I finally figured out the Clark allure

[Eloriel]

And I'm both relieved to understand it and terribly, terribly saddenecd.

This isn't a Clark-bashing thread, tho I'm sure the super-thin-skinned Clark supporters will see it as such. No matter, I'm going to say it anyway.

It was Charlie Rangel who confirmed for me what I'd been sensing about Clark and his "popularity." After all, here is a candidate people know almost nothing about, other than his resume, and what we know isn't particularly good but supporters here twist themselves into knots trying to defend and spin anyway.

I saw Rangel tonight on Hardball, and while I didn't listen to that whole segment, I heard Rangel go on at some length about how a Clark candidacy "levels the field" (with Bush) because of his military experience and credentials -- IOW, his resume.

Resumes are important, but resume + policies are more important. Clark hasn't developed many yet, which means that what supporters know about him isn't much. That alone is disturbing to me.

Rangel also talked abouot the fact that we NEED a way to get out of this war, it's costing us a billion dollars a week, and he's "scared to death" to let Bush have another 4 years.

Scared to death. It didn't sound all that hyperbolic when he said it.

That's what I think Clark's appeal is -- because he is (incorrectly, IMO) seen as the ONLY one who can beat Bush becasue of that resume, and because people's fear of Bush is so great, it doesn't matter what pr who the hell he is.

Now THAT's scarey.

That level of fear scares me. That level of fear corrodes reason and good sense. It's desperation, pure and simple, and those who are despearate not only don't have good judgment, they're easily led -- and even more easily fooled.

That desperation accounts for what some of us see as the extraordinary thin skin some Clark supporters here have.

That level of fear has convinced some people (again, wrongly) that Bush is somehow unbeatable, that his Commander In Chief role is unbeatable, that Dems really are weak on defense, etc., etc., etc. Yuck. What lies they tell themselves. But that's fear -- and desperation -- for you.

Almost most discouraging of all, they don't seem to get it that if the voting machines don't get fixed, it doesn't matter WHO we run, including Clark. Oh well. Maybe they will figure that out sooner or later.

Eloriel

[jumptheshadow]

1. Weak on defense

Democrats *are* perceived as being weak on defense. The polls have shown this repeatedly for years. Even if Clark doesn't win the nomination, his very presence in the race helps to erase that negative perception of the Democratic party. That helps *all* the leading candidates for the nomination.

[Julien Sorel]

2. Bravo.

First, for you to be talking about the thin skin of any other candidate's supporters is richer than Howard Dean's bloodline. Second, the 'Clark out of fear' nonsense has been around for months now. But you just 'figured it out' now?

Third, this is hilarious:

Resumes are important, but resume + policies are more important. Clark hasn't developed many yet, which means that what supporters know about him isn't much. That alone is disturbing to me.

What happened to 'It's not about policies any more'? Oh wait -- that was about Dean. The rules don't apply to Dean. The rest of the poor slug candidates are still bound to earth, though.

This post is likely to get a hundred replies and turn into a flame fest, and you knew it when you made it. Not a thing in it is new; it didn't need to be made. Again -- bravo. You've demonstrated that you know how to lay out the flame bait with the best of them.

[sfecap]

3. Does Clark have any policy statements?

I've been to his website and I can't find any.

[Julien Sorel]

12. Are websites the only places policies exist?

[sfecap]

20. Gee...I would think his website would be a good place

to start. Stupid me.

Is there another place that is the repository for any Clark policy statements that I could go to?

[Julien Sorel]

36. The old draftclark websites?

digitalclark.com? I imagine he has quite a few in his head.

Whatever did politicians do before the web came along, I wonder. They must have simply had no policies at all -- they made stuff up as they went along.

[sfecap]

38. In his head?

The DraftClark site has nothing, and it's not his "official" site is it?

I would think that a man who has been contemplating a Presidential run for nearly a year would at the very least have a few policy papers ready for the public. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Perhaps Wes just assumes that his uniform and the DLC will carry him to the nomination.

I hope he isn't counting on that...

[Julien Sorel]

46. It's your expectation.

I'm not going to pass judgment on it. I have mine, which are different.

[sfecap]

56. OK...I guess I shouldn't have such unrealistic expectations.

I mean, after all, I'm just a voter.

I should drink the kool aide and do what I'm told.

[knight_of_the_star]

102. Turn on CNN the next time he's on

Everytime he's on the tube he articulates what his platform stances are. Last count was that he is:

Pro-guns
Pro-Choice
Pro-Affirmative Action
Pro-Internationalism
Against the Iraq War as we fought it
Anti-PATRIOT Act
Wants to investigate Bush involving 9/11
Pro-Universal Health Care

Among other things. Aside from him having gobs of foreign policy experience from being SACEUR and US CinC Carribbean/Central America.

[Zhade]

106. Er - come again?

"Against the Iraq War as we fought it"

You mean, he'd have been for it if we'd illegally invaded some other way?

Can you shed some more light on this?

[Robb]

146. Pro-gun? Not what I heard him say, exactly

He said he owned something like 20 guns.

Then he said if you thought you needed an automatic assault weapon, you should "come on down to the U.S. Army. We've got lots of them, and we'll even show you how to use them."

:)

[BelgianMadCow]

42. digitalclark.com is offline and redirects

to clark04.com

which doesn't have what digitalclark had. A pity imho.

[Julien Sorel]

Are you actually from Belgium, or is the name a joke?

[BelgianMadCow]

58. near Bruges, Belgium, yes

it's also a joke because :
a) I live in the fields, in a town with more cows than people
b) The Mad Cow disease (BSE) struck some time ago

Why ?

[Julien Sorel]

65. One of my direct reports is from Belgium.

I'll try to find out which town -- I can't remember off the top of my head. But it's French Belgium. Just not too many Belgians in the world -- you guys are like the Rhode Island of Europe :7

[BelgianMadCow]

68. Let me know the town, it can't be far

hey hey we are with 10 million :-)
and we have :
- some awesome behind the scenes diplomacy (we started the move to block NATO involvement in Iraq)
- held a mini-summit about a European Defense Force together with France and Germany
- co-authored the draft for a European Constitution
- beer and chocolate

Before you think I'm overly patriottic, we have a long list of shortcomings as well. i'll PM them on request :-) (Kongo comes to mind)

[Julien Sorel]

71. LOL

I like Belgians. I know you guys have screwed up in the past, but so did all Euro countries. Look at what my country is doing now.

