Clark is a registered Independent, NOT Democrat!

He is registered as an Independent, not a Democrat.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm

It may come as a surprise to some of his supporters, but Democratic Presidential candidate Wesley K. Clark still hasn't joined the Democratic Party. According to the Pulaski County (Ark.) Voter Registrar's office, the former four-star general remains a registered independent. Even though he has been a declared candidate for the Dem nomination for two weeks now, he has yet to officially change his party affiliation.

or worse.

overlooked this.
I'm not happy about this discovery either but if he WAS a mole then they would have made sure he registered as a Dem right off the bat to avoid the appearance of just what you are insinuating.

This is probably more a case of sloppiness than something sinister.

It is akin to saying "Of course I didn't murder my neighbor! Everyone knows how much I hate him, so I know that I'd never get away with it"

But you are right, probably not a mole. However, this incident gives great credence to those who say that he isn't a real Democrat.

Again, if he was a mole this is one incredible fuck up.
It just adds fuel to the mole fire.

That's the last thing they would want.

smoke 'em out.

He voted for Clinton (2 times) and Gore. The last time he voted for a Republican was 19 years ago when he voted for Reagan - along with 60% of the country.

Considered 2002 AR gubernatorial run against GOP incumbent

Clark votes Democratic. In Arkansas most voters enroll with no party affiliation; you show up on primary day and select the ballot of whichever party you want to support. Clark told me he voted in the Democratic primary in last year's state elections. He seriously considered seeking the Democratic nomination for governor of Arkansas in 2002, challenging Republican incumbent Mike Huckabee.
Source: The American Prospect, "Meet Mr. Credibility" Mar 1, 2003

She voted Democratic from the election of 1936 until the election of 96, her entire voting life. If voting for clinton and gore is the extent of this man's liberal political orientation then he isn't democratic nominee material.

on a ballot for the presidency.

One would think he was sincere about wanting that label by taking it on with his voter registration.

I will not be voting for Clark. If he wanted to be the Democratic nominee, he should have registered as a Democrat before announcing.

Name 2 other proven Dems who've done that.

.

Also a senior adviser at CSIS - (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Fax 202-775-3153 ]

2000 CSIS budget, $16 million,
CSIS Affiliates: The International Councillors, a group of international business leaders chaired by Henry Kissinger, meets semiannually to discuss the implications of the changing economic and strategic environment. The Advisory Board is composed of both public- and private-sector policymakers, including several members of Congress. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carla Hills cochair the board. The Washington Roundtable meets three to four times a year with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other Washington experts to discuss pressing policy issues of the day. The Houston and Dallas Roundtables bring together local business leaders and CSIS experts to discuss current international political and economic trends.
CSIS Board, Counselors, and Advisers Board of Trustees Chairman Sam Nunn Senior Partner, King and Spalding Vice Chairman David M. Abshire President, Center for the Study of the Presidency, and Cofounder of CSIS Chairman, Executive Committee Anne Armstrong* Former U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain Members George L. Argyros Carla A. Hills Betty Beene Ray L. Hunt Reginald K. Brack Henry A. Kissinger William E. Brock Donald B. Marron Harold Brown Felix G. Rohatyn Zbigniew Brzezinski Charles A. Sanders William S. Cohen James R. Schlesinger J. Michael Cook William A. Schreyer* Ralph Cossa Brent Scowcroft Douglas N. Daft Murray Weidenbaum Robert A. Day Dolores D. Wharton Richard Fairbanks Frederick B. Whittemore Michael P. Galvin* R. James Woolsey Joseph T. Gorman Amos A. Jordan, (Emeritus) John J. Hamre* Leonard H. Marks, (Emeritus) Robert S. Strauss, (Emeritus) *Member of the Executive Committee Counselors William E. Brock

Henry A. Kissinger

Harold Brown Sam Nunn Zbigniew Brzezinski James R. Schlesinger William S. Cohen Brent Scowcroft Richard Fairbanks Senior Advisers J. Carter Beese Amos A. Jordan Bradley D. Belt John Kornblum James M. Bodner Robert H. Kupperman Stanton H. Burnett Laurence Martin Richard R. Burt Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty Wesley K. Clark Walter Slocombe William K. Clark, Jr. Robert Tyrer Arnaud de Borchgrave Anthony Zinni Diana Lady Dougan Luis E. Giusti Fred C. Iklé (Distinguished Scholar in Residence)

he forgot to turn in his lobbyist registration so some people here are supporting a man who is still legally able to lobby the pentagon for more inclusive and intrusive CAPP's application.

has anyone considered this run may be a publicity stunt to raise his profile and loffying fees?

Wake up people. We may only get one more chance.

because he claims he's a dem all of a sudden?

Clark says he became a dem in 92, and voted Clinton... yet just two years ago he was saying this crap:

During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "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."

"Vote for me or I'll run as an independent!" wow Sounds like a guy you really can like. So in other words if we don't vote for Clark he will f**k us over come election time. Nice guy. Glad you Clarkies support him so much.

And the fact he's already participated in the Democratic debates is probably a huge joke with his campaign staff.

