It’s official: Clark is now a registered Democrat

[bicentennial_baby]

"LITTLE ROCK (AP) — Wesley Clark’s campaign has said its candidate’s words and deeds, not a piece of paper, established his Democratic
bona fides.

But on Friday, a paper form made him a registered Democrat in his home state of Arkansas for the first time.

Clark faxed a registration amendment form Friday from Washington and it was received by Pulaski County Registrar Carolyn Staley.
The registration was held up for several hours because a registrar is not allowed to accept a fax-copied signature for intial voter registration form, but county attorneys told Staley the copy would be permissible for an amendment form."

-snip-

" Clark voted in a Democratic primary when he registered to vote in Pulaski County in 2002, but like more than 95 percent of Arkansas voters, he didn’t declare a political affiliation. The state doesn’t require such a declaration, and even for those who state their allegiance, party primaries are always open to all voters."

http://www.couriernews.com/story.asp?ID=3548

[wyldwolf]

1. Few voters in state list party affiliation

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Posted on Saturday, October 4, 2003

It isn’t unusual that Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark didn’t list a political affiliation when he registered to vote. Only 4.4 percent of Arkansas’ 1.5 million voters have declared a political party, according to Janet Miller, the secretary of state’s deputy for elections. "Voter registration by party affiliation is an optional choice, and we have found that a very, very small number of registered voters declare," Miller said. "And if you do declare, it isn’t binding. They just ask you which ballot you want when you show up at the polls."

Clark’s Democratic rivals have attacked the retired general’s party credentials since he entered the race Sept. 17. "A piece of paper doesn’t make you a Democrat," said Kym Spell, Clark’s press secretary. "Wesley Clark is a real Democrat, and this is simply a tactic that the other guys are using to distract Americans from the real issues."

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_Arkansas.php?storyid=43440

[Deja Q]

3. If Clark is selected, I won't even waste my time voting

Sorry, but I do not believe nor trust him. "Trojan horse" is a very apt description.

[wyldwolf]

4. your choice, and if enough feel as you do...

...I'm sure you'll enjoy your stock in the 2004-2008 Bush administration.

[maha]

6. Sorry, but "purists" like you are what nearly killed the Dem Party

... in the 1970s and 1980s. I had though we'd grown up and gotten over those bad old days, but I guess not.

[noiretextatique]

9. specifics please?

and please include an analysis of the effect of "reagan democrats," and btw, are they considered "purists" too?

[noiretextatique]

10. specifics please?

and please include an analysis of the effect of "reagan democrats," and btw, are they considered "purists" too?

[wyldwolf]

13. Great example was...

...the riff that developed between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy in 1980 when Carter won the nomination.

Kennedy, so bitter about it, refused to appear on stage at the convention and spoke out against Carter.

Carter's support with the Democrats eroded after that.

[Rowdyboy]

14. I, personally, have never forgiven Ted Kennedy for costing us...

that election. He beat Jimmy Carter, not Ronald Reagan.All he had to do was wait 4 years and run in an open field but, no, he had to take down a president of his own party.

[wyldwolf]

18. I'm not 100% sure Kennedy caused Carter to lose BUT...

..he sure helped and that is a fact.

But I'm sure noiretblu, who appears to have limited knowledge on the history of the party (perhaps he/she is young?) has chosen to ignore the example.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. He Was Goaded Into Running

by liberal Democrats like Moynihan and Cuomo who despised Carter for his real or alleged conservatism....

I think the Dems can use some of the Leninist party discipline that reigns in the Republican party.....

Folks have a short memory... They only remember Carter the ex pres....

At the time he was considered the most conxervative Democratic president since Grover Cleveland.....

[knowledgeispower]

58. I've always wondered how Carter came to be considered "liberal"

Personally I think the Repugs just did such a good job of spinning Carter as an economically irresponsible "tax and spend" liberal (though the Dems sure didn't help themselves by countering the spin). By the time Carter's presidency was over nobody remembered that he is actually quite conservative for a Dem.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. "Tax And Spend Liberal"

I don't remember any really big spending initiatives under Carter....

The R's campaigned against Carter's real or imagined incompetence....

I think folks see Carter as a liberal because of his advocacy of the needs of the poor and his efforts for world peace as an ex-pres....

[maha]

51. That's one example.

What really killed the party for a while was that it because a repository for one-issue interest groups who would only support candidates who were pure on their issues, without looking at the whole package.

[HFishbine]

109. Perfect Point

It wasn't the "purists" that put Reagan in power, it was indeed the wishy-washy of the democratic party who swung to Reagan.

[Terwilliger]

12. no, your DLC buddies have nearly killed the party

now were trying to make it a Democratic party again, instead of "Democrats as long as you don't call us liberal!" :eyes:

[JVS]

17. this "purist" bullshit has got to stop

We need to counter this conservative meme. To do this we will require two things. A counter-insult and a positive spin on being a so-called purist. Any ideas on what either should be? So far I have "Ideologically coherent" for the latter.

[wyldwolf]

19. How about a "my way or the highway" leftist?

[JVS]

21. I was thinking "I'd whore out my teen daughter to get elected" centrists

would be more appropriate

On edit:
Unless one is not a candidate, but just a supporter. In which case they would be an "I'd whore out my teen daughter just for a dem. win" centrist

[wyldwolf]

23. Nah, I think... "I'd rather have Bush for 4 more years" purist leftists...

[JVS]

26. "I'd rather see the gains of the 20th century dissolved under our watch"..

Centrists

[wyldwolf]

29. Which gains were those?

How about the "We live in a fantasy land" revolutionary leftist elites?

[JVS]

31. "We renounce the progress of Roosevelt" centrists

[wyldwolf]

35. Or how about the "We renounce the progress of Roosevelt" purists...

..since it is "progressives" like Howard Dean who want to alter social programs.

... or didn't you know?

[JVS]

33. "We renounce the civil rights act, must court southern votes" centrists.

[wyldwolf]

37. The "crybaby we just can't win" purists?

...?

It was centrists who created the civil rights act.

[JVS]

40. "leftists owe us their votes" centrists and their "protection racket"

[wyldwolf]

50. "we'd rather have a republican than a dem we didn't pick" purists...

[JVS]

56. "we'd rather run an independent with no record than a party member"..

Centrists

[wyldwolf]

60. "We'd rather run an unelectable ideologue than win" purist..

[JVS]

63. "We'd rather win than anything" centrists

[wyldwolf]

71. "we'd rather win than have 4 more years of Bush" centrists...

..yeah, and we will.

[JVS]

81. ha ha, you goofed up

you said "we'd rather win than have 4 more years of Bush" centrists..."

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[JVS]

89. oops my bad. Of course I'm high! I'm a liberal stereotype!

I also eat babies!

[eileen_d]

85. Come on, kiss and make up, y'all!

This exchange is making me giggle.

[JVS]

90. Sure, just give me a moment to remove my pants and present my..

pucker. ( * ) ;-)

[wyldwolf]

92. Are you saying you're talking out of you ass?

[JVS]

94. Just showing the part that you can kiss

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[JVS]

111. pucker is a term for anus. Didn't you ever see the usual suspects?

[wyldwolf]

114. But it's also a more widely used term for lips...

[wyldwolf]

91. Yeah, it's making me giggle, too!

... like a comedy routine, really. But what the hell, it's saturday.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Are There Any Elected Southern Democrats

who currently oppose the civil rights act?

[wyldwolf]

46. of course not..

JVS is grasping. Of course, I am too, but what the hell. He started a flame war so I guess he's getting what he wants.

[JVS]

47. Are there any democratic senators who spoke up on the 2000...

disenfranchisement of southern black voters in Florida?

The black caucus was left out to dry on that one.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. A Moving Target (Eh)

Under your scenario the whole Democratic party was complicit.....


Why pick on southern Dems?

[JVS]

100. Failure to support the enforcement of Civil Rights is defacto renunciation

it's just letting the issue slide.

There was a theory that the Democratic party didn't follow up on the disenfranchisement of black voters because it didn't want to appear to be playing the "race card". I'm not going to blame every democrat, many of us were pissed off. Still, no Senator, not even the late and sainted Paul Wellstone, objected during certification.

