Vilsack questions Clark loyalty

[Tinoire]

note: Tom Vilsack is a Democrat and Governor of Iowa (just to save people the trouble).

The governor inquires about the presidential candidate's devotion to party principles and 'Democraticness.'

By LYNN OKAMOTO
Register Staff Writer
09/30/2003

Gov. Tom Vilsack questioned Gen. Wesley Clark's allegiance to the Democratic Party during an interview Monday on national television, stepping up criticism that has plagued the retired general for the past week.

"People in Iowa do not know much about him. I think they are concerned about his Democraticness," Vilsack said on CNN. "One of the questions that Iowans are asking about General Clark is whether or not he even voted for Vice President Gore in the 2000 election."

Neither Vilsack nor CNN's Judy Woodruff could answer that question during the live TV interview.

<snip>

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22380465.html

[JackSwift]

1. I'm concerned about his allegiance to the American people

loyalty to party is further down on the list. Will he stand up for the little guy? In the next few weeks he will have to start letting his views be known. I'm more than willing to wait and see. I think we have 10 fine candidates running.

[DeathvadeR]

28. He been in the Military a huge portion of his life....

He is probably good a following orders

[Pastiche423]

2. Now I don't feel so all alone

If the Democratic governor of Iowa is also concerned about clark's Democraticness, I'm in good company.

[tlb]

3. If Karl Rove had returned Clark's phone calls two years ago,

Clark would still be on the Bush Team, Still hitting those fund raising dinners giving his little pep talk how the nation needs Bush and Cheney's leadership. And if he gets a good enough offer, look for him to flip again.

I have NEVER understood the Clark boom. I wouldn't hire him for an internship in my office, much less cheer him on to the presidency. Dean was exactly right calling him a puppet.

[Orangepeel]

16. just for the record, Dean NEVER called him a puppet

that was the Moonie Times word, not Dean's.

[leetrisck]

47. Dammit - Clark didn't call Rove

That was a joke - get it - please read all your stories and check them out before you go saying that crap - even his conversation with the 2 Repukes who were just so serious about the whole thing.

[Dr Fate]

54. There should be a "Link Rule" at DU...

I'm tired of anti-DEM posts that are either "accidents" or lies.

[Dr Fate]

57. This article disputes that Clark Smear: (Link included)

Wingers Having Trouble Coordinating Anti-Clark Lies

MWO Whore of the Year 2001 Howard Fineman writes:

WORD WAS THAT Karl Rove, the president’s political mastermind, had blocked the idea. Clark was furious. Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. “I would have been a Republican,” Clark told them, “if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race—as a Democrat. Messaging NEWSWEEK by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a “humorous tweak.” The two others said it was anything but. “He went into detail about his grievances,” Holtzman said. “Clark wasn’t joking. We were really shocked.”

So was four-star General Clark humorously tweaking or not?

The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti unwittingly answers the question:

In the current issue of Newsweek, Howard Fineman reports Clark told Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and University of Denver president Mark Holtzman that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

"Howard Fineman reports" should be one's first clue to disregard the information in the article. That his sources were two Republicans should be one's second clue.

Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either.

Now, if General Clark's comment, which he did not deny making, were not "schtick," why would he make such a remark to two people if he never made calls to be returned, and thus would not be expecting "returned calls"?

It must be because Wesley Clark is a deeply disturbed and delusional man, just like Al Gore.

Poor Wingnuts. They're in a state of utter panic and it isn't becoming. Why can't they be a little more gracious in the face of impending defeat?

www.mediawhoresonline.com

Too bad the incomplete anti-DEM version of the facts was repeated as gospel all over DU.

[Dr Fate]

53. Link?

Ive read other articles that dispute some of these claims. Link yours firts, then I'll link mine.

[OKNancy]

4. All this proves is that the gov and Judy Woodruff are idiots

It's been out there for some time that Clark voted for Clinton and Gore.

[LizW]

6. It's been out there that Clark says he voted for Gore

But I don't believe him. It doesn't follow with anything else he said or did in his career, and it certainly doesn't follow his previous voting history. No one who voted for Gore (ans saw his vote voided by the SC) would speak so glowingly of Bush* and the neo-cons. I don't buy it.

[The Magistrate]

10. The General, Ma'am,

Has said he voted twice for President Clinton, and for Vice=President Gore in 2000. The latter certainly seems compatible with the former. The professed idnorance of Gov. Vilsack and Ms. woodruff of this does not speak well for them.

Heyond this, Ma'am, as the ballot's being cast in secret is a foundation of free democracy, there can be no proof of how any voted. There does not seem any reason to me not to take Gen. Clark at his word. Within the military establishment during the last decade, he was widly known to be a friend and supporter of President Clinton, indeed being frequently refered to as "Clinton's General" by those who disapproved.

[Eloriel]

27. I have a reason for not taking him at his word

When asked how he voted in 2000, after an uncomfortable pause, he said Gore, but his heart definitely wasn't in that response.

