will Clark run, now that Senator Clinton is in the race?

[k_jerome]

hopefully her (and Bills) influence will persuade him not to enter the race.

[AJH032]

1. if she does become the nominee

I would love to see Clark as the VP.

[k_jerome]

2. i would greatly prefer Obama...

or Richardson. Clark would possibly appeal to some more conservative independents.

[earthlover]

6. Clark is more liberal than Hillary....

...so that is an interesting bit of reasoning there. Hillary might appeal to the more conservative folks, except she pisses them off! Clark is more progressive but he can still appeal to moderates. Hillary pisses off the Democratic base, scares the right, and turns off many moderates who think she is too cold. But the DLC likes her.

Best solution to this "ticket" is to dump Hillary and nominate someone who can win.

Clark/Obama or Obama/Clark.....either combination.

[k_jerome]

9. no he isn't. nt.

[earthlover]

14. Clark was not afraid to use the word liberal to describe himself in 04...

Ok, Hillary fans, give me a quote and a link for Hillary calling herself a liberal in the past.

She supported the Iraq War and on issue after issue Hillary has either been silent or on the wrong side. I suppose she has her reasons.

Michael Moore and George McGovern both endorsed Clark in 04. I think they know a progressive liberal when they see one. McGovern described Clark as a "Democrat's Democrat" his words, not mine. Clark has the most progressive tax idea in 04 by far, and if you bother to study how he stands on the issues, he is up front progressive from his heart and from his background. He is not someone who has to put his/her finger in the air to see whether or not he can score points by being left or right...which is the problem with Hillary.

It's not really that Hillary is a conservative. It is that she is such a milque-toast it is hard to tell the difference.

[k_jerome]

16. was he progressive when he voted for Reagan and Bush I...

or when he decided to run in the last election? when did he transform himself?

[earthlover]

19. he didn't vote for bush I

Get your facts straight. He voted, like most of the country in two of the largest landslides, for Nixon and Reagan.

People change. McGovern, the guy Clark voted against is able to see that Clark is a Democrat's Democrat, his words. If McGovern can forgive him, why can't you?

By the way....are you implying that the Democratic Party does not welcome anyone as members who voted for Reagan or Nixon? If so, we sure are limiting our numbers! The Republicans welcome people who voted Democratic in the past. You brought up Reagan....don't you remember that Reagan was a former Democrat? If the Reps thought like you do, they would not have nominated one of their best vote-getters in history!!

[k_jerome]

22. he has been quoted as saying he did...

http://www.factcheck.org/article97.html

and has not denied it.

[earthlover]

26. geez...read your own link already!

Your link does NOT show that Clark voted for Bush I, in fact it showed quite the opposite, that Clark voted for Clinton and Gore.

Hellooooo....is anyone home???????

[k_jerome]

27. from the article...

"Clark also has been quoted as saying he voted for George Bush, the current President's father, in 1988, and Clark has not denied this."

hello.

[CarolNYC]

37. Curious, though...

unless I'm missing something, the only quote they actually cite in regards to Clark voting for Bush I is from Lieberman...Joe, is that you again???

[k_jerome]

42. did he deny it? his voting record up until that point...

would kinda point to it, eh? 8 years of his boy Reagan, why not continue those "glory days"? Did ole Joe vote for Reagan?

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. Want to lead the charge to run Jim Webb out of the Democratic Party?

I mean, aren't we desperate to rid ourselves of that Republican scum? The man actually worked for Ronald Reagan, can you believer that? He actually endorsed Allan for Senator in Virginia in 2000. How on earth did he manage to get elected as a Democratic Senator from Virginia in November???

Oh yeah, now I remamber. We all helped him. I guess I shouldn't speak for you thoug, you may have opposed him on principal, right?

[generaldemocrat]

80. LOL!!!!! n/t

[k_jerome]

82. did he praise bushies at GOP fundraisers as well? nt.

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. See post #86 a few posts below this. n/t

[Auntie Bush]

169. It appears you haven't read up on Hillary's background. She used to

be a ...horrors...REPUBLICAN!!!!! So were her Father and other family members. FYI Clark was NEVER a Republican...he was an Independent! So now who's the black sheep of their party? Huh? Huh? Huh?

Here's some helpful information. If you're going to be spending your time on DU dissing Clark and elevating Hillary to Goddess level...you better start reading up on your candidates. You seem to make an awful lot of blunders. I feel sorry for you as you surely must be terribly embarrassed for you seem as ignorant as bush*. I don't think Hillary would really appreciate having you represent her. Now get reading!

[earthlover]

47. clark said he voted for clinton and gore

I have also read specifically that he did not vote for Bush I. Your source, which has been wrong in the past, does not show any evidence whatsoever that Clark voted for Bush I just some vague reference that he did not deny it. So not denying means guilt? I seeeee...... Shades of McCarthy here, but whatever you say!!!!

Please explain why you can support Hillary who everyone knows voted with Bush II on the single most important issue facing voters today, the Iraq War. And why this is less important than some vote Clark may or may not have had decades ago.

I am still waiting for anyone to quote Hillary as calling herself a liberal....whatsamatter, no quotes available?

[Jai4WKC08]

38. Nope, no quote there

There's no quote that says he voted for Bush41 at that link. It was Lieberman who "quoted" Clark, claiming he voted for Bush. How would Lieberman know, and since when do any of us listen to Lieberman anyway? Since when can Lieberman be trusted to tell the truth about anything?

But tell us, why do you care who Clark voted for 20 years ago? George McGovern didn't care when he endorsed Clark in '04. Jimmy Carter didn't care when he encouraged Clark to run. And you know what? Almost no one else cares either.

People grow and change their perspective. It makes perfect sense that a field grade military officer would vote for Reagan. Reagan himself was once a Democrat. He voted for FDR and probably lots of other Democrats, and the GOP was smart enough not to care. I think most Democrats are at least as smart as most Republicans, don't you?

[k_jerome]

43. those are good justifications for voting for Reagan...

is that why Clark voted for him? did he say this, or was that Lieberman claims too?

"If you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe."

[Tom Rinaldo]

86. Let's see. That was from May 11, 2001

Less than four months earlier, on December 20th 2003, Al Gore had this to say:

"Almost a century and a half ago, Senator Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, "Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you." Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country. Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and now it has ended, resolved, as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy...

...And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession. I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new President-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.

...President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities. I, personally, will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us -- to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done. And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us. While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party; we will stand together behind our new president."


Here is a link to Gore's full most excellent concession speech. It is worth rereading the complete text:
http://www.blogfordemocracy.org/archives/2006/05/more_gore.html


Clark has no guilty conscience about his comments that introduced his speech, nor should he, especially if one actually considers that after his polite introductory comments what he went on to do was challange the very policies that the Bush Administration was moving toward. When recently asked if his comments that night will come back to haunt him if he ran for President in 2008 Clark said:

"Why should it? That's just part of the freak show. If you read that speech, you'll see that what I actually do is criticize the directions of the policies of the (Bush) administration. All I did was put a little honey on it".

That is exactly what your post is. Part of the freak show.

[rep the dems]

36. I don't think it's useful to smear candidates for decisions they made

20 years ago. You obviously forgive Hillary for voting for the IWR, so why not forgive Clark when he worked his ass off to get Democrats elected in '06? Was Hillary Clinton not once a Goldwater girl? People change.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. You're so bent out of shape that he voted for Reagan

(and possibly for Bush I) but it doesn't bother you at all that Hillary was a Goldwater Girl? :rofl:

[k_jerome]

46. how old was he when he voted for them?

he was a repub until a few years ago.

[earthlover]

49. still not reading your own links, I see....

Clark was an INDEPENDENT until a few years ago. ARe you now saying that all independents are republicans?

[k_jerome]

50. no, just Wes Clark. nt

[earthlover]

52. then could you explain why you think McGovern and Michael Moore

support Republicans?

[k_jerome]

56. Michael Moore supported Nader. Maybe hes mixing it up. nt.

[earthlover]

59. Moore supported Clark in the primaries...

...not only that, but that endorsement probably hurt Clark. Faced with this, however, Clark still stood up for Moore. That's the kind of guy Clark is. He doesn't follow the political winds, he does what is right. And he supports liberals like Moore. Which is one of the reasons Moore supported Clark in the primaries in the first place. Picture Hillary in this position...would she stand up for someone if it hurt her politically to do so? I really doubt it.

Don't take my word for it, K...google clark and michael moore. I am sure you will be able to find Moore's endorsement of Clark if you bother to look. I really doubt if you will lift a finger or move your mouse though.....

[CarolNYC]

64. Yeah, I think it was Moore

who later said that Clark never learned how to lie.....I think Michael will be forever grateful for the support Clark gave him when he felt like he didn't have a friend in the world...

[xkenx]

165. You Lie again! Direct quotes from Michael Moore and George McGovern

GEORGE McGOVERN
Today, I am proud to stand here this morning and announce my support for a true progressive, a true Democrat, and the next president of the United States.

A man whose progressive policies on education, taxation, health care are in the finest tradition of the Democratic Party.

A man whose ideals, decency, and compassion are in the great tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.

A man whose life's work and devotion to America will serve as a beacon to our young and give pride to us all.

That man is Wes Clark - and he will lead our party to victory in November.

Like Wes Clark, I'm a veteran. I was an airman in World War II. And I believe there is nothing more patriotic than serving your country.

I also believe there is nothing more patriotic than speaking out - and standing up for what you believe in. That was one of the reasons I ran for president in 1972 - because I believed that Vietnam was a not a war America should be fighting. Back then, Wes Clark was an officer in the United States Army. And in the election of '72, he voted for the other candidate. Let's call it youthful indiscretion. The good news is that this time we both agree.

Today, we are fighting the wrong war in Iraq. And that's one of the reasons I'm standing here today. Because there is only one man in this race with four stars on his shoulders and thirty-four years of military experience. There is only one man in this race who stopped genocide and saved 1.5 million Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. There is only one man in this race who has a success strategy to get us out of the war in Iraq - and get our servicemen and women home safely. And that man is Wes Clark.

Wes Clark is also a champion of America's working families, because he knows that you can't be strong abroad unless you're strong at home. Wes Clark understands the problems facing ordinary Americans, especially the three million Americans who've lost their job since George W. Bush arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And the 44 million Americans don't have health care, and the thousands who can't afford the sky-rocketing costs of education.

Wes Clark is the only man who can get our country back on track. He's got a jobs program to get our economy going ... a real tax reform to help our working and hard-pressed families ... and a health care plan to make health care affordable for all Americans and universal for all our children. He wants to fight for all Americans, from all walks of life. These are not just Democratic values. These are American values.

Running for president is no easy task. And I have the battle scars to show it. I, too, was the subject of a few dirty tricks during my day. But I'll tell you, there is no better man to withstand the Republican attacks then Wes Clark. And the Republicans know that - they're running scared. The last thing they want is a four star general on their hands. So to my Republican friends out there: get ready, here we come.

Finally, let me say this: There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat. I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. And that's why he has my vote.

Wes Clark will bring a higher standard of leadership back to Washington. He'll fight for America's interests, not the special interests. He'll bring honesty, openness, and accountability to the White House. He is a born leader.

That is why I am standing here today: because there's one man in this race with a success strategy in Iraq... there's one man who can really stand up for working American families ... there's one man who can beat George W. Bush - and take back the White House in 2004.

And that man is my friend, our leader, a true progressive, and the next Democratic president of the United States, Wes Clark.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From a poster on Democratic Underground

Everything you've posted so eloquently could have come from my heart. AND I have another, completely selfish, personal reason.