[wyldwolf]

104. Did Kucinich?

wait, no, you answered that.

[JVS]

115. Kucinich wasn't a Senator.

I would hope that he would have said something, but then again I have to be able to show some forgiveness. Nobodys perfect and I would hate to let perfection be the enemy of the good. No use being a purist.

[wyldwolf]

117. Oh, right, he was a congressman... their opinions don't matter as much...

..right? :eyes:

[JVS]

118. They don't matter in the certification process

The black caucus needed a Senator to join them. None did.

[wyldwolf]

119. True but did Kucinich speak up on it?

That was your concern... who spoke up about it.

[JVS]

122. I'll have to go look it up.

I'll PM you when I find either a quote pertaining to the 2000 debacle, or reasonable evidence that he said nothing about it (harder to prove).

[wyldwolf]

123. You do that..

[JVS]

34. "We love the idea of a flat tax" centrists

Unfair burden on poor, feh!

[wyldwolf]

39. or the "we want to dismantle the military and be weak" purists?

...

[JVS]

44. "fascist displays of military bravado" Centrists

[wyldwolf]

48. "please come and take over our country - we won't fight" purists...

[JVS]

59. "we make up strawmen about liberals" centrists

[wyldwolf]

61. "we make up strawmen about liberals" purists...

[JVS]

66. You guys aren't liberals

[wyldwolf]

69. Sure we are... and fortunately we don't have to adhere to your definition.

[JVS]

75. If someone calls a centrist candidate a liberal in the general election

he/she will deny the hell out of it because it is a four letter word among swing voters.

[wyldwolf]

79. Like... Howard Dean who has denied the label?

Or Wesley Clark and JKF who embraced it.

[JVS]

84. I'm not a Dean supporter, I support Kucinich

so don't bother with Dean bullshit

[wyldwolf]

86. Fine... and Kucinich has no chance of winning...

[JVS]

93. How are Clark's chances if the left bails?

I suggest a compromise.

[wyldwolf]

95. The left won't...

...at least they've given no indication they will.

They want Bush gone as much as anyone - well, as much as anyone accept folks like you.

[JVS]

102. No bitching if they do then, ok.

[wyldwolf]

105. you, too..

If they give Bush 4 more years, enjoy it!

I wont't whine if they do, and don't you either.

I will continue to bitch about Bush if he wins in 2004 because of the left... but you'll have no right to.

[Old and In the Way]

126. Hi Wyldwolf!

I see you're providing entertainment this AM with the "We haven't suffered enough pain yet, the flogging must continue until we totally destroy the Party" faction of the Democratic Party.

Don't you know that the 2% know what's best for the 98%? We must follow them over the cliff! They are the head lemmings!

Honestly, the RNC couldn't have better supporters than those that would say, "I won't vote in the next election if candidate "X" is chosen."

Wanna bet on the demographics of the average poster that takes this line? Well educated, mid-twenties, unmarried, no kids, well off with options (like leaving if things get too bad), and no real responsibilities to anything but their perfect construct of the world.

Ahhh, to live on this mountaintop of perfect political enlightenment...trouble is, there's only enough room for a few!

[wyldwolf]

127. hee hee...

Well, even I know the futility of arguing the point with them but like I said, my leisure options today are pretty limited.

Recommend a good movie?

[Old and In the Way]

131. Well, the "Wizard of OZ" could provide insight

Ralph Nader as the wizard, I think...

[Terwilliger]

24. you mean, like Lieberman??

is that who you're referring to? He's not much of a leftist :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

27. Not referring to any particular candidate...

...just their disciples.

So far, only followers of a certain candidate have declared they won't vote if their guy doesn't get the nod.

And it ain't Lieberman.

[Terwilliger]

36. Yep...well, some people in the party find Lieberman more acceptable

and I will be taking my ball and going home *looks at watch* on Tuesday after I vote in the CA recall

[JVS]

28. That term applies to centrists perfectly well

[wyldwolf]

32. only the "purists" have cried that they'll take their ball and go home...

...if their guy doesn't get the nomination.

[JVS]

38. Centrism is all about threatening to go to the Republicans

which is much worse than anything a leftist has threatened.

You are just mad that leftists are beginning to enjoy the same options that centrists always have had.

[wyldwolf]

42. We have real word example of the damage purists did...

...election 1980

...election 2000.

[JVS]

54. We have real world evidence of the damage of Centrists

the long march right in american politics

[wyldwolf]

57. For example...?

[JVS]

62. It was in the previous post.

but election 2000 would be a fine example. Way to not upset the centrists by ugly allegations of election fraud!

[wyldwolf]

65. Purists handed the election to Bush in 2000...

...and aided in a 12 year republican dynasty in 1980.

[JVS]

70. If by purist you mean Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, GOP purists

[wyldwolf]

73. nope! The green vote...

without which the election would not have been close enough to steal.

[JVS]

97. So stealing is OK, but voting Green is bad?

NO WAY!

[wyldwolf]

99. When it splits the left vote in an electtion that pre-election polls ...

..showed statistically even.

Yeah, it was pretty bad.

[JVS]

113. It makes me sad that you care less about electoral fraud than hating Lefty

[wyldwolf]

116. It makes me sad that you want to disregard the fact...

...that in an election that was a statistical dead heat, a left candidate siphoned enough votes from Al Gore that the electoral fraud was able to be carried out.

[JVS]

120. And that candidate was the candidate of the Socialist Worker's Party

Or wait, maybe it was the let's not object about illegally filed absentee ballots party.

[wyldwolf]

121. No, it was a member (well, not really) of the Green party...

...that siphoned off the Gore votes.

See, you want to quibble over which party it was in an effort to ignore the fact it was left party in general.

[JVS]

124. What about the Reform party or the GOP

they surely played a role

[wyldwolf]

125. Not in 2000...

[loudsue]

133. Get your facts straight....Gore won the election

The supremes gave it away to a fraud. The purists screamed and protested. The centrists caved.

:kick:

[wyldwolf]

135. My facts are straight...

... the only reason the Supremes gave it away because it was so close. Too close to call. That is the only way they could get away with it.

If Nader had not siphoned votes away, it would have been a different story.

The election tallies are documented.

I swear, these people who exclaim the tired old "get your facts straight" mantra when they themselves have missed the boat is really getting funny.

[Pastiche423]

136. And...

let us not forget the 78,000 names purged from the Florida voter registry, that have as yet to be added back.

78,000 American citizens who were not allowed their right to vote.

[wyldwolf]

138. Nader won 3 percent of the national vote and 100,000 votes in Florida...

..factor back in the 78,000 you mention and Nader still gets a net 22,000 votes.

With 22,000 extra votes, the SCOTUS could not have ruled the way they did.

The results would have been obvious.

Next?

[Pastiche423]

140. As has been said...

It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool
than to open it and remove all doubt.

[wyldwolf]

141. Well, then, if you can make such a cute (not) and clever (not) statement..

..then surely you can provide some factual evidence that what I've posted is foolish.

No? Didn't think so!

[Pastiche423]

148. You can find factual evidence

in Vincent Bugliosi's book, The Betrayal of America.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/156025355X/102-6333887-9650534?v=glance

No one knows what the true count was. NO ONE. The election was rigged from the git go. The "outcome" had nothing to do w/Nader.

[wyldwolf]

149. You want me to buy a book so you can prove a point?

bwahahahahaha...

FACT: Nader got 3% of the national vote and 100,000 votes in Florida.

Without Nader, the votes would have been Gore's.

Deal with it.

[Pastiche423]

152. AGAIN

NO ONE knows the count. The recounts were stopped. Plus, ballots were found in a trunk of a car, uncounted, long after the selection.

If the votes can not be confirmed, Nader's counts can not either.

Btw, no, you do not have to purchase the book. It can be found in libraries all over the country. But then, you would have to face the truth if you read it.

[wyldwolf]

153. You've yet to provide evidence of your assertion...

... the burden of proof is on you.

[Pastiche423]

156. I gave evidence

That you won't accept it, is your problem.

Doesn't that sand get itchy?

[wyldwolf]

157. No you didn't. You gave a book title...

...in a discussion, you have to provide facts and figures, not a book title that one has to take your word on.

Does that empty space between your ears get cold?

[knowledgeispower]

64. How about 1994 election?

Lost 54 seats in the House because the Centrist Bill Clinton was SO worried about seeming like a liberal.

[wyldwolf]

67. So what you're saying is because Clinton was a centrist...

... liberals voted republican? Why, to teach him a lesson?

Let's see. If Clinton acted like a liberal, republicans voted against him. If he acted like a centrist, liberals voted for the reopublican. Sounds like a losing proposition either way.

Logic like yours won't even fly in threads like this.

[maha]

53. "My way or the highway" anything is a losing position. n/t

[roughsatori]

77. DUers who call us "purists" are "ideologically incoherent"

I love it, it is accurate and to the point.

It is informative that many defenses of Clark are stated in right-wing code words. If the medium is the message those "tropes" are indicative of the problem I see with Clark.

[JVS]

106. Then let it be heard when accusation of purism rears its ugly head

[DoveTurnedHawk]

49. Actually, Clark EMBRACED the Term "Liberal" on Bill Maher's Show

Unlike most of the other candidates.

DTH

[maha]

76. Yes, and it made my heart go pitty-pat.

I'm looking forward to more ...

[Democrats unite]

7. Glad to see then

that you want Bush for another 4 years, because by your statement thats what will happen.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Take The Pledge....

I will not speak ill of another Democrat....


I will do everything within my legal power to see * removed from office....


Peace 03

Brian

[boxster]

41. Yeah, well, here's to another 4 years of Bush.

Thanks for your apathy.

[retyred]

107. I'm sure Clark

will be heartbroken.

I find it telling that so many are in it strictly for the shallow gratification of the "My Guy Won" vote. Screw the Democrat party, screw America, if "MY" guy isn't the chosen one, it's ok for bush to continue for another four years.

Those of you that are willing to help flightsuit steal another one by "NOT VOTING" are no better than Republican wannabees anyway and deserve what you get, I just hope it's you that gets the next bush screwing personally and not one of us that are real opponents of the right wing.

I sincerely hope Clark does get the nomination, not only is he the right choice but from what I can see, his supporters care more about changing this administration than any of the others by not voting if "Our guy doesn't win" and it just may clean up the boards here at DU and get rid of the shallow, self centered, DINO's


CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
Retyred IN FLA.

[loudsue]

134. Now that's a "spin" if I've ever heard one!

How 'bout instead of supporting Clark, you actually support a Dem, with a history of Dem activism.

No....that would be asking too much.

[Pastiche423]

142. What a novel idea, loudsue

The Democrats supporting proven Democrats.

[mmonk]

112. Too bad

Clark's message is progressive. He has leadership skills. Too bad some are closed minded. They remind me of the other party. I hope they wouldn't hand Bush a reelection by not voting for Clark in a general election if he ends up the nominee.

[1monster]

5. Saw Clark last night for the first time on some televised

Democratic event with all of the candidates. (Sorry, I rarely watch television and my husband had the remote, so I don't know just what event or cable channel it was on.)

I found him very interesting and noted that he worked the room better than any candidat up to that point. I didn't get to see any of the candidates after Mosley-Braun, but I'm more familiar with them anyway.

Also found Kucinich a powerful speaker....

And the Democratic leadership FINALLY seems to have found some spine and maybe even a voice.

[bicentennial_baby]

2. Kick

:kick:

[Terwilliger]

11. WHAT?!??!! I thought Arkansas didn't have registration!!!!

SHEESH!!

Well, I think it's funny how reactionary Clark is. He's got a LOOOOOONG way to go, you know.

[maha]

45. And what planet do you live on, dear?

Whatever made you think Arkansans didn't have to register to vote at all? That's very weird.

[Terwilliger]

72. You might ask Padraig18

twit

[maha]

80. Were you being sarcastic?

You have to let people know.

[Padraig18]

96. Nice twist

Too bad that's NOT what I said. Nice try, though.

[bicentennial_baby]

15. Jeebus H Christ people!

The past 3 times I have posted positive Clark threads, it's turned into a fucking flamefest! I've had it with this bullshit...

[wyldwolf]

20. You've got to understand...

Clark is a threat to a lot of people's plans.

[WillyBrandt]

52. Clark is a threat to the second-tier

He's a threat to those who thought they were annointed:

- Lieberman, who thinks name recognition gives him the presidency
- Kerry, who is a good man, but who thinks his early credo as Establishment candidate gives him the nomination
- Dean, and his loyal followers, who have deluded themselves into thinking their DLC centrist is a liberal, and who think they and they are alone are the grassroots.

And

- Bush, who thinks he is entitled to everything.

Clark can unite all wings of the Democratic party, he can unite the Establishment and grassroots, he can get both Texas Democrats and Michael Moore pumping him, and he can even make Democrats out of a few unhappy Republicans.

No other candidate can do all of these things.

That new Democratic majority is-a-comin'. Progressive politics are here again. . .

[knowledgeispower]

74. I hope you are right

I have said this since he announced his candidacy: if Clark gets the nomination it will be a landslide election, but IN FAVOR OF THE DEMS for once in a great while. Clark WILL bring in a lot of independents, and will probably even lure a fair amount of Republicans away from Bush. I could see a McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis election, but in our favor this time.

Having said that, I just don't know if Clark is the real deal as far as Democrats go. It makes me wary that we really don't know anything about his ideology or intentions execpt for what he says. Politicians (and make no mistake, Clark is one now) have been known to lie before.

[WillyBrandt]

88. Fair enough

But:

* His foreign policy views are pretty clearly liberal. Both by his actions and his MANY writings, we know he has a devotion to multilaterialism, an aversion to crusades, a desire to maintain our alliances. His behavior in Kosovo, which halted a genocide, is proof by action on the foreign policy front. (He's instincts are right and he knows what the PNACers are up to: why do you think they hate him so?)

* Was part of an amicus brief for affirmative action in the UMich case

* He fit in poorly with the military culture, which leans GOP (though not always blindly so)

* He can get away with being more liberal than the others

* The political pressure will be on him to actually lean left, and he can win a mandate to do so. (Compare with Clinton!)

There's more, but I'm off to eat. Just wanted to give you a few substantive reasons that Clark will be a progressive president.

[wyldwolf]

82. he's leading Dean in today's AP poll...

[loudsue]

137. Michael Moore is a Libertarian

with Dem sympathies.

Clark is a threat to those who want a real Dem for a change.

[wyldwolf]

139. Michael Moore is a libertarian???

Moore is a liberal who supports the Green Party, making him very un-Libertarian.

[KG]

154. edit - read post wrong

never mind :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

155. no, silly!

The kind that decided back in '92 when he voted Clinton.

And yes, we ALL know he didn't declare a party affiliation in Arkansas.

And we all know you don't HAVE to to vote in Arkansas and only 4.4% of people do.

Too bad. So sad that this same old shit is all you've got.

[Old and In the Way]

128. Eggzactly!

Many here have a vested interest in seeing the Democratic Party go down. As Ralph said in 2000, we need to kill the Party in order to rebuild it in my image. The basic hope is to enable the Republicans to win and destroy our political system in the process.....that'll show those 98%, coaltion building, political compromising centrist Democrats!

These folks are really no better than the extreme ideologues on the Right...

[wyldwolf]

129. That is one issue... the other is...

... some supporters of Howard Dean thought he was going to be declared the dem nom without resistance. And in fact, up until Clark entered the race, he would have been.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

101. Actually, You Know What It Might Be?

I'm starting to think that the haters are gravitating to positive threads now, since they're not allowed to start their own flamebait threads under the new GD rules.

If my hypothesis is true, it's a weird and unwelcome side effect, that's for sure!

DTH

[bicentennial_baby]

108. Interesting theory

and quite possibly correct. I suppose if people are determined to get their jabs in, they'll lay it down wherever, whenever.

[wyldwolf]

110. Already noticed that!

And all day yesterday, whenever a positive thread was posted on Clark, some bumped that "trojan horse" thread to the top.

[loudsue]

143. Clark 'love fest' threads are supposed to grant immunity??

How very militaristic!! "Sit down and shut up, DUers who don't trust Clark as far as they can throw him!"

It's a public forum, and when we (Clark doubters) have major (General) concerns about a candidate, his past, and the whole fiasco surrounding his entrance into the race with instant "polls" putting him over the top....

ssssccccuuuuuze me!! But the red flag goes up.

I will vote for ANYBODY but bush, including Clark or LIEberman. But Clark's entire candidacy stinks in my opinion. And if I can't say so on DU, then it's just symptomatic of the total mess we are in.

The polls taken on DU show how many support Clark...very few, percentage-wise. Yet the noise and hoopla associated with his supporters is deafening, and more than a little disconcerting.

There is more "hate" on Clark threads than on threads of any candidate I've seen (except maybe LIEberman threads -- and many of the same suspects supported him before Clark started rearing his head). It takes "2 to tango", as the saying goes; so how come it's the candidate threads that most resemble the conservative party's philosophies that turn into "flamefests"?

I guess the LIEberman/Clark supporters are totally blameless...it's just us "leftists" and "purists" that cause so much trouble.

That kite just doesn't fly.

[wyldwolf]

144. bwahahahahaha... loudsue.... you do live up to your name...

...no, see, there are people on DU that a scared shitless of Clark's campaign.

They can't win by building up their guy, they have to constantly bash the other guy - much the same way the wingers did Clinton.

By repeating the same rightwing talking point over and over again about Clark, they hope some will eventually stick.

Sad, really.

[Pastiche423]

146. The "scared shitless"

is of clark, not his campaign.

He is a Trojan Horse, built by the DLC. We have already had to endure almost three years of man that supports the NED, AEI, PNAC, SOA, ex-RW presidents, repugs and endless war.

Our country will not survive w/another one.

[wyldwolf]

147. Again, you're scared shitless of his campaign...

petrified. I believe after the Green's influence in election 2000, some folks actually believed they were on their way to gaining power. Now it looks like you're just as far from it as ever...

[Pastiche423]

150. Don't you

fucking tell me what I believe!

clark should be feared by any real Democrat! He is a fake and a farce. He lied about being a registered Democrat when he announce his run. LIED!

He has only a recorded history of rethuggery and warmongering. His associations w/the dark side are recorded.

[wyldwolf]

151. (whine) DON'T YOU FUCKING TELL ME WHAT I BELIEVE! waaahaaa!

the darkside.

snicker!

That's what you people do. Have little whiney temper tantrums.

You're scared shitless of Clark's campaign.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

145. Deleted By Author, in the Interests of Peace (eom)

DTH

[poskonig]

16. I'm honored that Clark has chosen the Democratic Party.

Why people would prefer Bush to Clark is beyond me.

[WillyBrandt]

55. Why people would prefer Bush to Clark is beyond me.

Nail on the head.

The difference between ANY Democrat and Bush isn't measured by position on an ideological spectrum.

It's measured as the difference between SANITY and INSANITY. People are kidding themselves otherwise.

[Darranar]

22. Took him long enough.

n/t

[loudsue]

30. Great planning on his part

I like a guy who has all his ducks in a row.

NOT!!!!

[KG]

78. clark - the convenient democrat.

how nice.

[Pastiche423]

130. Expedient democrat

is a bit more precise, dear.

He entered the race on September 17 as a democratic candidate, yet filled out his affliation on his FEC form as UNK.

The DLC Production, clark ain't no democrat. It's just that the repugs wouldn't let him play w/them, the way he wanted.

[Loyal]

103. Cool

Welcome to the party, General. :)

[Old and In the Way]

132. I like 'em all!

But here's my thoughts why Clark would be a great President....

(1) He knows the military. I believe he could be a great reformer of this institution and certainly would have the gravitas to see it done.

(2) He's coming out hard against Bush. He's not pulling his punches, I think he could provide the leadership to really clean house.

(3) He's not a Party hack. He has few "obligations" to any special interest group and I think that'll allow him to do what's right.

(4) He supports the liberal agenda.

Clark/Kerry or Clark/Dean would be an outstanding team to run against the corrupt and criminal maladministraion that we're suffering with now.

[KittyWampus]

158. Good Analysis

I agree... and I can live with ALL the Democratic candidates although I won't say I LIKE them all. :)