Dean is politically experienced - Clark, not at all

[Scott Lee]

As amazingly funny as it is, that someone would dare try to pit a governor against a guy who has never even been elected dog catcher, here's how Governor Dean's political experience stacks up to General Clark's:



HOWARD DEAN

Political Experience:
Governor, State of Vermont, 1991-2002
Lieutenant Governor, State of Vermont, 1986-1991
Vermont House of Representatives, Assistant Minority Leader, 1985-1986
Vermont House of Representatives, 1983-1986
Jimmy Carter Re-Election Campaign, Volunteer, 1980.

Organizations:
Democratic Governors' Association, Executive Committee, 1997-present
Democratic Governors' Association, Chair, 1997
National Governors' Association, Chair, 1994-1995
National Education Goals Panel, former Member
National Governors' Association Task Force on Health Care, former Co-Chair.

Caucuses/Non-Legislative Comittees:
Member, National Governor's Association's Executive Committee
Past Chair, National Governor's Assocaition.

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=CNIP0634




WESLEY CLARK


… Before the sun sets, the nine veteran wannabes will face a new – although probably not unexpected – opponent: The Clark Challenge. From Little Rock, the Washington Post’s Jim VandeHei reported in today’s editions: “Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, a prominent military leader with no national political experience, has told friends and advisers that he will enter the presidential race on Wednesday, shaking up the wide-open fight for the Democratic nomination.


http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/cartoonarc/Tipping.htm




Well, my stars. It sure puts things in proper perspective, doesn't it?

[w13rd0]

1. Would Reno have made a better nominee for FL Gov in 2002?

Rather than Bill McBride? Oh wait, wrong thread...or is it?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[maddezmom]

3. my stars

maybe for you it puts in perspective....they both would be better than bush*.

[SayitAintSo]

4. Oh Puh-leeze ....

You don't think NATO Supreme Commander gave him more than a little political experience ? How 'bout international politics sweetie ... a bit more than Mr. Shrubbery had/has not to mention Dean. Working in Washington in the various administrations didn't give him political experience ?

Well my stars ... Pretty weak position if you ask me ...

[slinkerwink]

6. for starters, Clark has NO CIVILIAN POLITICAL EXPERIENCE

therefore you cannot say he's better than Dean in American domestic policy or governance.

[maddezmom]

8. what's with the caps?

[mikehiggins]

29. Exasperation? Desperation? Frustration? Your guess. eom

[TexasPatriot]

19. i'm sorry

but the city of Austin is bigger than Vermont, and I dont go thinking Will Win (though he's a great guy) has the domestic policy cred to make his experience a strength. Clinton caught crap for Arkansas being tiny, Dean will catch the same crap (whether now or in the GE).

Dean has strengths - play to them and make a positive case rather than dissing your own candidate with faint praise.

[Scott Lee]

26. If you think it's wise to pit Clark's (lack of) political experience

against Deans, then I believe you are not really in a position to be dispensing campaign advice like:

"Dean has strengths - play to them and make a positive case rather than dissing your own candidate with faint praise."

[mikehiggins]

28. Certainly we can

how many professional pols are totally ignorant of those concepts? Wasn't there another candidate in California besides Arnold? People voted for the name and the fame, not the knowledge of the game.

Please don't bother me with the "should" argument. We all know people "should" vote rationally but if they did, the Supreme Court would never have had the chance to interfere in Florida.

We can say anything we like about Clark in regard to domestic policy or governance. You don't have to be a Yankee to know how to play baseball.

[TLM]

48. Yeah and Dean held his job because the people choose him

5 times in a row to be their leader.

The troops under Clark's command could not disagree with him or vote him out. So to act as if that's anything even close to the same thing is way off base.

Clark's only political experience is essentially that of a dictator. And he was so incompetent at that, he was kicked out of his command.


Bush would wipe the floor with Clark on these issues.

Take away the military and Clark has nothing to run on... nothing.

[Scott Lee]

10. So Clark was elected to how many offices, again?

What's that? Zero? Oh ok, thanks.

[mikehiggins]

31. People elected to public office with great experience and knowledge

of public affairs:

Newt Gingrinch
Tom Delay
Dr. Frist (sp?)
Dick Cheney
Governor George Bush
Governor George Pataki
Senator Strom Thurmond
President Richard Nixon

The list goes on and on and on

Holding an elective office is not necessarily a sign of ability or of progressive tendencies.

[dsc]

33. Maybe you should crack a history book

Some of your list is accurate but others are howlers. Newt held no elective office aside from his Georgia House seat. He was elected in 1978 and was made House Whip in 1989. He was a professor when he first ran. Also Frist was a transplant surgeon when he ran for Senate. Finally Bush was our lest politically experienced leader since at least Kennedy and I think Ike. I would have to look it up but I think Kennedy was in the Congress longer than Bush was a gov.

It is hard to call these people politicaly experienced.

[mikehiggins]

36. I guess it depends on what "is" is, doesn't it

If you frame the debate as "you can only have political experience if you have been elected to an office" then everyone else, from union leaders to the managers of public interest groups like MoveOn or Citizens for the AMerican Way cannot be considered "politically experienced."

Newt may not have been an elected official prior to his election to Congress but what could you base the idea that he was politically "inexperienced" upon? He won an election, didn't he?

Surgeons have no knowledge of "politics" because they don't hold an elective office.

I have never been elected to a public office (well, I was elected a district leader once so I am legally qualified to use Hon. in front of my name) but I have been involved in politics at all levels for forty years. I have been a union activist, and I have been an adminstrative aide at a State College (you can guess which one was the more political). By the standards you apply to Clark and Dean, I am a total neophyte.

Politics isn't that neat and tidy.

[TLM]

49. Wait... you're right. CLark has lots of political experience...

Like experience knowing how to sell his influence to defense contractors. Like knowing how to contact his buddies in the defense department and help get tax payer funded contracts for the companies that hire him.

Why that's the same kind of experience our current Vice President has... and he sure is doing a great job as VP. So clearly you're right. Clark is an experienced insider when it comes to the politics, corporate whoring, and corruption that is status quo business as usual in DC. He’ll fit right in.

Excellent point.

[mikehiggins]

65. The problem with cute little attacks like that TLM

is that they imply that some other candidate is better than that.

Well, lets look at that question, shall we?

All the other MAJOR candidates are professional politicians. Politics is way in which they live their lives, reach their goals, put food on their tables.

Are any of them 99 44/100 percent pure or do they all have to dodge and wheel, compromise and accommodate to succeed in their chosen field?

Oh, but the person I support is motivated by honest and sincere concern for the good of all, and the betterment of mankind, and even though all the other politicians may be total whores who would do anything to get ahead, my candidate, _____________________, is good and pure and wholesome.

Here's a word you may not have encountered before, but which is very helpful when you discuss the moral superiority of a professional politician to someone, for example, who swabs out the booths at porno palaces: bullshit.

You don't think Clark is a good candidate, fine. I think former governors of pocket sized states are generally venal, selfrighteous, pandering whores. We have a right to our opinions but it is foolish to think that expressing them like this is going to advance the political dialogue or make it anymore likely that we will be able to reach our main stated goal, the removal of BushCo from power.

My point in this thread is that it is unrealistic to define political experience as only consisting of running for office. I would bet that almost anyone who was over sixteen and had a brain to think with would understand and agree to the premise that you can come to a very serious understanding of politics via other routes. Fewer, perhaps, would agree with the idea that succeeding in electoral politics often means a skill at pandering to the desires and wishes of various factions, whether they be special interests of political nature or of industry.

From my point of view being a professional politician is very much similiar to being a professional prostitute. I am amused by the postings of people who appear to beleive that their professional politician is pure, clean and wholesome enough to make attacks on someone like Clark legitimate. The only word that fits them is naive.

[Hawkeye-X]

16. Let's see. Governor vs. NATO Supreme Commander

Governor Dean: Working with both sides of the aisle (Republicans and Democrats) and finding a middle ground to work with (gay marriage vs. civil unions vs. just banning it altogether), raised the minimum wage twice in his 11 year political experience, have balanced budgets the entire time although he was not required to do so. He has travelled all over Vermont and listened to his constituents shortly after the civil union vote, and because he listened and explained his side of the story, he narrowly won Vermont in 2000 after Repugs pumped in big money vs. Ruth Dwyer. I can tell you more, but I would suggest reading it directly from a book called "Howard Dean: The Man who would be President" put together by many reporters of Vermont. They were all well-written and clearly explains the issue.

Now, we come to Wesley Clark.

He may be the NATO supreme commander, but everyone has to follow his orders, otherwise would be punished for disobeying the orders. He has never governed civilians, and certainly military doesn't count for this one. A voter pointed out to me only recently that econ professors do not make good presidents because they try to stick with the economic theory which doesn't work. He has no position papers out, but Dean does. What does that tell me about General Clark? Absolutely nothing that makes him a good President. He needs political experience, which he lacks. He would be a much better VP or even SOD, then he can garner the political experience that he needs for 2012 or beyond.

Bill Clinton came from a small rural state. Dean comes from a small rural state. See the parallels? I certainly hope so.

Hawkeye-X

[Scott Lee]

24. Is NATO Supreme Commander an elected position?

No? Thanks, I didn't think so.

[SahaleArm]

40. Like Sewer Commisioners, School Boards, and Precinct Officers? n/t

[Skwmom]

63. Rhodes scholar, brilliant intellect

That describes Bill Clinton and Wesley Clark. See the parallels? I certainly hope so.

As SNC everyone did not just have to follow his orders. He used diplomacy to bring together many countries.

You really paint a rosy picture of Dean's career. To bad it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[meti57b]

17. exactly!

You need quite a bit of political experience and expertise to get promoted to general.

[Kool Kitty]

5. I understand your point,

not that I agree with it. And, if you're going to use Molly Ivins line re: dog catcher, at least give her credit for it.

[slinkerwink]

7. we came up with the dog catcher line a long time before she did

;-)

[Kool Kitty]

9. Really?

Then I most humbly apologize-the first time I saw or heard it was in an article she wrote for "The Progressive". Sorry.

[Scott Lee]

13. Really.

In fact that line has been used around the political message boards for quite a few years. I don't think even Molly, as much as I love her, can claim authorship for it.

[Kool Kitty]

15. Like I said, sorry.

I guess I just don't get around much anymore. But then again, I'm getting a bit old.

[salinen]

11. Sometimes political experience

can be a liability.

[TLM]

50. WHile a total lack of experience

is always a liability.

[Nazgul35]

12. this could have been better stated

without the snarkyness and attacks at General Clark...whom would make a much better president than the current holder of that title....

As a Dean supporter I think that your need to be juvenile and piss a circle around the democratic party is not needed at this juncture of the campaign...

But thanks for playing...

[Scott Lee]

14. It's "juvenile" to state facts?

Thanks for the alert. I guess we'll have to restructure political rhetoric in general now. That's gonna be quite a job.

[imax2268]

18. Heh...

Good Post ScottLee...

Great post...!!!

[w13rd0]

21. I think you are right...

...in that Clark would be better than the current resident in the White House. Any of the democratic candidates would be. If you support Clark, do so. If you support Kerry, do so. If you...you get the picture. I do think that although some posit that lack of political experience can be an asset, we aren't talking about a well-known movie star running against Grey Davis. No one in the democratic field has the name or face recognition of the Gropenfueher, and not a single primary vote has been cast. My day to go to the polls for the primary is Feb 3rd, when is yours? The Gropenfueher was also dealing with an exceptionally abbreviated election cycle (what, one debate and 30 days?), and no primary opposition for the most part.

[Nazgul35]

25. As I stated...

I support Dean....

My primary is in Feb. (Michigan) and I've been out working canvassing and writing letters to Iowa, going to try some phone banking in january...but my point was that too many here allow people to make remarks that are only designed to piss each other off...

If we don't police our own, we can't complain about the others....it's that simple....this could've been expressed better, without the slam at Clark...as can almost any thing here at DU, but those posts fall quickly away and the flamefests are frequented by one and all for the only purpose of slamming each other and one upsmanship.......nothing more....

[jumptheshadow]

20. Well, then, let's look at his records

Howard Dean is running on his experience as governor, right?

Then let's see his records.

He has nothing to be ashamed about, let's just open them.

[Scott Lee]

22. I'm looking for Clark's records around here....somewhere......

oh wait, silly me....he doesn't have any records because

HE'S NEVER BEEN AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.

Falalalaaaalalalalaa.

