What has Clark done politically as a Democrat, for Democrats?

[liberalnurse]

I hear how Clark will clean up the War in Iraq, is a fine General but as a Democrat, I do not have a clue as to what he has ever done for the people politically. I hear a lot of speculation, rhetoric and a hope chest full of promises......As a Democrat, what has this candidate ever done for democrats? Al Sharpton has advocated, protested and improved and fought civil liberties, Gepthadt, Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, Braun, Kucinich all have written legislation and pushed bills through Congress.....Dean as a Democratic Governor approved multiple bills for his state of Vermont addressing healthcare, landmark civil liberties and education.

Tell me, what has Clark ever done as a Democrat for Democrats?

[JVS]

1. Not a damn thing!

[clarknyc]

2. Exactly!

Not a damn thing!

[slor]

3. Who cares...

what did the dems that GAVE dumbya carte blanche to do all that he wished done for us?

[liberalnurse]

5. Changing the question just is a way to avoid the answer to

the post question. Tell me if you know.... What has Clark done as a Democrat for Democrats? He was to be Head of the Democratic Party, what has he done to lead us as a Democrat?

[digno dave]

158. military is apolitical environment

Clark was in the Army for 34 years. The military is an apolitical organization. For good reason.
I look at how the man has lived his life and look at the decisions he has made and they gel with Democratic principles.

[JVS]

159. Then why were military members encouraged to vote illegally in 2000?

After the deadline had passed?

[ginchinchili]

165. It wasn't that they were encouraged to vote illegally...

there were people manipulating the overseas ballots. They were counting ballots that weren't signed, ballots that weren't properly dated, more than one ballot with the same name on it, these kinds of things. I had nothing to do with the political culture of the military, except that the republicans had enough people in place to pull something like that. But I've talked to people in the military and they strongly encourage especially new recruits to vote republican. I hope you don't think that this means everyone in the military votes republican. I was talking to a guy probably in his 60's today who told me he doesn't vote any particular party, he votes for the best person. He said he won't vote for Bush. In other words, very similar to Clark's stand when he was in the military. But he's a Democrat now running for the Democratic nomination. Do you have a problem with that, or should Democrats have some sort of litmus test before joining the party? That sounds more like the republicans to me.

[ginchinchili]

164. Actually, the military is suppose to be but isn't. But Clark was.

The military pressures personnel to vote republican, though they are suppose to stay neutral. Clark, to his credit, stayed neutral. He's a man of rare integrity. I've read many quotes from senior military officers who say about Clark that he is not someone who fudges on the rules. He's someone that can always be depended on and did not take advantage of his position. Sometimes he voted Republican and sometimes Democrat. And that is just one of the reasons he will be able to attract a broader range of people than anyone else. If you want to extol the virtues of the Democratic party and vote for the Democratic wing of the Democratic party and then lose in the general election, then don't vote for Clark. Vote for Kucinich.

[ginchinchili]

163. Clark Has Served America And That Is Even More Important

Clark served Democrats and every other American with 34 years of distinguished service to our country. And unlike the other Democratic candidates, besides Al Sharpton, Clark served without getting rich off of the American tax payer.

There's only one question that matters right now. Who would make a good president who can beat George Bush in November. More and more Americans are deciding that Wes Clark is that man.

[bowens43]

75. So your solution to your dissatisfaction with

the congressional Democrats is to run someone exactly like bush on the Democratic ticket? Replace an incompetent neo-con with a much smarter neo-con? bush is dangerous but because he's buffoon the damage that he can do is limited. Clark on the other hand is intelligent, the damage that he can and will do if elected would know no bounds. He will complete the job that bush was appointed to do.

[mmonk]

102. disinformation about Clark

doesn't help your cause. And since calling Clark a neocon is a direct lie, not even misinformation, if Clark withdraws at some point, I'm really going to have to think who I would back. Maybe which campaign lies the least? Maybe no campaign wants our support if our candidate doesn't win? My memory will be long.

[liberalnurse]

145. You raise a serious point. That is why

I elected to start out with the basics and ask the simple question. See the original post.

You validate many concerns. A multitude of Democrats harbor these fears when they try to answer the basic Democratic 101 question with Clark as the demominator.

I see it still remains unanswered.

We could ask this question of all the candidates....Shall we?

[ginchinchili]

162. Then Vote For Someone Else And Get 4 More Years of Bush

Because were are currently involved in 3 unconventional, wars - Iraq, Afghanistan and the broader war on terrorism - and the attack on 9/11, only someone with military and or foreign policy experience can beat Bush. And probably both areas of experience are needed. So this eliminates Howard Dean, Kucinich, and Al Sharpton. Lieberman has some foreign policy experience but he's to conservative to win the nomination and he doesn't inspire enough passion to beat Bush. Gephardt has foreign policy experience but he's too much an old school politician and will have a hard time convincing Americans he can command armies and keep America safe. That leaves Clark, Kerry and Edwards. One of these 3 men will get the nomination. Edwards will have to show some dramatic improvements in the polls. He can argue that he has foreign policy experience, but it's minimal and will be a tough sell after Bush reminds people that any day now we could be hit with a nuclear bomb. Edwards could catch fire but it's a long shot. It will probably be between Clark and Kerry. Kerry and Clark have both military and foreign policy experience. Clark's is much more extensive, but Kerry has domestic policy experience and Clark's is minimal at best. Kerry is an old Washington insider and Clark is the fresh face. Considering that Californian's were willing to elect a man with no experience at anything but acting and pumping iron, I give the nod to Clark because he's not a career politician, he's brilliant, he has proven to be able to inspire a lot of excitement in people, and he should be able to convince America better than anyone else, including Bush, that he can keep America safe. I give it to Clark in the primary and Clark in the general election.

[FrenchieCat]

4. The question should be

What has Wes Clark done for America and Americans?....because he is running to become President of the United States of America...not the President of the Democratic party....

Country before party....that how it should be...
and that's the problem now....everybody wants everything their way...and in the end, we get nothing....not even a bone.

In France....we are all French first...and last really....Party affiliation doesn't mean a goddamn thing.

So you ask a silly question, be prepared for a silly answer.

Better yet, what has Clark done to help in the world....

Well he helped Bosnians by helping write a peace treaty...and he helped Albanian Muslims..(1.5 million of them)...then he helped by testifying against a brutal dictator...and his testimony will help put the guy away for a long time.

Then he helped some diplomats in Europe as they were dying in a car which had gone over a ravine and exploded...as he hung by a rope over a ravine....

He helped Bill Clinton, when Bill was in the White House....by fighting his war for him......and therefore by extension, he helped Al Gore...who went on to run for election...and lost, but not because he didn't get enough votes.

He helped Cleland, Swett (regrets that one) and E. Boyles, and some California Republican U.S. Representative...by campaigning with them and donating money ....He spoke at Democratic Fundraisers as well.

He helped Howard Dean out by advising him in matters of Foreign Relations policies throughout Dean bid until September of 2003.

