OK Clark Supporters, let's back away from the sparing

[xultar]

Hey guys, you know I love ya, but we gotta concentrate on being positive. Don't go down that road. YOU KNOW which road I'm talking about.

The reason Clark is on the rise is because he knows how to pick his battles. Please follow the same example.

PM me and I'll give you the skinny.

But please, please, please, don't get involved with mudslinging!

[Loonman]

1. It's hard

When supporters of a certain popular candidate put flyers full of lies on people's cars, or import out-of-staters for debate vote counts.

[xultar]

2. I know it is hard, but I know you didn't like it when it was done to

you. Why would you do it back?

That isn't the type of man Clark is and I'm sure he wouldn't want you to represent him that way.

[Loonman]

3. I support Clark, not the "front-runner"

And the "front-runner"'s supporters, with his knowledge or not, are playing dirty tricks.

[xultar]

5. Let that be their failure not ours n/t

[edzontar]

12. I pray to the gods that you are right...

Turnabout is, after all, fair play.

[GalleryGod]

4. Welcome to the CLUB! We're Having Jackets made!

I'm sure Lehane knows a little somethin' about "Hand-to-Hand" in New Hampshire...If certain loyalists "bring a knife" to the fight the last 2 weeks...I'm certain Lehane will issue Uzis:smoke:

[edzontar]

6. It is too late....

Clark supporters have already set the new standard for attacks on other candidates at DU.

Some of us will not forget this anytime soon.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Excuse me?

Things were peachy keen on DU UNTIL Clark entered the race. The bashing started the day he entered the race and hasn't stopped since. He's the biggest threat and the supporters of Dean, know it. The Dean supporters are the ones who set the "standard". :eyes:

[mouse7]

16. You don't even understand what you said do you?

in_cog_ni_to said, "Things were peachy keen on DU UNTIL Clark entered the race. The bashing started the day he entered the race and hasn't stopped since..."

If everyone else was getting along fine until Clark and the Clark supporters entered the discussion here, that means the Clark supporters here are the reason that thing went downhill.

If everyone is happy before Clark is in the race, and everyone is ready to kill each other afterward, clearly the Clark supporters are the key difference that have made the discussion disintegrate.

I would like to point out that Wesley Clark has run a pretty decent campaign with few attacks. However, some of his supporters don't care to follow the example Wesley Clark has set for them. I'm sure that would distress Gen. Clark. I doubt sincerely if he wants his supporters acting the way some have here.

[edzontar]

27. Clark is not his supporters....

Some of whom are REALLY hurting him here.

[jmaier]

37. Edzontar, I understand and sympathize

When you truly support a good person as your candidate of choice it's hurtful and even more frustrating to see these sort of disgusting attacks. I'm ashamed of the minority of Clark supporters here who think using Rovian smear tactics is a valid way to treat any democratic candidate.

Sadly, if I were to judge a candidate based upon a few misguided supporters then I would pretty much have to rule out Clark, Dean, Kerry and Kucinich. Each of these fine men has some supporters on DU who frankly turn my stomach. It's one of the reasons that I try and simply ignore these threads -- I can readily support any one of these candidates and I'm not about to let some immature hotheads change my point of view. You have my apologies, for what they are worth. Good luck to you and Gov Dean.




Wes Clark. He will make an extraordinary American President.

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. I know exactly what I said, mouse7.

The minute Clark entered the race, the Dean supporters started the bashing...NOT the Clark supporters...the DEAN supporters. In fact, it's ONE of the reasons I switched from Dean to Clark. I didn't want to associate myself with their crap. Now, I HAVE to defend Clark against the bashes. It's RELENTLESS. If it's ignored, it will end up like the 2002 election. The Democrats cowered to the republicans because of 911 and we lost, BIG TIME. These bashes cannot go unanswered. So, if the Dean supporters would like to stop their shit. I will too, but not until.

[edzontar]

33. Untrue. I for one never bashed him..until a little bit today

But I must say I have prodded to do so SOLELY by his obnoxious supporters--

Again, I invoke the "Stop Dean movement", which was a dishonest, Clark-mole inspired attack on the integrity of these forums.