My son decided long ago that he intends to make the military a career. This kid is not a gung-ho shoot-em-up type kid, but one that turned down a nomination to the Air Force Academy because he so adamantly opposes the way the leadership has dealt with women's issues there. A kid who is a 4.0 honors scholar and is majoring in political science and international affairs. A kid who is a Democrat through and through and values the leadership in a military that is based on a meritocracy.

My selfish, personal reason: I would trust Wes Clark with my son's life.

Wes Clark is a man who understands the value of each and every life and what a tragedy it is to lose even one. He understands that every action he takes has consequences. Wes has used his talents, his skill and his conscience to make sure that every decision he makes guarantees the best outcome with the least cost in lives and heartache. Tirelessly, sleeplessly and with unfailing courage and unceasing care.

Oh, there are a lot of politicians that I might vote for, but there are NONE that deserve to make the decision about whether my son lives or dies.

Except Wes Clark.

Because you see, I think he may be the only one out there that values my son as much as I do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO CUOMO
Mario Cuomo said, "Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MOORE
I?ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush ? by Michael Moore

Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!

I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country.

And he will cream George W. Bush.

I have met Clark and spoken to him on a number of occasions, feeling him out on the issues but, more importantly, getting a sense of him as a human being. And I have to tell you I have found him to be the real deal, someone whom I'm convinced all of you would like, both as a person and as the individual leading this country. He is an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House. He is clearly not a professional politician. He is clearly not from Park Avenue. And he is clearly the absolute best hope we have of defeating George W. Bush.

This is not to say the other candidates won't be able to beat Bush, and I will work enthusiastically for any of the non-Lieberman 8 who might get the nomination. But I must tell you, after completing my recent 43-city tour of this country, I came to the conclusion that Clark has the best chance of beating Bush. He is going to inspire the independents and the undecided to come our way. The hard core (like us) already have their minds made up. It's the fence sitters who will decide this election.

The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain't you or me or our good internet doctor.

This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class- at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen.

There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three. I still believe that each one of us must vote his or her heart and conscience. If we fail to do that, we will continue to be stuck with spineless politicians who stand for nothing and no one (except those who write them the biggest checks).

My vote for Clark is one of conscience. I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to devote the next few weeks of my life to do everything I can to help Wesley Clark win. I would love it if you would join me on this mission.

Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark:

1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been ?positioning himself slightly to Dean?s left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.

2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.

3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter! General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It's their votes we need.

4. He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn't mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our society a better place. He didn't have to get involved in that struggle. He's a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young.

5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper could have been identified within the first days of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (1.0, Dean himself), a better version of a good thing: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use.

7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He's a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of General Clark, are going to turn this country around.

Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate"? What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people.

Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) ? and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?

In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them?

We need to take that big DO NOT ENTER sign off our tent and reach out to the vast majority who have been snookered by these right-wingers. And we have a better chance of winning in November with one of their own leading them to the promised land.

There is much more to discuss and, in the days and weeks ahead, I will continue to send you my thoughts. In the coming months, I will also be initiating a number of efforts on my website to make sure we get out the vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

In addition to voting for Wesley Clark, I will also be spending part of my Bush tax cut to help him out. You can join me, if you like, by going to his website to learn more about him, to volunteer, or to donate. To find out about when your state?s presidential primaries are, visit Vote Smart.

I strongly urge you to vote for Wes Clark. Let's join together to ensure that we are putting forth our BEST chance to defeat Bush on the November ballot. It is, at this point, for the sake of the world, a moral imperative.

Yours,

Michael Moore

[ProudDad]

173. How about a link

to a reputable source for this calumny about Michael Moore?

[Jai4WKC08]

54. If this is what we can expect...

From the Clinton "grassroots" (such as they are), we'll kick her ass in the Iowa ground game.
:rofl:

[Clark2008]

62. And Edwards voted for Nixon.

and then didn't vote again for years and years.

I guess that makes him an uncaring Republican, according to the way you figure things.

[citizen snips]

63. Edwards did not vote for Nixon.

[Clark2008]

66. Oh, I'm sorry. He doesn't REMEMBER who he voted for.

OK.

:eyes:

[citizen snips]

67. ok then

I wish I had a little more information
:shrug:

[Clark2008]

85. Frenchie has it, Matt.

Next time I see her, I'll ask her for it. She's got the links.

My piddly little computer won't hold all the info Frenchie's got at her fingertips. Maybe she'll see this exchange and lend us a hand. I'll even PM her for you.

[citizen snips]

178. see ya soon

or Frenchie :hi:

[Texas_Kat]

88. Well, let me give you a perspective

I am the same age as JE.

In 1972, the 18-year-olds got the vote for the first time. In addition to lowering the drinking age (nationwide) to 18, it was one of the most significant pieces of legislation to be passed re the political process in years. Kent State has occurred just about a year before. Vietnam was in the news nightly. Everyone who had any interest at all in changing the country was waiting for the opportunity to cast their first vote.

Their. First. Vote.

The choices were McGovern or Nixon.

Now I don't particularly care who JE voted for, or if he voted at all. But his claim that he didn't remember who he voted for is just ridiculous. WHY THE OBFUSCATION?

If he didn't vote, fine. If he voted for Nixon, he should be man enough to say so.

[ProudDad]

174. I don't remember who I voted for

in 2004. I just know it wasn't bush...

And I know it didn't matter since California was a for sure Kerry state...

It's probably just as irrelevent who JE voted for in 1972... it's likely that since he was from the south it was nixon but who knows...not everyone in the south voted for the crook...

[Texas_Kat]

179. My point exactly

Do you remember who you cast your very first Presidential Vote for in the General Election?

If you do, multiply that by 10x. THAT's how important the 1972 vote was for 18-21-year-olds,

LIke I said, I don't care who he voted for, but the comment he made about not remembering is completely unbelievable.

[k_jerome]

68. did Edwards vote for Reagan? nt.

[citizen snips]

69. to my knowledge no

I looked at the wikipedia article.

[k_jerome]

70. Clark did. twice. nt.

[citizen snips]

72. you opened the floodgates

by pointing that out.

