Can Clark challenge Bush/Cheney on ANYTHING?

[TLM]

Since Clark is on record, both before and after 9-11, having giving such praise to Bush and his whole team... not to mention Reagan and Bush I, how can he now have any credibility whatsoever in turning around and contradicting his previous statments about how lucky we are to have these people in the white house and what a great job they're doing?

How can any voters take Clark's criticism of Bush seriously, when they'll see 200 million worth of ads showing Clark saying...

And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.


edited to include the whole unedited quote...


I really don't think CLark will have any ground to stand on when they hit him with his own lavish praise of Bush.

[Mattforclark]

1. YOU LEFT OUT PAUL O'NEILL FROM THE QUOTE!!!

At least have the honor to include that name rather than conveniently delete it from the quote through the use of Ellipses. Even if you are going to entirely ignore the rest of the speach, you could at least include that, couldn't you??? Would it be so hard?

[Clark4Prez]

2. How about, "I am not an angry Democrat."

Clark can beat Bush's mantra that Democrats are just angry and reactionary. He has experinence in the military, he won a war, he brokered a peace agreement, gee you're right, Clark's got nothing going for him.

[Dookus]

3. You also left out

the part immediately following that faint praise in which he criticizes the Bush foreign policy.

You also neglect to point out that Clark said that four months before 9/11 and almost two years before the Iraq war.

You neglect to point out that at the time, Clark was a non-partisan public speaker.

Further, you neglect to point out that Dean said "I think he's doing a fine job on the war on terrorism" when asked to rate Bush AFTER 9/11.

A baseless empty smear that's been refuted here a thousand times. And yet another tit-for-tat thread.

[TLM]

10. Clark was a non-partisan public speaker?

Sorry but those statements were made at a republican fundraiser. how non-partisan is that?


Did Clark really believe what he said... or was he just BSing for the money?

[The Magistrate]

24. The Answer Is The Second, Sir

Gen. Clark was a paid speaker; who pays the piper calls the tune. It is as reasonable a way to make a living as any other. All trades involving doing things you otherwise would not in exchange for cash.

It is true some of these quotes will be touted by the criminals of the '00 Coup; Gen. Clark will make them wish they had not done so, by standing up them, by providing context, and by invoking the intelligent man's prerogative of changing his mind.

"When the facts change, I change my opinion: what, Sir, do you do?"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[TLM]

27. Yet the fact he'd BS for money is yet another reason...

that what he currently says can;t be trusted.

The man will say anything, if he thinks it means a good pay day.

[The Magistrate]

33. You Do Not Live In A World Of Angels, Sir

If the general run of people stopped doing things for money, the whole affair would come crashing down full stop, and we would be grubbing roots in the rubbled remnants of our lives....

The people it has always seemed dangerous to me to place any trust in, Sir, are those who claim to act on principled belief: they are damned dangerous, and generally lethal in their effect. Give me an honest rogue over a true believer any time, Sir, any time at all.

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Tinoire]

49. In other words Clark sells his soul to the highest bidder?

Who is the highest bidder this time?

The CSIS? The NED? Morton Abramowitz, original PNAC signer who assured everyone it was not too late for Clark to get in the race? Acxiom? Jackson Stephens? Homeland Security? The fine neo-con colleagues and friends he lavishly praised who will do everything in their power to stop a real Democratic administration from rifling through what records they leave behind? Soros? People who agree with him that we must unconditionally support Israel? The DLC?

Some of the above? All of the above?

Because it sure isn't any known progressive group or organization that I recognize.

It is rather telling that VERY few old-time DUers are behind Clark. You are one of the exceptions but I must point out that I never considered your opinions very progressive and I have a feeling you wouldn't categorize yourself as one.

[The Magistrate]

60. Well, Ma'am

You would be in error if you did not think me to hold progressive views. The extremity of my views of what ought to be are tempered by an awareness of what the world is, of the frequent un-forseen and perverse consequences of drastic and rapid attempts to re-order it, and a determined pragmatism when it comes to taking part in conflict of any sort, where the purpose of the business is, after all, to secure the best possible victory in present circumstances. Someone once said "The wise victor presents his demands in installments," and that is how the wise strategist moves, as well.

You run through a list of horribles above that does not much impress me. What is necessary now is to defeat the most reactionary elements of our polity, and even less reactionary elements are preferrable to them. We have long differed on the signifigance of the P.N.A.C. documents, which strike me as mere garden variety exposition of the fundamental truth that all political entities expend to the very limit of their capability to do so. Those people rather over-rated the capability of this one to expand, and that is being discovered in Iraq today; more sensible persons predicted that would be the result, but were not listened to by those reactionaries so afflicted with hubris. Mr. Soros is a valuable asset, and a very sensible fellow for a plutocrat. It is odd, but once a certain level of wealth is reached, it is not too easy to act in one's own interest without acting in the interests of all, for there is no better way either to secure one's wealth from threat upon it, or gain more of it.

It is not my impression there are only a very few old lags here in support of Gen. Clark, and in any case, among old lags, pragmatists have generally been outnumbered by purists here. But that is not the case in the world beyond this forum; rather it is the opposite that is true there; there the purists are outnumbered badly, and stand no chance at all of prevailing in electoral combat. It seems to me that the best course is to recognize this, rather than to rail against it, and to act accordingly, adopting a policy of Popular Front to assemble the broadest possible anti-reactionary coalition. It may be necessary, in this endeavor, for cadre to display some self-disicipline, and at times to speak little of things near the heart, and loudly about things farther from it. The reactionary cadre, after all, manage this without too much trouble: it is a secret of their success. They do not go to the people openly declaring their intent is to place the working people in ever greater thrall to the bosses, to reduce their wages and wring from them even their very hopes for the future of themselves and their children. They speak of other things, and only once safely ensconced in office do they act toward their real ends....

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field difers from Waterloo."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Cheswick2.0]

35. Not non partisan

He said them at a fundraiser and he said them after the election of 2000. I don't trust Clark.

[Dookus]

39. and

after 9/11, Howard Dean said "I think he's doing a fine job on the war on terrorism" when asked to rate Bush.

So what?

[TLM]

42. How soon after 9-11?

Oh that's right...very very soon, and Dean prefaced a pile of attacks on Bush with one bit of luke warm praise...

Whereas most of Clark's love letter at that repke fundraiser was praising one republican or another.


But why is it whenever someone asks a question about Clark...the only answer seems to be attacks on Dean?

[Dookus]

38. That was the Pulaski County Republican party's

annual Lincoln Day event.

A few weeks later, he also spoke at the Arkansas statewide Democratic Party's annual dinner.

That's non-partisan.

But considering this fact has been posted here a thousand times and you keep making the same statements, I doubt you'll acknowledge this.

[TLM]

46. That's not being non partisan.... that's being two faced.

Someone who will say anything to anybody if the money is right isn't non-partisan... they're a whore.

One week he'll heap praise on Bush and Reagan...thent he next he'll undergo a major idealogical shift and suddenly he's a democrat.

That's called not having any integirty... saying anything that you think the audience paying your speaking fee wants to hear.

[Dookus]

50. If you would bother to read ...

his entire speech, not just the one sentence you quote, you'll see that there really isn't any sudden idealogical change of position.

I don't expect you will, though, because it will ruin your argument.

He has consistently argued for US engagement in the world, the importance of our alliances, and the value of supporting NATO.

He has not changed those positions. He expressed them clearly during that speech, and he reiterates them today.

Why does Dean get a pass for praising Bush but not Clark?

[The Magistrate]

62. Any Employee Is A Whore, Sir

Anyone who takes money for something when they would rather be off fishing falls into that over-worn classification....

[lurk_no_more]

52. I'd have to go with BSing for the money!

Since I doubt very much they would've paid him had he not been positive in what he said. </sarcasm>

I really don't see this as a problem, he has already explained that since that speech, he has adjusted his thinking to reflect his knowledge of what has happened since.

It'll be more damaging for "*" to be exposed as a liar by hearing that Clark thinks it is obvious now, that he was decieved at the time in order to believe what he did, especially when Clark addresses it with "The truth of the matter is" like everyone else in America, I was lied to.

People will believe Clark when he says that as a General he was taught to believe his President, and it was really dishearting to discover that his President and the administration not only lied to him, but to the nation as well.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[tishaLA]

4. The correct use of ellipses in that quotation is

"men like...Condoleezza Rice"

[Mattforclark]

5. Yuh

Condee is a manly man. Ellipses are a wonderful tool for distorting meaning. I hear drudge likes them too, TLM.

[Mz Pip]

6. Using that logic

the Repugs have no grounds to criticize Clark.

But never mind.

Use of hyperbole combined with out of context quotes is getting tiresome.

MzPip
:dem:

[Democrats unite]

7. Link please...

So we can see the entirety instead of your...

[Clark4Prez]

8. Here's a link to the full text

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Wesley%20Clark%20at%20Lincoln%20Day%20Dinner%20Transcript.doc

Also, read factcheck.org's Was Wesley Clark a Republican? It is at:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=97

[Democrats unite]

9. thats OK I have the links...

I just wanted to see it this person had enough integrity to supply them.

But I see it's a hit & rerun thing.

[TLM]

17. Oh my, I did not know he also praised the NED... this is even worse

"One of the things I'm most proud of is they asked me to serve on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy. I don't know if you all know what the National Endowment of Democracy is, but President Ronald Reagan started it in the early 1980's to promote American values abroad. "


That would be the same NED that was implicated in the recent attempted coup in Venezuela... american values alright.

[Democrats unite]

22. Would be nice to stay on topic...

As I said Hit & rerun.

[TLM]

25. That is on topic.... the topic is Clark praising repukes

and how the undermines any ability he has to offer up valid criticisms of those folks... after lavishing so much praise on them.

[mikehiggins]

26. Oh wow! That is new...oh, wait a minute. No it isn't. Sorry! eom

[TLM]

29. From the NED to the SOA....

Clark seems to support all the WRONG kind of foreign policy.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Tinoire]

59. Haiti? Columbia? You mean being an NED Board member

is a sinecure?

You just sit there and let the Republicans roll right over you time after time? And say not a word until the avalanche of bones pour out of the closet?

That is rather alarming. Not quite sure that is the kind of leadership I want in the White House.

Naw, the gold old boys are all in this together and Clark is one of them. He's their insurance policy in case Bush loses. And of course the DLC is all for it because their agenda is very similar to the Republican's- protect US corporations at all costs and never mind who they hurt.

[lurk_no_more]

23. Wow the factcheck piece would make a great flyer

to counter the ones being distributed calling into question Clark's being a Republican. It really lays to rest the lie some still claim as fact just to smear another.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[Toucano]

11. Put things in context

Sign up for the updates from factcheck.org!

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=97

Psst! They even help refute attacks on Dean with...well...the facts!

[EXE619K]

12. Not only that.....

The huge problem for Clark is that he has no experience as an executive of...anything!

General Clark has a lot of experience in military affairs. But, he has ZERO experience in social and economic issues that all critical executives have to make.

First of all, the military is the biggest welfare state in our country. The military complex has no renvenues to speak of and thus there's no such thing as a balanced budget for the military community. All directives and orders are delegated from the Department of Defence and that's a fact!

General Clark and his campaign claims that he was responsible for "hundreds of thousands military families" and their needs. Now, it is true that he was "responsible" for the military community that was given to him by the DOD. However, SACEURs don't make community and housing decisions in the DOD community.
If this is their best argument for his campaign to claim that Gen. Clark has "domestic policy" experience, we might as well elect a BSB commander because BSBOIC has a lot more experience in community nad housing needs.

SACEURs don't make these decisions because they don't have time! Most issues of base support and military community needs are done by Division HQ in relation to their delegated Chain of Command.

It's easy to say that a person has this "vision" or that "vision", but, what matters most for me at least is the experience of having a real executive office and not those experiences that were delegated by the Department of defence.

Was Gen. Clark elected by his Military community in USAEUR?

I didn't think so!

[Democrats unite]

14. I don't think you know how the Military is run...

No social & economic issues in the military? Ok i'll stop here, but just a little nudge. African Americans in the Military would be a great place to start for social and economic issues in the military.

[TLM]

20. So the military is a democracy?

When did that happen?

[EXE619K]

21. If I may, allow me to ask you a question.

Were you part of the USAEUR community while general Clark was SACEUR?

I ETSed out of USAEUR in 2000. Where were you to claim that you have better expertise than I in regards to military community and social issues?

Fair question....no?

[Democrats unite]

31. The question was...

"he has ZERO experience in social and economic issues that all critical executives have to make." thats false. The military is it's own community with these problems.

[EXE619K]

34. You said.....

That I don't know how the military is run...no?

And you have also, claimed that social and economic issues were very important in the military community.....no?

My question is, what "experience" do you have with the military community in USAEUR to claim that you are the better judge in regards to military issues?

It's fair question...no?

I'm not saying that you are completely wrong. However, I would like to know who I'm speaking to when a person claims that I don't know how military is run.

Fair question...no?

on edit: missed a word....

[Democrats unite]

36. Father retired Military colonel

I'm a military brat.

[TLM]

40. What not simply answer his question?

Seems like a simple question.

[Democrats unite]

41. I answered his question.

eom

[TLM]

47. Responding to a question....

is not the same as answering a question.

He asked...

"My question is, what "experience" do you have with the military community in USAEUR to claim that you are the better judge in regards to military issues?"

[Democrats unite]

55. What part of the answer do you not understand?

If he needs clarification I am sure he will ask.

[EXE619K]

48. a Brat....perfect!

so, let's see....I'm not sure where your community was(overseas or CONUS). But, you should know better than to think that DIVHQ makes community and Housing decisions. Nor should you think that the CORP commander has any serious input in regards to military community needs.

I'm not saying that social and economic issues are not important to the military community. I'm questioning whether Gen. Clark, who has ZERO(I repeat, ZERO) experience in domestic and economic issues has the insight to do a mostly civilian job(POTUS).

When was the last time you saw a CORP Commander of certain units made critical community decisions or balance a budget, or sign a legistlation into law?

And remember, SACEUR is even a bigger entity than a CORP commander.
Do you actually think the CORP OIC would have any time to make critical housing and community decisions? Why do you think there are BSB in military communities?

The Truth is that SACEURs or CORP commanders take directives from DOD! They neither have the authority, nor powers of veto to support nor oppose a certain position. That's the fact!

[Tinoire]

57. Oh THANK YOU!

I was in USAREUR at the time and also at Fort Hood at the same time Clark was.

All this nonesense about Clark doing this for military families and that for this group is hog-wash. It hasn't been my main battle because there are so many things to discuss about the Clark MYTH but thank you!

Clark did NOT make policy, did not implement ANYTHING that wasn't pushed by higher-ups when it came to soldiers. It was under Clark that officer housing was going to be built at Ft Carson, on post, with heated marble flooring in the bathrooms! The troops & their families found out about it and HOWLED to the DOD and those heated floors were shelved. Those are the kind of things that Clark could have stopped/changed but didn't.

Day-care and the such that his supporters like to brag about were not clark policies, those were DOD policies that were implemented on every single US base.

One of these days, I'll really get mean and post comments from soldiers who served under Clark and how they froze their buns off on sub-zero temperature exercises because Clark wanted to conserve fuel or how annoying he was because your sleeves weren't rolled up crisply enough when he came to visit in the motor pool. I have no desire to be mean but damn it, the spin is really too thick.

Just wanted to say thank you.

[EXE619K]

63. Hey Tinoire!

Where were ya in USAEUR?

As for me...after Knox, did a stint at Bliss with the "Bugger" Regiment..then went to Vilseck and joined up with Marne Dogs(63rd AR). Volunteered to go to Bosnia with 1/6 INF(can you just imagine a tanker, joining the ranks of grunts?)

I hope you support the good Governor...he's the real deal!

[mikehiggins]

13. This is getting tedious.

How about Child's Pay showing a few thousand times over the next months? How about a united party hammering BushCo at every opportunity? How about hundreds of dead soldiers and thousands of dead Iraqi's?

Give it up already. We've heard all this nonsense before. It's a lie, everyone on DU knows its a lie, and we all know what Al Franken thinks of people who just keep on lying, right?

It's right up there with "Clark is a Republican" and "Clark testified in favor of the war before Congress" and "Clark was a lobbyist" and "Clark was a war criminal" and all the rest.

