Are there ANY Edwards fans who wouldn't vote for a Kerry/Clark ticket?

[PurityOfEssence]

This animosity is just ridiculous. I know I'm part of the problem with the ongoing flare-ups, even though I spend many days on end avoiding any threads of the sort.

As a vocal supporter of Edwards on the board here since the summer of '01 when I found this place, I'd still heartily vote for a Kerry/Clark ticket. The poll where some Clark supporters claim that they won't support Kerry if he picks Edwards is nauseating.

Gosh, we're sorry that our guy didn't just fold up his tent and admit inferiority when your guy joined the fray, but is this any justification for putting our futures at risk? What kind of blockheaded sports-team affiliation madness is this?

So, are there any Edwards supporters who would reciprocate with the same huffiness? If so, shame on you.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I'd vote for your dog's crusty ass if it were running against Bush

but I'm just a shallow ABB'er :eyes:

[MikeG]

2. Whoever Kerry picks is fine with me.

Please just don't pick Gephardt or Nunn. Snooze City.

[physioex]

5. Gephardt invented "miserable failure", he can't be all bad...EOM

[MikeG]

6. Are you sure some campaign butt-boy didn't come up with that?

[physioex]

7. Let's compromise...

Whoever invented that term gets an endorsment for veep... :evilgrin:

[MikeG]

8. Deal.

[physioex]

9. LMAO...EOM

[physioex]

3. I would vote for a Chicken McNugget..

As far as strategy goes, it may not be good. Edwards would be a big plus in SC, NC which Kerry needs. If you can win SC, and NC you have the election in the bag. The only person I don't like is McCain. Whatever it takes, just get that idiot out of office......

[Pachamama]

52. I thought Clark did pretty well with voters in SC and NC etc....

...I agree on the Chicken McNugget....Any Nugget for President/Veep than Dubya and Dickhead....

[mourningdove92]

4. Oh yes, I would definately support a Kerry/Clark ticket. Yes, I

would prefer Kerry/Edwards, but ABB comes first.

[2Design]

10. V oting dem no matter what but not crazy about that ticket eom

[Jai4WKC08]

11. There you have it

Clark should be VP, because more people who prefer Edwards are willing to accept him than the reverse. ;)

Seriously, I will be curious to see if any of the people who have posted elsewhere that they will not vote for Clark will post it here. In light of the recent discussions, I sort of doubt it.

And fwiw, I have argued on multiple threads that there's good reason why Clarkies are less accepting of Edwards than Edwardniacs are of Clark. It all goes to what we were looking for in a candidate that led us to Clark, what we admire most about him now. Edwards ain't got it. Clark may not have as much of whatever it is Edwardniacs like, but he's not the anti-Edwards.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Maybe just less accepting, period.

Remember: acceptance is a hallmark of liberalism and pluralism.

The real problem is that Edwards refused to acquiesce and accept his inferiority when the great white knight rode onto the field amid heralding trumpets and at the head of a mighty force of establishment political operatives and their media pages. Damn him.

Do you care to enumerate these qualities of which you speak?

[Jai4WKC08]

22. It must be fun to live in a fantasy world

Fifty thousand drafters are hardly "establishment political operatives." But I guess the draft Clark movement was all a sham. Propaganda from the Clintons maybe. LOL

If it isn't obvious what Clark's "qualities" are that attracted us, how 'bout considering that the war in Iraq is screwed up, the war on terrorism cast aside, the UN, NATO and a whole bunch of bilateral allies fucked over. I can't speak for every Clarkie, of course, but I knew we were in BAD trouble late last spring and didn't think any of the other Democrats were capable of straightening it out.

Then came along this guy named Wes Clark, who spoke clearly, honestly, with great passion for what's right, with unquestionable intelligence, and on a higher plane of strategic depth. Oh and by the way, he fought NATO's first and only war without a single allied combat casualty, as well as helped build and train the forces that won Gulf War I. So I figure, if anyone could fix what's gone wrong with American overseas policy, it's him.

It wasn't until I got to know more about the man to realize the quality of his character, his courage, and his determination.

But I digress. The point is, Clark as a candidate tended to attract people who put a high priority on foreign policy and defense expertise and experience. Most of us consider that a basic requirement for job, especially in time of war. Kerry's got it, if not to the extent Clark does. Edwards doesn't. It's as simple as that.

[PurityOfEssence]

26. Okay, fair enough

He definitely was drafted, and lots of that was true grassroots organization, which I didn't credit in that post. When he entered the field, though, there was already a very broad support organization of professional politicians, and he entered as either the front-runner or very close behind, depending on which polls one watched.

Military force is the last resort in international relations, and it seems to me that one has a military for that. Politics, statesmanship and coalition politics are another animal, and something that is MUCH more important for a president. For this, the convincing, negotiating and human skills of an attorney are a much better proving ground, not to mention a full term of very involved Senatorial politics. Edwards has been very vigorous in his committee work, and he's a natural. Hierarchical organizations which demand strict obedience are a very bad training grounds for the constant give-and-take of politics.

It may have been missed by many, but war is to be avoided at all costs, although preparation for it must be in place. Someone who negotiates contracts, agreements, settlements and is able to fight in court to convince others of the fairness of your cause is in much better stead for politics. Edwards is also a much better speaker, and has great self-control and integrity.

