'DEM' CLARK HASN'T GOTTEN AROUND TO JOINING THE PARTY

DEM' CLARK HASN'T GOTTEN AROUND TO JOINING THE PARTY

By BRIAN BLOMQUIST



October 2, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - Wesley Clark was registered as a lobbyist when he jumped into the presidential race, but he has yet to actually register as a presidential candidate - or even enroll as a Democrat.

Clark has yet to change his voter registration in his home state of Arkansas from independent to Democrat, BusinessWeek reported yesterday.

(more)

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/7063.htm

yesterday, so there were two threads where this was hashed and rehashed.

I find it surprising that you missed both threads....but things do move rather quickly here.

what next, you want his "issues" page on his site to actually have some issues on it? (note: haven't checked it recently:) I mean come on, just because he has never been involved in governmental politics before, just got around to mentioning that yes, he is a democrat less than a month ago, and finally announced his candidacy 2 weeks ago, I wouldn't expect him to register as a dem too, the man simply has too much on his plate!:)

He better call Kucinich for the rundown, and soon.

you poor Clark bashers just come up with anything can you????DESPERATION.....

Arkansas has some unusual registration rules. I would recommend that you look for the multitude of threads that were written about this issue yesterday....

But what Dean said in response to a hypothetical question 10 f-ing years ago is current and relevant?

Must have missed that. You were responding to me when you said that. Please explain...

that the CLark folks keep crying out, saying Dean wants to raise the SS age to 70, is based on an answer Dean gave to a hypothetical question about balancing the budget in 95.

See, we Clark doubters (most of us are just doubters at this point, not ready to bash yet) just want to shoot down the sure-fire winner, Clark, who has no baggage, and would appeal to every living American, because we want to install the McGovern of our choice as the nominee. We are dead-set on losing 48 states, because a traditional democrat couldn't possibly win against the "popular" Bush.

I've got news for you. 40% of Americans HATE Bush and his policies and have from the beginning. The 11% or so that we need are alrready having SERIOUS doubts about his competency, and all Dean or Kerry or Gephardt would have to do is convince the voters that they are competent all-round, and we've got it. We're leery of giving that shot to Clark because with no political history, we have know way to know he'll really pursue the agenda we want.

Look at Bush for example. He ran as a Dole-like moderate "compassionate" conservative, and turned out to be a proto-fascist Ferdinand Marcos-like thug.

Not saying Clark would be anywhere near that bad, but who's to say that he won't make a similar turn with no record to judge him on?

And not that big of a deal.

new Sierra Blanca, environmental record bashing, etc... threads ad nauseum in GD about Dean, and then tell me a thread about the fact that Clark STILL isn't registered as dem is any worse:)

Is his supporters. If you all weren't so mean spirited, I might change my mind about the man. Monkey see monkey do.

here my friend? Like the one who insisted on calling me out BY NAME in a thread he started in GD, got flamed, and had his thread deleted? The same poster also slyly tried to get around the "no personal attacks" rule by calling me out in his profile. Look around before you make a comment like that:)

Please show me in one post where I have spoken ill of any democratic Presidential contender?

Dean supporters here in my opinion seem to trash other candidates more than any one else.

It's disgusting and if you ask me down right (emphazise right) scary.

look at the thread in GD now, and tell me Dean supporters are really the trashiest. I may have agreed with you about 4 months ago, but that has long since passed IMHO:)

hello!

and if so, i'm not trying to be coy, but what was the point you were trying to make?

Have you been to a meetup? Friendliest bunch I've ever seen. And have you seen the frenzied, spittle-dripping attacks against Deanies by Clark supporters? That won't hold water. I won't say that Clarkies in general are mean, but Deanies are definitely no meaner than anyone else.

and i have experienced the wrath of both. There is no comparison. Dean supporters don't put lots of effort in bashing the "left" like the Clark supporters do. I mean...whose side are we on if we are bashing the left?

you rarely (if ever) find Dean supporters bashing the left, yet I have repeatedly seen clarkies using terms disparaging the left (2 have been tombstoned).

some of these anti-Clark threads are really bizarre.

• Waco involvement
  
• Republican mole
  
• WWIII instigator
  

Aren't these unsubstantiated conspiracy theories something to be defensive about?

In fact Clark himself ADMITS that Gen Jackson said it, and merely tries to say that Jackson "over-reacted". Of course, I am sure Bush is saying that we are "over-reacting" to the Plame leak...

On edit: Thinking about one name and typing another... Damn I hate it when that happens :-)

Clark did play a role in Waco... Clark was accused by a british general of trying to start WWIII because he not only suggested bombing russian ships and pipelines, but also ordered britsh forces to attack and hold ground the russians held.

As for being a repuke mole... he did work for Henry Kissinger as a lobbyist so I won't put anything past him.

is enough to make any leftist democrat wonder about the person these people are supporting. I also notice Clark supporters attacking the whole of DU--I've not seen that with the Dean supporters. I honestly am starting to think that many of the newer members claiming to be for Clark are really trolls and not for Clark at all--just disruptors having fun.

