A Clark Poll

[sellitman]

Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark,Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark,Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark,Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark,Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark,Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark,Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark,Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark,Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark,Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark,Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark,Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark,

[Dinger]

1. What's Your Point??? (nt)

[bertha katzenengel]

3. I'd like to know, too. n/t

[Deep13]

2. Oh, come on!

Sure I'd support him, but what the hell kind of poll is this?

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. You don't believe this was started by a Clark supporter, do you?

There are no more genuine "Pro Clark" threads started on DU than there are for several other leading Democrats, like Edwards, Kerry Dean and Feingold. Half the so called "Clark threads" are started by people who either have problems with him, or have questions about him. Most of the rest involve polls that include Clark along with other Democrats, and most of those aren't started by Clark supporters either. I think it is fairly safe to say that this "poll" is an example of someone expressing disgust, not support for Clark.

[PeaceProgProsp]

13. My feeling about this is:

Although I agree that there are probably as many Clark threads as Dean threads or any other candidate-supporting thread, I think, to the casual observer, it seems that the Clark threads are only started and kept floating by a vocal minority of enthusiastic Clark supporters. Threads about other likely 2008 candidates tend to be started by either a random DU'er or by an enthusiast for whom supporting that candidate isn't his or her only focus.

I think madfloridian (a Dean supporter) is the only equivalent to any of the Clark supporters, and even with madfloridian, you don't get the impression that she's here only for the purpose of promoting Dean. You feel that supporting Dean is a consequence of her deep feelings about supporting progressive ideas and politics.

I think that with any issue, it's easy to tell which posters are only here to further their position on that single issue, whether it's I-P, guns, freeping, atheism, or whatever and which posters are here for other reasons and then weigh in on several issues. I think what this post is an ineloquent reaction to the perception of the former kind of posting.

I think that the best way to change that perception is if the band of enthusiastic Clark brothers and sisters participated in all threads equally rather than just the Clark threads. That would solve another problem too: for most DUers, you get to know their position on the issues, and then you see that converted into support for a candidate. For Clark supporters, it has stalled in the other direction. It starts with support for the candidate, but it's not clear where they stand on issues that don't have a direct connection to Clark.

[Totally Committed]

17. I appreciate this thougthful and eloquent post...

I would love to have more time to post in other threads (recently, I have made it a pont to do just that, btw) about issues that interest and concern me.

What I feel compelled to do is answer some of the vicious, unwarrented and untrue attacks on my favored candidate. That's maybe why I seem to be here as a Clarkie only. If some of these attacks would ease off, I would gladly go to other threads and get to know other DU-ers and express myself on other subjects.

But, as long as there is this continuous attack on anythread Clark, I will be there to rebutt, refute, and educate. I will not have Wes disrespected and marginalized by anyone here or anywhere else I post.

I'm sorry, but I really want you all to get to know him like I do. I feel that, after the last election, it is the only way he'll have an equal shot at the nomination. That's all I want... a level playing field with respect for all candidates and a feeling and spirit of unity among their supporters.

If there is that, and Wes is not the nominee, I will find it easier to close ranks and support the eventual nominee.

I just want to feel good about being a Democrat again... I want to see a nominee with backbone and who feels about the important issues as I do.

I hope you can understand.

Thanks again for the post. It was really good.

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. I do see your point.

And to an extent I agree. However I can name at least one hard core Edwards supporter who tends to keep hitting the same note on multiple threads, and I think I have seen the same regarding Kerry here also.

However regarding Clark supporters keeping Clark threads afloat, the dynamic is a bit more complex. Like I said above, many of the threads involving Clark are not Pro Clark. The Dean vs Clark ultimate smack down thread is one good example. There are others also, including this one of course. Such threads attract people who make highly negative comments about Clark, calling him a war criminal for his involvement in stopping Genocide in Kosovo (under Clinton's Administration), calling Clark a Neo-Com despite the fact that Clark specifically called out PNAC and publicized and opposed their multiple Mid East War scenario, calling Clark a Republican despite him campaigning hard for Democrats across the nation and being one of the bluntest and most effective critics of the Bush Administration etc.

There are no other National Democrats other than Clark who get repeatedly hammered with such extreme criticism here at DU; not Clinton, not Lieberman, none. And there are certain posters (you can probably name them yourself) who never miss a chance to jump onto a thread to attack Clark. And those people are not single posters per thread either, they tend to be Pit Bulls unwilling to let go of a Clark attack once in progress. That is why those threads do not sink more quickly.

One thing all of us should know by now, after watching so many good Democrats go down in flames: unanswered attacks do inflict lasting damage. It matters little if they come from Republicans, hidden freepers, Democrats, Greens or Radicals. There is a psychology involved. Mud slinging is a staple part of American politics because traces of mud remain from each attack if not promptly dealt with, and over time they build up into a thick film of dirt that obscures the real character of the person being sleazed, until the primary association with that person is to the dirt that has been piled on them and not to their true person.

Clark supporters support Clark for many reasons, but one of them is our belief that he stands up and fights back against the Rove Machine and Republican attack tactics. Democrats need to do more of that, all of us, candidates and their supporters. Clark supporters have gone to a great deal of trouble to learn the facts about Wesley Clark and to have them at our finger tips to rebut character assassination, wrong information and misleading spin used against him. We tend to err on the side of not being passive, and sometimes we do err in that regard, but to err in the other direction is far worse. Best to get it perfect, but erring on the side of standing up for good Democrats against false attacks is a lesser sin than to repeatedly be complicit in letting good people be defined by their enemies, and that is a lesson many Democrats still need to learn.

Having said that, I do see your point, and I have been thinking about it myself also. I know many Clark supporters well, and we tend to be active in a wide range of Democratic Party issues and campaigns, but by the same token much of our public online activity revolves around Clark since establishment forces, in our opinion, attempt to marginalize Clark through omission and neglect and we will not just roll over for that. None the less, you in many ways are right. Over the next year I am sure myself and other Clark supporters will weigh in more often on other relevant issues. I do so myself at times, but I will do so more. I understand and appreciate the logic of your comments.

[Totally Committed]

23. Exactly...

It's more the feeling that we need to stand together and fight for Wes to be respected and even understood here at DU.

I know that could be miscontrued, and often is, but when the threads stopped getting glutted with unwarranted and untrue criticism and WRONG information, I know I will feel less obliged to stand up and set things right time and time again.

TC

[madfloridian]

26. Hey, quit talking about me.

:evilgrin:

I make it a practice to stay out of attack threads. Yet you say I am the only equivalent here at DU to the Clark supporters. The rest of what you say is nice and correct. One thing you forgot to mention....for months Dean was running for chair of the party. A lot of what I posted after he dropped out was about candidates supported through DFA and about the campaign for chair.

So you might say there was a purpose to my madness. I now post appearances and articles.

I have promised to stay out of these threads. I presented info in one last night, but that was all.

I have paid dearly here for standing up for Howard Dean, and I still do. But you are right....for me it is about a lot more than that.
And there are more who left here because of attacks that continue, and many more who lurk and stay out of the fray.

It is so very early to worry so much about what will or will not be in 08. We know everyone is running, it is very obvious.

I don't think you know that bringing my name up in here may not be the best idea. I have had some problems with certain people, and I don't want this to bring things to the surface again. But thanks for understanding I am about a lot more than just worshipping one candidate.

[Clark2008]

31. Then, you apparently don't read my stuff

because I post in tons of threads.

Heck, I'm even a founding Estrogen-Driven Vixon of the Keith Olbermann Estrogen Brigade. I certainly don't limit myself to posting only about Clark.

BUT - I will defend him.

Meee-oooww.

[leyton]

20. I don't think it's an expression of disgust.

It's IMO an expression of annoyance that in every thread about the 2008 election, Clark supporters come in for no other purpose than to push Clark. Not do discuss the topic at hand, but to push Clark. You can start a thread about Feingold, but someone will come in to say merely that "Clark is better." You can start a poll about Kerry/Clinton/Feingold and someone will complain that Clark wasn't included. Etc.

[FrenchieCat]

25. And? I'm just as annoyed as you are about a lot of things.....

When I see "Feingold for President" in Clark threads, I don't have a problem with that. Why do you have a problem when it's reversed? I haven't seen you come in to a Clark thread to protest about those who are chanting the names of other potential candidates. Why not?

But that kinda of thing doesn't bug me, and I certainly don't start attacking Feingold because of it.

Funny how one person can dictate to others what is the right and correct thing to do. How pompous is that?

I agree that there can be a Kerry/Clinton/Feingold thread....AND I also believe that those who want to complaint that Clark isn't including should be able to do so....right there in the thread. After all, Clark is normally excluded in polls outside of DU, and it gets on my goddamn nerves. Maybe if the one you preferred was left off polls, time after time, place after place, you would react the same way.

Try walking in others' shoes before determining how THEY are bothering you. Maybe it's a two way street.

[leyton]

40. I'm not trying to dictate anything.

I'm sorry if it came off that way. I'm just expressing my opinion - that it is not necessary to come into a thread for the sole purpose of just yelling "Go Clark!" and not contributing to the discussion. Frankly, I don't see many people doing it for other candidates, except for the occasional person trying to tell us "Go home, Hillary has it locked up." And you know what? I generally rebut those posts.

And where did I attack Clark? I think he's great. There are days when I wish we had nominated Clark in 2004, and there are days when I don't. It's the stuff on DU that annoys me - and that's the point I was trying to get across.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Well I rarely if ever go onto a thread specifically advocating others.

I see lots of them on DU, threads for Kerry, Edwards, Finegold etc, but I never post on one of those to proclaim that I prefer Clark. However I would be surprised if no one did because really there are many thousands of people who post on DU. Some people do take most opportunities to let their feelings be known. I see people popping on to overtly Pro Clark threads offering up some other candidate's name often also.

Most of the strong Clark supporters that I know, like myself, stay off other specific candidate promotion threads. I find core Clark supporters mostly posting on general threads about what type of Democrat can win in 2008 etc, or on poll threads that involve multiple candidates including Clark. More often strong Clark supporters get sucked in to a thread while defending against vicious anti Clark attacks of the sort rarely made against other candidates. How often are Kerry and Edwards accused of being Neo Con Republican war criminals?

Like I said, I am sure what you said does happen, but it gets magnified somewhat out of proportion because there are more active anti Clark posters on DU than for other Democrats also. which leads to some anti Clark or anti Clarkie threads like this one and more running debates that leak in and out of threads from both sides.

I frequently ask Non Clark supporters to pop into the Clark supporters Group at DU to engage in thoughtful open discussions about Clark or his supporters to steer them off of the General Forum away from the candidate baiting that tends to drive Clark related threads into flame fests.

[leyton]

42. Well I know what you are saying.

I was replying to your post, but I wasn't trying to accuse you personally of anything and I'm sorry if it came off that way. (I rarely even look at the name of whoever's post I am referring to.) I do notice the people who routinely bash Clark as a war criminal; I am glad he is defended here since I'm sure he is not a war criminal. As for asking people to stop by the Clark Group, I think that is great, I'm glad that these issues can be discussed there and I think many DUers appreciate your efforts to keep things in the general discussion forums from getting out of hand.

[MollyStark]

4. Other

[Clark2008]

22. Got Clark in your DU search engine again, I see.

:eyes:

[MollyStark]

24. Don't have a DU search engine

I couldn't miss him anyway, so why bother?

[FrenchieCat]

28. But you do bother....

more than once in every thread that mentions Clark.

What's with the obsession? Shouldn't you be fighting for peace on earth and redistributing the wealth of the world?

So my question to you is "why DO YOU bother" in every thread in which Clark is mentioned to respond?

Seems like an Alleged CMB supporter who dogs out all other Democrats would have better things to do with her time than appearing in Clark threads to "Not bother".

[MollyStark]

29. I think you have made a mistake

But let me clear up what I meant for you. I meant why bother having Clark in my DU search engine (whatever a DU search engine is) when you can't avoid threads about him anyway?

[FrenchieCat]

30. But YOU CAN avoid Clark threads,

You just choose not to.

I realize that you are getting your post count up...and that is important, BUT....

[MollyStark]

34. Is there a rule saying only people who like clark can post? n/t

[Totally Committed]

33. Lame.

I avoid the threads I see about candidates I cannot abide all the time.

Sorry, that is a lame argument. At least be honest... you seem to always find the Clark threads and keep posting on them even after they have gone to the second or third pages. You seem to want to keep them alive.

At least, that's how it seems to me.

TC

[patrice]

5. That depends.

[bowens43]

6. ABC

[Deep13]

10. Make sure your ABC ...

... doesn't become anything but victory.:7

[Stand and Fight]

7. trite

[Stand and Fight]

8. riiight n/t

[Totally Committed]

9. No offense to anyone...

But, what the heck is this supposed to prove?

I don't get it.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

12. It's the professional Clark haters and flame throwers again....

No more.

So Elementary, tacky and obvious.

Hope they are attacking Bush with at least the same fervor. But most likely the vitriol and :sarcasm: is reserved only for Wes Clark. They most likely wouldn't want anyone that could kick some GOP ass in the running.

[Ms_Mary]

14. Gee, I was hoping for substance. nt

n

[bobthedrummer]

15. Russ Feingold, Russ Feingold, Russ Feingold, Russ Feingold...

[MollyStark]

16. I like it n/t

[leyton]

18. You left out Mark Warner.

Shame!

:)

[FrenchieCat]

32. you have just committed one of those posts that you find

"annoying" when made by Clark supporters in polls about other candidates. Why is that? Was it :sarcasm: ? Cause if it was, you din't really make it that clear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1702134&mesg_id=1703133
leyton (1000+ posts) Sun Apr-03-05 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #18

33. Selecting a choice didn't mean you automatically supported them.

The question was, between the three, who would you choose? Clark was not a choice, and if he is the only one you'll support, why even stay in the thread?

No offense, but on DU it seems like in every thread where any possible 2008 contender is discussed, someone waltzes in and says "Well, Clark is clearly better." Nobody comes into Clark threads to declare that Mark Warner is the end-all of candidates, or that it's Dean or bust. Frankly, I'd like to be able to discuss contenders without everything turning into a Clark meetup.

[leyton]

43. Yes, I thought it was clearly sarcasm.

Hence the smiley, and the "Shame!"

[ZootSuitGringo]

21. Stoopid poll

From a poster, who evidently, has nothing better to do.

I didn't vote, and I don't think that most Clark supporters are voting in this Poll(?).

You see, missing from the line up is Wesley K. Clark.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

35. LOL. Hey, the gang's all here! Some very thoughtful comments, too.

So many don't begin with "bullshit! crap! smear! operative!"

Is it just possible that the most complex Dem candidate of '04/'08 can be discussed without elementary schoolyard taunts?

I understand that you Clark supporters here on this thread are dedicated to promoting and defending the reputation of Clark.

Can you possibly understand that some of us are just as committed to our views? You probably already know that I see a Clark presidency as a danger which I care enough about to discourage. I can see why some admire and support him. I'm not sure why some can't see why others wouldn't and demonize them as crazy or GOP operatives. Suspicious times. There certainly is a 'last word wins' snowball effect to discussions with subsequent taunts of "that shit again?"


'Facts and truths' are all third-hand at best for all of us to discern by reading about Clark and his life from a distance in an age of propaganda info-wars. Both sides of the Clark issue have accused the others of seeing what they want to see and finding justifications for it in the ocean of the internet.

Clark's career and subsequent candidacy touches on the most important issues of our day and should be reviewed in-depth and at great length. They are issues of international treaties, chain of command, life and death, law and order, 'just war', US history, the demise of the Democratic party through infiltration and accommodation, role models, etc.

This is why Clark touches off more contention than other candidates.

So being reduced to either a hater or a groupie is a disservice to both the dead and the living.

I have learned from Clark supporters who actually produce arguments with links and I hope some have learned from what I post.

Regardless, we are all on the same side and have a lot of work to do to figure out who can possibly change the path this nation is on, if that is even possible!

See you all around block.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Yes Sir, the gang, as you put it, is here....including yourself

and I know you understand that you are truly included as part of the gang.....

Here's an interesting bit in today's blog world about Wes Clark. I know you will enjoy it, and find something that is not to your liking within it. Happy hunting and Peace to you!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/4/161053/1412
Blogging the Wes Clark Conference Call
by bassjhs

Mon Apr 4th, 2005 at 13:10:53 PST

This morning, I had the opportunity to participate in a blogger conference call with General Wesley Clark in preparation for his upcoming testimony in front of the House Armed Services Committee. Other bloggers also invited include Juan Cole, Armando from Daily Kos, and Jerome Armstrong (Jerome was apparently unable to make the call).
The General began by providing an outline of his testimony. The three areas he will address are as follows:


What went wrong in Iraq

How we get out of there the right way

The Implications for the Armed Services
Update <2005-4-4 16:25:55 by bassjhs>: Juan Cole provides another account of our discussion with General Wesley Clark today.
much more after the jump

[JohnOneillsMemory]

37. Thanks for the link. That was interesting. Especially this comment:

Wesley Clark:
"Part of the problem is that American involvement in Iraq had never solely been about Iraq."

This is exactly the point some of us Clark-detractors keep trying to make about

>>>>>>Kosovo.<<<<<

It has very large implications regarding the Geneva Conventions and the US military command's culpability during the Clinton years.

The issue is whether or not it is a 'just war' or a legal war, something I have contended goes to the heart of the Clark candidacy.

Obviously, many think otherwise.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. There is varying food for thought here

I don't mind expanding the context of a comment for discussions sake, but it is important to acknowledge that that is what is being done. Clark was commenting here within a specific context. He was opposing the Neo Con plans for destabilizing the Mid East in the name of Democracy. Specifically he forcefully makes the point that the Iraq intervention was never about defending the United States from some perceived self standing isolated threat posed by Hussein's regime. It was part of a larger plan to oust all of the the governments in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere. If you want to engage in honest discussions you have to use that as a starting point, anything less is misleading or disingenuous.

After that is is more than acceptable in my opinion to open up the discussion and to question, if in fact you do, whether Clark or other Democrats are being inconsistent in their stances and positions. That is the opening for bringing up the Yugoslavian engagements that took place under Clinton's Administration. But it is in the full context of an overall debate on America' foreign policy. The discussion should not be Clark centric. Al Gore was the United States Vice President during those years. Hilary Clinton was shall we say close to the President. Howard Dean supported Clinton's policies in Yugoslavia as did Paul Wellstone to large degree. If it was wrong almost the entire Democratic Party was wrong, and I am willing to entertain that notion though that is not my position.

If you are willing to engage in the debate of the larger issues without always virtually exclusively tacking them on to any mention of Wesley Clark, I think it can be a valuable discussion.

On a separate front I will point out that Wesley Clark consistently makes the strongest arguments of any Democrat I have heard (Biden was strong also) specifically in favor of the Geneva Conventions in regard to treatment of prisoners.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. What you say here is reasonable

I find myself agreeing with most of what you stated. Of course there are issues specific to Clark that are unique to him. To a greater or lesser extent that is always true about any individual of course, but I can see how you might describe Clark as the most complex Dem candidate of 04/08.

What sets me off during a Clark related discussion usually is one of three things. Statements that appear to me to be hypocritical, statements that only very selectively express outrage, and statements that appear to be a deliberate misrepresentation of facts.

For example, when Clark's position on a matter is well within the mainstream of Democratic thought, it bothers me when only he is attacked harshly for that position while numerous other leading Democrats are given a free pass or even active support despite having almost the exact same position. I can use the general topic of N.A.T.O. as an example. N.A.T.O. has certain expressed purposes and undoubtedly other less clearly expressed ones also. There are virtually no leading Democrats who are critical of our N.A.T.O. Alliance. Perhaps there are good reasons why more of us should be critical of N.A.T.O., or at least more probing about it's goals as they relate to our personal ideals. I welcome discussions that challenge underlying assumptions of American politics, but I bristle when they are exclusively hung around Wes Clark's neck.

And I find it increasingly difficult to accept that any serious Democrats continue to view Wes Clark as a Republican Trojan horse. So I am upset by those who imply it. That is not at all the same as questioning why someone may feel far more comfortable backing some other possible Democratic candidate over Clark. Having choices afterall is the essence of Democracy. When people needed to make an early choice as to which Democrat to support for the nomination in 2004, Wes Clark was essentially new to the political scene to most. I can understand that many were hesitant to trust Clark then without more time to to study his intentions. Well Clark stayed active in the Democratic Party after he lost the nomination, helping the Party build on both the local and National levels. Clark was a clear strong voice against George W Bush throughout the closely fought 2004 November elections, doing all in his power to elect Kerry/Edwards. In my book that trumps any question of why Clark spoke as he did at one Republican fund raiser years ago. Clearly Clark is NOT a Bush ally. So I am suspicious when a poster repeatedly rolls back the clock to avoid recent history to focus on a prior event subject to a number of interpretations, in an attack on Wes Clark.

So yes I would welcome good deep probing debates on what we can and should expect from leading Democrats, Clark included. I also welcome debate on whether or not it is even wise to overall invest energy in supporting the Democratic party and it's candidates. The Democratic Party is not a Radical Party, and I say that as someone who wishes it could be. However I am always trying to find the right balance between progressive politics and winning politics, since allowing the current increasingly Anti democratic Republican Party to further entrench itself in power carries a huge price both for our own Democracy and for most people on this planet. For me right now, Wes Clark represents that balance of protecting certain core principles and the potential for a better future, while giving us a real chance of reversing a reactionary and fast rising Republican tide that threatens all of us, through a Democratic victory in 2008.

[dogman]

46. Another great post by Tom.

As we back each other into a corner we accomplish nothing. I have to believe that is the purpose of some. Good honest open discussion seems rare these days. Much of that is the tone of politics in general. I believe that was Jon Stewart's point in his appearance on Crossfire. The MSM has promoted this by replacing journalists with advocates on most news shows. We would like a victory but not at the cost of our souls. We know that no candidate is perfect but are deeply offended by outright lies and unsubstantiated smears. We saw the effect on Kerry and will not stand for it.

[Clark2008]

39. There's another one with Clark in his DU search engine.

[MollyStark]

47. Did you vote for other then?

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Why.is.this.not.locked?

This rates as the dumbest fucking thread ever.

[CJCRANE]

45. As I said

in another thread - DU is usually ahead of the curve on most issues. This fascination with Wesley Clark (both pro and anti) surely indicates something...

[MrSlayer]

48. Finally, a poll with only qualified people.

This is not inflammatory. :evilgrin:

[Clark2008]

49. LOL!

:rofl:

[Comicstripper]

50. WTF? I only see "Wesley Clark"?? eom