Will NEVER vote for Clark.

Worked with him in the 1st Cav Div & thought he was an alright fellow. But after I saw him praise Bush and Rummy. It made my stomach turn. Never in a million years. Bush does not deserve such praise, except impeachment.

Who would you vote for?

I will probably vote for Dean in the primaries (assuming that it will still matter by the time I get to), meaning I guess that I would never vote for any of the others.

However, I will vote for any of our candidates over Bush.

And to me, that's all that matters.

So, what was the point?

less often than never. Just an observation.

WHEN? Your full name and all we need to verify, please? Unless you lie?

RC

Next Q?

well..you can demand it until you are blue in the face but the poster is under no obligation to comply.

especially for such a comment as 'he was an alright fellow'.

the poster's opposition to clark stems from something totally divorced from his claimed service with Clark. it stems from Clarks own words of praise for bush.

instead of pegging on me, focus on the issue at hand, I thought he was ok, but have strong questions regarding his postions. As for your request, for name date and info. No way pal. Clark has been running for Prez what 3 weeks, and you are fighting tooth and nail for him, good for you. But stop looking at me as the enemy. and make a argument WHY I should vote for him.

Who are You.

If you back someone else in the primary, that's OK. :)

That one lost vote will probably kill him.

Good for you.

Otherwise we will have people like you to blame for a second Bush term, and if you think this was bad, just wait until * is bale to serve in office without the fear of ever standing before the voters again!

I live in Colorado, and NO my vote does not matter. But I will tell you one thing, think back to when Bush took office and how mad you were. I would not praise him for nothing. And Clark was? That in its self very suspect.

Another self-defeating Democrat. I don't know if we need to get rid of you or bring you in.

Just thinking inregards to my state. We are not in the primary, due to the "budget". So my choice is null and void, in the primary. But in the General election I will vote again. And hope that it pays off, I voted on a touch screen. But FAR from self-defeating Democrat (not democrat).

Then why are you worried about our primaries? Why do we have people outside of our party influencing our discussions and elections. Here goes a flame fest... With all due respect... Why do we have Greens and anyone else not registered as a dem influencing us. I am thinking about whether Greens are hostile to Dems. The Democratic party is great and it has a lot to offer as far as social and political policy.

97,000 people voted for Nader in Florida. That sounds hostile to me. Maybe registered Democrats need to tell greens why they should be with us, not them.

One last thing. Let me get the Clark cheap shot out there now. Clark is not a democrat. Blah blah. Like Sharpton said: "It is better to be a new democrat than to be a democrat that acts like a republican all along."

I'm a register democrat, for the elections. But do not claim affilation to any party. Both major parties are terrible. And we can't win with Green. But when someone who speaks their mind on this forum, they are singled out as an enemy. With all due respect, I can and will influence your dissions, because the last time I read the Constitution, I was free.

If there is more behind this revelation of yours. Because it seems a bit flimsy.

taht I once worked with the man, in the military. I made a statement, of my past. I was in the 13th sig battalion, 1st cav div. Now if you believe that or not is your right. I wanted to know more about the people on this web site and their thoughts.

And if Clark can win, please explain why? I would love to know. Did not claim to be the mans best friend, thought he was ok.

He said that when he got back from Vietnam there were hundreds of thousands of people marching on the Pentagon and pouring blood on the steps, and it was obvious that they wouldn't be voting Republican and it was obvious to career military guys that they didn't want to vote the same way as the protesters. The "Republicanization" of the military was a result of the Vietnam War and the cultural chasm it created, as anybody who grew up then and has a shred of historical memory knows. The fact that somebody who came from that background has shifted to the Democratic camp -- not suddenly and not just now; he started voting Democratic in 1992 -- is, you know, a *good thing.* Something that speaks well for the man.

As for the notion that he shouldn't be trusted until he *apologizes* for voting for Nixon and Reagan -- I hate sharing the label "Democrat" with people who sound like the ludicrous barking bullies at a Communist self-criticism session. Millions of people whose votes we need in 2004 voted for Nixon or Reagan or both. The contempt displayed for them here is emblematic of why Democrats lose and lose and lose.

Just asking and trying to get some solid ground to work with.

Still want to know why one little thing is enough to envoke such a strong response. Please help me understand. I'm sure you understand the reluctance of those with integrity, who give their oath with true loyalty to attack out of hand, without SOUND and demonstrated reason those in control of the country one has fought for, defended and bled for, for 37 years.

Clark can win for a HUGE number of reasons. Pugs obviously HATE the Vets of this country, while Clark has fought for years to improve the living standards for active and champions the causes of vets. Chickenhawks abound pecking hard at the climate of fear that THEY have capitalized on, while Clark focuses on international cooperation, zero dependence on oil and a 100 year vision that deals with the environment, health care and ecucation.

He doesn't insinuate that everyone who has voted for a republican is a mental defect or a moral prostitute.

Where I come from that is called inclusiveness......... not tolerance but incluseiveness................ otherwise known as LIBERAL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!:wow:

I totally disagree with this person but I know what living in these center red states feels like sometimes. That's a little harsh.

Please don't get rid of me:scared:

I'm on your side. :hug:

It is the "I am not voting for this or that person over Bush, but I am a democrat that wants to see Bush out" position that bothers me. And I posed a question, do we expand the party or cut these people loose for holding us down. I would like to expand it.

But there a straight forward approach, to solving some of the questions, I have. You can save me or put me out in the cold. Dean? Kerry? Clark? Preach to me.

then they hold Clark. It is almost scary.

I would love to hear from all who have something to say. Clark is not my first choice.

Clark has explained his decisions and votes, how are we holding this guy to a higher standard? Try to stick to facts, not subjective "observations" or feelings.

at Precinct Caucuses. My state (WA) is working that way too, this year.

Here are the boring rules:

http://www.coloradodems.org/2004%20Delegate%20Selection%20Plan%20Sept%2003.pdf

But if you contact your state's DNC, you can find out what you need to do to attend the caucus. I'm going to ours and I NEVER have before. They are located in neighborhoods local to where you live. Here's your state DNC page:

http://www.coloradodems.org/delegate.htm

That way, your vote WILL count. It's a phone call or an e-mail and an evening at a meeting instead of a quick trip to the voting booth. Not such a high price for a voice, huh? BEST part- no Black Box voting at a caucus!

but I will vote for anyone but Bush or Clark. (ABBOC) It is fine for people to have a conversion. But he has never said it was a mistake to vote for Reagan (twice), Nixon, and King George 1. That on top of the raising money for Republicans just 2 years ago among other things puts him beyond the hold my nose and vote group that a few of the other Dem nominees fall into.

The funny thing is some DUers who hate people who voted for Nader are ready to bow down and make excuses for Clark.


I won't even get into the way his supporters take phrases of his and translate that into his position on policy.

First they claim Clark will decimate Bush* so he does not need progressive leftist votes--then they will say "we will blame you if he does not get elected." If he wins the nomination and loses the election I will blame them--because that is what I see happening.

sucks to be Democratic right now, huh?

n/t

anyone else? This is getting discouraging!

People seeing the light and switching parties?

What does that say about our party?

Talking up Bush & Rummy are something else all together. No one in my mind should praise Bush after 911. To many people died that day, because of the actions of the Bush admistration. Clark is misleading us into thinking he is something more than the regular corprate shill for the milatary complex.

So far Clark, almost, exactly mirrors my opinions post 9/11.

BTW, how many post do you have now? 130 something. Hmmmmm.....

and we follow smuck boy where every he wants to go....we were sucker after 911, by this adminsration. BTW 130 something.........hmmmmm What you at one time had 130. Get a clue.

Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudi citizens.

But that is too simplistic.

Where did the hijackers train?
Where did the hijackers get support/money?
Where were the supporters of the hijackers?

The answer: SA and Afghanistan and Pakistan and....

We were right to go after al-Qaeda . Many al-Qaeda are from SA. They were in Afghanistan; they train/trained in Afghanistan.

I agree we need to go after the culture in SA that supports Al Quada. We are right to question the extent of Saudis' military, financial, and diplomatic support for the U.S. But this was not an either or - we should have done both Afghanistan and SA.

The sucker part is Iraq.

Stop working with them and take them out too. But Daddy Bush is in good with them. That people is begin suckered. And Clark thinks that Israel need our support, screw Israel, the Jews do run the world by proxy. They also need to change their polices to to make the world a more livable place for all.

And I will say -- one more time for the record-- that the destabilization and balkanization of Saudi Arabia with 25% of known oil reserves remains near the top of the main agenda. All of that oil lies in a very small area of land near the east coast of a country that we already have surrounded. All "we" need do is convince the American people of Saudi responsibilities for 9/11 in a way that will make convenient intervention tasteful to a war-weary American public that just doesn't get the concept of perpetual war. Then the US will help the Saudi regime crack from the inside and threaten regional stability, as the pretext for the seizure. In my opinion, the next president will be the one who can convince the powers that be that he can pull off that agenda, and sell it to the American people and the world.

Mike Ruppert- Beyone Bush II

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102003_beyond_bush_2.html

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

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

I appreciate people having conversion experiences and welcome them into the party, but I won't vote for them to be President. There is a saying that applies: I would let Clark sing in our choir but I'm not ready to make him Pope.

What some of his supporters fail to see is that his Republican past it is a problem. You can say it isn't as much as you want, but I am not the only one who has this problem.

I want to hear him repudiate those votes. Clark must state that is was not was wise to have voted for Reagan and Nixon. (2 of the worst Presidents). And I would like to know what has happened that has changed him so fundamentally. I would need to hear those question answered clearly and concisely to consider changing my view--but Clark already answers questions with the vague alacrity of a life-time politician.

Clark may have done and said things that are a problem for some Democrats. They have the option of voting for someone else in the primary. If their candidate wins the nomination, he (or she) can count on the Clark backers working for the nominee, regardless of who it is because most of Clark's backers got involved with this because they are into the ABBA tour.

So, if Clark is the nominee and you absolutely cannot vote for him, can we at least expect you to stay home on election day, or will you cast a vote for Georgie to save the Democratic Party's purity?

to many questions remain for me to jump on the Clark bandwagon.

if he is nominated, I assume that at least we can count on you not voting for Bush.

Right?

How about that?

/sarcasm

I will be happy to vote and campaign for Dean if he is the nominee of my party.

I don't like Dean that much, but it's stupid to say you will never vote for a dem candidate because all that does is help bush.

it stops people and they talk about it. The logic behind the statement are three fold. Read the debate and some people have really guenuie concerns about this as I. So calling my approach stupid, is part of this debate and he is my thought on your statement.

I don't like Dean that much, but it's stupid to say you will never vote for a dem candidate because all that does is help bush.

So I don't really care.

I like some more than others, but every one of them is better than Bush.

...

and ignorance. Deal?

One thing I will vote for the person who gets the nod, but I sure will not be happy if this person does not take this time in history to correct the wrongs that have been done to the Constitution.

I weep for this nation and what has happen to it. We have been suckered long enough, and deserve better. By both The GOP & the Dems, they are both beholded to money.

Just vote for whoever the nominee is. I find it cynical and even a major indication of why the Democratic party has lost its vitality.

ABB is the most Apathetic way for a party to approach a nomination that I can think of. It indicates that the pundits are right when they talk about our party lacking ideas.

because they want the nominating process to be one giant circular firing squad, just like General Discussion can be. Forunately, the vast majority of voters understand the necessity of pragmatism over ideological purity.

ABB isn't saying that all the candidates are exactly the same; it's saying that even the one that you dispise the most is still head and shoulders above what the Republicans have to offer.

Then we can talk about "ideas".

but the ideas at the DNC are all wrong to win this race flat out. And with Bushs track record with should win hands down. I'm tried of the same old stuffed shirt. The progressive people, need a champion, not just another talking head.

you are right, and Clark to me does not fit the bill.

What are these new ideas that Clark does not "fit the bill" with?

I voted for Nader knowing that Gore couldn't win here anyway. Clark could. Dean can't. But if Dean gets the nomination I will vote for him. My advice is to try to get your guy the nomination, then support whoever wins. Bush is worse than Reagan.

He might be able to crack 42% or 43%--maybe Ron Kirk territory--but that's about the ceiling right now for a Texas Democrat. One could argue that the Texas Democratic Party might just want to fold up their tent and stop contesting elections all together.

I spent sometime there, and know what the people are like, by Nov 2004. The flags will be out and the march for Bush is on.

You are probably right. But Bush has lost his luster among many here, and I think a Man who says he voted for Reagan and Nixon and has even said a few good things about George might just fall in their comfort zone. The problem then would be the base.

That's one I have great hope for.

There are millions and millions of white people in this state who believe that General Boykin character when he said that God put George W. Bush in the White House. Hence, they consider voting against Bush to be sinning agianst God.

I'm a volunteer in Texas with a group called Texans for Clark. In my part of Texas (North Texas/DFW Metroplex) I have high hopes (and I think fairly realistic ones) of Clark winning in the Democratic primary.

The only other organized group with a following on the ground in my area that I am aware of is Dean for America. I'd like to hear from others organized in the area, or hell, organized anywhere in the state! I think there are several things we can work together on to a certain degree as Democrats without infringing upon our work for our respective candidates.

As a friend of mine, now working for Dean, is wont to say: "The Democratic Party could run Jesus Christ as President and they would still lose Texas to George Bush."

She's dead right. Clark would come closest in Texas followed by Edwards, out of the Democratic field (in my opinion), but any of our current crop of candidates will still not win out over the Carpetbagger in the White House.

It's really wonderful to see such outstanding rhetoric and political understanding exhibited here on DU.

Unfortunately, you seem to have a limited grasp of diplomatic speech and its practical uses.... but then you can't have it all.

My grammar is irrevelant, to this topic. If you have nothing to say about why I should vote for Clark or another Dem. Stop bashing people. I got people talking, plain and simple.

But you thought they were because of the way I phrased my comments!!!

I could have gotten all harsh on you but used a different approach.

SIMILARLY, Clark simply gave the Administration "praise" but went on to critique their agenda and their methods.

Politics is not a Smackdown. When you lose your capacity to engage in diplomacy, you lose any possiblity of stragegic advantage.

Please look up the term "triangulate".

thank you for the lesson in politics. (I'm learning so much under your guidance) In my judgement you can't give praise and become critical of their policies, in the same speech. That's my thought. What are yours?

And I believe you lost your capacity to enagage in diplomacy.........When you posted "Unfortunately, you seem to have a limited grasp of diplomatic speech and its practical uses.... but then you can't have it all."

That is Smackdown, in the real sense of the word. As my mother us to say "If you have nothing good to say about someone, don't say it"

How about "hyperbole"? That's what he was doing, you know; making a point obvious by exaggerating it.

In my judgement you can't give praise and become critical of their policies, in the same speech. That's my thought. What are yours?

Some of us are capable of separating the idea from the person; I, for instance, recognize that Bush* and Co are not "evil", per se, so much as misguided in their policies (to put it lightly). To put it simply, conservatives are dumb, but not inherantly bad. Therefore, it is not contradictory to say "Well, you've got a good conservative team", and then point out that all of their ideas are complete bunk. They're good by conservative standards.

I'm glad you can't go with criticizing something, for a minute. And you are incorrect in your statement of Bush & Co are not evil. read about PNAC and you will come over to the dark side and see the truth, their polices are not misguided they are exactly what they want an Empire. Rome did it.

you're a great guy.

But I have many, many more reasons.

I've never voted for a repug, and will not start now.

Four more years of bunnypants. You sound like those Green pot heads who thought there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

After today's Senate vote on partial birth abortion and the Florida legislature's vote to allow GW's evil brother to intervene in a difficult private matter I don't see how any intelligent person would want to chance 4 more years of Bush II.

I will contribute, work, vote, and PRAY for his victory--and i'm an atheist!!

We just HAVE to get rid of the SHRUB.

Heck I'd even vote for (shudder) Lieberman--it is THAT important to GET BUSH OUT!!!!

we all should ask who is best for the job.....Clark, is he? Is Dean? Is Kerry? I don't have the answers but I'm looking for someone who will advance the cause of the world in a way that will benefit all humanitity, not those who have the money.

He's the most populist and progressive one out there. He and Sharpton seem to be the only ones have have enough compassion and a real understanding of those who don't have money. They also seem to be the only ones who've understood that the world will no longer accept our little games and that we can't go back to business as usual.

Dennis Kucinich: Bio, Issues, Vision

Dennis Kucinich: The Time is Now


Peace

The latest poll numbers.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich had the support of 1 percent, and Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton were at 0 percent.

His heart is in the right place, nobody doubts that that I have ever heard, but it AINT gonna happen.

Pure and simple

Lieberman and Dean are two sided of the same snake oil coin. Just my intuition.

"my way or the highway" argument. You say you worked with him in the 1st Cav and he's alright but then, because he made some kind comments about Bush Co, you won't vote for him? I've said and done things I regret before, and i'm sure everyone here has done the samething, but Clark somehow warrants absolute hatred? What gives? Some here are in an ideological crusade for the pure candidate.

I am outraged by the actions of the Bush admistration, yes. Am I looking for the pure candidate, no. But my gut tells me theres more to Clark. Describing someone as alright when working with them is a very lose term. His resume out of the military is the main suspect. To be in the military is to be political, so he could quite possibly be fine as a canidate for president, but as commander and chief. Until I know more....... and as for "my way or the highway" argument, its one way to strike up a chat. Make a harsh unyeilding statement and get people talking in areas they would have never touched upon. and in my book we are running out of time to replace Bush.

That's also why I said "my way or the highway". But it sounds to me like you're not in that category after reading this response. :-) When absolutes are thrown about as "never" is on these threads, it tends to paint one as unyielding to changing situations or facts.

I love to have debates with people. The most important thing is Bush goes, but I am not convinced Clark should be our savor. I have answered a few questions.:)

I will NEVER vote for Clark, sounds like you are retreating from you position, soldier.

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

There are certain lines my Leftist conscience will not cross. While I am willing to very reluctantly vote for Dean or Kerry, I won't vote for an ex General who lobbied with Homeland Security, sat/sits on the boards of some very unsettling corporations/foundations and is so fascinated with fighting terror. Also, as someone who's personally given up a lot for the Palestinian right to self-determination, I am extremely concerned that Wes Clark wrote, a few years ago, that the Intifadeh happening in West Bank and Gaza was in Israel.

Lavishing praise on Bush et al as late as March 2003 is too horrifying for me because by then, only fools were still praising Bush.

That's 4 strikes and 2 of them are unreedeemable.

When were you at 1st Cav? I was 504th over on the West end ;) and probably around the same time as you. Shudder for the memories!


Welcome to DU :toast:

I believe in your words......I was in the 13th Signal Battalion.


Shudder..

Welcome again! We were probably on some of the same exercises (shudder again!)

It's good to see a fellow military Liberal on this board, there are several of us. For the most part, the ones who stayed in long, seem to be Kucinich supporters (horrors of war?).

Have you checked out Vets for Peace? Amazing organization. Also Kucinich for the most part- probably 90%. He spoke at the last annual convention which was really great!

I think you'll like the organization- let me know- there are chapters everywhere. The next annual convention is scheduled for the same time and place as the Democratic Convention.

Question: Are you now, or have you ever been a Republican? ;)

Peace :)

When were you at 1st Cav?" not where. Try agian.

what was the point of this post?

TWL

them? Scalia's or Ginsburgs? Thomas' or Breyers? Right to choose or not?

This election is about the future of our rights as much as it's about the Bush vs nominee. Four more years of Bush and we'll have less rights. But if you don't want to vote for Clark (if he were the nominee) because he praised Bush, then I hope you sleep well at night because that is a non-issue when compared to our future.

He would vote for Clark in a Clark vs. Bush matchup. I think he means he won't vote for Clark in the primary.

there are tons of people that will not vote at all. I will if he is but, am not happy about it. I wanted to know what people really felt about the issue. So what better way then hit with an over the top statement. And watch were the chips fall. I'm getting more feedback now then I have in the last three years of watching this admistration walk all over our rights as americans. thanks

The more I hear about Clark's pro-Bush comments, the more he worries me as a candidate. But if I sit back and am honest with myself, I must admit that I thought Bush was doing a good job post-9/11 as well. At the same time, I realize that any president, be it Bush, Al Gore, or Bill Clinton, would have been doing the exact same thing. We wanted to unite behind a leader after 9/11, whoever that leader was.

It was this "War On Terror" talk that put me off of Bush for good. After all, it's a formula for endless war. Perhaps it put Clark off as well. The nonsense in Iraq only reinforced my opinions. Perhaps they reinforced Clark's too.

As for why Clark voted for Nixon and Reagan, I wish he would explain that.

Will I vote for Clark if he's the DNC nominee? To paraphrase Rummy Rumsfeld, you bet. Will I vote for him in the primary? I can't honestly say.

he won't answer....as soon as the "Patriot Act" was acted on, the rallying stopped for me.

I can't vote in the primary. So its up to everyone else.

and it's a half-assed excuse, is that he voted for Reagan and Nixon because they were so popular (Nixon won in a landslide in '72, and Reagan won with considerable numbers in '80 and '84). As I said, it's a half-assed excuse...

Could he have voted in '68? It's my understanding he was at Oxford from 66-68 and then went to Vietnam in '69.

As I recall, generals running for president have a history of hazy political affiliations. A lot of them seemed to join a political party almost by default. Republican Ulysses S. Grant had apparently only voted once (for Democrat James Buchanan in 1856). Eisenhower was being courted by both the Dems and the Reps in '52.

It does make sense to a point... after all, a general is answerable to his civilian commanders, regardless of that civilian's political party.

You mean the lastest Drudge Videotape where the whole sentence is not shown ???????? Anyone who is worried about that speech is doing the same thing Bush did in reference to Iraq. First Bush decided he was going to Iraq...then he massaged some messed up reasons as to why.

I will locate the whole speech and post it here or a link to it. Actually, my understanding is that the majority of the speech was very critical of Bush and his administration....but as a true diplomat, Clark doesn't mind sweetening the brew to bring it to a boil.

You all are using the ammo provided to you by the right wing neocons to do their bidding. Since some don't "like" Clark, it suit their purpose as well. Hell, who is using who?

Seems like others were saying about the same thing he was...
Howard Dean
May 22, 2003
Here is a quote from Howard Dean, praising George W. Bush's war in Afghanistan.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban. I thought that group was a clear and present danger to the United States, and I supported what the President did.
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lieberman
January 2002: praising George W. Bush's war in Afghanistan.
America’s great military strength, including particularly the precision air attack and special forces capabilities built up by President Clinton during the 1990s, and commanded so well by President Bush over the past year, has been stunningly impressive in this war to date.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/lieberman/lieb011402sp.html
------------------------------------------------
Dick Gephardt
June 2002
foreign policy speech from June 2002 where he expresses agreement with Bush foreign policy, and discusses some success in Afghanistan.
“We must be prepared to build alliances in regions that flare up unexpectedly. Afghanistan is the best example of this today. The Administration deserves credit for the military victory there. http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gephardt/geph060402sp.html

when over half the country was already quite aware that Bush et al were as evil as you get and we already had 9 Democratic candidates denouncing Bush. I dunnno, maybe Clark listened to them and had a sudden change of heart? :shrug: It was probably a Sharpton speech that did the trick.


"Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ..."

Clark:

"I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues. ((Awesome! The entire PNAC crowd!))

<snip>
But the views that President Bush espoused recently at the American Enterprise Institute, if his predecessor had espoused that view he'd have been hooted off the stage, laughed at, accused of being incredibly idealistic about the hard-nosed practical politics of the Middle East. So this is an administration that's moving in a certain direction, and now that that's the direction they've picked they've got to make it work. Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail. ((WHO IS EVERYONE HERE??))

<snip>
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark


P.S. C'est tres joli de faire comme si on n'a jamais lu ca ou que ca n'a aucune importance mais, pour des Democrats comme moi, ca a une enorme importance. S'il vous en faut d'autres, j'en ai une quantite que je serais trop heureuse de partager encore une fois.

Tinoire a dit: ca a une enorme importance

Non, Je ne vois pas l'importance.......C'est la politique....pas la religion......

Mais je n'ai pas entendu ce que vous pensez de la partie des autre Democrats et se qu'ils ont dit. Meme pas un mot....Donc je vais le redire:

Howard Dean
May 22, 2003
Here is a quote from Howard Dean, praising George W. Bush's war in Afghanistan.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban. I thought that group was a clear and present danger to the United States, and I supported what the President did.


Est ce que ce n'est pas plus pire? Dean n'as pas d'excuse.....Il a meme pas servit dans la militaire. PourQuoi etait il forcer a donnez un compliment au President, le 22nd May, 2003?
MERCI

Your post was very honest and candid. Much appreciated, and I suspect, your thoughts and reactions are/were shared by many Duers and other Americans. Hindsight is 20/20.

Lots of Americans thought Bush was doing the right thing after 9/1 - and lots wanted him to do the right thing. I remember the night of 9/11 when he spoke to the nation after finally returning to DC. I desparately wanted him to do well - to say the right things. As a country, we needed our president to be responsive. Lots of people who didn't support him before 9.11 gave him a clean slate after 9.11.

Saying "I told you so" as some on DU do (not you) - is not IMO a successful position when dealing with folks who at one time or other supported Bush. It is off-putting. I appreciate your reflections, as I believe the mirror lots of folks in America.

And gladly.

will vote if nod or not. But his track record with corporations bother me.

ii the primaries who had no chance?

I don't buy that for one moment. There are a whole lot of people who are VERY uncomfortable with Clark, myself included. Why pick someone who so any people are nervous about? Among the circles I am in he is not trusted. That to me makes him far from the best choice for beating Bush. Haven't you noticed all the devision happening around Clark?

So after a month of Clark, you don't trust him....that's reasonable....

Is that military folks are supposed to express
loyalty for the commander in chief and the
military brass. IMO that's what General Clark
did, and it's appropriate professional behavior
for a military person.

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

Not "'nuff said."

It sucks to be someone who would be so gullible as to be swayed by the Faux News "journalists" who've been given the hopeless assignment of attempting to assail the General's unassailable record.

I'm just sick of it all. The neo-con artists are scared shitless of Clark, and they're pulling out all the stops trying to derail his campaign. And it makes me sick to no end that so many so-called "progressives" are all too happy to do their bidding.

Thanks for regarding me a gullible. I am not swayed by no one in the mass media. You on the other hand, If you can give me good reason I should vote for your candidate whom every it might be. I will listen, don't take the bold statement to seriously. Its a tactic to get people like you to answer my question.

Wes Clark is not the Messiah. He is a guy with a military background who is running for President. He seems to be a pretty good guy, and a lot of things make him seem like the kind of guy you could sit down in a bar with and have a couple of beers.

That doesn't mean we should build him up to be something larger and more wonderful than he is. He's still just a guy looking for a job.

I think it is outright stupid how people look to the President to be some sort of surrogate King. All he is, whether his name is Nixon or Reagan or Clinton, is a politician, beholding to some interests or another, motivated as much by personal ambition and ego as by pure motives of public service and political correctness.

One of the best Presidents this nation had was Harry Truman, and he would certainly fail any of the litmus tests that float around this forum. Yet he shaped the world as much as anyone you could name did and has become one of the icons of our party. He'd never make it past Iowa and New Hampshire today.

The reason Bush is different is because he has smart people around him who suck up to the rich and powerful as openly and guiltlessly as Machiavelli did to his Prince. He reminds me of the President out of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, except he's not as smart.

He has to be defeated in 2004 and if the best we can do is elect someone who will turn back the clock to the CLinton years, that's still better than things are today.

A lot of us nuts-and-bolts political types think Clark has the best bet to attract enough Indy's and Repubs to his cause than anyone else in the field right now. We know that polls and surveys this early in the game are just so much bullshit, and worth less than the air they are transmitted over. We know we will never raise as much money as the Bush League, no matter who our nominee is, and that we have to counter that with organization and grass roots work all over the nation.

So it might be wise to cut out all the Clark vs Dean vs Kerry vs Andrews vs, etc., etc., and try to advance our positions without trying to do so at the expense of the other candidates. I don't give a rat's ass if Dean said something that Newt Gingrich might have agreed with, or anything like that. And in November, no one else will either. All that will matter will be the economy (which may be in much better shape than you think it will) and the Great War.

Those will be the issues and what we ABBA Tour folks are saying is we have to choose a candidate who can present an alternative vision to that of the Bush League on those issues.

We have to have unity, dudes, just like Ronald Reagan demanded from his GOP cohorts. Speak no evil of other Democrats, just present your case for your candidate, and when you encounter people doing stuff like "Dean Diving" raise a stink to high heaven about it. And don't do it yourself.

Of course, I'm just saying this stuff because I think this nation will be ill able to survive four more years of this Bush League.

Your mileage may vary.

You need to post here a lot more!

Point taken - nobody's a messiah. But I soooo want to see that smirking chimp lose his second election in a row, and not have SCOTUS bail him out - and I just happen to think Wes Clark is the guy who can achieve that.

I'll gladly support Dean, or whoever else the Democratic party anoints as its standard-bearer, if he emerges as our nominee.

As a Democrat, however, I feel obligated to support the candidate who I feel has the best chance of winning the election - and that, without any hesitation, is Wesley Clark.

And I don't feel as if I'm compromising any of my closely held progressive beliefs by supporting the General. It's a bit like the way I felt when I voted for the last Democratic president - the last one that was actually allowed to take his rightfully elected office, that is.

Too bad the repugs din't ask him to come and play w/them.

Too bad for the Dems, that is.

They asked Clark to run for a Senate seat......he said no.

to run for president?

To vote for a Second Reagan term after the illegal bombing of Nicaragua. That is pretty unforgiveable. Remember Reagan tolerance of the El Salvador Massacres, its acceptance of Nazi genocide maniacs in El Salvador and Guatemala.. A Military man, like the late Smedley Butler- should know better.
And advance to his praise of Rummy and Cheney in May, 2001, we owe it to the party to ask questions. I am not sure I approve of his answers. I will keep an open mind.
I think the Clark people are way too mesomarized by the uniform to be objective. Just like the repugs were over Oliver North. But I will not automatically reject Clark, if his positions are fair and his conversion is genuine; should needed scrutiny not reveal him as a fake.

:think: :wtf:

because of his stressing the importance of international co-operation. I believe he has the skill sets to bring about consensus. I like his plans to return money to states to help meet their budget needs in financial downturns. I like the idea of unions helping train the workforce to meet changing demand. I think he will be good at dissecting problems to come up with solutions. I think he looks further than the immediate future and looks at long term national needs.

His ideas are not republican. Someone like Lieberman, on the other hand, has Bush like policy views. I would think people (Democrats) would be more worried about candidates that are either weathervane like, or republican like. But I guess not.

Obviously every Democrat will have as many as eight primary candidates we won't vote for and probably at least one we'd "never" vote for.

Do you really think anyone reads these threads and says, "Dag num it, if johndoe123 will never vote for Kerry, neither will I?"

Lot's of people think these threads are started by freepers. Granted, republicans are certainly dim enough to believe that one paragraph posts will change votes or sow discord--hell, they only put a paragraph's worth of thought into their votes.

Other than that explanation, though, I just don't get it for the life of me.

Per GD rule #4:

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

I don't think this measures up.

Plus, this person has been banned as a disruptor anyway.