At any rate, PM me so I'll remember, and I'll ask him on Wednesday when I see him.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

120. Bruges is a wonderful little town.

I spent a bit of time there in '98.
Really enjoyed the town and it's people.
Walking about there was so pleasant!

[einsteins stein]

83. You Imagine?

Well, I imagine that Wes Clark hasn't developed any policies, because the Draft Clark site has none, the Digital Clark site is closed down only functions as a link to the official Clark site, and the only policy that is currently on the official Clark site is the Privacy Policy ( http://www.clark04.com/privacy.php )

It doesn't matter what politicians did before the web, 'cause the web is here, and Clark has a web site.

Why don't you just elaborate a few of Clark's policies for us?

[Julien Sorel]

93. I'll be delighted to.

The information is in my cache files from the old Draft Clark sites, so it will take me some time. My time isn't cheap, and since I have absolutely 0 motivation to do this, it's going to take some money. So what's in it for me?

[Bandit]

147. Now that is typical DLC action "Show Me The Money"

You have just shown the number one reason not to be for Clark.

[Julien Sorel]

152. And a fine reason it is, too.

[JVS]

21. Websites are a good place to put them so that people can read and know

Experienced politicians know this.

[Mairead]

113. By convention, yes. If it ain't on the campaign website, it's deniable

[Pastiche423]

22. Not YET

Yet seems to be the word that keeps following clark around.

No, he hasn't said he was a Democrat - YET
No, he hasn't said he was going to run - YET
No, he doesn't have any policy statements - YET

O-kay, for months clark has been "coy" about whether he was going to run or not. What the hell was he doing during that time? Why wasn't he prepared to hit the ground running?

If you had an interview for your life's dream of a job, wouldn't you prepare for that interview? Wouldn't you have the answers to the questions you knew would be asked?

I have a fear of clark. That fear is that he is running on a fear platform. Well, not YET, but when (if?) he prepares a platform.

Who else has a fear platform?

[jumptheshadow]

33. "The fear platform"

Clark has vigorously defended freedom of speech and the right to dissent.

He has said that force should be the last resort and that we can't change the minds of people when we are bombing them.

He is an internationalist, not an isolationist, who would reach out to the world through diplomacy.

He supports immigration, unlike so many of the "Know Nothing" Repubs.

It doesn't sound like a "platform of fear" to me.

[Pastiche423]

44. "...we can't change the minds of people when we are bombing them."

Do you think he had those thoughts, when he was bombing the fuck out of innocent men, women and children during the Kosovo war? Or when he was dropping cluster bombs and DU on hospitals and schools?

He bombed those human beings so that he could change their minds and save them from genocide?

:crazy:

[jumptheshadow]

52. Yes, the war was fought...

to oust a leader who was perpetrating mass genocide and mass rape.

By the way, Clinton went to Kosovo this past week. I didn't get the news. Did the residents stone him for his role in the war?

[Pastiche423]

57. Yes, he killed

thousands of innocent men, women and children on propaganda. What a man of peace! :eyes:

The topic is clark. Did clark go to Kosovo?

[jumptheshadow]

114. I remember the mass rapes

Do you?

Clinton went to Kosovo and was cheered. Yes, and the topic is Clark, who was Clinton's military leader in Kosovo.

[Pastiche423]

159. OMG! You were there?

How many rapes did you eye witness?

[Eloriel]

81. Just as a bit of a reality check

Bush said repeatedly war was a last resort.

Didn't stop him from using it as a first and only resort, did it?

Forgive me if I'm not persuaded by that bit of rhetoric. Fool me once, can't get fooled again.

Eloriel

[RummyTheDummy]

88. I have a feeling you've been fooled a lot in life...

NT

[jumptheshadow]

116. Unlike Bush

Clark studied the causes of a just war with the Jesuits.

Unlike Bush, he supports the International Criminal Court.

Unlike Bush, he supports diplomacy through international organizations.

[rotanilloc]

154. Being an internationalist might not be a good thing

Being an internationalist might not be a good thing. Sometimes you have to do what is best for your country, not the "international community". I'm a bit concerned with somebody who won't put the United States first. Listening to other nations is excellent and something that should definitely be done, but if Wesley Clark is going to be President (or whoever is going to be President), he needs to ask himself "What is in the best interests of the United States." That is not being "nationalistic" or "jingoistic", that is being pragmatic.

[LalahLand]

5. It would be a shame if this turned into a flame fest...

since everything she said is true. Clark comes across as a really nice guy but honestly, we don't know enough to be giving him the strong support we're giving him now.

[Julien Sorel]

11. Everything she said was true?

Let's see...

That desperation accounts for what some of us see as the extraordinary thin skin some Clark supporters here have.

Almost most discouraging of all, they don't seem to get it that if the voting machines don't get fixed, it doesn't matter WHO we run, including Clark. Oh well. Maybe they will figure that out sooner or later

That's what I think Clark's appeal is -- because he is (incorrectly, IMO) seen as the ONLY one who can beat Bush becasue of that resume, and because people's fear of Bush is so great, it doesn't matter what pr who the hell he is.

It was Charlie Rangel who confirmed for me what I'd been sensing about Clark and his "popularity." After all, here is a candidate people know almost nothing about, other than his resume, and what we know isn't particularly good but supporters here twist themselves into knots trying to defend and spin anyway.

God's own truth -- every word.

[SweetZombieJesus]

18. You know, this post would hit a lot harder if you actually REFUTED any of

her points.

Not that I agree with her completely, but you could at least try to refute some of that if you don't believe it.

[Julien Sorel]

31. Why? It just adds fuel.

I've gotten into this before with some else on this board: you can't 'refute' an opinion. All you can do is make an argument against it. Even when your argument is better than the other guy's they can still hide in their turtle shell and refuse to accept reality. Arguing against her opinion would just make this abortion of a thread longer, add fuel to the fire, and it would be a waste of my time. The arguments have all been made, anyway.

Just to give you an example of what I mean, the person whose post I responded to made a statement which I refuted. She said 'everything she said was true,' which I have demonstrated is not correct: the statements are, at best, arguable. That's a refutation. I can't 'refute' someone's opinion that 'Clark supporters are scared,' because there's no way to establish, definitively, that it is false. All I can do is argue. I can make a pretty good argument, but in the end, it's just an argument -- not a refutation. Such an argument would almost certainly please the original poster, and while I'll point out what I believe is the real purpose of this thread, I'm not going to waste time arguing against a premise I consider foolish and the product of frustration, bitterness, and wishful thinking.

[einsteins stein]

86. Thats very noble of you

you really are above all that, eh?

Unless of course, you decide to hijack a pro Dean thread, then it's all good, right? Then you have nothing but endless time to waste.

Sorry, I was wrong. That's not nobility, thats hipocracy.

[Julien Sorel]

95. Show me the pro-Dean thread I've hijacked.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. yes, what did happen to "it's not about policy anymore"?

The politics of convience. Dean people compromised way too early.

[Eloriel]

19. Doesn't change a THING about what I said earlier

in my thread "It's not about policies any more." Of course, that was when we had a field of NINE candidates who actually had some. '

If the "Clark out of fear" idea has been around for months, yes, I missed it. Strange that you don't try to argue against it. Ovviously you agree.

You can call it flame bait if you want. In fact, you can do your best to make it INTO flamebait, as you have in this post. However, let's see if everyone has the same thing to say: Oh, this is old news, we knew that already (and we agree, and it's true and it's okay to be so terrified of the fascists that your candidate doesn't even have to HAVE any policies for you to rabidly support him).

Eloriel

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. I Think A Bush Reelection

would be devestating to the country I love and therefore I feel it is incumbent upon me to choose a candidate who has the best chance of beating him....

My vote is like a surgeon's knife... I have no margin for error.....

Am I scared of four more years of Bush....

You can't even begin to imagine....

[Julien Sorel]

48. Yep

Of course, that was when we had a field of NINE candidates who actually had some.

Ah. But one more candidate enters the field, and suddenly it isabout policies. Clark screwed it up -- Dean had the mystical power of the number 9 at work for him, making policies irrelevant, but CLark had to go and make it 10. What a killjoy.


I didn't argue against your assertion -- therefore it's true. Nice logic. I explained why I didn't above. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go hide under my bed. It's dark out, and I'm scared.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

103. Deleted by Author (eom)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

104. Sure It Doesn't

Doesn't change a THING about what I said earlier in my thread "It's not about policies any more."

Of course not. I mean, a week ago, it wasn't about policies because it was about Dean. Now, it is about policies because it's about Clark.

Clear as mud.

And you have the audacity to accuse CLARK of flip-flops?

:crazy:

DTH

[bearfartinthewoods]

124. the Clark out of fear idea....

the idea that we, as a party have been weak on defense has been around a while but this immediate attachment to Clark hints at something deeper, something i just figured out as well.

some of us seem to be looking for "Daddy" to make the boogie man go away. it doesn't seem to matter that we just met 'daddy', that we don't know what daddy is all about. just the fact that daddy wears a uniform seems to be enough for some.

it also doesn't seem to matter that the same poll that showed that daddy Clark could beat bush also showed that Kerry, a lifelong liberal dem with a record to prove it could also beat bush or that our other candidates were within striking distance, even a year out from the elections and bush sliding into defeat on his own.

El's right. fear factor has hit the democratic party.

[Skwmom]

32. Billy you've written some great posts but

I think this one's my favorite.

[RetroLounge]

74. If you like logic which refutes nothing...

Yawn...

[stickdog]

108. And you've written a lot of posts

just as inspiring as this one. ;-)

[LeahMira]

161. I think you're being unfair, Billy!

It is about policies, at least as far as I am concerned, and I do see Clark's candidacy as "sticking it to Bush" in reference to dealing with terrorists and the fear that's been generated over the past two years in this country. That seems to be his strong point, anyhow.

Clark is the new man on the block, at least officially, so his policies aren't as well published as the policies of the other candidates who have been out there campaigning all summer long. That would include Dean, Kerry, Sharpton, and the whole crew. Since you've apparently been watching him pre- his formal declaration, you would be more familiar with his ideas. Some of the rest of us are not.

Wait a while until we all get a chance to know Clark a little better, OK? We may still prefer another candidate, or we may "convert." But let's not get into a snit just yet. I like Dean, Kucinich, and Kerry, so my mind's still open and I'm waiting to hear more about Clark.

I think that if he does eventually get the Democratic nomination, we will all support his candidacy. Meanwhile, let's hear what the man has to say for himself... and what the responses to him will be.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

162. Just FYI

BB's comment about it not being about policies any more is a direct quote from the poster who started this thread. The posts, taken together, are a glorious example of hypocrisy and bizarre contradiction.

DTH

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. This Board Is Becoming One Big Joke........

NT.......

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[goobergunch]

63. You might want to edit that

I don't want that post being deleted just because you mentioned <censored by me>'s name.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. Dean supporters convinced me to vote for Clark

if Kucinich drops out. I heard from the Dean team for a year now - Kucinich is too far left, he's too strident, he's not mainstream enough, he's unelectable.

Frankly, I think the Dean team is right. And all of those complaints go for Dean as well - he's painted as too far left, he's too strident against the war, he's not mainstream enough. And he can't beat Bush.

Clark and Dean are both the same when it comes to policy - socially liberal, fiscally conservative. They are both vague as hell about "free trade" and corporate power.

So why not just go with the one that's the most electable? Clark.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. You And Me Both

All the successful politicians are trimmers.....

[bitchkitty]

70. Oh, come on.

You'd dismiss a candidate because his supporters hurt your feelings or pissed you off in some way? If that's the kind of support you were giving Dean, it was never strong in the first place.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

144. try reading the post again

I said the Dean supporters have convinced me that we need a candidates who won't be seen as a far-left liberal, no matter what their actual history and policies are. Dean supporters have made electability a number one priority. Using that logic, it's Clark.

[JVS]

80. Gephardt would be better

[stickdog]

109. Your only purpose here has been to be as anti-Dean as possible.

Man, the establishment sure hates anything it can't control completely, doesn't it?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

145. Dean is the establishment, you're not fooling anyone

A centrist governor, one of the origial NAFTA promoters, a long time DLC-er, aristocratic Wall Street family. You are really trying to pretend that Dean isn't "establishment" - give me a break!

The big boys decided Dean wasn't good enough for the top spot, and he seems pretty ticked off about it, but let's not pretend Dean is something that he isn't.

[bitchkitty]

153. A long-time DLC-er?

Do you have a link?

[Egnever]

137. Works for me

Like Dean or not his campaign is revolutionary. If dean doesnt get the nod all the enjoyment i have goten working for him with like minded individuals in what has proven to be an amazingly exciting campaign so far will have been well worth the effort.

Sing your sour grapes song all you want it wont bother me even a little bit. We are having a grand old time organizing parties and PARTICIPATING in the real world.

[sendero]

142. there's just that *little* problem...

... of the polls.

[StephNW4Clark]

8. Clark's Allure? Besides war time experience?

Last time I checked, we were in the middle of not one - but 2 wars. And out of the current crop of candidates, I chose the one with the background of not only WINNING a war but one who firmly believes in international cooperation and support and the strength of the United Nations.

And as for his resume? What does it signify? It is all about succeeding at any task that has been thrown at him or that he has chosen to undertake. Why is that in some way even more important than policies? Because rarely are election agendas carried over into the first year of the White House. Unless we win back Congress in a big way, no election agenda will survive in its original form. So while policies are important, I am far more interested and convinced by the beliefs and principles held by the candidates. I am more inclined to support someone with a solid decision-making process. General Clark has learned how to deal with unexpected attacks, and highly intense situations. His entire career at NATO dealt with bringing reluctant allies together and coordinating the first major post-Cold War success for Europe and America.
General Clark combines military success and international diplomatic skill, girded with liberal beliefs.

So fine - call me thin-skinned because I clearly laid out what I feel to most important to me. I am not voting for General Clark because I am afraid of Bush, or because I belittle any of the other candidates - I support him because of the character of his leadership.

[Enraged American]

9. I'm not supporting Strangelove either n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Could You Please Elaborate?

[Enraged American]

25. I'm not going to let the right wing...

dictate who is "electable" thereby forcing a military man into the White House. It would be a dangerous precedent in our precarious times to elect a general with no clear political agenda.

I VOTE ISSUES NOT PERSONALITIES!

[fleetus]

89. Do you think the right wing is behind Clark?

I'm not so sure, although I wouldn't put it past the media mogels.

If he won the primary would you vote for a third party to avoid electing Clark? I wonder if there is a point where it is better to choose the "less bad" option instead of voting for who you really think is best.

[seventhson]

164. I believe the right wing is behind Clark. Google MPRI and "Wesley Clark"

You might be frightened by what you find.

This MPRI connection is the scariest thing I've seen and Clark is in the thick of it.

I think his route to the whiter house through cnn was set up by his MPRI friends. That is my fear. Now talk me out of it.

[seventhson]

165. Eloriel: Please Read. The MPRI issue is THE scary connection

I just googled Wesley Clark and MPRI and you need to do that and read some of the links.

My whole thinking on Clark has changed.

a few weereks ago I thought he was a cool antiwar general who stood up to Bush's idiocy. Then I discovered he just thought Bush was dumb and he supported the Iraq war with some modifications.

NOW I see that he has been a primetime player with MPRI for almost a decade in the private wars for contract business of Dyncopr et al. I fiugured this out by tracing back his term in the Southern Command post and his ties to Holbrooke who negotiated these deals for Clinton.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, folks:

For starters start here but if you love your country and democracy PLEASE google Clark and MPRI to find out just who this guy Clark REALLY is. I think many of you Clark supporters have had the wool pulled over your eyes:

http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/00/112900-9.html

[MoonRiver]

16. Eloriel, I have great respect for you, and I'm not thinned skinned

about Clark. I just don't appreciate deliberate smears based on Repuke planted spins. And I would be angry were it aimed at any Dem candidate.

However, I do not feel that Clark's military credentials are the only thing that's attractive about him. He has great positions on national issues, he's incredibly charismatic, and, because he is an "outsider" he can draw from many different constituencies. American is a big tent, and to win (unless you cheat) one must attract a variety of voters.

You're correct about the electronic voting machines. I just hope to God that somehow that problem gets dealt with. I've written everybody I can think of who has some influence. Many don't get what I'm talking about, but others are listening.

[sfecap]

30. Where are his positions?

I'd like to read them.

What are his positions on:

Labor/unions?

Enviornment?

Fiscal policy?

Health care?

The economy?

Domestic infrastructure?

Affirmative action?

etc.

IOW...does he have any written policy papers that one can read?

[MoonRiver]

45. I don't know of any "policy papers". I've heard his positions in

interviews. He's pro-environment; pro-choice; pro gays coming out in the military; pro getting rid of *'s tax cut except for the middle class. He's got a lot going for him, plus, he's totally electable.

[goobergunch]

62. The problem is that this is vague

* says he's pro-environment, but look at his policies. I don't think Clark is like that. However, I really don't have a position on Clark until he comes out with specific policies.

[sfecap]

64. Totally electable? At this point that's a stretch.

How do you know?

He hasn't even campaigned yet. There is a very long time before an election.

Frankly, I haven't seen anything that would make me vote for him. See, I don't buy the military saviour crap. I want definitive ideas.

BTW...he is definately NOT for gays "coming out in the military". In fact I has looked at many of his comments on that particular issue, and I find that he is fairly vague...he says that they should "behave", but I haven't seen anything in which he says anything about gay personnel "coming out". Maybe I missed it?

[bearfartinthewoods]

127. pro gays coming out in the military???

that's a change in his position from six weeks ago when he said that the issue was a military matter and that it was up to the military to decide how to handle it.

when did he announce this new support?

[bearfartinthewoods]

138. kicking for an answer

[Zhade]

107. Hell, I'd like to hear ANY candidate discuss the Diebold Dilemma.

Until someone even MENTIONS the hacking of democracy, I'm going to wonder who's where on what issues - like our basic rights.

[w13rd0]

23. As I've said before...

...I've seen no reason to shift my support, but I do see much of what you are seeing here. This IMO comes from the misconception that Bush isn't beatable by any of our other highly qualified candidates. MOST OF THEM will be able to beat Bush, IF THE GAME IS PLAYED BY CONVENTIONAL RULES.

But as we see from 2000, the CA Recall, TX redistricting...the GOP is no longer content to play by the conventional rules. When all the votes count, they lose. When people are aware of the issues, and the policy positions, they lose. When people pay attention to what's happening, they lose. They can't afford to play act as if they have any reverence for the democratic process.

But I think several of our candidates know this (though some, clearly, do not). They know this will not be an ordinary election. They know that the Bushbots won't play the game according to the rule of law. I don't think a service record is going to render anyone any more 'bulletproof' than Saddam's magic stone.

I also abhor aires of inevitability and entitlement. Confidence is one thing. A desire to hijack the process and do an end run around the people is another...

But I've got faith, faith that many are hip to what's happening and on top of things...

[Lefty48197]

24. Clark's electable

Most of the other candidates are not. No knock against any of them, it's just that most of the others couldn't win the election.

[w13rd0]

26. That's wrong...

...factually and empirically wrong. Quit spreading the RW lie that Bush is a "popular president"...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. You Don't Have To Be Popular To Win.....

Look at Nixon and for a contemporary example, Gray Davis.....


You just need a candidate you can easily demonize....

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[artr2]

100. dupe

nt

[stickdog]

110. Why did Bush's numbers start dropping?

Hint: Who finally decided to ask him if he'd purchased a fare while everybody else -- media included -- was giving him a free ride?

[rman]

136. SO WAS BUSH

-

[DemExpat]

27. I back Clark, Eloriel, and

can honestly say that the only thing I fear is that the Repubs will steal/rig/'cancel - because - of - national security - after - another 9/11 disaster' the 2004 elections......


Clark's emphasis on international co-operation is a big reason he has support - why I support him.

None of the other candidates appeal to me as much as he does.

I can see more of America voting for Clark than for any other Dem candidate...just a gut instinct....a personal assessment of American mentality......I want a Dem to WIN.


Why try to be 'superior' by sweeping explanations of the supposed weaknesses behind others' motivations?

DemEx

[Rowdyboy]

28. Thanks for patronizing all Clark supporters...

Its pretty obvious we're too stupid to deserve the right to vote. Perhaps because I don't interpret the news about Clark as you do shows some vast deficiency in my education or intelligence. Surely, there can only be one CORRECT position on anything and it is, shockingly, always the one YOU hold. How strange.

Obviously your condescending attitude reflects serious doubts about your own selection.

Please resist flame bait. It's beneath you or any other adult.

on edit: Let me add, I have previously held you in pretty high regard as an intelligent critic and, though I often disagree with you, I respect you. This thread was simply not what I expect for you.

[w13rd0]

35. I disagree...

...I don't think anyone except the most severe bashers are saying, "supporters of so-and-so are too stupid to vote"...we've heard it for months ("once you liberals find where he stands, his support will evaporate; your candidate has all you antiwar lefties snookered; ad naseum")...saying anyone is too stupid to vote is a denial of the democratic process.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where people wanted to make well-informed choices, where they voted in the best interests of themselves and their communities...

On several threads, I've seen a lot of "<candidate c> is <candidate b> + flags". Heck, with the right marketing team, even a draft dodging deserter can wrap himself in a flag for a bump in the polls, doesn't mean it's something we should rush to do.

But hey, whatever, it's going to be a long and interesting primary...

[sfecap]

37. Amurkins live in a fear based society.

That's how * and his merry band of thugs survive.

The DLC is trying to tap into the fear with their candidate, Wes Clark. (A colleaugue (his words) of Richard Pearle, Paul Wolfowitz, Diock Cheney, Don Rumsfeld.)

The DLC is essentially a marketing organization. Find out what will "sell", then find the "product". Right now, sells, and the antidote is to find someone who can be marketed as the "saviour".

"Wes Clerk is a former General who will make you all safer because he's a former General, and he knows just how to make you all safer because...." (Forget all about the fact that Wes Clark has never been elected to anything, has never governed,has never campaigned...)

It's really pathetic how frightened the Democrats are.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. I Am As Afraid Of Bushco

as a Jew on the eve of Crystalnacht....


You should be too...

[janx]

160. I have mentioned this very same thing in another thread at DU.

And I respect Clark. But pandering to this fear is not going to do anyone any good.

I refuse to respond to fear any longer. That's a big reason I still back Dean at this time.

And I'll be damned if I'll sit back and let some powerful Washington types try and usurp the power of the people. I've had it with that!

[Cappurr]

40. Look I'm not sure I support Clark.....but I'm very interested

And I do hate to see all this right wing spin on DU.

I know military men. I was married to one for ten years. And I don't always have the greatest respect for them because they don't think for themselves. They follow the leader....blindly at times. Its not their fault....its how they are trained.

But Clark isn't like that. He wouldn't play the Pentagon game. He said what he thought even though the brass didn't want to play that way. He said we needed Apaches in Kosovo. The brass went nuts. He said we needed boots on the ground....the bombs were not stopping the geneocide. The brass went nuts. But Clinton listened and Clark was right. He brought Milosovich down.

And for his efforts he was fired. And he knew that would be the likely senario. When a guy puts his career on the line to do what he thinks is right, then he deserves respect.

And by the way, he is highly respected by NATO and has won just about every foreign service medal there is. There is a list posted somewhere. He didn't get them for being a shirker.

Now lets see what his domestic policies are and then we can talk intelligently about Clark. Until then, its just spreading a bunch of silly rumors.

ON EDIT: Clark also voluntarily submitted himself to an International Court for trial for alleged war crimes. He was aquitted. I'd say that takes guts too, wouldn't you?

[BelgianMadCow]

55. well put, even though I share some concerns about Clark

especially "Now lets see what his domestic policies are and then we can talk intelligently about Clark"

I would like to add :
- I do believe fear has become an exaggerated factor in the US. We all know who did that, and it wasn't Clark. I second the idea americans should be VERY afraid of another Bush* term. (Kristallnacht, post 51 below) This also means I hold the work of Eloriel regarding BBV in very high esteem !
- I (as a European) would prefer to not have a general as POTUS. I am afraid of the US war machine, it needs toning down A LOT.
- If a (centrist) general is what it'll take to get ABB, Clark does look like a smart and respectable person. Personally, I'd like the US to be waaay left of where you are now. How about a nice Labour / Socialist Party ?
- Clark's willingness to be subjected to the International Criminal Court is a HUGE pro imho, the US stance to not accept it was beyond imagination. "Oh, btw, international law ? Stuff it !"

And finally, I dislike the bashing threads like anyone does, but I dislike anything that smells of fanaticism even more, and like open minds. All questions should be eligible for answers, even if they belong in a conspiracy / speculation forum :-).

[NNN0LHI]

59. I did not know about the International Court for war crimes thing

Thank you for the information. And I agree with your assessment too. That did take guts.

Don

[Pastiche423]

61. Submitted himself?

What does that mean and can you provide a link?

[goobergunch]

67. Request for link seconded (n/t)

[BelgianMadCow]

72. Wesley Clark on ICC: link

<snip>
I know that the worst-case analysis of this is that American soldiers could be subject to whimsical or politically motivated charges, but the honest truth is, the United States intends to operate under international law. We helped build international law, we need international law. And we've got to find a way to work with this court and bring it around and make whatever modifications need to be made to it.

But I was subjected to a war crimes investigation in my role as NATO commander. It didn't bother me a bit. We had full integration of lawyers in all of our activities. We never did anything that was the remotest bit beyond the shade of the law. We would never want to do that.
/<snip>

from http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0207/07/le.00.html

Not exactly a policy paper, and from some time ago, but hey...

ON edit : recently, under heavy pressure from the US (threatening to relocate NATO headquarters), Belgian government has watered down our own (new) law on crimes against humanity - people were filing claims against Bush & co...so now we have a law that will only accept claims from directly impacted Belgains if there is no just trial possible in the country of origin of the defendant. In the case of the US, since you have a democracy and separation of powers etc, the claim will be transmitted to US justice dept ... *sigh*

Decision taken in the face of damaging economic relations...like letting trains & ships with war material pass through our ports. *bigger sigh*

[goobergunch]

75. Thanks! (n/t)

[Pastiche423]

76. "Submitted" is a long way from "Subjected"

[BelgianMadCow]

78. I guess so, that doesn't change the main point of the transcript does it ?

submitted = voluntarily
subjected = asked to undergo ?

THX for clearing that up for a non-native english speaker
MadCow

[Pastiche423]

82. It does change the main point

You have it almost correct.

Submitted - he rang them and said, let me come talk to you.

Subjected - he had no choice. He was ordered to talk.

[Pepperbelly]

84. so he submitted himself rather than being subjected to some ...

legal process. The point is that he somehow shirked responsibility for the bombing campaign? What is it that you're saying. He said, "Here I am. Judge me."

[Pastiche423]

91. THE POINT IS HE DID NOT SUBMIT HIMSELF!

Get it?

IOW, if he had not been ordered, he would not have volunteered!

[Bake]

85. If he didn't tell them to go fuck themselves, he SUBMITTED

to the jurisdiction to which he was subjected. Smirk and Co. would never have the balls to do that in a zillion years. You're quibbling over semantics where there is no quibble to be had.

Bake

[Pastiche423]

97. Fuck semantics

"But I was subjected to a war crimes investigation in my role as NATO commander."

from http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0207/07/le.00.html

He voluntarily submitted to jack shit. He was ordered (subjected) to a war crimes investigation.

The two words do not mean the same.

[TorchTheWitch]

125. semantics

“The two words do not mean the same.”

According to American Heritage Dictionary, they do:

sub-mit sub-mit-ted, sub-mit-ting, sub-mits
TRANSITIVE VERB:
1. To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.
2. To subject to a condition or process.
3. To commit (something) to the consideration or judgment of another.
4. To offer as a proposition or contention: I submit that the terms are entirely unreasonable.
INTRANSITIVE VERB:
1. To give in to the authority, power, or desires of another.
2. To allow oneself to be subjected to something.

sub-ject-ed, sub-ject-ing, sub-jects
TRANSITIVE VERB:
1. To submit for consideration.
2. To submit to the authority of.
3. To expose to something: patients subjected to infection.
4. To cause to experience: subjected to extreme weather.
5. To subjugate; subdue.

In any case, I do agree that without something being done about the BBV/Diebold business no Dem has a chance... that's what scares me.

[Mairead]

131. You're misreading, I believe

Note that 'submit', unless qualified by an overt object, is always a reflexive verb--it refers to oneself. It even overwhelms the 'closest antecedent' rule: 'As X's superior, I felt he should stand trial. I submitted to the court' doesn't work. 'I submitted him to the court' is needed.

One can use 'subject' reflexively, but only be specifically stating 'oneself', i.e., 'to subject oneself' to some process. Otherwise, it's understood to be outwardly-directed: 'I subjected to the court' has no implication of self.

[quinnox]

43. It's true Clark is a relatively

unknown quantity at this point, and therefore people can project their dreams on to him. But give him a chance, he just entered the race a few days ago. I suspect after the debate this week, things will be more defined about Clark.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

47. I share some of your concerns E

I also think that a General such as Clark is the perfect person to get us out of this mess and engender cooperation from other nations in restoring a LIVABLE life to Iraqi's. Furthermore, his close relationship with Clinton will be a PLUS in the eyes of many world leaders and the NATIONS they represent but for Russia (if Putin remains in place) and China ( who while waxing us like an apple at the UN is far from an ally)

I DO want to know where he stands NOT just on energy GENERICALLY but on the energy bill currently being propped up in the house and senate HR 6. This bill is tantamount to privatizing the interstate highway system.
The remainder of his positions thus far seem liberal/libertarian...but he has to convince me he is NOT more of the same.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. We Have No Margin Of Error

I believe Bush is dead set on repealing the New Deal, the Great Society and all the progress we have made in the last fifty years....

What's Bush's plan?

Ask Grover Norquist....

"Our goal is to make government so small you can fit into a bathtub..."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

53. They've already done that

All that's left is to throw the old folks out at night. Pretty soon police will be privatized...if you dial 9/11 you will be asked for a credit card number before they respond.

[Julien Sorel]

69. I honestly think Bush is an utterly rudderless ship at this point.

The PNACers conned him into thinking he would be the next TR, and he failed at it, and he has no backup, no core ideology to drive him. He went into office a cynical fraud; 9/11 pumped him up with the opportunity to be a great war time leader, and it turned out to be an illusion. There's nothing there. I think even his religious faith is, and always was, a fraud. He's a hollow man, with apologies to T.S. Eliot.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. If He Went From An Empty Vessel To A Rudderless Ship He's Still A

threat because that means that others still control his destiny...

[KoKo]

49. Your point is what worries me also. Weak Daschle...all the "mid term

stuff" says that either they have been threatened (IOW, the BFEE isn't just :tinfoilhat: with plane crashes, mysterious deaths, suicides, fatal illnesses, that they don't want us to know about), OR it's "weakness" which I've seen time and again with our Democratic Party......and the weakness is that their hands are in the till....they are part of the Capitalist Dole given out by the Major corporations and they don't want it know because of shame....or because it feeds their families and gives them a lifestyle they otherwise wouldn't be accustomed to.

Which is it......it's gotta be one or the other.......because I can't explain this reluctance any other way. :shrug:

On Edit: I respect Charlie Rangel too much to think he wouldn't have a good reason for supporting Clark.....and it's probably because we needed another hat in the ring to get Media attention......to make us have a "deck of cards" which could be all things and have something for everyone......Clark couldn't be hammered down....was the thought.....but the media are already over him.

(Sorry to use the "deck of cards analogy." Sound like the Chimp.....ugh!

[_Wayne_]

50. Could you be any more condescending?

I'm a Clark supporter, and I don't fit into any of your bullshit categories.

And if you're going to bash Clark, could you some specifics, instead of generalized criticism; ie "here is a candidate people know almost nothing about, other than his resume, and what we know isn't particularly good"

[Ripley]

60. I agree the "Strong CIC" premise is wrong.

The idea that only a General can beat Bush is ludicrous. The economy will carry equal if not greater weight in the next election. Smirk is a loser there.

If you want to play the Republican game of "Bush is strong on national security," how do you explain the horrifying day of 9-11 where he ignored the warnings for months? How do you explain the debacle we are in now in Iraq? How do you even try to give him high marks on working WITH the world in order to make it safer? He has increased the carnage in the ME, ignored I/P situation and alienated our long-time world allies. The argument that "well, he is PERCEIVED as strong on military" will only fly with the true wingnuts who actually bought his action figure and think he looked sexy on the aircraft carrier. Believe me, those people are small in number today.

We should not ever, EVER play the game of "reaction" with the repubs, they will win again. One does not have to be in the military in order to possess strong leadership. And POTUS should possess leadership in all areas, not just one.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. I Ain't Taking No Chances

After Bushco dismantles the New Deal, the Great Society and the social progress we have made in the last sixty years their sites are set on electing right wing judges who will dismantle the Bill Of Rights...

No knock searches, firewalls on the net, a woman's right to choose repealed...

That's the future in Bushco's America...

If I have a cancer... I want it removed....I'm not going to wait for months to see if it's benign....

[Octafish]

73. It's the EYES.

Big eyes. Big, big eyes.



Very appealing. Trusting. Nurturing. Strong. Commanding.

[KoKo]

77. Yes.....I hate to say it......but you have a point.....

:crazy: scarey.....and it's offputting......but most folks would say it's a "silly" personal attack.....but yes....I understand.

[Octafish]

101. Yeh. I tried getting some painting of the kids with the HUGE eyes...

... that were the rage in the early 60s, but those are going on e-bay for big bucks. Hey, I just thought of what to do with the our living room ... velvet backgrounds and long necks. That's a "Wow!"

[NewYorkerfromMass]

155. eyes like these?....

[JVS]

156. I am totally creeped out now

People actually used to put these things up in their living-rooms?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

158. The "artist" speaks...

http://besmirched.tripod.com/margaret.html

[bearfartinthewoods]

130. oh yes....daddy's here to save the day

somebody pass me a blankie

[bloom]

150. He also has a nice smile.

:D

[RummyTheDummy]

87. HORSE SHIT!

"tho I'm sure the super-thin-skinned Clark supporters will see it as such"

And no Dean supporters are thin skinned are they?

This is the kind of shit that keeps me from voting for Dean and what's sad is he's probably the most promising and compelling of the bunch.

Alas, I'm still a man without a canidate.

[starscape]

90. What a pretentious little post.

I want to thank you for showing us the light, for opening eyes and helping Clark supporters to see the lies they are telling themselves... in desperation and fear, of course. Maybe in your world, people really are cowering in corners, making decisions in the most cynical mindset they can muster. Is that what drove you to this awakening of sorts... Fear? or is it anger or frustration...

No bother. If you are secure in your choice, that's all that matters, right? Should you tell us more about Dean, or should I even take you seriously when we compare platforms and policies down the line? You haven't done your side any good. Nobody likes to be patronized. When you think people are being thin-skinned, you might step back and examine whether it is the tone of your posts that might be eliciting that reaction in the first place.

cheers!
-s

[roughsatori]

92. I agree with you completely, thanks for the post

Though I have past sad and am disgusted.

[Julien Sorel]

96. Damn!

Why won't us inferiors just do what you want? Life would be so much simpler then! Not to mention better! Definitely better!

[starscape]

98. shhh.... look out!

Billy, they've gone past "sad" and on to "disgusted.." If you're not careful, they might start getting angry!

LOL

[iambe]

94. Gee, you are so smart.

Please tell us all who to vote for, since you obviously "know better."

:puke:

[Zhade]

105. Excellent points. Now, let's go get Diebold (and friends)!

NT!

[stickdog]

111. Let me just echo 95% of the Clark supporters on this thread

by attacking you personally and refusing to "lower" myself to discuss anything you wrote.

[jumptheshadow]

115. Wait a minute

I am genuinely trying to discuss the issues. And instead of engaging me sincerely I am getting posts from the anti-Clark people with "rolling eyes" smilies. Don't they believe that their words will speak for them?

[stickdog]

118. You missed the point.

The point is not that Clark's stances on the issues (???) are fear based, but that Clark's attractiveness as a candidate is based on the fear that an extreme foreign policy failure like Bush would somehow be able to cudgel other Democratic candidates on national security.

[jumptheshadow]

119. And you missed my point

Why can't people rely on their own words when they are in a discussion?

Do you concede that Clark's entry into the field helps erase a quantitive disadvantage that the Democrats have had for years?

[jumptheshadow]

121. And to expand upon my point...

Clark will have to lay out detailed positions and debate and go through the vetting process which all the other candidates endure. I support his candidacy but I'm not anointing him the nominee. He will have to prove himself like all the others.

In the meantime, he adds a knowledgeable new dimension to the Democratic discourse on security, strategic global issues and international relationships.

This is an element that is sorely (and obviously) lacking on the Republican side.

I'm hoping that the contrast will be obvious.

[stickdog]

123. I agree with this.

I welcome Clark's candidacy.

[stickdog]

122. No! People feel safe with a tough, competent candidate like Dean.

Not wimps like Mondale, Dukakis or Bush I.

Dean projects toughness. That's what gets the "security" votes from the swing voters -- not some weird Party-wide perception.

[Egnever]

140. No

Sory Its too early to even tell if clark is even a viable candidate. Let alone erasing any problems the dems have had in the past.

[Mairead]

112. Eloriel, can you possibly appreciate that your post, mutatis mutandis,

could be written about Dean? Or are you not able to see that you Dean supporters are also perceived as 'super-thin-skinned', intolerant, and committed to your candidate with a fervor that seems best described as 'fanatical'.

My first thought on reading your basenote was how sad it is that you were so obviously totally serious when you wrote.

[stickdog]

117. The point of the post is that people are so scared that they

are willing to support a blank slate in a uniform because it makes them feel more secure about taking the issue of security away from the supposed Bush juggernaut.

Yet a parenthetical thin-skinned swipe is what 90% of the people responding to her have focused on.

Why?

[Mairead]

126. That's not the only point, though I'm sure it was the only one intended

The hallmark of the Dean 'phenomenon' here, as experienced by outsiders, is thin-skinned, blinkered fanaticism. The defend-to-the-death mentality, the Dean-is-always-right mentality, the la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you mentality, the we-don't-care-that-he's-not-liberal mentality.

I've mostly given up trying to point out the contradictions. It's a fool's errand because the pointing out doesn't penetrate. And I think it is hysterically funny, in a somewhat sad way, that now that Clark seems to be taking the wind from Dean's sails, so many of the more ...committed... Deanies are completely upset and bitter. It's as though Dean had the right to all the attention, and to deprive him of it is a dirty trick.

Deanies like Eloriel are getting as they gave, and it's not surprising to me that they don't like it. Who would?

[stickdog]

128. What surprises me is all of the pro-establishment DLC candidate,

anti-insurgent grassroots candidate Kucinich supporters we seem to have around here.

Can you think of any reason for this strange phenomenon other than jealousy that Dean and not Kucinich has been so successful with his grassroots effort?

[Mairead]

132. Really? I haven't seen any. Name some names, why don't you.

[Mairead]

163. Didn't think so.

[CWebster]

129. This is just another demonstration of how out of touch

those who operate inside the beltway are.

After the phenomenal grassroots uprising to rally around the Dean campaign, insiders pitch a (compromised) general and a military resume to the anti-war base.

It is the DLC co-opting the Right again - this time peddling fear.

I guess they don't have anything else.

[Mairead]

133. "I guess they don't have anything else"

Perhaps they won't need anything else.

[CWebster]

134. What side are you on anyway, Mairead?

You need to take a couple of deep breaths and ponder the point.

[Mairead]

139. I'm on the side of turning our country completely around, how 'bout you?

Do you think I'm going to vote for Clark? Let me put your mind at rest: I'm voting for Dennis Kucinich. His is the only name on my dance card. I will do the best I can to see his name on the national dance card next November, but I'll write it in if it isn't. I've weighed the candidates and, while I don't think Dennis even begins to be perfect, I'm satisfied that there is no one now on offer who is more likely to do what we so very desperately need done.

I'm not one of the people who says 'Dean can't win', 'Dean is unelectable', 'Dean's a loser'. That would be as hypocritical as hell, because it's the very fact that I believe Dean can win that dismays me so badly. Just as I think Clark can win, and that dismays me just as badly. The last thing on earth we need is another lackey of the corporatocracy in office, steering us into The Pit while he tells us that there's no other direction possible.

I'm not opposed to Dean, I'm opposed to Dean's policies, and until his policies change, you can make book that I will go on speaking out in opposition both to them and to him as their avatar.

[CWebster]

143. The reality ,

in our current state of affairs - that has only deteriorated since 2000, is that we do not have the luxury of backing a marginal candidate. What is he polling at, Mairead, 1%? We are fortunate that we have Dean precisely because of his broad appeal, as well as his practical foundation in traditional democratic principles. He is not a progressive and doesn't claim to be- but he is preferrable to the others who are intolerable. Thank goodness we have a candidate we can live with who offers at least a VIABLE choice against the reactionary right-wing mindset that has poisoned even our own party.

My primary vote is a vote against the other candidates who I would be hard-pressed to vote for to vote against Bush.

That is the reality. Kucinich is a long-shot in our current climate where the Democratic party would try to foist a general on us. To believe otherwise is denial.

[Mairead]

148. No, the REAL reality

is the one so many resist: we create 'electability'. It is not in the candidate, it is in us.

Jimmy Carter was not 'electable' - he was a total unknown, a very religious, conservative, first-term governor from the Deep South who farmed peanuts. But we elected him (Goddess knows why!).

We can view the locus of control as being outside ourselves, and tell ourselves that there are mystical forces at work that we can only sit back and watch because we can neither understand nor control them...

...or we can follow the lead of Tip O'Neill, Wellstone, Kucinich, and others who have upset the conventional wisdom by retail, door-knocking education on the issues. We can go out, knock doors, hand out flyers, and win hearts and minds one by one.

Being willing to strive for what we need doesn't guarantee victory, but it changes the odds. We can do our best. No one can do more.

[CWebster]

151. Ahhh yes

the power of creating. I am 5'2" but if I think really, really hard I will grow an inch by next Tuesday.

Sure. Not this reality. It just ain't gonna happen and I have to live my entire damn life at 5'2".

[Mairead]

157. Ahhh yes indeed

You can't flap your arms and fly. That's physical reality. If you limit yourself to expecting that kind of flying, you're sunk.

But you can go buy a hang glider, and maybe you can learn to fly that. Or maybe not. But unless you try, you'll never know. It's not perfect flying, but it might be enough.

(And you can buy lifts for your shoes by next Tuesday and if you're really committed to not be 5'2, you can even get your legs stretched an inch or two--they do it the same way they repair jawbones after, e.g., destructive cancer surgery. It can't be done by next Tuesday, but it can be done. (edit: http://www.rucosm.com/e1.htm ))

[union_maid]

135. What right?

I've seen nothing to indicate that Clark is to the right of any of the top tier candidates. I was with some people who were part of the
Draft Clark campaign last night. They're different from the Dean supporters in some ways, but not in terms of politics and not in terms of being grassroots either. They were less prosperous than the people at the Dean meet-up I've gone to. They're more blue collar veteran oriented. They'd vote for Dean, too. They like him. They just like Clark better. They reserve their animosity for people like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and the rightwing "pundits" like Coulter.

[leesa]

141. It is sad. People are turning around and falling for the same old

corporate reign we have been railing against for years. The guy works for the "defense" industry. The military-industrial complex is the REASON we have this nightmare we are existing through and yet we reject one of them (Bush) and turn around and put another in (Clark). At least the Republicans will be happy since there will be lots of oportunity to bash third worlders around the planet.

[Skittles]

149. I love being condescended to

feels so good in the morning!

[seventhson]

166. Clark and MPRI: a must read

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=MPRI+%22Wesley+Clark%22&btnG=Google+Search


I have already posted links to Madsen's articles. But since I have been challenged to provide proof of the links of Clark to these right wing parasmilitary corporate mercenary operations, I think there are plenty here.

I will concede only this: Clark was just following orders

for one critical explanation of this issue- read this link (and search for the term MPRI) if you can)

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:tbNZ7sGy8oYJ:law.vanderbilt.edu/journal/35-02/Orts8.pdf+MPRI+%22Wesley+Clark%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8