]

56. Clark was an independent. n/t

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

62. Seems to me

there is a candidate that doesn't seem to have much faith in the Democratic party and wants to "change it & its leaders"...or did I imagine that? :shrug:

[mikewriter]

82. Clark can beat Bush

He'll get alot of moderate and conservative DEMS as well as some votes from moderate and more liberal (if that can be) REPS. Some REPS who want BUSH out will go for Clark b/c of his military history. Plus, I think Clark can do better in the South than anyone xcept maybe Edwards.

[Dookus]

2. a general

who believes in diplomacy, constructive engagement, multi-lateralism, use of force as a last resort and who is widely respected throughout the world?

Yeah. I think that's the right message.

[jumptheshadow]

3. Who knows four languages

Understands international cultures and geopolitics and has received meritorial citations from several countries?

Yep.

[Qutzupalotl]

60. Who has decreasing the Pentagon budget as part of his platform,

and can actually make it happen?

Who has served his country valiantly for 34 years, and stood up to neocons to do the right thing?

You bet it's the right message.

[jmaier]

5. Trying again?

I guess this didn't work so well the first time. I'm not concerned about the world opinion of Wes Clark -- it's the opinion of knee-jerk Americans who view anything or anyone ever associated with defending our country as being venal that concerns me.

Wes Clark is staunchly pro-NATO, pro-UN, pro multinational cooperation. He's spoken positively on the Kyoto treaty and is ardently pro-environment which plays well around the world. He's thoughtful on world affairs, deeply experienced in diplomacy and national security. I suspect world opinion is the least of our concerns in this regard.

[DinahMoeHum]

6. Anybody but B*sh/Cheney is sending the right message. . .

They'll forgive us for 2000 (since they realize it was illegitimate).

But they will not forgive us if */Cheney win the election in 2004.


:kick:

[blm]

24. Then send them Kerry who worked with them for 10 yrs on Kyoto Protocol.

Who helped end wars for the last three decades.

Who investigated and exposed more US government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history.

Who worked to expose terror organizations and their government connections in his 1997 book, The New War.

Send the world a President of the US who has worked on ALL their issues. Peace, health, economy and the environment.

[lib 4 all]

31. great observations!

:)

[flpoljunkie]

67. Well put, blm!

A candidate whose record matches his rhetoric--thirty-five years fighting for the public interest against the entrenched special interests.

[lib 4 all]

77. great quote - "whose record matches his rhetoric"!

Clark just says what he's told. I hardly think he's spent much of his military career contemplating social security, healthcare, tax policy, education, ect ect.

It takes years of hands on experience to develop a working knowledge and deeper understanding of these issues. Clark should try his hand at Congressman at least first.

[burning bush]

46. No, Anybody but a Neocon Fascist is the right message

No New Ceasars

Put the people in power.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. The US is transitioning to military dicatorship, and plans more wars

in order to impose its will and seize the natural resources of its properties around the world (or as anti-American terrorist sympathizers call them, "other countries."

Appointing a general to serve as figurehead would go a long way toward removing any misconceptions that may linger in the minds of people in the US. (Few outside the US have such misconceptions, but in case there are any, it would do it for them too)

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[jmaier]

15. I suppose

that you're only interested in the specific opinions of those who already agree with you? Why ask the question then...

[lib 4 all]

19. no, I want to see a constructive discussion from all sides

not just the Clark bandwagon.

Is this much of DU really in the Clark camp now?
Do we have no one left who has an objection?

Maybe the Clark people are just far more active, but it's getting harder to find supporters of other candidates.

[jmaier]

29. You've

had an account for what a few days? How do you know how hard and/or easy it is to find candidate supporters here. Dean, Kucinich, Kerry and Edwards, at least, have many.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[returnable]

35. Calling a candidate's supporters...

......"Clarkstown Kool-Aiders" isn't helping to raise the level of mature dialogue here.

Thanks for fanning the flames. You are now officially part of the problem, not the solution. Way to go, champ.

[jmaier]

39. Two problems with your comment

#1 - go look at the thread(s) in pages 1 to 4, plenty of pro-Dean stuff as well as anti-Dean stuff and sure enough plenty of anti-Clark posts. This is not a one-sided forum.

My second, BIGGER, objection is the implication that hardcore democrats arent' here because Clark seems strongly supported. I'm a very hardcore ABB Democrat and strong Clark supporter. If you want to do your candidate justice then get your head out of the sand. It's possible to be democratic, liberal leaning, thoughtful, well read AND a Wes Clark supporter.

[Hoppin_Mad]

13. I LIKE the way you think - really ! -eom-

[CJCRANE]

27. Ironically

selecting the General could be the only way to stop the US turning into a de facto military dictatorship (run by civilian chickenhawks).

