Some needed perspective on Clark trashing

[kstewart33]

This comes from calpundit.com:

"IS WES CLARK A DEMOCRAT?....There are plenty of legitimate questions about Wesley Clark and whether he'd make a good president, but the question of whether he's really a Democrat is surely one of the lamest. Here's all you need to know about it:

The Republican National Committee on Friday circulated a transcript and videotape of Clark's May 11, 2001, speech before the Pulaski County Republican Party. Clark had gained attention as NATO supreme commander in the late 1990s, but his party affiliation was unknown at the time of his speech.

Here's the easy formula: if the RNC is pushing this, Democrats should stay away from it. Yes, that means you, Joe Lieberman. Find something else to attack him about.

This is really one of the silliest things I've heard since — well, since the recall debate a couple of days ago. I mean, Clark was talking to a Republican Party gathering. Of course he said nice things about Republicans and didn't say anything about Clinton. If I were giving a speech to the Cato Institute I'd probably skip lightly over my admiration for Franklin Roosevelt.

If this is the best the RNC can do, Clark is in great shape — especially since this kind of stuff probably helps him in the long run. But even if they can do better, let's not help them out, OK?"

[seamarq]

1. Spot on!

it's very discouraging reading the neocon spin that is being bought by the left reaging any candidate.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. Enthusiastic Leftists...

Really need to check their sources and examine what they have written, before they submit it. This place is starting to get unsavory and not unlike our bete' noire.

Not unlike? Who am I kidding? Just like.

[EagleEye]

2. He may be a Dem. but he's a baby Dem. and...

that means we still know little about him. Lieberman is right to quesiton his recent conversion. It may be a heartfelt conversion but the varnish is still wet on the coating.

[kstewart33]

6. Fine...

But I wish DUers would look at this objectively and stop trashing the guy. There's a big difference between posting news about him and rerunning Rush and Drudge stuff.

[EagleEye]

10. Most all of what I've seen here is from mainstream press.

[diplomats]

16. That fund-raiser thing came from Drudge

and that's what most of the recent posts here have been about.

[EagleEye]

17. But wasn't it in the Post today?

...and hasn't Drudge broken some stories that hurt the Repugs?

[Pepperbelly]

22. not that I am aware of ... and you really NEED to hear this ...

Drudge is one of the step-1 sources in the echo chamber effect. Drudge or the lunatics at Newsmax or Worldnet. They run with their crazy shit, whatever it happens to be. Then, one of the more respectable right wing rags ... Washington Times, WSJ Online Journal, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Weekly Standard or even Front Page, NY Post or Human Events republishes it and then the wires pick it up and it echos throughout the known universe. That is why one must be suspicious of even the most credible sources and the actual source of their stories examined before putting much credence in them.

[SWPAdem]

19. Force fed to them at the end of a RNC blast fax

n/t

[eileen_d]

9. Lieberman wouldn't be Lieberman

if he wasn't picking on other Democrats. I wonder if *he* has an account on DU, lol...

[WoodrowFan]

15. He's still

more of a Democrat than Lieberman (Mr. support the war and the tax cuts) has been lately.

[rustydad]

27. Lieberman???

Points to stay focused on:

1) Clark and all the Demo candidates are a world apart from bush

2) Clark may have recreated himself or he may just be getting updated after years in the miopia of the military, lets give him some slack.

3) Lieberman is so far to the right of mainstream democrates that only bush can make him look slightly liberal.

4) Democrates have this election to loose if they keep up the infighting.

Bob

[Donna Zen]

35. Richard Shelby

switched parties after two days in office (iirc) I bet the pubs didn't want to throw his ass out. And do you know why? It's because as stupid as they are, they're not dumber than the rocks in my backyard.

[Clark Can WIN]

40. Lieberman is acting like a snotty ass debutante

who can't figure out why she's not getting invited to the big ball.

He's been wrong about many things, and this is just one of them. It smacks of desperation and pettiness.

[Kahuna]

42. He IS a baby dem. But he isn't a baby citizen or a

baby patriot. As long as he represents a democratic platform and works towards healing our partisan divides I don't think I could ask more of him.