Body language means a LOT to me.

Plus, I think that response contradicts another earlier response.

Eloriel

[The Magistrate]

29. Many People, Ma'am

Are reluctant to disclose their vote to anyone, as they are any matter they feel deeply private. At the time, the proper answer was "None of your damn business!" as he was a private citizen, under no obligation to disclose his exercise of a secret ballot to anyone.

[Jackhammer Jesus]

67. Are you talking about when he was on Hardball?

I happened to see that, and I don't recall any sort of pause or abnormal body language.

Furthermore, I don't know of any "earlier response" that contradicts his claim that he voted for Gore. To contradict that claim would be for him to say that he voted for Bush - and if he said that, you and so many other anti-Clarks would be salivating over the statement and citing it whenever possible.

I'd be willing to reconsider if you can produce some evidence. I'll go out on a limb and predict that you won't be able to do so.

[teryang]

66. You are so right

I was privy to the email among right wing crazy retired AF Officers during Kosovo. These people were connected to active duty sources. They hated Clark. There were also quite a few conservative crank Generals on the net, publicly rebuking Clark and Clinton, saying the war wouldn't work, they didn't know what they were doing, etc. In a word, the atmosphere among many military senior officers was downright treasonous. He was Clinton's General. Regardless of what people may think of the Balkan war, it was a political success from Clinton's point of view. This was an unpardonable sin, Clark enhanced Clinton's reputation for leadership by obtaining a convincing military victory. This is not to offer an opinion on that war, only on the PR of the war.

How Clark thought he might find support in the repuke party after that experience is beyond me. He is either politically naive or just a player who is a smidgen left of center. Remember that the military is cloistered and that political orientation is disguised to advance. You don't get to be a four star by being yourself. All military officers affect conservatism if they want to succeed. Some let it down after they go civilian. Some never get over it.

[dArKeR]

5. I question who the Media are loyal to? The American People or the

Whore Power Elite.

[Kahuna]

7. I heard the crybaby on CNN yesterday.. What a

sorry spectacle he was. His agenda in bashing Clark was clear. He supports one of the other candidates and resents Clark's phenominal success.

[hippiechick]

11. just a little bit biased, are you ?

:eyes:

[PATRICK]

8. I am concerned about those Dems

who see Democraticness as a catchy label. Right now we are concerned about totalitarianismness and electabiltyness. So can we get back to businessness?

[davidinalameda]

9. guess he won't be on the short list for VP candidates

wonder who he's supporting

he sounds like one of these little ankle biting yippie dogs

[theEmpireNeverEnded]

12. bigger questions than this about Clark

Changing "Horses": Wesley Clark's Record in Terror and Human Rights Violations
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/COL309A.html

Far from simply being a “obedient soldier”, Clark is described by one and all as a “super-hawk” who, most notably, wanted to bomb all the bridges of Belgrade in order to intimidate the population. This super - hawkishness could also be seen in his attitude right after the war when Russian troops moved toward Prishtina to try to protect the minority Serb population. Wesley Clark, in a fit of monstrous rage, demanded that British General Jackson block the Prishtina airport to prevent the Russians from landing. General Jackson replied: “Sir, I’m not going to start WWIII for you!”.


Michael Moore digs himself a deeper hole
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/deeper.html

... Moore says Clark needed to "stop Milosevic's genocide of the people in Kosovo." Moore should know there never was a genocide, and at the time, he challenged the claim. I recall him ridiculing a NATO propaganda exercise involving before and after satellite photographs.

In the months following Clark's destruction of a country, forensic pathologists roved widely over Kosovo, to document the genocide NATO assured them had happened. They left in disgust, complaining they had been deceived by NATO's war propaganda... Before there were weapons of mass destruction that couldn't be found, there was a genocide that couldn't be found.


The Rational Destruction of Yugoslavia
http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html

With words that might make us question his humanity, the NATO commander, U.S. General Wesley Clark boasted that the aim of the air war was to "demolish, destroy, devastate, degrade, and ultimately eliminate the essential infrastructure" of Yugoslavia. Even if Serbian atrocities had been committed, and I have no doubt that some were, where is the sense of proportionality? Paramilitary killings in Kosovo (which occurred mostly after the aerial war began) are no justification for bombing fifteen cities in hundreds of around-the-clock raids for over two months, spewing hundreds of thousands of tons of highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals into the water, air, and soil, killing thousands of Serbs, Albanians, Roma, Turks, and others, and destroying bridges, residential areas, and over two hundred hospitals, clinics, schools, and churches, along with the productive capital of an entire nation.

[robbedvoter]

15. And you think Milosevic was a good guy who was framed, right?

I think you should disclose this fact in interest of fairness.
Just as Clinton had the welcome of a hero in Kosovo, so are Kosovars in US supporting Clark. I guess you don't agree with them - these stories are serbian fantasies. The Interbational Criminal court seems to see things differently though.
IAC much?

[theEmpireNeverEnded]

17. not really

Actually I'm no fan of Milosevic. Or Saddam for that matter. That doesn't justify blowing up their countries. Kosovo was not a "humanitarian intervention" - the genocide charges (in Kososvo in 1998) were bogus. Clark conducted the campaign in a manner which deliberately destroyed massive amounts of civilian infrastructure and killed thousands of civilians. The war was also a violation of international law. We were not attacked. The Albanians in Kosovo were not being ethnically cleansed. That was simply a lie. It was a completely unjustified war, and Clark was running the show. War must be an absolute last resort, even if its a Democrat in the White House. Perhaps especially so...

[Padraig18]

18. In the interests of fairness and accuracy

The war was NOT illegal underinternational law, and I wish people would quit saying that it is. NATO is a 'regional security organization' recognized by the UN Charter, and its actions were in COMPLETE compliance with international law.

The Clark bashers always trot out his tired little shibboleth to attack Clark without ever thinking through the far larger implications of their attack. Regional security organizations can and SHOULD be allowed to address problems like the one in Kosovo, and the FALSE statements about NATO (and hence, Clark) jeopardize this vital function.

Would you PLEASE stop saying that??? :grr:

[The Magistrate]

20. You Are Absolutely Wrong, Sir

Butcher Slobo was indeed embarked on a campaign to drive the Albanian populace of Kossovo out of the province by state terror, precisely as he had orchestrated the murderous onslaught against the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Gen. Clark conducted a military campaign that was wholly in bounds, and did appropriate damage to the capabilities of the Serb state to carry out its designs. Defense of Butcher Slobo is defense of grotesque crimes against humanity, and reflects poorly on any who attempt it, in any venue, and for any reason.

[theEmpireNeverEnded]

22. evidence

In the run up to war we were told much about Serb atrocities. Mass graves. Victims numbering in the tens if not hundreds of thousands. That was propaganda. The official report of the team of forensics experts who investigated afterwards found fewer than 3,000 bodies and couldn't determine much about their nationality or manner of death. Hardly the genocide we were sold. It also appears that the Kosovo Liberation Army was attacking Serbs and the Serbs were conducting counter operations at the time. I don't "defend" Milo or the KLA for that matter, but what they were doing to each other was not on a great scale, not a threat to us and not a cause for us to destroy Serbia. If there were any "massacres" in Kosovo, where is the evidence? Where is the evidence of ethnic cleansing or large numbers of refugees *before* the bombs started falling?


Serb killings 'exaggerated' by west

Claims of up to 100,000 ethnic Albanians massacred in Kosovo revised to under 3,000 as exhumations near end
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,355760,00.html



The hoax that started a war

How the U.S., NATO and the western media were conned in Kosovo

By PETER WORTHINGTON - Toronto Sun
http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/apr01/hed2973.shtml

[The Magistrate]

23. Yes, Dear

That is all very cute. If you are able to consult the old forum's archives, you may find two of my extended pieces on the matter: "The Late Balkan War; a Summatory Account" and "The Un-Happy History of Kossovo". It is not worth going into any great length with you on the matter now. Considerable efforts were made to conceal bodies, that were largely successful, and the thing was in the early stages of its climactic phase when interrupted. It is well the action was taken when it was. You would do well to examine the matter in depth, and come to some understanding of its whole history, if you mean to comment sensibly upon it.

[theEmpireNeverEnded]

25. not cute

That's not very substanitive. They couldn't find the 100,000 bodies - so they must be hidden somewhere. Okay, sure. This is different from Saddam's WMDs in what way?

The links I provided above refer to official reports and investigations (not somebody's old thread somewhere) which raise serious questions about the conduct of that war:

1) that NATO and Clark decieved people into supporting a war on false pretences using grossly exagerated claims, (that tens ,nay, hundreds of thousands had been brutally killed).

2) that NATO and Clark violated both international law and the NATO charter in attacking a state that had not attacked us nor any other NATO member.

3) that NATO and Clark in their conduct of the war intentionally bombed nonmilitary civilian infrastructure, which is a war crime.

4) that is is ridiculous to think of Clark as a "antiwar" candidate and that Democrats need to think long and hard before we let a warhawk with no previous experience as a Democratic office holder to run away with the nomination.

Sure, he can beat Bush, but is this the best we can do?



At one point in the bombing campaign it was reported that " would rise out of his seat and slap the table. 'I've got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign -- now!'" (Washington Post, 21 September 1999)

[The Magistrate]

26. Wear It In Good Health, Dear

The number of persons actually killed was likely about 20,000, and in large part because the process was halted. Numbers are always exaggerated somewhat; and a great number of persons were lost track of in the chaos of expulsion from their homes by armed killers. It is interesting to note that you do not think even several thousand murders by a state is anything to get much excited about, and you will be reminded of it should you ever complain about state murder in any other context.

NATO is, of course, the determiner of its charter's meaning and intent, and the action enjoyed the unanimous support of all the charter's signatories.

Your concept of "war crimes" is mere ignorance; all the things you view as civilian are dual-use or government facilities, attack on which is explicitly permitted if the direct military utility gained is sufficient, and harm to civilians is not excessive in relation to it. Someday, perhaps, a judge or three will rule on just how that applies to a case in fact, but the attempt to bring charges was rejected summarily by the European and United Nations tribunals where persons attempted to perform the progaganda rituals you are attempting here.

"Let'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[theEmpireNeverEnded]

39. Journalists?

Clark bombed the TV station in Belgrade, killing 16 journalists. Not exactly "dual use". I'm afraid many targets were not military. Sorry.

I am actually greatly disturbed by military forces killing civilians. That's why I initially supported the campaign, thinking we really were attempting to stop genocide. That's why I was even more disturbed to find out no genocide was actually taking place. Fewer than 3,000 bodies from all sides, only some of which were Albanian, and some of which were military fighters. Contrast with the NATO propaganda about mass graves. What was going on in Kosovo at the time was a low intensity conflict, the likes of which are occuring in many places around the world (Columbia, Congo, etc.) with out the US spending two months bombing them. It is a sad fact that the US military does not generally interfere in other countries internal conflicts merely out of humanitarian concern. Typically there is a broader geo-political goal at stake (see Parenti's analysis above, or Chomsky's here: http://www.softmakers.com/fry/docs/chomintyug.htm) which won't sell with the public - so they must whip up a propaganda campaign (witness the inaction in Rwanda and elsewhere).

Can you substantiate your claim of 20,000? And how many Albainian civilians killed before the bombing? Link please? (or sarcasm - your call)

Concerning the NATO charter please refer to Articles I, V and VI.
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm
Yes, they did in fact violated the charter and international law, unanimously to be sure but violated none the less.

[The Magistrate]

41. Propaganda Organs Of The State Are A Legitimate Target

You may go play cut and paste at The Hague, if you are so inclined, or at all interested in the actual course of events. There have been bodies found in the Danube, among other places, trucked in from Kossovo.

Again, no authority but the vote of NATO members enforces its charter; the argument may impress some, but holds no weight whatever.

You will gain no footing with this; the various speculations of dark motives relating to Serb socialism or world conquest a la Risk are good for a laugh, but nothing more. Prof. Chomsky is an extraordinary linguist.

Again, your unconcern with state murder is noted, and will be brought up should you be seen complaining of it in any other context.

[theEmpireNeverEnded]

49. really?

I already expressed my concern for the victims. That also includes the Serb civilians Wesley Clark bombed with depleted uranium, who don't seem to concern you at all.

If the US media was reporting hundreds of thousands had been massacred and this was not even remotely true, then I suppose you could argue Serbia would have been justified blowing up CNN in Atlanta.

Journalists are not a legitimate target. And the man who gave that order does not deserve to be president.

I have determened from my perusal of official sources that the charges of genocide in Kosovo were bogus. You have provided nothing to refute that, save your own assertions. Which is fine, because I'm not really that concerned about Kosovo at this late point in time. What I'm more concerned about now is that Clark seems to be the kind of man who will not have any trouble using gross exagerations to lie us into another war, since he's already done that so sucessfully. Anyone but Clark for the nomination would be better, in my opinion.

and I bid you adieu, your majesty

[The Magistrate]

51. Your Preference For Inaction, Dear

Is the proper measure of your concern. You would evidently have been content to let the murderous campaign of expulsion continue. Apparently, you value Serbs well above Kossovar Albanian Muslims, as you have expressed concern only for the former.

It is foolish to imagine all who disagree with you derive their views from cable news, though it is not an uncommon failing.

The man who gave the order to bomb the propaganda point showed an excellent grasp of the practice of warfare in the modern day, and may well be trusted to show a similar incisiveness in less martial matters, as the grasp of essentials is a habit of mind, transferable, once acquired, to any field.

You have cited a recycled grab-bag of initial reports, that have become staples of both hard left and Serb nationalist propagandizings in the ensuing years. No one else is, or will be, much impressed.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

52. You nailed why Clark is scary to many, among other good reasons.

"The man who gave the order to bomb the propaganda point showed an excellent grasp of the practice of warfare in the modern day, and may well be trusted to show a similar incisiveness in less martial matters, as the grasp of essentials is a habit of mind, transferable, once acquired, to any field."

[The Magistrate]

55. The Ability To See To The Root Of The Matter, Sir

Would seem more a sterling qualification than otherwise.

The means, of course, will vary with the field: where words best serve, words are used; where dollars, dollars.

[dfong63]

34. bingo

They couldn't find the 100,000 bodies - so they must be hidden somewhere. Okay, sure. This is different from Saddam's WMDs in what way?

bingo. the case for the war was built on lies.

