What is your opinion of the Clark debate on the DU?

It seems clear that the Clark flame wars are going to be with us for some time. But I curious as to other folks opinion about these flame wars. I this question is designed to establish the opinions of the observers.

Jaded observer = The Clark threads are too poisonous, and I have little stomach for them. I make efforts to avoid these debate.

Staunch supporter. = I have taken it upon myself to be and advocate of the Clark campaign, and to actively address negative information, while presenting positive information about Wesley Clark.

Staunch critic = I have taken it upon myself to present information critical of the Clark campaign, character, and history.

Coming to support Clark = Even though I started out being neutral, or being against Clark. I have found the debates and issued to be compelling reasons to support Clark.

Remaining neutral. = I have yet to see any argument presented that would push my opinion in regards to Clark, one way, or another. I reserve the right to decide later.

Warned away from Clark = Even though I started out being neutral, or was supporting Clark. The debates have presented to me compelling reasons why I should not support Clark.

Other = My opinion about Clark and the Clark debate dose not fall within the above categories. I wish to define my opinion below.

sorry...require more data on what he will do specifically regarding healthcare reform, the deficit, and bringing democracy to America. Until this happens, I'm remaining neutral!

I've done the math.
It may be fuzzy to some, but this ain't really a multiple test question.
Wen one is using a calculator and a ruler,
there is only one correct answer.

Don't like him, but the debate about him here seems rather irrelevant to my opinion of him. He just seems bland and uninspiring - the ultimate "electability"-based choice. A General and not much else.

When I want to be entertained, I go catch a good Cirque du Soleil!

I was wondering if you'd catched his appearance at the Fall DNC Meeting. I think he was pretty high energy and rabble-rousing in that short speech. He roused the crowd even moreso than Dean who spoke before him.

He's not my first choice, so until someone gains the nomination I can and will ignore him.

If he get the nomination, I will read up on him then, and see how strongly I can support him.

"Jaded observer" is a strong second choice for me, however. This kind of virulent discussion really does little good, and it seems to me the efforts of Gen. Clark's detractors center in many instances on distortions, and concentrate on questions that will be of no interest whatever to the general voting public.

addressing the BS and lies about Clark.

So I chose staunch supporter.

Most of this BS is flowing down from RW press and Republicans, and we aren't doing any of our candidates a favor by legitimizing this stuff and giving it credit it doesn't deserve.

They won't stop at any Democrat. They're all in line for the same treatment unless we make a stand against this now.

I am a jaded observer, I am not entering into divisive threads about Clark or any other Democratic candidate and that even includes Lieberman.

your blood pressure and your sanity.

There are a few that attempt to poison even the most positive, even the most innocous threads. For example, the thread on whether Clark is a Catholic - some feel compelled to throw venom into that thread.
Those that spend several waking hours trying to hurt the Clark campaign also don't spend alot of time posting positive threads about their candidate - which reveals alot about these people.

I am a staunch supporter. As such, I am an advocate of the Clark campaign. I do actively address negative information and participate in threads. I do present positive information about Wesley Clark.

I also say positive things about other candidates.

Anybody can use selective information to discredit anybody.....


Heck, even Christopher Hitchens played the role of advocatus diaboli (devils advocate) in the sainthood procedures of Mothers Teresa..


The anti candidate threads used to get my blood boiling now I greet them with a big yawn......

<yawning>


Brian

...quite a few "Clark debate" threads are a lame exercise in negativity propagated by a few select people who have a vested interest in discrediting him.

Clark's credentials as a candidate for president should certainly be debated, but so far in GD the "debates" have been on the level of muck-raking and mud-slinging.

I'm absolutely apalled by the so-called level of 'debate' about Gen. Clark; as one whose preferred candidate has been the subject of more unadulterated bullshit flame bait than anyone EXCEPT Clark, I cannot help but feel sorry for him and, as a result, I find myself rising to defend him when I would prefer to be debating legitimate policy issues.

It is quite clear that some candidates' supporters believe that the best way to help their candidate is to flame other candidates, and my fellow Dean supporters are some of the worst about this; should we succeed in securing the nomination, I fail to see how having heaped mountains of Rove/RNC-inspired and -disseminated propoganda on both Gen. Clark and his supporters will have been to Gov. Dean's benefit. The General's candidacy has attracted voters to the Democratic party who have been alienated from it previously, and he shows surpising strength in the 'independent' voter's block. Given that their votes count 1:1 like anyone else's (may not apply in FL :P ), I see no utility in alienating them

It is high time that certain elements within our party acknowledged that there is no 'litmus test' to determine who is, or is not, a Democrat. I am firmly in Al sharpton's camp on this issue: better a new Democrat than an old one who acts like a Republican.

Really? You don't think that perhaps you're being a bit too generous to the Clark supporters that:

Define Dean supporters as a cult

Insist that they, the grown-ups, know much better than we do how to win this upcoming election

Suggest that a Dean candidacy will suffer a worst defeat than McGovern did

Suggest that the reason Dean is doing so well is that there is a Republican conspiracy to make him the nominee

Maybe you meant to include Clark supporters as part of the "some" in your statement, but I'd feel more confident of that if I saw a few more posts countering these slams and few less bashing Dean supporters.

I said what I meant, and I meant what I said-- no more, no less. Quit trying to add into my statement.

Thank you.

I don't get why it seems to be the same old crowd that starts anti-Clark threads. You do it Code D. I notice you are from Kansas. Kansas isn't having a primary. Do you feel helpless in chosing the nominee? It seems that of all the candidates, Clark causes the most uproar. Posters write things like "scared", "terrified", "worried" about the Clark candidacy.

It also seems that the same old debunked arguments are brought up over and over and no matter what a Clark supporter writes, it doesn't matter. The press seems to be over-wrought about Clark too.

What I would ask is that people actully read what Clark says and try to catch him on C-Span or other television shows. He's not the boogieman some would have you believe.

I have enjoyed seeing Will Pitt's input about his travels. He keeps pointing out that out in the "real" world, things are not as crazy as here on DU. On DU the loudest, most obnoxious people get the attention.

There is a group mass psychology that goes on in communities like DU. I see it all the time in my work. One person starts to bitch and moan, then when another person hears it, the say "yeah I agree" even when they have never thought of the topic, or they really even don't think it to be true.

Actually, although the administration is trying to keep flame wars down, I think some folks on DU just love them and like stirring the pot. It makes them feel alive and stimulated.

This doesn't just apply to Clark bashing. It applies to all the candidates, but it especially applies to Clark because of his inexperience in electoral politics. We're just as bad as the people we like to call "sheeple". We take the soundbites and don't examine. We won't allow a candidate to have a view that takes a few sentences to discuss. We'll take inflammatory headlines from any source, no matter how biased, to prop up our arguments. That's what I've taken from this. I knew what Clark meant when he made that ill-fated statement on the war vote, but we reduced it to the soundbite and judged him on the first sentence out of a much longer statement. The same thing happened much more recently with that Time tape.

What deeply bothers me about this is that we're not helping anything by doing this. I know about Clark because I'm solidly behind him and I look into anything he says and does. But he might not be the candidate. I'd like all those candidates to have the opportunity to discuss problem areas. Things that I don't care for about them might be considerably cleared up. They can't, though. They have to work with soundbites and slogans. Long, candid statements get distorted beyond recognition for anyone that heard them or read them in their entirety, no doubt.

At this point, I have some real questions about one other viable candidate in particular, but I don't have any real hope about getting any real answers. It's all spin, whether negative or positive. I'm kind of disgusted with us for this. If it's happening here, is there any hope of getting substance into the national election? When there's no substance, won't we continue to get people like Bush?

When there's no substance, we get people like shrub. :puffpiece:

greatly offends me. But notice (at least in Clark's case) the attackers are always the same 5 or 6 posters, posting the same tired articles with the same lame arguments. They have their talking points and they stick to them.

To paraphrase Faulkner most of the Clark bashing is "a great sound and fury, signifying nothing".

I've found myself as coming to think of the 5 or 6 as 'the usual suspects', a term I abhor normally. I am also amused by the "I had nothing against General Clark until this...", new-and-improved flame baits--- as if it's not sooooooooooo transparent. :eyes:

I generally ignore Clark threads. And Dean threads. I checked in and browsed through them early on, just to see what supporters and nay sayers thought, but I have my own issues and my own opinions.

I'm not a Clark supporter. I don't dislike the man or feel the need to attack or defend; he is just not the candidate for me. I knew that before he announced his candidacy. I've looked him over, so to speak, since he announced, and didn't find anything that changed my mind.

I'm not a Dean supporter. I was impressed with the energy behind his campaign and took a long, careful, close look last spring, before moving on to a candidate I like better.

Attackers haven't convinced me to hate either of these men; supporters haven't convinced me to support them. The flame wars aren't worth bothering with, IMO. If you want someone to listen and think, you present the ideas with civility, and then allow them to consider. You don't go in determined to fight.

The small number of threads in which supporters of various candidates, or undecideds, come together to hash out issues as they relate to the candidates; those draw me in. Some of those have allowed me to refine, or broaden, or strengthen my positions on issues. Civil, thoughtful conversation.

Dean gets exposed to them almost every day as well. Just keep up the good fight and don't worry about them--that is what I'm doing.

of the General. I started out with the second debate taking my first serious look look at our field of candidates. I had been focused on the dreadful Bush Administration.

Then...according to my perception...the bashing of Clark started making me defensive and eventually contributed to negative feelings about Dean. I realize the Dean supporters probably feel the same way, but nonetheless, it was a real turnoff.

I did learn that most of the negatives are rather silly in the end...but they did serve as a warning of the kinds of things the Republicans are throwing at him...and a hint of the nastiness to come.

But...everytime I see Clark...like on Inside Politics yesterday...I become more staunch.

till people start telling what he will do for america, I am neutral.

It was really getting old, the way it was a few weeks ago.