[Hep]

22. LOL

Talk about your revisionist history.

Yeah and gravity didn't exist until Clark declared, right?

[Loonman]

9. Whatever ......

:eyes:

Ooooooh, I'm sooooooooo scared.......I'm shakin' I tell ya, shakin'!

[edzontar]

11. We should all be scared

If Clark, the Reagan and Bush 1 supporter, becoems our "Democratic" nominee.

This, by the way, is my first "official" anti-candidate post.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[edzontar]

30. Because I am pissed off and disappointed...

Where were these "let's all get along" threads from clark supporters during the "Stop Dean Movement" threads?

Maybe I'll get over it..but today, i misd the old DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[BootinUp]

14. Why would you post it in this thread?

xultar is making an effort here...I think you could do the same?

[Jack_Dawson]

15. Edzontar is that all you've got?

Really, I mean...usually your posts, while I might not agree with them...are a little more reasoned an un-cliched than the tired rolling-out of Clark's 1980s votes.

Can people not change their mind...not "see the light" later in life? Or is it the more simple-minded "once a Reagan supporter, always a Reagan supporter" mindset you will always embrace?

BTW, I'm glad he voted for Reagan, because it will bring in "Reagan Democrat" swing voters who will decide the election.

[edzontar]

26. I do not like Clark's Reagan vote....

I remember those days.

But even if we give him the benefit of the doubt--I have been appalled by the pro-Reagan and even pro-Nixons posts that some of his supporters are putting up today.

I willa dmit that these are making me speak less reasonably today.

[JVS]

40. We wouldn't have to roll out those votes if Clark had a real political....

record.

Stop and think for a moment. When a person describes their political history with something like "I voted Reagan and Bush I, then Clinton and Gore, so I must be a Democrat." it really is a week claim to Democratic affiliation.

[mmonk]

41. Would you call

Reagan a democrat? He was once. Clark never was a republican. He is giving his stand on the issues and is committed to many principles associated with dems. Weak arguments.

[Jack_Dawson]

44. Totally weak arguments, I agree

People need to be a branded democrat from birth around here. Sigh.

[Hep]

21. Amen

to the tenth power.

[Leilani]

7. Personal Smears

are the worst.

I'm happy to debate issues, policy differences, etc., but some of the personal stuff, being posted on DU, is of a type with S.Carolina, 2000. This stuff is Rovian.

[xultar]

32. Just a question...

If I said "BTW you should apply to the psychic friends network" would that be considered an attack? I just wanna get your opinion.

[Leilani]

50. Of course not

I'm not that shallow...

And, by the way, I don't mind a good argument. I like people with passion for their views. I admire many Dean supporters for their enthusiasm, their belief in their candidate.

What I detest: slimy, below the radar smears. There are posts that Clark does not look well physically, has anyone noticed his color, people who look like that have died of cancer, etc. etc. This has also been done to Kerry.

I have been following politics since Goldwater, before I could vote, & integrity means a lot to me. This kind of thing was done to McCain in S.Carolina, in what was probably the dirtiest primary fight ever.
And I won't vote for anyone who uses Rovian tactics.

[mmonk]

10. The lack of integrity

by the Dean campaign in New Hampshire makes it difficult but I guess we should follow Clark's lead in making sure the Clark campaign stays above the fray and stays positive. I'll try and keep my focus.

[Hep]

24. Try all you want

It's sad that you haven't been trying thus far.

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. And you have? n/t

[Hep]

38. I've posted one POTENTIALLY critical thread about Clark.

And thats it. Can you say the same? Of course not.

[mmonk]

36. Based on?

Most of what I post concerning Dean is positive. I do not post positive when defending Clark against unwarranted attacks (but still don't get nasty).

[maxanne]

17. This is

at least the second thread by Clark supporters attempting to control Clark supporters I've seen on the board in about 24 hours.

Interesting.

[LoneStarDem]

18. Well

Well, have you seen any Dean supporters making similar calls for calm and rational discussion? (Hell, there might have been, I may have just missed 'em). And don't tell me it's because one side is a bunch of angels singing songs of nothing but purity and light and the other's are just foaming pitbulls leaping aginst their master's chains; that dog just won't hunt.

Interesting my ass.

[maxanne]

35. no - sorry

the aforementioned object is not particularly interesting. Niether are your attacks.

[LoneStarDem]

39. The hell?

What the hell are you talking about? My "attacks"? What attacks?! That was a compleatly neutral post, addressing what I though was a flaw in the logic of your post. Seriously, I want this to be an engagement, not a spitting contest. I acknowledge (and I think most people here would) that there are raving assholes on BOTH sides of the Dean/Clark fence, and I commend anyone, on either side, that tries to be a peacemaker.

Now, do you have a problem with that?

[Dookus]

19. I sympathize with your position...

I held to it until January 2nd.

But I don't think we should cripple ourselves against fully-armed opponents.

Why would I agree to get into an unfair fight?

If they want to attack, I'll attack back. But I WILL make this pledge: my attacks will be based on real facts. Real news articles. Real quotes.

But in the long run it doesn't matter. All they have to offer is 5-month old complaints, which in actuality are 15-year old complaints.

I can pick up a paper any day and find something to attack their guy on.

My guy is rising, their guy is falling. I'll try to be gracious.

[Hep]

20. Yeah right. If some of the Clark supporters here had any self control

they'd have nothing to talk about at all. They don't care about Clark, they care about Dean.

[meow mix]

23. its easy..

now that clark is becoming a non-underdog,
feels like the fun part is over hehe.

owell thats good =)

edit: i say one more time though. TOAST!!!! wewt!

[lurk_no_more]

25. In the words of James Carville

When reacting to false allegations, forget about an "eye for an eye. Take a face for an eye" – James Carville


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. hehehe!

Gotta love James! :7

[jadesfire]

34. so you don't feel your guy is the only one under attack...

Here is the Press Release and letter from the Kerry Campaign to the Dean campaign after a few of their staffers pretended to be volunteers and gain info in an Iowa Kerry campaign office.




Dean Campaign Staffer Admits Lying, Misrepresenting Himself as Iowa Voter
Kerry Campaign Iowa Director John Norris Demands Firing of Two Staffers

January 08, 2004

For Immediate Release

January 8, 2004
Jeanni Murray
State Director
Dean Campaign
1408 Locust Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50309

Dear Jeanni,

I’m distressed to learn that staffers from the Dean campaign are misrepresenting themselves as Iowa caucus-goers to gain advantage against our campaign. You should know this is not how we campaign in Iowa, and I demand that you take action to remove these staffers from the Dean campaign immediately.

Today, your National Campaign Manager, Joe Trippi was on CNN stating that people from outside Iowa were coming to the state to help Dean, and they never would lie in order impact the outcome of the caucus. If your hired staff are already misrepresenting themselves today in communities like Creston, how can any Iowa voter trust that your campaign will prevent volunteers from engaging in the same illegitimate activity on January 19th.

The Iowa Democratic Party has fought for decades to preserve the honesty and purity of the grassroots caucus system. Today's revelations jeopardize that hard work, and no Iowa Democrat should stand for it.

On Tuesday, a young man came into our Creston office and said he was a resident of Red Oak, Iowa. He claimed he was in town for business, working at a local farm. He asked numerous questions about what our staff did, the territory they covered, and what type of folks we were calling in Creston. Our staff was immediately suspicious.

The next day, a different young man came into the office and identified himself as Mark Evans. He said that he was the new manager at the local HYVEE, and that he and his wife just moved from Georgia. He started asking questions about our operation and began snooping around the office. Our staffers were confident they had seen him wearing a Dean sticker around town, so they asked him why he had come into the office. He said that he was an undecided Iowa caucus-goer, and was interested in politics.

Today, this second man, "Mark Evans," returned to the Creston office and admitted that he and his friend had lied, and that they were employed by your campaign. He identified himself as Mitch Lawson, who moved here from Georgia to work for Dean. According to Mitch, "We came into your office to find out information and get your calling scripts from you."

In order for Iowans to trust that the caucuses will be free of further dirty tricks, these two men should be asked to leave your campaign immediately. The sanctity of the Iowa Caucus depends on it. If your folks are lying today, what's to stop them from stealing the caucus from Iowa voters for Howard Dean on January 19th?

Sincerely,

John Norris

[bitchkitty]

42. Um....

This is fishy. A Dean staffer came in, acted suspicious and then left. Then he came in the next day and "confessed".

This is total bullshit. These were not true Dean staffers, they were someone trying to bring down the campaign. I'm surprised that it's not obvious to all that it was a dirty trick NOT of Dean's making.

[Toucano]

43. Better use of your time.

DU is fantastic, but you're not going to influence an ardant supporter of another candidate by attacking that candidate.

Time spent defending Clark against the same debunked claims might be better spent on campaign activities: letter writing, telephoning voters, canvassing, etc.

Ignoring pointless attack-Clark threads helps a lot.

Clark's rise in the polls in NH and nationally is due the work being done in "flesh world" activities, not online discussion boards.

[Barbara917]

45. I didn't work, Xultar

Your well intended plea went up in :nuke:

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[copithorne]

47. Absolutely to the first thread

I saw Clark spokesman Jamal Simmons on Hannity and colmes last night.

(I was channel surfing.)

Damn, I thought that guy was talented. He had a brilliant smile the entire time he was talking with Sean. Sean tried to get him to add fuel to the fire by talking about 'dirty tricks'.

Jamal just brushed it off. 'That's what politicians do. And people's knees are knocking because they know the general is coming.'

He kept smiling, kept positive, kept optimistic and called people to join the campaign. Hannity kept trying to smear the General but it made no difference and it ended up being a five minute advertisement for General Clark on Fox news.

Hannity tried to stop Jamal from his positive message by saying, 'yeah, yeah, I understand.' Jamal just smiled his gorgeous smile and said, 'well, Sean, I'm not sure you do. The general is coming.'

Listen, a lot of people like to fight because they like to fight. Is it a quarter of every campaign's supporters? It's hard to say. And the internet is a good forum for them. And if you like to fight, you'll fight with them. You'll get insulted and you'll insult back.

None of that has to do with General Clark's campaign. None of it helps the country. Clark and Dean will be on the ticket. It's ridiculous for Clark supporters to fight with Dean because one way or another we're going to be working with him instead of against him in just a few months.

If you feel other people are trying to pick a fight with you, well you won't persuade everyone. But keep smiling, keep optimistic and call people to our campaign.

[Trajan]

48. Damn, that is well said ...

And SO true ...

We WILL gather together in ONE MIGHTY PARTY ... and knock down the AEI/PNAC-constructed walls surrounding our government come next November ...

The General ??? ...

The Doctor ??? ...

BOTH are terms of respect and honor, of class and erudition, of hard work and wherewithall ....

I am PROUD to be a Democrat ... and I will proudly serve BOTH the Doctor AND the General ...

[TexasSissy]

49. Good idea. But factual responses to misinformation is necessary,

or the falsehoods will remain out there. That's what has done more than a few politicians in....failure to respond to negativisms. The facts must get out there.

But that can be accomplished like Clark does it. He just states the record and leaves it at that.

[bain_sidhe]

51. Exactly - WWWS

But that can be accomplished like Clark does it. He just states the record and leaves it at that.

I'm trying to make that my motto... it gets hard sometimes, when the absolute flaming assholes show up to damn "Clark and the horse he rode in on..." But, I'm helped by the belief that Clark WILL win the nomination, and we're going to need as many of these people as we can get to come over to the Clark side.

There's also something to be said for being a "gracious winner" (since I fully expect we *will* be the winners)... people don't like poor losers much, but they absolutely HATE gloating, smirking winners.