I am ashamed of my candidate

[Mass_Liberal]

When Dean said recently that Clark was a republican, I was ashamed. Because Dean is better than that. Furthermore, that statement is detrimental to our campaign. I believe that the reason that Clark is doing well right now is that he has kept out of this attack crud.


Note: I still like Dean the best. He is a great man, and I will still work for him very hard. Clark is a very nice guy too, and I don't think he should be slandered by Dean or by anybody else.

P.S- if you look at Clark on the issues, saying that he is a republican is as stupid as saying Dean is McGovern. Or Gingrich for that matter.

P.P.S if we don't let people join our party with our full trust simply because of who they voted for in the past, we are stupid. And vaguely elitist

[CWebster]

1. It is the truth

sometimes hard to take. Oh well..

[jmaier]

5. Actually

It isn't the truth and has pretty much been debunked dozens of times here at DU.

1) He was a registered independent who voted for Republican presidential candidates pre-Clinton.

2) Arkansas didn't actually have formal party registrations until several years ago so most folks there weren't registered Democrat or Republican.

3) It's pretty hard to see ex-Clinton supporters, Andy Young, Charlie Rangel and many others actually standing up for a Republican in the Democratic primary.

Of course, it makes a nice little soundbite to repost over and over. Fortunately for Wes Clark, it's the sort of negative attack that actually works to his favor with most of the electorate. So keep using it, please.

[Hep]

8. The only thing left out

are all the glowing comments he made about Bush as recently as April of last year.

[Qutzupalotl]

35. You mean when he praised the troops? n/t

[returnable]

36. Kinda like when...

...Dean said Bush and the administration deserved a day of celebration after Saddam was caught? :shrug:

[bearfartinthewoods]

57. maybe it's the cynic in me but it's my opinion that we don't really know.

without any real record of voting we have only his word as to what he is or isn't. it's sort of like electronic voting...hard to trust without a paper trail. i'm sorry, i'm way past the point where i trust strangers at their word.

[Bombtrack]

10. Clark has never been a republican

He voted for republican presidents in 5 elections, and then he became more liberal, 15 years ago, not last year, and has voted for democrats ever since.

During the time he was voting for republican presidents, he also voted for democratic candidates for other offices, and he has had many more democratic allies and friends in washington than republicans

[jsw_81]

46. Then WHY was Clark speaking at a REPUBLICAN FUNDRASIER in 2001?!?

Hmm? Got any answers?

[aquanut]

85. Did you read the speech?

I did. Much of it was about how the current administration's foreign policy isn't properly engaged or properly focused. In fact, when you consider the venue, it was fairly scathing criticism.

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

Starting with "We've got a NATO that's drifting right now"...

By the way, just how long do you have to be a Democrat before you're really a Democrat?

[OKNancy]

109. About as long as Zell Miller -n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

89. this again

Then WHY was Clark speaking at a REPUBLICAN FUNDRASIER in 2001?!? Hmm? Got any answers?

Why not? If you had the opportunity to get paid to stand up in front of a bunch of local GOPers and tell them how badly their screwing up, what they should be doing to stop screwing up, and warn them of the collasal consequences if they didn't listen to you, would you do it? I certainly would. Hell, I'd pay THEM for the chance to tell them that.

Have you ever actually read that speech?


<on edit: added italics>

[returnable]

12. Oh, yeah. "The truth."

Clark was a registered independent.

If who one votes for in a presidential race determines party affiliation, then I guess Clark has been a Democrat since 1992, since he voted for Clinton twice and Gore.

But that doesn't fit into the smear, now does it?

Why not compare the candidates' respective platforms and determine who has the more progressive vision?

Nah, we wouldn't want to do that, would we? :hi:

[kerry-is-my-prez]

27. 20 years ago was the last time he voted for a Republican - can't you get

over it?

[bearfartinthewoods]

64. the problem is, you can't prove that

no one can prove how they cast a secret ballot. are there any speeches he made in support of democrats? has he ever commented on why he had those meetings with the pubbies in arkansas about running for gov?

[returnable]

70. "in support of Democrats"

You mean like when he campaigned for the likes of Cleland, Swett, and Bowles?

[Dookus]

2. please edit

the "bullshit" comment from your post, or else it will get deleted.

And thanks for saying it. I agree, and i appreciate it.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

4. Profanity in the Body Is Fine

It's profanity in the Subject line of a new thread that will cause locking.

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

3. Thank You!

You are a fair and decent person!

:yourock:

DTH

[edzontar]

6. I am glad Dean said it.

I think Clark is/was a decent, relatively liberalor at least centirst Republican who, after a long period of uncertainty, switched parties to run for president.

That is fine. He has every right to do so.

I prefer to support a more solidly grounded Dem nominee.

Like Dean, or Kerry, or even Kucinich.

That is fine. That is my right.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

29. Dean's record is much more similar to a Republican's- THAT'S what matters

n/t

[Larkspur]

49. The Dems in Vermont said that Dean taught them that they could have

balanced budgets and social justice.

After Dean took over the Governorship, thanks to Fate, he immediately told the Dems that Dems have a perception problem with the public in regards to the public purse -- "tax and spend" liberals. Dems in Vermont are grateful today that Dean taught them that they could balance the budget and promote social justice programs. At least in Vermont, the RNC slam against Dems is dead.

[mbali]

51. But giving them diversity was way too much work

n/t

[bearfartinthewoods]

66. but vermont replaced dean with a pubbie

what good did the lessons dean 'taught' the dems do?

[dsc]

52. I want the name, office, and year elected of the Republicans

who have done the following. Signed a civil unions bill. Signed gay civil rights legislation. Set aside more of his or her state's land than all previous governors before him or her, insured every child whose pareents decide to sign up. Again name, year elected, and office.

[dsc]

77. Like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin

I suspect I will be disappointed.

[shance]

96. Clark doesnt have a political record to go by. Thats what concerns me.

I think hes a great man and I honestly like him, but Im not totally jazzed about the military life. I think its pretty isolated and doesnt invite creative thought or vision really.

And he was a Republican up until, seriously, a few months ago. (?)

I think some concern is warranted here. My overall vibe of him is good, but the actions and resume dont seem to coincide very well.

Maybe he needed the catalyst to propel him to switch parties like Jeffords. And I am certainly glad that he is being a much needed voice for so many Americans.