[mikehiggins]

32. You are on your way to becoming our favorite poster, Scott

Clarks records are an open book, posted on the web site and easily available. They trace the career of a man through 34 years of public service in the military. They are not sealed for five years, or ten years or at all.

Its a lot like the remark above about Clark having no position papers while a certain other candidate has plenty.

Just go to the Clark website and take a look. They aren't hard to find. There are a lot of them.

But thanks for bringing these subjects up. It makes it easier for us to "reply" to them and compare notes with other candidates.

[Scott Lee]

37. I was talking about his records as an elected official.

And YOU'RE becoming one of my favorites too!

Kisses and snuggles.

[TLM]

53. Um do you know the difference between a bio and records?

Clark's site has a nice biography, and so does Dean's.


However you are demanding the records from Dean's correspondence and memos. Now since Clark has never held public office and thus has no experience and no records, we'll just have to be happy with his campaign correspondence and memos. I mean obviously you must support this standard for all the candidates, right... not just Dean.


So please tell me where i can view all the correspondence and memos from the Clark campaign. Obviously since he is so good and honest, all these records must be publicly accessible. Not like that mean Mr. Dean.

[TLM]

51. Butt Scott... CLark is so open and honest...

I'm sure his supporters can link you to the source where you can view all his campaign correspondence and memos.

I mean obviously it would be rather hypocritical to attack Dean for not making his correspondence and memos publicly accessible, if Clark were doing the same thing.

So just ask them or the link to where you can view this material. I’m sure they’ll give it to you.

[TLM]

52. Still waiting for that link....

To the information on where to view the personal correspondence and memos of Clark, Kerry, Gephardt... etc.


I mean if they have nothing to be ashamed about, they should have them open right?

[readmylips]

23. I'm for Dean and I do like Clark but..

Dean has a huge following, he's a leader. Clark is trying to catch up. Dean knows the essence of everyday people, as a doctor and as governor. Clark knows how to follow orders given from the top, orders he trickles down to the bottom foot soldiers. I admire General Clark and his military specialty.

[TLM]

55. I do not think Clark is used to leading people...

at least not people who aren't compelled by law and the threat of Leavenworth to obey him.

[mikehiggins]

27. I guess it did

Clark's entry did shake things up, didn't it?

All that being so, and granting everything you list for Governor Dean, doesn't it seem odd to you that a man like that, with a lengthy resume like that, who discussed running in 2000 and has had four years to work with and unprecedented success in setting up an internet reliant campaign is STILL unable to garner a majority vote of Democrats in ANY state or ANY national poll.

Everywhere, the totals of Democrats NOT voting for Howard Dean overwhelm his supporters claims of elect ability.

If, after all that success, and all that effort, he still cannot convince 50+ percent of the party loyalists to vote for him, just what makes anyone think his campaign is actually viable against the incumbent?

If some people wonder why Clark supporters are so adamant in support of our candidate, we should be able to hold the same views of their candidates.

[Scott Lee]

38. Let me put it in a different perspective for you.

The reason that Dean, right now, doesn't garner more of the Democratic confidence is because he is still not that well known. You will see this radically change after the primary, should Governor Dean get the nomination. With name recognition comes a choice - do you want him or not? I would venture a guess that, based upon Deans wildly successfull campaign to date - literally coming up from nothing to frontrunner - will result in most Democrats who are undecided going with Dean.

There will be detractors, still. They will largely be made up of pouters from the other candidates, who have taken it personally that their guy didn't get the nom so they vow to take their football and go home rather than help the team win. We can't help that. It's human nature. We have to move on and continue to build up support for our, at that time, only choice to unseat the Warchimp.

Now if, as you say, Dean cannot even hope to oust the Warchimp no matter what he does, how do you propose that the Democratic candidates who only managed to garner much LESS popularity and support than Dean be able to accomplish this? Your logic just holds no water here.

Last point - the DLC. I hate to tell you this, but the die has been cast for the future of the Democratic leadership. They came up snake eyes. They lose. They are a losing organization and Democrats are sick of losing. And increasing number of democrats are also fed up with a static party elite who care more about their honored positions in the party than winning elections and pushing forth the "democratic vision" if there is one anymore. They are OUTTA there. Dean missing from the picture won't change that in the least. In fact I venture to say it will increase the hostility toward it among democrats and excacerbate a split in the party, possibly increasing the Greens, Indies or other parties.

Stop thinking like it's 1994. It's a whole new ball game now, and like the shark, it's sink or swim.

[mikehiggins]

46. If the anti-DLC leader is unable to win a majority of the party

activists to his cause, how is it that the DLC will be ousted? Ditto (doncha just love that word?) the state organizations. Even if Dean manages to gain a sufficient number of delegates to win the nomination, if he does not break out of this morass and start winning by significant MAJORITIES he will still be a minority candidate within the Party itself, with little or no leverage to effectuate any real change.

I think this "rEvolution" in the Democratic party is going to fall far short of your expectations. If Dean is the nominee and if he wins the election he still will not be able to remove the DLC folks from the heart of the Party, no matter what the pundits and tv newsreaders say.

As to the Dean partisans, whether he wins or loses the primaries or the general election, by November of 2005 they will have returned to their jobs and lives, and the party regulars will be back in full control of what happens in the Party in each state. That is just the way it is.

[TLM]

56. The only thing Clark shook up....

was Kerry's campaign.

Thanks for that by the way.

[JohnKleeb]

30. I agree with what you are saying

but its not like a party hasn't nominated a guy with no experience before. Points to General Eisenhower who was an ok pres, to General Grant who was awful, and to General Jackson who did some good things but was a bastard in what he did to the native americans. I do agree with your point tho but its not like this hasnt happened.

[RetroLounge]

34. I wouldn't say not at all, but I get your point.

He had to play politics in the military, naturally, and that give him some modicum of experience, he just doesn't have any elected experience.

May hurt him, may not. Hard to tell, really.

[littlejoe]

35. Dean all the way!

[SahaleArm]

39. No wonder Carter lost

While you're at it, where's little-league stats?

[Egnever]

41. People are actually trying to argue this?

I cant believe this even needs to be posted. Of course considering the level of pure dishonesty prevelant lately here on DU I guess its to be expected.

[mikehiggins]

47. Imagine that

Somebody figures that you have to hold a political office before you can run for President.

Surprising Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklin didn't catch that one before they signed off on the Constitution.

Well, those pesky voters will have to decide after all, even though it is clear that a governor of a lightly populated state is clearly the superior candidate because he was elected Governor several times in a state with a total population smaller than most mid sized cities.

Seems perfectly clear to me.

[TLM]

58. I've noticed that when someone points out Clark is lacking in some area

the response is often to act as if the person pointing out that shortcoming is claiming that something is a REQUIREMENT to RUN for president.

Nobody is saying that someone HAS to have held political office in order to run.

They are saying someone without that experience... someone who has never run a campaign, never won a race, never held office, never worked with civilians (unless you count blowing them apart with depleted uranium munitions) is far less suited for the office of president than someone who has that experience.

No it is not a requirement to run... and that argument does nothing to change the fact that Clark lacks this experience and that's detrimental to his campaign.

[windansea]

61. i've noticed

that when someone points out Dean is a frigging liar....his defenders follow the Dean example of DEANIAL and changing the subject

why would anyone want to put another liar in the white house??

trust your intuition...

[jsw_81]

42. If Clark gets elected, he'll be frustrated like Eisenhower

When he took office, Ike was constantly ordering people around and had a hard time accepting the fact that he was no longer a general. I fear that a President Clark would have the same problem. Unless, of course, Clark gets four or eight years of preparation as Vice President or Secretary of Defense. Then he'll definitely be ready for the Oval Office.

[SahaleArm]

43. Somehow I doubt that's an issue.

It's not a direct move, he's spent the last three years in the private sector. It's like if I were to claim all politicians are too far removed to understand the plight of the average person.

[hedda_foil]

44. Working as a lobbyist for the MIC equates to electoral experience?

Sorry, but your statement fails to compute.

[SahaleArm]

45. The point was about coaxing versus ordering...

Not electoral experience. It's a dead issue for someone who worked a military-diplomacy post in Europe.

[TLM]

59. Oh so he knows how to coax tax payer money into his pockets

and the pockets of the corporations he sells his influence to... yeah that's just the kind of experience I want shaping the next president's transition from military leadership to civilian leadership.