[Donna Zen]

49. And it's not just DU doing trashing:

Other forum's are slurping up the swill and making the same gaint leaps...spoke at a dinner...that does it! He's a neo-con plant. I will share with you a rebuttal from someone who actually knows something;

Actually I think the first time I ever heard of Wesley Clark was in a conversation with Paul Wellstone.

Back when Paul was first running for the Senate in 1990, the wars in former Yugoslavia were just blowing up, and our Governor at that time, Rudy Perpich, was second generation Croatian, and off the Iron Range which is heavily populated with Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovinians, and the like -- they were imported by the Rockefellers back at the turn of the 20th century to mine Iron Ore, and they became the foundation of the International Workers of the World (IWW) and became very radicalized by the general strike of 1909. (Joe Hill was one of the IWW organizers on the Range.) Anyhow, Perpich had been governor for 4 years, lost an election and was hired by IBM to work as a Business Representative in Yugoslavia in the mid 80's, and then came back and won election to another term in 1986. But as Yugoslavia was breaking up, he did as much as he could from St. Paul to stop the horrors. So when Paul got the endorsement for the Senate, he had to get quickly up to speed on all of the politics and history, and since I do know some of the history, and spent a couple of summers there in the 60's and 70's with a grad school group, Paul and I had several fairly lengthy conversations -- fitting what Perpich had told him, with what the Iron Rangers were asking for, with the history I knew. After he got elected, he poked the Bush administration to "engage" -- and after Clinton was nominated, Paul wrote a position paper for Clinton that combined the questions that one of the largest 100% Democratic collections of American-Yugoslavs were asking about US policy. After Clinton was elected, Paul was chief prodder from the Senate to get done with the policy review, and get cracking and do something positive. Paul was part of a Senate delegation that went to Belograd, and Paul refused to shake the hand of "the butcher" as he put it.

In 1994 the Policy review was done, and Clinton appointed Dick Holbrooke and Wes Clark to a team to visit all the European NATO capitals to explore real policy change -- and all the while the serb shells were going off in the marketplaces. When they returned, Clinton sent them to the hill to brief Senators who were interested -- and Paul was included in that briefing.

I saw him about three or four days later, and he told me that things were looking up as Clinton had found competent people to do the job, and Paul told me Holbrooke's nick name was "the bulldozer" and that Clark was the first General he had met in DC who seemed to want to do something. (This was about the time Madaline told Powell that he had a very nice army, but it would be nice if they did something.)

I have no idea what Paul would have done about this election had he lived, but what I do know about him was that he really liked Wesley Clark in the roles where they interacted on policy, and that policy was to get Milosevic's thugs out of Bosnia and Kosovo. (and send Milosovic to the Hague). So why not tell the story that I know? Why does it offend you or anyone else that Paul wanted precise but effective military action taken against Milosevic's thugs, and Clark did a good job in this respect. I suspect when Paul's papers are opened there will be interesting correspondence between Wesley Clark and Paul Wellstone. Paul did organize an event -- can't remember whether it was in Duluth or on the Range -- for Clark after he retired so he could meet the south slav Iron Rangers who very much admired what he had done. It wasn't political -- it was informational and a thank you.

By the way -- listening to Wait Wait don't tell me on NPR, Al Franken is now telling fun Wesley Clark stories. He says he really likes him, and they apparently got to know each other in Kosovo when Franken was doing USO shows for the troops. Franken was telling "Jewish Jokes" -- one of which involved his having checked to find the highest ranking Jew in the military, and discovering that was the Competroller of the Coast Guard. Apparently Clark pipped up and told him, "Well, I'm half Jewish" Anyhow, Franken is saying he "really likes" Wesley Clark. My My, and he isn't even dead yet.

Oh_and the two main streets in Pristina_one is called Clinton and the other is named Clark.

[Pepperbelly]

51. thank you for the perspective ...

It is enlightening.

[PA-DEM]

53. Thats perfect

I hope this is a sign you will make an attempt to get to know him.