Before too long you'll have to add "Clark is the Democratic nominee" to the list. Don't let the door catch anyone on the way out.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Recycling is a Democratic value.

Recycle the attack, recycle the reply. I notice some nifty new replies have already been posted, but I am a conservationist.

But before I repost let me point out that since Clark also spoke at a Democratic fund raiser, I suppose some might call that non-partisan (I expect you might call it money grubbing or something, but that's another matter).

One more thing. Yes the Republicans have started using that speech against Clark. But they are doing so DURING the Democratic primaries, when it might hurt Clark AMONG DEMOCRATS, hopefully hurting Clark's chance to become the candidate that Bush would have to contend with. I think that's significant. OK, one more time:

"What you suggest the Republicans will use against Clark is not what they will use, for two basic reasons.

One, it is always the unexpected that wounds, the dirt dug up against you that you are ill prepared to respond to, never the obvious stuff. High level national campaign staffs are highly skilled at what they do. They will have a hundred possible retorts prepared for Clark, all focus group tested for the killer "Clark praised Bush" attack response.

Two, those quotes by Clark about Bush expose Bush's greatest weakness, and further establishes Clark's sincerity and standing as Bush's opponent in the eyes of the public. They polish Clark's reputation, not tarnish it. Clark may actually use some of that footage himself, that's what I expect. If he doesn't he at the very least will be the one to point out how willing he was to give Bush a chance, and how fair he was about giving praise where praise is due, which perfectly sets Clark up to make the kill. It wasn't partisan fueled politics that drove Clark into the race, no it was the high hopes dashed, the opportunities squandered, the good will wasted, the wise council rejected, and 40 years of an essentially bipartisan approach to foreign policy unexpectedly thrown out the window by George W. Bush.

The strong majority of the American people have not forgotten what they were feeling about George W. Bush immediately after 9/11, or after the fall of Kabul when America wrested control of Afghanistan away from the terrorists who attacked America. You can even go back further. There is always a honeymoon period for a new President after he takes office. 95% of the Cabinet and Sub Cabinet appointments are met with bipartisan praise. Americans like to feel hopeful, they want to think things will go well. The opposition party picks a few fights carefully during that honeymoon period. The Democrats picked Ashcroft in 2001, Rumsfeld got the praise treatment along with almost all of the rest of Bush's administration (there was a love fest for Colin Powell).

So here comes a candidate, Wesley Clark, who is able to say, I understand how you felt then. We wanted Bush to succeed in the fight against terror. We pulled together behind him, all of us, myself included. We left partisanship behind at the waters edge, and we believed Bush was up to the job. Sadly we were mistaken.

That's really how most American's feel about it. A third flat out love Bush, a third flat out hate Bush, those votes will break expectedly. And the final third initially rallied to Bush's leadership in a time of war. That third can relate well to Clark. They understand his initial instincts to support our President when America was under real danger from attack. Sure, now we have lived through two plus years without another major terrorist blow, and we have calmed down somewhat, but then we thought it might all happen again tomorrow. People weren't in the mood for dissension then, they wanted unity. Clark won't look like a shrill Democrat looking for ways to attack our President for political advantage. Clark is "the reluctant warrior", stepping forward for the good of the nation one more time after a lifetime of bipartisan service. Real events and mounting concerns compelled Clark to oppose Bush, not a predisposition to hate him. That will resonate in Clark's advantage with that middle third.

It is the perfect lead in for Clark to talk about the Draft Clark movement he responded to, and why. Take my word for it, or at least keep an open mind, Clark will not run away from earlier positive statements made about Republicans, he will turn them to his advantage establishing credibility with the public."

[The Magistrate]

28. Hear Hear, Mr Rinaldo!

A sterling contribution, Sir: my hat is off to you!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[MIMStigator]

16. Dean said "I think * has done a good job on the war on terrorism"

how can he challenge *?

[TLM]

19. Why is it that some folks can never answer a question about Clark?

but can only try to change the subject with an attack on Dean.

Read the whole comment and Dean;s statement was hardly complimentary... and it sure as hell wasn't said at a republican fundraiser.

[mikehiggins]

32. Well, consider this scenario

Someone joins DU and sees the lively discussion going on here.