[Jerseycoa]

He was never a Republican

1.4% of Arkansans are registered as Republicans. Clark has never been one of them.

2.6% of the state’s residents are registered as Democrats. Clark is one of them.

96% of all Arkansas voters customarily express no party preference when registering. Clark was one of them until he registered as a Democrat.

You don't have to vote for him, but spreading disinformation this way is unfair to Clark and to his supporters.

[Printer70]

104. I agree- Clark is a Republican - why can't we speak the truth?

Clark did a GOP fundraiser in the recent past, he praised Bush and Blair for their perseverance in 2003. He made the case for war before congress. He's not signed ONE bill into law proving that he'll govern like a Democrat- not civil unions, not expanding health care, nada. I can't believe, on faith, that he's dropped all his conservative ideology overnight.

[snyttri]

105. As Wesley Clark increases his poll numbers

Dean Calls Clark a "Republican."

As Wesley Clark increases his poll numbers despite not running in Iowa, Howard Dean has attacked his credentials as a Democrat, saying, "I truly believe he's a Republican." Dean pointed out that Clark had voted for Nixon and Reagan and had earlier supported some Bush administration officials.

I doubt that this particular sort of attack will do Dean much good in the primaries. Eisenhower wasn't much of a Republican, and Taft supporters would have said he was an out and out Democrat. Reagan was originally a Democrat. People change, and change their parties. If Clark wins, it will be because he appeals to a lot of former Democrats who have now started leaning Republican, and could get them back in the party. As for the Democratic Left, we'd have nowhere else to go. It isn't as if Dean is that far left, either, you know; he was in the Clinton-Lieberman Democratic Leadership Council, and some the Clintonites only somewhat jokingly described themselves as reduced to being Eisenhower Republicans. Clark has to be judged on the program he puts forward in 2004, not how he voted in the 1970s.

Ironically, Dean's attack on Clark isn't that damaging if Clark emerges as the Democratic candidate, and might even help him.
In contrast, Gephardt's attack on Dean as hostile to workers because he was pro-NAFTA could be damaging.

http://tinyurl.com/2nqg5

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Tatiana]

15. Republicans support affirmative action?

Cause I thought they were trying to end it...

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[beaconess]

82. How do you

create racial diversity without taking race into account?

The notion of a colorblind society is a farce. Our society is not colorblind, never was, never will be and never should be.

[Toucano]

16. Please elaborate on the "trojan horse"

component of your view.

That is a conspiracy theory that has never been adequately explained for me.

Also, since you are allowing Clark the opportunity to prove his loyalty to the ideals of the Democratic party, what do you suppose he could do to provide you the proof.

I sort of find his unflinching criticism of Bush, Rove, and DeLay evidence of a non-republican.

[edzontar]

53. That wasn't my post, but that theory is

That Clark is some kind of stalking horse for the Clintons--who want to stop Dean at all costs, even to the extent of having Clark be nominee and lose badly.

The presumption is that Hillary wants to run in o8, so they want a loser now...but a loser who also will hold their place in the party against Dean.

The theory has been much bandied about.....I have even been known to put it forth when I am in a bad mood.

[Toucano]

60. Thanks for the help.

I'm not sure that's the same theory, but I'll work with what we have.

The Clinton's have chosen a republican to lose to Bush in 2004?

What's supposed to happen if he wins? Is he supposed to not fight hard or criticize Bush and other republican's failed policies?

It reminds me of the Hillary is a lesbian having an affair with Vince Foster, who is not a lesbian claims from a few years ago.

[Killarney]

17. I disagree

Where is his record staunchly republican?

In the past 12 years, he has voted Democratic.

As a military commander, he worked hard to advocate better military housing, better military health care, and better schools for the children of the military. He strongly supported the affirmative action program of the military. He disagreed with the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and said that we shouldn't discriminate against people who want to serve in our armed forces.

That sounds like a Democrat to me.

[Killarney]

9. Great post.

I'll be honest. As a Clark supporter, the Acxiom thing does bother me. But the "he voted Republican 16 years ago" thing does not bother me and anyone that uses that limp argument gets automatically discounted a few notches in my book.

I agree with you. If we don't accept people into the party that voted Republican in the past, we will never win again. The majority of the country voted Republican in the 80's. What is most important is how people feel today and as you stated so well, it's obvious Clark is a democrat now. Anyone that says otherwise is either a) lying, b) wearing a tin foil hat, or c) just plain dumb.

Thanks for your honest post. :)

[bearfartinthewoods]

67. accepting them into the party is one thing

running him for prez is quite different. especially as this is his first attempt at standing for office.

[GainesT1958]

11. Thanks...

I know there really are a LOT of Dr. Dean's supporters who feel as you do...and a lot of Sen. Kerry's supporters who don't like what Jeanne Shaheen said, either.

:kick:

B-)

[Bonobo]

18. Nice post! Thanks. Sorry, hit reply in wrong place again!

I would not normally support a 4-star general for president especially one who voted for Reagan.

HOWEVER (and it is a HUGE however): This country is getting scary with a capital S and I just want the Chimp out. I think Clark has the best chance. That's as simple as it gets.

On the other hand, I will be strongly behind any DP candidate and I think that you were correct to apologize for this egregious comment.

[poskonig]

13. People are concerned about Clark's history.

Clark has presented issues palatable to liberals over the last 40 days, but the motivation for his previous behavior is unexplained. For example, a voter might want to know the motivation for Clark's past presidential votes -- did Clark think the Democrats were too socialist with government spending, weak on defense, et cetera.

[Qutzupalotl]

38. Defense

was his rationale. He phrased it more positively, that he supported candidates who were strong on defense. He says he ignored party and voted for the person.

[mzmolly]

14. Bush is a compassionate conservative remember?

Besides Wes Clark said Dean can't win the GE. Don't feel too badly for him.

He also voted for Bush Sr. Reagan and Nixon. He had an advantage waiting to enter the race because he could take what was working and make it his own.

Calling Clark a Republican isn't too much of a stretch, especially given his comments on Bush/Rove/Condi/Rummy and the gang.

[Killarney]

19. If you believe that...

If you believe that Clark is a Republican because of what he said about Bush then Dean must be a Republican as well for what he said about Cheney (as a VP he would want).

You can't have it both ways.

[dsc]

54. No

because as you well know, but chose to not post here, Dean was praising Cheney's skill at getting his ideas enshrined as government policy, something only a fool would argue he hasn't shown skill at, while Clark was praising the policies that had been advocated by those people. Big difference. It is the difference between praising Muscilini for having the trains run on time and praising him for being an ally of Hitler.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

23. According to Dean, Bush Is a Moderate

So I don't put much stock in his ability to label other people's ideology or party affiliation.

DTH

[blm]

43. Dean looked into Bush's soul and declared him a moderate.

Of course, that was when Dean was governing as a pro business, deregulating Republican in Dem clothing, himself.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Where did Clark say Dean can't win the GE?

Please show me even one direct quote by Clark where he said that. Clark never said that. Saying Clark did is just another example of negative distortion, the same type of disregard for facts based distortion as calling Clark a Republican. Saying that Clark isn't a strong enough Democrat for you, or a liberal enough Democrat, or a conservative enough Democrat, those are opinions. Saying that Clark only recently registered as a Democrat is a fact. Saying Clark is a Republican is a lie unless someone can produce evidence that Clark has ever either called himself a Republican or registered as one.

[mbali]

20. Of course, this is the same man who called Bush a moderate

so maybe we shouldn't rely to heavily on his assessment of Clark.

[Jerseycoa]

81. Especially since

he called Bush a moderate soon after Bush stole the 2000 election.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Toucano]

26. Can I infer from your post that you think Clark supporters are

gullible democrats?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Toucano]

42. That feels a little like a "broad brush"

you're using there. I think we aren't supposed to do that. Not sure, though.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Killarney]

32. Can you elaborate? (nt)

[stickdog]

40. Not according to the screen that pops up before I post. (nt)

[blm]

44. Dems who believe campaign rhetoric more than 11 yrs. of records?

I see what you mean.

[Bread and Circus]

22. This is very big of you to say and you do your candidate proud...

It's hard to admit this.

None of our candidates are perfect, to be sure. This would
be a better board if more folks were like you.

:thumbsup:

[Toucano]

28. Well put!

We should remember that we can support a candidate without complete agreement with everything the candidate does or says.

:thumbsup: again.

[Toucano]

24. I agree with you.

I think Dean has to do better than the republican smear.

Also, it concerns me that Clark has been very good at avoiding attacking the other candidates, and now the Dean and Kerry campaigns are throwing the rocks Rove put at their feet.

On that recent MTP, Clark was asked if Dean could win the south and he said somthing like, "I don't know if Dean can win the south, but I know I can."

That was the high road, IMO. Candidates should promote themselves at every opportunity rather than tear down the other candidates. When Kerry and Gephardt do it to Dean, I see weakness on their part. Now that Dean is doing it to Clark, I still see it as a weakness.

I'm not quite anti-anyone, but this is making it harder for me to like Dean. I'll be watching how he plays this.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. I thank you also

I don't expect any candidate to be perfect, not Clark, not Dean. I know that there is much that you can still be proud of about Dean. An example of smear campaigning is not one of them.

I don't think Dean should be giving Clark a free ride. Dean can call him too new to the Party to seek the nomination as our candidate if that is what he believes. Dean can try accusing Clark of being too willing to make accommodations with Republicans if Dean thinks he can make those charges stick. But calling Clark a Republican is unfair, and more significant, untrue. Thank you again for speaking out on this. It obviously is not easy to do so.

[VolcanoJen]

34. Nice post, Mass_Liberal.

Dean is being incredibly irresponsible by making this charge. It's also kind of hard to call a man who voted for Clinton-Clinton-Gore "Republican."

I think this will haunt Dean all the way to March 2.

:-(

Jennifer

[mmonk]

39. Dean's ok

His campaign is just seeing if this will work. I hope not. Lieberman's been using this tactic awhile as well as republicans to create problems.

[Jerseycoa]

41. Thank you for this kindness

:hi:

[jsw_81]

45. Clark

The good general spoke at a GOP fundraiser as recently as 2001, praised Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and supported the Iraq war. Is that not Republican behavior?

[Tinoire]

47. I am grateful Dean said it It's his 2nd statement this week that's making

me look at him twice.

The first was this one:

"Remember, they are not trying to stop me -- they are trying to stop you." (Howard Dean) http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-dean22.html

The second is the one from this thread. That's the kind of candidate I'm looking for. One who is no friend of the MIC and who isn't afraid to tell the truth. It's my truth too & that of millions of Democrats like me who believe that the only reason Clark is running on the Democratic ticket is because Bush doesn't want any competition on the Republican one. There are thankfully a few Clark supporters here who have admitted that but still say he's their man & I can respect them for it; they're going into it knowingly which is what we should all be doing.

[Toucano]

50. Can you help with a link

to the threads where "...a few Clark supporters here who have admitted that..." can be found.

Or maybe you can suggest some search terms or a date range. This topic has been dealt with so many times, I'd likely have trouble finding them on my own.

Thanks. :)

[Tinoire]

56. Sorry, I am not going to comb through the myriad of threads to find that

Logic alone should tell you that for a candidate appealing to Republicans, Dems and Independents- there will be at least a few who think that.

I just happen to believe it and at least 2 supporters here stated the same. I personally thanked one of them for his forthrightness.

[Toucano]

63. That's fine.

I'm not up to that challenge search either, so I'll take you at your word. I wasn't implying you were being dishonest, anyway. I just was curious to read them myself. But not THAT curious! LOL!

I've not encountered any Clark supporters who think he's a republican. I've encountered republicans who feel betrayed by Bush and can support the Democratic ideals Clark supports like reproductive rights, affirmative action, progressive taxation, etc.

Simply appealing to republicans and independents isn't the same thing as Clark is a republican. I think all the candidates say they can motivate swing voters, too, yet I don't hear anyone calling them republicans.

[Tinoire]

74. Thank you

for confirming that you weren't implying that. That's gracious.

There wasn't that much to read. Just one person politely saying that he knew that, had the Republican ticket been open, he was convinced Clark would have run on it and another one agreeing but saying it didn't matter to them which I thought was cool. I really don't care who people vote for as long as they take the time to really examine what they're voting for. There's nothing worse than being taken in and this time it will be devastating if that happens to us. There's so much at stake on all sides- our freedoms and well-being (which matter not one whit to anyone but us, the little people) and an awful lot of money and power on the other side. The stakes are so high that people will stoop at nothing to keep our country going in this direction and that terrifies me.