The guy has the education and background of a Bill Clinton and multilateral/international leadership skills. What's not to like?

[rucky]

8. The World Doesn't Seem to Object

You don't get to be Supreme Allied NATO Commander by being an a-hole.

[lib 4 all]

12. like Alexander Haig?

[rucky]

28. Point is...

it's the closest any candidate has come to winning actual international support.

NATO trumps unilateralism. UN trumps NATO.

If I had it my way, Kucinich would be president. But the debate in America is not war vs. peace, it's unilateralism vs coalition action. If wee Americans need to feel safe from the bogeyman, I'd rather have Clark in there than, say, Al Haig.

No matter who's president, we're going to have a miliatry presence (and budget) that will be seen as a threat to many in the international community. Given that, Clark seems to be fairly non-objectionable as far as military figureheads go. The world is smart enough to see beyond the uniform.

[mmonk]

9. The world thinks so

[mmonk]

11. Using your logic

bush would be a positive message since he wasn't a general.

[lib 4 all]

16. that's not my logic

but it may be viewed as going off the deep end. I think the rest of the world views America as America, regardless of the political party of the president. "Army General" will be what they see, not "Democrat".

[jmaier]

18. If he's

elected, I suspect it's "President" that they will see not army general or Democrat.

[lib 4 all]

20. is that what they saw when Haig said "I'm in control here"?

[jmaier]

23. This is such a silly comment

that I can't believe I'm actually responding:

#1) er, Al Haig wasn't the elected President
#2) how the hell do we KNOW what the "world" thought or didn't think as if the "world" as such has a single opinion about anything.

[CJCRANE]

32. Clark will be judged

by what he says and does, just like any president. I think if you compare world opinion of Clinton to that of Bush II, you'll see what I mean (Clinton is considered to be a world statesman by many).

[lib 4 all]

38. yeah, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is taken seriously outside of California..

:eyes:

[Qutzupalotl]

61. Clark is respected as a hero around the world. n/t

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

64. Actually if Wes is elected

President is what they'll see...and a lot of them hold Wes Clark in very high regard already. :-)

[mmonk]

72. and I believe they are more familiar with Clark

than many of his detractors. They know he is a multi-lateralist who believes war is a last resort. Many of you don't grasp that part.

[Killarney]

14. He's exactly what we need

The world and our used-to-be-allies already know and trust him.

He is an honorary Knight of the British Empire, an honorary Knight in the Netherlands and was awarded the French Legion of Honor, their highest award. He will be able to rebuild the bridges Bush has burned down.

He can get us back in good graces with the UN and our allies.

[lib 4 all]

17. how so? We didn't go to the UN at all for Kosovo

[Bolo Boffin]

22. At least we had NATO support, something even Bush couldn't get...

...and Clark held that fragile coalition together like a master statesman.

[lib 4 all]

25. you're setting the bar pretty low there, aren't you?

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Oh yes, the NATO alliance is a pushover

Anybody could get them...

:eyes:

[lib 4 all]

45. no, I mean using Bush's "achievements" as the bar

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Clark is exactly the right message to send to the world.

A man dedicated to multilateralism, who can step into the leadership of current foreign policy disasters and turn them around, a man with the respect of our allies...

...a man who is a throwback to the Enlightenment roots of American liberalism...

...who believes in equality for all...

...who's commited to core Democratic values and constituencies...

...whose responsible leadership stopped genocide without the loss of a single coalition soldier...

This is the spot-on message to send the world and the USA.

[lib 4 all]

37. I think General Clark will be seen as the next step in American Militarism

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Yes, the next step - back from the brink

[lib 4 all]

41. I see it as just furthering the trend

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Well, thanks for your opinion

Bolstered as it is by such abundance of factual information...

Thanks for playing.

[meow mix]

33. your selling short - a whole worlds intelligence

from what ive seen, the foreign ppls have a good and enthusiastic opinion of clark.
which they should..
due to his wonderful qualitities.

not everyone is prejudice against people who have been in the service.

only a small group of small minded people feel that way.

[lib 4 all]

50. I think you're selling America's intelligence short

You don't need a General to throw Bush out of office. In fact, if America is sick of Bush's war-mongering, then running a General against him is the worst possible choice.

[Qutzupalotl]

63. The right is afraid we'll choose Clark.

They know they're doomed if we do.

And your characterizations of him as a warmonger are way off base. Only someone who's been in combat and seen the horrors up close is qualified to decide when to go to war. (In his words, "as an absolute last resort.")

It's the frothing chickenhawk neocons who got us into this mess, and who we should be kicking out.