[boxster]

3. That pretty much sums up my view of it.

If you're in Michigan, talk about the auto industry.
If you're in Nevada, talk about casinos.
If you're in Iowa, talk about farming.
Blah, blah.

It's all about understanding your audience and keeping their attention.

Is it pandering? Probably. Does everybody do it anyway? Yep.

[bearfartinthewoods]

5. how many democrats adress republican fundraisers?

i'd think if any were accidently asked to raise money for repubs the would say 'no thank you'

if he's a dem, why did he say yes.

if he wasn't a dem then, he's a baby dem now.

why do we want to nominate a baby dem? i feel a helluva lot more comfortable with the fukk grown cersions.

even...gulp...Dean.

[Zuni]

11. It is only recently

this year that I have really become outraged at the GOP. In 2001, I looked at them very differently than I do now.

Clark was probably doing a favor for someone, or was perhaps leaning GOP at the time. A lot of people have changed their minds. He may have misread the GOP intentions.
Perhaps he was disenchanted with the democrats, because Clinton retired him early. Who knows.

He seems to be on the right track now. I forgive past mistakes

[Pastiche423]

12. You need to read some

history on the GOP.

[Donna Zen]

44. Some citizenship award

The Republican Dinner was a Lincoln day event, and they gave Clark some sort of award for his service shortly after he moved back to Arkansas.

Clark has actually commented on this -- right after he returned to Arkansas he was "romanced" by the Republicans who suggested he might run for congress as a Republican. He apparently had some talks about the idea, and rejected it because he didn't feel at all comfortable with the narrow ideology he would have to support. When he took a look, he decided he simply did not agree with Republican positions on issues. I think it is really a great laugh that someone decides not to be a Republican because of fundamental disagreements with platform. It is so simple and honest that today people are programed not to believe it.

[Clark Can WIN]

54. That's exactly what I have been saying

I guess people don't want the truth from their candidates. Some of them want party hacks that toe the line no matter what.

Reasonable dialoge does not mean this "with us or against us" kind of additude, that's a Bush additude. Reasonable dialoge does not mean our way or the highway. As tired as it may sound, reasonable dialoge has never been more necessary than it is now.

[diplomats]

14. It doesn't bother me

but that's just my opinion :)

[Shanty Oilish]

70. Ever walked into the wrong bar?

You suddenly realize it's not your orientation. Do you switch for the evening, or leave? Clark did not leave. He professed fond Republican sentiments. Got well and thoroughly paid, too.

[DemCam]

71. How many generals

address Republican fundraisers"?

[Julien Sorel]

7. Reason doesn't matter here.

It's an opportunity to attack Clark, and so people take it. They don't care if it hurts the party -- they only want to help their own candidate. If they are helping the Republicans in so doing, they consider it a fair price to pay -- and besides, most of them have fooled themselves into thinking their own candidate is really the one to beat Bush, and to heck with reality. It's nationalism being attached to a human being.

[Zuni]

8. I agree

I do not think giving a speech and saying some nice things about Republicans is equal to being some kind of Neo-Con Trojan Horse.

Clark seems to be quite upset with current Republican positions, and I believe it is real concern for America that drives him. I think he has been a bit of a political wanderer in the past. Like me, Clark often looks at an issue from many sides, and can come to many different conclusions. Often this leads to indecision, which may be a bad thing in a president, but it shows an analytical mind that takes apart issues. I tend to think like this, and often do not have clear positions. But I have come to a conclusion, like I think Wes Clark has, that the direction of the Bush people is the wrong direction for our country.
I think the General is upset with the Bush administration, is sick of the mess they have created in virtual every sphere of their influence and wants to put America back on the right track.

[Donna Zen]

45. They invited him

to give him an award!

[diplomats]

13. Good post

I, for one, don't want to see our Dems doing Karl Rove's work for them.

[EagleEye]

18. How is this Rove's work? These are legitimate concerns.

[Pastiche423]

20. If any negative

comes up about clark, then it MUST be rove's work.

:eyes:

[eileen_d]

21. Yes, and if anyone dares to defend Clark

they're not "real" Democrats.

:eyes:

[Pepperbelly]

25. She's part of the ...

Amen-chorus that show up to bash Clark. They rarely try to defend their slurs. They just state their opinions as though they were fact and then slide back away, saying, "Amen, Clark basher, amen!"

:D

edited because my spelling and typing SUCK!

[Julien Sorel]

28. Did they give up on the high fives?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. The Attacks On Wes Clark

remind me of the lyrics from the Bob Marley song "I Shot The Sheriff"

"Every time I plant a seed they want to kill it before it's born..."

[Tinoire]

24. Nice things? You call these just nice things we should "skip over"?

You're not going to so easily convince people who have fought and hated these guys for years, who have have SPAT at these criminals if they were withing 10 feet of us, that these are just a few words we should just skip over lightly.

Condeleeza Rice - 16 words the world should just forget about.
Wesley Clark - about 3000 words by now what we should just skip over?

This is a travesty and a tragedy for the coming election. Here's some guy who's good buddies with Bush and the entire PNAC crowd and we should just skip over this and welcome this very New Democratic as the savior of the Democratic Party?

Oh no no no. People here didn't spend 3 years exposing PNAC and JINSA and passionately fighting these people to skip over this lightly. You'll have to excuse some of us Old Dems if we're a tad bit reluctant about opening wide the gates of Troy.

-----------------------------

That's the kind of president Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him and tremendously admired him for his great leadership.

<snip>

Desert Storm was wonderful; we whipped Saddam Hussein and all that sort of thing. But the Cold War was over, the Berlin Wall was down. And President George Bush had the courage and the vision to push our European allies to take the risk to tell the Russians to leave, and to set up the conditions so all of Germany and later many nations of Eastern Europe could become part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, part of the West with us. And we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship.


<snip>

And then I was tapped to go back--as one senator explained it to me, she said: "You don't want to go over there and fight Bill Clinton's war in the Balkans, do you?" And I said, "Well, Senator, the honest truth is that when you're a soldier, you march to the sound of the guns. That's your duty, and that's--they tell me to do it, that's what I'm going to do."

<snip>

You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.

<snip>

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

--------------------

"Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ..." ((what's the understood word there? Administration???))

Clark:

"I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.

<snip>
But the views that President Bush espoused recently at the American Enterprise Institute, if his predecessor had espoused that view he'd have been hooted off the stage, laughed at, accused of being incredibly idealistic about the hard-nosed practical politics of the Middle East. So this is an administration that's moving in a certain direction, and now that that's the direction they've picked they've got to make it work. Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail. ((WHO IS EVERYONE HERE??))

<snip>
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark

--------------

From Wayne Madsen's article Wesley Clark for President?
Another Con Job from the Neo-Cons:

More interestingly is how General Clark's Bosnia strategy ultimately goes full circle. According to Washington K Street sources, the law firm that established the Bosnia Defense Fund was none other than Feith and Zell, the firm of current Pentagon official and leading neo-con Douglas Feith. Feith's operation at Feith and Zell was assisted by his one-time boss and current member of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Both Feith and Perle advised the Bosnian delegation during the 1995 Dayton Peace talks. The chief U.S. military negotiator in Dayton was Wesley Clark.

http://thomasmc.com/0919b.htm

[Pepperbelly]

26. if you have even an ounce of intellectual honesty ...

you have to ask yourself why the WSJ online is feeding you this kind of stuff? Do you think it is because they agree with you regarding progressive issues?

Every single one of these quotations have discussed and, as usual, the Amen-chorus posts them yet again, as though yesterday or the day before didn't happen. I cannot believe how easily manipulated the Amen-chorus actually is. It is phenominal.

:eyes:

I will not bother answering these dusty canndards yet again. It is clearly not worth the time or effort because some will post them again tomorrow. It is a cheap tactic for one who claims moral highground to take.

[Mz Pip]

29. Seems to me if Clark

still had any positive feelings about BushCo he wouldn't be running against them, speaking out against them and subjecting himself to the Right Wing attacks that are coming at him so fast and furious.