I don't think Clark is a Republican for simply appealing to Republicans- they're all doing that, more or less; my reasons are a bit more involved and I'm sure you're aware of most of them by now ;)

[blm]

55. Dean sounds more like a Republican to me than Clark.

And his record proves it. Thankfully my two guys both have 30+ years of proof that they are progressive thinkers who have worked actively against the established powers - Kerry and Kucinich.

Here's the REAL Dean on civil liberties:


http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003739.html
……He once addressed a meeting of defense attorneys by stating that "my job is to make your job as difficult as possible." He is a man of his word, at least on this campaign promise. He did not want to fund public defense.

……Dean has made no secret of his belief that the justice system gives all the breaks to defendants. Consequently, during the 1990s, state’s attorneys, police, and corrections all received budget increases vastly exceeding increases enjoyed by the defender general’s office. That meant the state’s attorneys were able to round up ever increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but the public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond.

http://rogueimc.org/2003/11/1757.shtml
Dean, in 1999, wanted to refuse a $150,000 federal grant to the public defender's office for aiding mentally disabled defendants. "That was unusual, to say the least," says Appel. The state legislature overrode Dean's opposition. Dean spokesman Carson responded that Dean didn't want to create a program that the state couldn't afford to fund if federal money disappeared in the future. But he did not disavow Dean's anti-defendant bent. "This is a governor who was tough on crime and is a big believer in victims' rights," Carson says.

(Note:The state legislature overrode Dean's opposition and forced him to take it.)

Source: http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1
Dean: “I got life without parole through our legislature. The problems with life without parole is that it’s not life without parole. There are always people who get out.”

http://richmond.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4371/index.php
.. “I’m looking to make it easier to convict guilty people and not have as many technicalities interfere with justice, and I’ll appoint someone to fit that bill”.

Asked if that reflected a “get-tough-on-crime” approach, Dean responded: “I’m looking for someone who is for justice. My beef about the judicial system is that it does not emphasize truth and justice over lawyering. It emphasizes legal technicalities and rights of the defendants and all that.” Such comments may play well with the general public, but they have sent a chill through the collective spine of lawyers – particularly defense lawyers – around the state.

http://rogueimc.org/2003/11/1757.shtml
He attempted an explanation of his support for capital punishment, even while agreeing that in some cases "the wrong guy" might be executed…. ...he thought the death penalty was preferable in some instances to a sentence of life without parole, Dean noted that in some instances criminals who are locked up for life might be freed on a legal "technicality" only to commit more horrible crimes. "That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1907-2003Jul2?language=printer

William Cohen: …..In all my years writing about the death penalty, I have never heard any politician admit that he would countenance the death of an innocent person in order to ensure that the guilty die. Dean is maybe the first to acknowledge the unacknowledgeable. For that, I suppose, he ought to be congratulated. But by equating the murder of one individual by another with the murder of an innocent person by the government -- the unpreventable with the preventable -- he has casually trashed several hundred years of legal safeguards.

http://www.vpr.net/vt_news/stories/sharedlegacy/shared3.shtml
Vermont Public Radio, Bob Kinzel: "It's likely that Howard Dean's tenure in office will also have a long term effect on the state's criminal justice system. In his first years as Governor, Dean was often critical of judges who Dean thought did not hand down tough enough sentences. Over the last 10 years, Dean has appointed more judges than any previous governor and Dean describes his appointees as "law and order" judges. Dean's judicial philosophy appears to be having a significant impact - during his tenure as governor the average sentence handed down in Vermont has doubled - a situation that has led to an overcrowding of the state's prison system."
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Bister-Estrin-Jacobs_Dean.htm
His governorship was a campaign against reasonable approaches to substance abuse. ….. the only other option in his bag of tricks is tougher penalties. He has endorsed fully the National Governors Association's policy, which calls for increased involvement of law enforcement and disavows any form of legalization not only as a policy but also as a philosophy. In short, Dean not only believes in the war on drug users, but also would like to see it intensified.

…..While Dean vocalized his opposition to methadone treatment clinics and decried any efforts to reduce the penalties on marijuana use -- even labeling the latter as a gateway drug (a statistically questionable claim at best) -- the population of Vermont's prisons increased to potentially dangerous levels. There is a correlation between these two phenomena. The more police go after individuals who use drugs, and the more judges are instructed to put them in jail, the more prisoners there are. ……. according to the DEA, the number of drug arrests in Vermont increased under Dean's watch, peaking in the year 2001, with the imprisonment of women increasing by over 140%.

http://rogueimc.org/2003/11/1757.shtml
Robert Appel, former head of the state's public defender system, said he had constant clashes with Dean over funding for the service. According to Appel, Dean said on at least one public occasion that the state should spend less money providing the accused with legal representation, saying that "95% of criminal defendants are guilty anyway." He later claimed that he was kidding.

http://www.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Aug/946.html
(He appointed) state judges who were willing to undermine the Bill of Rights. In a 1997 interview with the Vermont News Bureau, Howard Dean admitted his desire to expedite the judicial process by using such justices to 'quickly convict guilty criminals.' He wanted individuals that would deem 'common sense more important than legal technicalities.' Constitutional protections (legal technicalities) apparently undermine Dean's yearning for speedy trials. 
 



  

[dsc]

59. I want the name, year elected and office held by

the Republican who signed a civil union bill, insured his or her state's children, set aside more of his state for enviromental protection than any previous governor, has Dean's record on abortion, appointed over half women to his judgeships, and permited joint adoption by gays. No exuses. No BS. Name, year elected, office held.

[blm]

90. Can't defend the issues I was talking about in my post?

So you switch issues?

[Tinoire]

62. Dean is a centrist Democrat which is half-way to a Republican

we've agreed on that for a long time you and I, and we both have a distaste of Centrist Dems and of the DLC which was very happy with Dean's performance as Governor.

Don't get me wrong- I am not in love with Dean as a politician and will probably never be but we have got to wrest our power back from the DLC. Kerry is still officially part of the DLC (and the CFR) so I can't fully back him even though I have repeatedly stated that he is the most domestically socially liberal one up there and would vote for him in a heart-beat.

I still hope that Kucinich wins because he's the only one for whom I will want to vote and have a clear conscience about it. Kerry is definitely a Democrat. Clark... let's put it this way- I want more than campaign rhetoric, campaign issue papers and supporters' spin. Let Clark spend a few years as a lower-level politician to convince us that between March 2003 and today he saw the light and that we should entrust him with the Democratic nomination and the Presidency of the United States.

