Dean vs. Kerry vs. Clark... help!

[Smirnoff]

Ok! I'm trying to pick a candidate. So, I'm trying my hardest to get a clear picture of everything. Here's what I've gathered so far please correct me if I'm wrong!

John Kerry Governor of Massachusetts, although appealing to the majority of voters right now, signed to allow Bush to go to war. He doesn't have as many endorsements as Dean and has had to borrow against his mortgage to fund his campaign. For other reasons that I haven't quite figured out yet, Kerry is deceitful. Somehow Kerry did something to Dean to make his votes go down?

Wesley Clark, like Kerry didn't seem to truly oppose the war until he announced his candidacy which seems dishonest. Other than that I haven't gotten a lot of insight into Clark.

Howard Dean seems to be the heavy favorite here with a huge slug of endorsements from all over. He has been against the war from the beginning, and has been frank about rolling back the tax cuts.

I'm doing my best! I know the basics, but I'm trying to make an educated decision here so any help or further explanations and information would be extremely appreciated! Also, what are the candidates plans to do about the war when they get in the White House?

:dunce:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. Your information is seriously inaccurate.

WAY too many inaccuracies in your post to address.

Good luck.

[patricia92243]

2. Karry has no charisma. And Bush is know for being able to turn on the

charm when he wants too. And like it or not, this is the TV age.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

5. I disagree.

The fact that he has charisma is an opinion, not a fact. I believe everytime he speaks he actually speaks with articulation and sophistication which is an important characteristic of a future president. I believe this also adds to his charisma, I'd rather have a candidate be able to sound like he knows what he's talking about than be "picture perfect".

[blm]

3. Try learning the real facts.

For starters. I haven't seen one fact in your entire post.

[Smirnoff]

10. well

Instead of criticizing maybe you could try and be helpful. I thought you were all about "spreading the word" well I'm asking to be informed and half of you are just criticizing, that sure as hell doesn't impress me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Spreading disinformation in the form of a question

does not qualify as "asking to be informed".

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[rucky]

4. Maybe you should consider Kucinich

antiwar - only clear exit strategy for Iraq
progressive taxation
universal healthcare

if those are your concerns, and it doesn't matter to you which frontrunner gets the nomination, then why don't you use your vote to show your support for the "fringe" candidate who's been consistently right-on target re: war, economy, and pretty much everything else. At the very least, it'll send a message to the candidates that they don't have to straddle the fence all the time - just be honest & consistent.

check it out: www.kucinich.us

[Smirnoff]

11. Kucinich

I did take the president match quiz and got 100% with Kucinich, but it just seems unlikely that he will win since he's getting hardly any votes.

[nancyharris]

6. If you really want to "get a clear picture of everything"

You might find what you are looking for here:

http://www.kucinich.us/

[pacifictiger]

7. I'm sticking with Dean all the way.

He comes across to me as more genuine and inspiring than the others. He was the first to speak up on issues that others have now co-opted.
I think the "electibility" issue is a red herring. Other "unelectables" like Lincoln and Truman, just for starters, changed this country for the better. But most of all, I think Ben Franklin would have really liked him. And for me that says it all.

[mlawson]

8. Are you concerned with which candidate can best beat bush????

Nothing else will matter on 1/20/05, you know.

BTW, where is Edwards on your list???

[windansea]

9. Clark is the one

he will take over the world and form a vast military industrial complex and everyone will have their own personal howitzer...

read all about it here:

http://clark04.com/grassroots/

[mikehiggins]

23. Yessss...Resistance is futile...Clark is everywhere

The only candidate with more grassroots support, or at least more organised grassroots support is Dean.

Oh, and from the beginning Clark has made the same case about the war: don't go without a reason, don't go without adequate preparation and don't go unless you have a plan to deal with the mess you make.

He never discarded war as an option, just war as an easy solution to the world's problems. Military action should be the absolute last resort following the failure of all other possible solutions.

Clark never actually believed the Bush administration's argument for the war and, in fact, implied as much in the famous testimony before Congress that the anti-Clark people love to quote. Right after Clark finished, the infamous Richard Perle testified.

------

PERLE: (in regard to Clark’s testimony) No, I don't believe it and frankly I don't think he made a very convincing case in support of that cliche but it was one of many cliches. At the end of the day when you sought to elicit from him a reconciliation of the view that time is on our side with what he acknowledged to be our ignorance of how far along Saddam Hussein is, he had no explanation. He seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies as though we hadn't been through diplomacy for the last decade, and relegating the use of force to a last resort, to building the broadest possible coalition, in short a variety of very amorphous, ephemeral concerns alongside which there's a stark reality and that is that every day that goes by, Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has, improving their capabilities, improving the means with which to deliver them and readying himself for a future conflict. So I don't believe that time is on our side and I don't believe that this fuzzy notion that the most important thing is building legitimacy, as if we lack legitimacy now, after all the U.N. resolutions that he's in blatant violation of, I don't believe that that should be the decisive consideration. So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait.

-----

If Richard Perle says you are against the war, who the hell else should anyone else need to prove the case that Clark was anti-war?

[mikehiggins]

24. And another point...

There is a difference between persuasion and being a demogogue.

Clark tried to persuade people in power towards his particular point of view by presenting arguments and evidence, not by making speeches on the Senate floor or in front of the tv cameras. Such techniques lend themselves to being abused by your enemies because they generally require objective analysis by the people to whom the arguments are being made.

Rational arguments do not lend themselves to 10-second sound bites BUT they often lend themselves to misrepresentation by people whose agendas involve ad hominem attacts as a standard practice.

Thus, a general is a bloody handed baby killer so if he argues against a war there is something inherently suspect in his words.

[Shanty Oilish]

12. If none of them appeal to you yet

They probably never will. Just sit tight until Election Day and then do what comes naturally.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Excellent advice! n/t

[MrSlayer]

15. Check this out.

All you need to know about our next President.

http://clark04.com/welcome/

[Smirnoff]

18. Posting

Everywhere I have posted today on this site has been extremely helpful and nice, so I guess that's why I expected the same when I posted this message. But, some of you are just down right rude. However some of you are actually trying to be nice and helpful, maybe some of you should take and example from them. Just a thought...

[Myra]

19. If you accept Wesley Clark's welcome, then please accept mine.

Clark is a great great man.

[Guaranteed]

17. It's all about Dean.

Clark's great too, but Dean has executive experience, and he's been opposing Bush from the beginning, clearly. That's extremely important for our candidate- otherwise the Bush administration is just going to force us to relive how our leadership was bulldozed all over again.

[maxr4clark]

20. Check out the references to ORIGINAL texts from Clark,

After he retired, before he announced his candidacy, at this site. That should help with Clark.

I know it is long, but the testimony he gave before Congress in September 2002 is very important, from start to finish. He keeps trying to leave to catch his plane; I think just after he leaves, Perle confirms that Clark did not support using force against Iraq. You can find this part excerpted at factcheck.org. He also describes exactly what has happened in Iraq since in his discussion of why we need to be prepared to win the peace. All of this on the record in front of the House Armed Services Committee, before the vote on the IWR. He has not changed his opinion since; he has been misquoted, and at times has stumbled over his words, but his opinion has never changed. The same view is given in his book, "Winning Modern Wars", which came out August/September 2003.

[Jerseycoa]

21. From what you have written

It looks like Dean is the candidate for you. Do you have doubts about him as you do the others? It doesn't seem so, then go with Dean.

[Smirnoff]

22. Thanks!

Those were very helpful sites!

[Nashyra]

25. I just returned from NH

and when I have gotten some sleep I will post some pictures. I personally met Clark and went to a Kerry rally. My opinion of Clark was confirmed and more. He spoke to us one on one and his compassion and concern about the troops and their well being and never wanting to put them in harms way unless there is absolutely no other way to DEFEND this country. His concern about the troops and addressing those issues have distracted somewhat from his message about the economy and jobs. The man has incredible character and when he talks directly to you he does not look around for someone more important to talk to. He was especially gracious to my Korean War Veteran father who was along with me. I will spend as much time and do as much work as neccessary to get the nomination for this great man. Kerry was surrounded by his handlers and when the camera went off he was not there poof. That disappointed me but seemed to be the prevailing thought of most at his rally.

[GalleryGod]

26. Great! Wes will make a Great Kerry VP,then!

:grouphug:

[Smirnoff]

27. or a DEAN vp....

:beer:

[copithorne]

28. It's easy

Clark repudiates the war and he will beat George Bush. He is the only candidate that fits that description.

He will cause a tremendous realignment in the political landscape in this country by attracting people to his dazzling character. He will calm the fear that is driving this country towards facism.

Kerry and Dean are fine men. But really I don't see them as stronger candidates than Al Gore. Do you? It may be possible that George Bush, can lose the office to these two men. I doubt it, but it is possible. I don't think that Kerry or Dean can win the presidency. Wesley Clark will win it.

John Kerry does not repudiate this war. When he talks about the war, it is still the right policy, poorly executed despite the clear evidence that it was a mistake from the beginning.

We need your help and your vote!

[mastein]

29. Get it from their own mouths

One thing I found useful was to go to each of the candidates websites and see what their current stands are on issues important to you, especially the tax issues. DU links to each website on the homepage.

If you want additional information, for example on voting history for the senators and congressman in the race I believe the US House and Senate have access (www.house.gov and www.senate.gov). (Fellow DUers please correct that if I am wrong.)

I will try to give a thumbnail for each candidate below, with as little spin as possible.

Kerry, Senator from Mass. for last 20 some years, Served in nam, gained prominance as leader of Vietnam Vets against the war in the 1970s. Is best known for taking on Reagan et al. on Iran-Contra in the 1980s. Wants to roll back some of the bush tax cuts. Voted for the initial resolution to go to Iraq, said he was hookwinked. Voted against 87 billion package to fund Iraq war.

Clark, former supreme allied commander of NATO through Bosnia in the 1990s. Has no elected experience. Known as a very very good soldier with little paper trail. Strong on foriegn policy matters. I don't know his tax plan. Has waffled some on the stance, said he would have voted against it, currently.

Dean, former governor of VT for 12 years. Under his watch VT covered all (or at least almost all) kids under 18 with medical insurance. Known as fiscal conservative, and social liberal. Big anti-war and wants to roll back the bush tax cuts.

Edwards, first term senator from NC. He came from very modest beginnings to go law school and became a trial lawyer. His big pitch is that he can carry southern states, and campaigns on a very positive note.

Lieberman, Senator for quite a while from CT. Only candidate in the mix that supports the war. Wants to roll back some of the bush tax cuts. Was Gore's VP nominee in 2000.

Kusinich is a former mayor of Cleveland and currently a congressman from that area. Is the only one of the candidates that wants an immediate pull out from Iraq, and would start a Dept. of Peace. Wats to roll back the Bush tax cuts some. While mayor Cleveland got into a big financial hole and the banks only wanted to help him out if the city would sell the city power company. Cleveland ended up in bankrupcy as a result of him standing firm.

Sharpton, no elected experience. Is an ordained minister and activist from NY. Has been anti war from the get go, wants to focus on domestic issues. Wants to roll back most of the bush tax cuts.

I hope this helps, but like I said, the websites are a good start.

[copithorne]

30. Clark's tax plan is a winner

It's a winner for progressive politics. It's a winner politically.

He would repeal the Bush Tax Cuts for wealthy people. He would also have families making less than 50K pay no taxes at all. He'd pay for it by raising taxes on income in excess of $1 million.

Dean's tax plan will be shredded by George Bush and it would lead him to defeat.

[Smirnoff]

32. I like his tax plans as well

After seeing everyone speak I really do like Clark the most. Him and Dean would make a great combo.

[Smirnoff]

31. Thanks!

That is exactly what I was wanting thanks for your help! Just out of curiosity.. who is your pick?

[mastein]

33. Good question

I like Dean a lot. He is a more socially liberal Clinton, but just as fiscally responsible, if not moreso. He is inexperienced in the foriegn arena, but then again GW was too before he took office (not that GW is doing a good job) but I think FP shortcomings can be made up by getting (and listening to) the right people. I had written a list of why I disqualified the other candidates, but chose not to post it as Principal Skinner might smack my knuckles for it. Feel free to PM me if you want.

[Smirnoff]

34. It won't let me send you a PM

It says I don't have enough posts to do that. Will you PM or email that list if ya don't mind?

[Polemonium]

35. Also worth mentioning

Dean has the most active supporters. Hundreds of thousands of us all around the world. He also has the most in small contributions. This means that ultimately Dean is the only candidate who can say he will beholden to the people. Scratch that, they all say that, but Dean is the only candidate who won't have been given huge donations from Corporate special interests in the form of PAC money. Considering the other candidates are sounding more and more like Dean every day, the real difference will be who got the candidate to the finish line. Who paid to get the candidate to the finish line and what are the implications of that?

FYI all the candidates have excellent websites that go into their platforms, and if you search around here you will find reasons to support each of the candidates.

[TopesJunkie]

36. Clark or Dean --

Take your pick. I won't care.

[Smirnoff]

37. Dean with VP Clark

would be my favorite combo.

[Rooktoven]

38. John Edwards...

johnedwards2004.com

[NicRic]

39. If we really want a win, CLARK !

I honestly believe that the Dems will be shooting themselves in the foot by going with any of the others seeking the nomination ,with Dean it would be a landslide win for bush ,with Kerry ,it will be closer ,however Istill feel bush will win . Now with Clark ,a fresh face on the politicial seen , a man with a wonderful story to tell ,someone who knows what it is to make a middle income and live within tyour means ,etc. Lets take care of job #1 ,bush out in 2004, in order to do that lets wise up and pick a person that has a perfect record !

[MidwestMomma]

40. I applaud your efforts to make an educated choice

In a field with so many great candidates, it's hard to decide who has the best qualities to not only beat Bush but lead this country.

That's the reason why I have chosen to support Clark. I think Clark's military experience gives him a huge advantage in a campaign against the man who's approval ratings are based almost exclusively on people's perception that he has kept this country safe from terror.

But just as important as winning the election, is what kind of leadership we will see after the election. Based on Clark's proven leadership in the military and his courage to take a stand on unpopular issues, I think he will be a fearless leader and supporter for the people in this country long ignored by the politicians only interested in big business and special interests.

But most importantly to me, I believe Wesley Clark is a compassionate person who truly cares about what is happening to the average person in this country. He's not running for president because he wants the power of the top office in the land. He's running for president because people went to him and asked him to step foreward and fight for his country once again. He could have said no, I've given my country enough, but he didn't. Why? I think it's because Wesley Clark has a deep and abiding love for this country and it's people and he could not turn down a call to help us.

This is the short version of why I support Wesley Clark for president.

Did you get a chance to read the endorsements written by your fellow DUers for each candidate? There is an endorsement for each candidate on the article page at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/index.html

Thanks for your question. Feels good to put into words this morning before I go to work why I support Clark. Hope I've been helpful to you.

Go Wes!