:puke:

[mikehiggins]

66. As opposed to? Can you be serious claim superiority for your candidate?

Can you really be so naive as to think succeeding in politics qualifies someone for the job of president? If all that being president requires is an ability to lie convincingly, conceal your own beliefs and misrepresent yourself to the greatest possible number of voters, I guess you have a case.

Or do you think winning an election is a mark of moral and ethical superiority?

Of course people like to believe that their candidate is new and different and good and pure and wonderful. At some point in their lives most Americans believed in Santa Claus also, but that was just as likely.

I don't mind that the man I support swims in the waters of modern society just like everyone else. That is the way the world really works. Contacts. Connections. The "inside" game. All of that sordid stuff that the grownups accept because that is the way it is, even if we would prefer it not be. Growing up is almost by definition the process of coming to deal with life realistically, giving up the fantasies and idle dreams of childhood.

And then you run into someone who thinks that we should support their candidate because he's better than all that.

Bunky, he's lying. He isn't better than all that. He is part of all that, all the way, and he's playing millions of folks for fools. Do YOU have the power? Bullshit.

So is our candidate any different? Well, yeah, he's different from the governors and senators running for President, that's for sure. Is he anymore moral and pure and wholesome? Maybe in some ways, maybe not in others. The point is, can he win the election when the ordinary run-of-the-mill same old, same old political wheeler and dealer will likely go down in flames? That's what we believe.

I'm happy to support Clark because I think he is basically an honorable and sincere man. Do I think he is the shining white knight who will save us from all of the world's dark evil? Come on. Pay attention.

What disturbs many of us old cynical types is how many people who support that other candidate are "true believers" who have allowed themselves to be deceived by the current manifestation of a pro's calculated appearance. We don't think we can win with a candidate who only exists for this moment, and who may bring us down to defeat because, as they say, you can't beat someone with no one.

Clark knows how to get things done, which is what politics is all about at its roots. I'm sure there are things in his life and his character that might not be very appealing under the light of day but that is true of all of us, isn't it? What he is not is a carefully contrived performance designed to take advantage of a momentary anger on the part of many voters, and turn it to his own political advantage. That is the main difference between Clark and the pros you guys seem to find so much more preferable.

The believers never learn. They just go from illusion to illusion.

[TLM]

60. You're right, it won;t be an issue....

Since Clark can't win.

[oasis]

54. Bill Clinton, you've just been second guessed by a DU panel of experts.

:dunce:

[TLM]

57. Scott, Clark has tons of political experience...

I mean the man has spent the last three years in DC whoring himself from one defense contractor to the next. And when he wasn't busy doing that, he was traveling to speak at republican fundraisers where he was willing to say he loved Reagan and Bush had vision for the speaker's fee.

He knows exactly how to pander and lie to an audience, and how to sell his influence to the highest bidder. He knows how to use his connection in the defense department to profit off things like 9-11. He knows how to cover up conflicts of interests and associations with nefarious individuals like Kissinger and Franck Carlucci.

He knows all about the ins and outs of obtaining board positions in companies then using his connections to score them massive tax payer funded contracts that make him rich. He knows about all the corruption and corporate whoring and stealing of tax payers' money though war profiteering and military contracts. He's been part of that status quo corrupt DC power elite political scene for the last 3 years.

What do you mean he has no political experience?


No it is LEADERSHIP experience he lacks. The only people he has ever lead would be shot or thrown in prison if they did not do as Clark said. He has no experience leading people who are able to question him and disobey him. He's never had to convince people to support him... they were always forced to do so.

It is very clear he has almost no idea how to relate to people as equals in a civilian setting... I think that's why he comes off as so uncomfortable and phony.

[Skwmom]

64. I guess Dean supporters defecting to the Clark camp

has really upset some of the Dean supporters on this board. Can we say venemous?

[Skwmom]

62. Dean has run a state with a total population smaller than

Columbus Ohio. So Clark is not a lifetime politician who talks out of both sides of his mouth - how refreshing. In addition, Clark is a brilliant man and an extraordinary leader. As far as dog catcher goes, once Rove is finished exposing Dean in the general election (if we are insane enough to nominate him), Dean won't have a chance of being elected dog catcher.

[Moderator]

67. Locking.......

6. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.



DU Moderator