[The Magistrate]

37. Your Indifference, Mr. Fong, To State Murder Of Thousands

Will be noted whenever you object to it in other contexts.

[Zhade]

68. You sound EXACTLY like people who supported Bush invading Iraq.

"Saddam killed thousands, and you don't care."

Sorry to say it, but it resonates with me, since I heard that exact statement for opposing Operation Occupation. You are using the same argument while avoiding the other questions.

Do I know the whole truth about Kosovo? No. Neither do you, or most of us, for that matter.

[The Magistrate]

69. And Your Point Is, Sir?

The destruction of Butcher Slobo ended an immediate act of genocide, getting under way as the war against him was begun. It was, indeed, waged for that reason.

The invasion of Iraq was contrived for no other reason than to poison the political process of our country: to distract the people from the economic woes inflicted on them by the criminals of the '00 Coup; to render difficult criticism by mainstream politicians of the criminals of the '00 Coup; to bind more closely to the criminals of the '00 Coup those portions of the people who, through attachment to traditional symbols of patriotism and religiosity, tend to vote for reactonaries though they would better serve themselves by voting for progressives. Fortunately, matters have turned out otherwise than these reptiles intended, and that shield of triumph they had sought to gain turned into a clammy shroud.

Face the world you live in, Sir, and do not imagine there is governance without the shedding of blood.

[Zhade]

72. Please. I definitely don't need a lecture on reality from you.

You still avoid the difficult points others have raised. Ah, well. I'm not surprised. A little saddened, but not surprised.

[The Magistrate]

74. Apparently You Do, Sir

There have been no difficult points raised, only a few staples of hard left and Serb nationalist propagandas that are not worth rising to sort through my library over.

There is no political traction whatever to these, outside a little hot-house clique, a sizeable portion of which will not be voting Democrat in any case.

[Justice]

56. Link Please to WP Article

It was stated on another thread that there was no such quote in the WP. Please link it if you have it - otherwise, don't repeat it please.

[NashVegas]

63. Do You Know What it Means to Instigate?

The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1991, Public Law 101-513, appropriated funds for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1991. Below is the paragraph relating to Yugoslavia:

Sec. 599A. Six months after the date of enactment of this Act, (1) none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended to provide any direct assistance to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and (2) the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director of each international financial institution to use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose any assistance of the respective institutions to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Provided, That this section shall not apply to assistance intended to support democratic parties or movements, emergency or humanitarian assistance, or the furtherance of human rights: Provided further, That this section shall not apply if all six of the individual Republics of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have held free and fair multiparty elections and are not engaged in a pattern of systematic gross violations of human rights: Provided further, That notwithstanding the failure of the individual Republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to have held free and fair multiparty elections within six months of the enactment of this Act, this section shall not apply if the Secretary of State certifies that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is making significant strides toward complying with the obligations of the Helsinki Accords and is encouraging any Republic which has not held free and fair multiparty elections to do so.


That's from November 1990.

That's what I was talking about a few days ago when trying to explain how the US and Germany had a stated policy of breaking up Yugoslavia.

I don't think you'll find anyone calling Milosevich an angel, but the US and Germany were complicit in the events that led to the slaughter, and it was not done for humanitarian reasons but so our industrialists could get a foothold. I'll also note again that Yugoslavia, which had successfully steered a course between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, was the only eastern bloc nation that didn't join the stampede to join NATO.

If you think that's all just a coincidence, I gotta bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[robbedvoter]

13. Geez! I missed the secret handshake when I joined too!

I guess I should stop voting, huh, Governor?
I was just reading in a local paper The Villager an interview with Ed Koch- why he supports bush (when he started the preemption doctrine - he can now attack anyone he wants - Democrats couldn't do that! he kept his word - already attacked 2! Dems are pandering to the liberals...etc"
I am just wondering what Wilsak would think about Koch's credentials.
We are now in a position where W, the uniter cam send a significant portion of his base our way - and Clark is the one they can vote for. Should we close the door and be proud losers or stay the big tent and take the country back from fascists?
People like Wilsak miss the significance of this election. This is no longer politics as usual - it's the last chance for democracy.
Fortunatelly, voters know better.

[Eloriel]

30. Clark is NOT the "only one they (Republicans) can vote for"

Dean has been attracting people from all over the political spectrum, including republicans. There's a Republicans for Dean website, in fact.

Eloriel

[The Magistrate]

33. Gov. Dean, Ma'am

Will not draw many votes from Republicans in a general election.

Gen. Clark may draw more, and more imporant, he will prove difficult for the normal lines of Republican attack where national security issues are involved: he cannot be called naive on military matters, or anti-military, or the usual sort of garbage, to which Gov. Dean will be vulnerable. It is always a good idea to deprive your enemy of a familar weapon; often he will be at a loss without it.

[dfong63]

35. if the repubs could paint cleland as unpatriotic, they can do it to clark

he cannot be called naive on military matters, or anti-military, or the usual sort of garbage,

you're wrong. if the repubs can paint Max Cleland as unpatriotic, they can do it just as well to Clark. look at how they painted George McGovern as "soft on defense", despite his war hero status. or have you forgotten about that?

Clark supporters are ignoring history here. the supposed huge advantage of running a "war hero" is illusory. and Clark has little else to recommend him.

[The Magistrate]

38. Not On A National Scale, Sir

There are some damned odd things done in the Dixie, but even that was a mere excuse. It would have little effect on the country at large; indeed, the attempt would discredit those who uttered it.

[ozone_man]

59. Are you kidding, Dean will get lots of Republican votes.

I don't know if you know much about Vermont, but Dean consistently got over 60% of the vote, this being an historically Republican state. He entered after a Republican governor and left (10 years later) before a Republican governor. He passed a civil unions law, sticking his neck out, defending it against a conservative "take back VT" movement.

Sure there will be 30% Republican vote that will vote Republican no matter who is running. Dean also has a decent relationship with the NRA, which is significant in Vermont, being a hunting state. The relationship ends with semi-automatic assault weapons IIRC.

Anyway, the point is he will get a significant liberal Republican vote, not to mention the Left and Green vote, which category I might fall into.

Your argument is virtually the same as that of the DLC, who I think is responsible for entering Clark in the race.

Another point that I should make is that I believe that any of the credible Democrats will beat Bush and that he will lose by a landslide. I think the economy will not recover in the second half of 2003 as forecasted, as it did not recover in the second half of 2002 as forecasted. We are probably entering a soft, deflationary depression, maybe lasting 5 years or so. The bear market will resume with a vengeance soon and sink Bush junior even more than Bush senior. We're probably going to need another FDR, if you know what I mean.

So, in summary, this is the golden opportunity to get a Democrat elected that will restore the Democracy, not a DLC candidate that will continue the corrupt world policies of TPTP.

[The Magistrate]

60. Not Beyond New England, Sir

His good standing with the National Rifle Association will not be sufficient to sway the south and west.

[ozone_man]

62. Just noticed another thread "Noted N.H. Republican endorses Democrat Dean"

You mean like southern California? My Republican sister came up from San Diego last month, and boy was she curious about Dean. I didn't have the courage to kid her about Schwarzenegger. He will take California. Texas, well, ..., forget Texas, that's Bush land.

Really, the economy will sink Bush. Déjà vu 1992?

http://www4.fosters.com/News2003/September2003/September_26/News/reg_pol_0926b.asp

[demdave]

14. How did Clark become the front runner so fast??

I have not made up my mind yet on a candidate, I have eliminated a few. My question is, how did Clark merely step on the stage and take the lead? Who changed support? Who lost support? Is the rest of the field that weak? I thought Dean was looking strong. Has his support been splintered? It is as if I missed one debate and suddenly Clark is the man to watch. Did he outperform the rest of them at the debate?


I currently have no hard held position on one candidate, I just am wondering what I missed. Clark said he was drafted by tens of thousands of supporters. That shouldn't make him a front runner by itself, does it? Minor league baseball games pull more support than that.


P.S. (putting on tinfoil hat)....I still say Hillary will run. :)

[ResistTheCoup]

19. I'll tell you how he took the lead...

he officially entered the race.

I believe a lot of Dems were really not that thrilled with the Democratic candidates so far at that point. While you may have had a candidate that agreed with all of your positions - he/she might not be actually "electable". If I were to support a candidate that represented my views it would have been Kucinich or Sharpton but, unfortunately, I don't believe that either are electable.

At our house we liked Dean the best from what we'd heard. We even went to an early Dean Meet-up because we thought he spoke out the loudest against Bush and seemed to have a grassroots movement started.

What we found there were a lot of people there exactly like us. Their number one priority was getting that squatter out of the White House! We tried attending a couple of more local meetups but our local group (having no reflection on Dean himself) didn't seem to give a damn about recruiting new people but more intent on keeping their tight little clique.

We'd both been interested in the Draft Clark movement and had seen Clark interviewed a few times on television and liked what we saw. When my husband saw him on Bill Maher's Real Time we both turned to each other and said, "This guy's got it". He's got it all. The resume, the spark, the passion, the charisma, the ability to speak warmly and off the cuff. He had charm and good looks to boot. The more we've seen of Clark the more we like. Plus we've been keeping up with his ideas and plans on his website and we like them, too.

While I like Dean, I've only seen him interviewed a couple of times. Once on the Today show and he looked very uncomfortable and stiff. Then during the debates, granted he was under attack, but again he seemed stiff and uncomfortable and hot-tempered.

Dean's got a temper and he seems to have a hard time controlling it. That works great when you're working up a friendly crowd but could be a disaster against Bush. Bush could give him that stupid smirk and I believe Dean would come across the podium to tear his throat out. (Hell, that's what I'd do!)

So, after a long answer to your question, we believe that there are a lot of people like us who originally had lukewarm support for Dean but are actually very excited about supporting a candidate that we not only like, but think has the best chance to beat Bush.

That being said, WHOEVER the Democratic candidate is, will receive 100% +++ support from us in their campaign to take back America!

[The Magistrate]

24. Well Said, Sir

A large number of people were indeed awaiting this action by Gen. Clark.

[RaRa]

32. Ditto

My absolute priority is to get this regime out of the WH. If I had to vote for Newt Gingrich, I would if that's what it would take. Thankfully, we have better alternatives.

[dfong63]

36. Clark does not have it all

we both turned to each other and said, "This guy's got it". He's got it all. The resume, the spark, the passion, the charisma, the ability to speak warmly and off the cuff. He had charm and good looks to boot.

Clark does not have it all. Clark doesn't have a track record in electoral politics. he doesn't have a track record of consistent support of dem principles. he doesn't have a track record of working with the grassroots. he doesn't have a detailed domestic agenda. and his supposed good looks don't make up for these deficiencies.

[Tinoire]

42. Yes honestly

The media, the former Lieberman supporters and all the pro-war conservatives like him. What is wrong with you? Are you or have you ever been a Leftist Retard?

[Dover]

40. The media likes him. Isn't that enough for you?

The media has told us who is "electable" and who is not. They are the final authority. Their track record is impeccable. I mean, they supported Bush didn't they?....

[nolabels]

50. Just like they support Arnie

http://stoptherecall.com/


The New World Order elite has big plans for Arnold



Alex Jones
Infowars.com
September 03, 2003


Extremely High Level of Illuminati Activity in California Recall-- Schwarzenegger's Nazi and New World Order Links Revealed

Most Americans think of Arnold Schwarzenegger as a charismatic bodybuilder who became a famous Hollywood actor and then married into the Kennedy clan. Just beneath the surface of Arnold's façade lies an intricate web of evil including Nazi war criminals, occult rituals, a Rothschild rendezvous, a friendship with once head of the UN and known Nazi, Kurt Waldheim, Warren Buffett (the oracle of Omaha) and many others.

Before we cover the details of Arnold and his sordid backers it is important to understand that on one level the California recall election is a giant diversion, providing a smoke screen that obscures hundreds of pertinent developments in our world every day. The media circus feeding frenzy that has ensued is similar in scope to the O.J. Simpson and Monica Lewinsky red herrings of the past.

At the same time, the California recall of 2003, when examined from a larger perspective, reveals many of the dark workings inside the New World Order. It is important to note that even if Gray Davis stays in office or if Cruz Bustamante is elected the end result will remain the same. Whether they are Republican or Democrat, all of the candidates being given serious media attention, are anti gun, pro abortion, and promoters of big centralized government.
The giant Recall sideshow serves the elite by creating the illusion that California's problems have been caused by bad fiscal policy alone. In reality, California is an admitted beta testing model for elite social engineers.

California's border with Mexico is being dissolved. The Ford Foundation and Federal agencies have been pumping billions of dollars into California and Mexico for decades promoting racist liberation theology through groups like Mecha and La Raza. These groups claim that the entire southwest belongs to Mexico and that third world populations are simply retaking what was usurped from their ancestors.
(snip)
http://www.infowars.com/print/nwo/exclusive_arnold.htm

on edit: I don't think I share all the views from people of this site, but there really is some information here, or least maybe something to check out considering KKKarl has something to do with Arnie in it.

[leetrisck]

46. He became a frontrunner in National polls

not in the individual primary polls - that's how. Okay?

[enki23]

21. you know, i could give a fuck less about his party loyalty

i'm FAR more interested in his sincerity than i am in his loyalty.

[DeathvadeR]

31. so as long as he fools you with his acting your good to go? n/t

Everyone keeps sayin o now he's a good guy, now he's one of us???? That was so long ago (2 years) when he played the repukes bitch... Fuq that I want loyalty and I want long term loyalty.

[LoneStarLiberal]

43. Arguing over "Democraticness" and "Democratic Principles?"

While we're at it, let's argue over whether Howard Dean or Wes Clark are more American/more charismatic/more Anglo. Give the generalizable, sound-biteable but meaningless abstractions a rest already!

"Democraticness" nor "Democratic principles" really qualify as concrete concepts that are agreed-upon across the diverse landscape of the Democratic Party.

My ideas of "Democratic principles" are going to be fairly different from those further to my left and further to my right who are also Democratic voters.

Different principles for different folks. We're supposed to embrace diversity in this party and leave the unblinking dogmatism to our opponents.

[Tinoire]

44. Embrace diversity by ALL means

but let's not call a mule in a horse's harness a thoroughbreed race-horse!

[leetrisck]

45. He voted for Gore dammit and if they didn't

know that, they didn't want to know that.

[The Magistrate]

48. It Would Be Interesting To Know, Sir

How many of Gen. Clark's critics here could make the same claim.

[ozone_man]

58. I wonder if he voted for Bush senior?

His voting for Reagan automatically eliminates him as a Democrat, for me at least. I think voting for Nixon we can sort of forgive. Even I would have voted for him, but I was only 9 and coming from a liberal Republican family.

But Reagan was (as was Nixon) a war criminal, responsible for 100's of thousands of deaths of Nicaraguan and Salvadoran people. Iran/Contra, ... Just out of curiosity, it would be interesting to know whether he voted for Bush or Dukakis.

I guess TPTB don't really care whether we have a Republican war criminal or a DLC appointed "Democrat" war criminal.

[Dr Fate]

61. No redemption for former Republicans?

I for one want as many Regan voters as possible to vote DEM, or to even convert and espouse DEM issues like Clark.

You want to blame Dems who voted Reagan to to be "responsible for 100's of deaths"

I dont know- it seems like you are stretching it and trying to associate Clark with the crimes of Reagan...get it straight- Clark worked for Clinton- okay?

Am I missing somthing in your strategy? YOu would rather stroll down memory lane and talk about Reagan, or current issues?

[ozone_man]

64. I certainly welcome all Republicans to the party.

I'm just saying that there should be a stricter measure for what constitutes a Democrat that is running for president. Sort of a higher moral and ethical standard. I had to suffer through 8 years of Reagan, which was nothing compared to the Nicaraguans or El Salavadorans. A vote for Reagan by someone running for the highest office needs to be scrutinized.

The DLC will argue that only a conservative Democrat will be able to beat Bush, but this is not the case. Really, Bush will be beaten by the failing economy alone, not to mention the Iraq quagmire. So, rather than settle for a Bush lite (like Lieberman, Kerry, or Clark), lets get someone in that will make a difference and who is not beholden to special interests like the DLC. Maybe Dean/Edwards would work?

[Dr Fate]

70. I like Edwards- but I wont buy your "Bush-lite" line...

I saw the debates, and I saw Kerry in person- I've seen nothing in any of the candidates that reminds me of Bush- not attitiudes or issues...

I've heard Edwards and Gephart called "Bush-lite" too...

I'm not buying it- all of these candidates are far beyond Bush in ability and command of the issues..

[ozone_man]

77. Well, maybe Bush lite is not fair for Kerry,

but he did vote for the Iraq war, falling in line with the many other spineless Democratic senators. Nothing is black and white, but there are certain polarizing issues. I sort of liked Kerry, until he made this vote. Now he claims that it was Bush's fault for not giving accurate intelligence. Come on, how naive could you be. I don't buy that argument from him or Hillary Clinton or any of the others using it.

Gephardt's strength is labor. I don't know much about Edwards, but I don't think he's tied in with the insider crowd. Didn't he vote against the Iraq war? Also, being from the south might make a good match up for Dean. I guess it's time to find out more about him. I would vote for Kucinich, if he could make it out of the single numbers.

I agree, they're all better than Bush, just looking for the best ones to steer the country in the right directions. I don't want a Democrat that is just lighter shades of Bush, better only by degrees, but someone that is really different and not beholden to the special interest groups, not a DLC candidate, not a Washington insider.

[coralrf]

65. He voted for Gore..he said so...

I am sure Hardball is on in Iowa. I am also sure that no such curiosity exists in the peoples mind there. Vilsack is just trying to dictate opinion.

[goforit]

71. Vilsack and Iowans.........WAY to Tell it like it is!!!!

I thought for sure Clark would have taken the Independent side.

But now he has to face the skeletons in the closet.

[Dr Fate]

73. Ohh-spooky- "skeletons"...

..evil, grinning skeletons- right?

Independent side? No, I would rather people be Democrat rather than independnet- "Independents" cannot defeat Republicans at this point...

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

75. Clark Never Registered As A Democrat

But then he never registered as a Republican, either, did he. Why can't we study the man's positions as he states them, instead of trying to put labels on him just because we happen to have fallen in love with another Democratic candidate? If we had to question the Democraticness of every Democrat in the Congress who ever said something highly complimentary to a Republican, there would be no one left. In praising Republicans at an invited talk where he received an award, Clark put one of his many outstanding skills on display. He's a diplomat and an extremely effective one.

[The Magistrate]

76. Well Said, Sir

[DeathvadeR]

78. So then he never voted? How does one not register and take part

in this wonderful democracy of ours?

[The Magistrate]

79. Regulations Vary State To State, Sir

In mine, one may indicate party at registration to vote, and mine is of course Democrat.

It is my understanding that in Arkansas, there is no such provision to indicate party at registration. A person voting in a primary may request any party ballot, and the total of same is then considered the "registered" strength of a party there. A person, of course, does not have to participate in a primary, or even formally join the party apparatus, to vote for a candidate in the general election.