Fact: Wes Clark was never a Republican

[Clarkie1]

I'm getting tired of people on this board repeating one of the biggest lies of the primary season.

Enough is enough!

[JHBowden]

1. He just voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush I.

Clark's on our team now, but can we be honest? ;-)

[Clarkie1]

3. I am being honest! Wes Clark was Never a member of the GOP!

This is a HISTORICAL FACT!

[ScreamingMeemie]

7. Votes=beliefs...you can't sping that Clarkie.

:shrug:

[robbedvoter]

142. Votes are sometimes impulses - see many having remorses today

I had a few myself in the past I don't like to advertise. If you are such a superior Dem - rest asured - I left your sorry party. You don't seem to care so much about people's votes - when they can be counted - as you do when you want to attack someone. keep your pink tutus

- I am outta here!
keep this s* up - I will vote anyone but this sorry party "aristocrats"
After the way Kerry shat on all of his voters, who would want to?

[BootinUp]

182. And Wes was honest enough to

not only tell everyone about his votes, but explain them too. He didn't have to do that MrsGrumpy. ;)

I'm proud to have supported him, and his astonishingly liberal platform.

[Liberal Veteran]

Well, if you use the definition of which party he registered under...

...then you might be correct.

On the other hand, I know plenty of "Independents" who vote a straight republican ticket.

[BlueEyedSon]

15. I think it is SOP for career military to register as independent.

[TexasSissy]

20. He also voted for Clinton....both times.

[lilfroggy]

223. YUCK

I knew it! How could you vote for those crooks?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

227. Oohkay, 48 Poster

:eyes:

DTH

[Sparkly]

230. Well, we wouldn't want any of THOSE kinda voters

voting for OUR candidate.... :eyes:

[Adelante]

260. You forgot

Carter, Clinton, Clinton and Gore. Let's be honest.

In fact, I've never heard Wes say he voted for Bush I -- I've seen it said about him, but never knew him to be quoted that way. Do you have a source for his supposed Bush I vote? I've looked and looked and never found it. Thanks.

[Crunchy Frog]

268. Yes, and Reagan used to be

a card carrying FDR Democrat. Reagan did more for the Republican party than any other president since Lincoln.

For that sort of payoff, can't the Democrats at least be as forgiving as the Republicans were? Or at least as pragmatic? If not, I may no longer be in the right party (and just in case anyone is going to suggest it, I would not be switching to the Repug party, probably to the Greens).

[Liberal Veteran]

2. Oh this should be fun....

LOL

[Blue Gardener]

4. Oh yeah

Think I'll stick around for awhile

[ScreamingMeemie]

5. Voting for Reagan and Nixon, citing matters of "national security" really

angered me about Wesley Clark. Sorry, that's the truth. You can't spin it. When I read about his wife, it frightened the hell out of me. But then, I backed John Kerry against my better judgement. Wesley Clark would have been a heck of a better pick. I have come to respect and admire him. :hi: I'd edit your post, so as not to be calling out a DUer or it will be locked.

[AmerDem]

252. What did you read about his wife?

I supported Clark before he chose to run. I thought I heard every smear repukes and Dems alike leveled against him. Everything I ever read about his wife from across the board was in a praise of her.

Fill us in.

[Clarkie1]

6. Clark voted for Clinton and Gore, he was a registered independent all his

life until last year, like most residents of Arkansas.

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. ...and yet he voted for the most abhorrent Republican Presidents in the

past. He can't talk his way out of it. He's a Dem now and I believe him...but he sure wasn't then.

[TexasSissy]

21. I voted for Reagan. I've been a reg. Dem. for 30 years.

[ScreamingMeemie]

25. I'm sorry for you. That's about all I can say, as the daughter of a

man who lost everything he had earned in life under Reaganomics. It's a shame so many were duped. But no pass for anyone who voted Reagan in my book. Water under the bridge now, but I don't believe in "Reagan Democrats". I'm sorry we have to disagree on this.

[Dookus]

26. We would never win another election for a generation

if we reject all Reagan voters.

Are you sure that's the right attitude?

[ScreamingMeemie]

28. It's the attitude I have after watching my father cry after thirty years

with the brewery, and watching them auction his house away, Dookus. If you read farther up, I admire Wesley Clark and believe with all my heart that he is a Dem now, but I am just as angry at all those who were stupid enough to vote Reagan then...but people can change. That is what I'm saying. Own our mistakes and move on.

[Dookus]

30. well I sure never liked Reagan, either

but I'm just questioning the notion of automatically dismissing ALL Reagan voters out of hand. That's an awful lot of voters, you know.

I'm sorry about your dad.

[ScreamingMeemie]

31. Yes. I know. But I also know many have come to their senses since

then. I held the same disdain for Reagan voters back then, as I do now for Bush voters...that's what I'm saying. There was no good reason for voting for Reagan. What Reagan did to the beer industry, among other industries, is what Bush is now doing to the automotive and manufacturing industry.

[Kahuna]

163. Amen.

nt

[TexasSissy]

96. There was no such thing as Reagonomics when Reagon ran the

first time. If you recall, interest rates were 18% to 20% at that time....and rising. Gasoline had hit an all time high, and there was a shortage of it, to boot (remember the long lines at the gas stations?).

Reagan won by a landslide. Most of the Dems on this forum, if they are old enough to have voted, did indeed vote for Reagan the first time. Had to have, since Reagan got a significant Democratic vote.

I hated to do it, but I felt I had to vote against Carter to do something about the inflation spiraling out of control. Then of course along comes Reagonomics, and a bit recession hits. Yes, my home town ended up with 30% unemployed. It was a bad time.

I did not make the same mistake twice. I voted for whoever ran against Reagan the next time (was it Mondale?).

[charlie]

159. I never voted for Reagan

nor did "most of the Dems on this forum." It's been polled many times here and Reagan voters were always a minority. Reagan pulled in a lot of Democrats, but not nearly enough to expect a majority in a random sampling.

[Crunchy Frog]

269. Hell, the guy who ran our local Kucinich Meetup

voted for Reagan in 1980. Shit happens, people change, or reexamine their beliefs.

Oh, and Reagan used to be an FDR Democrat. Wonder why the Repugs never held that against him. Maybe the answer to that question has something to do with why their side keeps winning and our side keeps losing. Food for thought.

Just for the record, I have never voted for a Repug above the level of State Treasurer, and I will never vote for a Repug again for the rest of my life.

[connecticut yankee]

127. I didn't vote for Carter in 1980

nor did I vote for Reagan.

I voted for John Anderson, the third party candidate.

I've been a Democrat my entire life, but I couldn't vote for Carter.

I didn't vote for him the first time. Actually, I voted for Jerry Ford in 1976.

I think Jimmy C. is a wonderful person, and has been a wonderful ex-President, but I never felt he would have made a good president.

edited for spelling

[madfloridian]

11. No. Look it up...Most are registered in a party in Arkansas.

I looked it up today. I believe I saw a figure of 95%, not sure.

[Dookus]

18. You have it exactly wrong

96% of Arkansas voters do NOT express a party preference when registering.
http://factcheck.org/article97.html

"There’s no dispute about Clark ’s voter registration: he was an independent. This by itself means little, however, as nearly 96% of all Arkansas voters express no party preference when registering. Party preference is “optional” on Arkansas ’ voter registration form, and only 2.6% of the state’s residents were registered as Democrats at the end of 2001, according to the most recent statistics published by the Arkansas Secretary of State. Only 1.4% registered as Republicans."

[Sputnik]

40. You're right

I'm an Arkansan. I'm not registered as a Democrat or Republican. They only gave the option as registering as one or the other in the last several years but most people still don't mark a choice because it's not required.

Wes Clark a Republican? I never believed that even before he publicly announced he is a Dem. It just never occurred to me that he was anything but one of us. :)

[ArkySue]

249. True

Sputnik, you are EXACTLY RIGHT! I'm an Arky too. Up until 1996 or so there was not even a space on the voter registration form to indicate a party. The only time you had to declare a party was if you filed to run for office.

[Kahuna]

191. Trust me, Mad. If there had been a Clark registration with an R after it..

we would have never heard the end of it from Dean. Sure, Dean repeated lied about Clark being a republican. But you will recall, he never provided any proof. It would have been simple to do that.

[arcos]

13. I think most members of the military don't register under a party...

but the truth is he voted Republican all his life until Clinton...

[madfloridian]

8. Not a registered Dem either.. Matcom a "poser"? No.

Look it up. He was not even part of the Democratic Party when he said he was, and even after he declared his candidacy.

I find it very nervy that you call one of the first members here a "poser."

On Edit;

I see that the OP edited out the comment.

[Spazito]

10. Agreed, he NEVER was registered as a republican...

voted for both republicans and democrats, was a military man who was apolitical, as was his role. The repubs used a lie to smear him and other did to promote their own primary candidates. The primary is over, Kerry won but that doesn't change the fact that Clark was NEVER a republican.

[madfloridian]

12. He spoke at a GOP fundraiser, praising Bush.

A couple of years ago.

[Spazito]

16. He worked with Clinton, what's your point?

Take a look at your guy and then come back and tell me he is any different. To me, both men deserve respect for speaking out for what they believe.

[Cheswick2.0]

52. A Lot of Republicans worked for Clinton... he was the President

they had no choice.

[Dookus]

19. Stop telling the same old untruths

He spoke at an event when he was earning his living as a public speaker. He made perfunctory nice comments about Bush, then proceeded to blast his foreign policy.

[Cheswick2.0]

53. he made a living making speeches at republican fund raisers

not something I would ever do.

[Julien Sorel]

63. But you would make shit up out of thin air.

I believe he appeared at a single Republican fundraiser. Hardly "making a living," but you departed from the road of truth telling long ago, so no point in trying to be honest now, is there? In for one lie, in for thousands.

[WesClarkJr]

110. Complete and total horseshit

And unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about.

[OKNancy]

125. Wes Jr

come on over and check out our group for your dad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=235

[DoveTurnedHawk]

128. You Now Should Be Able to Post There, Too, Wes

OKNancy...I found my star recipient. :D

Oh, and you can also use functions like "search" now.

DTH

[BootinUp]

186. No fair DTH!

:7

[robbedvoter]

138. Welcome Wes Jr , please see us here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=235
You know what's funny? Most of these rabbid accusers that pretend they are so very anti-war, jumped right into supporting Edwards (who co-sponsored IWR http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P) cuz Dean told them so. So, you see, highly principled people here....

[Crunchy Frog]

271. Hi Wes Jr.

It's good to see you here again. I hope you'll hang around here more. It's a really great place when it isn't trashing your father.

I really apologize for that.

[Crunchy Frog]

270. Could you give us a precise figure

as to how many Republican fundraisers he spoke at. You seem to have a good deal more information on this subject than I do. I really would like to have the exact numbers. Dates would be a good thing as well, if you have them available.

Thank you in advance.

[Auntie Bush]

51. He also did Democratic fundraisers

[Cheswick2.0]

54. yeah, his own after he became a democrat at Clinton's urging

so he could take some of the grassroots momentum away from Dean....
Hey he said it himself.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

74. Sorry, You Are Simply Wrong

He spoke at a Dem fundraiser and stumped for Dem candidates before Dean was even a twinkle in Trippi's eye.

Wes ran to win. He didn't run to stop Dean. Stop with the victimhood, please.

DTH

[baltodemvet]

14. What (the f**) ever!

However he got to where he is today, let's judge him for what he is today.

[sonicx]

17. people are allowed to have a change of heart.

[Dookus]

22. no, evidently

Wes Clark is not. Howard Dean, however, can be a MEMBER of the DLC, then run AGAINST the DLC, and that's fine. He can govern as a centrist moderate, then run as a liberal, but that's OK. He can seal his records and run on a platform of better government accountability, but there's nothing wrong with that.

If people want to fight the primaries all over again, I'm ready.

[Cheswick2.0]

56. Lots of people were members of the DLC until it went off the deep right

end and people wised up. But in fact Dean disavowed the organization. Clark is now cashing in on the war on terror. He's working for a consulting company which will rack up stock sales everytime the threat level changes. He's now a democrat, but he's the Dich Cheney version.

[WesClarkJr]

112. More bullshit

Just continue making shit up.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

129. Don't Mind Her Wes, That's What She Does

All through the primaries, we had to set her straight on a regular basis. Never stopped her from trotting out the same old talking points, though.

DTH

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

150. Boy seems jealousy dies hard for some n/t

[LandOLincoln]

287. Clark joined James Lee Witt's

company, as I recall. You remember James Lee Witt, former FEMA director?

The company act as consultants to communities attempting to recover/rebuild after NATURAL disasters. You know, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, forest fires...?

And you have somehow twisted this around so you can claim one of the most honest and upright men in this country is a %$#! war profiteer on the same level with the obscenity that is Dick Cheney?

And in the presence of his son, to boot?

Sheesh...

[Hawkeye Pierce]

23. I don't think it matter if he was

what counts is what he believes in today.

[Cheswick2.0]

57. what he believes in today is being a war profiteer

check out his new business.

[Hawkeye Pierce]

61. You lost me

?????

[DoveTurnedHawk]

75. Not Surprising That She Lost You

See, most of us have gotten over the primaries. I love Dean now. Some are still trapped in an anti-military or anti-Clark mindset, however, and that tends to color their viewpoints to the point of confusion, IMO.

DTH

[QC]

72. And don't forget the Haitian Man-Boobies!!!

:eyes:

[LandOLincoln]

289. No, YOU check out his new business.

See my post #287 above.

Then read this:

http://www.wittassociates.com/3931.xml


Then you can apologize to Wes Jr. and the rest of us...but I ain't holding my breath.

[Liberal Veteran]

24. This thread is sooooo 2003.

:)

[ScreamingMeemie]

32. memories....light the corners of my mind....

Now, back to the fight. ;)

[bettys boy]

27. "Clark

...is a lifelong member of the hated military-industrial complex. He is a voice for guns, not butter. He's emblematic of a party that has shifted too far to the right, too far away from Real Democratic Values."

That was the subtext promoted out here in WA during the caucus season, among the gray-haired ponytail set that constitutes "the party base".

In particular, some of the Kucinich people, who got 14% here, were actively trying to block Clark from getting alternate delegate slots. Oh, the irony - Clark's platform was more progressive than Dean's, and Clark could have done more to promote Kucinich's agenda than Dennis ever could. In particular, I remember him commenting on how much of our treasury could be saved through defense contracting reform.

The myopia of the base is staggering, but not surprising. It seems the GOP isn't the only party still fighting the battles of the '60s.

[Cheswick2.0]

58. yes and I can sell myself as a member of the constitution party

but actions speak louder than words.
Nice crack at people's appearance BTW. Put people into boxes much?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

76. And You're One to Talk?!?

From what I've seen, you express hatred of just about anything in a uniform.

DTH

[eridani]

62. That's because we wanted the slots for Kucinich. Duh.

Clark never came within 5% of any LD caucus. As far as promoting the Kucinich agenda, who was it again who stayed in until the end because of the platform?

[bettys boy]

117. "Promoting the agenda"

means selling progressive principles to Red America. it means winning the values war. A distinguished, retired military officer is far better positioned to do this than a short, divorced vegan ever could. Not recognizing that is myopia.

At some level progressives already recognize this - it's why they quote Eisenhower and Smedley Butler on the dangers of an unchecked military-industrial complex.

[ken-in-seattle]

141. me too...

My little concurrence will be lost here but I had to say your dead right about WA and Seattle in particular. I am a PCO in West Seattle and young and old Kucinich people all had the "baby killer/SOA" cry ready to fly at the sight of a clark sign or button.

The younger ones could be engaged and often were so ignorant of actual history that they folded in the face of a single contradiction of their learned slogans and would grow silent upon reading of a speech by Clark. The graybeards were as hard headed as any christo-fascist or neo-con wingnut.

[Texas_Kat]

29. Wes was NEVER a Republican

For those of you who don't know how it works in the South.

Many southern states (including Texas BTW) have no official party registration. (Guess what -- * is not an state-recognized Repub either).

In 1996, Arkansas (for the first time) allowed voters to voluntarily declare a 'party' affiliation. Anyone who did not specifically 'register' as a party member (Democrat or Repub) was automatically identified as an Independent. Even as late as 2000, the Washington Post was reporting that "Voters do not register by party".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2000/states/ar/

Clark was one of those who did not voluntarily register for either party.

In 1992, Clark voted in the Democratic primary. How do we know?

During the primary season, one of our Clark Texas County coordinators (for Bell County, Texas) visited with the County Clerk for Bell County. (her name is Vada Sutton). Clark lived (and was registered to vote) in Texas in 1992 (while he was commander at Ft. Hood), Mrs Sutton revealed to our county coordinator that she recalled him asking for a Democratic primary ballot in '92. Recalled it VIVIDLY since it was so unusual for a General to be a Democrat.

I'd ask... What makes someone a Democrat?

I contend that a Democrat is anyone who champions the principles, values and goals of the Democratic party.

If the argument is that Wes Clark does not LIVE these principles, then you haven't been paying attention.
:argh:

[RafterMan]

33. Oops -- I posted a welcome and you're just renaming yourself

What a cool little story about Clark voting in 1992! Seems like it should be illegal for people to share stories like that, but still interesting.

I knew he said he really responded to Clinton, but I thought he meant during the general election, not as early as the primaries.

[Texas_Kat]

44. Thanks for the welcome Rafterman!

I've this is actually my 3rd all time post. I've 'lurked' for a long time, but was much more involved in YGroups during the primary and general election.

[madfloridian]

34. Clark was urged and backed by the Clintons.

Clinton called him and Hilary the two rising stars in the party. At the time he was not even a party member.

Clinton spent a lot of time on the phone before Iowa, making sure Dean did not win there. He wanted Clark because he was military.

Clinton backed him, not Kerry, and all of it collided in Iowa. There was more, but not now.

When you post stuff like this, it brings out the primary anger. I post about Dean a lot, but I keep it positive until someone starts with the primaries.

Neither man was a perfect candidate, but there was a reason there was skepticism about Clark's motives for getting in.

Those of us with DFA realize the party will hold him back in every way, though actually he was as centrist as any while governor. He crossed the party leadership, and that is not done. We are building a base of our own, to get into the party from the bottom...the top is closed by party leadership.

You need to understand when you do this, it brings a lot to mind. I will post Dean stuff, but I don't get ugly unless someone starts with me.

[Spazito]

35. Dean is mentioned NOWHERE in the opening post to start the thread...

yet here you are. This was simply a thread stating Clark was never a republican. No Dean mentioned.

[madfloridian]

36. You know exactly what is going on here.

You know why I posted it, and we all know why it keeps on.

[Spazito]

38. If you check my posts, you will find I have NEVER spoken against

ANY of the primary candidates so, no, I don't know what is going on here nor do I think re-fighting the primaries is a good thing. I simply find it very sad that a good man is being smeared without proof
every time his name comes up, usually in context with an appearance he has made in DEFENSE of the Democratic Party and it's democratic principles.

[WesClarkJr]

113. Once again

You are wrong.

[Clark2008]

140. Wes

Some of these people don't understand that there are many Independents here who are voting more and more straight Dem tickets because of how far the right-wingers have gone to the right.
I've always voted for the better man, not a party. Had I been in the military after it was gutted, I probably would have voted for a Republican in the 80s, too. But, as you and I and your father know, that's simply not the case now.
I think if anyone truly listens to your Dad, they would know he's about as progressive as they come, but that he still understand the "red-voter" mentality and how much we in the South are subjected only to Republican ideals (if you have no choice, you choose the one.) He also gets that we grow up with faith and that we grow up "rural" and isn't perceived by any Republican I know as "talking down" to the South and the mid-West. I think he would have kicked Bush's tail - but that's neither here nor there, now.
Good to see you here and :hi: from Tennessee. :)

[madfloridian]

176. No, not wrong on that. I wish I were.

Sorry, but I am not wrong on that. I wish I were.

[high density]

224. So you know more about Wes Clark than his own son?

You're hilarious.

[Kahuna]

256. Come on. Mad. How are you going to tell the only person other than..

General Clark, who really knows how things transpired that he is wrong? In essense, you are calling him a liar to his face. Not cool.

[high density]

37. Have any of you Clark bashers

actually listened to what he has said over the last two freaking years? I'd say probably not since most people here are bitching about him voting for Nixon 30 years ago.

[Senator Lamb]

39. why didnt clark campaign in Iowa?

[Dookus]

41. He entered the campaign

too late to effectively fight in both Iowa AND New Hampshire, and made a strategic decision to forego Iowa and concentrate on NH.

[dogman]

45. On the advice of Vilsak

who then proceeded to back Kerry through his wife and is now being pushed for DNC chair. Hmm.

[Kahuna]

47. Probably because of all the negative, unwelcoming comments made..

by Vilsack (who is a sos, imho). I will never forgive Vilsack for the way he treated Clark.

[Cheswick2.0]

60. Clark was used as a tool

by vilsack and the party to stop Dean. He knew it too, though he may have been very sincere about winning eventually, I don't know. But I do know his searching around for a purpose has lead him to capitalizing on the "War on Terror". To me that says his democratic urges didn't last long.

[Clark2008]

221. Hands Cheswick some tin foil

Use it, please, because you have no idea what you're saying.

:tinfoilhat:

[AllyCat]

248. You know, Hunter S. Thompson...

...just said in a recent Rolling Stone that Nixon would be a great President compared to the Resident. Gosh! Do you think HST is a Republican too?? The voting record of someone from way back is stupid related to this argument. Clark was not a registered to ANY party until he joined the Dems recently. He stands for Dem values.

He's a good man and I trust him and anything Wes Jr. has said here long before I'll believe any of the unsupported garbage some of these posters are blabbering on about.

[Donna Zen]

42. Teresa Hines-Kerry

Was a registered republican until 2002.

Jeanne Shaheen voted for reagan.

Okay...stay with me here.

I'm a teacher. If there were an election in which the Democratic candidate was advocating for vouchers, cuts in the education budget, and privatization of education vs the republican candidate who favored full funding of special education, funding of the arts in the schools, and a reduction of classroom size, who would I vote for? Hmmm? Tough call for me.

Clark was in the military. Reagan, whether we like it not, rebuilt the military.

But that should not be the over riding consideration here. No, the most important point about Clark's voting record is this: he was asked how he voted, something only he knew, and he told the truth. He told the truth even when he didn't have to. Remember he was never affiliated with a party.

That may seem nothing to you, but to me it is a major attribute.

He told the truth.

ps. Two weeks after he spoke at the Lincoln dinner, he spoke at a Democratic dinner. Listening to Rove will get you no where....fast.

[robbedvoter]

137. Correction: Shaheen voted for Nixon, then attacked Clark for doing same

One of the reasons I left this stupid party.

[Sparkly]

43. It's amazing how honesty is rewarded in this party.

He could have lied, but he admitted voting for Reagan and Nixon. (So did my husband, who's as strong a Democrat as I am today.) I don't know about Ford or Bush I, though; but he voted for Clinton and Gore.

He was never a Republican, and in case anybody hadn't noticed, he's now proven himself to be a full-strength Democrat.

[Kahuna]

46. I could care less what people say about Clark. If they can't see the

goodness in Wes, it speaks volumes about them, not Wes.

[FrenchieCat]

48. If Wes Clark was a Republican....

and he made my "Green" self convert to a democrat....who ended up voting for Kerry (only because of my support for Wes)...than more power to him!

I was just kidding...Wes was never a Republican!

[madfloridian]

49. Can I make something clear? I like Clark .

In fact, locally in most areas, Clark and Dean people have worked well together on the ground...a good combination. There was never a problem in our area or in the parts of Florida I am familiar with about the two groups working together for Kerry.

The local DECs have been difficult as they sit on their butts and don't want anyone to bother them, and the Dean people and Clark people were more active.

My gripe is not with him, and not with the local people. It is with the fact that "some" of the folks here supporting him have made life hard for us. It was not that way before. It was pretty peaceful, and Dean was respected....as were we.

If we can not come to grips with the fact that the sudden influx happened here, then the problems will continue. It is not that way in our local work at all. It is not that way anywhere but two forums, Bartcop and here.

I don't know why. A whole lot of us quit posting at BC but a few of us stayed here. I saw no reason that I should be made uncomfortable because of the primaries.

I am careful what I say here, but I think it is time to to come to some terms of some kind. We are all hurting inside over the election, over the primaries.

I have never had a gripe with Clark as a person, and I think he is very articulate in presenting the issues. I will be honest, though. It really hurt what the Clintons did. We need to deal with it, and we need to get over it.

I will continue to post positive things about Dean. I am aware of his shortcomings, but my husband and I feel he gave the party a voice. A voice the party did not want and the rest is history. We intend to solely work with his group and other progressive groups for now. Just think what we could do if we all did that.

As someone angrily pointed out to me, this post was not about Dean. Right, it wasn't, yet it was. When people say about Clark that he was a Republican, that is not technically true...yet there are indicators he tried to work with the Bush campaign. That is why they say it.

General Clark is a good man, and I think he and Dean were pawns in a political game, perhaps because both are nice guys and did not expect it.

Peace.

On Edit...I did get the registration numbers confused above. I apologize.

[Kahuna]

50. As Jeb Clampett uses to say.. Weeeell Doggies!

that was quite a statement.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

77. MF, You Just Explained It Yourself

You just said how Clark and Dean folks were the most active on the ground. The same is true in my area. We were even MORE active than the Dean folks, in fact.

Why, then, should it be any surprise that there was a sudden influx of Clark folks here? The sudden influx corresponded to a sudden event, Clark's late entry into the field.

This wasn't Dean's sole playground before Clark got in, and when you say Dean was "respected" here before Clark got in, I would venture a guess and say that the Kerry partisans would disagree with you. I remember a ton of vitriol even back then. It got ugly on all sides, and Dean partisans gave as well as they got.

This post was about Clark, not Dean. I am, quite frankly, disappointed to see both the Dean AND the Clark folks who then chose -- deliberately and of their own free will -- to make it about Dean.

DTH

[WesClarkJr]

111. Wrong.

He never tried to work with the Bush campaign. Where do you people come up with this stuff?

[democratreformed]

126. Several lies and misconceptions were literally ingrained in some

who opposed him on here, Wes. Sorry, but I gave up on trying to change their minds long ago.

[madfloridian]

149. "you people"?

There are articles, I am not going to play this game anymore. I like him, but calling him a star of the Democratic party when he was not even a Democrat is just too much.

Hey, I am a white, American female, college-educated, intelligent, retired teacher, raised a bunch of kids.....which category of "you people" do I fall into...oops dangling preposition.

When we all get honest here about the primaries, the tensions will ease.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

153. "You People" as in the People Still Bashing Clark Here

And as for getting honest...if by getting honest you mean accepting wholesale the "Dean as victim" viewpoint, even though both Dean and Trippi have now come out acknowledging quite a few of the shortcomings and problems within their campaign (which every campaign had, including Clark's), I'm afraid you're going to have a long wait. Frankly, I now have more respect for Dean than that.

Clinton had his opinions (assuming his private conversations were even reported correctly, as they were printed in a gossip column, IIRC), but he didn't come out and endorse anyone. We were all hoping he would, of course, but we would end up sorely disappointed.

DTH

[madfloridian]

157. Whoa there. Clinton was calling Dean leaders to change their vote.

He was declaring him unelectable and pushing Clark....on the basis of civil unions.

Dean is no victim and neither are we. Just stop pretending, ok?

Clark was in NH to stop Dean while the rest of them took care of it in Iowa.

No, he is not a victim....he is going to be a bigger part of the party than folks imagine...maybe not as it is now.

No victims, realistic. Why can't you be that way as well.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

158. Clark Was in NH to Win, and I Am the Ultimate Realist

If by "stopping Dean" you mean doing so as a mere byproduct of getting Clark the win in NH and accordingly the primaries, then I agree with you. If you mean Clark's sole purpose in entering was to derail Dean, you're dead wrong, as people here, including Clark's own son, have indicated. Or would you like to call Wes Jr. a liar?

Not even Dean believes that.

By "Dean as victim" I am referring to those people who are complaining about everyone being out to "get" Dean. Well that's politics for you. Sometimes, people gang up on the front runner. Sometimes, people even play dirty. Dean did, everyone did.

Dean and Trippi understood that, and they are not whining about it. For that, I give them respect and props.

As for Clinton, I'm sorry, but I don't buy a bunch of gossip that, even if true, ultimately turned out to be meaningless.

DTH

[madfloridian]

168. Not victims. Survivors.

I see there will be no closing on this. No, not victims.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

169. If You Expect Everyone to Subscribe to Your POV

Then you're absolutely right: there will be no closing on this for you.

DTH

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

178. The best way

"not to play the game" is silence.

Tell Bill Clinton he was wrong...he's the one who claimed Clark was a "star".

The primaries are over...that's o-v-e-r. You know...finished, kapoot...ancient history.

Geeze!

[Crunchy Frog]

273. I'm sorry Wes Jr.

There is a certain set of lies about your father that keep getting repeated over and over and over again by a very small number of very vocal people on here, and it doesn't matter how many times they get debunked. It's just like a broken record.

If you'll notice, at the end of the line of icons that's next to your name there is a little sideways figure with z's coming from it. If you hit that icon on a person's post, you will put them on ignore and you will no longer see their posts. It does wonders for one's blood pressure.

I am absolutely appalled at the behavior of some of the people who are posting on this thread, knowing that you are here. I don't recall anyone behaving this way when either Chris Heinz or Elizabeth Edwards were posting on here, even after Mr. Edwards was no longer a candidate and despite the fact that many people on this board are very much opposed to him politically.

I hope you won't take this incredible rudeness too personally, and that you won't discourage your father from running again, just because some people can be total pricks, (I'm sure that is something you already figured out from the last campaign).

This country simply needs your father too much, especially after what Bush is going to be doing to it over the next four years.

[Crunchy Frog]

272. I was a part of the "sudden influx"

but it wasn't because of Clark's entry into the race. I found this place in March of 2003 when I was looking for someplace to get away from all the war cheerleading. I became an obsessive lurker at that time, but didn't join, partly because because I was procrastinating on getting my DSL hooked up and didn't have an email address, mostly because at that point, I would have been too shy to post anything.

I finally registered, partly because of finally getting my internet hooked up properly, but mostly because of talks that I had with my English Comp. teacher who I had found out was a DUer. She was a Dean supporter by the way, although she didn't tell me who she was supporting at the time. She can corroborate the story if you like. Just PM me, and I can try to arrange for it.

I seem to recall there being large influxes period, during the runup to the primaries, of supporters of all candidates.

You talk about how hard it was to be a Dean supporter on here. Have you ever stopped to consider how hard it was to be a Clark supporter? We got accused of all kinds of things. We were treated absolutely viscously by some people. We got accused of being Republicans, of being closet freepers, of being part of some kind of big conspiracy, of being too conservative, of supporting the war, of not being "real" Democrats. We got to watch a man that we deeply admire and respect get slandered and character assassinated worse than what even Karl Rove would have done.

Please don't act like Dean supporters are the only ones who have a right to feel hurt, because you're not. Maybe we stuck around through all of it because we have thicker skins than Dean supporters, I don't know. But we certainly have plenty of grievances of our own.

I acknowledge, and am sorry for your pain. I just hope that you can see things from another perspective and acknowledge my pain as well.

[RetroLounge]

55. Fact: Wes Clark was never a Democrat Either

So what's your point?

Enough is enough!

RL

[DoveTurnedHawk]

78. That Is True

Clark was never a Democrat until after he declared. And that did lead to one of the stumbles that plagued him out of the gate.

DTH

[Adelante]

261. DTH - May 2002, at least

He declared himself a Dem for a local primary in Arkansas in 2002, fully a year and a half before declaring for the presidential primary. I used to have the document on my old computer; it was from the online Reading Room on the Clark04 site. I posted it here on DU about 50 times so maybe it will turn up again. Somebody on this thread said 1992 when he was in Texas, which I had not heard about before.

[LittleClarkie]

59. I'm with you Clarkie. An independant is not a Republican

His voting record is Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Clinton, Gore.

He voted National Defense and leaned GOP until he had contact with Democrats in the Clinton years and discovered they were nothing he had been led to believe. He liked the way they were inclusive and not dividing. He's pro-choice and pro-gun control. And he worked his ass off for us this election season. So why turn on the guy now. Or is it that time of the election year when we eat our own?

Go to www.factcheck.org and click on archive. Toward the beginning you will see some fact checks relating to the primary season. There is an entry for Clark that should clear this up.

I'm getting disgruntled here people. Thou shalt not snack on my boys. Neither Clark nor Kerry is good eatin'. Get out the ranch dressing, and chow down on Shrubbery instead.

[Cuban_Liberal]

64. Being logical and consistent:

If he wasn't ever a Republican, because he didn't register as one, then he was also never a Democrat until what, late August of last year? You can't have it both ways.

[Julien Sorel]

65. Exactly who wanted it both ways?

[Cuban_Liberal]

67. Numerous supporters. n/t

[Julien Sorel]

68. Too "numerous" to list.

Riiiight.

[Cuban_Liberal]

69. Sarcasm never beats facts, in an argument.

First of all, there's a DU rule against naming such individuals--- it's called 'calling someone out'. It is a fact that many of Gen. Clark's supporters want to have it both ways; so much is evident by even casually perusing the posts in this thread.

If you would like to debate or discuss the facts, fine, let's do it; if not, that's also fine, but it's your choice.

[Cuban_Liberal]

70. To restate the original argument:

If Gen. Clark was not a Republican because he did not register as one, then neither was he a Democrat until late August 2003, when he registered as one. On the other hand, if he WAS a Republican when he cast votes for Reagan and Bush 41, then he became a Democrat in 1992, when he voted for Clinton the first time.

Sadly, this is not a Chinese restaurant where one can pick a position one likes from column A, and another inconsistent position one also likes from Column B. It's an either/or choice.

[BootinUp]

210. And neither diminishes

the man. Time teaches us all.

[Julien Sorel]

71. Sarcasm will, however, defeat the absence of facts.

Which is what I see so far. I am quite familiar with those silly mud slinging contests, and remember no one who "wanted it both ways," so making an accusation then diving for the deck of "the rules" is hardly putting forth "facts."

[DoveTurnedHawk]

82. How Could We Want It Both Ways? We Explicitly Supported His Former Status!

He would have cleaned up with the Reagan Democrats and disenchanted Independents and Republicans, that's what we were saying all along.

DTH

[Cuban_Liberal]

95. I happen to agree with you, DTH.

If you want my personal 'read' on it, Gen. Clark was a Republican until 1992, when he could no longer support the party, and then became a Democrat. I have merely tried to point out supra that there can be no 'amalgamated' or in-between position; one must pick a reference point/date, and then work forward along a timeline from it.

:hi:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

97. Gotcha

My own personal position is that he was an Independent until shortly before he announced his candidacy, at which point he declared himself a Democrat. Some people think it was a few weeks later, when he actually changed his party registration.

I honestly don't think he was ever a Republican, just like he only became a Democrat quite recently. He voted Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Gore. That's 4-4, which seems lile a fine record for an Independent, especially in the more recent years. :-)

DTH

[Cuban_Liberal]

94. I presented factual assertions.

Not only did I present facts, but I also applied logic to them. As I said, it's an either/or proposition.

[dogman]

66. You are right.

He himself said that when it came time to decide he realized that if he chose to be a Republican he knew he woud be the loneliest Republican because he did not share their views.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

81. Again, True

I'm not familiar with any Clark supporter wanting it both ways. Most of us, in fact, were explicitly selling his former Independent status as a big plus in the general election, if you may recall.

DTH

[Cuban_Liberal]

98. I do recall, DTH.

There are some (few) who are still trying to have it both ways. I will concede that they are a minority among Clark supporters, without question.

:hi:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

99. Thanks

:-)

DTH

[Jack_DeLeon]

73. WTF is going on in this thread?

John Kerry was a chump and lost us the election.

Wes Clark could have won this for us.

The next election campaigns havent even started and people are trying to smear Clark some more? WTF?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

79. It Is a Lazy Cheapening of the Language to Call Him a Republican

Being a Republican or a Democrat is one of two things: it's either based on registration, or it's based on self-identification.

If the former, Clark was an Independent until shortly after he declared his candidacy, at which time he became a Democrat.

If the latter, Clark was an Independent (as nearly all military officers are) until shortly before he declared his candidacy, at which time he became a Democrat.

He was never a Republican. He may have VOTED Republican, as he admitted freely despite the fact that he didn't have to. But that is a far cry from being one.

DTH

[StopTheMorans]

80. "Your Opinion: Wes Clark was never a Republican"

as much as I like Clark now, the evidence in the past overwhelmingly contradicts your statement. doesn't mean he's not a great dem today; but you can't ignore the past.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

84. Sorry, That Is BS

He previously voted Republican a few times, by his own admission. That does not make him a Republican.

The amount of zealotry I see about this so-called issue disturbs me. A lot of people voted for Reagan. That does not make them all evil. Michael Moore explicitly called out narrow-minded Democrats who think this way, and I still cherish that moment.

DTH

[StopTheMorans]

85. yes, but a lot of democrats didn't vote for Nixon and Poppy too

sorry, his voting pattern over nearly a 20 year period is EXCLUSIVELY GOP; i don't know how you characterize that as an occasional vote, or as a "democrat" who had strayed for a short period :shrug:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

87. Not True

He voted for Carter in 1976. I know it may shock you, but some Independents actually do take the time to consider each of their Presidential votes. Sometimes they may come down on one side, especially if certain issues are hot-button ones for them. Sometimes they may come down on the other side.

Regardless, my point remains.

DTH

[Freddie Stubbs]

83. Neither was Zell Miller

[DoveTurnedHawk]

86. See, That's Where You're Wrong

Zell was always a Democrat. Even now, he's a Democrat, he's a DINO, he's a POS Democrat, but he's one nevertheless. He still has the registration, he still claims the name, and we haven't kicked him out of the party.

Even when he voted for Reagan as an Independent, however, Clark was still much more enlightened than Miller is now. You do Clark a great disservice by attempting to compare him to Miller.

DTH

[Freddie Stubbs]

88. You are correct that actions are more important than party registration

At least Clark never spoke at any Republican fundraisers, right?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

89. He Spoke at Both Republican and Democratic Events

That's what Independents do, sometimes.

He certainly never spoke at the RNC, however. So again, your attempt to compare them falls flat, and makes your "point" completely ridiculous simply because it's such a caricatured exaggeration.

DTH

[Freddie Stubbs]

90. At least he never spoke at any GOP fundraisers while Bush was President,

right?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

91. Jump Through Your Own Hoops, Pal

It's clear your hatred of Clark trumps fairness and subsequent actions. Get over the primary already, I'd guess that 90% of the rest of us have.

DTH

[Freddie Stubbs]

92. I don't hate Clark and you didn't answer the question

I am over the primaries. I'm not starting any threads attacking or supporting Clark. But I just couldn't resist knocking down a poorly reasoned arguement that Clark never being a Republican somehow made him a good Democrat.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

93. I'm Sorry, WHO Is Claiming Clark's Independent Past Makes Him a Good Dem?

I don't see anyone doing that. At most, I see people (including myself) claiming that Clark's independent past made him a good general election candidate, for his ability to reach to similarly-minded voters. No one is claiming -- and I don't remember anyone claiming back during the primaries, either -- that his past reflects loyalty to Dems as a "good Democrat."

What makes Clark a good Democrat NOW is his strong defense of Kerry and Democratic values, and his strong attacks on RW nonsense.

DTH

[HootieMcBoob]

107. Reagan was a Democrat

And he became the heart and soul of the Republican party - in doing so he dragged a lot of other moderate Democrats along with him.

Wes Clark has the ability to do the exact same thing for us.

He is a progressive/liberal thinker but he has the veneer of a moderate who is very strong on defense. Plus he seems to have learned a lot since the primaries.

He gets it. He understands how to frame issues.

He's the only Democrat who could possibly get away with cutting the defense budget because he knows how wasteful the pentagon is. He could pull a lot of moderate Republicans with him to the Democratic party.

He could accomplish a lot.

[KerryDownUnder]

100. I liked Wes Clark

He may not have been the best Democrat in the past, but that's not to say he didn't work hard to try to get Kerry elected this year.

[WesClarkJr]

101. No kidding

It's so tiresome to hear the constant refrains from the primaries (Clark is Republican, Clark is a Clinton stooge, yada yada yada). To set the record straight, he was never a member of the Republican party and I'm the one who encouraged him and talked him into running, not Bill Clinton.

For those sanctimonious assholes who think he hasn't "proven" himself a democrat, go back and look at what he stood for during the campaign and ask yourself, are these Republican ideals? Frankly, the only candidate who stood to the left of him was Kucinich.

[Cuban_Liberal]

102. Good to see you!

How's the baby? How are you both?

:hi:

[WesClarkJr]

105. We're tired thanks for asking

The baby is about to start walking and unfortunately he isn't much of a sleeper.

[Cuban_Liberal]

114. Enjoy him while you can.

He'll be a teenager all too soon.

;)

[dogman]

124. You might find it more relaxing over here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=235

[cyn2]

104. Hii Wes, Jr.

It's great that you're here. This has been a jumping place lately. Hope all in your family are well.

[Kahuna]

165. Wes. Anybody with a brain can see that your Dad is the strongest

voice for Democrats out there. He alone is making the rounds and speaking truth to power (I really hate that phrase). God bless him. He has not given up on America. He has grown a lot politically in the past year and it shows.

[cyn2]

103. Please, get the facts straight

Wes Clark's position papers are still on the internet at http://clark04.com/issues/

He's a visionary, and he has the experience to back it up. He's one of the best "democrats" that I've ever seen..

[ArkDem]

106. Well, you can't deny that he is an odd little man.

[WesClarkJr]

108. What is exactly is so odd about him?

[katusha]

118. wes JR is that really you???

if so, good to see you again! met you at cspan interview in NH volunteering for your dad.

if it is not the real wes jr. it's still good to see you :-)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

130. It's Really Him

I know I might be just another anonymous name on the Internet to you, but I asked Wes this exact question at a Los Angeles function a while back, and he confirmed he is indeed posting under this screen name.

DTH

[katusha]

155. DTH is hardly an anonymous name to me :-)

i know you well from here and the clark blog. thanks for the confirm on wes JR.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

156. Any Time

Thanks, I didn't recognize your handle off the top of my head. :-)

DTH

[ArkDem]

119. Let's see....Slow blinking, I hate that in a politician.

[WesClarkJr]

120. Seriously?

Rapid blinking is generally a sign that a person is a liar. But where do you get off with the "odd little man" comment. Unless of course, you find people that tell the truth odd.

[ArkDem]

122. Not serious. It is just too much fun to push the clarkie buttons.

:evilgrin:

[robbedvoter]

147. May your parents be insulted in front of you in same good taste

Tit for tat and all that

[DoveTurnedHawk]

148. You Forget, It's the Internet, Where Everyone Is Brave

Brave enough to hide behind their computer screen in anonymity, saying things they'd never have the guts -- and/or the complete lack of social graces -- to say in person, in public.

DTH

[ArkDem]

151. Self-description?

:nopity:

My name and city are in my profile and I'm in the book.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

154. Your Name Ain't in Your Profile, Pal

And frankly, you'd be an idiot to post it publicly. But don't try to pretend you'd act like this in person, because you wouldn't.

As for me, I practice what I preach, as many people who've met me in person could tell you.

DTH

[robbedvoter]

167. You misspelled "peddling Whitewater" freeper!

[Name removed]

258. Deleted message

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

[BootinUp]

187. incorrect

not suggesting you put your name there though.

[Julien Sorel]

181. I rather suspect that, looking at how their child turned out,

and knowing who is responsible for his genesis, is insult enough for this individual's parents to handle.

[Eurobabe]

143. Okay Wes Jr. if this is you, you'll remember this...

Can you tell me where that was taken? I'll give you a hint, dog days ot campaign...it's a red state... :)

[ClarkStalker]

217. Wes Junior is supposed to remember that?

I met General Wes several times in South Carolina and I was even his driver on MLK day but I don't expect him to remember me. Or the various venues.

I believe Wes Junior himself has been defending his heroic father here but for what reason,? He shouldn't waste his time on most of these losers who just repeat the right wing crap.

Michael Moore recognizes the gift that is Wes Clark. What the hell is wrong with this thread at DU?

[HoosierClarkie]

121. Wtf?

slow blinking =no lies
Wes Clark is the only politician I have seen who is slow to blink. hmmm... Guess he's an honest man. I just hate that in a politician.

[Crunchy Frog]

276. And I suppose you like Shrubby's

rapid blinking? I remember his extremely rapid blinking from the debates (I avoid watching him other than that). I don't suppose that ended up swaying you into voting for him. It ended up being fairly close in Arkansas didn't it. I hope you weren't one of the ones responsible for Kerry's loss.

Do you always insult other people's parents in front of them? That seems like an odd little sort of behavior to me.

[tishaLA]

134. Nice to see you again, Wes Jr

come see us in DUs Clark forum.

[robbedvoter]

139. He is ahead of the curve - people are scared of that

As in - he was the first to say that this election will be about National Security and the Dems need a change of image on that. But to hear Carville, Shrum et al, thewy are still thinking that the war was irrelevant here and fight the 1992 campaign. It must be infuriating.
Also, Clark was the only one attacking PNAC - some of the same here - called him a PNAC-er.
He also spoke of the dangers of the millitary industrial complex - so , naturally, he is accused of being "it"
he was also the first one to turn the tables on the "values" BS and reframed the debate. "Are you raising taxes?" "No, there are the Bush taxes" he said to Woodrow - so CNN NEVER aired the interview of Sept 17.

[elleng]

161. People scared of Wes being ahead of the curve.

Robbed, this has been a 'problem' for Wes thru his life (since West Point, anyway!) The 'guys' couldn't/can't stand that he is SO smart, wise, articulate, etc., etc., and so forth. Why was he 'fired' from his posting at SACEUR??? Same old Same old.

[Kahuna]

166. Wes also knew that values needed to be addressed, specifically..

in the south. His stump speach towards the end was what Dems needed to be saying all along. Only Wes knew it when it counted.

[robbedvoter]

204. This speech:

http://clark04.com/speeches/039

[Kahuna]

162. NOTHING!!! Absolutely nothing!!! He is perfect....And

so are you.. :smoke:

[renate]

146. I certainly can

What kind of meaningless statement is that?

(I don't like to see something like that written about a person I admire, but it would be a pretty lame thing to write about anybody.)

[Adelante]

259. What exactly is so *little* about him?

Wes Clark is the biggest man we've got in public life today. I thank my lucky stars every day for Wes Clark.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

297. Up to your usual tricks, ArkDem...That "odd little man" has acheived more

more good intellectually, militarily and politically than any single one person I can think of. MKJ

[cyr330]

109. The Repukes did their best to convince otherwise

The Repukes straight out lied-- imagine that! I was just SHOCKED to hear that Repukes could actually say something that wasn't true!

[PatGund]

115. I've noticed that.....

You would think this place would automatically ignore the right wing talking points. But, when it came to Wesley Clark, it seems that many here were more than willing to buy into that myth rather than run the risk of supporting someone who (gasp!) was in the Army and made it up to the rank of General. Instead, they would rather sacrifce the Democratic Party and the United States on their altar of ideological purity.

I'm hoping he runs again in 2008. But I'm fully expecting those tired old myths to be dusted off again and again and again.

[bhunt70]

116. Go Clarkie!

Wes Clark is a good man.

[Larry in KC]

123. Help me. Wes Jr. for real?

I'm new to this forum (I was active and fervent on the Clark04 forum), so I don't know if Wes Jr. is a frequent contributor, and if his identity is verified (forgive me; you know the internet).

I'll assume it's you, Wes. I've never met you, but I've had the honor to meet your father a few times (even got to sing "We'll Follow the Old Man" to him, although badly off-key).

1) Thank you for all you and your family have already done for us. Your obviously mentally-healthy and sound family, simply seen as an example, let people know another important side of your father. You're also great campaigners.

2) You personally can do a world of good simply by helping to keep the record straight, because I think to many people, your words will have weight.

3) Count me among those who will bear almost any burden to help your father become president. The country needed him desperately this time around. Given what we can project for the near future, it will likely need him even more desperately in 2008. Next time, with skill and a little luck, the country will KNOW what a treasure we have in him. Please help make sure he knows he has growing legions behind him. And please do what you can to encourage him in this direction, for reasons I'm sure he understands so very well: duty, honor, country.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

131. It's Him

I know him pretty well from our Clark grassroots efforts in Los Angeles, and I asked him about the screenname. It's him.

DTH

[Larry in KC]

132. Thank you (and Wes)

How often does he drop in?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

133. Historically? Not Too Often.

This is the second spate of postings that I've seen, he's pretty busy with his career in Hollywood (which, from what I've heard from third party sources, is going pretty darn well) and his new family.

DTH

[Larry in KC]

135. Thanks!

I'm glad to hear he's doing well. That family certainly must have good genes.

I sure hope he keeps showing up, and passing good words to his father.

[davidinalameda]

136. snooze!

what a freaking non-issue

let's not forget Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl too!

Norm Coleman used to be a Democrat

and Howard Dean used to be a Republican as well--GASP!

and Bob Byrd was a member of the Klan

blah blah blah

[elleng]

152. snooze

Unfortunately, there were (and appear still to be) a lot of 'snooze' issues this time around. For those who've forgotten, Ronald Reagan was a Dem, and John Connally was a Dem, for 2 more.

If Dems cannot recognize someone whose heart is with them, then what good are they? And should they have anything to do with selecting a candidate?

[Sandy_0]

144. Labels! Labels! Labels!

Why is it necessary to stick a label on the General? Republican.. Democrat .. Independent .. Liberal. . . Progressive . . Conservative. . . All these labels have become meaningless. Are all Republicans moderate? Are they all Neocons? General Clark is unique. He is what he is. If you must use a label to describe the General, try Soldier, Scholar, Statesman. He stands for protecting the Constitution (or what there is left of it), he stands for the rights of the people. If you want a real flaw in General Clark's character, it might be his inability to lie! It's the MAN stupid! It's all that he has done for this country and all that he is capable of doing.

True, General Clark blinks slowly or rarely (sometimes I wonder how long he can go without blinking for such long periods of time.) Think of it this way, people blink less often when they are focused, telling the truth, concentrating, and alert. Compare General Clark's eye blink rate to that of Dubya. Get the message?

[robbedvoter]

145. Debunking of this done at the time - article + extra links

http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/1/3/85224/73060

[Pastiche423]

160. The Wesley "Already the scent of victory is in the air" Clark

that did not register as a Democrat until October 17, 2003, more than a month after he decided to run as a Democrat?

That Wes Clark?

He may not have ever registered as a repug, but he sure as hell voted for the worse repugs in recent memory.

[robbedvoter]

164. Are you one of the Nader voters of 2000 ? because if you are

you are not one to question voting judgement.

[Pastiche423]

172. Nope

I've never voted for Nader.

Btw, I can question voter judgement any damn time I please!

[Adelante]

262. Untrue

"did not register as a Democrat until October 17, 2003, more than a month after he decided to run as a Democrat?"

At the latest it was May 2002 in Arkansas.

[Pastiche423]

275. True!

OCTOBER 1, 2003


Wesley Clark: Still Not a Democrat
Turns out the Presidential candidate hasn't yet changed his party affiliation as a registered independent in Arkansas

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

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

[dogman]

277. Debunked

During the campaign Clark produced a registration form that the Registrar had misplaced. A Registrar who was later indicted in unrelated matters for failing to properly perform their duties. It still means nothing because the OP is that he was not a Republican.

[Pastiche423]

283. Bull

October 2, 2003

By Steve Miller and Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said yesterday that the former general is not yet a registered Democrat, but that the paperwork to change his registration "has been sitting on his desk for the last couple of weeks."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031002-122243-1914r.htm


October 6, 2003

By Steve Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



Wesley Clark officially became a Democrat yesterday, nearly three weeks after announcing his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031006-101700-9310r.htm

[LandOLincoln]

286. So...you're quoting

The Washington Times??

The Moonie/Wingnut paper?

Slagging the General? What are the odds?

& you just exposed yourself, boyo. Somewhere in the Orwellian world of the Free Republic, another village is missing another idiot. :silly:

[Pastiche423]

290. Din't read the article, did you?

That was his campaign that was quoted. Are you calling them liars?

I remember this all too well. Everyone kept asking when he was going to become a Dem. It's kind of important to be a Dem if your are going to run on the Democratic ticket, ya know?

My point, complete w/factual links, is that he was not a registered Dem when he announced his run.

Btw, I am no "boyo".

[LandOLincoln]

292. His campaign GOT IT WRONG,

as was widely reported at the time.

But not in your beloved Washington Times, obviously.

Sorry I got your gender wrong, but it was an honest mistake. From my observations the Clark bashers are usually men--or rather males, with--you know--inadequacy issues.

[dogman]

288. That's what I said.

He had to register again because of an inept Registrar. He drew a Dem ballot in 2002. In my state you pull your ballot every Primary. So I'm not a Dem? Get over it. It's pointless. As I noted above the Post is that he was not a Republican. Simple idea that you should be able to comprehend. Don't you have a dead horse you can beat?

[Adelante]

294. Filed 1/7/02; primary 5/21/02

Does that do it for you, Pastiche? ;)


I'm not an Arky, but my understanding is that once you declare for a political party you stay declared until you change it.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

295. AWESOME!

I am a die-hard Clarkie, and I've never seen that document before!

:yourock:

DTH

[Adelante]

296. You must be goddamned blind, DTH

:7

I've posted it so many times on DU yet it always seems to be news to everybody. So you're not alone, anyway.

[LimpingLib]

170. Well then he should be one as he would make a fine one.

n/t

[DoveTurnedHawk]

171. More Tired Bullshit (eom)

DTH

[LimpingLib]

177. Whats tired is that his think tank or whatever the fuck it is....

.... supports ousting Hugo Chavez.

Whats tired is the fact that we have endless foreign policy elites that force our canidates to support sanctions and travel bans on nations like Cuba.

Whats tired is that no "serious canidate" can oppose the $100 billion in overseas bases thanks to the foreign policy elite in BOTH partys such as Holbrooke , Clark , Biden , etc.Its not even allowed to be discussed.

He claims to be anti war but (in addition to the policys he supports that cause a war climate) as a general was the most inhumane member of the armed forces. He and he alone convinced Clinton (while everybody else opposed it) bombing all kinds of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia including bridges that were memorials of their survival against Nazis (a historic bridge Hitler blew up while he killed 2/3s of Yugoslavian men ages 18-34 , Serbs were the only anti Hitler ethnic group in the Balkins and they got slaughtered saving our pilots that were shot down) plus water plants and so on. Its people like him who cause civilians to get gunned down in busses (Colin Powell is another butcher we all worship).

Clark wanted to fight the Russians when everybody knew it was a drunk Boris Yeltsin that caused that little incident as the war was ending. Clarks fellow soldiers said "Im not starting World War 3 for you" . Clark+drunk nut Yeltson= world disaster.

Clark is the worst Democrat we ever had running in the primary ever since Wallace and Clark was probabilly worse than even him.

[Sparkly]

180. Where did you get this "information?"

Not that I haven't heard it before... :eyes:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

183. From Milosevic and CounterPunch, Undoubtedly

:eyes:

DTH

[LimpingLib]

188. Ill start with the scheme to overthrow Chavez.

google National Endowment For Democracy WEsley Clark Hugo Chavez


here is a quick ink to read.

www.williambowles.info/venezuela/otto_reich.html



And as for the Yugoslavia war where Clark bombed civilians endlessly on trains , busses, etc. then if you cant find that basic truth where Clark always said "mistake" time after time (aside from his intentional civilian infrastructure plans) then I dont know what to say.

[BootinUp]

192. Don't believe everything you read on the internet

:puke:

BTW, do you ever think military intervention is justified?

[LimpingLib]

195. What I say is about 85%-95% mainstream.

Ive even heard Clinton talk about not wanting to blow up the dozens of civilian bridges till Clark talked him into allowing it.

Almost everything I say is mainstream basic info.

Only the Hatian link might be somewhat "out there" . I suppose we can act like there is some questioning whether or not our overthrow attempt of Chavez actually happened.

I honestly read sites that predicted 3 months before the Coup that we would overthrow Chavez like we did to nations like Iran when they nationalized their oil industrys.

[BootinUp]

199. Soldiers don't set policy asshole. -eom

[DoveTurnedHawk]

239. N.E.D. Has Been Debunked a Million Times Here Already

Search the archives. Oh wait, you can't, because you're not a donor.

You are just another extreme pacifist, so it doesn't surprise me you're against Clark, you're undoubtedly against nearly all other Dems as well. Just like CounterPunch.

Although you actually remind me of a now-banned poster named SeventhSon, too.

DTH

[BootinUp]

184. You get what you deserve I always say.

For smearing a man with great integrity, and a very liberal platform. Enjoy the next for years, k?

[dogman]

189. Get it on, Slobodan.

You pick your heroes, we'll pick ours. I'm sure the slaughter of 1.5M would be nothing to you.

[LimpingLib]

193. An area as small as Kosovo could be overun by 60,000 DUers.

If we were a true peace party or anti war party then we could send enough people over there to the point that we would be larger in number than the whole damn country.War wouldnt be possible.

Peace is my battle.

[BootinUp]

196. I'd like to give you

a piece of my mind in person. If you were really interested in peace, you would be fascinated to learn that people with actual war experience, are some of the strongest advocates for peace. But you are not really interested in what you say. You are interested in attacking someone who sacrificed more than most to beat Bush this past election. Sadly it wasn't to be, but that does not diminish the effort.

[LimpingLib]

207. Are you aware that 80% of the world is in poverty?

Do you know anything about Venezuela and the populist Hugo Chavez?

He is one of the few leaders in this world who is a strongman for social justice.

Why does Clark have a problem with him? Why does Clark want him overthrown?

Clark is the enemy PERIOD.

The human spirit and strong desire of the Yugoslavian people stood up to international (ie US)strongarming.

Humanity won. Clark lost!

Clark wont win the primary in my Democratic party (you are speaking to a former military man fyi).

[Sparkly]

208. Do you have any NON-rightwing sources you might be able to link to

just to show us where you get your "facts?"

[LimpingLib]

214. Try Ramsey Clark?

Or is he right wing?

Chavez is clearly on the left side of the spectrum.

Milosevic was even on the left as was the Serbian government (Nazi's were right wing remember?).

The majority of sources out there are "NON-rightwing" to say the very least.

Im not fishing for anything on your behalf , it would be rather easy. (I gave you quick links I found on the snap)


And my comment about his fellow soldiers saying "Im not starting world war 3 for you" was in reference to somebody who outranked Clark speaking on behalf of everybody with any common sense (including the soldiers who oposed the war). I cant believe you dont know who said that. Not that I agree with the person who said that on many other issues.

[Sparkly]

215. Try a credible source?

I know all about the "I'm not starting WWIII for you," and it's obviously something you need to research. I DO know who said that, I know why, I know what the circumstances were, and I know who revealed that quote.

Im not fishing for anything on your behalf , it would be rather easy. (I gave you quick links I found on the snap)

There are no credible sources for what you're saying, are there? Admit it.

[LimpingLib]

218. Man I could post endless links , what difference would it make?

Almost everything about Clark is fairly mainstream (not as in mainstream media) in the sense that credible former high ranking leaders plus many others who arent "conspriacy wackos" have clearly shinned the light on him.

Bill Clinton even said Clark was the one who talked him into allowing the 44 or so odd bridges to be blown up and so on.


I know all about Boris Yeltson sending the Russian troops over his advisors and cabinet members head. He was drunk and even the Russian media was embarrased at his press coference. (I was responding to the"asshole" comment)

Clark nearly turned it into a major war.

2 idiots and warmongers.

[Sparkly]

219. Post ONE.

ONE link from a truly mainstream, credible source that confirms what you think you know.

Just ONE. Come on, you're the one who said it was easy.

[dogman]

220. We know who said it, it's old and worn out.

He did not out rank his Commander. It was a British officer, Michael jackson. Because of the nature of NATO he was able to disobey orders. As I indicated History Channel covered this story. He was ordered to block the Russians from the airport. Clark was able to get other nations to deny airspace and prevented there deployment. Jackson later said that he overstated the case according to Jamie Rubin. If the Russians had landed it would have been more likely to start a war since the russian Army was not following the agreement made by their President. The NED is an organization of which Clark is one Director. This organization includes people like George Soros. It is made up from the left and right of the political spectrum.

[Sparkly]

222. Sshhhhh!!!!...

.......

[LimpingLib]

225. You can discount anything as "not mainstream" but here are google leads

Wesley Clark Ramsey Clark (Ramsey Clark was former attorney general)

Wesley Clark War Criminal

Wesley Clark Depleted Uranium

Wesley Clark National Endowment For Democracy

Wesley Clark Hugo Chavez
____________________________________________

Ramsey Clark is mainstream if anybody is. But the links are endless.


I didnt read this article but this link seems interesting

www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1169

Im sure nothing will fit your criteria

Clark just isnt the type of person who will fight for anything but right wing causes which cause misery for humanity.I reject him as a Democrat worthy of our vote.

[Sparkly]

229. You tried all those Google searches, and the best you could come up with

was a site called "venezuelanalysis?"

Doesn't that TELL you something?

[LimpingLib]

232. For the LAST TIME "the best" I can come up with is Ramsey Clark

Do you even know who Ramsey Clark is?

Here is the words of the man himself in the form of a indictment. You are grasping for straws saying that he is "nameless" or whatever the smear is.

www.iacenter.org/warcrime/indictmt.htm


Sorry but if he isnt "mainstream" then who is? Ill link you just 1 more time.

And that Venezuela web news site link is great if you read the entire publication. But it disagrees with the rigth wing world view so I guess you dont like it even though your first charge was that all sources against Clark were right wing.

[BootinUp]

234. Here's a more reliable source on Ramsey.

He seems to have lost his way sometime in the early 80's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_Clark

[LimpingLib]

236. Thats a household namebrand "mainstream" source.

Thanks for the link (I saw it before anyway)though , it is helpful.

"Clark is affiliated with VoteTolmpeach, an organization advocating the impeachment of President george W Bush. He has been an opponent of both Gulf Wars."

[Sparkly]

238. Yeah, so?

That makes him an expert on Wesley Clark?

[LimpingLib]

241. Attorney Generals are generally (no pun intended) idiots then?

Just admit that you will turn a blind eye to any dark sides of you selected heroes.

That will make this whole argument much easier.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

242. The Only "Dark Side" Is That He Successfully Prosecuted a (GASP) War

In fact, he successfully prosecuted one of the most effective wars in American history, with no allied losses at all.

Sorry that doesn't work for your extreme pacifist views, which I'd guess 95% of Americans don't share.

DTH

[Sparkly]

244. You believe everything somebody says if they've been Attorney General????

Just admit you've got a set of beliefs that have no basis in fact according to any reputable source. You cling to Ramsey Clark as an expert on Wesley Clark because you CHOOSE to believe what he's saying.

My guess it's because you have a larger issue with the military as a whole, based on what you've said -- but that's not for me to figure out.

Do you believe everything John Ashcroft says? This isn't about whether Atty Gen's are "idiots," it's about whether specific individuals are credible sources about specific issues.

Ramsey Clark is not an expert on Wesley Clark. Sorry. If you want factual history, there are plenty of sources. Read some.

[dogman]

240. Yeah and legal counsel to Saddam and Milosevich and Taylor.

The guy was honorable at one time but now that he engages in helping genocidal maniacs it might be difficult to sell him as mainstream.

[robbedvoter]

255. The guy who discredited anti-war movement for years in this country?

It took a majority of activists to get UPJ involved and finally make being anti-war respectable again after what your buddy Ramsey did to the movement for years! Not a crazy dictator/terorist in the world he didn't embrace! Saddam, Milosevic, the Achile Lauro guys , Larouche - all his buddies.
Sure he'd try to discredit the one candidate who could have beaten bush this time - his COINTELPRO activities demanded it. The his launched by FAIR/the Nation the day Clark entered the race bear Ramsey signature ( a lot of well intended people are duped by this ass).
So, after hitting this anti-war credible guy, they ended supporting mr "I am glad I supported W - I will conduct war better than him"

[LandOLincoln]

291. So...right wing dictators BAD.

Left wing dictators (like your idol Slobo) GOOD.

That about cover it?

& could you, you know, 'splain to me the difference between the far right wing and the far left wing again?

Thanks ever so...

[BootinUp]

228. The claims of another anonymous person.

Give me a fucking break.

[LimpingLib]

231. What is it about Wesley Clark that causes your worshiping?

There isnt a single thing about him that is any different from your typical run of the mill DLC foreign policy elite candidate.... except that he is a butcher with a blood trail?


On foreign policy he is horrible.

On domestic policy he is status quo which is quite bad IMO.


Ramsey Clark is a good liberal that cares about the human cause. I dont reccomend anybody worship him , but he is a great guy that does great work.

Wesley Clark on the other hand is another John McCain type warmonger. Everybody was on Clarks bandwagon before they even heard a single policy position outlined thinking he was some dream candidate. The guy lost and lost badly.

Stop worshipping generals and military thugs. It only makes them special to the mainstream media because of the idol mentality in our nation which is what has caused many of our messes. Military service isnt anything special unless you are a nation of chicken hawks and chicken shits. Like our nation.In ,France everybody has to serve at least 1 year.They dont get all G I Joe or hard up over military "heroes".

[BootinUp]

233. What part of any of my posts

worshipped the military or Clark's military service? You seem to think that Gen. Clark's service should eliminate him from our party but its ok for your friend Ramsey. :shrug:

Is it true Ramsey Clark is a Lyndon LaRouche supporter? Seems like he lost his way, as have you, LOL.

[LimpingLib]

235. He does say based on his legal analysis that Larouche was innocent.

Hardly makes him a supporter.

When the government trumps up charges against "disruptors" then the path of light leads one with credibility to speak the truth and defend those who are innocent.


You dont know what you are talking about and neither do I on Larouche. I just know Ramsey Clark is a man of character so I trust his legal analysis.I make know prejudgment.


Clark was worshipped politically speaking. If you dont know where he stands on issues yet strongly support him then you arent motivated by issues. Thats for sure. Many supported him BEFORE he outlined a single issue or even said which party he belonged too.

[BootinUp]

245. Sure, he was innocent all right.

Did you miss when he (LaRouche) was convicted then?

I support Gen. Clark for the right reasons, my own, and I do know his positions from the 2004 campaign, his record of service to our country, his success in business, and his efforts in the political arena, including his senate testimony in 2002 advising against unilateral (non-NATO/UN) action in Iraq. And I watched him become one of the few highly visible public figures to take the Bush administration to the rug over the strategic blunder that is the Iraq War soon after he left his military analyst job at CNN.

You came here to attack Clark with whatever distorted internet garbage you could find, I am merely pointing out many of the errors and contradictions you have put in this thread.

[Sparkly]

237. Um, this according to what -- venezuelanalysis?

"butcher with a blood trail"
"warmonger"
"military thug"

You haven't found a single credible source to back up any of your claims, though. Sounds like you just have a problem with anything "military."

I can understand that, but if it's the case I think you should admit it instead of continually quoting Ramsey Clark as a credible expert on Wesley Clark (let alone as an expert on winning elections).

[LimpingLib]

243. (last post) Im telling you to read up on humanity.

Clark has major policy papertrails and its leads to Venezuela's people. Skip the article that mentions Clark and the think tank if it makes you feel better but read up the rest of recent storys and articles.

Even if Clark wasnt a man with a bloodtrail , I wouldnt be moved by his issue stances.

I just want people to study issues. Clark lost the primary...badly.

I hope he does again if he chooses to run again.

[BootinUp]

246. "Clark lost badly" - REALLY?

He was one of three to WIN A PRIMARY before the primary race was essentially over.

Not bad for the a Sept 17th start to a campaign, with as you say, no written policy positions, no money, no experience as a candidate.

[Sparkly]

247. "I just want people to study issues"

Me, too. I think you need to expand your reading list.

As for Clark's "issue stances," read those. They were extremely progressive. Did anybody else propose ending federal income taxes completely for families of 4 making $50k or less? He had a plan for national healthcare that went beyond Kerry's. He had a plan for foreign policy that was centered and weighted on diplomacy, and he was the most experienced candidate for getting it done.

And finally, as for "lost the primary...badly," he out-fundraised everybody except Dean, and raised money at a faster rate with less time. He'd taken 2nd in more states than Edwards when he dropped out. He had the endorsements of people like Michael Moore, George McGovern, Charlie Rangel, Mary Frances Berry. He backed out early and gracefully to support Kerry, but he hardly "lost badly."

But maybe we should see what Ramsey has to say about it before we form any conclusions.

[dogman]

209. You should suscribe to the History Channel

This has been pretty well documented. The atrocities were shown and unfortunately it took action by NATO to inspire the people to overthrow Milosevic.

[dogman]

212. You could leave for Sudan now.

Start a movement.

[Sparkly]

213. Yeah, apparently if you just send enough people

to stand there and say, "Stop it! I said stop it, right now!!" They stop it. That always works.

[LimpingLib]

216. Ive been educating fellow Americans on Sudan since 1998.

I dont wait for something to be mainstream before I spend much effort to creat awarness.

I spent most of my activist efforts around the 1998 period on education leaders and citizens about what is going on in Africa. By the time Donald Payne apologised in 2000 for turning a blind eye on Africa , I was already pissed of and saddened at the complete lack of any progress on the start of a long overdue solution that would take years to get off the ground.

[QC]

226. You're beautiful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[sparrowhawk]

253. Not so beautiful.

Pretty ignorant, actually.

[QC]

279. Sarcasm, my friend. Sarcasm. n/t

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

202. Amazing

Wait!

Let me don my hat... :tinfoilhat:

Now...oops...not yet...need to get my duct tape and plastic.

Let's see, is that it?

Nope...forgot the hip boots...the shit is really getting deep...wouldn't do to forget those.

Ok.........fire away

:nuke:

[Kahuna]

173. LOL! Yous guys. These kind of comments crack me up. I'm totally immune to

these petty nonsensical remarks.

[BootinUp]

174. As an admirer of Wes Clark I'm disgusted by this thread

That his son has to read the bullshit people who call themselves democrats spew at his father.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

175. I'm Telling You, It's the Anonymous Keyboard Factor

People can feel free to be complete assholes on the Internet, even when they would never have the guts to act that way in person, in public. It's like some sad, pathetic "ooh, I'm so tough" fantasy for people who have nothing going for them in real life.

DTH

[Ice4Clark]

179. I seem to recall being told this past year, that at one time

Hiliary Clinton WAS a republican before coming to the dem side. No one seems to be throwing that up in her face. Ronald Reagan WAS a democrat before becoming a republican. Wes was an independent, not a republican and throughout the primaries, was incorrectly labeled a republican by Dean, Kerry and many other dems supporting other candidates. If you've listened to Wes' speeches and read his opeds, etc., his heart is aligned with democratic ideals. I know so many voters who bailed the dem ticket after Wes dropped from the race and then eventually voted for Bush as they so disliked Kerry more than Bush. Go figure. Wes could have brought the independents, greens, repub lites, etc in this election had he just even been on the ticket. I will support this man in any endeavor he choses as long as I breathe. So, don't smear the man without doing REAL research. If the dems were smart, and after they've layed down on this election they don't seem to have any intellegence, they would beg Wes to move the party forward and into the future.

[Dr Fate]

185. An honorable man who tells it like it is. CLARK IN 2008!!!!!

n/t

[LimpingLib]

190. Clark is no friend of Hatians--how can he in Florida?

http://resistance.chiffonrouge.org/article.php3?id_article=257

[Sparkly]

198. Wow, I'll bet you could even dig up some other sites too, if you tried,

of people who think Clark is a "war criminal."

And no doubt, it'd be hard to find dirt on the internet on YOUR favorite candidate, whoever that may be. :eyes:

[dogman]

205. I don't think Castro can run for US President.

It's the Haitian man-tits story.

[Sparkly]

206. Well, the "Arnold amendment" might change that.

Imagine -- the Republicans are willing to go so far as to change the Constitution to allow a foreigner married to someone with deep Democratic roots to run for their party.

Whereas we have to witch-hunt to make sure anybody we consider is historically pure as a Democrat...!

They open doors because it helps them WIN.
We shut doors, even if opening them would help us win.

[dogman]

203. He's unacceptable to the Communists?

That's hard to imagine.

[QC]

211. They still haven't forgiven him for the Man-Boobies? n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

278. Hey seventhson, is that you?

It's lovely to see you back here posting. Did you have a good laugh with your buddies in that place I can't mention?

[Sparkly]

194. I'm going to say something really controversial: It HELPS that he voted R.

In a country this closely-divided, we need crossover voters to win. That means we need people who voted for the Chimp to change their minds. We need people who are registered Republicans right now. We need people who are independent, as General Clark was while in the military (and appropriately so).

Not even the incompetence of the Chimp, not even the great qualities of John Kerry, not even a war, unemployment, corruption, debt, healthcare, flu shots, or Osama Bin Laden could get enough of these people to say, "Okay, I'll vote for the Democrat for a change." So what's it going to take?

It's going to take a candidate who can appeal to the *middle* and start to unify this deeply divided, increasingly hostile nation. That means a candidate that Republicans can look at and say, "I'm not a Democrat, but I'm comfortable with that guy. I can relate to that guy. I trust that guy." And that often means, there's something there that is 'like me.'

Like it or not, Republicans exist!! And we need the votes of people who voted not only for Nixon and Reagan all those years ago (including people like my husband who is now a strong Democrat), but again, people who voted for the Chimp just two weeks ago.

Right now Democrats are not in a position of power, to say the least. We don't control anything, including the media or the voting process. In DC, our name is mud. It's going to take something really unique to break the cycle and get a lot of people to vote for Democrats again.

The things that are considered "negatives" about Clark on DU are actually "positives" out there among much of the country, particularly that center that can and must be swayed. People don't trust politicians, they don't like slick talkers, and I believe they'd rather have someone who's shown commitment to serving his country than someone who's been committed more narrowly to serving EITHER party. People can connect with Clark and trust him, whether that connection is that he's from the south, from working-class roots, from a military background, or that he was independent for years and voted for (gasp!) Republicans in the past -- he is a Real Person rather than a Polished Politician and frankly, I think that is a PLUS, not a minus.

We can naval-gaze for another four years thinking about how we need to "move left" and ensuring we only have historically "real" Democrats (can I remind you here that people like Zell and Joementum carry that "D"?) or we can get with reality and start winning, start uniting, and then have the POWER and flexibility to move left. Right now, we've just got to start by accepting reality, and stop looking a gift horse in the mouth.

The list of people who can't win Republicans over is a LONG one. The list of people who can? You tell me.

[Crunchy Frog]

267. And, quite frankly, we need to run someone

who can get those votes without alienating the Democratic core, many of whom, myself included, will not vote for the sort of "moderates" that have been spoken about recently. I will not vote for a Lieberman type "Democrat", one who does not posess many of the core values that have made me into a Democrat. I absolutely will not vote for someone who embraces the PNAC worldview, but has a D after his name.

We need someone who can sell progressive values to middle America. Not someone who will abandon progressive values in order to try and get votes.

[robbedvoter]

197. As sevetson buddies are coming out of the woodwork - disclosure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
post 25
sorry I don't have the original thread - someone may help with that.
I see a lot of the same spirit in some of the returning flamers on this thread.
and this:
Another thread on the topic. Post #12 contains a copy of a PM that he sent to someone. Apparently he sent the same type of PM to a number of people.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
He presented himself as a Dean supporter I believe.

[BootinUp]

200. ain't it the truth.

I guess I am taking this too personal.

[Sparkly]

201. Nothing wrong with your reaction.

When I see rightwing lies repeated on DU, I get upset, too.

[POTGNE]

250. Wes Clark is the best hope the Dems have in 2008!

We need Wes to run again! If the poster who has been posting on here under the name of Wes Clark Jr. is indeed the genuine article, then please please tell your dad that we need him to run in 2008! He was the best of the nine Dems who ran in the primaries, and frankly we lost just as much as he did when he dropped out of the race. He is a good (no scratch that, a GREAT) man, and anyone who can't see what a genuine article he is is very short sighted. This is a man who exudes empathy when he speaks....This is a man who spent his life giving his all for our country through his military service! This is a man who holds a Master's degree in Economics and another Master's degree in Political science....WOW! This is a man who spent 27 years of his life in the military and reached the highest rank, General, with many many accolades.... Not to mention that he was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO! What more foreign policy experience would a person need to be Commander in Chief and the most respected leader of the free world? Who could be better to give this nation it's heart and soul back? Who could be better to restore us to the greatness of our past? Don't pay attention to the nay-sayers! RUN WES RUN!

Wes Clark in 2008!

[lilfroggy]

251. That's a pretty sad statement. EDWARDS '08!

Edwards!

[Kahuna]

257. Edwards is distinguished by doing ......what exactly?

:shrug:

[POTGNE]

263. Clark's the man!

Edwards couldn't even carry his own home state for Kerry as the VP nominee and you think he'll be able to carry the nation in 08? I don't think so! He's a good guy, no doubt, but he's still too wet behind the ears in political terms. Clark is a much better choice because of his life-long service to our nation and his two respective Master's degrees as well as his previous foreign policy experience, IMHO.

[Kahuna]

300. I think Edwards is a very nice man too. But President Edwards..

isn't in the cards for him just yet. He should have tried to save his seat. It just seemed a little cheesy that a freshly minted Senator, was angling for VP in 2000, with what, two years experience??

[Anarcho-Socialist]

254. So what? Yes he voted for Reagan but people make mistakes

Not everyone here was a life-long Democrat. It takes years for some to see the light.

[RetroLounge]

264. Fact: You just repeated it

Ironic...

RL

[DoveTurnedHawk]

265. Wow RL, It Took You Two Whole Days to Come Up With That "Zinger"?

Or are you just kicking this thread?

:shrug:

DTH

[SaintLouisBlues]

266. This thread reminds me of a political cartoon

that came out right after the General left the race.

Democrats busy repeating right wing talking points about whether or not the General was a "real" Democrat, while a Republican elephant was poised to stomp the General.

[Zynx]

274. Why do some people shun cross-over party members?

Why should we dislike the fact that a Republican, even if he was one or had conservative leanings, has now joined our party? Isn't that how we win elections?

[FrenchieCat]

280. Used to be....

But not anymore. Many DU Dems would rather lose with a New Englander Democrat....that is a "pure" Dem. It means a lot to them...cause it's so important in the scheme of things!

As a newly minted Dem (was Green), I find it appalling and just plain damn dumb. When we will ever learn???

[BootinUp]

284. But you know what?

Clark actually won the "DU Primary" back in late November early December. It was an official poll with probably about 500 votes. My take from that was that when voters became more familiar with Clark's record and positions, and amazing intelligence...and.... everything, heh, that they would vote for him just like the highly knowledgeable crowd here at DU.

[FrenchieCat]

281. Used to be....

But not anymore. Many DU Dems would rather lose with a New Englander Democrat....that is a "pure" Dem. It means a lot to them...cause it's so important in the scheme of things!

As a newly minted Dem (was Green), I find it appalling and just plain damn dumb. When we will ever learn???

[robbedvoter]

282. "We don't mix with riff raff" said the dinosaurs....

The pure-bloods are already in political Siberia due to Diebold blindness, now they follow that with litmus tests and blood samples for admission. Good luck there, you party of the middle class or whatever it is that you call yourselves these days. Since W, I no longer qualify financially - and I surely am not pure enoug, so sink, baby, sink!

[LimpingLib]

285. An (sort of) apology.

I didnt notice that Clarks son was posting here when I said what I said. I thought this discussion was over when I posted what I did (it was meant as a quick shot that few would notice).

I just now noticed.I had no idea the name meant anything other than simply being a Clark fan and I read right over it.


I dont like Clark (I think the foreign policy elites such as Clark lay the infrastructure for endless wars regardless of whether they support every individual single war or not) but would have never been so abrassive had I known there would have been another 100+ posts after my own.And I certainly wouldnt have said what I said knowing that many Clark fans would have been present not to mention at their most agressive knowing his son was watching.

(Also)My Haitian link was simply (I admitted it was "out there" btw before I got lectured by anybody)to show that the only Southern state we are highly competitive in will have many progressive minded individuals (like liberal Cubans and Hispanics over the South America policy)opposed as well as the conservative plurality in the state. It was just a cheap shot at those who think Clark can actually help us in any Southern state.I wont say why I think he could throw liberal states like New Mexico , Wisconsin , and Iowa to the GOP but my point was that he wont help us anywhere infact will hurt us. It was just a quick cheap shot I admit.Though I have no idea if the story is true or false,Mr. Cohen (Green) of New York certainly thinks its true and no doubt the Hatians there wouldnt be huge fans of Clark if they choose to lean on the side of caution (suspecting he might not be a friendly candidate based on his baggage).

Again ,I admit it was a cheap shot but I thought it was at least electorally relavant since electibility is the reason everybody so strongly supported Clark.Infact I thought/feared the "electability" excuse would have made Clark the immidiate front runner last summer. He was the front runner in elite support (corperations , foreign policy elite ,etc.)but my fellow Democrats along with myself werent overwhelmed nor were we impressed.

Im not calling a truce (though I can assure you that based on my interests that I wont post a whole lot on Clark , just look at my posting record , I rarely have posted very often in 3 years) and you can also rest assured that many mainstream Democrats will not succumb to the Clark "electable hero" line. But never the less..... sorry for appearing to have sought after stirring discord and to have created a scene.Enjoy the Clark special discussion thread.

[BootinUp]

293. I like the way you try to speak for "your fellow dems"

You're so full of shit.

Laura Ingram would like to talk to you about "Elites". Why don't you go look her up.

[Donna Zen]

298. Can't miss this one:

Again ,I admit it was a cheap shot but I thought it was at least electorally relavant since electibility is the reason everybody so strongly supported Clark.Infact I thought/feared the "electability" excuse would have made Clark the immidiate front runner last summer. He was the front runner in elite support (corperations , foreign policy elite ,etc.)but my fellow Democrats along with myself werent overwhelmed nor were we impressed.

First, if I first took note of General Clark because he was "electable" I would consider that a smart move on my part. I mean, did anyone want to lose this election? But the more I read, and that was plenty once the nay-sayers began their endless rants at DU, the more I was amazed by Wesley Clark.

Clark's original support came not from the corporation or the elite, but from thousands of people just like me. As an educator, he was the only candidate who truly spoke to my concerns; as an American, he sounded the democratic ideals that live in my heart.

At this point, the Democratic party hardly speaks for me. General Clark does. The last time I saw him--and I fear it may very well be the last time I will ever see him--I thanked him for always telling the truth. He does.

America hasn't seen the likes of that man in decades or maybe centuries. He loves this country and wants only what is best for it, and by that measure, for you and me. All in all, we missed a great opportunity to have a great president.

Blind yourself with false fears instigated by the hounds of negative prattle, and in your self-imposed darkness, you will miss the riches spread before you.

The essence of leadership is that you can't believe you have a monopoly on wisdom.

~Wesley K. Clark (11-18-2004)

[Auntie Bush]

299. Some people speak the truth...like you. Others are pure bullshit

and have the same type of blind thinking as those that vote for bush**.