Why I'm Switching From Clark To Edwards....

[economic justice]

I have been with Clark for quite some time. However, there are several things that have given me cause to pause and today was the final straw. I am supporting John Edwards through the primary season. I'll support Clark only if he's the Democratic nominee.

Things that have troubled me....

1. Clark has said that he NEVER supported the war. The testimony to the closed-door congressional committee tells a different story. It seems to confirm his hawkish comments in the London paper.

2. Praising the Bush team in Arkansas was something that only REALLY bothered me after the other things started adding up. Now, I see that as the REAL Wesley Clark.

3. His waffling position on abortion....not that I disagree, it's just a pattern I don't like....one day there's "no restrictions at all"....the next day it's something quite different.

4. His comments about Kerry in that interview really troubled me a lot. It sure seemed to me he was giving a kick in the butt to Kerry for "only" being a lieutenant. In fact, in two interviews in a row, I saw the "General" side of Clark and I didn't like it one bit. I get this feeling he simply is not used to hearing disagreement on things and he really seems like he feels he should always get his way - and the presidency just doesn't work that way. It's NOT the military.

5. Nothing like 9-11 would happen when HE'S president. This really got me wondering. How incredibly irresponsible to say such a thing. It's almost like putting a bullseye on our nation if he were to become president. Frankly, I almost saw it as Clark's version of "Bring It On." At any rate, it was a stupid thing to say.

6. Today.....Again, I didn't like the pattern. Clark's saying he "worked himself through college" at West Point instead of his being raised wealthy was troubling. What was he thinking? West Point is a full-scholarship school.

There were a few other things as well, but these were the major things and, for me, I felt that I had to switch to Edwards, especially given the fact that he is closer to me on economic issues. I have felt this coming and I feel good about my decision.

If people are wondering "what's happened to Clark," I just hope they don't blame it on anybody (or anything) than Wesley Clark. I'm not the only one that saw all of the above and has come to this decision.

Have a good night......

[xultar]

1. You are WRONG about #1 n/t

[economic justice]

6. Thanks

Don't get too wordy in your reply. I hope (?) you have more to say. I don't think I am "wrong" though good people can disagree.

[AP]

16. For me, this biggest problem re #1 is not so much the truth as it is

how much time it takes to get to the truth.

In that one CNN debate, they litereally spent 5 of the first 10 minutes addressing what Clark was trying to say in that editorial, and then EVERY questioner went back to it trying to figure out exactly how to reduce that issue down to a paragraph explaining what happened. They were still talking about it 25 minutes into the debate, and it was no clearer at the end as it was at the beginning.

If it's so hard to explain, and if you can't get it down to a logical, concise paragraph, you're never going to get voters to figure out an impregnably pro-Clark summary in their head which they can take to the polls with them and use to help them pull the lever for Clark.

[KittyWampus]

23. It Was CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY - Not An Edwards Speech

[AP]

33. I really have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

Do you remember the CNN debate?

[Foswia]

80. Great one!

[economic justice]

You got it right

That's exactly right. I will add this - too many times it seems that Clark will say something and then later (after talking to his staff) he has to "clarify" and his clarifications seem to only demand more questions. Maybe due to his background, but he seems to have a VERY hard time saying that he was mistaken or wrong or whatever. Your point is well taken here.

[AP]

32. It may be oversimplifying matters to say this, however,

he campaigns like a person used to giving orders, rather than persuading people with arguments. He has great skills for a general. But a president doesn't just give orders. A president makes arguments, and hopes to persuade people.

[tishaLA]

38. Those "clarifications" are necessary because of

media misrepresentations more than anything else. I think Clark's position on the war is perfectly clear, but it cannot be reduced to a talking point. That's fine. I like the idea of a president who has complex ideas. (BTW, I think the same is true of Kerry, who I like significantly less: his ideas are not easily compressed into sound bites. We should admire that in a candidate, IMHO.)