"I'm a Liberal!"

Uh huh... not even real Democrats can bring themselves to say that these days.

And he's been waffling on issues like Iraq -- probably would invade / probably wouldn't invade.

A Vermonter on Dean:

"I find it hard to understand how folks can support a guy that is utterly incapable of articulating a consistent position.

Take one of Dean's own most-favorite rants: the ouster of Saddam.

"On one hand, he says stuff like this: "I opposed the war with Iraq when too many Democrats supported it because I want a foreign policy consistent with American values" .

But then, we hear this from him: "We have no choice. It's a matter of national security. If we leave and we don't get a democracy in Iraq, the result is very significant danger to the United States."

He continues: "bringing democracy to Iraq is not a two-year proposition. Having elections alone doesn't guarantee democracy. You've got to have institutions and the rule of law, and in a country that hasn't had that in 3,000 years, it's unlikely to suddenly develop by having elections and getting the heck out"

We have a paradox: Mr. Dean disagrees with Bush Doctrine, but agrees with the necessity and final result of Bush Doctrine.

So which is it?"

Which are actually a reflection of mine. It was wrong to attack Iraq. However, now that is has happened, we cannot simply withdraw. Anarchy would ensue bringing more suffering and instability.

Dean and I agree that giving the U.N. a role in putting the country on its feet is now the appropriate course of action.

same crap, different thread.

I have read clark on the issues... like the issue of being a republican ass kisser.

During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "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."


Can you defend Clark, or just attack Dean?

Issues notwithstanding he should not run as a Dem.
If he is not honest enough to be a Dem, why should Dems believe anything he says on issues?

I just do not understand people who think the way you do. He's a liberal, so he goes to the party that's supposed to represent liberals. Why is that a problem? The party can reject him, sure, but they shouldn't reject him because he hasn't been a party hack for the past 40 years, any more than they should give the nomination to some guy just because he's been a party hack for the past 40 years. The nomination should go to the best candidate, period.

My feelings at this stage are that Clark was a political free agent who was willing to take the best offer available to achieve his goals. He ran as a Democrat because he knew an Independant run would split the vote and usher b*sh to victory. It doesn't mean his goals aren't noble and it doesn't mean he wouldn't also be a good President, but it is still not certain whether he would make a good Democrat.

Is he using the Democratic Party as a means to accomplish his noble ends? Is he just saying what we want to hear? I don't believe that that is entirely true, however, Clark is both brilliant and ambitious- it's still not out of the question.

Clark voted for Reagan and Nixon for specific reasons. I'd like to know what those reasons were, and whether or not he still holds those views. If he does, and they are not reflected in his forthcoming platform, then I will be more doubtful. For now I will resist drawing conclusions until I have more information to consider.

They've been answered to my satisfaction, however. The guy is a liberal. So I don't see why anyone has a problem with his running as a Democrat.

If he runs as an independent G DUHbya's sure to be elected.

He never registered as a Democrat? Eisenhower never registered as a Republican till the last minute. What's with this elitist pedigree bullshit? It's where Clark stands on the issues that counts.

I know I'll offend his supporters on this board but Kucinich's going nowhere. Deans still viable. So's Kerry.

Let's concentrate on some real issues Okay?

This is the third duplication I've seen of this topic.

Nothing?

Thats what I thought...

Actually, you throw this out at Dean as if it were a negative. It isn't a negative, or a contradiction. Dean thought we should not have gone, but now that we are there, we have a responsibility to leave Iraq better than we found it.

That you seem to disagree with this vision only shows that either Dean has a deeper understanding of the issue than you do, or that you are desperate to change the subject away from Clark's party affiliation.

Or both, I guess.

That because Dean is an oppurtunist Clark can't be. They can BOTH be an oppurtunist. The fact is that Clark, in addition to being an oppurtunist, has a mountain of evidence against him indicating that he is not what he appears to be.

That because Dean is an oppurtunist Clark can't be. They can BOTH be an oppurtunist. The fact is that Clark, in addition to being an oppurtunist, has a mountain of evidence against him indicating that he is not what he appears to be.

Clark is just a liar and a crass oppertunist who will tell people what they want to hear in order to gain power.

I doubt rove controls him... but I also doubt Clark has any genuine interest in helpping the left.

And let me say right off that I'm a Dean fan. But I don't get this knee-jerk assumption that Clark is anything other than what he says he is. What's the deal?

The guy seems to care only about his own personal advancement.

http://www.counterpunch.org/clark.html

While he regards his junior officers with watchful suspicion, he customarily accords the lower ranks little more than arrogant contempt. A veteran of Clark's tenure at Fort Hood recalls the general's "massive tantrum because the privates and sergeants and wives in the crowded (canteen) checkout lines didn't jump out of the way fast enough to let him through".

Clark's demeanor to those above is, of course, very different, a mode of behavior that has earned him rich dividends over the years. Thus, early in 1994, he was a candidate for promotion from two to three star general. Only one hurdle remained - a war game exercise known as the Battle Command Training Program in which Clark would have to maneuver his division against an opposing force. The commander of the opposing force, or "OPFOR" was known for the military skill with which he routinely demolished opponents.

But Clark's patrons on high were determined that no such humiliation should be visited on their favorite. Prior to the exercise therefore, strict orders came down that the battle should go Clark's way. Accordingly, the OPFOR was reduced in strength by half, thus enabling Clark, despite deploying tactics of signal ineptitude, to triumph. His third star came down a few weeks later.



Sounds a lot like what is happeneing for him in this campign.


This kind of thing, forgetting to register in the party where he is seeking the nomination yet being given a pass, fits a pattern of sloppy and arogant behavior from this guy.

The draft clark folks are not giving anybody the whole picture.


Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.




http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GOW309A.html

"There are an awful lot of people," a retired four-star general told the Washington Post, "who believe Wes will tell anybody what they want to hear and tell somebody the exact opposite five minutes later."

Maybe that's why documentary filmmaker Michael Moore fell hook, line and sinker for former General Wesley Clark's claim that he's opposed to war.

Clark, of course, isn't opposed to war -- not in any fashion that counts, and anyone who thinks a career military man who fought in Vietnam and led NATO's 78-day war on Yugoslavia is opposed to war must be doing a practicum in bamboozling the public, or has been bamboozled himself.

Clark's alleged antiwar credentials were apparently established by a few reservations the former general expressed about the Pentagon's tactics in Iraq, as in "I would have done it differently," so to say Clark is opposed to war is like saying the former executioner is opposed to capital punishment because if he were still in charge he would have used a noose, not the electric chair.

... and I've also read the background behind that stuff, and I know propaganda when I see it. So stuff it.

he's just a lowly opportunist.

hell, the republicans only offered him a congressional seat.

we offer him the presidency. which would you take?

wise of him though to keep his options open with that "independant" registration.

No way does he work for this administration.

NOT

Get over it.

He's a witch! Burn him! Burn him!

He turned me into a Newt!

A Newt?

I got better.

Edit: Typoe.

I know independents who have voted Democratic in every election. It's not something to go ape over.
:):bounce:

No one caught one of the things I was trying to convey in that specific quote.

It IS something to go ape over when he is trying to get the support (money, resources, votes) of OUR PARTY! The issue is NOT how an independent votes. The issue is that if a person wants the full support of the Democratic party for the office of the president they had damn well better belong to the party.

If he does not want to join the party then he does not deserve the partys support. He should run as an independent in such case.

It is wrong to ask people who have joined the democratic party, support the platform of the party, give money to the party, and vote for the party to support a person who does not belong to the party.

Washington State does not require a party registration to vote in the primary. Yet I've voted Democratic about 90% of the time.

Then let him run as an independant on a 3rd party ticket.

If someone like Newt Gingrinch suddenly said he was a democcrat and wanted to run for president, would you also support him?

What was he before then? Oh he always was an indepedent.

but he hasn't bothered to change his registration yet? To me, this means he wants VP, not President, or else his campaign is just very amateurish.

I still support Kucinich of course.

:bounce:

He voted for Clinton (2 times) and Gore. The last time he voted for a Republican was 19 years ago when he voted for Reagan - along with 60% of the country.

Considered 2002 AR gubernatorial run against GOP incumbent

Clark votes Democratic. In Arkansas most voters enroll with no party affiliation; you show up on primary day and select the ballot of whichever party you want to support. Clark told me he voted in the Democratic primary in last year's state elections. He seriously considered seeking the Democratic nomination for governor of Arkansas in 2002, challenging Republican incumbent Mike Huckabee.
Source: The American Prospect, "Meet Mr. Credibility" Mar 1, 2003

It is impossible to verify how anybody voted.

He said this stuff 2 years ago. So answer up Clark Corps, was he lying then or lying now?

How in the hell can you rationalize suppoting someone who said this crap?



During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "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."


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."



"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

The republicans will run these quotes 24/7 radio/tv across the nation if Clark gets the nomination.

He will be branded as a hypocrite/liar in most americans minds. (and rightfully so) People STILL hear about Clinton from the right wing and you can expect that to multiply 100 fold. "Clinton lied... Clark did too. Vote Bush"

People will have no more reason to trust Clark than they do Bush after the media campaign that can be run with this material.

I am not surprised.

Of course he registered independent. Officers aren't supposed to declare party affiliation.

Please read Talking Points Memo today for more.

but there is nothing that says they can't belong to one.

It's a tradition. General George Marshall never registered or voted, for example.

between a registered independent and someone whos' registered with the Independent Party!

registered independent = a blank voter...which means NO party affilation
and
registered Independant Party = Independant Party voter

in NY state a registered independent (blank)voter is NOT allowed to vote in the Primary...but a registered Independent Party voter is.

why i don't know...it just is the law

He's been planning his run for a few weeks now, I guess. That is *more* than enough time to register as a Democrat. This is flat out incompetence, IMHO.

Good grief, trying to tear down Clark isnt going to help Dean catch Clark in the national polls.

It is not optional to running for the democratic nomination. To me being a democrat is one step in what is nessesary to winning my vote.