[k_jerome]

74. they like to gloss over that. nt.

[Clark2008]

119. No one glosses over that.

Clark admits it and says it was because he thought Reagan would be better for the military.

In fact, I'll let Jai take this one. She explains it better than I can because she also was in the military.

At least he didn't change his position after it became politically expedient to do so. He voted for Clinton in 1992, years before he ever thought about running for anything. You know, instead of changing his position when the position became as unpopular as genital warts, like certain candidates who flipped on their IWR positions (and after 3,000 soliders had died).

[Adelante]

78. I sort of remember this

It was an article in his home state newspaper wherein his college friends said they thought Edwards had voted for Nixon, but Edwards never said he did that I've ever heard. This was during the primaries, I think.

[Clark2008]

124. No - I don't think he voted at all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

110. Will you make me search to prove that you are knowingly repeating a lie?

I can do that if you insist. Actually it would not be hard. I know we have had this exact exchange before. You are practicing the politics of the Big Lie, and it is pretty shameful.

Words have specific meaning. It's called language. Most people use it in an attempt to communicate, some people use it in an attempt to confuse. So you say about Clark: "he was a repub until a few years ago." OK, prove it. I already clearly called you on this exact lie before. So this time let me refer you back to the exact same link you so gladly used to back up an assertion already on this very thread. And after I do that, and you read what they have to say, will you promise not to continue to say that Clark was a repub until a few years ago?

Go to Factcheck.org It is the link you provided in your post #22. The Subject title to the page that you linked to is "Was Wes Clar ever a Republican?". It's in a Red type font so it should be easy for you to make out. Below that, in the actual reply under "Summary", you will note that the very first Sentance is "Clark has never been registered as a Republican".

You may claim that having voted for a Republican 18 or whatever you claim years ago while an Independent, even though after that someone voted for Democrats in at least 3 Presidential Elections (not counting Kerry of course), can be summarized to mean "he was a repub until a few years ago" but that would require your own special use of the English language to get there by using those facts to support that claim. Which of course is why you refuse to use those facts.

Continue in this behavior and it will be very very easy to discredit every word you say at DU because your credibility will be zilch. Having already used Fact Check in your own defense of one point on this thread alreay, I will gladly continually link back to this thread to prove what a hypocrit you are if you persist.

[k_jerome]

111. i believe he was a repub, just as you believe he is not a war criminal...

to each his own. but search away.

[Tom Rinaldo]

120. You did not say that you believe he was a Republican

You said "he was a Repub until a few years ago". You presented that as fact, not opinion, and the very fact check site that you link to yourself totally refutes that lie. You can have any opinion you want, it's a free country. You can believe that someone who was previoulsy always registered as an Independent, who talked with Democrats inside Arkansas in 2001 about possibly running for office in that state as a Democrat (yes I have links), who worked hand in hand with the Clinton Administration for 8 years in the military, who you are willing to believe when he openly admits that he voted for Reagan but suddenly don't trust when he says that he voted for Clinton twice and Gore once, yes, you are free to believe that person was a Repub until a few years ago. And I am free to believe that you are an idiot if that is the type of logic that underlies your reasoning. Or you are a liar, take your pick.

[k_jerome]

121. that is my assertion....

"he was a repub until a few years ago."

you can quote me.

[generaldemocrat]

125. Is it true Hillary was a Goldwater girl?

:popcorn:

[k_jerome]

130. yeah....then she grew up...is that what Clark did when he retired from...

carpet bombing?

[generaldemocrat]

132. Aha, so she voted for a Republican, therefore she supports Republicans, who...

supported the Vietnam War in which guys like General Clark had to go fight.

This all explains why Hillary just happens to be the strongest supporter of the war in Iraq, because it's easier sending others into the hell of war when all you have to do is vote on it.

[k_jerome]

133. Clark voted for Nixon too...

he has a history for voting for repubs. thus my assertion that he is one.

[generaldemocrat]

136. B-b-but Hillary voted for Goldwater and CAMPAIGNED for him!

And she was a member of the College Republicans at Wellesley!!

I love exposing your hypocrisy k_jerome.

[k_jerome]

137. b-b-but, Clark continued voting for repubs...

well into his adult life...and conveniently became a Democrat after seeing which way the winds were blowing decades after Vietnam...

what a typical...General.

[generaldemocrat]

138. And Hillary, despite being a "Democrat", voted for Iraq....

and voted with Republicans on many key issues. I guess her Republican habits never really wore off after all.

[k_jerome]

140. b-b-but what about...

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

September 19, 2003 New York Times

[generaldemocrat]

145. How do you like this?

I know you have trouble reading and comprehending because there are people who inexhaustibly post links and cite information while you sit around spouting your dumb one-liners. So here's some video footage, which I know you'll hate:

Wesley Clark testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 2002 (less than one month before Congress voted on IWR)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiJD3YTE9_s

[k_jerome]

147. so, he said it, but you ignore it. ok. nt.

[generaldemocrat]

151. He was referring to the Levin amendment....

Which would call for the President to go get authorization from the UN and then to comeback and reconsult Congress before a finger is even lifted.

The Levin Amendment was ultimately turned down by Congress.

[k_jerome]

152. so you say. nt.

[Tom Rinaldo]

141. McGovern actually ran against Nixon and he endorsed Clark

And of course Clark has a more recent history of voting for Democrats that goes back, according to the sources you quote, to 1992. That's 16 years and counting. Loner than Jim Webb, longer than Jim Jeffords, longer than Kos, longer than current leftist darling Arianna Huffington too.

I wonder if Earl Warran ever changed his party registration after he got elected as a Republican to be Governor of California?

[earthlover]

157. but by your curious reasoning Reagan was a Democrat!

AFter all Reagan voted for several Democrats in his past.

By the way...since this is an old meme that was spread by the Republicans that Clark is not a good enough Democrat....and you seem to be into guilt by association, I will ask you....ARE YOU A REPUBLICAN?!

[ProudDad]

175. A large majority of the military

are so brainwashed that they vote repuke.

At least Clark has reformed himself...

[Tom Rinaldo]

128. So does that mean you will stop quoting Fact Check?

Since they directly refute your asseriton?

No, I didn't think so. But thanks for doing it on this thread. It was a great moment of levity.

[Donna Zen]

58. Ah... a picture of a Goldwater Girl!

Wes Clark voted for Clinton over Bush I.

Considering among the few items left to him by his father, who died when Wes Clark was four, was a pin from the Chicago Democratic Convention where FDR was nominated. You see Clark's father was a Dem. Party lawyer.

General Clark is progressive as they come.

Unfortunately lots of Democrats voted for Reagan.

[Jai4WKC08]

23. Clark is farther left than Richardson too

Lots farther. Actually, Richardson is one of the least progressive of them all.

I don't know enough about Obama's positions on the issues (I'm not sure anyone does) to know whether Clark is more progressive or not. But I am absolutely certain Clark is more willing to stand up to the right-wingers for what he believes. Obama is much more of a "can't we all just get along" sort of guy.

Ultimately, what you do with your progressive values is at least as important as what progressive values you hold.

Face it, k. You don't know jack about Wes Clark. And you're unwilling to learn. It's really pathetic.

[CarolNYC]

28. hmmm....

Can't say, of course, for sure how much k knows or cares to know about Wes Clark but I suspect there's something more nefarious than ignorance going on with this one....

[earthlover]

51. i see your point....

...I remember in 04 the ones who were spreading the meme that Clark was really a Republican were the REPUBLICANS!!! They, apparently, did not want the Dems to nominate him, and they musta figured that calling him a Republican would scare off Dems from nominating him.

I find it very puzzling how a supporter of Hillary can bash Clark like this....as the same poster has done elsewhere on other issues.....when Hillary is a good friend of Clark. This is ironic in the extreeme.

[CarolNYC]

57. Yes, I mean

ANYONE can claim to be anyone online....Sometimes folks are not at all who they try to pretend to be.....

[k_jerome]

31. i know enough. if he is smart, he will sit out...

and maybe do some analysis for Fox News. Let Clinton/Edwards/Obama bring this one home.

[Clark2008]

39. Bahahahahahahaha!

Sorry - the thought that any of those three would "bring it home" is hilarious.

Obama has the best shot of the three because he's not a political ne'er do well and I like him, but Edwards or Hillary? Bahahahahahahahaha!

[Jai4WKC08]

41. Is nothing enough? n/t

[Texas_Kat]

29. Hillary is gonna choose Bayh

if she makes it out of the primaries.

Don't believe me? DLC to the bone..... Bayh's been standing behind her right shoulder in almost every recent appearance.

A match made in DC....

[Donna Zen]

60. I think you're correct

I've noticed him with her lately. Very DLC. A few years ago I was told it would be Richardson, but after today's Washington Note...whew boy, not a chance.

[Clark2008]

35. Clark's nearly as liberal as Kucinich.

That's the beauty of a Clark candidacy. People who don't know much THINK he's moderate, so he'll get the swing voters who don't really pay all that much attention, plus he'll fire up the base.

[earthlover]

55. you're right!

Clark is the stealth liberal. The moderates who don't know much will think he is a moderate. Those who REALLY don't know much will think he is a Republican! Fact is, we have an interesting choice....do we want a candidate who votes with Bush a lot, is afraid to be seen as a liberal, won't stand up against Constitutional abuses, and pretty much doesn't want to be too liberal...but who is perceived as a liberal, and scares the bejesus out of LOTS of potential voters? OR....do we want someone who is liberal, not afraid to say it, did not support the Iraq War, etc but has the ability to ATTRACT LOTS of voters who perceive him as moderate and competent? Dang, this is a no brainer!

[Island Blue]

3. Why would you not want Clark (or anyone else) to run.

Afraid of a little competition?

[k_jerome]

4. i welcome competition from those qualified...

such as everyone that has announced so far.

[globalvillage]

5. Who decides qualification?

You or Hillary?

[JI7]

7. you think Clark is less qualified than those who have announced so far ?

i'm wondering what your standards are on qualifications.

[Clark2008]

40. Apparently, k's requirements are that they have to be adored

by the corporate media.

[globalvillage]

44. Ah. So I guess we Kerry and Clark folks

will just have to go on our guys' merits.
Works for me.

[CarolNYC]

48. Guess so, global...

Works for me just fine as well. :)

[politicasista]

8. Does he not have a right to run like Hillary? n/t

[k_jerome]

12. certainly he has the right....

Hope is the word. Hopefully he will not.

[globalvillage]

15. I hope he runs.

Gen Clark is a great Dem voice.

[Adelante]

10. God you're boring nt

[JI7]

25. best response

[high density]

92. I think he has nothing better to do than whip up the Clark folks on here

I think he's got some sort of post bot that just randomly posts a dozen canned attacks on CLark.

[MrSlayer]

11. I hope so, we need him more than ever now.

So far the only candidate I like is Kucinich.

[k_jerome]

13. Kucinich is running..why not support him? nt.

[MrSlayer]

30. I will unless Clark gets in.

Then I devote all my effort to his campaign. I'm thinking he will run.

[Hav]

17. .

Sometimes I have to ask myself whether some people don't realize that their behaviour might backfire against their own candidate. Especially if their candidate isn't really a darling of this community ;).

[Adelante]

21. With all the Hillary bashing going on today

You would think some people would be too busy for this nonsense, eh? Oh, well, maybe it's supposed to be a diversion. Or something.

[Skwmom]

104. I think it's attempted dislike by association. n/m

[Adelante]

181. I think you are right

Who benefits is the question.

[xkenx]

18. Mehtinks k_jerome is scared of Clark, based on your many anti-Clark

posts here, making assertions about Clark with no basis in fact. Wait till Wes Clark's progressive message gets out, coupled with his opposition to the Iraq war beforehand when it wasn't fashionable. Clark's influence helped Dems. like Ted Kennedy and Carl Levin vote NO to IWR, unlike Hillary who thought she needed needed to look strong on security. Clark really HAS the security creds; he doesn't have to make the puffed up noises. All the Dems. had all the information needed to vote "NO." Most of the "YES" votes from Dems. were out of political calculation/moral cowardice. I want someone in the White House who will have the courage to do the right thing, regardless. After 3000+ American deaths, the loss of our stature in the world, the destruction of Iraq, the degrading of our military, the loss to our treasury for healthcare, education, jobs, fighting poverty and and and, saying "Oops I goofed" doesn't cut it. Putting someone like that in the White House is like having the same surgeon who mistakenly amputated the wrong foot do your next surgery.
So, everything coming out of the Clark camp suggests he is running. Be very afraid.

[k_jerome]

20. this analysis says otherwise...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/24/21376/483

[Texas_Kat]

32. MattBrown is a famous Edwards supporter

Wouldn't call his 'analysis' anything but an attack,

[Skwmom]

105. Edwards people trying to discredit Clark by associating

him with Clinton. I thought they only believed in "positive" campaigning.

[capi888]

34. Hahhahahahaha

The guy writing the Diary..must be in your group..YOU GUYS ARE REALLY AFRAID OF CLARK... HE IS A REAL THREAT. Don't worry, I am sure your favorite candidate will do well, and you don't have to ALWAYS denigate WKC..


Did you check the poll Did Wes support the War.... 65% said NO..16% Yes...17% CONFUSED..your groupies!!!

You know K, you NEVER fail to amaze me...

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. So I followed your links and guess what

they essentially lead to the same one or two discredited sources every time. This is a real pattern of yours. Anyone open to even glancing at the library of facts available rather than depending on a few short phrases taken out of context and distorted, will find that Wes Clark never wavored in opposing Bush's invasion of Iraq. I will take apart the supposed "analysis" you site in a follow up post, but in short, there is no "there" there. If anyone wants full disclosure and a thorough discussion of Clark's position regarding Iraq, from start to finish, try this kos Diary:

Wes Clark and Iraq
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/7/18592/1665

It is actually fully sourced with numerous actual transcripts and interviews,not just the cut and splice crap that attacks on Clark always come back to.

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. The curious pattern of attacks on Clark

I call attention (not your attention- but other readers) to the fact that the dateline for most Clark attacks is usually September of 2003, within a week or two of when Clark announced last time, because that is when there was a media blitz over a broad spectrum of outlets, designed to discredit Wes Clark and define him negatively before he had a chance to define himself. Ultimately the hit pieces always trace back to a few sources of hack work. A big one at the time was various Republican who claim that they heard Wes Clark say one or more things that reveal that he was not really what he claimed to be. The Drudge Report was big on getting those types of attacks redistributed far and wide, and picked up second hand by both right and left sources. That was the signature of the Republican Noise Machine that Karl Rove operated then by the way. There's a great book by that title that people should read. The other major hit sources usually traces back to a handful of Milosevic apologists with Serbian nationalist roots. Same thing happens there, the original "research" mostly has their fingerprints all over it, but it then gets picked up an re-packaged by a broad array of distributers, again on both the left and the right.

The kos diary that you link two does precious little if at all analysis of it's own, it makes a bold Anti-Clark assertion in the headline and then lifts a passage from elsewhere off the net to do the heavy lifting so to speak. Then it closes with this:

"Hence, eventhough Clark testified before the HASC in 2002 reasonably opposed to the war, and penned the article "Let's wait to attack," he later changed his position and supported the invasion.

The billing of Clark as an "anti-war" candidate is therefore in error."

Of course the conclusion is self serving as it is being peddled by the backer of a different Presidential candidate who did in fact actually and openly support Bush's invasion of Iraq, who wants to drag as many other Democrats down into that Iraq mud as possible.

It was Matt Drudge who pioneered some of the most blatant strategic editing of Clark's actual testimony to leave out anything that could challange the anti-Clark assertion that Drudge was peddling. He even got caught at that and some media sources had to make disclaimers for relying on Drudges edited versions. Drudge had no problem paragragh hopping looking for comments that Clark made that he could stitch together without giving any hint of what was being left out, which always was comments by Clark that showed that the thrust of his comments was always the opposite of what Drudge was trying to imply.

Drudge was the first guy to try that with Clark's London Times Op-Ed. You know you are seeing a hit piece whenever anyone quotes this by Clark:

"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air."

BUT they refuse to quote the last 18 words of the same paragragh, which are:

"Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."

Why would that be? Why would someone go to the trouble of quoting an entire paragragh by Clark, but leave out only the last sentance of that paragragh? Hmmmm. Probably the same reason why the same anti-Clark voices always skip right past the very next two paragraphs in which Clark says:

"In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people."

Can't have any of that. It muddies the picture they want to present of Clark as a war monger. Likewise those trying to paint a distorted picture of Wes Clark like to lift this line from the same Op-Ed:

"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe."

What do they always leave out? Yup, they always leave out the last two sentances which complete that paragragh:

"Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered."

Why on Earth would anyone quote a partial paragragh like that? Why on earth indeed, it's just plain sleazy politics, exactly what I expect from Republicans who try to obsure the truth about any issue that they think they can twist to their benefit. So want to guess what you would have read had the following paragragh not been left out? Why bother, here it is:

"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."

Do you know when Wes Clark wrote this? On April 10, 2003. It was on May 2, 2003 that George Bush posed in his bogus flight suit with the Banner "Mission Accomplished":

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/01/sprj.irq.main/

Other major National Democrat were not raising doubts about the success of the Iraq invasion when Wes Clark wrote the Op-Ed that his opponents like to cherry pick smears from. Most Democrats were keeping a very low profile, when they weren't actually praising the President, becasue it then seemed that the Iraq invasion was a big success. That was the exact irony that Clark was playing on in his comments about the false balm of victory. Three weeks before President Bush landed on that aircraft carrier, Wes Clark had the nerve to tell the world; "Mission Not Accomplished."

And for that he now gets attacked.

[Clark2008]

65. Wow, Tom - what an incredible comeback.

Too bad, in the case of the OP, it will fall on deaf ears... or blind eyes, as the case may be.

However, I'm so very glad you said it for the others who may be viewing this thread and who may believe even an ounce of what the OP peddles.

:applause:

[JNelson6563]

24. Hoo-boy

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[Clark2008]

33. Hopefully, he doesn't listen to you.

[generaldemocrat]

71. Will Clark offer Hillary the VP spot if he wins the nod???

Highly doubtful as that would weaken Clark's strength with red state and indie voters.

[madmunchie]

75. I don't think that it would make much difference if Hill thru her money

and connections behind Clark. And you are forgetting the secret weapon, Bill.

[generaldemocrat]

76. Deleted message n/t

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[k_jerome]

79. lol. like your avatar? nt.

[CarolNYC]

83. ummm....I wouldn't be so sure....

about the highly skilled part. heh....

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[k_jerome]

89. take it easy General, i'm not from Kosovo...please don't bomb me any more. lol. nt.

[Adelante]

180. Or a tad...closer

But not a true Hillary supporter, I agree.

[karynnj]

81. Gee , why are you Hillary people so intent in driving experienced opponents out?

It seems odd that you are out in force fighting rather than savorig her announcement.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[NV1962]

91. Like pushing to intervene in Rwanda, intervening in Kosovo...

...not to mention, advising AGAINST the war in Iraq, instead of cheerleading for it.

Can't top that, can you. :)

[k_jerome]

93. he was for it before he was against it. lol

[generaldemocrat]

94. We were "villains" for doing nothing in Rwanda (1994) and Bosnia (1992-95)

and we were still "villains" for responding in Kosovo (1999).

[karynnj]

95. Who commanded him?

You have launched threads against Obama, Kerry and Clark and I believe you attacked E#dwards - do you think thia is a good idea?

[k_jerome]

97. Clinton commanded him to bomb civilians? please provide link. nt.

[generaldemocrat]

99. Clinton was the ultimate Commander-in-Chief....

He gave the authorization for Clark to carry out strikes on Serbia with full knowledge of the kinds of targets that were involved. How do I know? Because that is how Presidents delegate authority to their generals. When military plans are drawn up and pitched to the President, he has a very good idea of what kinds of targets will be hit.

There is never any ambiguity in military planning.

[k_jerome]

101. so Clark was just a robot that carried out orders to bomb civilians? interesting. nt.

[Jai4WKC08]

182. Clark was a soldier

Soldiers follow orders (so long as they're legal orders).

Elected civilians give the orders. You wouldn't want it any other way, believe me.

Do you think that Hillary Clinton opposed the orders her husband gave? She sure never said anything like that when she and Chelsea were visiting Clark and his troops in the Balkans.

[Clark2008]

123. Because, in this case, I think it's not a Hillary supporter...

or a supporter for ANY Democratic candidate.

[karynnj]

172. I hope you are correct

because this poster seems to be constantly bashing others unfairly.

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. Will you actually support Hillary Cinton now that she is in the race?

Mostly all I have seen is you running around the web attacking some other Democrats while featuring her picture in your ID. You haven't convinced me that you actually support Clinton. For all I know the reason why you use her picture is to put it front and center as a target for all of the other Democrats who you piss off on message boards by doing the right wing's work for them. Lately I know you are on an anti-Clark mission, but I know that earlier you had threads locked attacking other Democrats also. Maybe that is still going on, I don't know because I rarely open threads devoted to specific Presidential candidates that I am not supporting.

Can you point me to some of the threads you have started to support Hillary Clinton? I would like to see how you perform when you are trying to be positive about someone.

[k_jerome]

98. do you whine as much when other candidates are questioned...

or just Clark?

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[k_jerome]

102. yeah you are Holmes....keep going. nt.

[Tom Rinaldo]

112. I see you ducked my question.

Everyone can read for themselves the quality of the posts that I've made on this thread so far, and the degree of credible information I provide to back up my opinions, and compare them to your posts on this thread. I really welcome that comparison. Let people decide for themselves who whines and who wants a discussion of real facts.

[generaldemocrat]

114. Why do you even give this guy the time of day?

We know he's a Republican operative, obviously the mods can be slow at times. But don't waste your time responding to this guy in any serious way. You provide facts, links, evidence and he responds with dumb one-liners.

Give him the respect he deserves, which is none.

[k_jerome]

116. which question? its hard to find with all the cluster bombing. nt.

[generaldemocrat]

117. He's referring to the question of whether or not you work for the GOP....

you still haven't answered, so the answer must be yes. Give my regards to Karl and Gannon.

[k_jerome]

118. why don't you let him answer, General? nt.

[Tom Rinaldo]

122. Just reread post #96. It's easy n/t

[k_jerome]

127. see below. nt.

[k_jerome]

126. i will support Hillary....

as my first choice, with Edwards and Obama a close second and third.

The threads I choose to start are my own choice, not yours. I do not recall going into the plethora of anti-Clinton threads and whining about what threads the OP has started about their own candidate. You are free to question me, and what you think I should post. I will continue to post what I decide to.

[Tom Rinaldo]

134. You will of course do what you want

We all will, what a revelation that is. So I wanted to do a quick check. This is the 3rd thread you've started with Wes Clark in the subject line of the OP over the last 5 days on this forum. All very critical of him of course. That's a lot of attention given to someone who you don't support, who hasn't announced whether or not he's running, and who you think doesn't have a chance in hell to win the Democratic nomination. I thought I had seen a few, so I was just curious if you actually talk about supporting Hillary Clinton much here also. She actually decided to run you know. Most of her suporters find that worth discussing.

[k_jerome]

135. 3 in 5 days? holy crap.....

that is unreal... you're right.

THREE in FIVE days? whoa.

[Tom Rinaldo]

143. Beats me. I haven't done one in well over a week

And I much prefer to start threads about Democrats who I respect, than start threads to attack other Democrats. But that's just me.

[k_jerome]

144. i've seen 3 anti-Hillary threads by the same poster in 15 minutes....

i didn't whine about it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

146. My queston was whether you ever started Pro Clinton threads

I know of some candidate supporters who do both, spend a lot of time attacking other Democrats, and spend a lot of time suporting the Democrat they believe in. That's not my style, but I don't know if I've ever run into a candidate supporter who never posts threads supporting their own candidate but only haunts or starts threads attacking another. I just found that interesting. I thought maybe I missed your pro-Clinton threads, that's all.

[k_jerome]

150. i have...

they get eaten by Clinton haters...what can i say.

[Tom Rinaldo]

159. Well I'll look harder than

Didn't find one when I searched, but I'll keep my eyes open for one.

[generaldemocrat]

148. Quit the accusatory crap....

Not everyone, not even a fraction, of those who start anti-Hillary threads are Clark supporters. They come from all over....from the Edwards, Obama, and other leftist camps.

So grow up!

[k_jerome]

149. you like me, huh Chuck? at ease Generalisimo. nt

[generaldemocrat]

153. I don't like instigators. And that's basically what you are. nt

[k_jerome]

155. i feel the same way about warmongers. thus my dislike for the supreme commander. nt.

[generaldemocrat]

156. And yet you support the biggest warmonger of them all!!!!! nt

[k_jerome]

162. no, not a Clark supporter. sorry. good night. nt.

[Crunchy Frog]

158. Probably because you don't actually support Clinton.

I think Generaldemocrat is on to you.

[Skwmom]

103. The old associating Clark with the Clintons meme.

I think Edwards is a much closer friend of the Clintons. I read that Bill owed him for the impeachment help, he encouraged Edwards to stay in the race in 2008 (this was from Edwards in an interview), that he encouraged Kerry to pick Edwards and that he was the first person to call Edwards after he was tapped for VP. Plus, don't forget the Clinton guys (Carville and Begala) either ignoring Clark or trashing him while cheerleading for Edwards during the 2004 primary.

[Adelante]

106. Can we trade this sock in for Mr Bentley?

At least Mr B could be amusing.

[k_jerome]

107. man, i see Clark supporters are just like him when...

it comes to bombing civilians. it like a cluster bomb of Clarkies in a crowded market.

[Pithy Cherub]

108. We are obligated to stamp out stupidity

where it tries to take root. Our civic duty is to ensure the Truth blooms and the weeds removed.

[k_jerome]

109. then carpet bo...i mean weed on General. nt.

[generaldemocrat]

113. God, you are such a Republican plant....

only a total idiot can get up there with a Hillary avatar and whine about Kosovo and not mention a damn thing about Iraq.

Your gravy train of idiocy is over boss, you are being exposed!

[k_jerome]

115. sshhhh. no ones listening. you should start a thread about it. nt

[Clark2008]

129. Do you actually support Hillary Clinton?

[k_jerome]

131. why does the above ask questions...

when they know i can't answer? duh.

[xkenx]

164. Thank you, k_jerome, for being your psycho self yet again, and

keeping what winds up as a very pro-Clark thread going and going. More and more DUers get to see that your kind of attacks on Clark are distorted, or outright lies. We always seem to bring more Clarkies into the fold when that happens. I remember that every time I get angry at your postings. Keep up the good work.

[k_jerome]

167. continue to support the Generalisimo....

I will have a good laugh when either:

he doesn't even run or

he gets his ass handed to him by either Clinton, Edwards or Obama.

[earthlover]

161. wow you are rude!

I don't think it is really worth responding to you anymore. But one last time....you keep bringing up civilian casualties in Kosovo. For one, compared to Iraq there were a lot fewer. Secondly, don't forget that Milosovek was in the process of ethnic cleansing the Albanians and the actions against Milosovek saved thousands and thousands of lives from ethnic cleansing. There are not always painless decisions in war. It is so easy to be an armchair quarterback. But unless you are a fan of ethnic cleansing, you gotta give some credit for the lives saved in KOsovo too. That is, if you are fair. Which you obviously are NOT. BYE!

[k_jerome]

163. good day! nt.

[mtnsnake]

142. It's MrBenchley. We need to petition to get MrB back on this forum

Funniest poster ever, bar none.

[Adelante]

154. That's who it is, MrBenchley

Thanks.

[janx]

160. I just noticed this thread--had avoided it...

:rofl:

It sounds exactly like something he would do.

[NV1962]

139. "hopefully her (and Bills) influence will persuade him not to enter the race" !?!?

If this isn't an invitation to a flamefest...

Pathetic.

[tucsonlib]

166. Forgetting About the BEST Potential Candidate

If you really want a President who possesses the intelligence, the experience and the vision to rescue our beleaguered republic, there is only one qualified candidate:
Bill Moyers. A Moyers/Gore (or even a Gore/Moyers) ticket would be unbeatable.(I can dream, can't I?)

[Renew Deal]

168. Ny friend in the Clark movement thinks so.

He thinks Clark will announce by the end of Feb. I personally agree.

[Auntie Bush]

170. Is that you Hillary?

Just wondering.

[Texas_Kat]

171. Maybe Hillary is just a stalking horse for Wes...

Now wouldn't that be a hoot.

[election_2004]

176. Could an under-the-radar strategy be wise for Wes....???

...at least at this point?

Announce his exploratory commmittee in late-February, and let John Edwards, Senator Clinton, and Senator Obama go at each other's throats into the spring and summer.

Meanwhile, Clark could focus on substance in the debates (the first one being in April)...possibly paving the way for him and Richardson to run together in the General Election?

Although a Clark/Sebelius ticket could be very formidable, as well.

[Rocinante]

177. Perhaps

and if he does I will support his candidacy.