[AP]

45. The candidate who can easily compress their persona into sound bytes

which voters easily comprehend and which are logicall consistent (internally and externally) will win.

The canididate who operates in a cloud of meaning not easily comprehend won't win.

[tishaLA]

50. I'm sure the networks are happy

people think that way.

[AP]

75. People DO think that way. Just yesterday I was listening

to a story about how Lincoln's campaing was so effective because he reduced complicated ideas down to paragraphs and sentences which people were able to understand and use.

Did you watch the Iowa caucuses? Did you happen to notice how people persuaded others to switch to their candidates. They did it in sentences and paragraphs. Not through lectures.

[CivilRightsNow]

96. Welcome to...

A brighter reality and really, one of the only shots we have at a brighter future. I'd welcome Kerry and be lukewarm about Dean.

Clark is the same thing we have now, IMHO. Except, in a way, more devastating because his whole make up alters the fabric of reality that makes up the beautiful all encompassing tapestry of the Democratic party. If I want to wrap myself in a flag, stand guard with my gun and drink a Starbucks latte while Im doing it, Ill just register Republican. Not in my party.. Not in my name.. not in the name of electability.

[xultar]

2. You are WRONG about #2 n/t

[bigwillq]

7. IS he right on #3-#6?

I don't follow Clark much. Maybe I should since he is running for president but nothing attracts me about Clark so I don't normally watch him when he's on TV.

Edit: Misspelled my subject. Makes a big difference now. Sorry.

[OKNancy]

Not really on 6

a guy has to have SOME money when you go to West Point. Just because tuition is paid doesn't mean every expense is taken care of.
If money can't be sent from home...you work.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[xultar]

12. Change You repugs to The repugs, don't get a deleted post.

Welcome to du :hi:

[economic justice]

14. Edit??? My alert button still works.

It's against DU rules to call somebody a Republican. I have never voted for a Republican IN MY LIFE. Ridiculous. Only Republicans would care about all of the above?

[KittyWampus]

26. Well, The Talking Points Are All There

[economic justice]

35. And AGAIN

Isn't that insulting to suggest that only Republicans would care about the things I wrote about???? These are REAL issues....and saying only Republicans would care -- is insulting.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[xultar]

4. #3 was a legitimate misstatement. I suppose you have never done that. n/t

[AP]

21. If you do that when you're running for president, expect to suffer the

consequences.

It helps to be near-perfect and a rhetorical genius if you want to win a presidential election as a democrat!

[tishaLA]

49. Is that like misrepresenting what DoMA says?

I seem to remember someone saying it was its antithesis in the last debate, even though he is a litagator and it is the law of the land.

[AP]

51. Start a new thread if you want to debate that.

I never did get your reply to that roadmap I layed out.

How do you imagine that debate going?

[tishaLA]

56. I posted his entire comments on a thread.

They speak for themselves. I don't need to comment on them.

[AP]

76. but you can't take the time set out a paragraph about

what you think should be donw, and you can't make an argument about why?

[tishaLA]

77. I feel like I've explained it, AP

I really do.

Trust me, I'm not hostile toward Edwards. I simply disagree with him.

[AP]

84. Got a link? Mostly you've explained that you disagree with

Edwards. I'm trying to figure out what you think the ideal position is for the candidate to have, and then I'm wondering how you think that position is going to translate into policy and into a strategy that results in your ultimate goal.

I haven't seen that from you yet.

[BootinUp]

5. One thing

:puke:

[xultar]

8. You are WRONG about #4 You've never said oh he only drives a truck

not meaning anything by it.

[HootieMcBoob]

9. Wrong about #4 n/t

[DjTj]

10. Welcome!

You have chosen wisely. :hi:

...needed to say something positive to counter all the Clark flaming.

[Jerseycoa]

11. Best of luck and all

:toast:


But it's hard to think you ever were for Clark in the first place.

Clark supporters, read this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=193860

[economic justice]

20. Excuse me?

"But it's hard to think you ever were for Clark in the first place."

Have you seen the polls? I have and I have thought, "I see I'm not the only one." A LOT of people were supporting Clark until too many things weren't adding up.

[Jerseycoa]

29. With all these doubts about a candidate

I don't understand why you would have supported the candidate is what I mean.

[lurk_no_more]

87. Wrong Reply

And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[lurk_no_more]

89. Transparent as hell!

And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[kstewart33]

13. Follow your gut...

But Clark is a great guy and a top notch American. I wish we had someone of his character right now in the White House.

[Jack_Dawson]

15. 666 posts and defecting to Edwards

Coincidence?

:tinfoilhat:

[BootinUp]

59. That was funny/scary

Anyone wanna watch The Omen?

:scared:

[overground1]

17. good on you! - n/t

[xultar]

18. #5, puhleezzzz shows that he is a NEwbie on the campaign trail he's

over zealous...
remember he isn't a politician. We've all overstated or exagerated something at one point.

[KittyWampus]

19. You Watch Too Much FOX

apparently

[xultar]

22. #6, WRONG! HUGE REACH my goodness! n/t

[dennis4868]

24. If you were really a Clark supporter at one time then....

the media has gotten to you....feel bad for you.

[xultar]

34. Puhleez, couldn't have been a real Clark Supporter. We'd never change

on BS like that.

[economic justice]

43. That's ridiculous

If you are suggesting that only if I traveled with Clark in the campaign and got my news DIRECTLY from him could I be truly informed.....that's ridiculous!! How do YOU get your information? I read the papers, the web, listen/watch the news, etc... JUST LIKE YOU.

[dennis4868]

62. not from the mainstreem media....

that is where all the BS about Clark is coming from....stop surfing on the net and get back to watching FOX....you may have missed a good lie about Clark.

[Blue_Roses]

102. that's definitely not a fair assumption

because others feel the same way. Clark is a great man, but I too, think he's just not ready for politics yet.

[maddezmom]

25. sorry to see you go, but you picked a good man

Wes is still my #1, but I respect a lot of the guys running and will be happy to vote for them in Novemeber.

edited to ad a "r" to sorry.

[Ivote]

47. I am going to have to

desist, I am a Clark supporter. I cannot vote for anyone that has helped this regime succeed in what they attempted to do. So that leaves the Senators club off my list. I will not be an accomplice to the destruction of this country. We have to take a stand once and for all, otherwise they will continue to do whatever they want.
If Clark or Dean doesn't win I guess I will have to sit this election out. It will tear my heart especially since this will be the first election I will not take part in after 39 years. I will no longer be part of a mockery to the constitution.

[maddezmom]

66. sorry you feel that way

I understand your issues with the other candidates, but my biggest concern it to get the false pres out. :) Not everyone here agrees with me, and they don't have to..that's the beauty or a democracy. You do what you think is best and I will do the same.

[xultar]

27. Whew only 6 that was really to easy...I know there are more...

Bring it on? Where's Joe-momentum?

[AP]

28. Clark is a great person, with a great biography, but he's not a great...

...candidate.

He has not campaigned very well, and he doesn't come off as being natural or "at-ease" in the roll of civilian candidate.

I wish he were, but there's too much at risk. People are going to vote on the man they see in front of them, and not the man on paper.

That's how Bush won. It's how Clinton won for that matter.

[Awsi Dooger]

86. Excellent summation, AP. My feelings exactly

I gave Clark every opportunity to improve and impress, from his spring appearance at the University of Arkansas' class on the Clinton presidency thru countless CSPAN events and the debates. His technical merit is so awkward and flawed that it's hard to get past that and appreciate the terrific background and proposals.

I really wish Clark had stayed out of the race, since solid VP candidates are much more viable if they did not run for president that year.

[Rowdyboy]

30. Sorry your going but since Edwards is my second choice,

I can live with it.

[lcordero]

31. hmmmmmmm

he had a 6 year commitment to the US Army after he graduated.

[wroberts189]

36. Some of these points are media distortions..

For the record I support Dean, Clark, Edwards or Kucinich.

They are all good candidates.

1. - This was a drudge distortion and smear. Read what he actually said and you will see he did not support it. This is a good example how the repubs get their spin into the media.

2. I dont know about this one

3. Again... look at the interview and what he was asked.. he was asked "when does life begin?" Its the pundits that are saying he is waffling..

4. no comment

5. I dont know about this one either

6. Probably another media distortion. He said he could not afford Yale and had to go to West point. I did not read that he said he worked his way through college but if he did I would not knock him
for it as West point is no country club. I think the point he was making is that is childhood was not priviledged..

I do have very real concerns about Clark. Generals are not known for being nice guys. And I think your correct in pointing out that Generals are used to getting their way. But if you listen to his
subordinates you find they all think he is great...

The verdict is still out for me but I don't think he is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Just look at how the right wing is already trying to smear him...

[MoonRiver]

37. How do you feel about Edwards actually voting for the IWR?

He also refuses to back down from that act by admitting it a huge mistake. If he and/or Kerry did that they would gain enormous credibility in my mind.

[JohnnyFianna1]

39. No subject

As for the "Nothing like 9/11" would happen when he was president. This might be a reference to how for the first 7 months of the Bush administration he ignored terrorism. With the department of Homeland Security and the FBI working overtime, plus a redirection of the military in general (GET OUT of IRAQ, and bring in the U.N., cut the fat out of the pentagon budget) against Al Qaeda. Bush's approval rating at the rally in question was almost 85%, rivaling Reagan's record. Do you really want to keep 85% of Americans from coming back to the Democratic Party, or running for President in the future? We are the Democratic Party we should welcome all former Bush supporters with open arms. IF his supporting Bush once was really an issue with you I somehow don't believe you ever really supported Bush. The media has been blasting this since the beginning of Clark's candidacy. Btw I really like Edwards and I'll be voting for him in the primaries. I'm one of those crazy Democrats that think a centrist like Kerry or Edward's or both would bave the best chance of beating Bush.:think:

[krkaufman]

55. And we won't even ask them to repent...!!

> We are the Democratic Party we should welcome
> all former Bush supporters with open arms.

Exactly. You "get it." Just like General Clark does. Here's his quote from Sunday's 'Meet the Press' (1/25):

"We'll even bring in people who voted for Reagan, and even Richard Nixon, and we're not even going to ask them to repent."

[Jerseycoa]

73. Welcome to DU, JohnnyFianna1

:hi:




Clark supporters, read this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=193860

[Bread and Circus]

41. Clark is very far from perfect, I'll agree, but I believe you...

have been hoodwinked by the GOP and RW media.

Kerry will be a fine President.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[arewethereyet]

91. seems a little personal my friend, take care

perhaps he's just opened his eyes.

[HootieMcBoob]

44. I don't believe you really were a Clark supporter

All of those things are media spin and distortions. Prove you were a Clark supporter. Show a link to a thread from a week ago or longer in which you declare your support for Clark. This is a friendly challenge :)

[xultar]

46. Hey. Mama DU here...Clark supporters, please keep watch...

you know what I'm sayin....

[economic justice]

53. That is SOOOO insulting. <eom>

[OKNancy]

54. I did a search for the heck of it

He says, I'm a Clark supporter, but....... in almost every post.
He also had a huge graphic of Edwards book on one of his posts.

He may have supported Clark, but it was really really weak support.

[economic justice]

60. This is almost funny

Analyzing my posts to see if I was a "real" Clark supporter. That's a perfect definition of petty.

[OKNancy]

61. I'll tell you what petty is

It is that list of so-called reasons why you "suddenly" changed to Edwards form Clark. It's like you bought the Republican spin hook,line and sinker.

It's not petty, it's called being one pissed off Clark supporter. I'm going to go now and make more phone calls to New Hampshire. How many have you made, since you were such a good supporter?

[in_cog_ni_to]

52. When he needs your support the most

you're bailing on him. How sad. He's going to do well tomorrow, you know. The blog is full of people who are coming to the Clark campaign from other campaigns. I think some people fall for the RW rhetoric easier than others.

Go Wes!

[economic justice]

57. That's sad

That if the media reports Clark's missteps, contradictions, etc. it's just the RW and the Republicans. Just like when the media reports on something WE like and the RW hates, they blame it on the "liberal media." Please.....these are honest feelings that came about after much consideration....to say differently (like you KNOW me or something) is truly rude and insulting. I was expecting a few flames, but I honestly expected more like Rowdyboy's than these really personal attacks.

[overground1]

58. Clark will say anything to become President - he is only after power

The sooner Democrats figure out this two-faced opportunist's game, the sooner we can boot him out of the way and select a committed Democrat with integrity and Democratic values.

[mmonk]

63. So you think Clark is a hawk on the Iraq war,

so you switch your support to a hawk on the war in Iraq? The logic escapes me.

[economic justice]

65. Duplicity

It is the duplicity that is troubling. I am opposed to the war in Iraq. But frankly, I find that I respect Edwards and Kerry for their not pandering and trying to talk around their votes.

[mmonk]

70. I believe a majority of Americans still support the Iraq war

so if Clark is pandering, he's doing it in the wrong direction. In my opinion, you've really switched your vote to a politician (where pandering is more at home).

[RageAgainstTheirMachine]

64. Let me tell you something about military academies ...

I went to one for two years (then transferred to a civilian school) and you do work your way through school ... you have more work and responsibility than ANY other civilian school.

Wes is right on this one. Give him a break.

[economic justice]

67. Sorry....but...

Che Guevara??........

He was *specifically* talking about financially....how he couldn't afford Yale and went to West Point where he "worked himself through college." Now, what do you think he meant? If you try what some in this thread have tried, it just proves FOX doesn't have a corner on turning apples into oranges.

[RageAgainstTheirMachine]

100. He was talking about what it takes to get through a military academy

When you're at an academy, you're considered active duty military. You have military duties everyday, including weekends (we usually had Sundays off). Your military duties plus classes require more time and effort than a college kid who has a job (I know, I've lived both sides)

[Hoppin_Mad]

68. Sorry to see some Clark supporters are treating you so poorly

They're not all like that !

[economic justice]

71. Thank you

I appreciate that. It is a little surprising to see the intensity of the anger. I didn't expect to make Clark supporters HAPPY, but wow, I didn't expect this. Thanks again.

[mmonk]

95. One of the reasons Clark is running

is because of the current foreign policy. At least if you're going to change, pick someone who isn't diametrical opposed to the Clark position if you don't want to face some anger. Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton weren't for the Iraq war or the deception used in selling it.

[citizen snips]

69. You have made a good choice economic justice.

Thanks for supporting Edwards.

[Rowdyboy]

74. Supporting Edwards is fine...He's my second choice

self-deleted

[economic justice]

79. Rowdyboy

And here I was bragging on you. You are mistaken. A search of my posts will reveal I WAS a Clark supporter. Right after I joined DU I said I was a Clark supporter. I don't know why you would say that a search would prove otherwise. I agree, claiming to be a Clark supporter and to NOT BE, would be contemptible. I wouldn't even think of such a thing. Search my posts - you'll see.

[Rowdyboy]

81. I apologize if I sounded like I was accusing you....

Someone earlier said they had done a search and found those results. I, myself, did not, nor did I verify their statement. That's why I phrased it the way I did. IF someone does that, it is reprehensible and you agree with me on that. But I was careful not to accuse you because I haven't seen it myself-manipulation is so easy to do on boards like this that you learn to distrust most everything you see.

For the record, my original statement stands. I am sorry to see you go. I find several of your reasons highly debatable but you have a right to your opinion. And, again, Edwards is my second choice, so I may be joining you in about a month and a half if things don't work out.

[tryanhas]

72. You said this:

"4...In fact, in two interviews in a row, I saw the "General" side of Clark and I didn't like it one bit. I get this feeling he simply is not used to hearing disagreement on things and he really seems like he feels he should always get his way - and the presidency just doesn't work that way. It's NOT the military."

I say, BINGO!!!

That is why I said the other night, only to have my post removed, that Clark is a psycho.

I'm not tearing down a candidate when I say that! I'm saying what I have seen from Clark. He is like a loose cannon and he shoots out too much all of the time.

He hates to be challenged, and the other night on CNN he jumped on Bob Dole for nothing. Now Dole is a Republican, but he's not one of those ones that I just really cannot stand, like Tom Delay, Bush, Cheney. Bob Dole actually can sit down and have reasonable and thoughtful discussions. Now, he just asked Clark a question last Monday and Clark ERUPTED, and either Blitzer of Larry King just went to commercial cutting his tirade off and Clark was still pointing his finger and trying to "YOU LISTEN" tell someone what they need to be told.

His entire campaign is about "TAKING ON" Bush. That's not good enough. When you campaign is FOCUSED ON THE OPPONENT it is doomed for failure, because it is reactionary and therefore, under the control OF your opponent.

Clark is too testy, and too UNPREDICTABLE to be the nominee. He would NO DOUBT slip up and say something, or hit someone if he was the nominee, and be written off as too violent. Edwards didn't snap on O'Reilly tonight, and I wish that he would have been more forceful tonight, but he knows when to be and when not to be. Clark is just to wreckless to be the nominee, so I agree with you...

[SeveneightyWhoa]

97. "Loose cannon"..."testy".."unpredictable".."violent".."psycho"?

Interesting, most of your post seems like it came STRAIGHT out of a right-wing forum.

What kind of a Democrat would actually call a man like Clark a "psycho"?

[Justice]

78. Edwards Is A Fine Person

But in my view, your reasons for switching from Clark suggest that you haven't really looked at these issues.

I support Clark fully, and am ABB.

Edwards if a fine person, and deserving of your vote.

[LiberalBushFan]

82. How many of those quotes have you checked the context of?

You shouldn't let FNC smears influence you so easily. You need to check the context on almost all 6 points. Not to mention these are slurs that wouldn't stick in the general election but are used to turn off nervous, untrusting primary voters, which is easy to do with short snippets on TV. If you want to beat Bush, and have a candidate to who can rail against the Patriot Act and Iraq without Bush being able to repeatedly answer "you voted for them, you voted for them, neener neener neener" please reconsider Clark.

[JPJones]

83. Gee, I don't recognize your name...

and if those things bothered you, you would have stopped supporting Clark a long time ago.

I smell a ruse.

[economic justice]

85. Gee...

Gee, I don't recognize YOUR name. Does that mean YOU don't support YOUR candidate? Search my posts. This is really getting ridiculous.

[gulliver]

88. Edwards is my second choice, but he is a long way from ...

... being the winner Clark would be for the Democratic party, country, and world.

Clark beats Edwards in intelligence, leadership experience, position on the Iraq war, foreign policy standing, and military service.

[mikehiggins]

90. You have to be kidding.

Is that the RNC talking points memo?

1. In the same testimony you are referring to Richard Perle himself said straight out that Clark clearly did not want to go to war and was arguing against it. That has been posted here several times. Who would know better than one of the architects of the war? You? Bill O'Rielly?

2. Clark also spoke at Democratic events during the same period of time. They aren't quoted because they don't support the anti-Clark point of view. You may not be aware of this, but MOST Americans spoke well of George Bush and his team, all the way up to the "shock and awe" campaign against Iraq. Where were you?

