Clark supporters....I found the Clark/Kucinich comparison!

[in_cog_ni_to]

A DUer posted this a while back and I thought I had saved it, but couldn't find it. I found it! First, let me apologize to the DUer who wrote it...I didn't make note of your screename, I'm sorry! I just want people to know another DUer initially posted this and if you know who you are, PLEASE come forward!

cryofan, you should find this interesting...since you just switched support from Kucinich to Clark. THIS is very a interesting comparison!

Here it is!

Clark Kucinich comparison

I am using Kucinich as a comparison because he is perceived to be a fringe candidate, an ultraliberal, and unelectable, and he has a lengthy and very specific platform on his website.

Why do Dennis Kucinich, the supposed share so much in common on the issues, yet Kucinich polls at around 2-3 percent, while Clark polls at around 15%? Why is Clark so attractive to moderate swing voters and some Republicans, while Kucinich is absolutely repulsive to this vital (if we intend to win) constituency? Both of them have a very similar long term progressive vision for the future of America and the world, yet for whatever reason Clark has much wider appeal.

Thesis: Kucinich and Clark (and to a considerable extent all the other candidates) have very similar positions, but one is perceived as more electable than the other. Even if despite this comparison you still believe there actually are major differences between Clark and Kucinich, consider that our government is based on the balance of powers. Clark has much more credibility and broad appeal to actually push his ideas through the other branches of government. Every liberal should LOVE Wesley Clark, because he is a liberal but doesn't appear to be a capital L LIBERAL to the average American. He has the substance we want AND the electability we ABSOLUTELY NEED. Look at just about any poll ever done - democrats WIN on issues like education, social security, and health care but LOSE because they are painted as 'soft on defence,' 'pinkos,' 'extremist treehuggers,' etc. Clark retains the substance while ditching the tar. If Clark were not called a General, he would be called a Treehugger, a Pinko, and a LIBERAL.

A point by point comparison of Kucinich's and Clark's stand on the issues, based on Kucinich's own platform as found on his website. Because this is based around Kucinich's platform, there naturally will be some issues that Clark does not have a position on, like Cleveland public power.

Affirmative Action -

Kucinich supports it, Clark supports it. In the recent University of Michigan affirmative action case, Kucinich and Clark both signed amicus briefs supporting the University.

Aid to Africa -

Kucinich supports it and wants to increase it. I think he would run it through his department of peace? Clark supports it and wants to increase it. He would run it through his new cabinet level Department of International Development (similar to what the UK has), and would increase its budget. He has said that he would like to increase it to as much as 3% of the US GDP.

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty -

Kucinich supports the treaty. This is an issue on which many people do not know Clark's position. You can find it out at http://www.wbur.org/special/specialcoverage/archive_121301.asp and listen to the end of his speech when he answers a question about the ABM treaty and National Missile Defence. Clark says that it is politically impossible for anyone to not support some sort of NMD, because then they are painted as (paraphrase) 'leaving Seattle open to nuclear destruction' just like Dukakis was and as Kucinich is now. Clark says further that NMD would be a good thing if it worked, but there isn't all that much reason to expect that it will work, and it is obviously a waste of money to spend millions of dollars on something that doesn't work. Where Clark differs from Kucinich is that as a 4 star general, he has the credibility to do the right thing - what lots of security experts say should be done, but what can't be done by someone like Kucinich.

Arab Americans -

In this section of his platform, Kucinich rails against how the patriot act, the possible patriot act II, and the general climate after 9/11 can be/is used against normal Americans who happen to be of Arab descent. Clark says the same things, but as with the ABM treaty, he can say them without being perceived as 'supporting the terrorists,' being 'against airport security,' and other such things.

Campaign Reform / IRV -

Clark and Kucinich are both in favor of Campaign Finance Reform and are both staying in the McCain/Feingold limits. Kucinich supports IRV, and I have never heard Clark asked whether or not he supports IRV so I don't know his position. Anyone?

Children's Issues -

Kucinich says that he favors making sure all children have health insurance, universal Pre-K, etc. A central tenet of Clark's health plan is making sure every child has health insurance, he worked to provide better childcare on the military bases he ran, opposed cuts in schools, and is generally amenable to this issues.

Civil Liberties -

Kucinich and Clark both have major problems with the patriot act, and the both - for whatever reason - support the flag desecration amendment.

Clean Water -

Kucinich (http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_cleanwater.htm)and Clark (http://www.enviros4clark.com/lcv.shtml) seem to be saying the same things on this issue.

Cleveland Public Power -

I admit that I don't know Clark's position on Cleveland Public Power... Kucinich has clearly talked more about this issue than Clark ever will

Corporations -

Kucinich says all the things about 'corporate rights and responsibilities' you would expect of him. Clark has talked about the need for greater corporate accountability, the problems with enron, and ending Corporate Welfare.

Crime -

To the best of my knowledge Kucinich and Clark's positions on crime are very similar. Clark doesn't support 3 strike laws, and I don't think Kucinich does either.

Cuban Embargo -

Clark and Kucinich both want to end it.

DC Statehood -

Kucinich supports it, and while Clark has not made it a central feature of his campaign, I would be extremely surprised if he or any of the other Democratic candidates opposed it.

Death Penalty -

Clark supports a moratorium on it because it is impossible to dole out fairly, Kucinich supports abolishing it. If you want to actually stop people being executed rather than sit on principle, you have a better chance going with Clark IMO.

Department of Peace -

Kucinich favors a Department of Peace, which seems to be very similar to Clark's Department of International Development, except the Dept of Peace seems to have a more domestic bent. The name 'dept of peace' is more likely than Clark's 'dept of international development' to create a devastating visceral reaction on the part of right wingers. The result is that Kucinich looks like a 'pinko treehugger' while Clark does not.

Disability Rights -

Kucinich supports equal rights/opportunity for disabled Americans. Clark's position seems to me to be indistinguishable. Clark says "I agree with the Americans with Disabilities Act and I think it is great legislation. I have seen the impact of it across the nation and we need to establish a level playing field for people with disabilities. I will work with you Senator Harkin to make the act stronger! They are like anyone else that has a lot to contributed and just needs to be given a chance to do so." http://www.tom-roome.com/clark/

Drug war -

I think this is the first issue where one could actually make a good argument that there might be a substantive difference. Kucinich supports ending the war on drugs and everything else. Unfortunately this opens him up to attack ads making him look like a drug smoking hippie. Clark says "I don’t favor decriminalizing the use of marijuana. I might change my mind on that, but I don’t right now favor that." But he supports medical marijuana and has big problems with 'plan Columbia.' Clark's caveat 'I might change my mind on that' has to be taken as very encouraging though. Certainly, the general climate towards ending the drug war would be much better under Clark than under Bush.

Economy -

I think everyone here knows the two candidates position on this very broad issue, so I won't go into it. They don't seem to be that different to me.

Education -

They are both very strong on this issue. I won't bother going into it in depth.

Energy -

Kucinich and Clark both support renweables, oppose ANWAR drilling, etc etc. Can't see any difference here.

Electronic Voting -

Kucinich supports open electronic voting, and Clark I think is the same with his theme of greater government accountability and openness, though I don't know of any exact statements from him on this very specific issue.

Environment -

Kucinich is a solid environmentalist. Clark is too. Clark says that 100 years on, the environment as well as our constitution are the most important things. As with clean water, see http://www.enviros4clark.com/lcv.shtml

Farm Policy -

Clark and Kucinich both have rhetoric about helping the family farmer and all that. There are other related issues (environment, world hunger, trade, etc) that will be addressed seperately. Clark supports fair trade.

Gay Rights -

They both strongly support GLBT rights.

Genetically Engineered Food -

Kucinich is against it and I don't know Clark's stance on the issue, but fitting in with his positions on related issues I would expect it would be evenhanded and based on science and the known facts and possible dangers.

Gun Laws, Gun Rights & Violence -

Both support the assault weapon ban and gun control but support the 2nd amendment and fishing/hunting. Clark first said 'If you want to fire an assault weapon, join the Army,' which was stolen by Kerry in the 'rock the vote' debate.

Housing -

Both seem to share the standard Democratic position.

Immigrants' Rights -

Both favor.

Instant Runoff Voting -

Kucinich is repetitive w/ campaign finance.

International Cooperation -

Both support ICC, Kyoto, multilateralism, etc.

Iraq -

Both DK and Clark thought it was a bad idea to go to war in the first place, supported the troops during the war and now (and in the future when they are veterans). Both want to pull out while leaving Iraq as functional as at all possible, but on an incredibly complex and dynamic issue like this it is really impossible to say with any degree of certainty what one would do a year or two from now.

Jobs/Infrastructure -

They both want to put as many Americans back to work as possible and improve infrastructure. Clark was an Econ Prof at west point, he knows about this. Neither is a supply sider/trickle down economist.

Manufacturing -

Kucinich is more protectionist here, but this issue is dynamic with the importance of swing states and everything. I don't understand how that can fit with his support of more international aid and those things, but whatever. It doesn't make any sense. This is an issue in which all candidates seem to look like 'free traders' and protectionists at the same time. I doubt there is a very strong correlation with what candidates say they will do here and what they actually can do.

Medical Marijuana -

Both support it.

Middle East -

Both would be even handed and work for peace.

Military Spending -

Both would look at cutting it in certain areas, except Clark can do it without commiting suicide.

Nuclear Safety -

Kucinich doesn't like nuclear waste. Maybe Clark says more about it somewhere on the environmental page I linked to earlier, but I am just going to move on because I assume he has a rational position here and this issue isn't my personal top priority.

Open Debates -

Kucinich wants open debates, dont know about Clark.

Prescription Drugs -

Prescription drugs for seniors!

Racial Discrimination -

Neither of them are racists, both don't like discrimination, etc.

Reproductive Rights -

Both are strongly pro choice.

Social Security and Pension Protection -

Both of them support continuance of social security and don't favor allowing ppl to invest SS money in the stock market.

Sweat Shops -

No one likes sweatshops, and both support more attention to international development.

Tax Cuts -

Both want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Trade -

Kucinich wants to repeal NAFTA/WTO, Clark wants to fix them.

Universal Health Care -

Kucinich wants medicare for all, Clark wants to give insurance to all children and to ~30 or so million Americans. Personally I don't care how we get people health care, I just care that it is done.

Veterans -

Both support funding for VA and supporting the veterans who have sacrificed so much for this country.

Voting Rights -

Both support voting rights.

Vouchers -

Neither likes school vouchers as far as I know. Fund the public school system.

Water as a Human Right -

Don't know if Clark thinks it is a 'human right,' but I am sure he drinks water and thinks everyone else should be able to as well. He supports 3rd world development, which goes hand in hand with this.

Weapons & Non-Proliferation -

Both of them support international cooperation, treaties, etc on this issue and think it is a good idea to focus on real threats rather.

Workers' Rights -

Both of them support unions, workers rights, and all those things.

World Hunger -

Clark and Kucinich support more international aid.

[hippercritical]

1. Clark on Foreign Policy

General Clark must not rest on his laurels if he wishes to win the Democratic nomination. He must be bold and take on new global issues to demonstrate that he has a foreign policy vision.

Please read this post:

http://hippercritical.typepad.com/hipp/2003/12/zimbabwe.html

It may also help to knock Bush off his moral high horse.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi hippercritical!!

welcome to DU!! :toast:

[hippercritical]

22. Thanks

Thanks new yawker99! i hope i don't stir up too much trouble here. Amzaingly, the Iraq War is one of the only issues where I support President Bush. but i still have those liberal democratic roots. If you check out my website, i'm a die-hard liberal interventionist. what can i say.

[tokenlib]

2. Thanks for this post...

That Clark is to the "left" of Dean is something that has been clear to me for a long time. As with many of us, Kucinich is really concerned about the bloat, waste, and greed in the defense budget---Clark is the man who might be able to really do something about it.

And the more "good" news for Bush--the more we need Clark as our candidate.

[Mattforclark]

3. It's my post

from a while back. You can also find it at

http://matthew.forclark.com/story/2003/11/15/15491/218

If you think it is good, by all means spread it around :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. Thank You, Matthew!

I couldn't, for the life of me, think of who had posted this! Anyway, Thank You for the post, it's terrific and I will share it whenever I can!

[maddezmom]

23. thanks to you both

hadn't seen before. :)

[ochazuke]

4. Clark's advantage

He's never been in politics, so he can just copy and paste Kucinich's positions to get credibility with the liberal base of the Democratic party.

Who knows what he really thinks? Kucinich has been in the trenches fighting for liberal causes his whole life, so we know he's for real.

[Jerseycoa]

6. Clark

has done the same within the military, so we know he's for real.

[pocoloco]

7. Clark addressed the BBV question a few days ago at the

NH event shown by C-span.

[Nadienne]

8. Funding for social programs...

Kucinich says cutting the fat out of the pentagon budget will provide plenty of funding for health care reform and all that.

I don't know Clark's viewpoint on where the money will come from the fund social problems.

[ErasureAcer]

9. Clark supports SOA, Dennis does not.

Clark supports training cental americans terrorist tactics.

Dennis does not.

It is clear Dennis Kucinich is the better man...and actually has a conscience.

[hippercritical]

10. kucinich conscience?

or just fear-mongering?

At least 500K Iraqi civilians casualties he touted last year. He was just a little off.

[no name no slogan]

15. 500k have already died over the last 12 years

Just a little clarification:

The last 12 years of sanctions against Iraq (while it was cooperating w/ UN inspectors, BTW) have caused at least 500,000 deaths, mostly of innocent children.

Although Iraq complied with inspections as required by the agreement that ended the first Iraq war, sanctions were not lifted in any meaningful way-- due to the fact that they blocked by the US and/or UK whenever the subject was brought up for discussion at the UN Security Council. The US's policy toward Iraq-- even during the Clinton years-- was to enforce sanctions DESPITE any effort made by Iraq to comply with them, and to use random military violence against the population to ensure compliance.

So, in fact, Kucinich was not far off at all. And, considering that there are almost another 10,000 dead civilians in the current war to add to the total, he actually lowballed the total civilian deaths.

[hippercritical]

19. you are plain wrong

Kucinich predicted AT LEAST 500K Iraqi casualties during THIS Iraq War. He said it before the war and hasn't mentioned it since, i wonder why. He WAS NOT at all referring to the past 12 years of sanctions. You say yourself that 10K civilians died during this war. All horrible. But Kucinich predicted 500K. What happened to a disaster to that level?

Anyway, it wasn't the sanctions which killed all those Iraqis, it was Saddam's evil policies. The Oil for food program was put in place to prevent humanitarian disaster. it was managed by the UN and the French. Saddam hid food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies that he got thru the off program from his OWN people. saddam, of course, found ways to get everything he wanted, as long as he didnt have to deal with feeding his people - $50M olympics facilities? SURE! food? no.

It's interesting to see how the Kurdish controlled areas did not suffer such horrendous civilian losses. The OFF progrma made sure to allocate a certain amount to that region which Saddam had no control over.

You also fail to mention that the UN inspectors DID FIND WEAPONS IN 1995. They were destroyed. Saddam had not been cooperating as well as you imply.

[hippercritical]

20. kucinich absurd 500K prediction

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030210&s=kucinich

"Today the world is watching, once again, aghast at an America resolutely poised for war. The UN is already predicting a war against Iraq will bring about at least 500,000 casualties among the men, women and children of Iraq, who are not foreigners, but are our brothers and sisters... "

The UN report actually estimated AS MANY AS 500K casualties. Kucinich ginned it up even more and said "at least". fearmonger!

[Mairead]

24. "What happened to a disaster to that level?"

Easy. BushCo. bribed the Iraqi army to take a walk. Don't you remember how quickly it was all over, amazing everyone? Nobody could understand why there hadn't been weeks or months of hand-to-hand fighting in the streets of Baghdad and every other city? And then it came out that BushCo had simply bought that quick surrender?

That's why there wasn't 500K casualties. They were bought off with more of our money. Now, why we couldn't have simply bought the whole thing so that poor Ali would still have has arms and a live family....

[rucky]

12. This is extremely helpful!

thank you for posting.

[Myra]

13. Thank you! It's excellent to see a comparison of the best two candidates.

eom

[catherineD]

14. Clark is pro-affirmative action and pro-choice

Thanks for posting. Clark is probably more committed to pro-choice than Kucinich, who I also admire (I started with him). Clark would also be much better able to get his agenda through Congress than Kucinich would, as Kucinich's ties are all to the far left, while Clark would be more likely to persuade moderates of both parties to support his policies. And practically speaking, I doubt there are many Kucinich supporters who still think there candidate might win. But if they don't want a more conservative candidate -- Dean -- who is likely to leave them with an ultra-conservative president -- Bush -- they should be thinking carefully in the months ahead about their best options.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Exactly,

Clark is a good alternative to Kucinich. I like Dennis, very much and hope he has a position in Clark's new administration. They are closely aligned on the issues.

[Nadienne]

17. I (a Kucinich supporter) can still hope...

And not until after the primaries will I switch.

As for the mostly Republican Congress: It will be nearly impossible for any Democratic president to get anything passed. It is not enough to elect a democratic president. We have to go the distance and elect a Congress that will support whichever democrat gets elected.

(Which is something Kucinich has pointed out, by the way.)

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. I know.

I don't blame you for sticking by Kucinich...he's a good candidate and he's right, we need to elect Democrats to congress in order to get anything done and Clark will help do that. JMCPO

[Tatiana]

21. Kick

:kick:

[Myra]

27. Kick

eom

[Tinoire]

25. Occupation? Israel? GMOs? Corporations? FTAA? War? SOA?

Cute. Let me guess, the courting has begun?

Start courting Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun, Edwards

The long-shot candidates are seeing the beginning of the end, and thinking about how to get out with dignity and still send a message that will influence the national campaign and serve their supporters. Sharpton is looking, of course, for ways to stay in the public eye and maybe get another gig on SNL. And since he consistently has the best lines few will object if he stays on longer. But they know it's over.
What they want is respect, and a way for their message not to go away. Clark's approach should be:


To Kucinich: "I share your goal of making nonviolence a guiding principle of our policies. If I am the nominee instead of you, I can't say I'll do things exactly as you would. But how can I still give respect to your ideas and keep some of your message in the public eye?"
To Braun: "I've been proud to stand next to you during campaign events and see the way you stand up for women and the poor and for a clear alternative to the direction we're heading. While I can't say I'll do things exactly the same way you would, if I'm the nominee instead of you, what advice can you give me about keeping alive some of the principles you've stood for in your campaign?"
I'm still thinking of what Clark should say to Rev. Sharpton. Maybe he can offer him a chance to perform with Outkast.

http://blog.forclark.com/story/2003/12/16/103619/20


Kucinich did not walk around for two years with knowledge of U.S. plans to invade “Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan" and say not a word.

Kucinich was clearly, unequivocally against the Iraq war from the start- no waffling, no transformations, no vacillations. No alarming statements that need to be spun such as this one from Clark:"The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with." http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html


Kucinich is anti-Occupation; Clark, as Kucinich pointed out in one of the debates, worked on drafting the plans for the occupation.

Kucinich wants to cancel WTO, NAFTA. Clark actively works with organizations whose goal is to impose economic force of countries that resist.

Kucinich never lobbied for Homeland Security.

Kucinich was an outspoken critic of the Yugoslav war, which Clark directed, and worked tirelessly against it.

Kucinich has wanted the School of the Americas closed for a long time. Clark? Loves the place: He said that he had once taught there and that he supported the school. When I aksed about the many documented Human Rights abuses commited by SOA graduates, his reply was, " Imagine the things that would have happened if these soldiers hadn't been taught our principles of Democracy." I then asked him if he would support the schools closing and he said "I think the school's a good thing, and no I wouldn't kill it." http://www.birddogger.org/news.php?id=117

Kucinich is against WMDs and wants a real Department of Peace. Clark on use of WMDs: PM: "General Clark, do you think that leaders who authorize the use of weapons of mass destruction should be charged with war crimes?"

WC: "I would decide that on a case by case basis."

PM: "As President, would you use weapons of mass destruction?"

WC: "I would keep a nuclear deterrence. I would do whatever was necessary. http://www.birddogger.org/news.php?id=127

Kucinich opposes nuclear weapons. Clark only believes in non-proliferation for other countries.

Kucinich believes in even-handedness for the Israel/Palestine issue and recognizes the new wall for what it is- just another step in the land grab and dispossession of the Palestinians. Clark? I asked "Would you as presidential candidate or president complain to the Israeli Government if they continue to erect walls as barriers to keep the Palestinian people from freely moving in their homeland?

Wesley Clark replied that he would not complain and went on to explain his view that the Israeli government has the "right to protect themselves". http://www.birddogger.org/news.php?id=111

Kucinich is against the FTAA. Clark supports the WTO, IMF, World Bank, FTAA, NAFTA and other so-called "free trade" policies.

--

As Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting noted, Clark, back on January 21, told CNN, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point, but just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the President is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." Sounding all the world like Henry Kissinger, he said, "The credibility of the United States is on the line."

This view will not fly with Democratic primary voters who are motivated to support a genuine anti-war candidate.
http://www.progressive.org/webex03/wx091903.html

"I believe Gen. Wesley Clark is Bill Clinton's wrecking ball to destroy the work of the progressives in the Democratic Party...so that Bush can have his second term and the DLC can put up their candidate in 2008, Sen. Hillary Clinton." Political analyst Lloyd Hart

So do I.

[redqueen]

26. Well done

Suckers for PR, we are.