I will be voting Clark

[59millionmorons]

I have a similar background as Clark. I was once a Republican in 1992 and have switched. I like the fact that he plays well with others and may be able to work with the other party to get things done. This whole issue is a RNC plan to divide the Democratic party, it was not a coincidence this was released just before the debates. Reading alot of these post, I see some are easily suckered. If we dont except people from the other party how do you all think we will win. We will need those who voted for Bush if we plan to win. Should we not except their votes because they once liked and voted for Bush, but have since seen the light. How do you think Reagan won in a landslide in 84? Because Democrats switched over and voted for him. That's politics folks.

[Renew Deal]

1. We are not mainstream america.

Most people don't care about the party stuff, or the "Military Industrial Complex" stuff. It's not what they are worried about. And most people don't like war but Kosovo had 55% support. Iraq had about 70%.

My girlfriend loves Clark. She doesn't care what party he is with. She is a Dem, but she doesn't pay much attention. She likes how Clark speaks and he seems like someone she can trust. She also thinks he's cute, but whatever.

Clark is getting good reviews from yesterday because he survived. The funny thing about him is he has solid positions, but he is holding it all back. I think that he wants to control his message. Also, this was the economic debate. He would clean up a foriegn policy and military discussion. Overall, he is a good package.

[Ruby Newsbee]

4. You prove my point

In another post to OKNancy, I stated he would appeal to those who think he looks good and sounds good but who will never venture further than that. It's not the same for Clark switching parties as it is for you. He is running for the highest office in the land, not voting for one. His switching parties is something to be cautious about. He's never been a dove so I doubt he'll be able to act like one. Republicans will vote for him knowing he won't abandon what Bush started in Iraq, which is dominance in the Middle East. If Dems who opposed the Iraq war can live with that, then by all means vote for a hawk.

Just because he did fine in his first debate doesn't make me want to go out an vote for him in a year from now.

[Renew Deal]

6. He is not a hawk.

What proof do you have that he is? Just because he was in the military? Read his book.

http://meetclark.com/faq/index.asp?faqid=15

“War, of course, is first and foremost a political act. The U.S. Constitution assigns the power to declare war to the Congress, while the President serves as U.S. Commander in Chief. Other western nations see the problem similarly. During World War I, French Premier Georges Clemenceau famously said, “War is too important to be left to the generals.” …Political leaders make the ultimate decisions, decide the key policies, develop or approve the strategy, and supervise the execution. Even limited war requires the acceptance of risks and losses, embarrassment, and potential failure. Warfare disrupts peace-time patterns of commerce and political discourse and consumes alternate political goals and efforts. Warfare is thus one of the supreme tests for political leaders, and for leaders in democracies, it is something to be avoided if possible.

…None knows better than the military leaders themselves the dangers of war; consequently, they are usually the last to advocate it.

…Political leaders will always be circumspect in risking their governments and NATO on a military operation. But in other ways, the success of Operation Allied Force does open the door for its repetition elsewhere. In the first instance, there is now historical precedent for the use of force to intervene for the purposes of humanitarian relief. Further, Western publics have seen that such operations can succeed if properly executed.”


“We are a sovereign nation. We've got to protect our own interests. What we have to understand is that we have global interests, and among the most important interests we have are our values themselves. Because of our values, we have been widely admired and respected throughout the world, even when we are the most powerful nation in the world. We have to protect that reputation of America because that good will is very much what made us prosperous and safe. As far as being able to do more than that, we have an obligation to look at situations and we should help if we can. But we also have to recognize that America simply can't do everything by itself. We have to work with others. We have to strengthen international organizations and we need others to help us carry some of the responsibilities and burdens of leadership.”

Avoid Bush's unilateralism and work with our allies. (Sep 8)
Exit strategy in Iraq won't work if we invade its neighbors. (Sep 8)
We went into Iraq under false pretenses. (Aug 17)
Get the Iraqis involved in taking responsibilities. (Jul 9)
Iraq distracts from the War on Terror. (Jun 27)
Need Marshall Plan for Middle East and Afghanistan. (Jun 17)
Israel: bring in Syria and Iran into peace talks. (Jun 17)
Include moderate Arabs in US-led Mideast contact group. (Jun 15)
Be wary of abridging civil rights to fight terrorism. (Jun 15)
Allies are key to victory in war on terror, not obstacles. (Sep 2002)
NATO was the reason for our victory in Kosovo. (Sep 2002)
Palestinians decided to return to terrorism after 2000. (Mar 2002)
Solution to terrorism is not bullets but world community. (Oct 2001)
Kosovo success shows military can achieve humanitarian goal. (Jul 2001)

[Ruby Newsbee]

9. Yes he is.

If elected POTUS, he'll prove it. wait and see. Will you be expecting him to pull out of Iraq?

[Renew Deal]

10. So you can say that Dean will kill social security and Kucinich...

will outlaw abortion? Is that what you are saying?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

12. I wouldn't say that...

I have a tendency to TRUST Dennis Kucinich.

Being PERSONALLY pro-life is a bit different than being chummy with some of the most evil bastards that ever tried to take over a world.

Anyway, I am trying to be open minded about Clark, but it sure is becoming difficult.

TWL

[davidinalameda]

27. abortion is an issue that more people can probably relate to than

foreign policy

I doubt that Clark had too many of these guys over for Sunday brunch.

[Ruby Newsbee]

13. How did you manage to change the subject?

I thought we were talking about republicans/primary/Dean with Clark as their winning choice over Bush.

[Renew Deal]

15. Because you say that Clark will be hawkish...

even though there is nothing to believe he will besides being in the military. You are saying that he will prove that he is? What are you basing that on? Based on your line of thinking, it is reasonable to believe that Dean will cut social security funding and Kucinich will outlaw abortion. It is in their past. That must be what they are really up to. All I am asking is what you are basing that on, since there is so much evidence to the contrary.

[returnable]

17. "Will you be expecting him to pull out of Iraq?"

No, but Sharpton and Kucinich are the only candidates advocating that policy.

So I guess that makes the other 8 candidates hawks in your eyes.

:eyes:

[Ruby Newsbee]

21. almost

At this time I'm putting Clark in the same category with Lieberman, Kerry and Gephardt. Sharpton, Dean and Kucinich in another. One side leans right the other leans left. I'm not even considering Braun or Edwards as strong voices, although I don't disagree with much of what they have to say.

The right side says "Either you're with us or against us". The left side says, "We're against you". I'm on the left side.

[returnable]

25. That sounds pretty dogmatic to me

And I don't see how you can lump Dean in with Kucinich and Sharpton, especially on the topic of Iraq withdrawal (which was what I was discussing).

[Ruby Newsbee]

29. maybe it is dogmatic

and I don't expect you to see things the way I do. Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton are against the war in Iraq and would put diplomacy above hawkishness. I don't believe Clark will. If he's following Clinton's advice that is all the more reason for me not to trust him.

[returnable]

32. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

Dean has supported every military conflict of the past decade and would've supported this Iraq invasion with a UN mandate. He is no dove.

If your beef with Clark is that you think he's a hawk, you should probably put Dean in that same column.

Kucinich and Rev. Al, on the other hand, can stand by their records and I have no argument with that.

[Ruby Newsbee]

41. We don't totally disagree.

Dean came out swinging against the Iraqi war and went against the DLC. He's not my first choice, but would vote for him if he was nominated. So far, Clark has not convinced me that he is actually against the Iraqi war and I know Clinton supported Bush on that one.

I agree whole heartedly with your last statement.

[returnable]

50. Fair enough

Cheers

:toast:

[59millionmorons]

45. No he wont just pull out

And none of them will nor should they, we raped Iraq now we have to support the baby.

[Ruby Newsbee]

48. Killing them isn't supporting them.

The UN should be supporting them, not supporting the USA. We aren't peace keeping troops on Iraqi soil. We were hawks.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

31. The Democratic party WANTS dominance in the Middle East

Let's cut the anti-war BS. The most hilarious thing is anti-war Democrats quoting Kennedy, one of the biggest warmongers of the modern age. Doesn't anyone remember Clinton bombing Iraq every week for years and years?

Democrats love war, America loves war, and no matter who you vote for, you're going to get more war. If you want to stop wars, electing candidates is the wrong strategy.

[chadm]

36. Exactly

That's why many of us went Green. The rhetoric from the Dems these days is interesting, but I don't buy half of it for a second.

[NNN0LHI]

47. Are you saying that the US would have invaded Iraq and be occupying...

...that country right now if Gore was the president? And if you do believe that are these just your random thoughts, or do you have something to back up what you are suggesting?

Don

[LTR]

5. You are correct!

"Teh funny thing about him is he has solid positions, but he is holding it all back. I think that he wants to control his message."

The funny thing about this is most people just don't understand this approach. They accuse him of having NO message.

We'll have the last laugh.

[Bertrand]

46. Bleachers, i totally agree

The funny thing about him is he has solid positions, but he is holding it all back. I think that he wants to control his message.

That's what i thought too. He was being very, well, general because he hasn't flushed out his economic policy yet so he didnt want to commit to anything until it was set.

[Kahuna]

2. They're not suckered. They are just playing..

the GOP's spin game.

I don't see what difference it makes that in May of 2001, Clark thought that the bush defense team which was touted as the A-Team of defense would be expected to do a good job. He was wrong. A lot of people were wrong.

In 5/2001 they had not betrayed America. Then 9/11/2001 happened. Now Clark and a lot of people are realizing that they did betray America and Clark is in a unique position to not only speak out about it but to also do something about it.

[rjx]

3. Your mind is made up? With no economical plan?

Any ways, the election is over a year away, I will not pick who I vote for this early in the game. But as of now I am for Dean. He handled himself GREAT yesterday!

[jayfish]

8. Here Ya Go.

http://www.clark04.com/whitepapers/01/

That’s a pretty good start. I think he needs to focus a bit more on stimulus on the front end, but I like the overall idea.

Jay

[poskonig]

7. Dean can do everything Clark can do, *and* we know where he stands.

Clark is running a Schwarzenegger campaign where he sells the sizzle, not the steak, and I'm more of a meat'and'potatoes-style voter.

[kayleybeth]

11. "Dean can do everything Clark can do"

Yeah! And my dad can beat up your dad!!!!

J/K
I couldn't resist that one ;)

Kayeleigh

[Renew Deal]

18. Dean supporters have an inferiority complex.

"Dean can do everything Clark can do, *and* we know where he stands."

[poskonig]

35. Well, Dean is the one who is winning this thing.

Therefore, the psychobabble isn't substantive. But we're still friends. :toast:

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Do you feel better now that you don't have to decide anymore?

You've hardly heard a thing from the man, and there's much more to come out about and from the others. Why the big need to have it tied up with a bow so early? Okay, that was pretty icky of me, but why is it so important to so many to make their minds up and be "correct"?

It smacks of religion: confronted with a complex world, I must end the terrifying questioning with a rock-solid belief to defend against all comers. What if something comes out? Are you now dead set against changing? Hell, it's a quarter of a year before any of the voting even starts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. "Why The Need To Have It Tied Up With A Bow So Early ? "

That was one of the mildest and most tactful comebacks I have ever read on this board....

Thank you...

Brian

[CWebster]

22. Things have already come out and they've explained it away

You know how religions are.

Probably I am too confrontational and abrasive, but I really don't know how to sugarcoat it --and they are simply determined not to hear or see any of it anyway. All that matters is that he can beat Bush--it matters not that he poses a frightening similarity to Bush administration behind-the-scenes policy makers, despite the pleasant exterior. It alarms me, after all we have endured the last few years, that folks are unwilling to even question some very real and worrisome concerns.

Gees, didn't we just go through this with Bush? If someone had dared to ask the hard questions long ago, we wouldn't be complaining about the congress or the press falling down on the job.

[PurityOfEssence]

30. You're right: "he can beat Bush" means nothing; at least half of them can

If we were desperate in the face of a popular president with some kind of oomph behind him, maybe THINKING about following a shadowy servant of the establisment's enforcement arm would be in order, but those conditions simply aren't met.

There's some relevance to getting those with the best ability to stomp Bush, because the monarchists have a skilled machine and might be able to turn some things around, but to trade off what should be dearest for the thrill of being on the winning side doesn't mean much. I'm glad he's pro-choice, anti-war (???) and whatever else, but I'm not glad that he's pro-vouchers and so cozy with big banking.

Much talk has been made about how many swing and crossover voters he'll bring, but virtually no talk has been made about his contribution to a lefty third-party defection, or de-energizing of the groundswell. Clark will turn off many of the traditional Democratic voters. This has grave consequences; sure, they may still vote for him, but they won't canvass or actively argue and recruit. This campaign needs to be fought on a grand-tactical scale, and an individual hand-to-hand level as well.

[chadm]

37. Very intelligent response

You nailed it.

[CWebster]

16. And here is the Progressive response

to Michael Moore's disproportunate display of gratitude for a casual kind word.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0925-14.htm

but it is obviously info gleaned through the RW media, never a mature and well-reasoned response.

[Terwilliger]

20. EXCELLENT quote!

from the CommonDreams piece

But if Wesley Clark is "antiwar," then antiwar is a pliable term that doesn't mean much as it morphs into a codeword for tactical objections rather than principled opposition.

:bounce:

[returnable]

26. Excellent quote, indeed

So I guess Dean isn't anti-war either, because he advocated a multilateral approach.

[CWebster]

28. Dean argued if the case had been made

clark argued that the tactical approach was "flawed".

There is a difference.

[returnable]

34. The point is...

...neither candidate is "anti-war" by the definition posted.

Dean has historically supported military intervention. You think his endorsement of Gulf War I and Kosovo makes him "anti-war"? You think advocating UN-sanctioned invasion is "anti-war"?

Both objected to this conflict as it was played by the Bush administration.

Under different circumstances, both would've supported the effort.

That's not an anti-war position by any definition.

[CWebster]

39. Dean never claimed to be anit-war

The issues was was the case for going to war in iraq a valid one to support the chimp's mania in order to extend his wartime president popularity.

[returnable]

42. And I never said

Dean claimed to be "anti-war"

But A LOT of his supporters say he is. And they've tried to use that term, "anti-war", as a dividing line between Dean and Clark. And it's a false claim.

Can we agree on that?

[CWebster]

44. the focus is on Iraq

that is what they are referring to when they claim he is "anti-war". It is the press that tries to pin the labels on him, Dean supporters are familiar with his stands and suffer no illusions. Ask any of them, they will tell you he isn't a progressive like Kucinch or even Sharpton.

[returnable]

49. Maybe, but not all...

"Dean supporters are familiar with his stands and suffer no illusions."

I saw one Deanie here say that a Dean presidency would "usher in a progressive paradise" or something to that effect. :)

Anyway, Clark never claimed to be "anti-war", either. I don't know of any supporters who claim that he is. Like with Dean, it's the media that slapped that tag on him, then nailed him when he didn't fit their definition as neatly as they thought.

But Clark's critiques of this particular conflict are well documented. Dean and Clark both took pragmatic views of the Iraq situation, and decided the way the administration handled it was wrong. Simple as that.

And don't get me wrong, I like the doctor, too. Sure, I have concerns with some of his positions (and his temper), and he's not my first choice. But I like him, and think he'd be a fine Dem choice.

I just get tired of people manufacturing false wedges between the candidates.

Why not debate the differences between their job creation plans?

[knowledgeispower]

40. Bush said he thought war was a "last resort"

But obviously he was full of shit. Is Clark?

[realFedUp]

23. Clark might get more Republican votes than Dean

Dean has definitely activated young and new voters though.
Just have to see how things go...

[davidinalameda]

24. You voted Republican??

for shame

where's the tar and feather brigade


(tongue in cheek)

thanks for posting this--glad to see you "come out", so to speak

[leesa]

33. No surprise there, you have always supported warring on this board

[59millionmorons]

43. warring on this board

First of all what is warring. And please show some of my examples in other post of it or are you just blathering.

[SonofMass]

38. What about this?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065