3. Do you know what Clark said? Have you read the quotes? Where did you hear about this, and from whom? Check your premises, as Ayn Rand used to say. If you read the actual interview which started this crap did you find something objectionable in it? If the Hannity's of the world claim Clark said something, is he supposed to let that ride because they are on tv?

4. Just bull. I heard the comment Clark made, and I had no problem with his reply to a put-down from Bob Dole. I know there are some folks that would like our candidates to take all sorts of crap from the GOP but it that's what you're looking for, you're looking at the wrong candidate. Again, you seem incredibly willing to believe any and all negatives against your supposed candidate.

5. I guess you figure that the Bush administration was in no way negligent or could not have prevented TWENTY terrorists from sneaking into this country and boarding FOUR different planes with weapons. Are you for real? What Clark said is absolutely true. A new attack like 9/11 is NOT inevitable, and the one we suffered was not either.
Why don't you ask why the White House is dragging its feet on giving information to the investigation? Is it because their hands are clean? Who else is willing to call them on it? We wanted a candidate that would challenge Bush. Why knock him when he does?

6. How did Clark get into West Point? How did he stay there? How did he get to be top of his class. He worked for it all the way through. Just what did George Bush have to do to get into and stay in Yale? Open his own beer cans? Just because the media whores spin something the way that benefits the GOP, why do you believe it? When exactly did they tell us the truth about anything, let alone Clark?

There will be lots of people posting here, trying to undermine the Clark supporters with all this sad, depressing crap. There will be lots of people here fighting on.

Me, I gotta go address some postcards.

We'll miss you.

[funky_bug]

92. Dear Poster

Please take the anger coming from Clark supporters as lightly as possible. Sometimes, in our attempt to portray our passion, we veer off the road and end up piled on top of one another in a muddy ditch.

Let me try to shed some persepective on the doubts and frustrations of those who support Wes Clark.

As each candidate in our race reaches a point of media scrutiny, there are certain common elements which begin to be batted around on right wing sights, and sadly, here at DU. I read your points, and while I respect your right to chose who you support, I do not respect the reasons you have given. The reason myself, and other Clark supporters doubt the intention of your post is quite simple; the majority of the points you gave are, as my friend dear friend Ed (a Dean supporter)would say, "so yesterday." Each one of them has been debated on this forum a number of times, and depending on which way you lean, you can find support or rebuttal for them all.

As a long time Clark supporter, (who thinks quite highly of Senator Edwards), I have yet to find any validity to these points you have made. While Wes has a tendancy to speak off the cuff, he has never waffled... stumbled maybe, but never waffled. You see, he doesn't protect himself from public scrutiny. When he does a pancake breakfast, or a town hall meeting, the cameras roll while he takes question after question from voters. His responses cannot always be prepared statements, and often, he suffers from an occassional regretable statement. Wes has made clear his views on a woman's right to choose, and his voting record, and if you really were looking to get to the bottom of any of your points, you would only need to dig a bit deeper to find out why he made those statements to a foreign press, or what it takes to work your way through West Point.

If you chose to throw your support behind another candidate, I'm sure Wes would be the first to tell you that you have the right to go with your heart, and your gut, and fight for your country for all your worth. However, I must add my name to the list of doubters, and say that I feel you must not have been a firm Clark supporter. With your number of posts, I'm sure you've been around DU long enough to see your points debunked over and over (with the exception of West Point, which is the brand new rant today.)

I wish you well in your search for a viable, credible candidate. However, I fear that your quest for a messiah will only lead to heartache. None of our boys are perfect, and if you buy into each slam on them, you're liable to end up quite disillusioned.

[robbedvoter]

93. RNC convinced you to go for the prowar candidate?(Cuz you're against war)

Good luck to ya! Say hi to Shelton on your way, thell him to say hi to Milo and W!

[digno dave]

94. point by point rebuttals

Things that have troubled me....