I think it's kind of funny that the RW actually attacks Clark for having said anything good about Republicans. :crazy:

MzPip
:dem:

[Pepperbelly]

30. I do not see how these people cannot see that factoid.

It astounds me for people who consider themselves politically astute to be made such patsies for the ones they claim to despise. It eludes me.

[jonnyblitz]

31. i think they are trying to portray him as unstable.

The rignt wingers don't take kindly to military types not being right wing also. As a mere enlisted navy vet I discovered last winter/spring when I would get confronted on the street by freepers during anti-war rallies that me proclaiming my Desert Storm vet status only caused their shreiks and insults to get louder and more virulent. Nope, they own the military and if somebody military goes against them then that person must be disturbed in some way...

[Donna Zen]

56. It would shatter

the control they currently enjoy over the military; a very dangerous coupling. That there are people on the left running with this junk (and don't kid yourself...they know exactly what buttons to push...international cabals my ass...) is both confusing and sad.

[Tinoire]

32. Have you noticed though that it's also Left Wing Attacks?

Doesn't it concern you that there is so much unsettling information about a man we know very little about and what little we know, such as still sitting on the Board of Acxiom for whom up until March 2003 he was still a House & Senate Lobbyist? Acxiom is the same company involved in this week's scandal with Jet Blue . This is the same company that has information on 90% of US households and is providing it to Homeland Security. Do these things not worry you? They truly alarm me. It was with the same passion that we protested the war in Iraq that I protested what happened in Yugoslavia, at the time.

I assure you that a lot of the things you're hearing now are not simply or even Right Wing smears.
------------------------------

Last week, JetBlue apologized to millions of customers for the unauthorized release of their data to a Defense Department contractor said to be developing software to improve security at U.S. military bases.

Passengers Sue JetBlue for Sharing Their Data

JetBlue Airways now faces two passenger lawsuits and a privacy group's complaint to the Federal Trade Commission following its admission last week that it handed over customer records for Pentagon research.

<snip>
A Washington-based advocacy group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), has filed a complaint with the FTC against both JetBlue and a data-mining company used by the defense contractor that received JetBlue's records. The complaint accuses the airline and Little Rock-based Acxiom of unfair and deceptive business practices and seeks a federal investigation.

<snip>

The airline gave the information to Huntsville, Ala.-based Torch Concepts in August 2002 at the Defense Department's request, and Torch hired Acxiom to marry it with other data. Torch hasn't returned repeated calls. A message left with Acxiom wasn't returned.

The Army says JetBlue gave passenger names, phone numbers and addresses to Torch as part of a contract with the Army, which wanted to find out if technology could predict who might launch a terrorist attack against military installations.
Torch ran the passenger data through software from Acxiom and was able to add Social Security numbers and data on income, vehicles and families for some passengers, the Army said. Torch's contract with the Army ended on Sept. 2, Maj. Gary Tallman said.

<snip>

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/31663.html
______________________________

Arkansas Democrat Gazette Sep 24, 2003

<snip>

Acxiom sold that contractor demographic data on roughly 2 million airline passengers — about 40 percent of those involved — as part of its role in the war on terror.

<snip>

That group filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission on Monday, claiming that Acxiom and JetBlue Airways Corp. violated privacy policies that both companies publicize online, and thus violated federal laws against deceptive trade practices.

<snip>

Wesley Clark, an Acxiom board member and now a presidential front-runner for the Democratic Party, had lobbied for the company, according to those reports, in the areas of "information transfers, airline security and homeland security issues."

<snip>

Calls to Clark’s campaign staff were not returned Tuesday.

Privacy is a touchy subject at Acxiom, which says it handles information on "a vast majority of U.S. households" for both itself and its clients, Ingram said.

<snip>

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_Business.php?storyid=42585


---------






http://sopr.senate.gov/ (Senate Lobbyist DataBase)

[Pepperbelly]

33. ok ...

First, on Acxiom, I think you need something more specific than the feelings some on the left have about the company. Their business is digitalizing public information for direct mail and telemarketers. Check out their site. They are quite open about it.

Second, your disingeniously neglected to provide Acxiom's defenses against the ALLEGATIONS made. Acxiom's position is that they violated no laws nor their own privacy policy. At this point, you are hyperventilating about a lawsuit filed when the hard fact is that all it takes to file is the filing fee and a lawyer. Let's actually see what the evidence develops rather than leaping to conclusions not justified by the evidence.

Third, although you cleverly attempt to imply that Clark was somehow responsible (I thought that the lobbying forms were a cute touch), you actually didn't feed the bulldog. If you have information that Clark did something illegal, then post it. Otherwise, if you have evidence that Axciom did something illegal, I would like to see that as well although you would then be treading firmly on ground trod before by old Red Baiting Joe with the whole guilt-by-association thing.

Fourth, you did not note whether Clark was a named defendant in the lawsuit. He was not.

And last, when you quoted the Democrat-Gazette, a gop asswipe of the nth degree, you also left out this little quotation: "Clark was not involved in the contract addressed in the group’s complaint and no longer lobbies for Acxiom, company spokesman Dale Ingram said."

Ooooops. So what exactly does this have to do with Clark?

[retyred]

36. Ouch!

That musta hurt!


CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
Retyred IN FLA.

[Tinoire]

38. The baggage Pepperbelly, the baggage

You are doing an admirable job of defending your cousin and I can understant your anger at seeing him talked about like this but unfortunately he is still on the Board of Directors for this company that's in the thick with Homeland Security and which still peddles personal consumer information.


He is either a total innocent with a serious lack of judgement about the company he keeps, the people he admires, the statements he makes, the fundraisers he speaks at and the companies he choose to work for, in which case he probably isn't the best candidate for the Presidency of the United States on the Democratic ticket

or

something much worse.

Only scrutiny and examination will tell. Spin and minimalizing what many see as disconcerting facts helps neither him nor the Democratic Party.

[Pepperbelly]

41. I truly don't ...

care about Acxiom nor do I think that they are engaged in nefarious acts. In fact, I would go so far as to assert that you do not have any goods on them either or else, you would have trotted them out.

So why did you leave out the parts of the articles favorable to Clark? Was your aim to "make your case" at any cost or were you trying to educate those DUers not up to speed?

on edit: Anger? I don't think I've shown even the smallest spark. I think what I have done is shown your assertions for what they are as well as exposing the methods used in the smear. Anger? Nope. I wouldn't use this :grr:

If anything, I would use this :evilgrin:

[Tinoire]

57. Of course you don't care

I am not here to advertise for someone who has such shady associations and am under no obligation to include Acxiom's attempt to cover for Clark, one of their Board of Directors running for President, as one of the few paragraphs I can post while respecting copyright rules. I leave it to Clark supporters to think that sentence had any value.

I note with interest that "Calls to Clark’s campaign staff were not returned". I am sure that, as soon as Marc Fabiani, scandal meister extraordinaire, has figured out the best spin to put on this, Clark supporters will post that spin here for us and the discussions can take new depth because this story is not going away.

Peddling people's personal information to the government and to the military is no small matter so its understandable you would pretend there's "nothing to see here".

Not to worry though, more and more people are getting up to speed on this. What fascinates me is that the DLC has clearly understood and even stated that it will not get much support from the Left because of these issues yet you would rather classify presentation of these undeniable facts on a Progressive board as smear.

It doesn't matter to me- I always post the links with the information so that people can check for themselves. I think they're intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions.

What a tough job fighting Rove, the Right wing and the Left at the same time.

If Clark is who you say he is, he'll come out of this smelling like a rose. Since this is a discussion board, you'll simply have to bear with those of us who aren't going to blindly take a new politician's word as final proof of anything when his associations are less than re-assuring.

[Pepperbelly]

62. whatever ...

although I find it ironic that the bits you left out were those which were exculpatory as well as the fact that this IS all you have on the subject.

[Tinoire]

65. Exculpatory ?? OMG! Now THAT was funny :)

[Pepperbelly]

68. No ... what was funny was...

your pretense of being an honest broker when you hack out everything that doesn't support your case.

THAT is comedy.

:eyes:

[Donna Zen]

48. In a burst of intellectual dishonesty

the poster conveniently snipped out the part about Clark having NOTHING...that's NOTHING to do with the transaction.

Now what could have caused such a long post to omit this small but important piece of information.

[phegger]

34. Well hell...

...I can snip selectively too.

<snip>

Government and industry officials who have attended meetings with Clark described him as thoughtful and persuasive. Jones, the Acxiom official, said Clark repeatedly stressed the need to "properly balance legitimate privacy interests and the need for security."

<snip>


-ph :smoke:

[Clark Can WIN]

37. Well said. When Democrats start taking talking points from

the RNC, those Democrats need to pull their heads out and ask themselves how low they want to go to "promote" their own candidate.

They also must consider this: When we allow the RNC to create and direct our squabbles in the primaries we GIVE THEM CONTROL of our campaign. Why not just start helping W plan his second coronation now?

[noiretextatique]

39. sorry...wrong thread nt

[Kahuna]

43. The dems you refer to are baby dems themselves a lot of them..

some aren't really dems at all. So take it all with a grain of salt.

[noiretextatique]

46. you guys...

are *really* objective about clark, right? is it at all conceivable to you that some *democrats* just don't support clark? or are they *not really* democrats or *baby dems*? if trashing clark is unfair, then trashing people who do not support him is...what exactly IS that?

[Pepperbelly]

47. When we've ...

been through a constant shit storm from fellow DUers, sometimes perspective is lost.

And what do YOU have to worry about, Mister Silk Hat and Cavier with your Sharpton support, the one guy that everyone else LOVES. :D

on edit: that would be MS Silk Hat and Cavier. :D

[Donna Zen]

50. PB

You might be interested in post #49.

[noiretextatique]

52. it's just an advertisement...not sure who i'm voting for yet

:D but it just may be sharpton. i hear you...the fighting is getting to everyone. i am definitely going to give clark a closer look...and i'm sure the battles will continue. off to check my fire extinguisher :hi:

[janekat]

55. What kills me is he's actually more liberal than Dean in MANY issues

I'd love for people to point out what stance on the issues that Clark has that makes him so ultra-right. People are just biased against the military I fear...

I voted for Reagan - does that mean that I can't run for President as a Democrat? Do I have to turn in my Voter Registration card that says "Democrat" on it? I really hate it when people won't have an open mind and give someone a chance.

[Julien Sorel]

58. One of the big functions of all the conspiracy theories

is to keep focus away from the issues. Sure, Clark might say he's liberal -- but it's just a front. As soon as he gets in, he'll become his true PNAC, Repub self, blah blah blah. And so no one pays attention to the fact that he is more liberal than Dean or Kerry. It's smearing at work: focus on the person (or the person you paint), not the politics.

[Zorra]

66. No, I don't think Clark will do that....

What he will probably do is promote some liberal domestic policies, such as a better health care agenda, affirmative action, pro choice policy, a better education policy, and a more reasonable domestic economic policy than the current misadministration.

However, he will continue to expand multi-national corporate military and economic colonialism, and will not do anything about corporate control of the US government. Multi-nationals don't care about the domestic policies or political ideologies of semi-sovereign nations as long as they do not interfere with long term globalist agendas of global market expansion and profit motivated imperialism.

:dem:Believe me, Kucinich is the only one who will fix it. He's real. And that cuts his chances of getting nominated by 95%

[bearfartinthewoods]

67. if he is so liberal why did it take meetingS (plural) with AK REPUBS

before he declined their offer to run as a repub?

seriously....would any of us even take A meeting with the repubs?
would any of us take more than one meeting? how could this "very liberal" man even consider being a pub. very liberal people , by definition, aren't pubs and it doesn't take 'meetings' for them to realize that.

sheeesh

[Capn Sunshine]

59. If Clark is left of Dean on anything, I'd like to know about it.

Honestly. This is hardly a race to the left, is it?