The last straw for me on Clark was the repeated lying at the end of the campaign about Edwards' and Kerry's votes on the tax cuts. Dean had already been caught at this, so not only was it deliberate, character assassination, but it was extremely BAD lying at that. Beyond the moral indefensibility of it, it was incredibly poor judgment on a tactical level. When gently confronted about it via letter, he not only refused to answer it, but responded with a fusillade of further distortions, like Edwards' voting record. These were lies about things which the voters were very concerned, and I was aghast. It is inexcusable. If one excuses it, I feel that person is ethically corrupt to the point of having virtually no moral compass at all. One's word and truth are the cornerstones of society itself; didn't his Mommy teach him anything?

They were destined to be rivals, since they were targeting the same region, but the unscrupulousness was breathtaking.

You answered quite specifically, and thank you for that. I just don't think that military prowess is anywhere near the top of the list of traits necessary for a President, and I feel that those that are fall outside of Clark's experience. The ethical issue is huge for me.

Edwards is also on the Foreign Intelligence committee, and is very engaged with this. He was also the toughest critic of Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings and fought like a tiger to vote him down. We can also thank him for the sunset clause in the Patriot Act, although many had a hand in restricting it, and the end result is regrettable.

Upon reflection, it certainly sounds like I intimated that Clark was a media/establishment creation; please pardon the sloppy writing on my part for that. There are obviously many people who were and are genuinely enthused about this man, and that's been apparent since the beginning. The claim of many of his supporters that the media starved him of attention is simply not something I accept, though. he literally sucked all the oxygen out of the news for awhile, and he was quite the fair-haired boy; this is as it should be: he WAS a story in the strictest journalistic sense, being late in, famous and appealing to many.

So perhaps it's a fantasy land, but it's a nice and warm fantasy land where liars don't get into the most powerful position on earth.

[Jai4WKC08]

30. Fair enough so far as you went

But you missed a major part of my rationale. It wasn't just the military part. It was at least as much, maybe more, his understanding of and experience in the diplomatic side of the equation. He is not only prepared to negotiate, he's done it. With genious. And the whole exercise in keeping NATO together and focused in time of war is more about diplomacy than about military acumen.

You don't accept the media as a factor. Fine, but I can't understand it. Yes, he got lots of coverage (lots of it negative) when he first declared. But not when it counted, right before the primaries.

But I don't accept that he's a liar, or ever has been. Everything he said concerning Edwards' voting record was exactly correct. Exactly. I specifically heard Edwards himself try to defend his record on Stephanopolis and it was an embarrassment. He couldn't show that ANYthing Clark said was wrong.

I've never seen or heard or read a single thing to show me Clark has ever lied about anything. Only empty accusations by people with an agenda. And I can think of many instances when Clark could have lied, when it would have benefited him to, and yet he didn't.

[PurityOfEssence]

34. Clark lied about the tax cut votes

Edwards and Kerry did not vote for the Bush tax cuts. Look them up. Look up how Clark repeatedly said that they voted for them. It's not true, and it wasn't true when Dean said it either.

You are absolutely, unequivocally wrong on this, and he lied, lied, lied.

If you've never seen or heard or read anything about this, then you need to be more inquisitive. If you can find places where he could have benefited from lying and yet didn't, that's not an example of his virtue, THAT'S A GIVEN OF CIVILIZED BEHAVIOR. You had me going until the last two paragraphs, but you're so certain about your opinion that mere facts will not sway you.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=138

[BootinUp]

38. I looked at your link

and I also checked the DU archives and read a thread about this right after it happened. I see errors on both sides of the argument. For one, Clark's attack was very vague. So vague that its hard to nail down. I assume that was on purpose and looks like the type of political attack I don't generally like. It probably does explain why they only used it once and then pulled it from the speech. For all I know, Clark followed bad advice and then when it was questioned he made the decision to pull it. We will probably never know what happened inside there.

On the other hand, the theme he was following about mistakes by Dems in congress was valid. I don't grant you that Clark is a big fat liar and a terrible guy and all the stuff you're spewing. Politics is a dirty game, Edwards camp has played some too. Thats all I have to say on the matter.

[Jai4WKC08]

40. What bullshit

You're pretty cavalier about calling someone a liar, aren't you?

I didn't see anything about lying in your link. Even factcheck.org (which was never particularly fair to Clark) called it "bad intelligence." ...but they were trying to be cute. They do a lot of that, and it doesn't do much for their credibility. Which isn't great, since they've put out straight RNC propaganda on more than one occassion. Maybe you need to be more "inquisitive" about the quality of your sources.

I see at the bottom of the article it said, "Kerry and Edwards did vote for for an economic stimulus package in 2002 that contained a hefty but temporary tax cut for businesses." So they did vote for Bush tax cuts. Which is what Clark said. Or maybe you don't think corporate shareholders aren't among "the very rich."

I agree that telling the truth when a lie would serve your own interests better IS mere civilized behavior. But it's not what liars do. And it's not what Edwards does either.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. You're defending a liar; dispute this Clark quote:

"Take education. I don't understand how John Kerry and John Edwards can criticize the No Child Left Behind Act. They voted for it. I don't understand how John Kerry and John Edwards can criticize the state of our economy and claim to be champions of America's working families, when they voted for the president's tax cuts for the very rich."

They voted for a 9-11 relief package that included tax relief for small businesses affected by the economic impact in New York City.

This IS NOT VOTING FOR THE PRESIDENT'S TAX CUTS FOR THE VERY RICH. They both fought against the '01 package and the '03 package, even going to the extent of fighting a rearguard action the dividend break by proposing a smaller compromise bill when they knew they were facing defeat.

It's not like Clark just slipped up once, he did this repeatedly in the last phase of his campaign, and he KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. Whatever one thinks of Edwards, the crux of his campaign has been tax fairness for the middle- and working-class. To lie about this and make it seem that he's a hypocrite, liar and opportunist in direct opposition to his stated beliefs is just revolting. It was an attempt at a coup de grace, and it was as filthy a lie as was told in the whole campaign.