[lib 4 all]

66. Hardly. The right is thrilled at having two of their guys running.

It's a win/win situation for them, and lose/lose for us and the world.

[Qutzupalotl]

89. Bush wants to lose?

That's a good one. Think President Clark will keep the frothing neocons in his cabinet? Nope, he'll kick their asses out onto the street, thank you very much.

[lib 4 all]

91. it's good to know you can predict the future.

Running Clark is just the Republican's back up plan. Who is to say that once he gets the nomination Clark won't go right back to singing Bush and Cheney's praises?

Maybe that will be his campaign theme.

[CJCRANE]

34. As long as he talks softly

and carries a big stick. It's being shouted at and being repeatedly hit over the head with the big stick that the world doesn't like.

[tameszu]

36. Most Europeans and commonwealth nations love Wes Clark

They see him as their kind of American, because he believes in international institutions. Repubs hate him for the same reason. Why do you think there are sites like Canadians for Clark?

[burning bush]

44. Hell No

No New Ceasars!

Put the people in power.

[JPZenger]

47. 19 Nation Coalition

Wesley Clark is the person who held together a 19 nation coalition in military action against the Serbs - which saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Kosovo residents. That war was victorious in 78 days without a single Allied casualty. He even managed to get Denmark to join in the action.

That war occurred after every possible diplomatic effort had failed, as well as many threats had been issued. Clark was involved in many of those earlier diplomatic efforts - with close work between him and the State Dept. That is one reason why some American Generals dislike him - because he was too close to the State Dept.

It got to the point where NATO had to use military force or no one would believe them in the future.

Clark was the individual in that War who was willing to make reasonable compromises with our allies to respect their points of view. That is a second reason why some American Generals dislike him.

Many residents of other nations say they love American ideals, but hate the way the U.S. is so hypocritical and is often simply acting out of its own self-interest.

Kosovo was a high point in the necessary use of force in coordination with our allies. The U.S. had no self-interest - it was purely humanitarian, together with a desire to intimidate future thugs from murdering ethnic minorities.

Remember, the Kosovo war was also fought to protect Muslims. That should help Clark build good relations with Arab nations.

[lib 4 all]

59. hate to say it

but Clark is also half Jewish which I'm afraid would negate any "good relations" electing him might build with Arab nations.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

65. ROFL

Why do I get the feeling someone is venting all their own prejudices rather than debating the merits of a candidate?

[Leilani]

69. Besides being Ant-Military

are you also Anti-Semetic?

Clark's father was Jewish, he was raised as a Baptist, & converted to Catholicism.

[lib 4 all]

74. I resent the implication

The fact is, as much as I wish it was otherwise, much of the world is.
The last ting we need is a General as president who also inspires "zionist" conspiracies in the Arab world.

[maddezmom]

88. you do realize

that Kerry has Jewish roots, too.

[lib 4 all]

92. I do, but no one made the claim that Kerry would be the magic bullet

to "build good relations with Arab nations".

[EXE619K]

49. Exactly!

This is the primary reason that I cannot support Wesley Clark for 2004.

As I have posted before, I think highly of General Clark and unlike some other Dean supporters here, I'm willing to give the good General the benefit of doubt that he IS a Democrat(or liberal leaning...whatever fits the bill).

As the Chimpster has said during the debates in 2000, "we need to change the tone in Washington"(yeah, that worked out well didn't it?)

We, as a nation, have to take this "National Security" issue off the table as the sole, defining issue of our future. When the matters of National Security is beat to death and consumes the fabric of society with fear and hate, I believe it undermines our national morality and only serve to benefit those who profit from war and security issues.If we continue this national theme of Idolizing military figures and those in uniform, Are we that much different from The Third Reich or some military led, tin-can dictatorships?

The National Security issue is pushed by the GOP and their connections to the military complex. It's just like the "race" issue that the neo-conservatives have well used to divide our nation.

As a veteran, I've always asked myself "How is a soldier more "heroic" than a single mother who works night-shifts to send her two kids to college?"

I couldn't agree with you more.
Bravo lib 4 all!




DEAN LEADS THE WAY!

[lib 4 all]

54. thank you for that - you make a solid point

about taking "national security" off the table.

Running Clark in the election will only legitimize the issue, which will primarily benefit Bush.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

70. National security

isn't a "legitimate" issue?

Interesting.

[mmonk]

80. You won't be able to take national security off the table

sorry to burst any bubbles.

[LoneStarDem]

96. Toke

Do you get a free rock of crack with that logic?

Are you fucking kidding? National Security is a frickin Pink Elephant, you can't just wish it away by not talking about it, which is one of the reasons the Repubs have whupped out asses in the public's mindspace over the last twenty years. If we don't put up offense on the issue (this goes for any candidate), you can be guaranteed that Bush will use a $200 million dollar hammer to pound that spike straight betwixt our eyes.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

68. It's nice to see

an open minded post allowing some credit to Wes as a person.

And thank you for your service to our country. :-)

One question...how do you propose to, "take national security off the table?"

I also agree with your idea of heroism. We are all heroic in our own way relative to our sphere of experience. (well at least all of us who are anti-Bushytushy...I can't speak to the rest lol)

My support for Wes has little to do with the concept of heroism and much to do with his positions on many of the issues that matter to me, only one of which is national security.

Peace.

[lib 4 all]

75. why not just support Kerry instead? He has a PROVEN liberal record

going back 20 years.
Unlike Clark, he is the real deal.

[maddezmom]

87. didn't Kerry find out

late in life that his grandfather was jewish? Kinda shoots your theory about Wes.

[lib 4 all]

90. my point wasn't that this would wholly disqualify him

only that Clark will not be some white knight that rides in on his steed and unites the world. He brings his own complications that will have a real world impact on some level. To what degree I cannot say that I honestly know.

But keep in mind that other than purely Protestants presidents, we've only had one Catholic (Kennedy) and one Quaker (Nixon). We really don't know what kind of impact it would have in the world, especially in today's highly anti-semetic atmosphere.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

97. I've got it!

Let's find an atheist! I mean why put up with all these messy "faith" complications.

LOL

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

99. Why not support Kerry?

Because I've studied the various positions of all the major candidates...many of them quite similar. I've watched & listened to them speak & debate and I've come to the conclusion that Wes is the man I would prefer to have leading my country.

I've nothing against Kerry...I just feel Wes is a better man for this time & place.

That's the great thing about a democracy...we're allowed to make our own choices based on our own reasoning. :-)

edited for spelling

[jonnyblitz]

85. as an 10 year navy vet I agree also

:thumbsup:

[NV1962]

51. Absolutely - if only to Europe, where major relation repairs are due - n/t

[isbister]

71. No, not for the world...

or for the nation

[mmonk]

94. Remember

the IWR? Oh, the irony.

[PatGund]

76. I think so

An internationally respected and honored man, who has recieved awards for his ability to work with and cooperate with other countries, a Rhodes Scholar who graduated first in his class at West Point, and went back to teach economics there. A commander who made it a point to check on the welfare of not only those in his command, but their dependants. A man who served his country faithfully and honorably for 37 years.

Contrast that with a man who scraped by in college, went AWOL his final year in the armed forces, failed as a businessman, and who has spit in the face of almost every other country in the world.

I think electing Wesley Clark will send a message to the world that the neo-con dream of an American Empire has been set aside, and we're willing to work with the world again to better improve it.

[meow mix]

78. why yes, he is the right message. one of restraint and cooperation

ty for asking

[lib 4 all]

81. he didn't show "restraint" in Kosovo against the Russians

British General Michael Jackson had to restrain him in order to prevent starting "World War 3".

[jmaier]

83. lib 4 all

So far, you've pretty much repeated most of the more inane anti-Clark arguments that I've seen in various places and woven them incoherently together into one set of thread responses.

This British General accusation has been debunked so thoroughly so many times that I'm sure you've been pointed toward the counter evidence. If you really don't give a damn about the counter evidence then why don't you just be honest and say:

"I really, really cannot stand Clark as candidate. He's a <fill in the blank> and nothing anyone says is going to influence my opinion one iota."

That approach would save quite a bit of time.

[mmonk]

86. seems there are new posters

coming on board with old arguments. They may not know of all the repetition.

[The Magistrate]

84. Do You Seriously Imagine, Fellow

That this mole-hill cum mountain will move so many as two thousand votes among the general electorate?

Most people rather like somebody telling Russians where to get off, after all, and are unused to taking political guidance from English generals.

Or, for that matter, do you seriously believe there would have been a nuclear war ignited over the incident? It would be awfully hard to take your comments seriously in any matter if you did....

[bain_sidhe]

93. Yup.

I bet they'd be glad to get somebody in there who actually knows what he's doing.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

95. Europeans are rooting for Clark - there was an article here awhile back

They love him...

[Clark4VotingRights]

98. The diplomat who successfully negotiated the Dayton Peace Accord

with multiple European countries.
Who fought a rare war for humanitarian reasons, as documented
in Samantha Power's book.
A Rhodes Scholar from Oxford.
A man with a Master's degree in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics.
A person who speaks multiple languages.
An individual who is brilliant, articulate, compassionate, and passionate about making the world better.

Yeah, I think he sends the right message.