These times are too dangerous. I've been following Clark closely and there are too many disquieting issues. Everytime I rattle the closet on one of his associations, out come a bunch of MIC bones. The MIC is my enemy- even more so than the Republicans- many of whom are good decent people but whose party is being eaten away by the same PNAC cancer devouring ours.

I am not happy with Dean, really, really not happy and I am sure you remember the threads where there were just a couple of us trying to convince people that Dean is no progressive and no liberal. You know what- we didn't fail. There's not a Dean supporter out there who doesn't know this now but they have a point about him being the pit-bull we need to stop the MIC's advancement.

Clark can issue all the papers he wants. He can even go as far as saying that abortion should be no-limits and anything up to delivery. He can promise to personally perform gay marriages at the White House but that still doesn't make him a real Liberal in my book.

We're on the same sheet of music for Dean. And I'm saddened to say that most of the Progressive Dean supporters out here in California are too. They're not buying into Dean's campaign rhetoric- they just want to match Trippi against Rove & Dean against Bush.

I am not so sure it will work but I we may have no choice but to risk that, if he's the front-runner of the Progressives behind him, if we want Bush and his entire cabal out.

How do you feel about Kerry getting so beaten up for IWR and then Clark parading himself as an anti-Iraq-war General when he was in Davos with Powell campaigning for the war and telling our allies that Bush had decided and that they had best get on board? I don't like either Dean or Clark getting a free pass on this one but at least Dean wasn't campaigning for it and at least Dean has a record we can check.


If you reply, I won't be able to respond until tonight but please do. I value your perspective on things, your ability to look the truth straight in the eye, and the strength with which you've stuck to your convictions for months.

Thank you for those Dean links... I'm in little admiration of Dean the man- it's the movement that I find admirable and it will take a movement of progressives to change the path our country's on.

Still 100% Kucinich.

[blm]

88. It's absolutely not fair that others get a pass on IWR

especially if their statements conflict. Dean or Clark. But Clark didn't demagogue on IWR the way that Dean did.

Dean will never match Bush. If Bush needs it, he'll access a half billion dollars. Dean already has high negatives in the general public. 34%. That's the highest of all the candidates and they'll just get worse once negative ads start running against him 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for months. All they have to do is use all Dean own conflicting statements on every major issue, Iraq, taxes, Social Security. Democrats can't base build their campaigns on lies. BushInc TV will crucify any Dem that has the scent of an inconsistency.

[Tinoire]

100. Yes but, unlike Clark, Dean didn't campaign for the war

While I can find it within me to forgive Kerry and the rest, reluctantly accepting the rationale that they were lied to, I will never be able to sign on to Clark knowing what I know about him from my days with Claudia K., the things I've seen since, and what I see as an a very "pushed" campaign from people I am not at ALL enamoured of- and Morton Ambramowitz, PNAC signer, is one of them. I am not at all comfortable with Clark's recent, stunning revelations that he's an ultra Liberal Democrat (especially after all the time he spent hemming & hawing over his party affiliation while he was meeting with both Republican and Democratic Party Representatives). His entire movement, IMO, is a fraud and I will bet you my friend that if Clark can't win this nomination, he will run as an Independent. Clark is out to save NATO all over again because NATO outlived its usefulness decades ago- that was one of the primary reasons for the war against Yugoslavia- and now NATO, our main tool for maintaining some sort of respectability as we push our own empirical agenda and bully everyone on board, is really disintegrating what with the Euro and the EU Army.

When you look at all of Clark's associations, they're all MIC and NGOs that push economic domination of the rest of the world. I don't want that- I want a US that Kucinich envisions where we are a respected, trusted world country and that is not the agenda of the people behind Clark.

I excelled at writing military spin and all of Clark's is recognizable from miles away.

I am fighting the establishment that has brought us to this sorry state and to me Clark is part of that establishment. They have a lot to lose if a real Progressive gets in there (and there's a LOT more to being a Progressive than saying that abortion and Gay rights are A-ok by you) and will stop at nothing. Do you realize how many trillions are at stake? Carlyle and the MIC can NOT afford to lose this one and will stop at nothing to hedge their bets so that just in case Bush loses, there's someone else right there working arm in arm with the goals of Carlyle, the CSIS and the NED which are, to put it kindly, not defined by the American people.

Why is it that George Soros, Carlyle also, is suddenly wanting to invest a few paltry $10 million in buying the Democratic nomination for someone he worked with in Yugoslavia, on the CSIS, and on the NED? $10 million to Soros- you know what that is? That's like the $10 dollar chip you toss on red on the roulette table when you have $1000 stacked on the black. It's nothing. Peanuts. Peanuts to buy an election. To buy an entire country at the same time that he and Carlyle are devaluating the US dollar to herd us right where they want us.

I'd rather have Bush than Clark because Bush is such a stumbling, greedy idiot that he's exposing the whole game. That is what Carlyle is upset about and nothing else. Let me just thank them right now- I'll keep the idiot if those are the only 2 choices I'm going to have- at least I know what the idiot is doing.

NED, CSIS, Jackson Stephens, Acxiom, the list is just too long to simply say "Ok, you registered as a Dem in September 2003, you can now be President". I don't care how intelligent Clark might be. I don't care about him being a Rhodes scholar. And by the way, have you ever looked at the ideological goals of the Rhode scholars? Here's the most important one, written by Cecil Rhodes himself:

Added to this, the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars. The objects one should work for are first the furtherance of the British Empire, the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, the recovery of the United States, the making of the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. (Gross 61)

http://www.emory.edu/ENGLISH/Bahri/Rhodes.html

This philosophy explains NAFTA, GATT, WTO, FTAA, Israel/Palestine, pushing genetically modified foods on the world, disguising wars for access to oil and pipelines as "humanitarian interventions", the IMF, the CSIS, the NED... and no, no my good friend, I can't sign on to that. Dean, the pit bull, is an ideological nightmare for me but Clark is a moral nightmare.

<shiver>

All this of course being just my opinion... Looking forward to your answer.



26 January 2003
Is The WEF Playing Host To "Secret Oil Meeting" To Carve Up The Iraqi Black Gold Cake?

Davos, Switzerland: As helicopters continue to bring Chief Executives and world leaders into the Swiss alpine resort of Davos for this year's meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Friends of the Earth has been reliably informed by WEF participants that a "secret" meeting of top oil executives is scheduled to take place here this weekend. Friends of the Earth International - the world's largest grassroots environmental network - has today challenged the WEF to either deny that such a meeting is taking place, or to come clean on which companies and governments are taking part and what is being discussed.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell is addressing the WEF today amidst evident concern amongst many WEF business leaders and protests across Switzerland. However, many WEF attendees in the oil industry are set to benefit from an Iraq war.

A recent Deutsche Bank report indicated a potential conflict of interest amongst the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council over the commercial implications of war in Iraq. Baghdad Bazaar - Big Oil in Iraq was published last October but only came to light last week. It indicates that a regime change in Iraq would benefit US and UK oil companies while a peaceful resolution would benefit oil companies based in Russia, France and China:

<snip>

http://www.foei.org/media/2003/0126.html

===

Sunday, 26 January, 2003, 17:15 GMT
Powell fails to woo sceptics

Leading European figures say a speech by US Secretary of State Colin Powell warning that time is running out for Iraq to disarm has not persuaded them that a military strike is necessary.

<snip>

From the business community, Cem Kozlu, chairman of Turkish Airlines, said the message from Mr Powell was bleak.
"What Mr Powell said is that if there is evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq there will be war. And if there is no evidence, there will be war. That is bad news."

<snip>

Praise for Powell

But for the US, Wesley Clark, former Nato supreme allied commander for Europe, led the plaudits for Mr Powell's speech.
"He gave a very reasoned explanation of US policy," Mr Clark said. "It will help bring everyone together."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2696033.stm

====================================

Posted 07/02/2003

Titans of Davos: Cutting the Iraqi Oil Pile- Christopher Bollyln - The American Free Press

DAVOS, Switzerland—For 33 years, for one week every January, government leaders and the moguls of global business have convened here in this small ski town high in the Swiss Alps. While the mainstream media describes the World Economic Forum (WEF) as an event with a social focus, they know well that the real business of the conference is the private meetings of the global elite.

<snip>

On the final day of the conference, Wesley Clark, the former U.S. general who commanded the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, explained how a U.S.-led assault against Iraq might develop. Clark attended the conference as managing director of the Stephens Group.

<snip>

The recently convicted currency speculator George Soros attended, along with the directors of Interpol, the European police force.

<snip>

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=492

===

Davos still in the surreal world

<snip>

Up in Davos, though, the military-industrial complex was no laughing matter. Alongside leading political figures from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UN security council countries, top executives from BP, Shell, TotalFinaElf, and Lukoil were in Davos. So was the architect of the first Gulf war, General Colin Powell, the US secretary of state. General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander for Nato in Europe, turned up as well, to give a presentation on "military scenarios for a possible confrontation with Iraq".
While this group gathered in Davos, Friends of the Earth handed out a leaked Deutsche Bank analysts' report, entitled Baghdad Bazaar: Big Oil in Iraq. This frightening document lays out how different oil companies and countries could benefit from the replacement of Saddam's regime, and speculates on how different oil companies might be involved in post-war control of the Iraqi state oil company.

<snip>

http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,883944,00.html

====

Wednesday, January 29, 2003

Opposition is confident it can build a coalition after Saddam
Mark Landler The New York Times Wednesday, January 29, 2003

DAVOS, Switzerland After five days suffused by fear and anger over the American push for war in Iraq, Europeans and Arabs attending the World Economic Forum spent their last day here talking about life after a conflict that few want, but most now believe is inevitable.
As the debate subtly shifted Tuesday, eight prominent members of the Iraqi opposition arrived, with impeccable timing, to sketch out a vision of their country following the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

<snip>

Before their presentation, the Iraqis had listened raptly to a military briefing on Iraq given by General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander, who is rumored to be pondering a bid for the presidency.

Davos is worlds away from the grange halls of Iowa, but some Americans here remarked that Clark's three-day blitz of the conference looked suspiciously like the dress rehearsal for a campaign.

He was host at a cocktail party for young people. He spoke at a breakfast for senior journalists. And he gave the briefing, complete with giant maps of Iraq and an electronic pointer, for an overflow audience of business executives and public officials. He requested that journalists not report his remarks, as they were based only on "informed speculation."

<snip>

Clark, who directed the air war in Kosovo, has also expressed doubts about invading Iraq without a United Nations mandate. But he said he came to Davos to rally the allies in support of a campaign.

"I've told all the Europeans: They need to get on the team," he said. "It's better to be inside the tent than outside."
<snip>
http://www.iht.com/articles/84929.html

===

Resolving Conflicts 2: From Prevention to Pre-emption
27.01.2003
Annual Meeting 2003

This session on resolving conflicts was one of the few at the Annual Meeting in Davos this year not to be dominated by the prospect of US and allied war with Iraq, noted moderator Joseph S. Nye Jr, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA. That did not make it any more optimistic than other discussions. The roundtable discussion brought together Wesley Clark, Managing Director, The Stephens Group, USA, Sergei Karaganov, Chairman of the Board, Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Institute of Europe, Russian Federation, Itamar Rabinovich, President, Tel Aviv University, Israel, and Sundeep Waslekar, President, Strategic Foresight Group, India - all experts on flashpoints in their regions. And among the prospects being considered is action by the US against North Korea for building up its nuclear weapons programme in secret.

<snip>

General Clark, former NATO supreme commander, was asked whether it wasn’t inconsistent of the United States to attack Iraq for development of weapons of mass destruction while holding off against North Korea?

"There is no necessary requirement for consistency in pre-emption," he replied.

Doesn’t that tell North Korea that it has won this game of deterrence? "The military option cannot be taken off the table," Clark responded. But he also underlined that the US policy to North Korea is clear: "We don’t want the government to collapse. We don’t want South Koreans to adopt the North Koreans. We won’t want a war."
http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Resolving%20Conflicts%202:%20From%20Prevention%20to%20Pre-emption_2003?open&event_id=

===

An Iraqi opposition leader Hoshyar Zebani who met General Wesley Clark at the World Economic Forum in Davos has said that the US expects to remain in Iraq for 8 years post-invasion. ((remember Kucinich’s casual mention to Clark during one of the debates that Clark had worked on the plans for the occupation of Iraq))
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:rNgU5fvc1kcJ:www.srcf.ucam.org/camsaw/Resources/2003/Moral_war_myth.doc+%22wesley+Clark%22++Davos+powell&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

==

But what he says, and the way he says it, doesn't always endear him to his audience -- especially when he's improvising. Last January, I saw Clark give a 45-minute presentation on how he thought the war in Iraq would unfold. As long as he was up there with his map and light pen, talking about JDAMs and phase lines and whatnot, he was magnificant. But when it came time to answer questions -- to talk with, instead of at, the audience -- Clark bombed.

Part of it was what he said, which was in essence: The U.S. is going to war, the president has made his decision, so you'd better just get used to it. This to a European audience, mind you, one heavily salted with Franco-Germans. Clark actually told them -- I swear I am not making this up -- that they had an obligation to support the war, because "that's the democratic process."

You can imagine how big that went over.
And it wasn't just what he said, it was how he said it. Intentional or not, Clark has that cocky, blunt American attitude that so often grates on the nerves of Europeans (and foreigners in general.) And he made no noticeable effort to tone it down. In fact, it looked to me like Clark irritated the crowd almost as much as Colin Powell, who also spoke at the conference. And that's saying something.

http://billmon.org/archives/000582.html

Oh and on edit- we both definitely agree that no one should get a pass on IWR just because they didn't have to vote and can now snow us under a bull-ton of " I would have's". I do feel that Dean is snowing us and you know this because you know what I had to say about Dean months ago. Furthermore I have never believed that Dean would have voted against it because his words at the time belie what he is saying now but damn I'm being pushed into a corner by the MIC I hate, and come General Election time, if Dean is the nominee, I will be able to vote for him knowing that that Centrist pit-bill may be what it takes to get _Bush out, the country back to the center, and pave the way for Kucinich to win next time. Kucinich is my Primary choice but because of what I've quietly observed from Dean (and more than that, the passion of the preople's Dean machine that will breathe fire down his neck), I am able to trust him with not handing my country over to that cabal. I do not think Clark would, let me be kind, quite as efficient. I'm not on the Dean machine- just saying that if I see the locomotive come barrelling down while I'm standing on the tracks, I'll jump on- even though in my heart, I full well know that the locomotive will be stronger but what the hell do you do in that type of a panic? If people won't listen to DK who has shown everyone a way to quietly step off the track, what is the next best (pathetic) choice but to jump in the car that maybe, just maybe, might drive you away?

Dean. Not my first. Not even my second. But damn... being pragmatic here to prepare myself to swallow a bitter pill if I must because I find the sickness is scarier.

[rhite5]

108. Thank you for this post, Tinoire

It contains information about Clark that I had suspected but did not have specific information on before. I am saving the links for my collection.

Between this information and the information about Dean provided above by blm (which I did not suspect) I am getting quite a collection of things to mull over once the Primary period is over if either of these is the candidate.

Like you, I am struggling with tolerace level decisions if Kucinich cannot win the Nomination.

I do admire the campaign smarts of Trippi and the feistiness of Dean, and believe that combination could beat Bush. I am pretty well convinced that Dean is not connected in any way to the PNAC agenda (an essential consideration).

But it is important to know the downside stuff from blm on an issue (criminal justice) that is very important to me.

That said, I believe my second choice (after Kucinich) would be Edwards, although he seems just a bit light weight. I could tolerate Kerry but not with enthusiasm.

[Rowdyboy]

48. Thank you...I don't understand eithetr. Dean is my 2nd choice

and he's better than that. But thank you.

[GOPBasher]

58. Amen to that.

I can't stand the fact that all of our candidates are bashing each other. They shouldn't be giving the Republicans sound bites. I'm a Clark supporter right now, but trust me, I'll support whomever wins the nomination. That should be the case with all of the candidates.

[xultar]

61. Thanks so much for the Great Post

I have said things like this about Clark in the past. I have even invited people to post not so positive things so we can discuss them.
I try to keep an honest look @ Clark and his goings on.

It is refreshing to see a post where a Dean Supporter can see something they don't like and discuss it openly. Dean isn't perfect. Clark isn't perfect. We can help make them better by discussing their faults and taking it back to the campaigns and say FIX THIS.

That is what I did for Clark in the beginning. All of the negative posts I send to the Campaign. I wanted them to know what people were thinking. I think that is what is helping him now. Although he still gets "squirty mouth" syndrome and says things he shouldn't.

All in all I'm glad you see things the way I do. I am sure not as hell gonna ask the FEC to return any repuke votes if they cross over. I'm also not going to ask the Democratic party to throw out people who have a "coming to Jesus" and decide to go Democratic.

We can only win this with numbers. So let's play a game. How many Repukes can we convert. The DNC, DLC or whomever should give 10k dollars to the democrat who gets the most repukes to convert!

Yeah Hoo!

Thanks again for the great Post
Turra

[aquanut]

65. Kerry calling Clark names too

I was at a Clark event in NH last night and several Kerry people were there making a scene (large Kerry signs, people in the street restricting traffic, Clark signs knocked over).

Some of the cars were also leafleted with Kerry propaganda calling Clark a Republican.

All in all a counter productive night for the Kerry campaign. Instead of using their time to legitimately call and reach voters these actions put Kerry's campaign in a bad light.

[Jerseycoa]

79. Okay, so this week alone

We have Howard Dean, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Matt Drudge, all lying about a Democratic candidate. Nice company.

[Bucky]

68. It takes a lot of integrity to make a statement like this.

You saying this makes me feel better, honestly.

[ozone_man]

69. I think this is where Dean and Kerry unite

in recognizing that Clark is no Democrat. He voted for Clinton because he was a fellow Arkansan? His comments praising the Bush team as recently as a year ago seem pretty Republican to me. And he is on the books as supporting the IWR, cheerleading for the Iraq war while a CNN correspondent, and drawing the connection between Al Queda with Iraq to justify an invasion.

This is not to let Kerry off the hook for his IWR vote by any means, but at least Kerry is a known, a Democrat.

[LoneStarDem]

72. No

What you have said is factually incorrect. Can you prove why he voted for Clinton (and Gore, over Bush)? Reread the "praise for Bush" again. This "praise" that everyone always gets worked up over is the equivalent of saying "my esteemed colleagues" even when disagreeing with them. He was just being cordial before disagreeing with their entire foreign policy. He was absolutely not a cheerleader of the war on CNN, and was routinely called out at the time for being one of the most prominent commentators at the time to question the justification and implementation of the war. And to my knowledge, he has never used a potential connection between Al Queda and Iraq to justify anything; in fact, in the comment I think you are citing, he explicitly discounts the idea of high level cooperation between Iraq and Al Queda, undercutting one of the Bush Admin's justification for war. If you have evidence to the contrary, you should cite it.

[w13rd0]

94. Prove WHY he voted for X...

...heck, I can't prove THAT he voted for Clinton or Gore. I don't know about you, but I wasn't a strong Gore supporter, though I did do an 11th hour conversion and vote for him. But the 2000 coup angered me. I would NEVER hold a fundraiser for the man who STOLE the office from the guy I voted for, even were my vote tepid.

[Crunchy Frog]

97. Are you saying that

Clark held a fundraiser for Bush? Can you provide documentation for this. If it is true, I think it is something I should know about. Please provide me with any available references to this. Thank you.

[PatrickS]

71. Sure

"I am ashamed of my candidate"

but then adds:

"Note: I still like Dean the best. He is a great man, and I will still work for him very hard"

Makes a lot of sense.

:eyes:

[LoneStarDem]

73. What?

What doesn't make sense about this? This isn't a religious crusade, this is electoral politics. You can support someone without agreeing with every point or strategy.

There is no problem here.


That is... unless you are implying that the original poster is disingenuous in their support for Dean and the distaste for this particular campaign direction. If so, I think it is rather tactless to dispute a person's honesty online unless you have some proof to the contrary. It creates an attitude of distrust and conspiracy that prevents reasonable discussion.

[arewethereyet]

75. Edwards camp would love to have you if you need to draw the line

sometime people can go too far.

But thats for you to decide.

[NNadir]

76. I agree with you.

I wish Dean had not said that.

I will support the ultimate nominee with all my soul. The risks are too high not to do so. I certainly don't think we have to have the major candidates attaching negatives to the other major candidates.

In Dean's defense, I think he's been under the gun for quite some time (much of it for wholly nonsensical and self-serving reasons) and he's getting frayed. He will nonetheless have to show that he can take it.

[John_H]

80. The truth is Governor Dean was far closer in ideology to Jeffords

than Sanders. His rhetoric may make him sound like a liberal, but his record shows he governed like a moderate republican, complete with NRA endorsements and hobnobbing with lobbyists from Pfizer, Boeing, etc.

[dsc]

83. His record is exactly the same as Sanders' on guns

it is a matter public record. Sanders opposed the assult weapons ban.

[JohnKleeb]

86. well of course

but I say its likely more closer to Jeffords than Sanders, both are fine men IMO, dont get me wrong dsc, though Bernie is preferable.

[dsc]

91. I am not saying his record is the equivalent of Sanders on everything

but on guns it is. Actually Jefford's record is better on guns.

[JohnKleeb]

99. I know you arent

and I prefer Sanders to Jeffords because I am a semi socialist :). Just sayin dude.

[ozone_man]

112. Jeffords voted against the IWR

and is one of the most liberal Senators. He voted against most of Reagan's initiatives (more than almost any Democrat), and is in very good standing with the Sierra Club. You are not slandering Dean in any way by comparing him to Jeffords.

Clark voted for Reagan twice and Bush senior. Remm=emebr what a disgrace Reagan was?

[NV1962]

84. Well said

There's nothing wrong with criticizing a competing candidate's position or track record (provided there's at least some substance to it) but embracing attempts to paint Wes Clark as a "closet republican" is a new sad low.

I believe it'll backfire badly on his campaign, as it casts doubt on the Dean campaign's ability to make reasonable statements based on fair assessments: it jeopardizes the campaign's credibility.

Time will tell, but for the sake of Dean himself (regardless of my personal preference for the nomination, I do respect him and will gladly support his bid if he is nominated to become #44) I hope his campaign team learns to identify the real opponents, looks before it leaps, and applies more measure in the charges it lops out.

[Lefta Dissenter]

87. I just got back from working for the day

in the Clark Campaign office, and what a wonderful post to come home to. Thank you for that.

All I can say is, if you're feeling ashamed, imagine what the bush supporters are going through. I don't mean the hard core ones with no hearts, but I mean the actual human republicans (there are a few out there, you know). They have to live with that shame day in and day out.

Thanks for expressing your feelings.

(sorry if this post just repeats what all the others say - I haven't read through the replies yet, you just made me need to post)

[George_Bonanza]

92. Michael "Raging liberal" Moore doesn't care about Clark's "Repub" ties

If the liberals can convert former Reagan supporters, then we should be proud, not disdainful of these "turncoats" or whatever. The pride of the Democratic party is that we're the party of the people, ALL people.

[bowens43]

107. That doesn't mean we should give the top spot

to any johnny come lately who throws his republican hat into the ring.
Welcome him to the party but make him pay some dues before giving him the keys to the store. Micheal Moore has his head up his ass on this one. He has let his hatred of bush cloud his judgment. He would endorse Satan if he thought that he could beat bush.

Turncoats? They're not turncoats, they're terraformers coming to change the landscape of our party, coming to move us further to the right.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Crunchy Frog]

95. I appreciate your honesty

sometimes I disagree with my candidate too. I think we should all be able to look at our candidates with a critical eye and acknowledge that none of them are perfect. They all have their faults.

[Woodstock]

98. I agree. Dean is better than this. If I was his Mom, I'd send him to bed

with no supper.

[hellhathnofury]

101. Dear Mom,

For how long should I turn and show the other cheek?

I think it's the right time to hit back.

[Clark4VotingRights]

102. He needs tough love. :)

Who doesn't?

[snyttri]

103. Dean's statement's are being closely monitored now. He may be no

better than that.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[Cheswick2.0]

110. I am proud of him

He is defending all of us from the disaster of nominating Clark. Why not just nominate Therese Lapore, she was a democrat too.

[Crewleader]

111. Comments like that is why it's getting tight in Iowa

people are turn off by negative attacks within the democrats...all are worthy of beating Bush. It's what the Democrat Candidates have to offer is what voters want to hear.
I am happy to see Kerry and Edwards move up in the polls, they are dedicated and have good policies that people are turning around switching from the Dean camp to either one of them.
It's a close race in Iowa and it makes it exciting for all of us.