Shame on him, and shame on you for equivocating it. Dean had already gotten caught on this months before, and he had made milder statements, not "TAX CUTS FOR THE VERY RICH".

It wasn't an isolated incident, and it was specific in telling the listener that they were Bush's lapdogs, hurting the poor. This is juvenile and shows extreme lack of character. When confronted by Edwards' campaign, he never responded, but fired back with distortions about Edwards' voting record that were disproven.

You made a mistake. You're wrong. If you still like the guy, fine, but don't claim moral grounds on this issue; that's filthy smearing slander, and it reveals extreme personality problems.

The bill for which Edwards voted was the following:

HR 3090 Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002

Vote to pass a bill that would provide temporary business tax breaks and extend for thirteen weeks unemployment benefits that would cost $51.2 billion in fiscal 2002. The bill would provide incentives for rebuilding the area around the World Trade Center in New York City and include a 30 percent equipment depreciation deduction for three years. The bill would also reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families grant program, prolong several of the expiring tax provisions, and extend for three years the net operating loss carryback period.
Note: Bill signed by president on 03/09/2002

This is hardly a "tax cut for the very rich", now is it? In fact it's not even solely a "tax cut"; it was a cobbled-together catch-all with unemployment benefits and temporary BUSINESS tax breaks, not ones for INDIVIDUALS.

Just stop it, will you?

[Jai4WKC08]

46. LOL--stop what? Telling the whole story?

Your own source called it a tax cut. And that's exactly what it was. So what if the bill covered other provisions? That's how they do it in Washington. It doesn't invalidate the statement.

And regardless of the description given, I know that law. The depreciation step-up applies to all corporations AND sole proprietorships, and is NOT restricted to NYC or WTC-related relief. The NOL carry-back was for all corporations and made a BIG difference in tax liability of shareholders. And fwiw, these changes are still around, so I guess it wasn't temporary either.

In any case, it most certainly wasn't just small businesses, but even if it had been... I've done taxes for "small" businessmen who make more than a million dollars a year. How you define "very wealthy" is all semantics, isn't it?

Your source also said the statement was gone from Clark's speech the next day, so how can you say "he did this repeatedly in the last phase of his campaign"? Which lasted for exactly 6 days longer, btw.

If you recall, one of the very valid arguments against two Senators on the ticket, and a problem Kerry has had already, is that it's just a fact that all bills are "cobbled" together. So any legislator's voting record can be picked apart with true statements that don't take into consideration the other provisions.

You know, Clark also pointed out Edwards voted against veterans benefits. First he denied it, and when it turned out he had, he named other people who voted against it, and when it turned out those people hadn't voted against it, he whined, "well, it would have hurt the farmers in my state." So get off your high horse about lying. At least what Clark said was technically true, even tho it appears he decided it wasn't true enough to keep in his speech.

You can put any spin you want on it, but it still boils down to more of Edwards not taking responsibility for his record. And if that means "he's a hypocrite, liar and opportunist" ...well, that's about the way I see it.

[PurityOfEssence]

49. The whole story? This is selective by definition.

Let's regroup here. When you tell an audience that someone voted for the BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE VERY RICH, you are deliberately misleading people into believing that this person is voting for numerous bills--it's PLURAL, you'll note--intimating that the person is supportive of ALL such bills and dragging the person's name through the mud. That one can find one example does not absolve one, it shows the willful distortion for what it is.

Many of Clark's supporters raged when it was brought out that his "opposition" to the war resolution act was even somewhat questioned, yet he is on record recommending a politician to vote for it, and his views are NOT cut-and-dried. Yet, even with that, his opponents are painted as having "supported the war" by voting for a resolution that presumed sincere attempts at negotiation and verification. This asymmetry is known as hypocrisy: I can avoid the spirit of the issue and cling to a semantic justification to misrepresent the broad sweep of a person's actions, but if anyone slags me, they have to be pristine and absolute in their charges.

In the vernacular, THE BUSH TAX CUTS are the '01 rate cut and credits and the '03 dividend giveaway. The overwhelming proportion of money was in these two cuts, and these are what is assumed by a listener to such a speech.

Here's another Clark quote:

"I don't understand how John Edwards and John Kerry can criticize the state of the economy when they voted for George Bush's tax cuts that gave tax cuts mostly to wealthy Americans."

A smear is the act of using broad group accusations to insinuate specific guilt. To say that Bob kills gets great satisfaction in deliberately crushing living animals to death is true: he loves it when he can smack a mosquito that's biting him. To say that Kerry and Edwards voted for George Bush's tax cuts is specifically designed to make people think that this was their consistent, indeed ABSOLUTE AND DELIBERATE activity. It's doubly ugly when this is such a core issue to these men, and to hide behind a sliver of cover shows deeply compromised morals.

You won't see this, because the success of your champion grants him the right to twist, distort and smear. Yet, if someone brings up the questionable pronouncements on the war resolution, I'll bet I'll hear some huffy dudgeon.

Wes Clark, in that oft-quoted fundraiser for the Republican Party in May of 2001, praised a bunch of people, including Paul O'Neill. Since Clark's been in investment banking lately, he certainly can't claim ignorance of what the Bushies were up to at this point: the '01 tax cut thievery was submitted to Congress on February 8, 2001. Paul O'Neill was on record in the Financial Times for supporting the repeal of Medicare, Social Security and all Corporate Taxation. Yet there were hugs and kisses from the man-without-a-party. Great team. We should all be thrilled we got 'em. Stand up fellas, every one, even those women.

Quite frankly, it's a big stretch to take anyone's word for how they would have voted on various divisive issues; the only one of the candidates who has much of a right to point fingers is Dennis Kucinich.

Yet, it's okay to smear men who fought tirelessly to defeat the huge tax cuts of '01 and '03 because they voted for a package of unemployment benefits with an emotionally laden relief package cloaked in the sanctimonious patriotism of post 9-11 bathos. That's just fine. Men who took heat at home (especially Edwards) to do the correct and honorable thing, even fighting a rearguard action on the foregone '03 thievery to try to reduce the damage are just despicable curs; they don't deserve the merest fairness one would grant to a stranger on the street. What horrendous ego it must take to claim that right. These are men who largely define themselves by fighting for an equitable tax code. It's okay, though. It's just fine to deliberately whip up crowds into the belief that these men are scabrous traitors of the soul to the sweet working person, feeding on the poor while claiming to care about them. Nothing wrong with this. In fact, Wesley Clark is to be commended for such actions, I suppose.

Show a scrap of remorse. I don't see that at all. All I see is twisting and dodging to find a semantic justification for what is an overall lie. In a pivotal moment of the campaign, Clark used accusations that could only claim the merest twig of cover, and that only by strict semantics. The man acts like this, has virtually no public record, and says "trust me".

Do you deny that his intention was to get people to think that they'd voted for all of Bush's tax cuts? There's no qualifier like "some" or "a few" or even just "one single minor one attached to unemployment benefits extension" used. None. Do you seriously deny that these statements were attempts to get people to believe that these guys were heinous hypocrites of the worst sort? One can be a totally deceptive rat to the bone and never utter a distinct lie; omissions, misstatements, mischaracterizatons and such are plenty useful for a cad.

In the end, people who demand the right to so dispense with the merest decency in their comportment and description of others are users. The ends do not justify the means. Character counts.

Why do I hear no regret for such things? Would you tolerate such actions from your children or employees? This is extremely disturbing; we've gotten to such an attainment oriented society that it seems the only thing that matters to most people is getting the prize. Manners and honor mean naught. If you seriously think it's just "boys being boys", then that's a poor reflection.

How numbingly sad this all is.

[BootinUp]

56. Your intractable

attitude against Clark is really overboard. He ran about the cleanest campaign of any of the candidates. In fact he was often questioned on when he would attack his rivals and he refused to. It was only at the very end when he needed to draw the distinction between himself as non-politician vs Kerry and Edwards, that he brought up their voting record. He owed it to himself and his supporters to make his best effort in the race. Did he make any mistakes? Sure, who the F didn't? Did the Edwards campaign use any negative tactics against rivals. You bet your goddamn ass they did. Granted he was much stealthier at it. Like employing Shelton who personally impugned Clark's character. Like his oppo research notebook that he claims he knew nothing about right. Clark correctly pointed out that he was a Senator who had a voting record that could and should be questioned. He withdrew the one statement you have a problem with after using it once! Get the hell over it.

[PurityOfEssence]

57. The Shelton canard is tiresome and unfounded

Edwards approached fellow North Carolinian Shelton years ago, when first starting in politics, because he knew he needed foreign policy experience. They both went to the same University, as a matter of fact, and as prominent North Carolinians, had reason to know each other. Shelton was not just trotted out to ambush Clark as he descended from Mount Olympus, and the idea that a ex-member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an errand boy for a junior Senator is pretty silly.

There is no evidence that Shelton was acting as an Edwards proxy; what we do know is that Shelton doesn't like Clark. This isn't too odd, many senior military people don't.

Clark did not use the tax cut lies "just once", he used them quite a few times; I've posted two different quotes recently. He never retracted them or apologized--at least, not that I've seen--when confronted about them, either; he simply stopped using them. What he did do was respond with further distortions, like the "Edwards voted with Bush 76+% of the time.

To defend one's candidate in the face of repeated onslaughts is hardly aggression and the tone of the more strident members of the Clark contingent prompts rebuttal. Does this man's virtue entitle him and his supporters to immunity from response?

Why do you think someone started a thread specifically asking Clark supporters to stand up and be counted if they'd refuse to support Kerry with a different VP? Nobody else's supporters have been asked something like this, until I did so out of sarcasm and to prove a point. One of the deleted messages in this thread was from someone blowing up at the Clark supporters for the tone and VOLUME of their threads; that kind of emotion doesn't just occur in a vacuum.

My ongoing support of Edwards on this board since his withdrawal as a candidate has still been consistently reactive in nature; I'm not the one deliberately going out and antagonizing on the subject. This is the first thread I've started on the subject in a very long time, and I've stayed out of a lot of the other ones of late. The vast majority of the threads that feed this fire are started by Clark supporters and kick up quite a ruckus.

How many threads do you see of the "it's gotta be Edwards or else" type? How many from Clark people?

I'm not joking when I said earlier that I had been largely staying out of the '04 campaign forum because there were often more threads about Clark than about Kerry. That's just nauseating. Gosh, the guy's loved. Fine. Enough already.

People who throw rocks have no right to complain about people ducking or throwing them back.

[BootinUp]

58. Two supporters collide

I have been silent around here since Mar-April. I only started posting again because there is a lot of buzz about the Veep, and because you and other Edwards supporters were bringing up the old smears on Clark. As long as we can agree that it is a two way street (granted there are more Clark supporters and threads) but the vitriol does fly both ways.

I don't really want to debate the details of the dirty politics, but I wanted to make a point that in politics all sides have their questionable tactics. Your view is shaded by your bias just as is mine. And what we don't know about the campaign could fill volumes.

Cheers

[PurityOfEssence]

60. Look:

That was nicely said, and I appreciate the olive branch, but I don't think it's even or even close. Those of us who've been here for awhile are also jaded by history, and that history is one of a very shrill contingent of Clark supporters setting the tone. There was an organized assault on this board one night that had even the Dean supporters gasping in incredulity, and it went on from there. Epithets of "whiner" and such were endless, and the whole thing smacked of conservative bombast and ridicule. This sticks in the mind.

From the beginning, these two candidates were competing for much of the same demographic, and they were destined to be rivals. Clark rescheduled a speech and carefully orchestrated a leak (Marc Fabiani is a dick) to suck the coverage away from Edwards long-scheduled formal announcement, and when confronted about it, a Clark spokesman accused Edwards of being a so-and-so who was just bitter because of his failed candidacy. Well, we were off and running from that point on.

Clark entered the race as either the front-runner or number two, depending on which poll one read, and had a fast-forming staff of experienced pols and seemingly endless momentum. The tenor of much of the support on this board was snotty, derisive glee of the "abandon your paltry dreams and accept unquestioned superiority" type. There have always been a huge number of Clark supporters on this board, and until Iowa, there were always VERY few Edwards supporters. There were also a couple of vehement Anti-Edwards types, especially one handicapped person who repeatedly defied facts and railed at Edwards as anti-disabled and for "voting against the handicapped". We were always a tiny minority, and we behaved ourselves for the most part. We got our asses kicked here, and much of it from the Clark camp was done in the tone of sneering derision and the chorusing of inevitablilty.

Yes, I'm quite biased.

Still, I have a habit of empathy, and can understand why certain candidates appeal.

During this time, there was also the incredibly strident defense of Dean, even when he deliberately lied and misrepresented, and yet, I was willing to agree that the man had something going for him.

In the interest of community, though, this has to stop. I'm being a bit of a buzzkill here by not simply taking your overture for peace gently and signing off, but it's NOT equal, and it's not ending. One has a tacit obligation to the board to not suck up all the bandwidth with a continuation of a "take-no-prisoners" strategy in favor of someone. Starting endless additonal--and redundant--threads tramples other discourse and pushes worthy topics off the board and into oblivion. Let's be serious: the VP choice is NOT the most important issue in unseating Junior this fall, yet if one skimmed the '04 Campaign forum one would think that western civilization is threatened with extinction unless Wesley Clark is enthroned at the right hand of Kerry.

Policy discussions, geographical electoral tactics, brainstorming about setbacks and the like are all infinitely more important than the VP choice, and turning off valuable voices out of disgust at the railing fixation of a faction that has an anti-social flavor doesn't help. Too bad the mods removed the post that I responded to as "ventin'" in this thread: It was a heartfelt rage against the tactics of some of the Clark supporters, and that kind of thing doesn't happen unless well-prompted. (I must say that I appreciate the mods for not quashing some of my posts, because I know that my ire has compelled me to treding mighty close to that vague line of decorum.)

Yes, we have to move on. No, I don't think it's parallel, equal or anything of the sort. Yes, it was very nice--and big--of you to offer this hand in truce, and yes, I'm being a bit of an ingrate to not just take it and leave it at that. As Sarah Bernhardt said: "forgive everything, forget nothing." She was bigger on this count than I, but I tend to drift in this direction, too.

I hope it all ends with Kerry's decision, but I fear that it won't. If Clark's not picked, the rage, invective and general time-sucking will crest again, and a whole new pattern analyzing the unfairness and demanding his inclusion in any one of a number of cabinet posts will ensue. Enough's enough, and yet, I don't see this happening.

I've said my piece, and I'm sure someone will spur my self-appointed blathering soon enough, but right now, I have a work deadline to which I must attend.

[Jai4WKC08]

63. Right about only one thing

It's not "even, or even close."

The rest is hypocritical drivel that basically boils down to the idea that Clark supporters invaded DU just as Clark invaded the Democratic party. And all so unfair to the "real" DUers and Democrats. I'd feel so sorry for you, but you already feel sorry enough for yourself.

[PurityOfEssence]

69. Just what I'm talking about

Yes, anyone who disagrees with your views of the world is a loser and crying in the abject confusion of not knowing whether to rage in hatred or wallow in self-pity.

Of course, now that you've escalated this to personality dismissal, it is a further example of my unholy effrontery to respond.

Your sincerity rings hollow; there's too much joy and delight in your presumption of my demoralized horror of a life. Why are so many conservative sounding rejoinders the province of the most hotheaded Clark supporters? Why does the term "whiner" recur so much as a marginalizing slur against opponents? Why does the image of Nelson Muntz saying "ha-ha" ring so clear in the heads of the sad and lonely outcasts who haven't seen the light?

I doubt you'd feel sorry regardless of my demeanor; as a true believer, the subject seems to be closed.

The very idea of a Clark supporter accusing his critics among Edwards and Kerry supporters of hypocrisy is rich. Join the party and realize that others have a right to disagree, and when foisting off accusations, you have an obligation to back up your charges. Standards of honor and truthfulness you hold others to are precisely the ones you have no qualms about Clark sidestepping.

I'm sorry if this ruins your day, but I'm a generally happy type with a fun family and an enjoyable career; I can slog through the miasma of relentless silliness from angry exclusivists and not have it leave much of an aftertaste at all. So if it helps your worldview to think that opponents are all laughably inferior, go right ahead, but remember: that's how conservatives think.

[Jai4WKC08]

62. It's a lost cause.

If some people want to believe Clark is a liar, and refuse to see the slime trail behind Edwards, there's no way to convince them otherwise. But it's really sad to see such baseless attacks against someone who's done so much for our party and the greater cause of getting rid of Bush.

I'll put Clark's 38 years of public service against Edwards' single senate term and private law practice any day. And Clark's untiring work to elect Kerry against Edwards' self-promotion as well.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[PurityOfEssence]

36. Oooh, lawdy, now THERE'S some world-class ventin'!

Sometimes the truth just bursts forth like a breath of fresh air, and this post is one of them. I thought the Deanies at their height were a nightmare, but these guys take the cake.

Half of the threads started on this forum seem to be Clark-barking scorched-earth pronouncements, and it's just nuts. At least some of the pleasant Clark supporters regularly offer up some chagrin over the whole thing, but holy mother-of-all-tantrums it's a hazard to one's civility to venture into this slag-pit of sanctimony at times.

Thank you for posting this. Thank you again. My trajectory on Clark was drastically affected by the tenor of his supporters when they burst onto the scene one evening oh so long ago, and the belittling and mockery made of anyone standing in their way made me wonder just what kind of person inspired people like this.

There are many times when Clark is represented by name and by subject in more threads in the '04 Campaign Forum than JOHN KERRY HIMSELF! Is that not ridiculous?

[PopSixSquish]

12. I'll Vote for Kerry/Ham Sandwich

While I can understand some people's reluctance about Edwards and some people's reluctance about Clark, it is Kerry's decision to make.

[Darkamber]

13. I've always said I'ld accept Clark...

Clark's my second choice. Still think he would be MUCH more effective as Sec. of State or National Security advisor. Don't know why you want to waste him in the VP position. I'ld like to see him in front of the UN or speaking to NATO and as VP, that's not what he would be doing.

I don't think Edwards people are as anti-clark as Clark people are against Edwards. Atleast on this board.

[cosmokramer]

15. Note there are no posted replies from the core group of

Edwards fanatics posting that they are agreeable to such an option.

[AP]

19. Who do you suspect wouldn't vote for Kerry-Clark. I can't think

of a single Edwards supporter at DU who has ever said he or she wouldn't or about whom you could even infer wouldn't based on statements they've made.

[cosmokramer]

24. Oh believe me, they are out there.

I would not include you as one of them, if you are wondering.

[AP]

28. Why don't you PM me.

I'd love to know who you think would answer yes to this question.

I can search the archives to confirm your hypothesis too.

Maybe you're right.

But I doubt it.

[PurityOfEssence]

21. I must now pull rank: along with AP and chimpymustgo, I'm one of them

I've been vocally posting on this board as a staunch supporter of Edwards since the late summer of 2001. Although I'd have to say that AP and chimpymustgo are more vigorous over time, and also VERY LONG-TIME supporters, I'm one of the old guard, and for the longest time, there were very few of us. Bombtrack went astray for awhile, but was a fairly early supporter too, as were others.

Other than some of the extreme Deaniacs, the Clark supporters have some of the most vociferous, combative and dismissive typists on this entire board, so if you get some ire, consider it karma.

So la-di-da, mama pin a rose on me, and go chew on your own invective.

[cosmokramer]

23. You just made my point, for me, Ms. Purity.

[AP]

29. Your point was that some Edwards supporters wouldn't vote Clark.

And you haven't made that point.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. For the record, as trhey say

I would have no problem voting for Kerry/Edwards if that is our ticket.

[Darkamber]

32. We know Tom..you are great...

I was encouraged that most of the Clark supporters would support that ticket. And I miss your well reasoned voice. I wish you didn't pack up from the flame wars.

[Darkamber]

33. What core group...I see most of us here.

Are you talking about Cuban Liberal? I don't think I've ever seen anything from him or any other Edwards supporter saying they wouldn't back a Kerry/Clark ticket.

Several here, including myself, post positive things about Clark.
Does it upset you that we are not against a Kerry/Clark ticket?

[Cuban_Liberal]

39. "Are you talking about Cuban Liberal?"

Thank you. I am ABB, even if it means Kerry-Clark.

[spooky3]

42. The OP asked whether any of us would NOT support Kerry/Clark.

I took that to mean: there is no need to reply if you WOULD support them.

However, it appears at least one person has misinterpreted at least my non-response (can't speak for others) to this point, so I will be clear:

I will support Kerry no matter whom he selects as VP.

[AP]

16. For the 100th time...OF COURSE NOT. I would HAPPILY vote Kerry-Clark

[surfermaw]

17. If the won't vote for a Kerry/Edwards, suspicion they are Rep.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. People who vote for Nixon and Reagan, praise the Bush Team

and can't really remember just whether they did or didn't vote in many situations certainly are a tad suspect, aren't they?

It's not like the Bush Team hadn't been brutally thuggish with their foreign policy before Clark made his statements, either; they STARTED OFF on a truly combative course.

What's always been interesting is how many Clark supporters accuse people of being "whiners" and rejoice in the misfortune of others. Accusations from the Clark campaign when Edwards' staffers complained about upstaging his official announcement were sneering dismissals that Edwards was just bitter about being a loser with a DOA candidacy; walks like an elephant, talks like an elephant, smells.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[Jai4WKC08]

25. Example please

How had "the Bush Team... been brutally thuggish with their foreign policy before Clark made his statements"? I may have disagreed with them on Kyoto, for example, but that was hardly what I'd call "brutally thuggish." Clinton wasn't going anywhere with Kyoto either. Just wasn't possible.

Besides, if you care to recall, Clark's "statements" were totally framed by remarks about how important it is to maintain established alliances, participate in internatinal accords, and enter into discourse with potential enemies. It's intellectually dishonest to cherry pick a few lines and not look at the timing, purpose, location and intent of the entire speech.

[cosmokramer]

27. Add to that that he spoke at a dem fundraiser the following week...

[PurityOfEssence]

51. Here. Examples.

Before his speech in May '01, the Bushies had threatened to pull out of the ABM treaty, threatened Cuba, withdrawn money from foreign planned-parenthood organizations if they counseled condom use, torched Kyoto, granted an extension of the Cayman Islands' and other entities' tax shelter benefits that the Clinton Administration had set to phase out, appointed people like Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich and a host of other scoundrels to important positions, resisted World Court jurisdiction and bombed Iraq.

All of this was on the record, and as someone well connected, Clark either knew or was so remiss in his self-representation that he shouldn't be claiming prescience.

Clark's statements in praise of the Administration didn't just stop at foreign policy either.

Yep, them's some mighty tasty cherries, and I done picked them myself. There's more, but this should make the point.

[Jai4WKC08]

61. Those "cherries" aren't from Clark's speech

The only thing on that list I MIGHT qualify as "brutal" (your word) is bombing Iraq, and if you recall, Clinton did the same thing in 1998. And with good cause.

The rest are Bush policies you or I (or Clark) might disagree with, or not, but they're hardly indicative of the grossly incompetent, much less criminal administration that BushCo would prove to be.

The bottom line is that it's not gonna hurt Kerry to have a running mate who praised the Bush administration in 2001. In fact, it may be precisely what he's looking for. That's the reality and if it offends your liberal sensibilities, that's just too bad.

[PurityOfEssence]

64. Didn't say they were

and didn't intimate such a thing either.

Allowing sub-saharan Africa to die off in a horrible plague just because the locals won't toe the line on religious idiocy is brutal. Pulling out of the ABM treaty and bringing terror to the rest of the world is brutal. Cuba: brutal. World Court: massively hypocritical, world-dominating and brutal. Tax havens: okay, just greedy and abusive to taxpayers, shareholders, U.S. citizens and the other poor suckers along for the ride on our ego-frenzied world conquest kick.

To accuse Kerry and Edwards of being unfeeling--and hypocritical--to the poor after praising Paul O'Neill brings a bit of a taint, too.

I have not railed and complained about Clark being a VP. I don't think it's the smartest move at hand, but it's far from the worst. The corporatist record of Clark's post-military time, his voting record and cozying up to Republicans may turn off some extreme lefties, but I wouldn't say that's much to worry about. I haven't joined in the "my guy or nobody" childishness at all, and I'm hardly a shrinking violet or occasional poster. I'm responding to egocentric board domination by a vocal and intolerant minority of Clark supporters, and that's it.

My take has not been to dissuade or whip up a frenzy against Clark as a VP, and I've been responding to the many who have been doing precisely that to anyone who suggests anyone BUT Clark.

When one says that the Bush Administration hadn't shown its true stripes when Clark spoke for them is just plain and simply false, and when asked to substantiate that claim, I'll happily endulge the request. It probably won't hurt Kerry much to have a ticket-mate who supported Junior's mob once upon a time; there's so much anti-Bush sentiment from so many right now, and they're so anti-him that they'd be perfectly fine with all sorts of VPs.

What does offend my liberal sensibilities is the tenor of intolerance and hijacking of the bandwidth by those who hurl countless and constant invectives, and then adopt the pose of cruely violated sweet innocent souls when victims of their allegations have the gall to defend themselves. Pluralism is based on inclusiveness and manners.

[BootinUp]

65. bandwidth limited response

I was here for the whole primary battle lurking at first and then joined in early November. Clark supporters were numerous no doubt and vocal. They also tended to keep there own in check when one flew the cuckoos nest. I know, I know, your opinion is different...imagine that.

[PurityOfEssence]

66. Why don't you float that premise as a thread and see how it goes?

I don't know if the mods will accept it, since it's divisive by nature, but it'd be an interesting exercise.

[BootinUp]

67. Actually

I prefer dealing with exact posts. Raise your complaint and let people comment on it. It actually does work.

[Jai4WKC08]

68. This has got to be the funniest thing I've read today

"What does offend my liberal sensibilities is the tenor of intolerance and hijacking of the bandwidth by those who hurl countless and constant invectives, and then adopt the pose of cruely violated sweet innocent souls when victims of their allegations have the gall to defend themselves."

What the fuck do you think you've been doing?

[PurityOfEssence]

70. Responding in kind

Apparently, you seem to be able to type, and obviously you can write; the question is: can you READ? The premise is this: extremist Clark supporters have repeatedly commandeered the board to further their cause, and have nary a scruple when meeting resistance. This is resistance.

Somehow far too many feel entitled to victory and especially the last word. People who bark at others and attempt to intimidate with their boundless will to fight need to be confronted. Call it karma. Call it with the usual megaphone. Call it macaroni; who cares?

The Clark extremists (not all supporters, mercifully) have carved out their own cul-de-sac of sanctimonious acrimony, and they have only themselves to blame for it. I see no other candidates supporters constantly daring anyone to differ, and demanding their guy get consideration, at pain of deliberate secession from the cause. By doing so, Clark extremists have made themselves roundly disliked by and large, and this will probably not help their cause.

Bark all ya want, it just makes you sound more and more intractible.

Silly silly silly.

[MontecitoDem]

18. Umm

There seems to be very few Clark people who are saying this. Please don't paint us all with the same brush!

[Awsi Dooger]

37. I would eagerly vote for Kerry/Clark, but view it as an ominous choice

My longheld belief is John Kerry is not special or likeable enough, just good enough to get you beat as I wrote more than a year ago. A candidate like that has zilch margin for error and requires oodles of help from the enemy.

It is also the type who might emphasize the wrong campaign themes or individual states, and choose a Wes Clark for VP. I'm not worried about Dick Gephardt. Only a world class masochistic moron would isolate Richard Gephardt. Kerry is projectiles above that.

I'll get flamed, but Clark was always little more than a gimmick candidate who was embraced by Democrats before they knew anything about him. The same "us too, me too!" mentality that got us clobbered in 2002 produces the ascent of a Wesley Clark. "My god Betsy, a general on OUR side!! Just what we need!!"

Clarkies are too stubborn and proud to concede he was a flawed presidential candidate, almost always on the defensive trying to defend conflicting statements or whether he belongs in the party at all. Can you imagine how many times they'll replay Clark's praise of Bush, and dig up more of the same plus row after row of military types condemning Clark? Edwards supporters have been much too kind on DU, not pointing that out while swallowing continents of crap regarding Edwards' supposed vulnerabilities.

I just read Michael Moore's Q & A in Playboy. He got it right in a nutshell: Howard Dean is kind of a prick who was doomed to implode and Clark just isn't a politician.

Aa a Dolphin fan, I root for them in every game of every season. But that doesn't prevent me from understanding a great first found draft pick from a mediocre one. Mediocre ones severely limit your ultimate destination.

[wjsander]

44. Well put. eom

[BootinUp]

54. Whos flaming?

Lets see you slighted just about every candidate except Edwards, the guy who has run for VP twice, President once, and Senator once.

You used language like gimmick candidate, and suggested that Clark supporters didn't do any research on the man before donating their time and money to support him.

You suggested that he was a flawed candidate, like any of the others don't have flaws. Clark is the first to admit he isn't a politician, he said as much just 3 weeks ago at his WesPAC event in NYC. He is a man that spent 34 years serving his country with great distinction, and has played a huge role in raising the awareness of our country about GW's failures in foreign policy. A guy who was ready to give up his lucrative business to serve again when we needed people like him on the Democratic side.

I don't have flames for you, just a suggestion, show a bit more respect for people like Clark, Kerry, and Gep who have given their lives to serve not just the last 6 years.

Edit: One last comment, it was the experts and the insiders who didn't want Clark and worked the media against him. Not the average Americans who gave Clark tremendous support as evidenced by the fact he raised tons of money and had the second lowest average contribution of the top candidates (Second to Dean).

[nursbetty]

55. Clarkies are not followers

Your insulting the intelligence of very educated people who are patriots and want what is best for this country. The Presidency should not be about a "C" student with mediocre qualifications. Clark has worked and excelled at everything he has done. Demonstrating respect for those who have sacrificed so much in their lives for this country is considered courteous.

[JohnKleeb]

41. I doubt it, most of them I find like Clark

I myself am no Clark fan but if Kerry chooses him as VP, so be it.

[David Zephyr]

45. Very Magnanimous of You, POE.

Nice thread. Helpful comments.

[PurityOfEssence]

48. Thanks, Dave, but it's a losing battle

Somehow complete lying and deliberate systematic distortion of one of the most crucial issues to our party (tax policy) is just fine to many people who support Clark. The loyalty is certainly impressive, but the tactics are beyond anti-social.

I've literally perused the board and seen more Clark threads than Kerry ones at times in the past few weeks; it's breathtaking.

Because of all this, I've been avoiding this forum, but as you know, it's not my nature to merely ignore huge steaming piles of horse droppings and traipse merrily through my day with a song in my heart.

I'm still not finding an Edwards supporter who'll show up with the same divisive selfishness of others who won't support Kerry without their guy, so to a degree, the thread's successful.

[SW FL Dem]

47. I was torn between Kerry and Edwards before Clark entered the race

I will support Kerry and anyone he chooses to be his running mate. I just it isn't Zell, Joe or John McCain.

[Adelante]

50. I'd vote for Kerry-Edwards

I fail to see why Kerry would select Edwards for VP, but if that's the ticket, I will certainly vote for it. Out of hundreds of Clark supporters I interact with or observe, maybe a half-dozen say they will not. It wouldn't surprise me if there are a handful of Edwards supporters who say they would not vote Kerry-Clark. Even the most ardent Clark or Edwards supporters, overwhelmingly, state they will vote for Kerry no matter who his VP choice may be. It's really not the end of the world we're talking here.

[Pachamama]

53. This election is about getting rid of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Asscroft etc

...Whoever Kerry chooses, I support (and that would include Zell or Joe - even though I'd feel like needing a shower after voting), but for me the reality is that this current administration is destroying our country and constitution. Therefore, I support the Kerry "Team" no matter what. With that said, I was a Deaniac, and then Edwards and Clark were always my 2nd, 3rd choice for President (liked Kucinich too) and Kerry was not really on my radar. But, I will vote for Kerry and whoever he chooses as a running mate. With that said, I will say that there are some very good reasons for supporting a "Kerry/Clark" ticket. While I think Edwards did well in the polls in states like NC/SC, Wes Clark didn't do so bad....his biggest disadvantage was not having the money to spend like Edwards. I think that Edwards might get the "Babe" Vote because of his boy next door youthful looks (hey, I'm sorry, but I've seen the polls) and that Clark would get a very important sector of the vote - the moderate dems and moderate Republicans....

I also think that Clark v. Cheney or Clark v.McCain debates would carry more weight in the mind of all the "undecideds" who are concerned with Terrorism and the war in Iraq....More so than the Edwards v. Cheney or Edwards v. McCain debates on the same topics...

[cosmokramer]

59. Valid points and I agree.