It actually is optional. While I don't know of anyone other than a democrat getting the democratic nomination, it IS NOT a law that the person be a democrat to be considered or chosen for it.

20 years in the military and I was registered Dem the entire time as were some other Officers and NCOs.

Most people were registered Republicans and it was no secret who was who because while we follow orders we do follow and discuss politics very closely.

Just when you think you've heard it all, here comes a new "talking point"!

This campaign is getting funnier by the day. What is scary is that the stakes are so high.

I was under the impression that they were.

My bro' just retired from an army career last year -- went in in '68 -- and today he's a flaming liberal Democrat. He's even a card-carrying member of the DNC.

Is that what this is REALLY about? Clark was in the military, therefore he's a Republican, therefore he must be a Karl Rove shill?

That's tin foil hat stuff.

Like Howard Dean said?

During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "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."


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."



"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

If I was a new poster here and I posted a message saying

"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

"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."

I would be tombstoned in a heart beat. The Clarkies would no doubt fully support my being tombstoned as well. Funny how things change...

Why must you bash him? ;-)

but this does....

Clark says he was against the war but look at what he has also said:

Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

(CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."


Note the dates. Both are well before the bombs started falling.

Maybe that's why I like him. :-D

that allows you to vote in the Democratic primary if you are not registered Democrat?

So people can stop saying it.

Most Americans are independent--because they don't like the bickering, the partisanship, and the general nonsense of politics. I don't think this will hurt Clark with most of the country.

In fact, I know a great many independents personally. None of them are neo-cons. Some of them thought Bush was okay, now dislike him. Even some of my most liberal (and may I add VOTING) friends are not officially registered Democrats/Greens and align themselves with those parties. So what?

I do think that some Democrats may try to get mileage out of this, I don't think it will be successful.

otherwise Dean is going to walk with the nomination. Maybe Clark isn't really running for president, and he wants on a Dean/Clark?

Clark really has to get all this over with--his people better be working on something good for him to say at the next debate about this.

Most registered voters are not independent, but are in fact, registered with a specific party -- about 75%.

I confused 'independent' with moderate.

Most Americans identify as moderates, not independent. Duh, LOL!
Thanks for the correction.

During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "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."

"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."



"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

you keep trotting these quotes about again and again, taken out of context of course.

Anyone can play the game of sound bites.

BOO!

My allegiance is to the planet, my family and my country.
Party affiliation doesn't enter into it.
Do I have to leave now?

THIS is the kind of sloppy stuff that should NOT be happeneing in a professional campaign!

Wake UP you Clark bars! I don't want to see you collapse inward due to no one covering the BASICS.

Who is running theings up there? This is ridiculous. Do you guys need a laundry list of stuff to do to keep on track from outside ? PM me if you do.

WHY would I offer to help the Clark Bars? Because my strategy is to WIN in November 2004. If Dean beats Clark in the primaries; and I am convinced he can, Dean's power will be enhanced if he has vanquished an acknowleged power. It will legitimize the candidate in ways unavailable otherwise-and null the meme he's unelectable.

Unless this whole praise-Republicans, registered-independent thing is a bid for swing voters in the general election, it's just sloppiness. AND Dean could easily win the primaries, so Clark needs to either get in or get out.

Maybe he really IS just running for VP.

can we then say he's not the DLC's Golden Boy? Else, surely they would have caught made sure he was a registered dem. I don't see how he can be criticized both as the insider's candidate (or even stalking horse) and then be slammed for not being a registered Democrat. Or do these criticisms come from different camps of the Clark questionners? (note I didn't use the inflammatory 'anti-clark' label). There are the 'republican-mole' camp, and DLC-anti-Dean candidate camps?

Clark is not a professional politician. Big deal. To some people, that would be a plus.

If Dean beats Clark in the primaries then, by golly, Dean should get the nomination and I will support him 100 percent. I like Dean. But then I also like Clark and I like Mosley Braun, too. I like the other candidates less well, but I will support and vote for whatever the Dems nominate, be it animal, vegetable, or mineral.

However, this business about Clark's not declaring party affiliation in the past is just not an issue that anyone who is not a rabid partisan him/herself is going to care about. What's important is how Clark stands on issues, and in that regard he is more progressive than some of the other candidates.

Independent less than a year before the election. And I had won the most votes at State Assembly and would have been at the top of the ticket for the primary....Does this also apply to presidential candidates?

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/PCC/AR-D.html

May 31, 2000: The Arkansas Democratic party will not include votes cast for LaRouche in their delegate computations. Hence, Gore is the only candidate to receive the 15% of the vote needed to qualify for delegates. (The exclusion of LaRouche is in compliance with a decision issued last January by DNC National Chair Joe Andrew. Note: Reports state that LaRouche is a convicted felon who has lost his voting privilege in his home state of Virginia, that is, LaRouche is not a registered Democrat.)

I believe "convicted felon" is the operative fact here. LaRouce is also a flaming flake and his followers are brainwashed cultists.