He has heard somethings and asks some questions about them.

They usually get answered.

Alternatively, someone who is well known here, and whose views are well known, posts a thread dealing with a topic that has been gone over a dozen or more times and which constitutes, in the view of many, a thinly (and perhaps not even so thinly veiled) attack on a candidate.

That thread usually gets dealt with as if it was an attack on a candidate by an individual well known to be opposed to that candidate for reasons of his or her own.

Is that particularly hard to understand? If I were to post a thread pointing out how Governor Dean's sealed records were the subject of an attempt by the Vermont Attorney General to have them considered protected by Executive Privilege, a tactic likely designed to keep those records sealed at least until after the Democratic convention, it would not be hard to deduce that the thread was designed to be an attack on Governor Dean. This is because I am a fairly prolific and self-proclaimed supporter of Wes Clark. I would not be surprised, in such a case, if someone considered a thread like that an attack, even if I maintained in the strongest terms that I was only seeking enlightenment.

Is that clear?

So that is why threads like this end up like this.

Ask for real information, you get it.

Look for a fight, ditto.

And if you think the Clarkistas are hyper here, wait till we get a chance at the GOP.

[arewethereyet]

18. I don't see how he can

all those quotes and videotape won't disappear. Having no other bona fides to appeal to I'm not sure how he hopes to advance himself.

[Justice]

37. Clark Very Credible And Here is One Reason Why....

First, Clark's comments had nothing to do with the war in Iraq -

Second, a majority of people supported the war in Iraq. Those are your neighbors, my neighbors, heck even some family members. Nearly half of that group is now angry that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war -- those people believed Bush, supported him.

Along comes someone like Clark who can say, hey I said positive things about Bush - I am not a partisan hack. Then Bush did something completely irresponsible. He went to war - a war that was reckless and wrong. He and his advisors completely missed the boat.

Lots of people relate to Clark because he does not make them feel stupid about supporting Bush. Clark, like them, is angry that Bush lied. And, Clark takes his anger out on Bush - not on other Democrats - so he doesn't look at me and say, if you believed Bush you were stupid -- he says, Bush lied and we are all right to be angry with Bush.

[Dookus]

43. those remarks were also made

almost two years before the Iraq war.

[Dr Fate]

45. People who "vote for the man, not the party" relate to Clark...

and your post is on the mark concerning those kind of voters.

This fact, combined with the liberal planks in his platform make him a strong candidate!!!

[TLM]

51. In all the crap posted in this thread so far....

this is the closest thing to a valid answer to my question.


I agree Clark does have this advantage, of being able to commiserate with other bush supporters. To be able to say that he also supported Bush and he also supported the war... but that Bush has f-ed up and now they, like him, can all be mad at Bush together.


However, I do not know if that would be enough to get many of them to vote democratic... and in that process we would also lose many far left votes and green votes. So at best it would likely come out as a draw.

[Dookus]

53. You only consider it crap

because you refuse to acknowledge the truth.

He made perfunctory remarks praising people, then followed them up with a critical exploration of the Bush foreign policy.

He gave a similar speech weeks later at a Democratic function.

He was a non-partisan (or if you prefer, bi-partisan) speaker at the time.

Nothing in the substantive remarks in his speech differs from his positions today.

Dean also praised Bush, AFTER 9/11. Clark's comments were 4 months before 9/11 and almost two years before the war.

Why does Dean get a pass for praising Bush, but not Clark?

[Clark4Prez]

58. Why does Dean get a pass for praising Bush, but not Clark?

Good question, I have yet to see a good answer to this question.

[Dr Fate]

56. I cannot agree that Clark cannot attract Liberal voters...

...I'm no conservative myself, and neither are many of the people endorsing Clark...He is indeed Liberal on many issues...

[The Magistrate]

64. Of Course He Can, Doctor

The strength of his support here on this forum is a sound indication of that, for this forum is a good deal more to the left than the great body of the Party.

[mmonk]

44. He can challenge them

basically on everything.

[jpgpenn]

54. look where posts like this have gotten your candidate.

take a good look at the polls.

[ClarkGraham2004]

61. TLM, bash him now as much as you want, but.....

when Clark is our nominee will you get behind him %100? I know I will.