My hold-your-nose candidate (not who you think) is...

[Paragon]

...Wesley Clark.

Yes, even ahead of Joe Lieberman. Now, before the Clark supporters (and they're here in rather disproportionate numbers, if national polls are to be believed) start crying "Clark Basher", just read.

"We can't win by being Bush Lite" has been the rather worn-out phrase during the primaries. I'm sorry, but Clark almost is that - by which I mean - Clark is the no-brain answer to the agenda put forth by the Bush Administration in the wake of September 11th.

You have to believe certain myths to support such a candidate, namely:

- Democrats are soft on defense
- The election is about one catch-all issue (terrorism, Iraq, etc.)
- We need to pander to voters' fears to win

...none of which I will accept. Clark is a knee-jerk reaction to a maniacal bunch of wingnuts enjoying temporary power in Washington. We don't win by being like any of them, much less "Bush Lite".

I'm sure Wes Clark is a great man - brave, not just for his career, but now for suffering the slings and arrows of a political campaign. I've read (on Clark's own website) where he stands on the issues, and of course, it all sounds wonderful.

Sadly, no one will care. Experience as a legislator is no longer necessary (or desirable), if we buy into the Lesson of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Clark is in this race for one reason and one reason only - the "Gen." (or "Ret. Gen.") before his name. He's there for all the moderates and morons spellbound by all the overblown coverage of terrorism. He's there to put fear into Republicans who happily relish in the same sort of fear and paranoia, and who also believe the election is about one issue.

You want to cast your ballot based on fear and based on a Republican agenda, do so. I'll be holding my nose if I have to.

[JVS]

1. Good post

[Sean Reynolds]

2. I'll one up you, I'm staying home.

But I live in Utah, my vote won't count anyway.

[Paragon]

3. That's ridiculous.

So by that mindset, you'll stay home if Dean is the nominee, too.

My God, man - I'd rather go down fighting than give up.

[Sean Reynolds]

5. Oh no! It's a matter of ME not who we pick.

I'm sorry, but there are only three candidates I'd vote for right now. Clark aint one of 'em.

If you look at my sig, you'll see who I'm talking about.

[Paragon]

9. It's still ridiculous.

I can't believe you'd stay home on election night, just because you don't get your nominee -- if for no other reason than there are state and local candidates who need you, too.

[Sean Reynolds]

15. Well I might vote, but it wont be for Clark.

I'm sorry but I vote my heart and Clark doesn't spark my heart.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. I disagree. More wars have been started by politicians than generals

Frankly, he is in the race because he wants to run. His policies on his site are fairly decent and fairly liberal. He has demonstrated leadership which is an important quality for a president and has been less of a politician in the race than anyone.

There are some realities to confront such as the southern vote and Clark has stepped on his own tongue far less than some.

About the only person I REALLY have to hold my nose for is four more years of Bush.

I SO WISH people would remember that.

[Paragon]

8. "Hold-your-nose" means you still vote, NSMA

...you're just not happy about it. My support goes to the nominee, whoever he or she may be. I would hope you knew me better than that.

It's long since gone past "hold your nose" with Chimp for me - I can barely stand to look or listen to him anymore. Gosh, it'd be nice to have some faith and/or respect in a nationally-elected leader again...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. I agree and I am simply saying that Clark MAY actually be what he says

he is...liberal...AND the bonus is that a General has actually gone to war unlike some of the politicians that would lead us.

I do know you better than that...heck...I even like you..so THERE! :evilgrin:

[Paragon]

28. You LIKE me!

You REALLY like me! :D

[bearfartinthewoods]

32. His policies on his site are fairly decent and fairly liberal.

i'm glad you were honest in your wording. " the policies on his site."

what do we really know about the policies in his heart though?

anyone can write anything on his site but it's not too late to choose a man who has a verifiable history of support and dedication to liberalism.

[imhotep]

6. Clark isnt Bush lite

he is worse than Bush.

[Paragon]

10. You've got to be kidding.

This is not the kind of hornet's nest I'm interested in stirring up here - please take it somewhere else.

[rogerhall]

7. I wouldn't dream of bashing you, but I disagree with ...

your 'certain' myths.

I don't believe any of those things, and I believe Clark will be the next POTUS. (Well, actually, I do think you have to satisfy my parents - in fact, I know you do. They voted for Clinton twice after Reagan (the second time around) and Bush 41, and then voted for Bush 43. I still love 'em, I just don't call as much. :)

As for fear of a Republican agenda ... guilty! :}

I just don't see anything Republican about Clark.

In fact, you seem to be saying that because Clark is so strong on defense, that he must be practically Republican ... ?

Also, I believe that the 'Gen' has a lot less to do with it than the fact that a young man named Wes was *inspired* to live his life in the manner he chose by JFK.

IMHO, Wes is that Boy Scout; he is that service-to-country 'geek'. I applaud your review of the official website, and I encourage to you to watch his media appearances at:

http://www.us4clark.com/mediaclips.html

I think he 'reeks' with selfless service. Maybe you will see something different.

[Paragon]

12. I'm not anti-Clark (the man) at all

I find him terribly brave for bucking a military system which is almost exclusively right-wing. I think he's a very interesting (if not terribly charismatic) choice, and like I said, will have my full support if nominated.

It's not Clark I find Republican -- it's his presence in the race. As if the election was only about one issue. As if we are so indoctrinated that only a military man could beat Bush. As if we are willing to forgive his complete lack of political experience to address those fears.

Clark entered late, no doubt at the behest of his supporters - so once again, he is the reluctant warrior. This country and this world has seen enough of war - and enough of Bush. The real "battle" worth winning is to oust that Texas dictator out of there...on OUR terms.

[rogerhall]

16. Okay. I think I understand you.

But it just now struck me as a little amusing ...

Bush had experience, but no intelligence (or particular bravery).

Clark has intelligence and bravery, but no experience.

Hmmm .... :}

Actually, another thing just tickled me. Isn't Dean, the 'mad liberal' actually fairly moderate (I just saw some of the -quote- more liberal Vermont legislators -endquote- complaing he wasn't liberal enough.

And Clark, the 'Republican' has the most progressive tax, education, and 'gay' policy amongst the front-runners.

Why is politcs always bass-ackwards? :P

[Paragon]

21. I'm reading the Howard Dean "biography" right now...

...and whichever genius in the Republican Party thought that pushing Dean as "ultra-liberal" (as the RNC calls him) is now getting his ass kicked, I'm sure. I think Dean may even score higher with the NRA than Bush - but that's more out of respect for states rights than encouraging the spread of noisemaking phallusi. :silly:

And I think you're kind of proving my point about associating strong defense with the Republican Party. Fact is, Clinton had an aggressive anti-terrorism plan almost ready-to-go when Bush shelved it upon entering office. I won't even go into the myths about Republicans spending less and shrinking government...:eyes:

[rogerhall]

26. I'm with you on the myths ... but I don't see support for them

or how I am proving your point.

But I don't have to, either, I guess. :}

At least you are a voter! :}

[FubarFly]

19. I understand your point.

If we stray too far from our Party's core principles, we will look somewhat desperate to a large percentage of independents and swing voters. We would get creamed under those circumstances. I would hope that if Clark becomes our nominee, he actually runs on a strong Domestic platform with the presumption that his superiority against b*sh on foreign policy is a given. Keep the focus on jobs, the deficit, and health care, and let b*sh look foolish trying to desperately tout his empty foreign accomplishments. If we play by their rules, (let them frame the debate), we will lose.

[Paragon]

27. Nominating Clark lets the Republicans frame the debate

Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at - vocabulary was never my super-strong suit. Thanks for crystallizing what I was trying to say.

[rogerhall]

29. I would say that from watching Clark on TV that he ...

never lets someone else frame the discussion.

[corporatewhore]

11. If DK doesnt get the ticket

I will probably vote for David Cobb (a green running in safe states such as my own texas) i know i have the luxury of living in a safe state but this whole abb attitude seems so defeatist giving into the fact that no one will represent us and the issues we care about to offer some real change I think that ones right to vote is sacred they should be able to vote for whoever they want without feeling bad.
I really love this quote it seems to capture my feelings
"Having to decide between Tweedledum and Tweedledee -- that's not a choice -- that's a threat. Our electoral system favors a two-party race, and we should reject it. We have to start working towards a democratic system that doesn't force people to vote for the lesser of two evils (or the evil of two lessers). We can't keep jumping from election to election, voting for one moron because we're terrified that there's something worse. Now's the time to stop legitimizing this process and take a stand for fundamental, long-term change. It's more important to call attention to the farce of electoral politics than to split-hairs by choosing between Tweedledumb andTweedledee (or The Mad Hatter, the Queen of Hearts and the Doormouse for that matter)."

- The Edible Ballot Society

[Paragon]

14. I hate to tell you this, but...

...there's no "if" in that statement. Kucinich will come nowhere close to the nomination, and I think we both know that.

Having voted for Nader in 2000 (in Ohio, another state that went easily to Bush), I wouldn't presume to debate you on the perpetuation of the two-party system. It does raise one question, though...

...if you're not willing to vote Democratic, what brings you to DEMOCRATIC Underground?

[corporatewhore]

17. like i said i am in texas

so it dont matter that much who i vote for i totally respect every ones right to vote for who they want to (even if it is lieberman!!!)I do like some democrats like Kucinich Wellstone Barrientos and my mayor will wynn I think i am a liberal first dem second

[FubarFly]

20. I hope you understand the irony of your position.

Kucinich is electable if you vote for him.

A Dem will win in Texas if you vote for him.


Same principle I think.

[Sean Reynolds]

18. Democratic is meant in the term Democratic...

Meaning I can vote in a Democratic election for ANYONE I choose. ;-)

[FrenchieCat]

22. Then hold your nose....

I feel the same way about some of the candidates other the Wes Clark. But I am still ABB.

[daria_g]

23. Very well put

I totally agree with you and that is a much better summary of my rationale than I have been able to write, to date. I would add that I have trouble - based on his lack of experience as a legislator - believing that he'd in fact be able to successfully enact those wonderful ideas.

This is not polite to say, but my take is that there is a weird effect with Clark of some people supporting him because of their rather pessimistic idea of how and why *other* voters choose a candidate. Because they believe most voters have indeed accepted the Republican agenda wholeheartedly and cannot be made to think otherwise - or to think at all, if you want to go so far.

[rogerhall]

25. I am probably one of those 'pessimistic' folks ...

But I'm telling you - my parents are good, compassionate people. They really do believe in helping people, not corporations, and they are as tolerant of other lifestyles etc. as anyone is in a small Arkansas town. I've had hair down to my butt since I was 15 - not a generally acceptable thing in Arkansas (nearly everyone outside of Little Rock assumes I'm gay simply because I wear it in a long braid - and dont ride a motorcycle), and they have never apologized or critized. Yeah, it was that small a town.

But they voted for Reagan the second time out, Bush 41, Clinton twice, and then Bush 43!

I was not at all 'pessimistic' in my 20's. But I'm 35 now, and my parents have shown me what I regard as the truth: most people vote for someone who is 'likeable' (their word, not mine).

When they are old and feeble and I am taking care of them, I'm going to bitch never ending about that Bush 43 vote ...

But I am not underestimating the likelyhood of them voting for Dean (or many of the others). Hell, my Mom voted for our Republican incumbent Governor instead of the Democrat *woman* with *35 years experience in state gubment*. She actually said that she didn't think a woman would make a good guv!

She didn't even raise me like that, and I don't fucking get it.

But whoot, there it is.

[Hoppin_Mad]

24. Very succint ! "The emperor has no clothes !"

[democratreformed]

30. Just wanted to point out that I am assuming none of the things you mention

and I support Wesley Clark for entirely different reasons.

[HFishbine]

31. Well put. I share the same ideas (nt)

[Walt Starr]

33. He's not even good enough for me to hold my nose

If he's nominated, I walk.