The irony is some of them post how they don't like the left and then in the next thread claim that Clark is so "progressive." LOL

by who is supporting the candidate instead of who the candidate is is doing themselves harm.

Never allow another person to think for you. Other people are always idiots.

My feelings about Clark have nothing to do with the behaviors of his boosters... who have easily been the most hostile and viscious attackers here as of late.

I like Dean, and I don't take part in 'most' of those threads.
:)

Not only was Clark a corproate shill lobbyiest, he was a fucking lobbyist working for HENNY KISSINGER!


How can anybody defend that?


Can you imagine the shit storm that would happen if we found out tomorrow that Edwards had worked as a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger?

a general;)

It's very easy to throw claims about things.

If this is similar to the other Clark article "Clark MAY have worked for a company that MAY have sold technology that MAY have led to violation of civil rights."

Did you read about this on the freeper site or Counterpunch?

Basicaly Kissinger has a technology lobbyist firm on K St. called CSIS or CISI... not sure which.

Anyway, Clark worked for them. That's why the first post in this thread says he was a registered lobbiest.

I posted the whole list of members and some info on the group. If someone can search maybe they can link it. Or I can repost it here later today.

as of yesterday, he still had not surrendered his lobbyist liscense.

give it a break? This story has already been posted several times.

This is from The Note this AM...I'll tell them it's old news...

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

have you posted a single post so far with any substance in it, or do you simply cut and paste "deanholes" for every post you make and assume that that carries some weight? Substance is appreciated around here, and if you're going to flame, at least provide something to back it up.

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

His supporters don't care about things like that. They would like us to just let this topic drop. I've wondered why there has not been more posted here in regards to this issue.

I mean he really does not know what party he is a "proud" member of--or he is a liar--or best case scenario, he has incompetent staff.

But I have a feeling the buck never stops with Clark when it comes to his supporters. Very sad.

Wouldn't the same be true of him? Oye, tempest in a teacup.

which turnip truck did you just fall off of?

:kick:

Please cite a source for that claim.

early this am someone posted that in VT one doesn't declare party either. Thus - the claim was made - that he must not be a democrat either. Not really claiming it - but showing how specious the whole issue is in terms of voter registration.

However, later in that same thread, someone posted voter registration cards from each state - both do have a place to declare party - but it is optional.

Having run as a democrat for office in VT, it is unlikely that Dean opted not to declare democratic party as party affiliation on that form. But as always - simplistic arguments get taken and repeated even when there is no validity - and even when the initial post wasn't claiming that but done to parody the overblowing of the issue in Clark's case.

As per Clark. It is reasonable that when he last registered that he didn't declare (or did he declare independent? or is that the default if one doesn't declare) - given that he wasn't actively affiliated either way. It is also reasonable that in the whirlwind of the past month since his public declaration that he didn't have time to go back to the local county voter registration office to fill out the form. My goodness - he is months behind other candidates in pulling together a national campaign. Thus this is a silly story.

Either way - the claim made by WF is specious at best.

1) NOT even a REGISTERED Dem, even AFTER putting himself in the Dem primary?? <shows me lack of sense of propriety and timing ... impulsiveness, like what got him canned in Kosovo>
2) Within a day or so of his announcement, he is suddenly #1 in the Dem race, w/ higher polling percentages than the others - even though something like 62% of Americans couldn't name ANY Dem presidential candidate the week before this
:shrug: Whassup w/ THAT??? Makes me think he has friends and connections with pollsters, Diebold & Pentegon, Inc.!
3) The majority of Clark's sharks here calling DUers "leftists" (as an intended put-down)and saying things like "YOU PEOPLE on DU....." (i.e., 'they' AREN'T DUers????)
4) Clark's tendency to attract attacks from people who have worked with him and known him for many years -- his divisiveness both in his professional life and here on DU....seems to follow him around wherever he goes?
5) His history of lobbying
6) His history of voting repuke and supporting repuke campaigns
7) His kind words for Rumsfeld, Wolfie, Pearle, etc.

Sorry. With the mess this country is in, there's NO WAY I could support this guy. If he wins the primaries, I'll be TOTALLY afraid.


:kick:

I never thought that I'd see a NY Post article linked to here at DU, but I guess its just one of those weird things that happen when both Republicans AND far-left Democrats team up to relentlessly attack a centrist.

You know somethings wrong when people here are linking directly to Rupert Murdoch sources to make their point. Quite dissapointing.

But nobody seems to be able to defend Clark's lies, lobbying, or support for repukes.

hoping for a real response to the issue. I couldn't find it. :shrug:

even drudge.

And DU isn't "sinking", but if you're worried about "far-left" Democrats, maybe you're not safe here....there may be one or two.

Clark isn't "centrist"....if he knew where the "center" was, he probably wouldn't polarize people so much.

Edwards is a "centrist" Dem, and nobody's that upset about him.

:kick: