Why not to support Clark-

[lameone]

Wesley Clark is leading our primary after being in the race for less than a week. His website has no issues section, and 95% of the people who "support" him in the polls have no clue what he stands for on the economy or many social issues. With the revelations on Drudge today, it seems extremely likely that Clark's political mind can change so often and quickly. Republican under Reagan, Democrat under Clinton, less than 5 months into Bush he says how great the administration is, and now he's warning how awful the same people he praised. Combine that with his complete flip-flop on Iraq war with General Shelton saying he has "character issues", and I cannot support him. How do we know 4 years into his presidency he won't completely flip-flop his views again??? How can you praise Reagan and Clinton at the same time if they stood for opposite ideals? Many of you are blindly (that's right, blindly because no one knows where he stands on most issues) supporting him and I find it repulsive that all of you are turning your shoulder with the comments on Drudge! Imagine the outcry in this forum if any other questionable democrat had said positive things about Bush. Clark is a political amateur who wants to fit in with whoever is in power, and I will never support him until he proves me wrong.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

1. So Don't Vote for Him

And your 95% comment is not only incorrect, it's insulting to Clark supporters.

DTH

[lameone]

22. Sorry if the comment was meant towards DU

But in the gallup poll 3 days after Clark announced, I guarentee you that most the people that voted for Clark did not know his positions. I completely understand that DU actually research candidates' posisitions, but most of the public does not

[VolcanoJen]

2. He's proving a lot of folks wrong during the debate.

You might want to turn it on now.

He's very up-to-speed on the issues, and if you really want to know his positions, why not get it from the horse's mouth?

Besides, all of our candidates are performing amazingly well during the debate. It's energizing, it's encouraging, and it's proof that we'll win in '04!

[JVS]

30. Because I don't have cable

I've yet to hear him.

If you have cable and CNN you have much more access to Clark and what he has to say.

[KFC]

3. Re-Edited

Re-Edited

[CMT]

4. he came out strong in the polls

but it is a long way until election day so lots is going to happen. New polls out today show Dean and he tied for first in Zogby and NBC/WSJ, so the two "outsiders" are coming on strong.

[Maddy McCall]

8. That is why the right is trying to tear him down.

They know that Bush cannot, repeat CANNOT, beat him. But what really disturbs me more is the Democratic cannibalism that goes on in DU. Any discussion of that is futile, though.

[Maddy McCall]

5. Then go vote for GW Bush if you will never support him....

I really don't care what you think. I love it when newbies come to DU and ridicule others! Glad that you are here to enlighten us. "Questionable democrat?" Maybe you should look in the mirror.

[lameone]

9. That's fine

Go ahead and attack me, but maybe you can explain to me his political positions over the past 15 years. I'd love to hear how he went through 3 transformations

[Maddy McCall]

14. If you are too incapacitated to do your own research...

I can't help you. Besides, you would probably trust the reputable Drudge over me, right??

:puke:

[lameone]

23. ...

You act as if Drudge is my only reason for not supporting Clark. You haven't responded to my criticisms of Clark in any of your posts, just accuse the "newbie" of corrupting your board. Do you support Clark for his issues or for the reason that "he CANNOT be beat by bush?"

[Maddy McCall]

31. I don't have to justify my support of him to YOU.

May I ask why your first thread here is to rip a Democratic candidate??

What is that smell???

[lameone]

35. May I ask you why you think this is my first thread?

jchild, I have asked you to respond to any of my points and engage in logical debate, but you insist on ignoring my points and bashing me. Your problem is that you took my post personally and think that I lump you in with the "95%" that I described in the latter. I believe most DU'ers have actually researched Clark and his positions, but I would like to ask you if you think Clark should come out and explain his political backgroudn at all?

[Maddy McCall]

40. LOL! There is no logical debate with someone who cites DRUDGE

as his news source. I have NEVER debated issues with a Drudge faithful, and won't start today.

[lameone]

44. See there ya go

Ok, so if the Drudge story turns out to be true, am I gonna have to come back to this forum and post my questions to you??? Or will you still not answer? I think you may be in that "95%" because apparently you don't actively engage anyone

[wyldwolf]

36. Every one of your criticisms had been addressed... over and over...

and, frankly, I see no need to restate everything anytime someone who missed them the first 100 times demands it.

[lameone]

41. Please refresh me then

All I remember is being called names. You're the only one that brought up the 95% part, and that is actual debate, good for you. No one has answered ANY of my questions though

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[lameone]

10. That 'S' must stand for super-comedian...Man you're hilarious

n/t

[wyldwolf]

11. And I'm taking it on the road!

[Maddy McCall]

16. LMAO!

Wolf, let me know your itenerary---I'll pay to come see your show!

LOL!

[Maddy McCall]

12. I saw that too.

Plus the fact that new people sign on to DU, post inane one-liners to up their post number so that they can start a thread, and then their first thread is to question or smear a Democratic candidate.

I have seen newbies put Dean, Kerry, and Clark in their line of fire. It isn't just Clark supporters who should be watching this new trend. It is across the board, as far as Dem candidates being ripped by newbies.

Plus, membership has grown tremendously here at DU since Clark announced. Be wary, DUers.

[lameone]

25. My bad

So this is like a frat or something, huh? Newbies are just supposed to wipe your butt until they go over 100 posts and then they're able to have some say. The reason I posted my thread was to engage in meaningful debate, not namecalling

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

21. Typical Clark supporter response.

Someone brings up some legitimate doubts, and the response is to duck out. Stuff like "I'm not going to let you hijack this thread." This is because the whole position seems to be "he was a General."

Give us some reasons not to think the way we do, please.

[wyldwolf]

28. Typical Dean anti-clark response...

...since lameone's issues have already been adressed over and over and since there is a long running thread already on the Drudge report and since his line "95% of the people who "support" him in the polls have no clue what he stands for on the economy or many social issues" is complete bull, yeah, he should be ignored.

[lameone]

32. You can't even respond to me about my post

The 95% was exaggerated, yes, but my whole point is that he is winning in the polls, as of right now, based on the possibility that he IS ABLE to beat Bush. There is no way in hell that the American people followed the primary up until Clark entered and then researched his positions and threw their support behind him. That's my point

[wyldwolf]

37. Every one of your criticisms had been addressed... over and over...

... and, frankly, I see no need to restate everything anytime someone who missed them the first 100 times demands it.

[roguevalley]

7. Drudge? Hardly a reason to stop exploring this candidate.

Frankly, give me a candidate who CAN change and grow over Junior.
Wesley Clark has my vote to lose. He hasn't so far.

[lameone]

15. What do you mean?

I'm not understanding you "grow over" GWB I will gladly answer the question, but if you call "growing" changing affiliations then Clark is your man

[wyldwolf]

33. Did you have a problem when Jim Jeffords changed his party affiliation?

...or must one be a dem for life before being legitimate?

[Maddy McCall]

38. Very poignant question...

like to see the response to this one....waiting...

(And wyld, isn't it amazing that so many republicans can change their clothes to become DU democrats, and then they enter with no other purpose than to rip our candidates...sheeps clothing--sheeps clothing...my thoughts, anyway.)

[lameone]

39. No, I did not

But I think the better question would be, "Would you have had a problem with Jim Jeffords if he changed his party affiliation, then 5 months after that said the same things about Bush that Clark did in 2001, and then changed once again"

[Maddy McCall]

34. My antennae go "zing" at any DUer who cites Drudge...LOL!

And they are even more piqued by DUers who can't understand why others question his citation of Drudge as a reliable news source.

LMFAO!!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. Those are great reasons to consider and question, but given that many

of your issues require that one speculate beyond what was said, none of your reasons are reasons to completely abandon consideration of Clark.

I will continue to consider him amongst all the candidates.

[Maddy McCall]

18. NSMA has her surf icon!

FINALLY! LOL! Not meaning to hijack the thread, but that avatar is the coolest!

[lameone]

26. To some extent

Yes, my views are speculation, and until he proves me wrong I will continue to speculate. I would like to ask you though, do you feel Clark should come out and publicly explain his comments in 2001? That's assuming of course that Drudge is accurate (that's sounds weird: Drudge and accurate)

[Maddy McCall]

43. So let me ask you this...HOW THE F&%$ DO YOU DEBATE SPECULATIONS???

YOu really are a piece of work!

[Skittles]

17. SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

do I sound like O'Reilley?????

[qanda]

19. Don't take the bait!!!!

Fellow DUers, please ignore people who come here to start trouble. They really don't deserve a response. Thank God for the ignore function and then use it.

[greyl]

24. I think the early support is largely "symbolic"

in that as a decorated military guy, many dems believe that, with Clark, we can beat the repukes at their game.
I personally believe this is a deeply mistaken honoring of style of over substance.

I admit that many months ago, I thought "blank"/Clark would be strong ticket based on a very shallow knowledge of Clark and non-hawkish performances as a talking head.

[RaRa]

27. I'm not sold

on any one candidate yet. I admit to having been giddy with joy when Clark entered and he will get my vote if he continues to keep strong on the campaign trail. Why? Because he can beat the chimp. As my brother says, "a dead chicken would be better than Bush". (Not that I'm equating Clark to a dead chicken, but ANYBODY would be better!)

[lameone]

29. well who do you really support?

That's my whole point about Clark's candidacy so far is that no one knows his positions, but they do KNOW he can beat Bush. I would like to ask you who you are leaning towards ideologically

[Skinner]

42. I'm locking this thread.

There is nothing even closely resembling discussion anywhere in this thread. I hope nobody will mind if I simply put it out of it's misery.

Skinner
DU Admin