BTW, the Arkansas Democratic Party invited Clark to be their nominee to run for governor last year. So if the Arkansas Democratic Party doesn't worry about Clark being a mole, why should you?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm

And considering some of the people who encouraged Clark to run as a Democrat -- Michael Moore, Josh Marshall, Joe Conason, to name a few -- calling Clark a "GOP mole" is plain old tin foil hat stuff. Next you'll say he's a space alien.

...when they said the DLC needed to bring in an "anti-war" candidate, because they were fearful of Dean who had climbed onto the "leftist tiger".

They clearly consider Clark to be the one for keeping the tiger in his cage.

the reason I'd vote against Clark in the Democratic primary. He's not ready for a campaign against Bush, IMHO. He would do well to accept a VP slot and learn the ropes for 4 - 8 years.

we're blowing a historic opportunity you realize that right? Until Dems get back the military vote and the label of "strong on defense" we will NEVER have political power. Is Dean going to do that for us? Even is Dean beats Bush, he will have no power.

Ah well, it was fun while it lasted. I'll cross my fingers and hope Dean can actually win.

In many cases Dean has all the positives that Clark doesn't and vis versa. This includes political skill, IMHO. Clark can learn. Clark is a big time genius. And if he's on the ticket for VP, especially to nurture as a future candidate for President, he'll still bring in the military vote.

He's insulted every Democrat and Independent in the race, all of the Dems in Congress. You think anybody wants to work with him?

....his characterizations of some rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, has prompted him to issue several apologies this year.

''I'm not sure why Dr. Dean thinks it's in his interest to pick fights with other Democratic candidates, but he underestimates the former governor of the fourth-largest state at his own peril,'' said Graham spokesman Jamal Simmons. ''Bob Graham created twice as many jobs when he was governor of Florida than there are people in the state of Vermont.''

http://www.tothebarricades.com/MT/MT/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=536


Please note that this is from June 18, 2003 - He's stuck his foot in his mouth several times since that time..

and refuse to admit they're wrong no matter what.

that was completely staged. The Graham campaign wasn't angry. They were just trying to get some much needed press.

Oh looks like Dean was right.

And do you doubt for one second that Graham or Edwards would jump at a VP offer from Dean?

at best, Dean is a middle of the road Democrat, and his appeal is mostly to the Dem base - does anyone really think his (good) stand on gun control is going to win any significant votes?

And let's not pretend Dean is an "outsider" either, he's been an insider all of his life from his Park Avenue upbringing to his years as a DLC governor to now.

If we have another attack or another war, Dean could easily lose to Bush. I hope whoever we nominate wins, but I don't just want to win the White House, I want a Democratic majority? Can Dean do that? So far I'm not convinced.

I see no reason that this string of gaffes will not continue into the general election.

Put him on the VP slot where he can learn how to run a campaign and lead a political party. It's still a historical opportunity to get a Democratic army general into the white house.

supply links.

Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
…
General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

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

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."
…
"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html

Clark Explains Statement on Authorization for Iraq War
…
"I never would have voted for war," he said here this afternoon in an interview and in response to a question after a lecture at the University of Iowa. "What I would have voted for is leverage. Leverage for the United States to avoid a war. That's what we needed to avoid a war."

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

He then added: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position. On balance, I probably would have voted for it."
…
About Iraq, he said "There was never an imminent threat," and called the war "a major blunder."

"We're not the sort of `you're with us or against' kind of people," he said.

"We're a come-and-join-with-us kind of people," he told a crowd of 1,000 in the main lounge of the Iowa Memorial Union. "Americans know in their hearts that you don't make our country safer by erecting walls to keep others out. You make us safer by building bridges to reach out.

"We also have to recognize that force should be used only as a last resort, when all other means have failed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/20/politics/campaigns/20CLAR.html

Clark on whether he'd have voted on the IWR and Dean's response
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=401401

http://www.mystupiddog.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_mystupiddog_archive.html#106426862078130591

The Wit and Wisdom of Wesley Clark

As a special public service, My Stupid Dog is proud to present a collection of memorable statements from the current Democratic front-runner.

The Media just decided to come around when Wes got into the race...That should tell you something! It was sooooo Booorrrrinnnnggggg before the superstar entered the race. Sorry, it's just the way it is.

The "regular" folks don't like experienced politicians anyway.....the gaffes only add to his appeal. Politicians are 2nd on the least of least trusted behind Used Car Salesman and before Lawyers...I believe.

Those who experience WAR work for PEACE

Support our Troups, ELECT ONE

A real WES Win in 2004!

Prepare the Wes Wing, cause the General will be in tha House!

you a DEFINATELY a newbie here.Dean and Kerry especially have been raked over the coals on DU.Clark is just the latest in line.

Gore lost his home state and KY on guns. Remember Dean won't need to win 90% of the state... he jus needs 4 or 5 percent more than gore in some red states to win them.

I seriously think Dean can take OH, MO, TN, KY, CO, and AZ mainly because of the gun issue. And even if he doesn;t win them all, he will be compeditive in them, which means Bush has to put more energy into those states.

"And let's not pretend Dean is an "outsider" either, he's been an insider all of his life from his Park Avenue upbringing to his years as a DLC governor to now. "

He is an outsider. He is outside the beltway and the DLC attacks on him show that he's not DLC. The DLC is like MTV... it started out cool, but has just gotten lamer and lamer.

If Dean can really campaign as pro-second amendment, he could be more competitive in those swing states than I give him credit for. Clark's very stupid assault weapons quote could really cost him. I think Dean is 100% right on gun control (and fundraising after McCain Feingold too :) )

Dean's an insider, from the richest families in America, to Yale with Bush, to a long career as a conservative Governor of a liberal state and Chair of the Governor's Association. I guess he's a *federal* outsider, but that's as much of a bad thing as a good thing. All that means is he's a small time insider. If Dean didn't have a long conservative DLC record, it might be different. But he does.

Dean will have to pick Clark as Defense Secretary if not VP anyway. Wherever Clark is on war and foreign policy, that's exactly where Dean will be. Let's not kid ourselves about that. Dean will not be ending US imperialism as president, Clinton sure as hell didn't.

Don't you have to be a registered democrat to be in the democratic primaries? I don't care if he is an independent, I actually wish there were more Independents in public office.

Wes Clark sounds like most people I know.

www.talkingpointsmemo.com

WESLEY CLARK: I voted for Al Gore in the election of 2000. I had voted for Bill Clinton previously. For me, the issue was: make sure before you pick a party -- you don't have to pick a party in Arkansas to vote, you just vote, and I voted in the Democratic primary, but that didn't mean becoming a member of the Democratic party. Before you pick a party, make sure you know why you're picking a party. Make sure you understand what the partisan political process is in America. What does it commit you to? What does it mean? How does it affect the rest of your life? What is it all about? And so I thought I'd take a look at both parties.

I was fortunate. I was well-enough known that both parties invited me to consider them. The Republican party invited me to participate in a fundraiser and run for Congress. The Democratic party invited me to be their nominee for governor of the state of Arkansas. I was tremendously honored by that. And it was clear as I looked at the parties, looked at the culture, watched the dialogue, it wasn't just that I had voted for Al Gore, I really believed in what the Democratic party stood for. And so when it came time to choose a political party, I chose the Democratic party.

to be in the nation-wide democratic primaries? :shrug:

Some, such as Colorado, require that you be registered as a Democrat for at least a year before you can run as a candidate for national office...For President, I do not know?

It's posted somewhere in this thread.

He is running in the US Democratic Primary, shouldn't you have to be a registered democrat to run to be nominated for the Democratic Candidate for the President of the United States?

I didn't think you registered as anything in Arkansas and Clark has never ran for anything before.

And if he were the Presidential nominee, why should Dems be proud to be Democrats if our nominee can't be botherd to register Democrat.

For that matter, why should we bother to work to register others as Democrats, if our "party leader" sets this example for the rest of us?

Hi w4rma.

We need to raise our standards while Bush is so low in the polls.

We are *always* being told to to wait for the right time. "We can't afford a liberal candidate against a popular Republican."

OK THEN....................................................

Perhaps this is part of his New Patriotism - FOR America, above the fray of the less-than- perfect national parties!

:kick:

DemEx

Call the fucking papers!

I worked in a campaign office before and I know the difference between a registered "Independent" and someone who is registered with The Independent Party!

registered independent = a blank voter...which means NO party affilation
and
registered The Independant Party = Independant Party voter

in NY state a registered independent(blank)voter is NOT allowed to vote in the Primary...but a registered Independent Party voter is.

i don't know why...it just is

I'm pretty sure, besides, isn't the Independent party strictly New York?

maybe we've finally heard the last of the "Nader isn't even a Green!" thing...

:evilgrin:

I just knew it...:P

edit: I didn't imagine that you felt it suddenly justified Nader, Rick...

busted!

He is a plant for the vast no-party-affiliation consipiracy to take the nomination away from Dean!

He voted for Clinton (2 times) and Gore. The last time he voted for a Republican was 19 years ago when he voted for Reagan - along with 60% of the country.

Considered 2002 AR gubernatorial run against GOP incumbent

Clark votes Democratic. In Arkansas most voters enroll with no party affiliation; you show up on primary day and select the ballot of whichever party you want to support. Clark told me he voted in the Democratic primary in last year's state elections. He seriously considered seeking the Democratic nomination for governor of Arkansas in 2002, challenging Republican incumbent Mike Huckabee.
Source: The American Prospect, "Meet Mr. Credibility" Mar 1, 2003

there is no verifiable way to acertain who somebody voted for.

1988 (Bush I) was 15 years ago, not 19. And that is the presidential vote only. We have no reason to believe that he didn't continue to vote for Republicans for other offices.

It was a few years ago, but I did it. I voted for a local Republican for some office or another because she helped get my kids into the after school program.

I guess I'm not pure enough to post things on this forum. So sorry.

or because s/he was the better choice?

Remember this was local, as in town council. I thought she was the better choice because she actually did something tangible, which was helping newcomers to the town (like me) get their kids into the after school program. And I knew from this that she had helped establish the after school program. This is what local politicians should be doing. So it's the same thing.

unless one is a registered Democrat. It's like people who run to represent districts they don't live in. It burns me up.

If he doesn't want to be a Democrat, let him run on some other ticket.

with no party registration to vote? Gore shouldn't have run?

I mean, one assumes that Gore is a registered Democrat

and being a Party member are distinctly different things.

Gore is NOT registered to vote as a Democrat because you cannot do that in TN. He probably DOES have membership in the state party.

I could even give him a break if he'd joined his state org (where's he from again?) a week before he announced, but now he's in the thing and he's still an independent?

Nothing against independents, mind you, but I can only imagine the hue and cry if a non-military independent were running for the Dem nomination.

:shrug:

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) only became a Democrat officially in the last year or so. She actually had been a Republican, but when that idiot Dan Frisa was holding the seat she currently has and voted to overturn the assault weapons ban, she ran as a Democrat and helped reduce the number of survivors of the Gingrich Class of '94.

The question should always be whether the candidate is a true ally or a DINO. McCarthy is no DINO, and I doubt Clark is.

to run a Presidential campaign against George W. Bush. This was an act (non-act?) of incompetence.

I want a proud DEMOCRAT, someone who could just have easily gone repuke if they gave him a better offer.

Unprepared??

I thought he was a puppet in some great insider chess game?

No, wait, it was that he is really a Republican..

But in fact he is registered as "independent"...

So the point is, he is not a Democrat!

Except that he may not need to register to actually be one...

So what the real problem with this guy is, is that he's so unprepared! My God, if that doesn't convince you of how evil he is, I just don't know...

saying Clark is a Repuke. :eyes:

All this about him praising Republicans in the past and voting for Nixon and Reagan and being a registered independent is insignificant, in my view, because there are a lot of Republicans and independents who have come over to our side because they are disgusted with the Bush administration. To me, the greater issue is who is behind Clark, and why? I just have a bad feeling about him, like somebody has pushed him to run for some purpose other than a desire to get Bush out of the White House. I am not sure who it is and why, but I have a bunch of theories, and a really suspicious feeling.

"All this about him praising Republicans in the past and voting for Nixon and Reagan and being a registered independent is insignificant, in my view, because there are a lot of Republicans and independents who have come over to our side because they are disgusted with the Bush administration. "

I don't think it's insignificant, but it's way more of a big deal on DU than it is in the real world.

"To me, the greater issue is who is behind Clark, and why?"

Agreed 100%

"I just have a bad feeling about him, like somebody has pushed him to run for some purpose other than a desire to get Bush out of the White House. I am not sure who it is and why, but I have a bunch of theories, and a really suspicious feeling."

I have a really GOOD feeling about Clark, and as far as I can tell he is as liberal as Dean or Kerry or Edwards, but has the one big advantage that they don't. Yes, it's the lifelong service in the US Army.

It doesn't have to be Clark, it could be someone else, but that fact can make a really big difference, and not just to beat Bush, to make the Democratic party a majority, and make liberal a good word again.

Can't you people give me at least a VP who is working class and military? $#@$#! /sarcasm

Mississippi, either. There is NO registration by party. None. You can't do it. I've voted Dem since 1972 and I assure you, its not possible to be "registered" in a state that doesn't"register". I assume that's how it is in Arkansas too.

http://www.sosweb.state.ar.us/elections/elections_pdfs/voter/voter_reg_ap_ar.pdf

Check Block #6: It's to designate your Party Affiliation.

And if you look in the upper left corner of the form, you'll see you can even change party affiliations in Arkansas.

I hope this puts an end to speculation of whether they even have party registration in his state.

you will see that the form was revised in September 2003. Perhaps, the old form did not have a space for party affiliation, or even more sinister, maybe you DO NOT HAVE TO DECLARE party affiliation.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm

"A Clark campaign spokesman at first told BusinessWeek that the former general had in fact updated his voter registration to reflect his newfound status as a Democrat. But a call to the Pulaski County Voter Registrar indicated otherwise. When asked to explain the discrepancy, campaign consultant Mark Fabiani says Clark hadn't yet had time to register as a Democrat."

========

I'm not so much concerned about the technicalities of being a registered Democrat as I am about his team not being honest about it from the get-go.

If they truly do believe that "Clark's independent record -- coupled with the fact that he voted for Ronald Reagan -- could boost his bipartisan appeal in a general election," then they should have been making a big issue out his being an unaffiliated voter, rather than concealing that fact.

So what is your point? That they were "concealing" something by being wrong about the change? But it got them no gain to do so, in fact just the opposite? Isn't that the same thing as saying nothing happened here except a mistake?

I mean, this is Amateur Hour stuff. You would hope a Four Star General would have a better organization than one that would overlook something this rudimentary.

Really, it would almost be better for Clark's reputation for it to be a lie rather than an oversight this dumb.

Clark is "Amateur Hour". Except when he is part of a devilishly cunning Rovian plot. Or a DNC puppet. Or Something Else Nasty...

I happen not to believe the conspiracy theories.

But I should point out that "Amateur Hour" and "Rovian plot" are not mutually exclusive entities.

Fits in with the descriptions I've read of his military leadership. He's arrogant and sloppy.

http://www.counterpunch.org/clark.html

what makes you say it was being 'concealed'? Perhpas it was simply that the first person the reporter asked didn't realize the paperwork hadn't been filed yet? Clark has after all been on the campaing trail from the day he announced.

Clark has after all been on the campaing trail from the day he announced.

so why couldn't he have registered as a dem BEFORE announcing? it's called "preparation", something that "competent" people do.

and think up conspiracies, etc. Please, your panic is showing. You have nothing to worry about because throughout this land everyone will come to realize that Howard walks on water and is really a man of the people and is the only person on earth criticizing Bush and the nation shall go forward, lift him upon their shoulders and make him the King of Kings and Lord of......opps, I was thinking of the Jesus guy.

I feel the same way (more so, actually) about a Democratic PRESIDENTIAL candidate.

If Clark were the candidate I was supporting currently, I'd now be looking at other more prepared and politically skilled candidates.

based on this.

IMHO, more people need to register (and vote) Democratic. Clark is giving the wrong example on this. It's amaturish.

just because they've been in that business longer....

DemEx

I wouldn't back someone just because they've been in that business longer, either.

Bash those who ask the questions that you can't answer.


The man will not even register as a democrat... and say crap like this:

"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

are just attacks on Dean instead.That's all well and good if everyone who was comcerned about this was a Dean supporter....but I'm not,so throwing Dean's mistakes or whatever at me dont really do Clark a damn bit of good.

Deflection is not a worthy defense.

and I'm not impressed with either side.

Your post is another example."it works both ways" isn't a defense.

I wasn't trying to defend anyone, so my comments are not in lieu of a 'defense' argument. I don't feel compelled to defend Clark supporting posters...

There is nothing that requires a serious defense here. Most of the responses I see are jokes.

Next someone will start a thread accusing Clark of "looking" too conservative. lol.

and PM's,I might add, to be very worried about any candidate that you like.

Because of the Kucinich campaign, I've met a lot of Independents who are rejoining our party because Kucinich represents the heart of the Democratic Party and shows that not all Democrats have turned Republican.

I don't know much about Clark. But I was impressed that he stood up to Limbaugh because of Limbaugh's racist remarks.

I am so confused...I mean my candidate represents me, voted for all the right guys (as much as I did) but lacks the little piece of paper with the D on it - what shall I do?
Listen guys, I'm sorry you didn't dundraise as much as you planned and your conference call only had 1/3 of the people you were counting on - but all this rancor does not suit you. It's very off-putting.

This doesn't make Clarkinto Hitler, for goodness sake, it doesn't make Clark evil or hateful.

But it does take the man down another notch in my eyes, and I hope that (if Dean wins the nomination) Dean thinks twice before asking Clark to run as his VP.

"but Dean said he was a Republican"

Because clark says things like this:

During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "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."

"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."


"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."




"Listen guys, I'm sorry you didn't dundraise as much as you planned"

They hit the 15 million mark... they're still totaling up the snail mail donations. THat 14.8 is mostly the net donations. And it still broke the record for single quarter fundraising by a democrat... and without whoring to special interests. THey raised 15 million and the average donation is 100 bucks.


" and your conference call only had 1/3 of the people you were counting on"

They also broke the world record for the largest conference call. Over 3500 phones connected.

If you are going to bash Dean to deflect attention from Clark lying about being a democrat, at least get your facts straight.

Big. Fucking. Deal. I'm sure this is an oversight that will be rectified immediately.

Busy people who have lives occasionally forget to dot an 'i'. Yes, this was an error, but hardly a large one.

DTH

I go back and forth on Clark, but not being a member of the party for whose presidential nomination you're running is an oversight? That's a bit of a stretch.

Clark lied, get it. He told us all he was a democrat... yet he can't even be bothered to register in the party where he is seeking the nomination?


Give me a break, there is no excuse for this.

LIAR that I am.....

If what Clark is doing is permitted, so friggin what?
DemEx

Can I still Vote?

I could care less. It's the platform that counts. If we can capture a disaffected Clark, then who's to say we cannot capture millions of disaffected independents and even, yes, Republicans.

The man has held no political office, and he's not a registered Dem. Let Bush make him a Supreme Court Justice if he's so wonderful.

People here are saying, he's inexperienced, but he can learn. Fine, let him learn in something less vital than the Oval Office.

They used to have a saying. "Don't buy a pig in a poke." Don't buy something sight unseen.

We've got better. We've got actual Democrats.

that he will be a registered Democrat...if he isn't already. Who wants to be this is a non-issue when it gets closer to votin' time?

.

Why are you smearing him. LOL Honestly the defenses of Clark in this tread are laughable.

For him or agin him, uh??? Such Bushie/Deanie dividing loyal mentality. Clark was in the military of 33 years...and came into the civilian world in 2000...

and although Dean reminds me of Theodore Roosevelt with his fire/brimstone stump speeches tapping the anger out of his followers.....I prefer Clark as he reminds me of a smart, classy & pensive JFK type and that who I prefer to do my Presidenting.