He helped Black folks (such as myself) by helping write the Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court on the U. of Michigan.

He helped Michael Moore when there was an attempt to ridicule him on CNN.

He also helped this nation by taking a stand against Genocide (see Samantha Power's Pulitzer winning book " Problem from Hell - America and the age of Genocide in which Clark is her hero).....and lost his job for it.....but cause his a real man...he took it like a man...not a cry baby.

He helped 50,000 people who wrote him and begged (yes, I begged) him to run for President...cause the field looked "weak".

He helped force Bush to "at least" go to the U.N. to ask for a resolution and approval to go to war in Iraq....by testifying before both houses back in September of 2002....

He is helping now make what the Democrats say be heard that much louder...cause a 4 star General is saying the things that need to be said about PNAC, 9/11, etc....

He will help the entire world even more when he becomes the President of all of the people...the way it's supposed to be.

Sorry if I didn't answer your question....cause it must have been a trick question.

[slinkerwink]

6. well, we're not in France, frenchy

we're in America, and yes, party affiliation does come first.

[FrenchieCat]

12. No?

That was not the point.....are we that simplistic?
Gee wiz...starting to see the personalities better and better.....clearer and clearer...

Not debate and not discourse...if you read my answer...I believe that I am quite clear...unless Democrats are not Americans, are not black, are not people of the world......are not Democratic candidates running for office...

Are not Howard Dean running and needing foreign policy advise...

Then if Democrats are not humans beings ...then I guess Clark didn't do anything for any of them!

This is really pathetic!

Who sets the standard anyway...is there a superior being here on DU?

[Maddy McCall]

15. That's incredibly naive...

No, in America we affiliate with parties that we believe have the best ideas for solving problems we face as Americans.

People don't become Democrats or Republicans just to be affiliated with the party; what would be the purpose of that?

People affiliate with the party because it offers solutions and promises a better America.

And in that, we are all Americans first.

[poppabear36]

17. That's really sad Slinkerwink

Sorry you feel that way.
And I suppose Zell Miller is on our side because after all he is a "Democrat."
Labels are no substitute for substance.

[liberalnurse]

19. Zell is another day.....

another question. Our focus in this tread is Clark.....

[slinkerwink]

26. Zell Miller endorsed Bush, and Clark spoke at a republican fundraiser.....

so you understand why I'm having difficulty about why Clark decided to be a Democrat just a few months ago, and is running for the Presidency without being elected to a smaller office first so we can know what kind of a DEMOCRATIC VOTING record he has.

[FrenchieCat]

28. You

are having difficulties. Even I can see that. Just relax, it will be over soon enough.

[slinkerwink]

39. lol, having difficulties?

I'd say that we're going to win IA and then Clark better be very afraid of Kerry if he places second in IA.

[Maddy McCall]

41. Not according to the polls.

Dean is trending down while Kerry and Gephardt are trending up.

As a matter of fact, Kerry is leading Dean now in Iowa.

Yes, it will be a problem for Clark if Kerry wins, but it is a positive problem, because either Clark or Kerry will make great presidents.

[slinkerwink]

47. that's by one point, within the margin of error.

and those polls are based on 2000 voting lists, which seriously undercounts first-time caucus voters and young voters which may turn the Iowa tide in Dean's favor.

[Maddy McCall]

53. Follow the trend--it's down for Dean

And now you are disavowing the same polling source you have been celebrating for the past two weeks? You never cease to amaze me.

[Lexingtonian]

59. Don't worry about it

The campaign operatives around here don't respond when their hypocrisy or inethical rhetorical tactics get pointed out. The best thing to do when they try to focus a thread on their talking point is to pound it head on, repeatedly, until they flee.

The true artist, however, will subtly hijack and subvert such a thread. d

[FubarFly]

60. Yeah, I've noticed that some of the Clark supporters on this board

do this a lot. They ignore legitimate issues and hijack threads rather then make an attempt at serious discussion. I have tried repeatly to address my concerns about Clark in a civil and open manner. I have been rebuffed each time. I am beginning to seriously worry about what lies beneath Clark's genteel facade.

[Lexingtonian]

62. Yeah, the Dean ones are just as perverse

It's horrible.


:-)

[FubarFly]

65. Touche.

I think it's time we ended the pettiness and fighting, and got back to genuine conversation. DU doesn't belong to the political operatives, it belongs to all of us. ;-)

[LandOLincoln]

80. Right.

Use some kind of personal litmus test to eliminate the best candidate the Dems have run since 1968.

Peachy. But don't for a minute expect us long-term Dems to agree with you.

My bona fides: I've been a Democrat since I was old enough to pay attention to politics. Still have my first political button, bought in 1960. It says, "If I were 21 I'd vote for Kennedy." (I was 17 in 1960.)

I've voted for Dems my whole life, with the exception of a couple of local Greens, and I voted for Sen. Chuck Percy (R-Ill.) in 1968--and would again. Back in the day, at least, not all Republicans were evil.

I know a real Democrat when I see one, and Wes Clark has got my vote and my enthusiastic support. Never got involved in campaigns before, but I'm working hard for Wes here in New Mexico.

BTW, I liked Dean fine until I realized he'd done everything he was accusing the other Dems of doing, and was therefore politics as usual.
This perception was reinforced when he went negative on Clark.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Joe Trippi is no Jedi, he's a common street fighter. And Wes Clark? He's a ninja. :bounce:

(Edited for typo)

[liberalnurse]

104. You are hilarious..

Your first statement tell me that it is not reasonable to want to look at the need to seek the truth, to examine the "product" or candidate. Yes, I want to know, as a Democrat who votes Democratic and believes in the principles of democracy wants to know:

What has Clark done for us, specifically democrats, as all the other candidates are sparkling representatives of my party, the Democratic Party's philosophy.

It is imperative we choose carefully and wisely. We don't need another false king leading us to damnation. Yes, I want to know what the candidates all have done to lead our Party. Clark is the only running Democrat who fails to fill this void by example.

So I just asked the question.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

130. Party affiliation comes before

America?

My God...how pathetic is that?

[liberalnurse]

7. Sorry, that is not the question.

It's rather simple. What has Clark done for Democrats as a Democrat?

[FrenchieCat]

8. As I said....

You question is a trick question...the answer is...du dum....
Wes Clark was born...that what he did for Democrats and the Demcratic party...

and when we take back the White House......you'll be as thankful as you should be.

[liberalnurse]

10. Oh please, it's a simple question.....

I'd like to know since, as a Democrat and because he is running to become the Head of the Democratic Party. I really would like to know....Can you tell me? Just answer the question.

[LandOLincoln]

89. Waaalll, I'll tell ya.

He's given this Democrat hope that finally we've got ourselves a winning candidate, a tough, smart, pragmatic, incorruptible and principled man of honor who stands in stark contrast to our chickenhawk, craven and pandering so-called CinC. IMO this is the best man the Dems have run since Bobby Kennedy in 1968.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

137. It seems that you feel

the Democratic Party trumps the UNITED STATES. Does that indicate that if your candidate wins in the general election (if he gets there) that you would be in favor of rounding up all the Republicans, and Independents & placing them in ghettos surrounded by barbed wire?

Sounds a lot like Bushytushy to me.

[Ivote]

13. Answer

Check out his website and find out for yourself.
www.clark04.com
There isnt enough room to list everything here.

[liberalnurse]

18. There is nothing there addressing his accomplishments as a Democrat.

I am still waiting. Like I said, I have no clue as to what he has done as a Democrat for Democrats. Americans really ought to know this.

[Maddy McCall]

31. Frenchie...great response, but understand the person to whom you are

replying isn't interested in listening to you.

This topic has been hashed and rehashed ten times and if she didn't learn anything in those threads, she isn't willing to listen to you now.

But thanks for laying it out in such a concise manner. :hi:

Bedtime for me. Gotta earn a living. :-)

[slor]

46. DAMN I LOVE THE FRENCH!

Good points all!

[bowens43]

76. No, the question was the correct one.

If we want a republican president there is no reason to vote for anyone other then bush.

[H2O Man]

83. Great answer.....

...thanks for this gentle but firm reminder that the world is bigger than a closed mind.

[bitchkitty]

117. And yours is a trick answer -

Clark is running for President of the U.S. as a Democrat. If you can't prove that he is a Democrat (and you evidently can't), then he has no business running.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

131. Excellent! n/t

[namaste]

9. He hasn't done anything politically.

Because he was not a politician. That is a good thing, IMO.

[JVS]

20. He is so a politician.

Just a horribly inexperienced politician.

[Lexingtonian]

11. Shown up and taken a stand

which is more than some of the candidates can sincerely say for themselves, e.g. Lieberman.

And unlike Dean, Clark had an established national reputation to risk by running. He won a justly waged war with one hand tied behind his back militarily and the other tied behind his back politically. Dean, by comparison, can fairly be said to have had a normal resume-padder's run as governor. Who really did more for Democrats, who happen also to be citizens of the country that Clark served so well, is not easy to answer.

But from the perspective of history, Clark's was a greater accomplishment. Even if it wasn't beneficial in the partisan sense, which is difficult to claim of Dean's actions as well.

[liberalnurse]

14. But what has he done as a Democrat for Democrats?

Has this section on his impressive resume been avoided for lack of experience?

[Lexingtonian]

21. He's been a greater leader and human being

than Dean.

On a resume that has to be spelled out between the lines. For some people who have read newspapers during the past couple of years, four stars and the word "Kosovo" does it well enough.

Oh, did you mean petty partisan stuff a la Joe Trippi? Or things like the race to the front of the parade Dean did on civil unions?

Ï

[liberalnurse]

24. We know the window dressing issues.....

but tell us, we inquiring Democratic minds really want to know...

What has Clark done politically as a Democrat for Democrats?

It's a simple, and easy question to answer for all the other candidates; except Clark. No one seems to know.....

[Lexingtonian]

34. Oooh, technicality mongering!

Funny how you seem to have gotten your cart before your horse, politically. I mean, some- maybe even most- of us :D are still Americans before we are Democrats.

Pray tell why Democratic interests are so more important than general American interests to your average, well meaning and patriotic, voter?

I mean, aren't these "Democratic minds" you speak of so fervent out of a genuine desire to do well for America? Or are they willing to sell out the good of Americans for the sake of narrow Democratic egotism?

Dean- for Un-American Democrats? Is that what you're trying to persuade us of?
{

[slinkerwink]

25. for the Democratic Party-----other than that fundraiser

give me more info than the army leader crap, please.

[Lexingtonian]

54. Did what he could to help Clinton and Albright

while the Pentagon was in a passive mutiny toward the Clinton Administration. Took the knife-in-the-back of career-ending forcible retirement from his 'colleagues' as a result of his loyalties and capability.

Dean was rather closer to a Republican in his conduct in office as concerns the welfare of the Party. So far I'm not persuaded of his record as serving the Party's causes willingly or well- maybe a wolf serves the herd by culling the sick animals, but the herd doesn't see things that way when the wolf starts taking out the healthy and the newborn. Clark is at least not an actively destructive candidate and didn't cynically settle on a strategy of appealing to the hysterical, self-destructive, fools of the Party.


[FubarFly]

67. "...appealing to the hysterical, self-destructive, fools of the Party."

Well, that's insulting. Way to completely destroy the legitimacy of any valid point you had to make. Good luck getting the "hysterical, self-destructive, fools of the Party" to vote Wes Clark. :hi:

[Lexingtonian]

77. Thanks, but I won't need it.

I'm not a Clark partisan, I was just offended by the stupidity of the talking point that was being tried out.

And Dean's present autoimplosion will do just fine. The word out of New Hampshire is that voters leaving Dean say that the campaigns's activists are inadvertently, but as a pattern, raising more troubling doubts among them about Dean than his own doings.

I predict he loses NH and is only holding up at the level he is because the others are campaigning in Iowa.)

[FubarFly]

87. Well good luck getting the hysterical, self-destructive, fools

of the Party to support whichever mystery candidate you support. Unless your goal is to stand on the sidelines and mock the efforts of others, in which case, good luck doing that.

[Lexingtonian]

95. Well,

I don't think my statements here affect the votes of anyone directly. Let people vote as their convictions lead them to- wise, unwise, or otherwise. On my end: the truth is no libel. Who said that "In Washington, a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth", btw?

My best hope is that a few people more catch on to the idea that hysteria and a certain amount of prevarication to sustain it is the basic m.o. at work in the Dean campaign, that the "anger" and pattern of white and gray lies emanating from and exploited by it are intentional rather than coincidental. The method bothers me, the man himself doesn't impress me enough to concern myself with him except for how he acquiesces to the method. A little payback for the ignorant and indiscriminating and prevaricating use of the term "Bush-lite" is certainly not undeserved, is it??

[liberalnurse]

106. Thats not political nor is it anything a republican, libertarian

green or independent would not of done as a soldier. His loyalty was to his command. The same rules/phylosophy apply to all military code.

Just answer the simple question. You may list them in numerical order.

[Maddy McCall]

108. AHHHH! YOU JUST ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION!!!

As a soldier--as a top-ranking soldier--his loyalty was to his command. Military code restrained his politicism--therefore, it was impossible for him to outwardly be a highly partisan player while he was a commander.

I have posted this numerous times in these kinds of threads, and I am glad you finally saw the light! Yay for you. :-)

[liberalnurse]

110. No, you are only selectively seeing what you want to see.

Go back to the original post statement. He has done things to promote the republican party in his time post retirement.

All the other candidates have pressed forward in their careers as proven Democrats, by sponsoring human interest bills, have served in political office and fought for civil liberties.

If Clark was restrainted from a political view during his military career, then maybe he needs to sit this campaign out as a Democrat. I am not comfortable with his void of Democratic representation at this time since there has been no evidence to the fact.

[bowens43]

79. Your proof of this is what?

He is a man who has spent his life working on finding ways to kill greater numbers of people with ever greater efficency. If the party thinks that 'four stars and the word "Kosovo" ' are qualifications for the presidency then we have already lost and we may as well vote for bush, at least he has somepolitcal experience.

[Lexingtonian]

96. Hmmm

Every single statement you make is unwarranted by any serious look at the facts there are and their political context. There is a real human being there who isn't to be reduced to 'four stars and the word 'Kosovo'' alone, if you have any fairness. And how exactly Eisenhower failed in the office, as is implicitly assumed, is not explained either. As for imagining that what goes on in the Pentagon, especially as concerned Wes Clark, isn't very much if not almost purely political, I worry about what you think you know about the American military as an organization. Sure, military politics is not quite the same as civilian politics. Nonetheless, the American military is fairly representative of the society at large- it will share in the same disorders of mind and body as the whole.


[slinkerwink]

97. the military politics is not representative of the american public

because there are no "elective" offices in the military. That in itself is different.

[liberalnurse]

23. Clark misses the last 2 debates and

is a "No Show" in Iowa. That does not constitute support for your description of "Shown up and taken a stand" concept.

Tell me this....Why were we all waiting at the edge of our seats through the summer and into early mid-September wondering, debating and speculating the question:

Is Clark going to run and is he a Democrat? We didn't even know if he was a Democrat...He wasn't sure either ....thus he has no job experience as a Democrat.

[Lexingtonian]

43. So by that standard

why should anyone accept HD as Commander in Chief? Didn't he disqualify himself by skipping out on service altogether (and spending am admirable year or two serving his country by, well, skiing and hanging out in the Hamptons and the City)?o

[liberalnurse]

56. The question is about Clark and wanting

to know what has he done politically as a Democrat for Democrats.

All the other candidates have a proven democratic track record of accomplishments. Changing the focus does not void the issue of concern.

[Lexingtonian]

61. Howard Dean has done NOTHING for me

-other than provide annoyances in the form of a movement whose methods seem to me Bolshevik- whereas Wes Clark has served to further true Democratic ideals more than any mediocre small state governor.

You keep on trying to point to "Party". I keep on insisting that "Democratic" is the word that precedes "Party". You keep in insisting on a definition of service to the Party that is marked by human pettiness. I insist on a definition that acknowledges America and human greatness.

[FubarFly]

64. I disagree.

There is a difference between Democratic and Republican values. Many people feel that Ronald Reagan acknowledged America and human greatness. The man certainly knew how to give a rousing speech. But I find his true ideals repulsive. It doesn't mean that I think he was an evil man, only that his vision for America and it's place in the world is something I strongly disagree with. Wes Clark at one point believed in Reagan's vision for America. Why? Does he still? And if not, why did he change?

[Lexingtonian]

90. I'd say

that Clark voting for Clinton in '92 and '96 and Gore in '00 doesn't jive with the allegation that RR was much of a personal hero.

Personally, a number of my own views changed with the end of the Cold War. I lived in West Germany in the '70s and got a much more sober picture of the misery and determination and limited morality of the Soviet empire than people here did. Reagan was a dunce controlled by idiot ideologues, to be sure, but in the early '80s (ending with the ascent of Gorbachev) there was a very real need for a counterforce to the Soviets. The Reagan people did the job in mostly the wrong way- brashly, dullardly, massively, selfishly. The rest of the world worried that they were incompetent and out of touch with reality in certain ways (which they were), but they had one attribute that was very important everywhere in face of the Soviets- they were optimistic and sunny in public, determined in private, and imagined themselves to be benign.

That was only really important for the first two years, but it was really important for morale throughout the West (even though the key military step that determined victory in the Cold War was Helmut Schmidt's and Jimmy Carter's- the stationing of the Pershing-2s along the Rhine in 1977/78). We all paid for it with a hundred lesser abuses inflicted on each other and the world and a hugh amount of treasure and scandal. We paid for it with failures in social progress and hugh economic pain.

That basic situation was why Mondale and Dukakis failed. But with the end of the Cold War in '89/'90 Americans knew it was time to address all the problems of social justice- with the immense internal unrest that generates- that had been bottled up since briefly being addressed in the mid-'60s.

So I can see how Clark is consistent- not a liberal, but a relatively sensitive mainstream person in his take on the condition of the society. Which is hardly a Republican state of mind since the outbreak of the Gingrich extremism.
Ë

[liberalnurse]

113. If you can not answer the simple question with

factual data then you do not get credit. Confabulation and defocussing onto another is not sufficient. It reflects a weak platform.

[FubarFly]

16. It's a shame that Clark doesn't have more Democratic experience.

If he loses the nomination it will be very telling see what Clark does next:

Will he go back to work as an analyist or a lobbyist,

or will he run for public office as a Democrat?

I honestly have no clue. His rhetoric and his history don't always match. Clark is a brilliant man. He has an amenable public persona, but who really know what his private agenda is? Of course, you can say this about anyone with significant ambition. This is why public records matter. A career politician is much easier to figure out than a career military man.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Thank you....

and what will the others do when they lose?

[FubarFly]

27. Most of our candidates are already elected to public office,

and they will return to Washington.

I believe Dennis in particular will run for the Senate in 2006.

Al will continue his fight for minority rights.

Carol is probably angling for a position in a Democratic administration, but I believe she makes an excellent ambassador.

and Dean?

If he doesn't win, I expect he will continue to speak out. He will maintain a public presence, and probably will also wind up running for Senate. I seriously doubt if he will return to private practice.
But you never know. He has already ruled out a run as an independant candidate. After weighing in all of the factors, I tend to believe him.

[Ivote]

30. Try this out

for size.
In his career as a commander in the Army, Clark attributes his success not just to his ability to fight the enemy, but his ability to fight for his people. "We're in the era of the all-volunteer Army," General Clark has said. "My soldiers were free to go, and I needed them to stay." That's why Wes Clark worked hard as a commander to take care of his soldiers and their families - advocating for better housing, better health care, and better schools for their children. "You can't build a strong Army just with great generals; you have to have great people at every rank. You have to give everyone a chance to be all you can be.' It's true for the United States Army, and it's true for the United States."

"I'm running to bring back the core ideals of our democracy - personal liberty, open debate, and opportunity for all. These ideals have made us great. They will make us greater. They will make us safer and more prosperous. Join me. We can have a new kind of patriotism in America. We can have a new kind of America."

[FubarFly]

32. So what do you think Clark will do if he loses?

There is more than one way to fight for our core ideals of democracy. Will Clark do this as a Democratic politician, or he will he try to do it by returning to the MIC?

[edzontar]

151. He'll go back to CNN, go back to speaking engagements

And hope for a job in the Hillary Clinton Administration.

[liberalnurse]

33. That does not answer the question. Many

republicans say the same thing and have an equivilent military background....Keep hunting....

This reminds me of *bush looking for WMD's.....still can't find them nor can I find what Clark has done as a Democrat for Democrats.

[pocoloco]

69. LOL

He'll get it soon enough!!!

[FubarFly]

71. LOL

Or not!!!

[necso]

29. Oh, I don't know....

Trying to save the party from a disaster in the fall, maybe. Giving us a winning strategy, a real chance and a real choice, maybe. And there was that Kosovo thing (under Clinton), and not turning ugly when Clinton screwed him, based on bad advice. Being open-minded while serving in a largely reactionary organization wouldn't be a Democratic ideal, would it?

Gee, I guess the whole Clark thing is just some Karl Rove plot and all us Clark supporters should just commit seppuku. http://kyushu.com/gleaner/editorspick/seppuku.shtml

I sure ain't choosing you as my second--- but no wait the whole party wants to commit seppuku --- I will have plenty of choices.

[liberalnurse]

35. You are going beyond the question into something else....

It's simple for all the other candidates. Please stay on focus.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Maddy McCall]

37. That was a pathetic thread, wasn't it.

You know, I am glad you reminded me of that. Think I will take your advice right now.

[liberalnurse]

42. Relax, just ponder a while and answer the question.

No need for fur to fly....Support your candidate and share his experiences and accomplishments as a Democrat for Democrats.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[FubarFly]

45. Shame on you.

If you ignore a chance to debate what many believe are your candidates weaknesses, you will end up getting creamed when faced with actual Republican opposition. But it's a free country...
for now anyway.

[Maddy McCall]

50. LOL!

Yes, you are right, and I would be willing to discuss any matter with anyone who has a sincere interest in discussion.

However, this thread resembles a child asking a question, the parent providing the answer, and the child repeating the question over and over ad nauseum. "But why, Mommy? But why, Mommy?"

I have stated my opinion on this very question on numerous threads as have others. I have little patience for people who cannot or will not listen, so I don't waste my time talking to them.

Don't try to paint this thread as a genuine interest in the topic. The author is playing a gotcha game, as she has proven by disregarding every honest attempt to answer her question. There is no desire for mature, sincere discussion, as she has indicated.

And with this I am going to bed. I have to work tomorrow.

[FubarFly]

57. Have a good nights rest.

Hopefully you will see things differently in the morning.

[liberalnurse]

38. It's a simple question and apparently a simple and short answer.

You have my permission to share.....Go on....say it....

[FubarFly]

40. Wow, that's hardly a way to resolve our differences.

Honest debate is always worth the effort. Especially when we disagree. Making strong arguments will help you sharpen your convictions. Conceding valid points will help you open your mind. Either way, the freeflowing exchange of ideas is a true democratic ideal. It is much better to address the message than attack or dismiss the messenger.

[Hav]

48. That may be correct..

but the question was deliberately questioned like this because Clark has not been a politician in his more than 30 years he served.
It's almost like asking what has Dean done for African Americans as an African American,I really want to know,a simple question,why should they vote for him?
I assume that the American people will be more interested in what Clark or any other candidate has done for the American people and what he is going to do for America.

[slinkerwink]

49. because it all hinges on the glaring hole on Clark's record where

domestic policy is concerned. Are we just supposed to vote for Clark because he has glittery stars? :shrug:

[Maddy McCall]

52. No of course not...

You are supposed to vote for a man who had not a single black person on his cabinet and who had to be forced by the Legislature to declare Martin Luther King's birthday an official, designated state holiday. You know, the man who lectures others on diversity.

That's your real Democrat. Enjoy supporting hypocrisy! :hi:

G'night!

[FubarFly]

58. I think I could make a convincing case why those things

are blown out of proportion and are not relevant.

[slinkerwink]

63. oh, you're focusing on technicalities.....

the real issue with Martin Luther King's birthday was that it already was a holiday, but state offices were still open, and state workers wanted the time off to be paid. That's it.

Besides, you haven't addressed the main point of this thread.

[FubarFly]

55. There are many good reasons for African Americans to vote for

Dean or Clark. But I understand your point. Still, if you believe the original poster is wrong, then you are invited to make your case.
If you make a valid case, I will concede your argument. I'm sorry that so much suspicion has arisen between our camps. I think the way back to unity and civilty is civil debate.

[Hav]

70. I understand the point of this thread

It might have been surely of advantage if he had served some years as a democratic politician,but that is not the case and we all know that.

To clarify,I am not an American and don't belong to the Clark camp.But as I'm living in this world,I am interested in getting rid of Bush and thus I am irritated by Democrats slamming each other.That was the actual reason I replied.
When it comes to Kerry,Dean or Kucinich,I am convinced that all of them would be great Presidents I'd love to see.
When it comes to Clark,he doesn't have a record as a politician,but I like many of his positions,and personally I trust him to be a good President.
It doesn't really matter for me what he has done for Democrats before if he is now convinced that the Democratic Party is where he and his positions belong now and if he is truly persuaded to make things better for America and its people by sending Bush back to Texas.

[FubarFly]

72. Thank you for your honesty.

I agree. One doesn't have to have been a great Democrat to make a great Democratic president. But for some reason, Clark doesn't "click" with me. I honestly don't see what others see in him. There is something about him I don't trust, and I wish people could convince me that I am wrong. There is an analytical disconnect I sense about Wes Clark that makes me think he is capable of anything. I am fully open to differing perspectives.

[necso]

51. And here I thought...

that I was mocking her. After all her question is like asking how many pictures of Mars did Spirit take before it landed... completely irrelevant. It is what happens in the future that matters, not the past, for it is the only the future that we may change... but perhaps she has "issues".

Besides the hot thing now may be ABDOC, Anybody But Dean Or Clark. I see nothing definite yet, but things are happening. Surprises may be in store.

But do check out the link.

[Kahuna]

66. You first. What has Howard Dean done?

I know he has called them cockroaches and repub-lite. What else?

[FubarFly]

68. Kahuna, you know full well

that Howard Dean's accomplishments extend beyond calling people "cockroaches and repub-lite". If you start a thread about it I am sure you will get many sincere responses. But this is a thread about Wes Clark. Your honest reply to this question will be greatly appreciated.

[liberalnurse]

109. So, you can not answer the question either.

Is it because there is no evidence for Clark? Changing the question to another is a weak, empty answer for a 4-Star General's record endorsement.

Try again....think.....There must be something he has done for the Democratic Party. How can we believe his rhetoric without example? He bosts many claims of leading the Party.

[w13rd0]

73. Is this really that difficult a question to answer?

I mean, it's as simple as the Biblical allegory about a tree and its fruit. Where's the fruit? If I'm supposed to judge the tree by its fruit, I need to know about the fruit. I don't want to go planting weeds in my yard, or bitter lemons.

[liberalnurse]

111. Beautifully said.

Watch out...Al Sharpton may want to use that one. :)

[Bread and Circus]

74. Why are the "liberals" here so "anti-nationalist" but so pro "partisan"?

I really wanna know.

It seems like many here put Party before Country.

[slinkerwink]

78. because the point of this thread is to ascertain whether Clark

actually has earned his "Democrat" stripes by doing something for the Democratic Party before he ran. So far, from the responses on this thread, he hasn't done anything.

[Bread and Circus]

81. So my concern is accurate? It seems you don't deny it?

I think a more important issue is making the Country
better, not just waving Donkey flags.

[slinkerwink]

82. well.......this is also about making the "Donkey" party better

and in doing so, strengthening the Democratic base. I haven't seen Clark do that---you're changing the intent of this thread onto party/nationalism from the past record of Clark's actions for the Democratic party besides that one fundraiser he did. You have not answered this thread at all nor refuted this thread.

Misleading tactics will not work with me.

[Bread and Circus]

86. No, I am just sick of all this Donkey Fetishism and a "what have...

you done for me (and my Party) lately" attitude.

I am so sick of the partisan R vs. D crapola that I see
everyday. It's ripping the country apart.

We need good leaders w/ ethics, intelligence, and vision. Period.

I don't mean to hijack your thread but to me, the Country is
what matters -- all Americans. Partisan politics is a problem,
not a cure.

[slinkerwink]

92. hey, that sounds familiar! I've heard it before!

:yourock: for actually answering this thread....</sarcasm>

[Cheswick2.0]

101. well you should really be arguing that at FR

The republicans started the hatefulness and they will not stop, it is in their nature. Democrats need to remember what it is to be a democrat and fight back for the good of all of us. There is nothing wrong with partisanship when you have one party which has become so radical they are toxic to the country.
I am a democrat for a reason. That reason is not to become a centrist and let the right wing radicals kick me around and ruin peoples lives.

[JVS]

103. People who don't respect the party don't deserve the party's nomination.

[edzontar]

141. Well, this is DEMOCRATIC Underground...

and we all supposedly seek a DEMOCRATIC victory, right?

I'd call that partisan--and GOOD FOR THAT!!!

Give me any real Dem--even Joe--over the stealth-General in the speedo.

[FubarFly]

85. Hmm...

My country comes first. This is why I am a Democrat. I believe the traditional values of the Democratic Party are best for the country. Republicans and corportate Democrats have been fucking over good patriotic Americans for years. Their efforts to promote Democracy internationally have been nothing more than a cover to enhance corporate oligarchy. Legitimate concern and respect for human rights will do more to enhance our security than the geopolitically fueled control of international resources. And domestically, they are more concerned about their own welfare and bottom line than the well-being and solvency of future generations.
There is a better way. We could have peace, prosperity, and a higher standard of living. Really. Unfortunately, too many of our "leaders" lack the vision to see this.

[Bread and Circus]

88. I know you believe this and to an extent I agree w/ you but it is a very..

righteous attitude to take.

A sort of righteousness that ultimately brings it's followers
to an ill place that puts the interests of it's own group
above the greater good.

Think about it. We don't like Bush for having a "love it or leave it,
you're with us or against us" attitude. Well, when we act like
the only thing that matters is our own Party and our own Beliefs,
then we are in the same trap.

In-group/Out-group bias is in our nature as human beings but if
we don't recognize its destructiveness we are doomed to be no
better than what we are up against.

If people want to "litmus" test Clark on his "Mr. Democrat-ness"
then fine, it's a free country. But a lot of us just don't think
that is a good thing to do.

[FubarFly]

93. I am no idealist.

And I don't believe any gain comes without compromise and sacrifice.
I support Howard Dean because he is practical enough to deliver results without sacrificing his core values. If you are willing to look objectively, you can see this in his record in Vermont.

I will vote for Wesley Clark over the abomination that is in the WH,
and hope for the best. I am and will be worried that the disconnect between his military honed analytical nature, and his more emotionally based moral nature is too great of a divide. As an example, his continued support of the SOA, and the use of depleted uranium, only increases my worries. I want a leader who is against warfare because they think it's morally wrong, not because it's strategically unfeasable.

I understand that I may not get what I want.

[Bread and Circus]

98. I can't argue w/ that, good post.

:thumbsup:

[Cheswick2.0]

99. no, we put our party before the republican party

why not when the republican party and it's national spokes people like Rush the oxymoron, have been so very hateful. Why wouldn't we be partisan?

[liberalnurse]

114. That would make a good post thread topic.

Go for it. Maybe I'll see ya there.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[slinkerwink]

94. just please answer the thread in the thread, and not attack Dean supporter

thank you.

[liberalnurse]

115. You are using way too much energy up and not

answering the question.....try again please.

[LuminousX]

91. Who is Wesley Clark?

[mikehiggins]

100. Interesting thread, if only because of the attitudes it reveals

1. Clark's career has not been about being a Democrat. It was more about being of service to the United States and its citizens. In some ways he is like the Congresswoman from New York who was motivated to run for office because her husband was gunned down on a Long Island Railroad train. Being President was not part of his lifeplan.

2. Most people would be amazed to learn there are people who think running for President on the Democratic ticket means you are running to be the head of the Democratic Party. Most people believe that the good of the United States comes before the good of "the Party" (except for CPUSA members and some self-proclaimed "Democrats" on DU). Clark claims to be a Democrat who is running to defeat George Bush, not a politician seeking to become head of a party. It will be up to the Democratic voters to decide whether they accept him in that role or not, no matter how clever and "tricksy" posters on DU may consider themselves.

3. The Democratic Party is not a holier-than-thou repository of all that is good and holy in politics. It has hosted a wide range of politicians of all stripes, some of whom you have to hold your nose to have a conversation with, let alone support. Questioning Clark on the basis of the moral superiority of the Democratic Party marks the questioner as extremely naive or duplicitous. Either way, they do little to advance discussion, and a good deal to increase hostility between individuals on DU.

4. The idea that there are "political operatives" driving the debate and discussion on DU ventures into tin-foil cap territory. This site is not as large or as influential as to make anything like that worth doing. There are some self-appointed partisans on here, of course, but paying too much attention to them is like thinking that the guy sitting in the bleachers with the big foam hand has anything to do with any decision as to the Yankee batting order. It just isn't worth discussing.

So the answer to your question is Clark has done nothing for the Party as the Party. He has done a good deal for the United States as a citizen and a patriot. If this isn't good enough for you, there is little that can be done about it. You have plenty of big time and small time politicians to choose from if Clark is not your cup of tea.

We'll soon see if the rest of the country agrees with you or with us.

[Maddy McCall]

105. mike, good post, but I would add to your number 4, that yes, Clark has

done a Democratic thing for the Democratic party.

He accepted a group of "Draft Clark" Democrats' invitation to run in the 2004 election, thus giving Democrats a candidate who can beat Bush.

As a Democrat he has campaigned tirelessly and has spent many hours developing a platform at which ANY good Democrat should smile.

As a Democrat he has given great PR to our party by taking on pundits on talk shows.

And as an American he has given most of his years to the United States military.

Every point you made is spot on. :-)

[Bread and Circus]

107. Best Post of the Month!

Ding ding ding...we have a winner here.

Great post, Mike

[liberalnurse]

118. If he is not a proven Democrat....then why run for the

highest position in the Democratic Party? Better yet, why should Democrats support an untested,"rookie" Democrat for this position?

I'm a straight shooting, down the line Democrat. I want to see a track record of all Democratic Presidential nominee's professional contribution to my Party. I have been successful in my search with the exception of Clark.

You may list the evidence as you do that nicely....

[JVS]

119. People who won't contribute to the party don't deserve the party's support

If Clark wanted to be an independent all of these years let him run as an independent.

[mikehiggins]

123. That's not your call to make

The voters will decide who is or isn't deserving of the Democratic nomination.

I thought that was what the Dean movement was all about, letting the people speak, letting the people use their power to decide the future of their party and their nation.

Does that require your approval? Do we only have the power to do what you think is correct or proper? Do we only have the power to do what you decide we should do?

Wow! Now THAT'S a Democratic Party in the tradition of FDR and Harry Truman.

Let the people decide. You won't have long to wait for their decision.

[JVS]

125. I am a voter and Democrat. It is my decision! Clark is not suitable.

[mikehiggins]

126. Then you are free to not vote for him.

And if he wins, what then?

[JVS]

147. Then it is a shame that the party has outsourced its leadership

I'll have to write in a Democrat who has some credibility

[liberalnurse]

160. Excellent alternative.

I will keep that one on the back burner.

[mikehiggins]

122. You have my answer. Why do you consider being the head of the Democratic

Party more important than being the President of the United States?

That is the office Clark is running for, not a party position.

[liberalnurse]

124. He has applied to represent the Democratic Party....

If he wants, he can file as an Independent, Green, republican or Libertarian. I bet they will all have Party expectations as well.

I want a proven Democrat as my Democratic Presidential Candidate going after *bush.

[mikehiggins]

127. Not at all. He is running for President as a Democrat.

If you wish not to vote for him, feel free.

The voters have the "power" to decide who will represent us, and that is a good thing.

WE HAVE THE POWER!

WE HAVE THE POWER!

WE HAVE THE POWER!

WE HAVE THE POWER!

WE HAVE THE POWER!

WE HAVE THE POWER!

So don't complain if we use it and you don't like the result.

And try to avoid letting people know the Democratic Party is more important to you than your country.

[democratreformed]

132. Yes, Clark has campaigned for Democrats,

served as advisors to campaigns (even in this election - prior to his entry), and donated some money. His campaign has brought previously inactive members into the role of "active" members. Those are a few things.

Now you can say he hasn't done ENOUGH for the party - not that he has done NOTHING.

[liberalnurse]

138. Last minute performances is how I see that.

Thousands and thousands of registered voters have done this, its expected essentially....Heck, I've done that much.... High school student do this each year in their student government.

What political issues has he taken as a leadership role to improve the Democratic voter and the Party? I have sited examples in this thread; such as education, civil liberties, healthcare.

I know he has an opinion but what has he actually done in the name of the Democratic party?

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

142. Wonderful response Mike

Not that it will be accounted as such by the folks who don't really want an answer.

:yourock:

[edzontar]

156. You make your case well, but consider this...

Say clark somehow becomes the nominee.

Then he will have to govern--pass legislation.

As an outsider and a novice, with few political alies and no direct expereince, he will run into trouble.

Since he is running as a kind of savior or knight on a white horse, his image is a bit of a tabula rasa--vague and contradictory, depending on which supprters you talk to.

Once he actually has to try to do stuff, he will be without any real real core support in the political system.

Dean or Kerry, for example, have real politcal expereince, have heavy-hitter allies, and woulsd be much better prepared for the daily battle, I suspect.

I don't think we should fall for a campaign driven by little but personality-cult and the glitter of medals.

But hey, we'll see how it turns out.

[edzontar]

112. He has done nothing, of course, and is a Trojan Horse

Hand-picked to lose by the Clintons, and backed mostly by neophytes, Clinton operatives (who want him to lose), and airhead celebrities.

Hopefully this empt suit will lose early...if you really want to beat Bush in 04, spport any one of the other, true Dem candidates.

Not the general from nowhere.

[liberalnurse]

120. You voice a fair concern that all

Democrats may wish to adopt. I have similiar fears and so I thought I would ask the question in the original post. I wish to explore all options before arising to a sudden conclusion.

[edzontar]

136. Thanks--Maybe if Kerry's comeback is real...

We can have a run-off between two DEMOCRATS--Kerry and Dean.

This is as it should be, IMHO.

[liberalnurse]

139. That would please me.....

I'm going to Iowa tonight to check out the festivities of Democrats.

[edzontar]

143. Great--I live too far away, but....

As a New England-born Dem, I'd be proud to see two fine leaders of the actual DEMOCRATIC PARTY from my region be the final two...what a great thing for America that would be!!

[TreasonousBastard]

116. Would you believe...

that I don't give a rat's ass what he has or hasn't done for "the party"?

Frenchie and MikeHiggins, along with a couple of others, have already given excellent answers that I agree fully with so there is no need to repeat them.

But I will repeat some of them anyway, because I feel rather strongly about this stupid argument of whether or not he is a "true" party member. This is an absurd and venal argument that should have a stake through its heart.

The question is simply who is the best candidate to be President, and if he or she is a newcomer to the party, so be it. We should be welcoming qualified newcomers, and not trying to chase them off to the opposition.

If a moderate Republican decided to switch parties, as so many conservative Democrats have done, would we refuse entry?

Clark's entire life has been in service to the country through Republican and Democratic administrations and has proven himself to be a competent adminstrator and superior leader. He has proven his loyalty to the Constitution and his constituencies as few other candidates have. Whether or not he is the "best" candidate is up for debate, and I have no interest in dealing with that here, but he has demonstrated all of the qualities necessary for the job, and whether or not he has been a partisan Democrat in the past is simply not at issue.

He is a Democrat NOW, and running for President, and that is the issue.

[mmonk]

121. Someone

running an upfront positive campaign and someone that can criticize the foreign policy of the president with both a geopolitical as well as military background (other than Kerry), who is high profile, and the repubs can't legitimately argue is weak on keeping Americans safe.

[maxanne]

128. sad

that no one has been able to answer your question liberalnurse, though much obfuscation and belligerence has been displayed.

I'd have a modicum of respect for the Clark supporter who could just come right out and state the true answer. Why not speak the truth? The answer is NOTHING. Why is that so hard to admit? There was a whole thread of justification for Clark's position on the School of the Americas - so if his support for a school that trains the future terrorists and dictators of Latin America can be defended, surely there isn't any reason not to admit he's done nothing for the Democratic Party.

[liberalnurse]

133. I agree. As a die-hard Democrat, I have taken the time to

evaluate all Democratic Candidates. My choice candidate may not prevail, thus I want to do my homework now. I have not found anything Clark has done for my Party......He is a strong potential contender ...but for me he is an empty suit as a Democrat at this point and of my research.

Look what happen with "Arnold". I sense California may be regretting their decision in the near future. Arnold has no track record, just a "macho man" image that was sold cheap.

I want a real Democrat with a track record of serving the Democratic population as well as the country. That is basic Democratic voting 101. Clark apparently has not met that standard.

So I asked the question......Enlighten me....

[edzontar]

135. i am worried Clark is an empty-sweater

For me, its ABC in the primaries.

[PATRICK]

129. a good point

Even if you are staunch supporter, Clark will be making a big leap into a big office, skipping right past and over the party which he will have little time to effect in its own twisty little right. I think he would be up to the challenge but it is going to a very consuming task which he may not want or be able to effect. Which Dems will he stump for and work with? How will he effect or rely on the Party structure?

This is an awful lot to ask of anyone in such a short time and it seems way too much and too remote from his past experience. Actually making bipartisanship work? He'd have to bomb the Capitol like Yeltsin did his. Likely he will be distanced from perfectly meshing with the Democrats.

On the other hand, who is going to do better? If he wasn't so smart, committed and a force beyond the ordinary politics I would dismiss him out of hand as a candidate on this point. But I can't.

We got holier than thou in one situation with Stevenson versus Eisenhower and got crushed for our rational pains. (Eisenhower could have had the Dem nod too, which was even worse. Clark is not an aloof idol, he is better than Ike and committed to Party ideals. If the voters go for him he would be the best one. That would convince me, barring any Schwarzenegger style madness which does not seem on the horizon, thank God.

[Tom Rinaldo]

134. You mean Clark hasn't been a life long Democratic Party Activist?

Hold the Presses! This changes EVERYTHING! Why hasn't anyone said something about this before?!? Wait until more Democrats learn about this, Clark is finished I tell you. I'm sure all of his current supporters, including the increasing numbers of Democrats who recently switched to Clark, will be shocked to learn about this previously closely guarded secret bomb shell. Who wudda thunk it?

[liberalnurse]

140. Interesting....Oh by the way...

Can you answer the original post question? I see you missed that part.

Go on, share.....

[Tom Rinaldo]

146. I think I used satire in an appropriate setting

I wasn't being insulting to anyone, nor have you been I agree. I am "on record", as they say, here on DU agreeing that Clark's lack of Democratic Party roots is a probable liability in the Democratic Primaries (but can be turned to the Democratic Party's advantage in the General Election should Clark be the nominee). I don't have time to revisit those arguments now.

Those who place an emphasis on Clark's prior service inside the Party compared to other of our candidates, might be dissuaded from voting for him for that reason, and it is perfectly reasonable that some might so place their emphasis during their decision making. I place a greater emphasis on Clark's prooven life long service to America, to his abilities, his character, his platform, and his relative strengths against George Bush.

My satiric point was that you were stating the obvious. We will all make our choices based on what we believe is most important.

[Forkboy]

144. 140 posts and still not a real answer to be found

Though at least mike put some thought into his reply.

[liberalnurse]

148. Have we hit a dry-well?

If Clark has not ever done anything for and with the support of the Democratic Party....How then can we trust him as a Democrat? How can we see him lead the drive to increase our presence in the House of Representative, the Senate and what if he becomes President, what about Supreme Court appointments?


Can we Democrats knowingly support Clark today without a proven Democratic track record?


U.S Supreme Court Justice nominee's go through much more scrutiny thus this is a fair and reasonable question.

[edzontar]

150. And so far, no one has come up with anything concrete...

Because there is nothing?

[Forkboy]

152. I've been asking those questions myself

and until they are answered he wont get my vote.He has a bunch of shiny medals and a bag of promises.He could be great...or not.We simply dont know.Voting for someone can be a crap shoot as it is,with Clark it's even more so.

And as you're seeing,just asking gets met with scorn.Not exactly the best way to sell a candidate.

[edzontar]

149. Except for "nothing," which is accurate...

He is a latecomer, untested in politics, with no DEM party record...can we agree on that?

[mikehiggins]

154. Thank you very kindly

And since you are so pleasant I'll share something with you.

So far as I know, Wes Clark has not done anything for the Democratic Party as a Democrat.

And what does that mean? I guess it means whatever you want it to.

Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to be a Republican when he ran, despite Harry Truman's willingness to step aside as the incumbent President if Ike would run on our side.

When Wes Clark retired to Arkansas he was viewed by both sides as a political asset. The GOP, reputedly, wanted him to run for Governor (they had some trouble with one of the earlier Arkansas Governors and wanted to make sure THAT didn't happen again). The Democrats, again reputedly, would have welcomed his running as a Senator on their ticket. Instead he set about making some money and all that stuff. He was welcomed everywhere he went and his endorsement was never turned away by any of the Democratic candidates he supported.

When the opportunity came for him to run for President as a Democrat he took it. He actually could have run as a Republican but he considered the Democratic Party much more amenable to the beliefs and principles he had arrived at after a lifetime spent in the service of this nation.

It is those beliefs and those principles that motivate us to support him, rather than his being a familiar and comfortable fixture in the Democratic pantheon. He has no record of voting for the Bush* program nor for the Bush* war in Iraq. He has no record of voting for the Bush* domestic agenda nor for anything George Bush* has done since the Supreme Court raised him to office.

Certainly that could be considered disingenuous, but it is equally disingenuous for anyone who does not serve in Congress to make the same or similar claims.

As far as the general election is concerned, Clark comes to the table with clean hands. Since he comes to the table espousing our party, we welcome him with open arms. Those who do not are welcome to express their views at the ballot box.

Spare us, until then, such silly questions as started this thread.

142 posts and nothing accomplished.

[edzontar]

155. You make your case well, and the GE is, of course, ABB

But it is the PRIMARY vote where I feel Clark has a weak case....

[maxanne]

157. thanks Mike

for saying it honestly, saying it well, and saying it politely.
:thumbsup:

I give thee more than the modicum of respect I promised earlier.

[liberalnurse]

161. Thank you for sharing. We come to at least one mutual

conclusion. He is not proven as a Democrat to date. He does have positive attributes and speaks a strong anti-bush message. I respect his platform and agenda yet I'm very rigid when it comes to a history of Democratic achievements.

Clark would serve us well in another post be it the House of Representative, the Senate or a Cabinet position. I hope he keeps his powder dry and sticks thing out with the Democrats.

I can honestly say I do not know what direction he would turn if he does not get the nomination. I can say I feel safe with all the other candidates as they are firmly established in the Democratic Party and will continue the good fight.

Your assistance has been acknowledged and respected. Thank you for your feedback.

[RetroLounge]

153. Nothing.

It may not preclude him from running as a Democrat, and I will support him as much as I do Dean now, if he wins the Primaries.

But the correct answer I believe is NOTHING.

No shame in it. He was an independent as a Military man. He voted for Republicans for president, and later for Democrats for President.

But he's a Democrat now, because he says he is and registered as such. I welcome him to the party, I just prefer a longer proven Democratic track record in my candidates.

So yes, the correct answer now is nothing, but if he wins and becomes the Democratic Candidate, the correct answer becomes:

"He won the primary. So he obviously has Democratic support. Go Wes!"