I express many doubts about Clark but really, if he ends up the guy, I'm with him all the way. I just don't think he will beat Dean. I think either candidate can beat Bush:

After all, he's never won a presidential election yet. By virtue of his non-win, he is probably among the weaker incumbents in history.

Part of my support for Dean evolved from the rage against the party for losing the 2002 elections so badly.For not speaking out against the many outrages perpetuated by the Shrub administration. Dean has voiced our outrage and it has served him well. Because he came by his outrage honestly. Clark isn't pissed off about this enough for me, but I recognize his formidable abilities.

I tip my hat to all of you and hope we will find ourselves working together in the general election. No pun intended.

[phegger]

64. well...

...he has talked about making the tax code more progressive and being willing to cut the military budget.


-ph :smoke:

[Donna Zen]

60. ditto

I really hate it when people won't have an open mind and give someone a chance.


That's why you, a child of the Enlightenment, belong in the Democratic party. Looking at many sides of the issues, and searching for the truth.

Have you noticed the many leaps of faith we are being asked to take? First comes the long post with its attendent links. The quality of the sources is of no consequence...nada. Then_boom...Clark sat on a board...Clark is a neo-con plant!

Now in this sequence dates matter not, or outstand facts that would refute the claims. Clark was invited on to some international policy board that is funded by both the left and right to develop programs around the world. Of course there are wingers on the board because that is the nature of the organization. Second, what the wingers chose to fund is their business. That the organization also funds postive progressive programs is also part of the history of this organization.

Now, get this. The other night through the magic of selective cutting and pasting, it was established that Kissinger and Clark were part of the same institution and that therefore Clark was a neo-con. Nevermind that Soros was also on the board and has recently annouced he will spend 73 million to defeat bushco. Never mind that half of those on the board were names put forward by progressive institutions. Nope. Just cut and paste. And then suggest that I should be a republican because I find their premise based on hysterical evidence, unworthy of applause. MF. Judge Hathorne would be proud.

[cosmicdot]

69. surely, you could run for President as a Democrat

but, you would be challenged to prove your mettle; and, it would effect your chances - you might win some people, but the likelihood that you would lose as many if not more, also, comes into play

myself, had I voted for Reagan (God forbid); and, if I thought I would like to run as a Democrat for President, I would fear that that vote alone would be a major hurdle in winning the hearts of the Democratic Party and the American people ... I certainly wouldn't want to defend that vote and I certainly wouldn't be proud of it after 12 years of Reagan-Bush1 and, now, Bush2 ...

it may seem petty - but, it isn't

"People are just biased against the military I fear"

that statement in itself is so biased ... its premise, untrue ... sort of a "conspiracy theory" in and of itself ...

[QERTY]

61. Attack the Argument, Not the Arguer!

I'm getting pretty disgusted with the numerous posts trashing people who question Clark's integrity. Why don't you address the Clark quotes re: Rice, Rummy, Wolfie, and Shrub? I am left thinking that you have a bizarre set of blinders on. If you can't address these quotes, perhaps I should assume that you support Clark BECAUSE of them. So you think Perle and Rummy are great guys? You have an obligation to address these quotes. Otherwise you're just another propagandist. I have yet to hear you engage in any sort of civil discussion. Why? Have you even read the quotes? Or are you as intellectually incurious as Shrub. I want a winner in '04. I believe Clark can win. That is not a valid reason to vote for him. Give me a reason. Explain the quotes.

[Shanty Oilish]

63. Dems in denial

I've been watching elections since 1960, and I've never heard a Dem candidate blow kisses at the Republican team like that, and at their fundraiser too!
It's astonishing how many DUers are trying to rationalize the inexcusable Clark comments about the Bush team. We dismiss Lieberman as a hawk, Kerry and Clinton for war votes---but they've never heaped rose petals on Bush and his gang. Not in 2001, not ever.
Clark's Democrat persona is nothing but wet paint. Keep off! The man obviously has no core. :thumbsdown: