Why are some people on this board scared of Clark?

[angryinoville]

I still see some Clark bashing going on, and I'm curious as to what the fear is all about.

[janx]

1. The Clark bashing I see going on is by Edwards supporters

and the Edwards bashing I see going on is from some Clark supporters--all over the very remote chance that either will be chosen by Kerry as his VP.


Have I missed something? Is there other Clark bashing going on? If so, can you point me in that general direction? ;-)

[surfermaw]

6. That is funny, I haven't seen one Edwards suupporter bash Clark

Actually the only thing I have read is why take MCCain as VP..When we have Clark who must have been a republican, he was at a republican meeting praising Bush and Cheney and telling every one Bush was the man who should have been elected...

[janx]

9. There is thread after thread after thread on DU right

now containing both Edwards and Clark supporters bashing each other's candidates because of the VP factor.

It's especially tiresome because neither one is likely to be chosen for the slot.

They're both very decent and deserving men, but the odds don't favor the hopes on either side.

Edit: It's not impossible, but it's not probable either.

[mikehiggins]

10. You are right. It is pretty stupid to claim Clark is a Republican. Still

there are some people on this board who just can't let go of the claim for whatever reason they have. And being compared to John McCain is not necessarily a bad thing in some ways, though McCain is a little too willing to carry water for the Bush liars for my taste.

And you are right in pointing out how silly it is to keep repeating the story about "a" meeting (a fundraiser he was paid to address) at which he praised some parts of the Bush administration. Of course, at first most straight thinking Americans thought and hoped that there was a chance that Bush would do the right thing, but they (and Clark) were wrong. Of course, by the time Clark testified to Congress about BushCo's plans to invade Iraq, he had joined the ranks of all those who knew we were faced with a failed administration.

It is also relevent to point out that Clark NEVER was a registered Republican. He was a registered Independent until 2002 when he signed on officially with the Democratic party.

It is nice to see that you didn't buy into any of that "anti-Clark" bull. It'd be nice if more "Clark bashers" would be as fair-minded.

[surfermaw]

37. Edwards for VP....

[dogman]

12. Open your eyes

There are people making ignorant statements like yours.

[Sparkly]

50. Well that didn't take long

"telling every one Bush was the man who should have been elected."

There are threads here replete with Clark-bashing by Edwards supporters, some repeating falsehoods like that one. At least be honest about it.

[cosmokramer]

68. Dear God do we have to point them out?

They are all over the place! Gimme a friggin' break!

[arewethereyet]

18. well this Edwards supporter doesn't bash over that

I do NOT want Edwards chosen because he cannot deliver any of the south so would be nothing but a drain.

I also don't want Clark as he has no constituancy he cound bring to the ticket.

We have swing states to win and neither of these guys can make that happen.

I bash Clark because he was an un-serious dabbler and dillitant with baggage and even more gaffes than Howard Dean and who added only distraction to the process.

But others didn't see it that way and thought my boy was just puff pastry. I guess it takes all kinds...

[cosmokramer]

If he doesn't have a constituancy, what do you call the

male independent voters he brings with him?

Also, if he didn't have appeal in swing states, why would Kerry be sending him to SPEAK ON HIS BEHALF all over Ohio???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56474-2004Mar13.html

""Bush's presumed opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), is responding with events this week focusing on troops and veterans in West Virginia and other battleground states. Kerry will say that Bush has shortchanged soldiers and their families in a time of war. Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who lost his bid for the Democratic nomination, will speak for Kerry in Ohio.

[arewethereyet]

65. do not mistake primary votes for GE votes

Kerry is sending Clark because he repels military oriented worse than Clark.

[cosmokramer]

93. Gimme a friggin' break...

...that is the lamest excuse I have heard yet. Surely you can come up with something better than that!

[arewethereyet]

94. demonstrate how I'm wrong ?

Kerry's anti-war activities are a big negative to military folk.

Clark can counter that.

Lame its not, true it is.

[Donna Zen]

29. Sorry you missed him

While the corporate media kept him on ignore or bash, many of us got out there to see some very amazing rallies. And--he always tells the truth! BTW, the military and their families are larger than you think, and they are primarily found in RED states. These are hardcore who military who have soured on bush but hate Kerry's anti-war demonstrations even more. Clark can bring them home.

The NYT said that Clark's job creation policy was the best. Jesse Jackson said that Clark's aid's policy was the best.

Again, sorry you missed him.

[arewethereyet]

67. I saw all I needed

starting with the lies about calls from the White House.

[Donna Zen]

73. Lies? Keep repeating them then

Joke? Do you get jokes? Thankfully Josh Marshall does and covered that smear very, very completely.

Sorry you missed it.

[arewethereyet]

88. I saw it myself, don't need a play by play, thanks

you would be surprized what judging for yourself can uncover. you should try it sometime.

[Sinistrous]

2. And by what warped logic does bashing someone equal fear of them?

Answer: There is no logic to support that smear.

[arewethereyet]

22. same that has people against homosexuality fearing it

I don't like Clark because he would have been a bigger disaster of a candidate than Dean. I "feared" landslide if you really want to try and tie it together somehow.

[Sinistrous]

42. You are the one who needs to try to "tie it together".

The attempt will prove illuminating.

[rasputin1952]

3. I don't understand it either...

to be honest, once a candidate is out of the race, they are entities only so far as what they say, and who they support. Clark is one of the smartest men around, and although his campaign got off late, he laid some excellent groundwork.

He set up Kerry for shutting down the media hype over the 'open mike'
scenario, when he told the FAUX reporter not to put words in his mouth. That showed an incredible amount of power on Clark's part, and regardless of what someone says, if they stick by it forcefully, the American people love it.

It is the excuse making and waffling that really upsets Americans. If you play straight with them, they will support you. When Kerry said he would not 'apologize' for the remarks about the repugs, he was right, and immediately people related to that.It made Kerry appear strong, and bush and his minions are scrambling to toss mud that won't stick.

You can thank Clark for bringing honesty into the mud-fight.

O8)

[Kahuna]

4. I don't think Kerry will choose Clark or Edwards..

He'll probably go with either; Breaux, Richardson (if he can convince him), Nelson or Bayh.

[Scoopie]

5. Ewww!

I hope not - that would make it an even more boring ticket!

[janx]

11. Get out yer NO-DOZ.

You might brew some coffee as well! :hi:

[LandOLincoln]

20. Not a chance. n/t

[Donna Zen]

30. Agreed

The Democratic party does not support the women who vote for them. Actually, more and more they take their base for granted. This new the Iraqi war is fine with me attitude sucks.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[incapsulated]

8. It will stop when Kerry chooses his VP *or*

If it's either Edwards or Clark, the bitching will continue...

If history is any guide, he won't choose either, but it's certainly not unheard of.

Let's just get it over with, I say.

 

[Layman]

13. The Fear of A Clark Vice Presidency

Dear angryinoville, you posting sounds like a breath of civility in this Democratic hothouse and I hope Clark Democrats don't take offense when I say that Gen.Clark is not my kind of Democrat. From the civilian bombing in Serbia to defending the School of the Americas the man is more than a serious question mark. Let some of his colleagues speak for me.
From The Guardian, Tuesday August 3, 1999:

"I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital. - Robertson's plum job in a warring Nato


When at a forum in September, retired Gen. Hugh Shelton was asked if he would support retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president, Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, quickly took a drink of water. "That question makes me wish it were vodka," Shelton said. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

Which was bad enough, but on November 6, retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf appeared on CNBC's Capital Report, hosted by Gloria Borger and Alan Murray, who asked him what he thought of Clark. "I think the greatest condemnation against him . . . came from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he was a NATO commander. I mean, he was fired as a NATO commander," Schwarzkopf replied, "and when Hugh Shelton said he was fired because of matters of character and integrity, that is a very, very damning statement, which says, `If that's the case, he's not the right man for president,' as far as I'm concerned."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031124/usnews/24notes_2.htm

[incapsulated]

15. More ignorance and slander

You take your marching orders from Shelton and Schwartzkopf, eh? And you think Clark isn't a "your kind" of Democrat? lol.

You have really have no idea what motivation Shelton or Schwartzkopf would have to make these unsubstantiated slurs, and then refuse to elaborate on them when asked repeatedly?



 

[Layman]

43. Marching Orders?

Marching orders, military men. Pretty wry so I dare not try to match wits. I'll just post some quotes attributed to your great leader.
"At least 1,200 civilians have died in NATO accidents," Steven Erlanger of The New York Times reported at the end of the war. On May 27, 1999, The Wall Street Journal ran an article that said: "On the sensitive topic of civilian casualties, Gen. Clark emphasized that no air war was perfect and that, to prevail, the (NATO) ambassadors should brace themselves for more collateral damage."
"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there." - Clark in remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001
"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "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.". .

[atre]

72. The "incap" post above is what I'd call "bashing"

Genuine criticism of a candidate's speaking abilities is not bashing. Responding to ludicrous claims by Clark supporters that the media did Clark in is not bashing. Responding to ludicrous claims that Edwards is responsible for Shelton's (apparently genuine) criticism of Clark is not bashing. Responding to vicious attacks on a traditional Democratic constituency, lawyers, is not bashing.

Clark supporters calling Edwards supporters stupid or ignorant is bashing.

But, hey! That's just the way I see things.

From my side of the fense, I see it this way: Some of the Clark supporters here pick fights, and then they run away crying to Momma because they got a black eye.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[kiahzero]

21. Oh look

It's the Pristinia canard. Let's trot it out for the umpteenth time, because maybe this time it'll stick? Oh, and the Shelton slander too? Wow! And even better, a lie about him being "fired." Looks like you've built quite a case!

[Scoopie]

23. Good Lord

Stop being so transparent!

:eyes:

[cosmokramer]

24. Gimme a friggin' break!

Yeah, check with the Judge at the Hague and find out that Shelton said that his remarks were "just politics".

Good grief!

[Crunchy Frog]

34. That's rehashing some

really old stuff. You might want to take a look through the archives to see to what extent those dead horses have been beaten into the ground. That stuff has been gone over and over and over.

You might want to try something a little more original.:)

You might also want to look into how Shelton had to retract his smears when Milosovich tried to use them as a defence in his trial. Shelton admitted that his remarks were just politics.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[surfermaw]

38. And he said George Bush was great for the country

Now that alone puts his intelligence in question...A drunk slacker was the right man for president?

[Sparkly]

49. Wrong

I've read several of your posts referring to that speech, both here and on another thread, surfermaw. I've also read corrections.

I suggest you read Clark's speech in its entirety (can somebody provide a link?) so you know what he actually said, and what he did NOT say. He did not say the things you've accused him of in your posts. He did not say "George Bush is great for the country."

After reading what he did say, put it in context by considering the thrust of the whole speech; then put it in perspective in terms of what was happening at the time, what Clark has said in testimony, books, etc. since that time (even before his candidacy), and what he is doing right now. Does that seem fair?

[Sparkly]

48. I can't believe I read that here!!

Do you also believe Al Gore said he "invented the internet" and "discovered Love Canal?"

I can't believe I'm reading freeper-level propaganda, refuted many times over, on DU.

[shivaji]

14. Clark is a loose cannon.......is why Kerry won't select him

[cosmokramer]

25. If he is such a loose cannon, why is Kerry sending him to speak for him???

If he is such a loose cannon, then why is Kerry sending him to Ohio, and all over the place stumping for him and SPEAKING for him????

Hmmm....


(snip)

Bush's presumed opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), is responding with events this week focusing on troops and veterans in West Virginia and other battleground states. Kerry will say that Bush has shortchanged soldiers and their families in a time of war. Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who lost his bid for the Democratic nomination, will speak for Kerry in Ohio.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56474-2004Mar13.html

Or is the Washington Post lying, and am I lying when I say I will be attending just such an event on Tuesday in Ohio????

[Crunchy Frog]

36. As far as loose cannons go

I praise the lord every day that Kerry is our nominee and not Dean. If Clark is a loose cannon, then Dean is closer to a nuclear sub with a drunk driver.

I'm glad that I at least don't have to sit around worrying about a 49 state landslide loss this November.

[BootinUp]

16. The million dollar question

I try to stay out of the VP wars anymore. It has become extremely tiresome.

[janx]

19. Well it's doubly awful because it's not as if it's within the

realm of our control. (It's not as if any of this is really within that realm completely anyway.)

So trying to convince anyone, on the internet or elsewhere, does no good whatsoever. It's a futile argument and a waste of time.

Kerry will do what Kerry will do. He has, apparently, hired or appointed someone to head the search.

All any one of us can do at this point is hope that the choice is the very best one, but it's not ours to make.

http://www.peopleforchange.net

[LandOLincoln]

26. I'm sorry you feel that way. I myself feel more powerful

than I have in years, and the fact that the media and the wingnuts (as if there's a meaningful difference) are paying attention to the DU just re-enforces that sense of power.

"Gonna win, yeah, we're TAKIN' OVER!"
--Jim Morrison said that.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"
--The Magistrate said that.

"John Kerry and Wes Clark are gonna kick Dubya's cowardly, pandering ass all the way back to Crawford!"
--I said that.

[janx]

27. That is a good and healthy attitude, but the truth is that

the electorate (let alone DU) does not choose the vice president.

Kerry has appointed someone to head the search, and the ultimate result will happen as a result of that.

[LandOLincoln]

28. Could be, but I persist in thinking that Kerry's "search" is mostly

window dressing, plus he may well be putting all his choices (Cabinet too) through some final, intensive vetting.

Could be wrong, of course. Thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. :evilgrin:

[Donna Zen]

32. Actually I think you are correct

The VP will be decided by $$$$, and insider politics. Does the party care if a candidate has voted against women issues? education? for this war?

Nope...nope...and nope.

Don't misunderstand--the monkey must go! So no matter what, living in what is a targeted state, I'm organizing locally to fight the junta. But do understand that in a way this is more difficult for me to do than those who actually approve of what has come down here, because I will need brain bleach after every meeting and activity.

This war is screwing up the world, and the our political and economic future, and yet, to get rid of bush I'm going to be working for a ticket that supported this war. The Democrats are fucking the base. Clark on the ticket would be a godsend, because at least I would feel I was doing something right. The elite clique that is picking the VP by sending me someone who supports vouchers, voted for the war, or has voted for banning late term abortions regardless if the mother's life is at stake--that's killing women folks, make no mistake what they voted for--will make my job more difficult.

[LandOLincoln]

35. Donna Zen, I 'm sure you're a lovely person, but I wonder if you

aren't a little obsessed? Where in the name of bleeding Jesus did you get from my post that the VP "will be decided by $$$$, and insider politics??"

I thought I said that Kerry's search committee was mostly formality and window dressing, and by that I meant to imply that his choice for VP (almost certainly Wes Clark) is all but a done deal.

And Clark, may I remind you, has been falsely excoriated by the wingnuts for supporting elective abortion up to the moment of birth, or the infamous (and totally fictitious) "partial birth abortion."

(edited for clarity)

[Donna Zen]

39. Not from your post

The first round of candidate talks were held in closed door sessions with Kerry's team and leading members of congress making their suggestions according to news reports.

When you mentioned window dressing, I thought you too had been picking up the bits and pieces. There are several factions pushing for different candidates at this time.

I absolutely do not think that Clark will be the VP candidate, for many reasons. Would love to be wrong, but right now, that is how it is shaping up.

And yes, Clark sees "late term abortions" as a medical procedure that needs to remain within the realm of a doctor and the patient which is as it should be. This is a very rare medical occurance that is now illegal including if it would save a woman's life. Some of the candidates now being mentioned voted for that very bill. I find their inclusion on a ticket that I will be campaigning for, disgusting.

BTW, I have a pro-life congressmen. During his run for this his first term he told our county committee that he would recuse himself from voting on women's reproductive health issues. With that promise, we felt fine and went to work on his behalf. Well, he lied and voted for the ban. Last weekend we had an open house here, and to a person, no one will support him again. I spoke to the county committee woman this afternoon and all I received was a frown and a shrug. I don't want to lose in this district, but if the repubs run a pro-choice candidate as they did in the last election, it will be difficult.

[LandOLincoln]

51. Sorry for my vehemence. First of all, I totally recognize that

the "partial birth abortion" BS is a straw man set up by the wingnuts in order to make a big show of voting against a procedure that is in fact extremely rare and is never elective. (I work with Ob/Gyns so I know just how bogus this "issue" is.)

As to the "bits and pieces," those that I've been picking up (admittedly from the POV of a total political outsider) tell me that Clark will almost certainly be the VP.

But until Clark's candidacy I was content to observe politics from a scornful and superior distance, and further am old enough (61 in June) not to be surprised--or even that disappointed--by anything.

It's very early Sunday and I'm not terribly alert, but I seem to have missed something here. Could you elaborate on your conviction that Clark will NOT be the VP? Further, do you
(a) have suspicions/fears/hopes as to who Kerry will choose as his VP if not Clark, and
(b)if so, are you willing to name that person, and why you think he/she will get the nod?

Thanks, and please take your time. It IS Sunday, after all... :toast:

[Crunchy Frog]

40. I wish that I had your optimism.

I don't think that Donna was making her conclusions on the basis of your post, but on the basis of her own observations and understanding of the way that the Democratic party establishment operates.

I think that Wes Clark would be by far the best choice, but regard the likelihood of his being picked as almost zero. In fact I would regard it as a virtual miracle if he were to be chosen.

I think that the fact that he is genuinly a free agent, not beholden to special interests or the traditional old boy party network pretty much insures that the party has no real use for him, beyond using him to raise money and such.

I apologize for my extreme pessimism, we will know soon enough if it is justified. If i'm wrong, I will eat...something, to be arranged later.

The bottome line is that Clark is a man who has a tremendous amount to offer the party, but they are IMO unable or unwilling to see or acknowledge the gift that they have been handed. They are locked into a particular mode of operating, and are unable to step out of traditional ways of doing things. This is one of the things that I think is killing our party, but I think that they either just don't see it, or simply don't care.

Sorry for the rant but, like Donna I'm a little obsessed too, although I never had anything like the level of involvement in the campaign that she had.

[BootinUp]

44. Do you have any

Clark buttons?


for eating later :7

[Crunchy Frog]

45. I'm not sure I'd go quite that far.

Maybe you could come up with some further suggestions that I might consider. I'm pretty sure that there's no risk, but not with absolute metaphysical certainty.:-)

[BootinUp]

47. just thought

I would see how certain you were :P

We wouldn't really make you eat a button, it would probably be a cake that looked like a button. :)

I think there's still a fair chance he will be on the ticket.

[Darkamber]

31. Thank you...

The argument is pointless. And you are right. Kerry will do what he feels is best.

Our best hope for the White House is to stop this silly fighting over something that no one can change.

Both Edwards and Clark support Kerry and will do whatever they need to do to help Kerry beat Bush.

And that is the only important point at the moment.

[Scoopie]

33. I love Radiohead, BTW

Just thought I'd mention that, angryinoville. :)

[angryinoville]

59. I saw them this summer...

Best...Band...EVER!

[ThirdWheelLegend]

41. I like Clark on the surface, but I still get the MIC shivers

:shrug:

Throughout the campaign I have always been on the edge of 'liking' Clark. Yet I still have trouble putting his MIC work and warring behind.


TWL

[Scoopie]

62. See...

That's what I was saying in my post above.
He's really a "different kind of General," but I understand your difficulty in putting that behind you.
I guess because I grew up in the South, it's easier to overcome that sense that soldiers are only interested in Republican ideals. Believe this or not, most of the progressive people I know in the South are or have been soldiers. I think the reason is that they get a better education (paid for) and they gain a lot of life experience because they travel all over the world.
Seriously, most of the people in our Clark group in Tennessee were soldiers and/or veterans who loved that blend of warrior and liberal that Clark provided. They also all HATED Bush! LOL!

[Guava Jelly]

46. clarkophobics are just silly

hes a good man but hes not a vegan millworker son.
Some people just hate winning

[LandOLincoln]

52. No, they're not silly--well, okay, some of them are--but chiefly I think

there's a generational thang goin on here.

My take on Clark (which was formed from working on the Clark campaign here in Albuquerque) is that the majority of Clark supporters are not Boomers or younger, but instead are War Babies like me (born 1943) and like Clark himself (born 1944).

The earliest memories of those of us born during WWII are of men in uniform--our fathers, our uncles--my father, my uncles--and to us that image is one of utmost security and safety.

Therefore the disillusionment and cynicism engendered by the Kennedy and MLK assassinations, and most especially by the VietNam tragedy, were painful on a level that the sons and daughters--and grandchildren--of our generation will simply never comprehend. Unless you were there I think it's impossible to understand on a gut level the power of Clark as a man and as an image to those of us who experienced growing up with the simplistic, 1940s-50s Walt Disney image of a just and noble world in general and a just and noble America in particular--and then having that cherished image turned upside down and inside out by the 60s in general and by Vietnam in particular.

To us Wesley Clark embodies the best of both of those worlds. He's both a straight arrow and a maverick: despite his movie star looks and rock star sexuality (trust me, I've met him & I know) he's been married and faithful to the same woman since 1967 and he's never so much as touched a joint. OTOH, he's honest to a fault, he's gutsy as hell, and he's been a major pain in the ass to whatever established order he's been pitted against at any given time.

Finally, and definitively (to me, anyway) HE LOVES ROCK'N'ROLL. (In his first book he goes out of his way to mention the Buddy Holly show he saw in London, yet significantly does not say word one about his heroism in rapelling down a mined, rain-soaked cliff in the face of enemy fire in a futile attempt to save his friend Joe Kruzel and the others who died in a doomed APC one ghastly day on Serbia's Mt. Igman.)

Most of all, he listens. No other major candidate--not Howard Dean, not John Edwards--has given me such a sense that I could just email him with advice/observations/personal concerns and get a thoughtful and personal answer in return.

(edit for typos)

[BootinUp]

53. Nice post

I still think Clark attracts across generations though. I was born in '63 and was a little young to understand what was going on in 'nam at the time. But I have picked up a good feeling for it. But you may also be right that his strongest supporters have ties to the military or strong feelings like you expressed.

[LandOLincoln]

54. Thanks, Jim. Hope it made sense. I'm too logy to go back and

read it again, at least not until I've waked up a bit more.

BTW, I'm amazed you're as young as you are, and that's a compliment in case you had any doubt. :D

[BootinUp]

55. perfect sense...and

Long Live Rock 'n Roll! :D

[Crunchy Frog]

60. Hey, your exactly the same age that

I am. I've never had any kind of connection to the military, and was too young to have much of any awareness to Vietnam.

I wasn't attracted to Clark because of the military thing except insofar as it might contribute to his electability by taking national security and patriotism off the table in the election.

What really drew me in was just listening to what he had to say, and the way he expressed it, and the way he was able to connect with people.

I saw someone who could reframe the discourse, take back issues that the repubs have laid claim to and redefine them in progressive Democratic terms, in a way that moderates and conservatives could grasp without feeling threatened. He seemed to me to be someone who could not only win, but bring about a major shift in the political landscape of our society, in much the same way that Reagan did, but in reverse.

So I guess what ended up appealing to me the most about him was more along intellectual lines. Not related to the military at all.

In our area by the way, there is alot of age diversity among his supporters including lots of young college students. I've also noticed a tendency for many of his supporters to be kind of on the intellectual side.

Sorry for the long windedness.

[BootinUp]

63. I could have said that

but not as well. :)

[texasmom]

87. I was born in '63, too,

and he was my dream candidate. I admire his service in Vietnam, but I don't think less of those who did all they could do to avoid the draft and going to Vietnam. His military experience was only a part of why I supported him. His leadership experience on the international stage was what was really appealing to me--his belief and experience in coalition-building, his honesty and his lack of political background, actually. I liked that he had strong liberal beliefs, but that he wasn't a professional politician.
It's always irritated and baffled me that Republicans seemed to corner the market on patriotism and support from those in the military the past 20-30 years. Part of why I love Clark is how he bravely turns all that inside out. He truly is a maverick, defying labels, and that makes some people crazy.

[tameszu]

58. Huge Clark fan...

who was born in 1977.

And we managed to get really strong support from law students and a goodly number of undergrads too on my campus...this doesn't refute your thesis, as I remember Clark doing better in the older democgraphics, but also had wide support too...

[Darkamber]

84. Great Post...

Thank you for a very good post about Clark. I never thought about what you are saying but you are most likely very correct.

I'm a boomer...the very end. To me Vietnam is from the history books. Edwards is 7 years older then myself. For me having someone who served in a war is not that big of an deal. For there is a whole generation coming up that had no war to serve in and couldn't unless then had enlisted in the Military service.

If you look at them without the anger, you will see that there are many qualities that are very much alike about Edwards and Clark. Both come from humble backgrounds. Both are dedicated to their wives and stayed married to only one. Both have strong values. Both are not really part of the long time political machines.

But I think you hit it on the head about what appeals to Clark supporters. That sense of Military leadership and security.

For me what appealed about Edwards was the sense of Hope and change and the believe that anyone can succeed in American. And Edwards does connect with people he speaks to though he might not have the time to write back to anyone now. Elizabeth Edwards does get involved and writes to Bloggers.

What is interesting about Kerry is that he has taken both of these parts of Clark and Edwards and put them together to give both supports an option to look at him.

I wish the anger and hard words would end because both men are excellent and both bring different people and even different generations to the Democratic party.

Thanks again for an excellent and well thought out post.

[atre]

71. Care to reconsider? Assuming I hate winning, why would I hate Clark?

That doesn't make much sense. Kerry is the winner. Clark was not even in the top 3.

[Doomsayer13]

56. Clark - a weapon in Kerry's arsenal

Clark is perhaps one of the stronger weapons in Kerry's arsenal now. His military background and humble background resonates with middle-America. I think we've gained a priceless asset to the Democratic party this year. Go Wesley Clark!

[Crunchy Frog]

61. I think so too

I just question whether the Democratic party has the capacity to grasp what a priceless asset it has just been handed.

I have been rather dissapointed with the Democratic party for some time now. I don't really know whether they have the capacity to recognize a good thing when they see it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

57. Why do you assume "fear"?

I have no "fear" of Clark, I just don't like him and don't feel he would be right for the job. Never have. :shrug:

[sangh0]

82. Because it sounds good

That's the only reason I can think of. It certainly isn't because the poster can read other people's minds

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

64. Why would anyone assume fear of Clark? He was decidedly

uneventful as a candidate.

[Auntie Bush]

66. How can you say that?

Look at all the faithful followers he has in the few short months that he campaigned...Many people have still not heard of him (thanks to the corp/media) but not to worry...they will! Then it will be the Republicans that fear him...wait and see.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

69. I ask why you say that??

I don't have a think against Clark. But like you said - many people have not even heard of him. So how could they develop a fear of him??

And if he is not getting media attention like you say, how the hell are Republicans going to fear him? What am I missing? Is this news exclusive to this website? Why would he be up and coming now that the nominee is all but written in granite? What is your point? I really don't understand what relevance Clark could have at this point in time?

Why should anyone fear him, Democrat or Republican? If he is to be used as a weapon against Republicans that is good news to me, but I really don't see the relevance if most people have never even heard of him,

[atre]

70. It's not about fear; it's about trust

It is absolutely shocking how so many people here throw blind supporter to any candidate. It's nearly religious for some people here.

Personally, I have a very hard time trusting someone who just discovered he was one of us less than six months ago. What assurances do we have that the conversion was genuine? Where is the guarantee that he won't revert to a PNACer if, due to some great catastrophe, he was required to assume the mantle of the Presidency? Sorry, but blind faith alone is not enough for me.

Also, there is very, very little Clark "bashing" going on here. There is, however, a great deal of Edwards-bashing and lawyer-bashing. Selective memories by so many newbies certainly makes me go "hmmmm..." Free email services are a blessing, but such a boon at the same time.

[in_cog_ni_to]

76. Before you state things as fact....

perhaps you should KNOW the facts? Wes Clark was an Independent. Never a registered republican. Wes Clark voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Wes Clark voted for Bill Clinton in 1996, and Wes Clark voted for Al Gore in 2000. He did NOT become "one of us" just 6 months ago.

I find it "shocking" that so many people state things as fact when they're completely BOGUS statements.

[atre]

77. Do you define yourself as a "non-Republican?"

I doubt that anyone else here does either. Clark was not one of us (read into that: a Democrat) until less than six months ago. THAT is fact, as strong as your cognitive need to reject it may be.

The only thing "BOGUS" here is your religious-like devotion to a candidate who has proven nothing.

[in_cog_ni_to]

78. Bullshit.

You have this "religious purity" for being a Democrat. Give me a break. What does it take to be a "pure" Democrat in your world? :eyes: The FACTS are what I stated in my previous post....he voted DEMOCRATIC in the last 3 damn elections. What the hell do you want? You're being ridiculous.

[Sparkly]

79. "Proven nothing?"

As I see it, your post about the "Democrat" label proves nothing. Not registering a party affiliation is standard procedure for
1. Arkansans;
2. Military Officers.

Clark has proven his commitment to serving the country, his courage in doing the right thing even if it means going up against the Pentagon, and his dedication to equal rights in his leadership in the army, and in his amicus brief to the MI court on affirmative action. He's proven he's as strong a fighter for Democratic principles as anybody -- taking on Bush and his administration in the strongest terms, and proposing progressive policies like a zero income tax policy for familes making under $50k -- and he's out there fighting for our party right now, speaking for a man whose campain circulated glossy fliers calling Clark a Republican. Actions speak louder than words -- is he less a Democrat than Joe Lieberman? Good grief.

My husband voted for Nixon and Reagan, too, and I'd dare you to tell him he's not a Democrat today.

[Auntie Bush]

85. And I voted for Reagan and Bush I

I also dare anyone to call me a lesser committed Democrat than anyone else in our party. Remember we are not all psychic and the majority of Americans didn't realize Nixon would be such a crook. (Did you pure liberals know that when you voted against Nixon? Did anyone out there know Reagan would be so conservative and sleepy? Did you all KNOW ahead of time how much effect and control Robertson would have on the party? Did all those people that voted for Bush know what a freak he'd turn out to be? If yhou can answer Yes then you are psychic. Sometimes we get burned and sometimes we get surprised. (Look at all the Republicans that learned to love Kennedy) We have to go along with our intuition. My intuition tells me that Clark is the best thing for our country and I'll go along with that. (My brains also tell me the same thing too.) I am a Democrat and I love Wes Clark. Period.
PS Don't forget Reagan used to be a Democtat and so was Helms!

[Adelante]

92. Less than 6 months ago?

Do you know that for a fact?

[DemPoliticalJunkie]

74. Clark who?

[CoupdEtat2000]

75. me too - who?

[Sparkly]

80. You'd be surprised

There are a lot of people who asked that right up to primary day in my state. The media emphasized Kerry, Edwards and Dean to the point that those were the only candidates they were even aware of.

[ArkDem]

81. Yon Clark has a lean and hungry look.

.

[LandOLincoln]

83. Dubya Caesar, bewaaaare the Ides of March n/t

[Auntie Bush]

86. And I'm hungry! Yum!

[Carolinian]

89. Fear? ?????

Not afraid of Clark....just not interested.

No platform, no Elvis.

[LandOLincoln]

90. Says you. We says different.

Great platform. Best tax plan of all. Far and away the most knowledgeable and experienced in foreign policy and national security. The compleat soldier/scholar/statesman.

And darlin'--MAJOR Elvis. Trust me.

[BootinUp]

91. I didn't know what

no Elvis meant....now I do.

No wonder Gert doesn't want him to run anymore ;)

[LandOLincoln]

95. Ah, the light dawns... ;-)

Don't think Gert has anything to worry about, though--not along those lines, anyway. Her man may have some major Elvis, but it's all for her.

Dammit.

[Leilani]

96. If I was Gert

I wouldn't let him out of the house! Major Elvis!!!