1. Clark has said that he NEVER supported the war. The testimony to the closed-door congressional committee tells a different story. It seems to confirm his hawkish comments in the London paper.

I hope you have read the whole testimony. If you had i don't think you would be writing that. His testimony was all-encompassing. He was addressing all possible options and their ramifications. Perle himself, after listening to the testimony, concluded that Clark was against going into Iraq.Even if he once did support the war, that puts him on equal ground with Kerry and Edwards because they VOTED for the war and now are crawfishing.


2. Praising the Bush team in Arkansas was something that only REALLY bothered me after the other things started adding up. Now, I see that as the REAL Wesley Clark.

I believe that speech was given shortly after 9/11. I don't know of any American who wasn't hoping that the Bush Ad. would make good decisions in the aftermath. Bush had 90% approval rating after 9/11. There must have been a lot of Democrats supporting him during that time period for him to garner 90% support. A lot of Democrats had respect for Powell before he caved under the pressure of the neo-cons.


3. His waffling position on abortion....not that I disagree, it's just a pattern I don't like....one day there's "no restrictions at all"....the next day it's something quite different.

This is a reach. Abortion is a politically sensitive issue with a very sensitive, codified language that politicians must abide by. We all know where Clark stands on this issue.



4. His comments about Kerry in that interview really troubled me a lot. It sure seemed to me he was giving a kick in the butt to Kerry for "only" being a lieutenant. In fact, in two interviews in a row, I saw the "General" side of Clark and I didn't like it one bit. I get this feeling he simply is not used to hearing disagreement on things and he really seems like he feels he should always get his way - and the presidency just doesn't work that way. It's NOT the military.

I think the General is very good at pooling ideas and coming to a consensus. Look at dealing with NATO. I do admit, though, that the general/lieutenant comment was not good. I have only heard about it, though. I didn't read the transcript or see the interview on tv, unless you are referring to the Dole interview, in which case this point has no validity at all. I was under the assumption that there was another general/lieutenant comment.


5. Nothing like 9-11 would happen when HE'S president. This really got me wondering. How incredibly irresponsible to say such a thing. It's almost like putting a bullseye on our nation if he were to become president. Frankly, I almost saw it as Clark's version of "Bring It On." At any rate, it was a stupid thing to say.

He has said he was calling Bush on his willingness to "accept" the inevitability of another attack.


6. Today.....Again, I didn't like the pattern. Clark's saying he "worked himself through college" at West Point instead of his being raised wealthy was troubling. What was he thinking? West Point is a full-scholarship school.

Another reach. Granted it was pandering, but the point is well taken. It was a poor choice of words and not very tactful, but there is truth in the statement.

[LoneStarLiberal]

98. I'd Only Take One Issue With You

While I disagree with your reasons, they are all valid reasons to be nervous if you don't believe in Wes Clark and if you haven't heard, read, and seen the full weight of his comments on many of these issues.

The one I will take issue with is:

6. Today.....Again, I didn't like the pattern. Clark's saying he "worked himself through college" at West Point instead of his being raised wealthy was troubling. What was he thinking? West Point is a full-scholarship school.

You're right in saying that the USMA is a full-scholarship school, but believe me you work your ass off for that scholarship. You work your ass off to get it, and then you work your ass off when you are in school at West Point, Annapolis, Air Force, or the Coast Guard Academy. It's nothing like getting an academic scholarship to a "normal" university; it's all that work load and expectation plus a whole other life's worth of work.

Dismissing it as "a full scholarship school" completely misses the point of what a service academy is all about for those who attend.

What was he thinking? Probably about how hard he worked while he was at West Point. That would be my guess.

[TexasSissy]

99. Changing your mind is one thing. Actively dissing him is another.

How mean and low can you go? If you are this ticked off at half-truths that you haven't bothered to check out, you were never really a Clark supporter (gotcha).

[JohnLocke]

101. kick

:kick: