Why is Clark not credible to so many Democrats?

[kentuck]

Yet, many Republicans find him very credible? But the Repubs do not find him credible as a "Republican", they find him credible as a liberal and as a former career military man. However, the political persuasion of a lot of military officers creates a problem for many Democrats.

It should be noted that Clark was more of a military man than he was a politician. He voted in his own interest. He knew he could stand a beter chance at getting promoted to general officer if he was the same party as the Commander in Chief. I think he did it for purely ambitious reasons. Some people may find fault with that and some may not.

However, there is no doubt but that he is a very smart man and he is not naive as a politician. He is running a very clever and smart race, in my opinion. More than any other Democrat, he has appeal across Party lines. This is very frighening to the Republicans. They depend on divide and conquer and they have been very good at keeping their troops loyal and in line with their Party line. Clark challenges that proposition.

While it is true that Clark did not officially become a "Democrat" until very recently, just before he announced his candidacy, it does not prove that he was less of a "Democrat" than others that have been in the Party for decades, yet vote like Republicans more often than not. Even candidates that are running for president could be challenged as to whether or not they are a better "Democrat" than Wes Clark.

There is good reason to be skeptical, perhaps wary, of a military man running for the highest civilian office in this land. In normal times, this would and should be questioned. But these are not normal times. And we may have to choose whether or not we want a military man that wants to play a civilian leader or whether we want a civilian that wants to play a military leader. I think the latter is much more dangerous.

[Dookus]

1. Can you provide data

for your claim that Clark is not credible to so many Democrats? I haven't seen any polling information regarding this specific issue. I would claim that his relatively low unfavorables vis a vis Howard Dean shows him to be MORE credible among Democrats.

[dd123]

8. He's credible as a politician...He's not credible as a Democrat.

Being a Democrat stands for something...the two parties stand for something. To me, Democrats have always stood for the little guy while Republicans don't care what happens to the little guy. Republicans are all about surviving in a dog eat dog world. I'd like a little more compassion thank you.

That is why I cannot stand that an independent may be the head of the Democratic party. I don't trust what he is saying, because he has nothing to back any of this up as he has no record.

As a person in the military he didn't share his views. How do I know if he is authentic or not? Answer is I have to trust him and I don't.

[Dookus]

14. again, other than your personal opinion...

why should we accept the premise that Clark is not credible to many Democrats? His unfavorables among Democrats is much lower than Dean's.

Personally, I feel Dean is uncredible as a Democrat, but I don't extrapolate that the entire party.

Do you have any data to back up the assertion?

[bearfartinthewoods]

42. trusting clark is like trusting touchscreen voting machines

--no paper trail

[mikehiggins]

85. Now THAT was a clever zinger. As a Clark supporter I appreciate wit eom

[SW FL Dem]

148. In the real world - sometimes you have to play the game

I keep reading the posts attacking Clark and others for taking positions or making statements that are less than "perfect". Been there, done that. I was feminist, vegan in the 70s. I protested the Vietnam war and cheered when Nixon resigned. I supported Cesar Chavez and boycotted grapes and Modavi wine for years. I was
also very active in a student movement to force my college to divest its interests in South Africa because of apartheid.
I really resent being called a republican or part of the "establishment". What I find more offensive are the attacks by DU members on people like me. We fought for your rights and now you call us Republicans. I also have to wonder why the young, new and disenfranchised voter think Dean is their saviour. I am a 45 year old higher income liberal Dem who knows that Dean is more conservative than I am on most issues.

[kentuck]

12. Just read the responses in this thread and other threads on DU....

Every Democrat does not trust the motives of General Clark. Personally, sometimes when I look at him I know I am looking at a 60 yr old man, but he looks like a little boy. I do not think he is a creature of politics, per se. If it takes a General to beat a man who thinks he's a "general", then I am inclined to vote for the real thing. I think he would appeal to about 20% of the present Republican voting bloc. I think he would also take the military vote. That is not small potatoes.

[NV1962]

62. "Every Democrat does not trust the motives of General Clark." Linky? - n/t

[kentuck]

76. linky? Post 42 right above you....

unless you might think this person is not a "Democrat"??

[NV1962]

149. Well here's a link to refute that

Right here is my evidence of one Democrat who trusts Clark:

• It is an exploration mission of the Astoria Canyon, which really continues the legacy of Lewis and Clark, if you will.

Picture that: nothing less than the legacy of Clark!

[mikehiggins]

88. Boy scout

It is hard to credit--I mean, this is a guy who has commanded soldiers in wartime, been wounded and bounced back to command armies in wartime--but Clark strikes me as being something of a Boy Scout out of an old Norman Rockwell illustration.

He talks that way too, some times, about honor and dedication and service. All very inspiring.

Then he starts talking about macroexonomics and the history of Empire and some such and I get brought back to earth with a vengeance. If there is anything that makes me uneasy about Clark--and there isn't a hell of a lot that does--it is that he is so talented and qualified I can't believe he's running for President instead of running some huge corporation and making zillions of dollars a year.

So, I guess he really does mean it, that stuff about honor and dedication and service. Weird.

[SW FL Dem]

146. I trust Clark and I am a life long liberal Dem

In response I would say that not all democrats trust Howard
Dean.  I know because I don't.  

[IndianaGreen]

2. Wes Clark is a Renaissance man!

Wes Clark is a Renaissance man! He is not the rigid Cold War ideologue that some of his supporters seem to be, or the military stereotype that some of his detractors imagine him to be. Wes Clark is also not Bill Clinton, and as President he will spare us another spectacle of Clintonian obfuscations and triangulations that many of us on the Left found so disturbing.

[Jerseycoa]

35. This is the truest thing nt

[kerry-is-my-prez]

3. It seems to be quite "judgemental" to me. They can't forgive....

n/t

[wtmusic]

4. The military/industrial complex

already has too much sway in government decision making. IMO we need a diplomat more than we need a commander.

[Dookus]

5. Then you should read Clark's books...

you'll see he's as much a diplomat as a commander. He has more diplomatic relations experience than anybody else running.

[Democrats unite]

6. Do you know one?

eom

[the populist]

9. Kerry is a diplomat.

If he can abstain from extravagant, Dukakis-worthy photo-ops until the election I have few problems with Kerry.

[the populist]

7. A few reasons.

1. He could possibly be a neocon trojan horse since he's had contact with the said group in the Pentagon.

2. If he isn't a neocon, he could provide a possibility for a Hillary "let's kill Iraqis woohoo!!!" Clinton vice-presidency.

3. His agenda is straight out of the Clinton handbook (e.g. free trade is good for America CA-CHING! money rolls into bank account).

[Th1onein]

77. I just don't trust Clark.

I'm sorry, but I don't. The Kosovo/Russian thing. The military ties. The way he spoke during the debates. I just don't trust him. Maybe that's not enough for you guys, but it's enough for me.

[Bucky]

10. Clark was never a Republican

You say "He knew he could stand a beter chance at getting promoted to general officer if he was the same party as the Commander in Chief" in a way that makes it sound like either he was a Republican because of Reagan and Poppy or a Democrat because of Clinton, or perhaps both.

But if you listen to him talk, it's clear that he thinks thru issues very carefully and with a lot of moral fiber and clarity behind everything he says. I take him on face value--I've looked for disturbing subtext or closet Republican tendencies and they're just not there. He's a Democrat because we represent more closely the things that he believes.

[the populist]

17. He doesn't represent anything.

Remember his "I support gay rights; I support affirmative action; I support, etc... if that doesn't make me a Democrat, what does?" speech? That was ridiculously insincere. His is a campaign of platitudes and no policy.

Of course he voted for Reagan in the 80s since Reagan boosted military paychecks like hell (cut veterans' pay though I think). The military (not veterans) has been Republican for a long time since the GOP is the party that supports giving taxpayer dollars to Lockheed Martin.

[bearfartinthewoods]

44. yep....that appearance sent me lookjing for a stiff drink, muttering

oh brother................

[shivaji]

128. Karl Rove has video's coming out of his ears of Clark praising the

heck out of Bush, Rummy, Condi, even crooked mouth Cheney!

The sheeple will be confused, demoralized and de-energized
enough to keep them in front of TV watching soaps than drag
their butt to the polling place at on a cold november day.

[Dookus]

131. And Karl Rove also has videotape of Howard Dean

saying "I think he's doing a fine job on the war on terrorism" when asked to rate Bush by Tim Russert.

this is a nonsense charge. How will Rove spin this? "Look at this jerk, he's so stupid he even praised us?"

BTW... read the whole speech Clark gave - he made perfunctory remarks praising the administration, then launched into a very critical exploration of their policies.

No, Rove won't be playing this tape.

[stopbush]

11. Your final paragraph sums it up for me.

Growing up in the 60s, I retain a healthy skepticism of military types. I haven't seen anything in the past 40 years that shows me that a military career *in and of itself* makes anyone better than those who didn't serve in the military.

And, contrary to what you say, I think that in these times we should be MORE wary of military types. After all, if you look at the bushies, they act in a very military manner, and while they have pissed off many of the boots (ie: the people who do all the suffering and dying), I'd imagine that the career military types are more than happy to have their bread buttered and their budgets obscenely expanded under the faux-emperor. All the more reason, then, to try to hold on to power at any expense and through any means, ie: the Trojan Horse scenario.

We must face the fact that the military brass is made up of people who are serial liars. How else to explain their actions over the past 50 years? I see very little honesty and nobility there. So, while Clark may in reality be lily white in these respects, he has to prove it to me with more than campaign rhetoric and opportunistic sloganeering. I, for one, am uncomfortable giving a military careerist like Clark his first chance to prove himself outside of the military by anointing him to the *civilian* post as president. I would be much more comfortable with him as a Senator, House member or governor for a few years to see if he practices what he preaches before handing him the keys to the most-powerful political and military force in history.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Jerseycoa]

46. I give credit to Kerry

for opposing the Vietnam War and for his military service and for his service as a liberal in public service. I would vote for Kerry in a heartbeat. But you are simply wrong to think Clark's supporters are behind him "in awe" of his military career. With very few exceptions, his issues are exactly mine. I value his foreign policy experience far above his military experience, although in these times I think it is a plus. I want a commander-in-chief who knows what the fuck he's doing to get us out of Iraq and back into the wider world. Because if we don't get out of Iraq and if we don't engage the world in defeating terrorism, we are never going to have a red cent to spend on the social programs I care about more than anything else.

You don't seem to know the first thing about Wes Clark, with all due respect.

You should look his policy statements over: http://clark04.com/issues/


I don't know why I'm doing this, except I'm bored and you brought it up, but for the record, keeping in mind the difference in length of service:

Kerry-Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart

Clark-Defense Distinguished Service Medal (three awards), Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards), Bronze Star Medal (two awards), Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal (two awards), and the Army Commendation Medal (two awards)


On edit: Where did that person go? :o

[Leilani]

28. I Truly deplore your depiction of Military People

"We must face the fact that the military brass is made up of people who are serial liars."

That is just despicable. How many military people do you know? I am just left speechless at this ignorant generalization of some of the finest people we have in this country.

You know why Republicans get the military vote? Because of people like you. Republicans always say "The Dems hate the military." If you were military, would you vote for someone you knew hated you?

Keep this attitude & the Dems will never become a majority party again.

[stopbush]

52. I'd appreciate your rant a bit more if you'd read my quote in its

entirety. If you did, you'd notice that I qualified my remarks so as to direct them at the military BRASS. These are the people who gave us the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, who dreamt up Operation Northwoods, who have no problem sending others off to die in ill-considered police actions, etc. One needs only go back as far as Westmoreland and his lies during Vietnam, Schwarzkopf and his lies during Desert Storm, Powell and his carnival of lies from My Lai to his laughable lie-fest at the UN last year to prove my point (need I go one? I can). I hardly consider these to be "some of the finest people we have in this country."

You'll have to make your point on other grounds than "people like" me hating the military. Wariness and hate are not the same thing, and had you read my statement and taken it in the context offered, you could have spared yourself putting words in my mouth while projecting your own unwarranted "ignorant generalization" onto my thoughts.

BTW - your cheap jab inquiring "how many military people I know" insults both family members, co-workers and friends who are now and have in the past served honorably in the military. I'll thank you to shelve that particularly offensive ploy in the future. None of us should feel the need to play the "my military friends are better than your military friends" card in such discussions.

[Leilani]

112. I know you said "military brass"

In fact, I quoted that phrase. To broadbrush all high ranking military
is not fair. There are people with integrity & people who are scum in every profession. Using Westmoreland as an example, he was wrong, but who were the biggest culprits of Vietnam?

I hold Johnson & McNamara responsible more than any others. Why? They knew the war could not be won, & yet they lied to the American people repeatedly, & thousands of good men died, & I knew some of them. Have you heard the Johnson tapes? They outright admit the war was not winnable, at least as they were doing it.

The people in todays military (high rank) learned their lessons well in Vietnam. They were the most eloquent voices against Iraq. General Zinni is the perfect example. The military did not want to do this war; they knew it was wrong. And contrary to some reports, Wes Clark testified against this war, & was criticized by conservatives for his commentary on CNN.

Look, I could go on & on, but my point was that there is much anti-military bias among certain people here at DU. They are excoriated to the point you would think they were all evil, power hungry, Strangelove types. And that is prejudice, because to generalize about a huge group of people based on the errors of a few is wrong. Just as wrong as demonizing any group of people.

And my largest political point is that it is a loser issue. Most people in this country really admire the military, & having a few military people associated with the Dems is a good thing.

[stopbush]

160. At the end of the day, I think we're having an argument between friends.

OK, I should have qualified my remark by saying "some military brass." I plead guilty to painting them with the same brush as most of us here do when we make generalized comments about republicans - ie: we seldom qualify republicans as "most" or "some" when we express negative thoughts.

My bad. I'll try to do better in the future.

BTW - you may well be correct in stating that having a few military types openly running as or supporting Dems is a good thing, but that only shows how far the debate has swung - we're now playing on the repugs turf. I hold the opinion that the world would be a better place and could exist just nicely if we got rid of ALL military forces around the world and left the peaceniks to do their work. The same can't be said of the versa, ie: get rid of the peaceniks and leave the military. Idealized, I know, but it helps me to keep things in perspective.

[mmonk]

13. He is known internationally

so I think there's credibility there. The fact he was a general and NATO Commander is a strength running against this admin, not a weakness. It's funny, what seems so obvious to some of us concerning his qualifications to not only beat the current administration in this election, but make an outstanding president, is not seen by some democratic activists.

[dogman]

15. Your assumption as to his voting

makes no sense. How would anyone know how he voted? He was registered as an Independent until 2002. I do agree with your assessment as to his ability to destroy the R position.

[patricia92243]

18. Too currant of a republican background. The pubs could eat him alive if

he were the nominee. The news clip of him praising bush & co. would be followed by many more.

[mmonk]

19. I still don't

follow the logic of that thinking. So they show the tapes at that function he was asked to give a speech at. How will that hurt him when he shows where they went wrong?

[Dookus]

21. And why wouldn't Dean be susceptible to the same attacks?

He praised Bush, too.

Or is it just too convenient to forget that?

[kentuck]

23. Would they say he was lying or telling the truth about Bush??

:) Also, couldn't Clark say he isn't automatically against Bush just because he is a Republican but because of the direction he has taken us in the war and in the country in general? He's not trying to play politics as usual. He's trying to do what is best for the country and bring this country together. Sometimes some things are more important than whether you are a Democrat or a Republican? Would not that be an effective response?

[The Magistrate]

26. There Are Not 'Many More Such Tapes To Follow', Ma'am

This will probably feature somewhat in the enemy's armory, but it will have scant effect. It will be countered by Gen. Clark providing context, by using that attack line as an opportunity to point to all the mistakes made since by the current administration, and by the enthusiastic support of real Democrats such as President and Senator Clinton. We will have to, remember, get the votes of a good many people who expressed support themselves for the current regime barely a year ago in order to win this election....

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

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[funky_bug]

20. Nice try at an unfounded criticism

It appears to me that you have made an unfounded statement, and cleverly disguised it as a sincere question.

According to the latest polls, Clark is doing very well among democrats. He is at the very least, third in NH, and has garnered the endorsements of several key democrats in Nashville, TN.

Unless you can back up your statement that he has no credibility among "so many" democrats, I humbly suggest you change your post to reflect the fact that while some democrats may question his credibility, many of them do not.

[The Magistrate]

22. It Does Not Seem To Me, My Blue-Grass Friend

That Gen. Clark does lack credibility with many Democrats. The most vociferous opposition to him here in this forum seems to come from a purist strain that barely considers President Clinton to be a Democrat. That is not predominant even in this forum, by a long sight, and this forum greatly over-represents committed leftists by compare to even the primary electorate, let alone the general electorate. Many of the arguments advanced against against him, such as "neo-con stalking-horse", reflect to my view a certain naivite about the process, and the colossal ambition and drive it takes to get to the position Gen. Clark currently occupies. There does not seem to me to be any more reason to distrust him than there is to distrust anyone who puts himself forward for high office: all persons who do this are driven characters, with a ruthless streak and a great capability for dissembling and manipulation. Unless leaders are to be chosen by lottery from the telephone listings, it will ever be thus.

"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!"

[kentuck]

25. Sir, you do have a grasp of a certain political reality...

with which I agree. :)

"...There does not seem to me to be any more reason to distrust him than there is to distrust anyone who puts himself forward for high office: all persons who do this are driven characters, with a ruthless streak and a great capability for dissembling and manipulation. Unless leaders are to be chosen by lottery from the telephone listings, it will ever be thus."

[The Magistrate]

30. Thank You, My Friend

If it is at possible to do honorably, it is better to be on the side of the best of such types than in opposition to them: and it is necessary to do all that can be done to oppose the very worst of them. There is no doubt who the very worst of them is, in the up-coming election....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[kentuck]

34. I agree..

:) I was attempting to get an honest conversation going about what I sense is under the current but needs to be brought out for discussion.

[shance]

24. Im torn....one thing is his support for School of the Americas

He may feel that it is his responsibility as military to defend such a school, but I cant buy that.

The School of the Americas literally teaches and educates evil.
How can anyone defend that?

I like alot of what he says, but I need more time and information on the guy, not to mention I think he needs to take the time to earn Demcocrats trust a little more.

[kentuck]

29. I think he was once a commander in Panama?

and he does not understand the opposition to the School of the Americas. I think this is a blind spot in his political education. that is a legitimate point, in my opinion.

[jonnyblitz]

33. His supporters are in complete denial over SOA

Its a conspiracy theory, its changed and teaches diplomacy etc. They quote Clark himself or some USAID guy who has every reason to be in denial as proof that it just isn't so. It makes me so sick to read this crap that once I post in an SOA thread I can't go back to read it.

[shance]

53. Thats too bad. Maybe DUer should take a field trip so DUers in denial

can take a peak.***

But then wed probably all get arrested and then we couldnt post.

[Tinoire]

97. Or "Hogtied and Abused"

Published on Thursday, November 27, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

Hogtied and Abused at Fort Benning
by Kathy Kelly

On Sunday, November 23, I took part in a nonviolent civil disobedience action at Fort Benning, GA, to protest the U.S. Army´s School of the Americas (SOA, now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation -- WHISC)

Shortly after more than two dozen of us entered Fort Benning and were arrested, US Military Police took us to a warehouse on the base for “processing.” I was directed to a station for an initial search, where a woman soldier began shouting at me to look straight ahead and spread my legs. I turned to ask her why she was shouting at me and was ordered to keep my mouth shut, look straight ahead, and spread my legs wider. She then began an aggressive body search. When ordered to raise one leg a second time, I temporarily lost my balance while still being roughly searched and, in my view, ‘womanhandled.’ I decided that I shouldn’t go along with this dehumanizing action any longer. When I lowered my arms and said, quietly, “I’m sorry, but I can’t any longer cooperate with this,” I was instantly pushed to the floor. Five soldiers squatted around me, one of them referring to me with an expletive (this f_ _ _ er) and began to cuff my wrists and ankles and then bind my wrists and ankles together. Then one soldier leaned on me, with his or her knee in my back. Unable to get a full breath, I gasped and moaned, “I can’t breathe.” I repeated this many times and then began begging for help. When I said, “Please, I’ve had four lung collapses before,” the pressure on my back eased. Four soldiers then carried me, hogtied, to the next processing station for interrogation and propped me in a kneeling position. The soldier standing to my left, who had been assigned to “escort” me, gently told me that soon the ankle and wrist cuffs, which were very tight, would be cut off. He politely let me know that he would have to move my hair, which was hanging in front of my face, so that my picture could be taken. I told him I’d appreciate that.

I was then carried to the next station. There, one of the soldiers who’d been part of pushing me to the floor knelt in front of me, and, with his nose about two inches from mine, told me that because I was combative I should know that if I didn’t do exactly as instructed when they uncuffed one hand, he would pepper spray me. I asked him to describe how I’d been combative, but he didn’t answer.

After the processing, I was unbound, shackled with wrist and ankle chains, and led to the section where other peaceful activists, also shackled, awaited transport to the Muskogee County jail.

<snip>

Today I have a black eye and the soreness that comes with severe muscle strain. Mostly, I’m burdened with a serious question, “What are these soldiers training for?” The soldiers conducting that search must have been ordered not to tolerate the slightest dissent. They were practicing intimidation tactics far beyond what would be needed to control an avowedly nonviolent group of protesters who had never, in thirteen years of previous actions, caused any disruption during the process of arrest. Bewildered, most of us in the “tank” inside the Muskogee County jail acknowledged that during the rough processing we wondered, “What country do we live in?” We now live in a country where Homeland Security funds pay for exercises which train military and police units to control and intimidate crowds, detainees, and arrestees using threat and force.

<snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1127-01.htm

Kathy Kelly is the founder of Voices in the Wilderness, a human rights group based in Chicago that worked to lift the economic sanctions against Iraq. For more information, contact [e-mail], call [phone], or visit www.iraqpeaceteam.org or www.vitw.org

[Crunchy Frog]

105. This particular supporter

is not in denial about the SOA, and disagrees with Clark's position on that issue. I'm enough of a pragmatist though to realize that any candidate with a realistic chance of getting elected will have some positions with which I strongly disagree.

Despite the fact that I disagree with him on some issues, I believe that he has the best chance of beating Bush, and that he would make the best president overall, for this period in American and world history.

As far as the SOA goes, I have actually made a pledge to myself to become actively involved in protesting it if Clark becomes President. After all, he himself says that dissent is one's patriotic duty. If Bush is reelected, it is probably a moot issue anyway.

[babzilla]

27. minor correction: Clark registered as a Dem after he announced

According to the campaign spokesperson, he was just too busy to officially register as a democrat until 3 weeks after he announced his intention to be the democratic nominee.


Clark finally files paperwork for registration as Democrat


Wesley Clark officially became a Democrat yesterday, nearly three weeks after announcing his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The campaign of Mr. Clark, whose fealty was questioned by some party members, filed the candidate's signed affidavit at the Pulaski County, Ark., elections office to change his voter registration from unaffiliated to Democrat.
"We've had the papers on his desk, filled out and ready to go, for some time," campaign spokeswoman Kym Spell said yesterday. "But he has been busy, and he hadn't even been to town for some time until this weekend."
Last week it was discovered that Mr. Clark had declared no party affiliation in his December 2001 renewal for his voter registration, despite saying in a Sept. 27 interview that he had filed the paperwork to become a Democrat.
Mr. Clark told a political reporter for the Union Leader newspaper in Manchester, N.H., that he registered as a Democrat about two weeks before announcing for the presidency. He declared his candidacy on Sept. 17.


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031006-101700-9310r.htm

sorry for the source, for some reason I can't find a link on this issue from the liberal media.

[kentuck]

32. Thanks babzilla !

Believe it or not, I think that a large percentage of voters do not have a problem with that at all. They sense an 'independence' in him that separates him from the crowd. That is something voters must factor in before they support the General.

[babzilla]

38. Clark is the third party candidate in this election.

He is the John Anderson of 2004.

[kentuck]

41. You may be right...

But he has decided to run as a 'Democrat'...

[babzilla]

51. Yes, he has decided to run as a 'Democrat'

running as a republican was not an option, running as an independent was not practical.

[Shanty Oilish]

43. Why were the papers on his desk?

Voter registration affidavit sits on your desk, filled out, for "some time," like almost 3 weeks after you declare you're running for president as a Democrat.
Why?
Don't ask me to believe it was an oversight. Or something not important enough for you to remember it's on your desk.
It was waiting for something.
What? Return phone calls from Karl Rove?
Something.

[babzilla]

65. apparently he had been busy

plus
"he hadn't even been to town for some time until this weekend."

That sounds like dialog from Little House on the Prairie.

halfpint: I just couldn't get around to registering as a Democrat before I declared my candidacy for the Democratic nominee for president Pa, I hadn't even been to town for some time.
Finally, after all these weekends out of town, I have found the time to declare a political party. Look out Mankato, here I come with my white hat in tow.

Pa: Don't you worry halfpint, everything has changed since 9-11. Now do your toe-to-toe dance while I fiddle for ya.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

96. Yee-Haw!

[dogman]

45. Major correction

A subject that was gone over extensively on various posts yesterday. Clark established a Reading Room in NH yesterday that opened his records to all. He registered as a Dem in the 2002 election but the County Clerk who's removal was sought by a grand jury for ineptitude told a reporter he was not. His registration has been produced. To make sure he was registered, he re-registered in Sept.

[The Magistrate]

54. Thank You, Sir

That was gone over rather extensively yesterday, and with some heat to boot. You have summed the matter well. Regretably, this summary of the facts will probably not put an end to the regular walks this poor old dog is dragged out for here....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

95. Grand jury?

Link-er-ooo?



A Grand Jury was called to determine his registration?

[dogman]

100. Clerks office incompetence.

The grand jury was not about Clark's registration. It was about the failures in the Clerks office. The office that said Clark was not registered in 2002 in spite of Clark saying he was. The registration was released yesterday with
Clark's records when he called for all candidates and B*** to release theirs.
http://www.sherwoodvoice.com/Pages/11-20-03/Grand%20jury.htm

[Tinoire]

107. So Clark and his campaign staff were lying? Mistaken?

When they said in Sept 2003 that he had just registered, then that he had not yet registered because he hadn't had time?

And now there's some little problem with the Clerk's office ((notice Clark is mentioned nowhere in the article)) and all of a sudden Clark was registered in 2002?

The Fabiani/Lehane theatrics leave one absolutely breathless. Watching the Clark campaign in action is better than a Cirque de Soleil show!

It's like back-dating one's diary. Priceless.

[dogman]

108. The Clerk's office was mistaken.

Why is this hard to understand? The reporter was told by the Clerk's office that Clark was not registered. When informed of this Clark made arrangements to register again. He did so. Now the original registration has been found and displayed. Obviously his campaign would have no knowledge of the registration. The registration has been found and produced. If you read the link you will see the Clerks office was so bad a grand jury recommended removal of the Clerk. Go after the Clerk not Clark. Are you prepared to make charges of fraud?

[Tinoire]

111. Why was it so hard for Clark himself to remember? Or his campaign?

September 2003 ((After the HUGE hoopla that Clark wasn't even a Democrat and was running on the Dem platform))


Last Friday in Manchester, we conducted a one-on-one interview with the new Democratic Presidential candidate.

We asked Clark (quoting now from our own tape): "How long have you been a registered Democrat"? ((I think the question is clear enough for a Rhodes scholar))

Clark answered, "About, um, oh, I think it was maybe the third of September. Prior to that I wasn't anything. In Arkansas, you don't register for parties, you vote in primaries and, of course, I voted in the Democratic primary." (("About, um, oh, I think?"- Clark seems a bit confused here until the part where he clearly states that prior to Sept 3 he wasn't anything. ))

Yesterday, we checked this week's edition of Business Week, dated Oct. 1. It reports that Clark has yet to register as a Democrat, even though he's running for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

snip

Clark spokesman Kym Spell told us last night that Clark was mistaken about his registration in his Union Leader interview. "He had filled out the paperwork but it never got down to the office," she said. ((More spin))

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=14436


===
And now, in the grandest tradition of Fabiani theatrics, we suddenly have an "inept" Clerk, missing files and a mysterious 2002 registration? Pray it isn't so. If that's the case, it looks pretty bad for Clark whose statement is in red above. Makes him look senile and it makes his staff look totally inept and/or dishonest.

By the way, do you have a link that a 2002 registration has even been produced? All we have is you repeating that with no link, no nothing other than a little story about some poor Clerk and bad records (no mention of Clark in the story btw). Quite a stunning fact to be so casually throwing about because it contradicts Clark, his spokespeople, his campaign staff, and the Clark supporters in the past who had quite different stories.

[Tinoire]

101. MAJOR CORRECTION to your statement!

A simple multiple choice question ((open book/you may read the links provided before answering)):

a. Clark is lying
b. His staff is full of bumbling liars and he needs a new one
c. The entire world has launched one huge conspiracy against poor Clark
d. You are wrong
e. A combination of the above
f. All of the above

If anyone got some "grand jury" to go after some poor clerk for ineptitude simply for telling the truth then things could sink no lower. He re-registered? This is a new one. Not in all the threads concerning Clark's questioned affiliation with the Democratic Party was this ever once brought up. Must be the new meme.

From the DU thread: Clark and his team need to get their act together:

http://www.theunionleader.com/granite_show.html?article=27079

THE MISTAKEN REGISTRATION. Is Wesley Clark right about his voter registration status, or is the voter registrar in his home Pulaski County, Ark., and his own campaign consultant right?

Last Friday in Manchester, we conducted a one-on-one interview with the new Democratic Presidential candidate.

We asked Clark (quoting now from our own tape): "How long have you been a registered Democrat"?

Clark answered, "About, um, oh, I think it was maybe the third of September. Prior to that I wasn't anything. In Arkansas, you don't register for parties, you vote in primaries and, of course, I voted in the Democratic primary."

Yesterday, we checked this week's edition of Business Week, dated Oct. 1. It reports that Clark has yet to register as a Democrat, even though he's running for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

snip

Clark spokesman Kym Spell told us last night that Clark was mistaken about his registration in his Union Leader interview. "He had filled out the paperwork but it never got down to the office," she said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=14436

===

Wesley Clark: Still Not a Democrat
Turns out the Presidential candidate hasn't yet changed his party affiliation as a registered independent in Arkansas

<snip>

According to the Pulaski County (Ark.) Voter Registrar's office, the former four-star general remains a registered independent. Even though he has been a declared candidate for the Dem nomination for two weeks now, he has yet to officially change his party affiliation.

A Clark campaign spokesman at first told BusinessWeek that the former general had in fact updated his voter registration to reflect his newfound status as a Democrat. But a call to the Pulaski County Voter Registrar indicated otherwise. When asked to explain the discrepancy, campaign consultant Mark Fabiani says Clark hadn't yet had time to register as a Democrat.

He adds that the fledgling White House seeker plans to make his Democratic status official as soon as he gets a breather. "This has been a whirlwind two weeks," says Fabiani. "There are a lot of things we have to do, and that's one of them."

COLD COMFORT? Fabiani notes that Clark's independent record -- coupled with the fact that he voted for Ronald Reagan -- could boost his bipartisan appeal in a general election.

<snip>
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm


Thursday, September 18, 2003

Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day.

Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark:" "Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list -- his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton."

Clark told CNN's Judy Woodruff earlier this month that he had decided to register as a Democrat. Left unsaid and unknown at this point is exactly when and why he decided to become a Democrat.

http://www.politicsus.com/front%20page%20archive/091803.html

[dogman]

113. You are an Arkansas lawyer?

I am not. I only know that if I voted in the Dem primary in 2002 I am a Dem until I vote differently in the next primary. I admit I do not know the law in Arkansas. Your link to the article from Oct. has expired. I would also like to point out that everything you read in magazines and newspapers is not necessarily factual. If the campaign has produced documentation I leave it at that. Why do you link the grand jury investigation of the Clerk you prefer as a source to Clark? Could it be the Clerk was wrong? Maybe the grand jury is right. Maybe the possibility of a leader who can save this country is not desirable to some. I look forward to his Presidency and a great future for America. My answer is g. none of the above

[IndianaGreen]

The best explanation is that Wes Clark is an independent

that is running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. I think that is a rather viable and defensible position, since the 2-major parties do have a de jure monopoly on electoral politics in this country. It also explains why Clark cannot be pinned down ideologically.

This raises a question about Clark that needs answering: Is Clark a pragmatist or a Trojan Horse, meaning he is DLC pretending to be non-DLC?

It is too early to know the answer to that question. However, there is one red flag already: Clark refused to refer to Sharon's wall as a wall, preferring to call it a fence. We are not discussing semantics here! Sharon is building a wall, like the one that separated East from West during the Cold War. To refer to this wall as a fence, a security fence at that, is to borrow the lexicon of the most extremists elements in the Sharon government.

I am keeping my eyes and ears open!

[Tinoire]

120. It is strange then that Clark himself is not aware of your claim

and contradicted it.

Please stop the spinning and address why Clark didn't know he was registered, as you claim, and whu his campaign didn't know he was registered and hemmed and hawed all over the issue.

This has little to do with the Clerk and everything to do with Clark himself admitting he wasn't registered, despite your claim to the contrary.

[The Magistrate]

115. What Is Your Point, Ma'am?

You are surely aware that until recently, voter registration in Arkansas was innocent of party affiliation, so that unless one actually joins the Party organization, which very few bother to do anywhere, no longstanding registration of party affiliation could exist.

Gen. Clark said, in the materials you cite yourself (though without bolding this portion in color)"...In Arkansas, you don't register for parties, you vote in primaries and, of course, I voted in the Democratic primary." Requesting a party ballot in a primary election is a public act, and there ought to be some record of it. Most persons consider requesting a party ballot and participating in a party primary to be a public declaration of affiliation to that party, particularly in jurisdictions where voter registration itself cannot include such a declaration, as was formerly the case in Arkansas. In that same section, the reporter cites as confirmation there was no registration another reporter in Business Week: that is awfully sloppy, and would not pass muster in any serious enquiry as research; the only authoritative answer would come from examination of the records back in Pulaski County, and there is no reason given for belief the Business week reporter had done so either.

A certain amount of dither and obfuscation from the staff of a campaign in its early stages does not bother me at all, and will not bother more than a very few people, who are simply looking for pegs to hang an a priori hat upon in any case. You express some startlement that new information bearing on this question seems to have appeared as time has passed, and yet what could be more normal than that? What are the dark forces that have contrived an investigation into "some poor clerk...simply telling the truth" in your comments above, Ma'am? Surely you are aware the title of County Clerk indicates not some poor drudge in an office, but the adminstrator in charge of keeping the records of the county, a fairly heavy if local responsibility, upon which much of the function of its government depends. As these offices are generally filed by election, and that of a patronage stalwart in many cases, ineptitude verging on the criminal is not particularly uncommon.

What people see in this trifle is beyond me, my friend. It certainly does not matter to me what date is on the Party card. Gen. Clark was widely known as "Clinton's General" during the previous administration; he has stated he voted for President Clinton, and for Vice-President Gore; he has stated he voted in Democratic Party primaries in Arkansas. There does not seem to me to be a shred of real reason to disbelieve these statements. It will avail you nothing to run a candidate pure enough for the tender sensibilities of the most radical few among us, who goes down to landslide defeat, as such a candidate certainly will, in the up-coming election. Successful radicals show a great deal of self-discipline and tactical and strategic acumen; radical posuers strike postures for their own gratification. It is the difference between Motorhead and Poison....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Tinoire]

125. You'll forgive me if I find this utterly ludicrous

• Sept 2003- Clark himself states he has already, just registered as a Democrat
  
  
• doesn't actually do so until October 6, 2003 after it is discovered that he hadn't
  
  
• his spokespeople tripping all over themeselves to spin this because now they're all caught up in "mis-speaks"
  
  
• and a poster now claiming that the campaign is producing a 2002 registration

[The Magistrate]

129. Forgiveness Is No Difficulty, Ma'am

The manufacture of mountains from mole-hills is something of a cottage industry around here, and this trifle is a prime example of the art.

What does seem something of a trespass upon our friendship here, Ma'am, is your comment elsewhere to the effect you would be surprised to find me calling myself a progressive....

[Dookus]

133. Unfortunately,

nowadays a lot of people conflate "progressive" with "unanimity of opinion".

Fortunately, that has never been the case in the reality.

[The Magistrate]

135. Also, Sir

It is sometimes confused with an eagerness for glorious self-immolation in a forelorn hope.

That is most unfortunate: in politics as in war, there is no substitute for defeating the enemy.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Tinoire]

150. That is merely my opinion

It depends where you place the sliding scale. I consider you more of a moderate because of some views you've expressed. It is certainly not an insult. Some of my better friends here consider themselves moderates and I have no problem with that. My statement does not imply that I think any less of you for having that opinion but I do stand by it.

Additionally, I am getting tired of the spin and saddened that you seem to either ignore it or tacitly accept it.

All that said, politics should never be mixed with friendship and my Dean friends and I have already tread a delicate line on this one but ours is mostly a difference in candidate which makes it easier. Between you and me, it's a difference in philosophy because you do not denounce the NED, the CSIS, the SOA or any of that. My definition of a progressive can not white-wash those organizations or endorse a candidate who drew up the plans for the occupation of Iraq.

Also, I see nothing progressive in Clark's stance on Israel/Palestine. It's hard-core unequivocal support for Israel placing total blame on the Palestinians.

Such is my reasoning. It has nothing to do with friend-ship, just hard, cold categorizations which do not lessen old feelings or respect for what I see as philosophical consistency. If anything it heightens that respect because I do not like inconsistent people.

Hope that explains a little. I did not mean to offend you. You would not offend me by calling me a Leftist.

[Pax Argent]

152. A man with your erudition and demeanor

who knows the difference between Motorhead and Poison?!?! You, sir, are truly a marvel!

[Paragon]

31. "A civilian that wants to play a military leader"

There's already somebody doing that in the White House now. It's literally a no-brainer to assume that a military man is the guy to replace him. By which I mean you're not using your brains.

For a general, he's pretty short on charisma and completely short on political experience, save kissing ass as a lobbyist and CNN analyst.

[kentuck]

36. But, can he beat Bush?

:)

[Shanty Oilish]

37. A military man tells me to believe him because he says so...

Tells me to believe he's a Democrat.
Well I don't. He's a line jumper. I don't care how many stars you have, you don't start at the top in politics. Congress isn't good enough for him?
And if you're a Dem you don't say you'd have been a Republican if they'd answered your phone calls. That isn't funny and I don't think it was meant to be.
He hasn't BEEN a Dem, until now when he wants to be president. I see ambition there, nothing more.
Presidents need political experience. How is he to deal with the Congress, get his agenda enacted? Advisors? So he assembles a legion of advisors, handlers, lobbyists, liaison-eers, and he's just there for his sterling personal qualities? A prop.
Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich---all of them have experience and...If there's one thing the Dem candidate should be without question, he should be a Democrat.
In Clark's case, it is not without question. We have nothing but his very recent word for it.
Sorry, that's not enough for me.

[kentuck]

40. But the fact that he is not a Congressman or from Washington...

or perceived to be a Washington "insider", is his appeal. When was the last Congressman elected President? For that matter, when was the last Senator elected President? Kennedy? That is why people choose Governors. That's a fact we have to deal with.

[bearfartinthewoods]

55. there is a difference between being entrenched in DC

and being totally inexperienced in holding an elective position.

[kentuck]

58. In part, I think that explained a lot of Ralph Nader's popularity

also, and he never held public office, either.

[bearfartinthewoods]

154. the operative word being...............never

Americans like cinderella stories but not ones involving the white house.

[bearfartinthewoods]

48. not to mention the two meetings he has with pubbies

about running as a pub for guvernor of arkansas. saying 'no' doesn't take two meetings.

[KoKo]

39. With me, most of it is because he's a former "General." And I have "Ike's

"Beware the Military Industrial Complex." Plus Clark doesn't have any history of "Governance."

When I am so desperate as a Democrat that I have to vote for a "General" to counteract the Chimp/PNAC "MIC" then I worry about where America is going.'

but....then....I'm an "oldie DU'er" who has gone through "Cold War," McCarthism, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Carter...and down the line.

My "spirit is with our young DU'ers.....and I'm not some decripit oldie....but an "ACTIVISTS Oldie!" And if you asked me or saw me in person...you wouldn't even think of me as some "granny type."

:-( But, about Clark......yes..I have "grave reservations" from being on this planet so long. Clark does raise questions...but my "fantasy side" might support him.....if I felt he was "truly sincere" and I could overlook his "shilling for his Military Corporatists" when he retired.

That's a "hard one" for me to overlook. His "Board of Directors" for two companies where he made Millions! How is he different fron Henry Kissinger?

[QC]

74. Ike, who warned of the MIC, was a "former 'General.'"

And, of course, the presidents who have eagerly fed the beast, including Democrats, were not "former 'Generals'" and had long records in elected office before coming to the White House. So I can't quite follow the reasoning here.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[bearfartinthewoods]

57. because we have no confidence that these will be his policies

bush was compassionate, remember? without a paper trail, we have no way of knowing clark's true propensities.

it's been a looooong time since i trusted total strangers.

[Crunchy Frog]

109. I know that nothing I say

is going to alter your opinion, however I must disagree with your statement that he has no record on which to judge his propensities. As a military commander he enacted policies on his bases that were very much in line with liberal Democratic ideals.

For example, he was very proactive in enacting affirmative action, making sure he had women and minority officers. He worked hard to improve schools, get Head Start programs, improve health care, and focus on other quality of life issues, of the sort that Democrats care about.

He is on record as having tried to get the U.S. to intervene to stop the genocide in Rwanda, and got in trouble with the military brass over it.

He does not have the same kind of paper trail that an elected official has, but I think it's completely unfair to characterize him as having no verifiable record of standing for Democratic values at all. It simply isn't true.

[bearfartinthewoods]

153. to intervene to stop the genocide in Rwanda

for this, i credit him but the other policies were also very much in line with the clinton administrations direcctions and no ambitious man could have done diffferently. clinton favored these programs and clark was determined to impress clinton.

[kentuck]

60. I'm sorry, xultar but it has not all been "debunked"...

I like General Clark. In fact, I think he may have the best message to beat George W Bush. But he has to reconcile his remarks and his record with many other Democrats before they will accept him. I'm hoping they will and, if he is the candidate, I'm sure they will.

As for finding something "substantive" to criticize Clark on, this is the most substantive thing that he can be criticized for, in my opinion. I have tried to honest and respctful in my comments about General Clark. After all, if Kerry is defeated, Clark may be my pick.

[Crunchy Frog]

110. I agree with you Kentuck

I think that what you are saying is very valid, and I don't think you're being disrespectful at all.

General Clarks greatest strengths as a presidential candidate going up against Bush are unfortunately also his greatest weaknesses when it comes to winning the primaries. Primary voters tend to be much more partisan than the voting population overall, and more concerned with things like purity and party credentials.

I myself don't have any problem with these issues, but it would be unrealistic to think that many primary voters won't. Clark needs to really establish Democratic and liberal credentials to win in the primaries.

This is one reason why I think the Michael Moore endorsement is so important. I think I place more weight on it than alot of people do. MM is considered by many to be a raving lefty (no problem for me), and may have the ability to reassure nervous liberals that General Clark is for real.

I myself do believe that Clark has the best chance in the general election, and I think that his nonpartisan history, and pragmatism, coupled with his very real principles and values will make him one of our truly great presidents, and help to heal this country of the extreme partisan polarization that has been poisoning it for the last dozen years.

That's my opinion anyway, I appreciate your openmindedness.

[sandnsea]

49. Is it good we flooded the world with arms

I really don't care what Republicans think of him. Mostly, I would suspect they're busy "spinning" him for the GE in case he makes it.

As a Democrat, I want to know what the hell he was thinking voting for Reagan more than once. And what does he think of everything that happened in the 80's.

Frankly, this is just about as wild to me as how everybody got behind Dean without questioning anything about his record or why he suddenly changed in 2003.

I don't get it. If we don't get answers before we elect these guys, why should we complain when they go off doing things we don't want them to do.

[Jerseycoa]

63. This is a hard question

And I don't blame you for wanting to know what you want to know. I don't have his answer. He was in the military. He, like most of the military and much of the country, loved Ronald Reagan. I don't get it, either; I didn't then and I don't now.

What I do know and believe with all my heart and mind, is that he sees the Republicans today as an enemy to be beaten. He finds them guilty with their heartless opportunism of running the country he loves into the ground. He recognizes there has been a right wing conspiracy to steal the government. He sees that any measure of fairness, tolerance, economic justice, or international standing we may have had has been subverted. He takes it personally. He thinks he is the leader who can make it right again. I think so, too, but I don't find it hard to understand why others have doubts.

[arewethereyet]

50. for me its these things

Let me preface this by saying that I don't care about the registration stuff or even the republican vote stuff either. I don't doubt his "democrat-ness", I am willing to take his word on that.

Having cleared that up...

He is very inconsistant in his public remarks. OK, anyone can change their mind. I can accept that but America will not given constant advertising and you can count on that happening.

He does not understand Washington and is no polititian. Against a republican Congress he will be ineffective. Clinton was a superb polititian and its only for that that he was able to be as effective as he was.

His military career is his only bona fide and this will get ripped, Powell can see to this if the press can't (and they can, see this
http://mujweb.atlas.cz/www/kutija/nw000515.htm )

Ike had better experience, Ike had immense popularity nation-wide. Its NOT the same situation.

[kentuck]

56. Clark connects with the people who hear him speak.

They sense a sincerity and honesty in the man, real or not. His experience does not come from a political background, it is true. But that is not necessarily a negative. He does have diplomatic skills. He does understand the world better than most, I would dare say. i doubt that he will be any more "ineffective" against a Republican Congress than any other Democrat.

[arewethereyet]

98. compare them on televised debates, Edwards shines on TV

few people will see him live and fewer still in the intimate settings that they've worked thus far.

We'll need to agree to disagree on the effectiveness angle.

I will point out that presidents do not require diplomatic skills. Diplomats sort out the details long before heads of state meet otherwise they don't meet. However they MUST be able to connect to Americans on the small screen.

[wyldwolf]

59. The premise of the original post is misguided... I can't be more graphic

...or my post will deleted. It simply lacks data beyond the poster's personal opinion and is, in itself, completely void of logic.

Clark is polling higher than any democrat other than Dean - which means Clark is MORE credible among democrats than Kerry, Edwards, Sharpton, Lieberman, and Gephardt.

Couple that with his favorability ratings higher than Dean's and a case could be made that he is more credible than Dean.

One could easily shoot back and say polls only show Clark is more liked than the others but that would also be void of any reason. What it would actually do is infer that the Democratic mass can't determine for themselves who is credible and who isn't and is in need of the wise elitist Democrats to show them. :eyes:

Once again we have a post of no substance - a veiled and desperate attack on Wesley Clark because there is no new and/or legitimate "news" to focus on concerning him.

on edit:

I also find the original post a violation of this rule:

8. If you make a factual assertion about a candidate that is not generally accepted to be true, you must provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claim. Allegedly "innocent" questions which are actually an underhanded effort to spread rumors are not allowed. If you really need to know the answer to your question, try Google.

[kentuck]

61. And we are to accept your comments as "factual" and as "proof"...

If I were posting facts and had links, I would have posted it in the LBN. Of course, it is my opinion. I hope my opinion is still as valuable as yours. After all, you have no proof otherwise. The fact is that no one can make an assertion of fact about popularity or credibility when they are only getting 25% or 30% of the vote. This is something I "sense" about the way many posters here on DU feel about General Clark. I'm sorry if you feel that should be off limits for discussion.

[wyldwolf]

64. Yes you are and here is the proof

Here is your proof...

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Clark is more credible than any of the dems running besides Dean in the polls above...

BUT....!

Also important is Clark's net favorable rating among Democrats has reached +30%, 7% better than Dean's (and better than anyone else in the race). This makes Clark a likely choice for Democrats whose candidate drops out of the race (Gephardt if he doesn't win Iowa) and thus leads me to believe that his support is slightly understated now.

Clark has a higher favorability rating than Dean.

http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/000483.html

Dated Jan. 8, 2004

[Clark4Prez]

66. Wow, good point wyldwolf

Great response, but will it be answered with some facts?

Only time will tell. Thanks for the post.

[wyldwolf]

67. I wouldn't bet on a reasoned response...

...maybe a "polls can't be trusted" reply. But maybe silence.

[Clark4Prez]

70. Silence has my bet. n/t

[wyldwolf]

78. waiting... waiting....

[kentuck]

79. Since when did 30% of anything prove that 100% felt the same way?

It is not enough to prove that there are not still "many Democrats" that do not find the General 'credible'. I might say, that i do find him credible but that does not change the fact. Thirty percent will win few elections.

[wyldwolf]

92. Why not just change your post title to...

"Why NO democrat is credible to so many democrats."

Your argument applies to them all oviously.

[NV1962]

68. See my post under #62

(That's here)

A statement such as "Every Democrat does not trust the motives of General Clark" is not an "opinion" - it's a string of words that produces laughter.

Restate that as "I do not trust the motives of General Clark" and you'll present an opinion that can be actually debated as such.

[funky_bug]

69. and mine under #20

Violation of rule #8

8. If you make a factual assertion about a candidate that is not generally accepted to be true, you must provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claim. Allegedly "innocent" questions which are actually an underhanded effort to spread rumors are not allowed. If you really need to know the answer to your question, try Google.

[jpgpenn]

73. I sent an alert hours ago...

and it seems to have done no good. This entire subject heading is made from contrived opinion.

[Tinoire]

93. If Clark didn't have a credibility problem with so many Democrats

we wouldn't have a front-runner who openly, just recently pointed out that he was a Republican, and Kucinich wouldn't have politely scoffed at the suggestion of him and Clark teaming up. Nor would we have so many articles and posts questioning his credibility as a Democrat. There are thousands at DU alone. Seems generally accepted enough to stand as factual.

You may find it distasteful and wish it weren't so but the proof validating that question is all over the internet.

[wyldwolf]

94. Is that why...

Clark always leads in DU polls and Dean asked him to be his VP?

Hey! Why not do a DU poll to prove your point! Let's see if thousands of DU'ers claim Clark isn't credible.

[Tinoire]

117. Clark leads in DU polls? Since when? Freeped polls maybe

because the Clark supporters are very well organized and send out alerts, post on web-logs that people need to come vote in the polls and make sure the smoke and mirrors are in place.

==
TakebackAmerica (504 posts) Mon Dec-08-03 12:02 PM

21. Clark is making progress.

Earlier:
Dean 40
Clark 24

Now:
Dean 37
Clark 29

Update:
Dean 35
Clark 30

Update 2:
Dean 35
Clark 31

Update 3:
Dean 34
Clark 32

Update 4:
Wesley Clark (73 votes, 32%)
Howard Dean (76 votes, 34%)

Update 5:
Wesley Clark (80 votes, 34%)
Howard Dean (78 votes, 33%)
---

goobergunch (1000+ posts) Mon Dec-08-03 12:42 PM

32. Clark is currently increasing at a rate of .65 votes/minute
while Dean is only increasing at a rate of .18 votes/minute. The total poll votes themselves are only increasing at a rate of 1.06 votes/minute. I find this very interesting.
--

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Mon Dec-08-03 02:11 PM

46. I'm shutting this down.

Our server logs indicate that we've had an influx of new registrations from at least one clark website who logged on to vote in the poll.

I want to say welcome to all of you -- I'm impressed by your enthusiasm. I hope you'll stick around. But in the future I'd prefer if you avoided freeping our polls.

I have instructed Elad to program a new function so that this will no longer be possible.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=849826#851776

===

Poll on Democratic Underground
By Anne
Posted to Anne's weblog (News and Links) on Mon Dec 8th, 2003 at 03:29:48 PM EST
New poll on Democratic Underground. Please go and vote!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=849826

http://blog.forclark.com/story/2003/12/8/152948/904

http://anne.forclark.com/
====

Then of course, sometimes we have the marching orders from General Clark himself where he entreats his supporters

Matt Bennett is the Director of Communications at Clark for President. General Clark asked him to pass on this message to the online community and supporters.

General Clark is outraged!

<snip>

Make your voice heard - take this information to other blogs (Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, Free Republic, etc.), to your friends and family, to other news media. Make sure that the FACTS can catch up with the distortion. They may buy their ink by the barrel, but you can help us fight back.

<snip>

http://campaign.forclark.com/story/2004/1/13/0147/96985

Wonder of wonders- the page has poof, vanished!

[wyldwolf]

119. Since every DU poll in the last few months were posted

Regardless of how or why, he has won the polls.

And all those new people that registered to vote in the polls are DU members now.

And to think you had to pull out all that research for nothing!

Like this most recent one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=118329&mesg_id=118329

Which must be legit because, according to your research, a function was created to prevent "freeping."

[Tinoire]

130. Nope... Blogs still being found directing people to come over here & vote

And of of this to the great amusement of Dean supporters, and many others who are just ignoring these polls because they're totally unreliable especially since votes seem to be disappearing again. People coming to vote in polls and being told they have "already voted". But not to worry, Admin is looking into this computer error to see what the problem is.

[wyldwolf]

132. Yep! But they're still democrats and members of DU

Sorry! You can't decide who is and who isn't.

[The Magistrate]

121. And Yet The Numbers Still Hold, Ma'am

Why is that, do you think?

How many members of this forum do you wish to accuse of being infiltrators, paid agents, etc., as this pattern continues to hold?

[Tinoire]

134. We'll just have to agree to disagree

I have never liked bait and prefer to ignore your question.

Such are the casualties of politics and primaries.

[The Magistrate]

138. We Have Done That Before, Ma'am

The question was genuine; bait from me is not usually detectable....

It is a fact that Gen. Clark has a good deal of support, here and elsewhere, among Democrats of every stripe. He may very well carry the nomination, and seems to me the candidate, among those available, best suited to carry the general contest. You know me well enough to know that that, the defeat of the criminals of the '00 Coup, is the one thing of importance to me at this time. It is certainly my hope that we have that in common, my friend.

[Tinoire]

151. We have that in common and much more

but I am only willing to bend so far to defeat one criminal if it means opening wide the gates of Troy.

Bush is just one head of the Hydra; my battle isn't against just one head- it's against the entire beast. It won't be worth it to me to just severe one head. Hercules learned the hard way that two grow back and that's what I've seen going on in politics- each time the Hydra coming forth with more heads until we have the obscenity we see at 1600 Penn. street today.

[The Magistrate]

155. Well, My Friend

The essence of strategic method is concentration of effort against the object to be attained, and success requires the practical adaptation of the means available to secure that: it is fatal to essay more than can be achieved with the means available. Battles must be picked, and fought in sequence. It is necessary now to achieve the eviction of the most reactionary elements of our polity from the office they usurped. Until that is achieved, nothing else can be attempted with any hope of success.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Dookus]

136. LOL...

Yes... the polls are "freeped". Outside agitators are coming in. The mods and admins are biased. The media are controlling us. Perhaps it's chemtrails?

EVERY whacked out theory is accepted over the obvious one: a plurality of DU'ers support Clark. Why? Because he's the most honest, most liberal, most intelligent candidate who has a shot at beating Bush.

[jpgpenn]

71. using the question format to state a subtle Smear!

The new way to get smears thru at DU.

[wyldwolf]

72. Ah, but the smear fell on it's face pretty quick!

[kentuck]

80. Neither of you are helping the General's case...

nor your own. Just open your eyes and your ears and you will see that "every Democrat" does not find the General credible. That is a simple, factual statement. It is proven on this very thread.

[funky_bug]

81. Maybe not everybody

but clearly not "so many." You are still in violation of rule #8, regardless of the terminology you stand by.

Edited to add link to GD rules, out of consideration.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=116334

[kentuck]

86. And how do you interpret "so many" ??

just curious?

[funky_bug]

99. More importantly

how do you? Since you are the original poster of this thread, it is up to you to provide the proof to substantiate your claim, which you provided as a question. I suggest you read rule #8.

[wyldwolf]

87. That wasn't the premise of your post...

You attempted to prove why Clark isn't credible to so many democrats. No one thinks you said all democrats.

But your premise falls flats because it implies that, compared to Clark, there is a democrat running who is more credible - and I've shown that that isn't the case.

[kentuck]

90. No. 30% support does not prove credibility.

They are not the same thing. John Kerry may only have 20% of the support but fewer people question his credibility as a "Democrat". You're talking apples and oranges...

[wyldwolf]

91. You have yet to provide any substantial proof of your claims

30% support does not prove credibility. They are not the same thing.

So, void of any documented proof of this, you just did what I predicted you'd do in post #59 - imply that voters can't decide for themselves who is "credible."

n Kerry may only have 20% of the support but fewer people question his credibility as a "Democrat".

Again, void of any proof...

[Tinoire]

75. I don't think most Republicans find him very credible either

I dare not list the words used for Clark at DU because next time I log on, I'll have a bright flashing yellow light indicating another love letter from the DU Admin.

A brief perusal of Free Republic or any other Republican site will tell you just how credible they find him:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/keyword/clark

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=any;o=score;s=Clark

It's not too different on the military sites.

[Walt Starr]

82. I simply do not trust the man

and will not vote for him.

[Jerseycoa]

106. Acceptable

I feel the same way about Howard Dean, although I will vote ABB if it comes to it.

[Walt Starr]

116. I will vote for any ticket in the GE

so long as Wesley Clark's name is not on it.

I will only go against that statment if Howard Dean's name is on the ballot with Wesley Clark.

I would vote for a Lieberman/Miller ticket, but not a Clark/anybody besides Dean.

[kerryistheanswer]

83. I don't know who Clark is

I'm shocked he has so much support - he's a total mystery - how can we trust his rhetoric.

[Auntie Bush]

104. If you don't know who Clark is.... then why don't

you go to his web site at Clark 2004 and study up? Then he won't be such a mystery and then you can have an informed and knowledgeable opinion which we can trust!

[mlawson]

84. I think of myself as a good judge of character.

And I have no problem with General Clark, at all.

OTOH, I knew GWB was shit, the first time I saw him.

[kentuck]

89. I think General Clark will surprise everyone in the South...

except the Southerners... :)

[arewethereyet]

114. yes, we notice when people need to explain their statements

you'll notice that Edwards doesn't need to do that.

[funky_bug]

122. and I do

admire Edwards for being above the fray. He seems quite clean, and I'd be honored to vote for him if he gets the nod.

[Dookus]

102. Well, I went out to dinner...

and one hundred posts later, there's still no attempt to explain why the premise of the original post should be believed.

What evidence is there that Clark is less credible to Democrats than any other candidate?

[wyldwolf]

103. purely anecdotal

...one scenario could be that the poster and a few of his friends discussed it over a cappuccino and arrived at that conclusion.

usually how these types of conclusions are reached.

[Larkspur]

123. In 2001 Clark was paid by the Arkansas Repukes to speak at their fundraise

and he praised Bush, cheney, & Co. at that engagement. This happened a year after clark claimed to have voted for Al Gore in 2000.

Clark was also registered as a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex and remained registered as one 2 weeks after entering the Dem Prez race. He resigned only after this was revealed by the press.

Clark lied to a reporter saying he was registered as a Democrat but the reporter found out Clark was a registered Independent in Arkansas.

Clark was offered a chance to run on the Dem ticket in 2000 for Arkansas' Governor's office and he declined.

How's that for blasting Clark's Democratic credentials!

[Dookus]

139. OK.. Larkspur... will you promise to respond to this?

"In 2001 Clark was paid by the Arkansas Repukes to speak at their fundraiser and he praised Bush, Cheney & Co."

True. He made perfunctorily nice statements about them at a COUNTY republican event (not statewide). The nice statements were leading into a rather severe criticism of Bush's foreign policy. He was making his living at the time as a public speaker. A few weeks later, he gave a similar speech to STATEWIDE Democrats.

"Clark was also registered as a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex"

Wrong. He was a lobbyist for Axciom, an Arkansas-based database company. Axciom never had a federal contract prior to Clark joining them - he was brought on to help them get contracts. Axciom could in no way be considered a military-industrial company. In fact, it was originally started as a company controlling a DEMOCRATIC mailing list.

"Clark lied to a reporter saying he was registered as a Democrat..."

Wrong. Clark released his voter registration records yesterday, which showed he was registered as a Democrat for the 2002 elections.

"Clark was offered a chance to run on the Dem ticket in 2000 for Arkansas' Governor's office and he declined"

Umm... I actually hadn't heard that before. But so what? How does that make him a republican? Maybe he doesn't want to be Governor of Arkansas.

"How's that for blasting Clark's Democratic credentials?"

Pretty piss-poor, in my opinion.

[wyldwolf]

141. Yeah, we know that already

We also know Dean supported Goldwater, said Bush was doing a fine job in the war on terrorism, said Cheney was a model vice president, said Powell would be a good sec. of state in any administration, is A+ rated by the GOP controlled NRA, wanted to turn Vermont into a corporate tax haven to rival Bermuda, wanted to ship nuclear waste to a poor hispanic town in Texas, sealed his records for an unusual amount of time to avoid political embarassment (his word)...

[Bread and Circus]

118. Well thought out post.

[shivaji]

124. If Clark can't energize our base, count 4 more years for Bush*Co

I have nightmares about Rove's non-stop commercials in October
showing video's of Clark praising Bush policies. If that
won't keep our base voters at home, I don't know what will.

On the other hand, Dean/Gephardt/Kerry/Edwards can focus on
their shpeel without having to defend any video's of them
praising Bush.

And I still firmly believe in my most admired president Truman,
when he said "given a choice between a republican and a
republican light, they (right wingers) will vote the republican
every time".

[Walt Starr]

126. When you have a choice between Bush

and the guy on TV praising Bush, why even bother?

:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

127. The Base Ought To Energize Itself, Sir

Else it is no base, but merely one more special interest group, to be cossetted and pandered to lest it skulk in a petulant funk.

Any person who does not recognize the need of the hour is to defeat the criminals of the '00 Coup ought to cease on the instant to call themselves a progressive, or a leftist, or a Democrat, or any other thing but an enabler of the reactionary criminals who have usurped rule of our land.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[IndianaGreen]

137. Are discussing a change in policy, or a mere change in personnel?

Replacing the "R" in the White House with a "D" is a mere change in personnel if the Democratic President decides to keep PATRIOT Act on the books, and continues the military occupation of Iraq, and keeps on pursuing a PNAC-lite foreign policy that includes preemptive wars.

I am all for a change in policy AND in personnel, but if the Democratic establishment is asking for my support for a mere change in personnel, find someone else!

[The Magistrate]

161. Well, My Old Hoosier Friend

Even a change in personnel would be to the good, in my view. You will be aware that even a small improvement is, to me, worth working for, if it seems likely no greater one can be actually obtained at the time. Starving men may dream of banquets, but surely know half a loaf is better than none. It is vitally important to break the political momentum developed by the reactionaries in capitalizing on their usurpation of office. If this is not done, the current situation will settle into normalcy: we will be in a "forever war" to the political benefit of the most thievishly reactionary elements of our polity for the foreseeable future, without the least resonable prospect of a halt, let alone a reversal. Though we disagree on whether Gen. Clark would constitute a "lite" version of the current administration, even if we were in agreement on that question, it would still be my position the lesser degree was preferable to the greater, and preferable to the more ideal, that cannot succeed in practice, and must in failing work to secure the grip of the greater even more firmly, as well. It is popular here to say the lesser of two evils is still evil, but what of it? The greater of two evils is still the greater evil, and to throw up one's hands and refuse to oppose it effectively is to collaborate with it. Life is largely an exercise in doing evil in the hope good may come of it, and no one is excused the exercise this side of the grave.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Dookus]

140. Why is nobody worried about video of Dean praising Bush? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

142. Why isn't anyone worried about the Democrats applauding Bush?

Why isn't anyone worried about the Democrats applauding Bush when he gives his SOTUS speech? Democrats should boo the sob for all of the lies he told the year before, and for all of the lies he is telling this year. As a matter of fact, Democrats should act like a real opposition party and do what another opposition party did to their President in Pakistan:

Musharraf heckled during parliamentary debut
Saturday 17 January 2004, 12:18 Makka Time, 9:18 GMT

Pakistan's military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, faced a hostile reception in his first speech to parliament since seizing power in a coup in 1999, with some of his opponents walking out.

According to Aljazeera's correspondent, members of at least six Islamist groups walked out of the joint session of parliament shortly after the president began speaking.

Others drowned out his words with shouts of "Down with Dictatorships", "Go Musharraf Go! and "No Musharraf No!".

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A2B39FFF-9A05-4813-8685-682FF6D6DB16.htm

[Dookus]

143. well, this was proposed in GD a few days ago...

Personally, I think an organized effort by Dems to disrupt the SOTU would probably not have a beneficial effect on the Dems' electoral chances.

[kentuck]

144. I have returned from dinner and taken a look at all the posts....

And I must say that I think some people need to lighten up a bit. i am a John Kerry supporter that may support General Clark if Kerry does not do well and drops out of the race. To pretend that there are not questions about the credibility of Wes Clark is to have our heads in the sand. Even Wes Clark is aware of the questions.

However, I respect General Clark and have tried to respectful in my post. I regret that so many of his supporters saw it as an underhanded attempt to attack the General. I think he will be able to overcome those doubts and questions about him if he is the nominee. We just need to be honest here.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

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

[the populist]

156. "I'm prochoice, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay..."

"...if that doesn't make me a Democrat, then WHAT DOES?"

It was a puke-inducing introduction from a man who appeared to be the Great White Hope for Democrats before he announced his candidacy.

[wyldwolf]

157. That sounds more like Dean... except the "American hero" part.

[mmonk]

147. There seems to be alot of attacks on Clark

in response to this thread about whether he can be trusted. I think he has been brutally honest about where he stands and where he's been (career wise and politically). I'll take that over all the deception and lack of transparency from Washington lately. He also must be doing well.

[Renew Deal]

158. He's credible with McGovern

Oh well, McGovern doesn't count.

[PATRICK]

159. Seems credible to me

I think his core values intelligence and obvious talents eclipse a lot of these worries. His real record is in his actions which reflect those values where they count most. I only worry about his inheriting an unnecessarily militarized Bush future.

Maybe we need to rewarp the "Terror War" and that can be done best by Clark. As a strong electoral strategy and for that very issue I have to keep him as a top option, maybe a necessary one. I don't see a hidden side, a hidden agenda, or duplicitous nature. And I'm as paranoid as much as any normal person.

Making a connection to the Democratic party is curiously harder than getting the nomination. In that the Eisenhower model does come to mind. Can he help the Party or somehow change the very nature of the gridlock we have? Or will he busy himself(Lord know there is plenty to do and undo) at an outside, Presidential level, leaving ample room for the Republicans to sweep back in as if a Democrat had never won the Presidency? We like to believe each great candidate(they should all get a turn)could do everything. I like to imagine each one replacing a past modern Republican Prez and the utopia we would mostly be enjoying by now. In reality we will get more than what we see, but not all, depending on which is elected.