Is Clark to the left of Dean?

[Clarkie1]

BLITZER: I've got to tell you, Michael, I was pretty surprised. Why do you like Wesley Clark?


MOORE: First of all, I like him as a human being. I think he's a very decent and honorable person. I trust him. He seems very down to earth. And I like where he comes from. And, most of all, I think, as "The New York Times" pointed out last week, he's actually slightly to the left of Dean.

And this is something I think a lot of people don't realize, especially probably a lot of young people. Women, African-Americans, labor people, should really take a close look at this guy, because I did and I really liked what I saw.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/15/cnna.moore/

[Indiana_Dem]

1. Yes he is. Nobody ever realized it.

Dean was probably the most centered nominee we had other than Lieberman.
edited:typo

[mzmolly]

2. Depends on the issue doesn't it?

:hi:

Dean is/was a Centrist, a "fighting Centrist" but he never voted for Reagan so?

[Clarkie1]

3. I'm talking this century, not previous century

[mzmolly]

52. Oh, I'm talking "the proof is in the pudding" type stuff.

Clark didn't have a platform when he began his race, he basically co-opted it from Dean.

Don't get me wrong, I like Clark ... but I didn't start the Clark v. Dean conversation.

[Indiana_Dem]

6. Yep. All of them together would've made the perfect candidate.

They all had good qualities.

[RafterMan]

47. Yeah, Clark voted for Nixon, too

Imaging what McGovern would say about him:

"Today, I am proud to stand here this morning and announce my support for a true progressive, a true Democrat, and the next president of the United States.

A man whose progressive policies on education, taxation, health care are in the finest tradition of the Democratic Party.

A man whose ideals, decency, and compassion are in the great tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.

A man whose life's work and devotion to America will serve as a beacon to our young and give pride to us all.

That man is Wes Clark - and he will lead our party to victory in November. "

http://www.clark04.com/press/release/193/

Who'd have known that McGovern was a crypto-Republican stealth candidate all this time?

Shocking, shocking.

[mzmolly]

53. Thanks for the info on Nixon. I guess McGovern is just drawn to a uniform

like many others here? Could be that he was military as well and General is a pretty high ranking ... SIR!

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

140. Or maybe McGovern is drawn to

someone that could win an election...considering what he learned during his own run. Maybe he understood what many Democrats just couldn't. Michael Moore understood it too. One day a majority of Democrats will too....problem is, it just might be too late when it dawns on them that they did what was expected instead of having "balls" for a change.

[mzmolly]

162. Well he couldn't win the primaries so I think that's an iffy guess.

"Balls for a change?"

Clark was in-experienced in Governing, and had no voting/office holding record, that's why I personally didn't support him. It had nothing to do with "balls." Additionally there was all the hub-ub with him and his firing/resignation depending on who you believe.

:hi:

[Texas_Kat]

157. So how do you know who Dean voted for in 1972?

Has he ever said? (Don't assume all Democrats --even office holders--vote for Democrats)

Didn't Jean Shaheen say she'd voted for Nixon?

[mzmolly]

165. Yes he has said. He was working on camaigns in that era.

:hi:

[wyldwolf]

179. I don't want to fight the primaries all over again because I like DEAN...

..just not a faction of his supporters. But we really have no idea who he voted for in his younger years.

In Dean's high school yearbook, he described himself as "a solid conservative defending the powers of the Student Council and lashing out at cynics and opponents." Anyone wanting to know him, he said, needed to be "the curious type who can put up with a temper."

[newsguyatl]

186. wyldwolf, you don't want to start this, trust me

pulling out what dean said when he was a fucking teenager is beyond lame... i can pull shit out clark said two years ago that is strikingly different from what he espoused while campaigning for president.

so hang it up pal.

[wyldwolf]

189. hey, newsguyatl... no lamer than anything being posted about Clark...

..out of the blue tonight.

We WERE discussing the past political beliefs and habits of the candidates and I wan't the one who mentioned Clark's voting habits.

I wasn't the one who mentioned that Clark voted for Reagan and Nixon, nor asked, in this thread, "So how do you know who Dean voted for in 1972?"

i can pull shit out clark said two years ago that is strikingly different from what he espoused while campaigning for president.

As can I about Dean.. only I don't hike my leg on Clark whenever anything that is the least bit critical is posted about him.

That is your method concerning Dean, as we've just witnessed.

so hang it up pal.

[madfloridian]

229. Yes, you do indeed. It is your greatest joy.

Do not start with this kind of threatening of us. We did not start this thread. If necessary we will post what needs to be said.

You do indeed, "hike your leg", such a lovely way of putting it. Very classy indeed.

You go after us whenever you can, and you are irrational about Dean.

[wyldwolf]

235. oh, here we go again.

Always the victim.

Feel like I'm threatening you? LOL! Where have I threatened you? Show me. Tell you what - you have an "ignore" button. Use it.

We did not start this thread.

Who is "we?"

It was a simple question of the political beliefs and habits of two candidates. But typically, anything percieved as criticism of Howard Dean is not to be tolerated - even if it is true.

And show me where I've ever been irrational about Dean.

Of course, I don't expect you to. You always avoid showing proof when asked.

[Geek_Girl]

187. I think in his book he talks about it

I believe Dean was actually a Goldwater republican then became a liberal democrat and supported McGovern. Dean is really a centrist on social and economic issues but he is also a dove, which these days makes you a left wing extremist.

[ClarkUSA]

176. I'll let Michael Moore respond to you,mzmolly...

Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against a resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll083.xml). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/politics/campaigns/09DEAN.html)? What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people.

Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) - and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?

In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them?

~ Michael Moore, Jan. 2004 "I'll Be Voting For Wesley Clark/Good-Bye Mr. Bush"

[mzmolly]

201. I'll let Mike answer Mike as well.

"What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping?"

Michael Moore is not my "God." First, he makes a claim that X is to the left of X and in the same breath calls it ridiculous "tit for tat sniping."

I like Moore, and his movies, but I don't agree with everything he says. Labeling the candidates as to the left of X is counter productive. Especially after the friggin primaries.

[ClarkUSA]

182. More from Moore....

In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them?

We need to take that big DO NOT ENTER sign off our tent and reach out to the vast majority who have been snookered by these right-wingers. And we have a better chance of winning in November with one of their own leading them to the promised land.

~ Michael Moore on General Clark

[mzmolly]

197. I don't disagree with your point. I just don't like the X is to the left

of X BS.

It's ridiculous.

[MrSlayer]

4. Yes, General Clark did not flinch from the Liberal label, he embraced it.

With a few more years of national political exposure under his belt he can be an even greater candidate in 2008. I remain convinced he would be a great President.

[Indiana_Dem]

5. Hey that's funny! I just read the article and Moore says the same

thing I just said above (pretty much)!

[manhattanite]

7. Wesley Clark is an opportunist ...

He could have been a Republican if only Karl Rove had returned his phone calls.

[roguevalley]

8. Manhattanite, you are a year late and a dollar short.

I love Clark and I love Clark and Dean together.

Karl Rove. Give me a break.

[Clark2008]

10. Funny, since Clark never once called that Fascist.

How could Rove have returned calls never made?

Go back under your rock now, dear.

[Sparkly]

62. How many times are we going to keep hearing Rove's scripts here?

Oh, and Al Gore said he invented the internet. :eyes:

[girl gone mad]

169. yawn. n/t

[wyldwolf]

180. WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?

...he also was involved in a plot to make men grow breasts or somethin'!

[cally]

9. I think Clark was the most left of all the Dem candidates

Yes, I'm including Dean and Kucinich. Clark had the most liberal positions on a variety of issues. I don't want to start another flame war so I doubt I'll defend my opinion this time. I'm not sure about Sharpton...I like his wit but I just don't get him.

[elsiesummers]

26. Kucinich, then Edwards, except on the War, was the most left, IMO.

I know saying "except on the war" is a huge deal for a lot of DU, but, except on the war (and except for Kucinich) Edwards was far to the left of the rest of the pack, incl Dean and Clark.

Dean was more balaced budget oriented - more Clintonite in fiscal matters. Dean was far more moderate than he played on tv.

Clark was the one who said outsourcing is ok. While there is much to admire in Clark (especially his intelligence - the guy is damned smart) - he just doesn't see the hazards of unfettered free trade.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. He didn't say outsourcing is OK

If you want to take one Clark line out of context, it was about letting India have software jobs. Happened in one of the debates. Few people bothered to listen to the full context. The cliff notes next day recap version was pretty silly actually, sounding as if Clark was in favor of doling out jobs to India. Clark was actually quite thoughtful on the issue. He spoke to a certain inevitability of certain industries continuing to gain a larger foot hold in cheaper labor markets. It has happened before throughout history. Look at textiles, look at steel. The internet and PC's allow anyone with a good mind and education to be on the front lines of software development, whether they are sitting in India Ireland or Singapore. Clark was backing a program that would have slowed that trend by closing loop holes that rewarded outsourcing, and providing incentives for job development here at home. It's the program Kerry actually ran on against Bush Clark also had specific plans to spur and support technological innovation in the U.S. that would keep America on the cutting edge of change, opening up new industries to replace jobs inevitably being lost. Clark also proposed that the U.S. government commit to buying American produced software for security and economic reasons. His program would actually have done more to stop the flow of software jobs to India than any other I heard of.

This is a real issue, so I stayed up longer to address it. But I have a plane to catch in a few hours. Good night all.

[elsiesummers]

36. I actually saw an extended version, not from a debate,

where he was speaking about how he believed free trade creates more jobs in the US than it outsources. This was prior to the debates and very early in his campaign, possibly prior to his campaign announcement. It reminded me a bit of remarks that had been made by Paul O'Neil (sp?) - sort of heartless and possibly very true economists perspective - simply not what I wanted to hear from a candidate.

I'm not saying Clark is a bad guy or wouldn't be a good future candidate.

I'm not saying he wouldn't be my choice at some future time (I have no idea who my future candidate choice might be) but what he said on free trade was very Republican, at least at the earliest point of his campaign.

And he probably refined and elaborated his free trade opinions from the point where I was listening.
But I didn't like what I heard initially.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. His positions were evolving

That is true. As you noted Clark is a brilliant man with a probing mind. Unlike politicians or academicians who for the most part have wrestled with the same basic economic issues for a decade or more, Clark had done the same with matters primarily of national security, with less of an emphasis on the economics. That is not to say that he had no thoughts on those matter going into the race, he has a Masters from Oxford in economics. Just saying that he keyed in increasingly on domestic issues leading into and throughout the campaign. When Clark is focused on something, he explores it deeply. I noted an increasing emphasis on the importance of ensuring that U.S. Business is held in full compliance with existing U.S. laws and regulations, that enforcement be robust, as Clark's campaign developed, for one example of an evolving policy. And Clark was rapidly moving toward the need to examine whether certain industries were under regulated. That was a shift in progress from his earliest comments on the pros and cons of deregulation.

[elsiesummers]

40. For what it's worth

I was merely examining the intro question of left versus right positioning.

I supported both Edwards and Clark.

I am assuming that I will probably be supporting a future candidate who is neither of the above. If the two of these canidates could have morphed into one, (or been on the same ticket), they would been the uber-candidate.

In hindsight, Dean appeals to me more than he did during the campaign.

In hindsight, Gephardt seems the most logical choice to win.

If I had to do it all overagain, I'd probably go all out for Gephardt.

Edit: or, in hindsight, I'd have participated in the draft Gore movement.

[FrenchieCat]

44. for whatever it's worth....

that's some hindsight! Based on that analysis, I think I'll stick to foresight. Foresight is actually more valuable and effective.

But using both the foresight prior to the elections....and the hindsight of its result, I would say that Clark could have done it, had the Democrats had the balls.

[elsiesummers]

231. Reasons for forsight/hindsight concusions

Forsight: (1) Found Edwards most inspiring candidate - good at delivering red meat.

(2) Kerry uninspiring but thoughtful and competent - reminded me of Gore's bad traits and prior to Iowa dead in water.

(3) So 2nd candidate supported was Clark - based on pragmatism (General trumps Bush). Could Clark have won the general election? I doubt it but maybe so. We'll never know.

(3) Dean: Inspiring but pandering and too willing to roll the dice to win the GE. Alternately appealing and infuriating. Clearly did not *get* the South.

(4) Gephardt: a good Dem but really seemed a sellout on Iraq, also, while well learned on government, not as mentally agile. Similar positions to Edwards but less ability to defend his positions.

Hindsight: The only two candidates who I think had a good shot at a clear win were Gephardt and Gore(undeclared) IMO.

(1)Gephardt: would have won Kerry states plus Missouri and Iowa, maybe Ohio too (I know it's a train wreck - but we have to play the hand we are delt) - so a pragmatic choice, IMO.

(2)Gore: He was the only candidate who could have clearly won on WOT capability then completely shifted the debate to the doestic agenda. He was the only (non)canidate who could have nullified the fear and terror framework of the election. This doesn't mean he would win - but if history could be rewritten it would be nice to change the entire dynamic of the race - and I believe only Gore could have do this.

[mzmolly]

56. Dean said all along he was a centrist, he didn't "play" anything.

I don't know how we can judge the others against Dean's outstanding fiscal record because none of them governed? Also, why is a balanced budget considered a Right Wing quality? It's not.

I do like Edwards on the issues though, "except for the war." Had he some Governing experience and not voted for the IWR, I'd have had a tough time choosing between him and Dean.

[Radical Activist]

150. You're absolutely right except you forgot Sharpton

Kucinich and Sharpton were out on their own in left field. Edwards was more liberal than people give him credit for, then Clark.

Lieberman was probably the only candidate to the right of Dean. Dr. Dean was never a liberal but he played one on TV for the primary.

[kk897]

173. I'd be interested to hear how this is so...

I voted Kucinich in the primaries because I felt his views were the most consonant with my own, although I knew his was a Quixotic quest. Later I actually loved Clark as a candidate and felt he was the only one who could've won (barring even more massive fraud). But honestly I didn't know much about his, er, "softer side." I want to find out more about him, because if he does run in 08, I would like to be able to wholeheartedly back a candidate, and he might be the one.

[eridani]

234. He didn't advocate universal health care--

--and if you don't, you aren't very far left, period.

[Orangepeel]

11. Probably.

I know that Dean is not particularly liberal, despite the media image (like the majority of his other ardent supporters, I always knew this).

Listening to Clark, he seems much more liberal to me than his media image (although if he had been a more serious contender, I'm sure that his liberalness would have been "exposed.").

[madfloridian]

12. No one knows.

Dean defies labels, and so do many of his supporters. I am like him, very open-minded about most things social, but no tolerance for lies about wars, and throwing money away.

I think the fact he does not label easily is good. A lot of people are that way.

[deadparrot]

13. Don't know why, but I like Clark.

I don't even know that much about him, but from what I've seen, he seems like a good guy. I have a good feeling about him. He's got all the good qualities that Kerry has, except political experience, but he's done a lot in the military and foreign service. He also seems to have more charisma and better "people skills" than the sometimes stiff Kerry.

Of course, the RW will rip his military record limp from limb and claim that he hasno experience in politics.

Still, I wouldn't mind voting for Wes Clark in my first presidential election.

[kk897]

175. Plus, the guy has TV experience (was a commentator)

and is quite telegenic (blush). But seriously, how often did we have to put up with the Frankenstein references with Kerry? Even Jon Stewart!

I remember Clark's appearance on the Daily Show and was somewhat baffled by his fixation on a little story about a little boy whose daddy was in the war. The boy approached him and asked him to bring his daddy back, or something. I thought, geez, this guy is sure milking it, but then I noticed, hey! He's genuinely choked up thinking about it, was genuinely troubled.

[Willy Wonka]

14. Actually..

Clark is RIGHT of Dean by a mile.

Why? Check out his support for SOTA.

Check out his Republican fatcat fundraiser where he praises *.

If you got a problem with that ideology, I suggest you search Clark SOTA which is key to why he's a fake and a psuedo-Democrat. Or a wannabe.

By the way, Clark idolization makes me sick if you can't see the real Clark which I have discovered a while ago while I was a Clark supporter.

[QC]

20. You're late to the party.

Those same talking points got worn out here a year ago. They were not very convincing then and thousands of repetitions haven't improved them.

[Willy Wonka]

25. Excuse me?

These aren't talking points. These are undisputable facts that will cause Clark's downfall. EVERY TIME!

I suggest you re-research the facts and re-think Clark again.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. When it matters I am ready for you

I won't waste anyone's time, mine included, on this now. If you sincerely think Clark is a threat and a loser, well everyone is entitled to an opinion, right? Millions of people think Bush is a great President. They have opinions. Everyone has opinions. If you are not sincere, well 'nuff said.

I know the facts very well thank you. I have most of my old posts from December January and February of last year bookmarked and ready to go. I am very comfortable discussing the issues you "raised". And I am also comfortable talking about the real issues. For now they are more worthy of my attention. If you are still at it when Clark announces for 2008 I am sure we will have our "talks". See you around. I'm going to bed.

[QC]

61. I would suggest that you not assume that everyone who disagrees

with you, and has heard your drivel a thousand times before, is ignorant of "the facts" and needs to do more "research." It makes you come across as pompous and self-righteous.

Like I said, your talking points, along with some very creative ones like Clark being behind a secret government program that caused Haitian men to grow breasts, and Clark being a tool to get Hillary the nomination, were aired literally thousands of times here in countless flamewars a year ago. So it's hard to get all excited about them now.

[RafterMan]

48. If you are wise you'll listen to me...

Clark praises Republicans! Read the rest of that speech, which is a lecture on the virtues of multilateral internationalism. You may also want to investigate Ted Kennedy's (Republican fatcat?) praise for Bush's strong leadership in passing NCLB.

"Wes Clark is the only man who can get our country back on track. He's got a jobs program to get our economy going ... a real tax reform to help our working and hard-pressed families ... and a health care plan to make health care affordable for all Americans and universal for all our children. He wants to fight for all Americans, from all walks of life. These are not just Democratic values. These are American values."

-- Republican (?) George McGovern

[genius]

15. He is to the left of Dean.Dean is admittedly a conservative on many issues

However, to get my support, Clark will have to come out against the use of depleted uranium.

[kk897]

178. Clark and DU (not you, the other kind!)

Hi---that's interesting. Has Clark just failed to mention it, or has he in fact gone the other way and denied that there are problems with it?

Possibly, if he hasn't commented, it's because he knows quite a bit about it but it is classified as a security secret (stupid if it is). He strikes me as the kind of guy who would take oaths very seriously.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. At this point I am reluctant to narrow the focus in that specific way

Both men have strengths and gifts to offer. I strongly backed Clark for the nomination in 2004 and plan to again in 2008, but I think Madfloridian makes a good point. For example I would prefer a tough fighting moderate Liberal to a non assertive left Liberal for our candidate next time, if I had to choose using those terms.

There are still some bruised feelings here from all the rallying for Clark and Dean that took place this last time around. That's why I hesitate to weigh them directly against each other now. I think it is less problematic and ultimately more productive right now to explore the positive qualities one or the other or both have to offer our Party and the nation. There is plenty of time left for it to become directly competitive.

If the question is though, was Wes Clark Liberal in the positions he took, the answer is yes. He ran a progressive campaign, and the amazing thing is he consistently polled very well with moderates despite that. That is a delicious thing.

[Rowdyboy]

17. Clark, an admitted liberal, was always to the left of Dean

Dean's only liberalism is his anti-war beliefs. His economic policies as governors were moderate in the extreme.

[madfloridian]

19. Not quite true.

His stances on all the social issues are quite open-minded. It it is financial stances that are moderate to center.

And do not say he is anti-war. In every interview, in every thing he writes, he makes it clear he was anti-Iraq way and Vietnam....he knew they were for purposes of empire. Perhaps he did not think the others were. Actually I think some were.

[loyalsister]

33. Dean was BEST on Women's issues

of ALL the candidates.

[imenja]

18. What does to the left mean?

This discussion of who is left, centrist, etc.. is meaningless without any discussion of specific positions. What do you mean by left? Are there particular issues you find him preferable on?

[madfloridian]

21. You know, if you don't want infighting and more Clark/Dean stuff..

Why did you post this? We are always being told we post too much about Howard Dean, then we are told he was a centrist, which we knew he partly was.

Then we are told that Clark, who was never a Democrat until after he announced, is the most liberal of all.

Some here have kept saying that Clark and Dean are the outsiders and the supporters should work together. Posting things like this does not help.

I have tried not to post some things that would irritate, because nerves are too raw. I have made my point, and I know you guys read my post as Tom Rinaldo kindly shared it.

I think it is pretty obvious that Clark was put in to stop Dean. Then he joined the Democratic party. Clinton did back him, did support him, and did make calls on his behalf against Dean.

I am willing to pass over this stuff if you guys will stop this. Stop attacking us, stop denying what happened. Just be honest.

That said, I like Clark just fine. I prefer Howard Dean if he runs. I do not like being the brunt of jokes here, and yes, many of us are.

Posting this just aggravates a situation that could be dying down.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. You know I agree with much of your sentiments (see my post #16)

Like I said above, this type of framing of the discussion is counter productive at this time, though talking about specific issues is of course different. I honor Howard Dean for many reasons, not the least being the quality of people who rallied to him, and the loyalty and hard work Dean showed our Party backing Kerry against Bush.

Having said that, I had a long discussion with Tinoire on another thread about some of Clark's early Party support to enter the race and why he received it. I do not see that matter totally different than you, but I do see significant differences from how you just presented it. The phrase "was put in the race" is one sure to rankle any of Clark's grass roots supporters. I participated in the Draft Clark movement. I also know some Party regulars threw important support behind Clark because they were afraid of Dean, and were encouraging him to enter the race out of fear of Dean. Their reasons for wanting Clark to run and Clark's reasons for running are not one and the same. They did not "assign" Clark to run against Dean. Some of them backed and helped Clark for their own reasons, and yes stopping Dean was part of that for some. The distinction though is important. Clark himself was not running to help the Party prevent Dean from getting the nomination. He ran to beat Bush believing that doing so would require a candidate with strong national security credentials. I for one did not help draft Clark to stop Dean, to bring this to the personal level.

You are very right that we do not benefit right now by pitting Clark against Dean. I am sorry that Dean and his supporters are still getting flak from some at DU. You are not getting it from me. Please try to be sensitive in return about making statements that imply Clark was merely an anti Dean puppet. That too is fuel on the flame war fires. By the way, Clark was a registered Democrat in 2002, he announced his Party affiliation for the first time in 2003.

I very much appreciate that you are willing to look at Clark as a person aside from the history of the fight for the 2004 nomination. I would have been happy to have Howard Dean as our nominee in 2004 had that come about. I admire much about Dean, and have said so repeatedly.

[Clarkie1]

30. Interesting you interpret this as "pitting Clark against Dean"

I was merely asking a question I felt would provoke interresting discussion.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. It wasn't the question exactly that does the "pitting"

It is the very predictable pattern of discussion that tends to emerge from a question like that right now. I wasn't blaming you for being divisive, just pointing out the real world (maybe not the real world - the DU world actually) repercussions of starting a discussion specifically comparing Dean and Clark. There is a lot of history, and history has a way of repeating itself. Feelings are close to the surface still and it doesn't take much for a question like yours to lead to a my guy is better than your guy verbal brawl.

I could be wrong. I hope so.

[janx]

127. Thanks for being your good and rational self, Tom.

When I look back at all of this old stuff (and it is very old), my overall impression (gathered from blogs, interviews, etc.)is the following:

There was a VERY early draft Clark effort. A lot of Clarkies, in their good enthusiasm, like to feel they were a part of it, but they really weren't. (And I'm not talking about you.) When people like Newberry were involved in the draft Clark movement, there was no "stop Dean" effort in the campaign at all. It was a real grass roots effort, an admirable one. Then some people in D.C. noticed it.

Newberry and people like him were out, and the D.C. folks took the reigns. "Stop Dean." Some of the very early draft Clark leaders were understandably upset.

Note: This is the way I have finally come to understand it--so it's basically just my opinion based on what I've seen and read.

It's all history now. I admire General Clark a great deal, and it baffles me how so many people like to create flame wars like this, especially via "Clark versus Dean," since the two, *beyond any doubt,* were so ideologically similar and seemed to admire each other.

Let's face it--these threads are a waste of time and the only purpose they serve is to rattle up a little flamebait. Sadly, a lot of people fall for it and chime in with the same tired old words of a primary that is a year old.

So I appreciate those people, like you, who have some sanity and good sense left.

Cheers. :toast:

[madfloridian]

211. You are one of the more rational ones.

However, I don't start threads about Clark. I just don't. I have never done it, and I never will. It is his supporters who usually start the threads which escalate like this awesome thread....which is out of control.

Tom, Clark himself implied he was the anti-Dean. He said the "party insiders" came to him, probably for that purpose. I called today to order the transcript, because I don't post things that are not accurate. I do have two paragraphs which I will PM to you from that interview with Rose.

Why is it that we are not supposed to hurt feelings, why is that not a two-way street?

Clark was not an active Democrat, no matter when he registered. He just was not. I have much worse said to me here, much worse. I stay here because I am stubborn, and because I am devoted to getting change in the party by whatever means. It is just not realistic to deny these things. I don't start the threads about Clark, never have, never will. This one should never have been started. It is just meant to rile.

There are a few who just accelerate things between the two groups. I am not one of them, but by damn, I will play nice when others do.

You are very reasonable, but I disagree that I hurt feelings when I said he entered the race to hurt Dean. He said it himself in the interview.

I will never go after Clark, unless we and our group are attacked first. I will not back down. I have loads of stuff I don't use. So do many of us who are active in the group. Newsguyat1 is a wealth of info, but his posts are quite tasteful.

There are certain folks now I find it silly to even respond to, and some I have on ignore. But if there is something being touted which is misleading I will speak up.

Our candidate so appealed to us because he was human. He spoke passionately and clearly, he was not eloquent, and there was no pretence. The anger comes when we remember what was done, and trust me,....it was done.!

If you guys don't bring up the primaries......I won't either. If you want the two paragraphs, I will share in a PM. When I order the transcript I will share privately.

[Clarkie1]

28. I posted this because I thought it was interesting and thought-provoking

My understanding is this is the "political" forum. If you can't stand the politics, get out of the...um, forum?

Hope you stay, though :-)

[madfloridian]

65. If I can't stand the politics....stay out of the forum?

What an odd thing to say.

Your article is about a year old. Moore has repeatedly insulted Dean during that time, and one could assume you probably did not know that when you posted the comparison.

I hate to see this go on.

[janx]

133. No, you didn't. n/t

[manhattanite]

22. The Real Reason Michael Moore "Likes" Clark

Because Moore's endorsement would be the kiss of death to any real candidate, so he pretended to "like" Hillary's stalking horse.

[Gemini Cat]

23. Yeah, right.

Whatever.

[FrenchieCat]

45. Manhattanite....

if you get any more conspiratorial than that....the next step would be to conclude that MM was in cahoots with George Bush. How's that, Mr.:tinfoilhat: "theory"??

[robbedvoter]

119. I'l frame this one to post next to your future inane statements

because it trully takes the cake.

[wyldwolf]

181. It's Neal Boortz!

[gottaB]

29. Yes

He is more egalitarian, stronger in support of civil rights and liberties than Dean.

His economic and tax policy proposals were more favorable to the lower income quintiles than Dean's.

[Cheswick2.0]

37. really and how is that?

[FrenchieCat]

43. Glad you asked....

Evidence of Clark's progressiveness can be found in many of the core issues that Democrats are concerned about. Clark's higher education program was to have government grants of $12,000 for two years of college education for any student who's parents made less than $100,000 per year. NOT those famous "TAX CREDITS" (since I am an accountant, I know that the vast majority of tax credits are not the same as money put in your pocket).

His Tax program was far out the best of all of the candidates in 2004.
Here's some thoughts of what Clark did for Democratic Domestic issues:
And just what did you do in the class war, Senator?
There were those who, concerned more with party credentials than the public interest, challenged Clark's right to run as a Democrat. At candidate debates he was asked to justify his recent decision to be a party member. But what defined Clark as a Democrat was not longevity of membership but fidelity of principle. There was a time when tax fairness virtually defined the Democratic Party. It no longer does. The party is so wired into corporate corruption that it is a betrayal of everything for which it once stood. If a Democrat steps out of line long enough to support the poor and middle class, she or he is likely to be attacked by "leaders" like Joe Lieberman, who last year attacked Al Gore for Gore's halfhearted economic populism.

Clark tried to reverse that. Where other candidates tinkered with tax "reform" (every screwing of the public in the last 40 years has been done in the name of tax reform) he proposed a bold stroke to "restore progressivity to the tax system." A family of four with an income of up to $50,000 a year would have been exempted from the income tax altogether. A single parent with one child making up to $28,000 a year would also have been exempted (with a sliding scale to cover other circumstances).

The revenue lost would have been recovered by reversing the trend of cutting taxes paid by the rich. Clark would have increased taxes on the one percent of taxpayers at the top.

This was, indeed, a restoration. When the income tax was created in 1913 under grass roots pressure for a fairer form of taxation, it was assumed the income tax would be progressive - taxing the rich more heavily than the poor. And that's the way it started. In 1913 single people making $3,000 a year and married couples making $4,000 (a figure equivalent to $58,000 in 1994 dollars) a year were exempt from income taxes - they didn't even have to file a return.
>snip
Remember that this fall when we see the imitation Democrats chasing after corporate campaign "contributions" while trying hard to forget Wesley Clark, who made the mistake of reminding them of what a real Democrat represents.
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/my...

Bottomline is each of his proposals were progressive and liberal in nature....but offered in a manner that even Republicans and moderates could understand and accept (which is the larger part of the battle). Remember that Clark was not defeated by the Republicans (although the Republican noise machine certainly did its part)....but was defeated by Democrats who didn't believe he had paid his "dues". Serving our nation for 34 years just didn't quite measure up to ......???

ABB was a misnomer. We should have labeled it ABSWCWAB (Anybody but someone who can win against Bush).

[Cheswick2.0]

67. this is not useful information

how does this compare to anything Dean did in real life? Clark is an empty slate. Non of this cut and paste compares the two candidates and Clark has no record.

[Clarkie1]

32. Another reason I posted this...

When Clark got in the race, he was interpreted by many as a more centrist, "anti-Dean." However, this reality is more complex.

Perhaps he wasn't the so much the "anti-Dean" at all, but a more liberal, progressive alternative Kerry, Lieberman, Dean, and Edwards?

Time for a reality check, perhaps.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. I'll stop after this post, promise

Most DUers (not all but most) consider themselves to be Liberal and/or Progressive. Calling Clark the real Libveral or Progressive, rather than X Y or Z who fall short, is kind of like fighting words. My point really is, OK this is a discussion board sure, so discuss the issues that lead you to that opinion. What stand did Clark take on which issue that you preferred to some other stand that others took, and why do you prefer it? Again, saying that Clark is most Progressive and just laying that out there on this board is almost like saying Clark is "better" than everyone else and leaving it at that. Doesn't much advance the discussion and tends to cause some hard feelings. I'm all for discussing the issues. Some time in the next few weeks I will probably start a thread up about why I am already supporting Clark for 2008, but it will specifically be about Clark and what he has to offer.

Just my two cents. You probably already know that I love Clark myself.

[Cheswick2.0]

39. Clark is neither liberal or conservative

When he has held office and made policy decisions we will know. Until then , talk is cheap.


MM is a lousy judge of candidates as made very clear in 2000. Like his movies, but he is no judge of character.

[FrenchieCat]

42. I agree that Clark defies labels just like Dean....

and why should we label them anyway?

In terms of judging Character, I would trust MM before I trusted Cheswick2.0 in reference to "character" references.

Michael Moore, he has much integrity and character....and in my opinion, he knew what it would take to win(his Nader vote in 2000 wasn't because he thought that Nader would win...duh), and MM also knows a progressive when he sees one.

To compartimentalize Michael Moore's person for the sake of Cheswick2.0's convenience is a cop out. Michael Moore is a whole person (not to be parsed out) and has done great things for the Democrats and for this country. Cheswick2.0 is doing the same thing that the DLC are doing to MM. Cause I don't see it as being any better?

MM, just like Clark, stood when all others who might have had something to lose were sitting. Dean stood tall as well. All three of these men have helped this nation in a time that it needed the most help. In times when things looked bleak and hopeless.

As we found out in the recent election, Democrats need a candidate that is strong in National Security. If 9/11 did not change anything else....that was. Clark is the one who has that strength. period. None of the others (including Lieberman, Biden and Kerry) can present that sincere strength in a way that connects pure love of nation and Democracy to all Americans like Wes Clark can.

[RafterMan]

46. Yes

And most importantly, he emphasized that the Democrats needed to present an *alternate* vision of national security, rather than deferring to the Republicans when the going got tough.

Sticking your head in the sand or singing "Happy Days are Here Again" just doesn't cut it.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Cheswick2.0]

68. Do you still think Clinton is going to leave Hillary so that he and the

real love of his life Monica can be together? Still convinced she was anything more than a convenience? Still convinced married men who fool around actually love their mistresses and everyone lives happily ever after (except for the wife who is being cheated on of course and the children who were part of the marriage)?

[robbedvoter]

121. Glad you're still proud of lording over others' sex life. have you met

Ark Dem? it may be kismet.

[Cheswick2.0]

141. Aren't you the one who keeps posting to me about Clinton's penis?

Maybe you should consider not implying I'm a freeper and posting obscene suggestions about what you imagine I want to do with the ex Presidents penis.

If you don't like the topic don't bring it up.

[robbedvoter]

160. Only to make YOU happy my dear. You and freepers.

other than that, I am very happy whith life's offerings to me.

[Cheswick2.0]

171. Yes I can see how happy you are

[IronLionZion]

64. labels are meaningless

Bush is supposedly an economic conservative, a good Christian man with strong family values. but everyone on DU knows that's all bullshit.

you can call yourself whatever you want, and the corporate media can call you whatever they want, but at the end of the day it's not what you're called, it's what you have done that counts.

[Cheswick2.0]

69. exactly....... like I said talk is cheap

Clark needs to prove himself in public life.

[Texas_Kat]

101. "When he has held office and made policy decisions we will know"

Guess what, unlike many 'politicians' when Clark says something, you can bet your bottom dollar, he means it.

Unlike many 'politicians', Clark doesn't pay lip service to his principles. It may have gotten him in trouble a few times in his career, but standing up for what he believes in defines 'character' .

[KT2000]

41. So far - he's my guy

I don't know if he is left of anyone but I do know that he is smart and learns.
He sees the big picture and how individuals fit into it.
He sees down the road for our economy.He loves the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

During the election he implored Democrats to stand tall with the liberal title. He was angry that so many were running from it.

He can inspire us to ideals.
He is the first politician since the likes of JFK and RFK that made me feel that way. The guy has what I want in a president.

[lojasmo]

49. Since Clark was supported by the NDN.....

I think it's safe to say that either he's not a liberal, or that he had no chance, and was only in the race to siphon votes from dean.

[bettys boy]

51. Clark was in the race...

because, after reviewing all the other candidates, people like me asked him to enter. Period.

[lojasmo]

58. Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.

He told you that personally, I presume.

[Cheswick2.0]

71. Clark was in the race to stop Dean

even he admits that. I am sure he really meant to win the nomination after he got in, but that doesn't mean he would have governed as a liberal just becuase he called himself one.
He got in the race because Clinton asked him to. The whole grass roots thing started at least 6 months after he actually started thinking about running.

[vikegirl]

90. "Clark was in the race to stop Dean....

even he admits that."

Where?

[Cheswick2.0]

96. on Charley Rose

you can buy the transcript.

[wyldwolf]

236. interesting...

Google search didn't reveal any such thing.

So I for credibility's sake, why not at least provide the date Clark made that statement on Charley Rose?

[Texas_Kat]

112. You can't be more wrong that

the whole grassroot thing started at least 6 months after he actually started thinking about running..."

Take that from one who was involved in the Draft Clark movement very early....

I don't know what was in his mind (though, if you have some psychic ability none of the rest of us share, please let us know).

Clark's grassroots support started LONG before he gave any serious public consideration to running in 2004.

BTW, have you forgotten that Trippi invented Dean's grassroots support? Long after HE started running?

(BTW, does it get on your nerves that Clark's grassroots support is still strong?)

[Cheswick2.0]

137. nope sorry

Clark was talking with party people long before there was any grassroots effort to draft him.

I never claimed Dean ran as some kind of grassroots draft. He made the decision all on his own because he thought the party and the government needed reform.

[Texas_Kat]

147. Yes, Clark has many, many friends in the Democratic party

Some of them even urged him to run.

He didn't make up his mind to do it until AFTER more than 8 months of the Draft Clark movement petitioning him to run.

The defining moment came when Wes Jr. persuaded him (a story well known to all Clarkies everywhere.)

Clark's journey into running in the 2004 primary was not as simple (or as conspiratorial) as you keep trying to imply.

If you can't agree with him as a candidate, that's fine. Please don't impugn his (or our) integrity by trying to pass off your personal theories as some sort of proof.

I won't bring up all the private meetings between Dean and Clark before Clark announced and what went on at those meetings. Suffice it to say that both men agreed that Wes was giving Dean advice on foreign policy and national security.

If you don't remember all of that, I'd suggest you check out a few archives (if DFA has them.)

[bicentennial_baby]

120. Dean stopped himself just fine

...now didn't he?

"Yeeeeeeaaaaarrrrrgggggghhhhhh!" :eyes:

[Cheswick2.0]

142. nope

we all know what happened before Iowa.

[bettys boy]

237. "No guarantee he'd govern as a liberal"

Now we're down to the nub: Democrats, and their view of Clark's integrity.

This sentiment - somewhere between reflexive mistrust and outright hostility - toward career military officers, public servants, people who have in most cases jeopardized their lives on behalf of our nation is a despicable strain running through our party. Nauseating, really.

For most Americans, as it is for me, the word of a retired general - a West Pointer at that - should be good enough (barring specific evidence to the contrary).

We in the Clark camp all had a chance to look at Dean before we got involved with the Draft movement. We knew that in this election cycle Dean's association with this reflexively, viscerally anti-military wing of our party would be more than enough to sink him in vast areas of our country. Guilt by association.

[bettys boy]

50. Reframing, revitalizing liberalism

In the America of 2004 Clark was a stronger Dean than Dean.

Reframing: Dean, to his credit, recognizes the need to reframe liberal positions on economic and national security matters as being embodiments of apple-pie American values. My attraction to Clark's candidacy was precisely for that reason - a Clark presidency could have jumpstarted the process of re-branding liberalism.

Clark's red-state credibility was a shortcut to this objective. Dean could and still can build an equivalent level of "heartland" credibility, but for him to get there will require much more grassroots effort, much more time. It was unrealistic of Dean supporters to believe that 18 months of a Dean candidacy could undo a cultural shift forty years in the making, passion notwithstanding.

Now we have all the time in the world to revitalize red-state grassroots infrastructure, so I think it's appropriate that Dean now be offered a prominent DNC leadership role.

[mzmolly]

54. This article is from LAST YEAR, we discussed it then, and I fail to see

the benefit of re-hashing the BS.

Who cares about labels? Everyone should weigh the individual issues period.

[GOPBasher]

55. Yes he is.

He's very good on all the issues. If he's good enough for Michael Moore, he's good enough for me!

[banjoman]

57. wes clark

even michael moore recognizes crazy, and knows that it would not sell in peoria. wes clark was politically about even with dean, but he didn't have the television savvy to actually convey it.

[robbedvoter]

59. Yes he is. And calls himself a liberal too.

Bill Maher: want to read you a quote, because Howard Dean said "...In Vermont, you know, politics is much farther to the left. A Vermont centrist is an American liberal right now." And then his campaign manager came out and said "That's not an admission he's a liberal!" Which, quite frankly pissed me off. Somehow they hijacked that word. And you're a Democrat, you said that last week.

Clark: Absolutely. (audience applause)

Maher: OK. I'm just wondering, of all the people who have the credentials to say "liberal" is not a bad word, I'm wondering if I could get you to say that.

Clark: Well, I'll say it right now.

Maher: Good for you!

Clark: We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this... this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it
back

[Sparkly]

63. Yes

First, I'm not going to say anything bad about Howard Dean, and I think it's counterproductive for anybody to slam General Clark with old rightwing soundbytes, as well.

Second, the OP doesn't say there's anything inherently right/wrong with being more/less "left." So it's not a great insult to say one Democrat is more/less liberal than another on some issues. Okay, having said that...

I think Clark -- having lived and worked among people of various socio-economic backgrounds and races in a system that he believed could provide true equal opportunity -- has always fought for equality and it's reflected in his platform. He's extremely progressive, investing in tax cuts (even eliminating fed. income taxes for many), universal preschool, afterschool programs, state jobs, etc. and holding corporations accountable again -- reinstating the superfund, for example.

Dean has progressive stands, as well, but his experience has been a different one and it seems to me he's more moderate in proposed scope and spending for social programs. (I'm not saying that's a horrible thing!) He has a record of being to the right on some issues in Vermont for reasons local to Vermont, and generally seems to prefer leaving many issues to states rather than feds. (Not a horrible thing!)

One of the most appealing things about General Clark is his ability to speak to "faith, family, patriotism and values," appeal to moderates, defy ALL the stereotypes about liberals, and yet espouse very liberal positions. I think he can "get away with more" than others might.

More on his policy positions:
http://www.clark04.com/issues/

For comparison, maybe someone can post a page from the old DFA site, too? (I could only find a page pointing to the new DFA.)

[ArkDem]

66. I don't think so...

[x_y_no]

83. Oh, here we go again ...

Why are so many supposed progressive Democrats so eager to carry Karl Rove's water for him?

If you give a damn about the truth then you already know the whole story about that picture, and it ain't that General Clark was cozying up to an "indicted war criminal."

[ArkDem]

138. You can tell they 'hate' each other.

[x_y_no]

145. You're evading the point and you know it.

Mladic wasn't an "indicted war criminal" until long, long after this photo was taken. In fact, he hadn't committed the crimes for which he was indicted until long after this photo was taken. So apparently your standard is that everyone must be held responsible for the future acts of everyone they ever meet, right?


P.S. If you think someone can successfully carry out a military or diplomatic campaign without meeting some people who are somewhat unsavory, then you are living in a fantasy world.

[ArkDem]

152. Not evading at all. You buy the Clark story. I don't.

[robbedvoter]

159. You peddle Whitewater and are here exclusively to attack

Clark and Clinton (when not editting me). I have yet to know whose story you DO buy (although if you are from Little Rock and passionately hate both Clinton and Clark, it's not that hard to figure out). How's ol' Mellon?

[Texas_Kat]

125. Trade hats? or trade rocket barrages?

Which one do you think would have cost more in lives and treasure.

Clark was on a mission to understand the enemy. The least costly way to accomplish his mission was to meet with the enemy.

Of course, 'purists' whose emotional baggage won't let them talk to anyone they vehemently disagree with wouldn't have made any effort to spend time talking to the bad guy.

Purists would have started with bombs and rockets, I guess.

Oh wait, Bush* didn't take time to talk with his hated enemy either.

[robbedvoter]

136. Arkansas Project ready with the Young Republicans questions

at the rally. Glad to see you showed up for work today. A bit late, but...

[ArkDem]

139. I don't have any questions. I know all I'll ever need to know

about Clark....He is the republican.

[x_y_no]

148. Like I said ...

It's amazing how many supposed progressive Democrats so eager to carry Karl Rove's water for him. I'm sure you're proud.

[Sparkly]

177. You should know better.

First quote: Nothing wrong with his being magnanimous and giving them a chance; it'd even appeal to other voters who did the same. If you read the rest of the speech, he went on to warn them about the importance of working with the rest of the world, especially Europe. And he also spoke at Democratic events.

Second quote: He was talking about Bush 41: 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.

Third quote: Hardly praise. Did you read the rest of this article? Clark warned that despite the swift military victory in overthrowing of Saddam's government, there was a long way to go and diplomacy was going to be required.

Fourth quote: He was right.

Fifth quote: That was a reporter's rhetorical trap, and it's been parsed to death already. Everything he said, wrote, testified before that interview and after it was consistent.

Sixth quote: It was a JOKE. :eyes:

It's very easy to compile out-of-context quotes from ANYONE. As I said in my earlier post here, I'm not going to slam Dean, and I really wish we'd all get past rightwing smear tactics.

[robbedvoter]

183. I have a question: whom/what do you support?

So far I know precisely whom you obsessively hate: Clark & Clinton.

[greenohio]

70. I thought no one was to the left of Dean. He was our SAVIOR from the

right? He stood up for our values?

[Guaranteed]

73. We don't like Dean for being ultra-liberal, because he isn't.

Are you even reading our posts?

[greenohio]

76. We need someone who will stand up for liberal values.

Are you saying that Dean isn't a liberal?

[Guaranteed]

79. Liberal, yes. Not ultra-liberal.

Stop playing games. It's becoming really tiresome.

[greenohio]

82. Don't we want an ultr-liberal who will fight for liberal values?

What is your definition of the difference between liberal and ultra-liberal?

[Guaranteed]

84. No. nt

[greenohio]

85. Whats your definitions of liberal and ultra-liberal

or is it just that Dean is one and not the other?

[greenohio]

111. Dean is liberal but not ultra liberal just because.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[greenohio]

75. I figured the Dean interns here might be able to help me.

You know the ones on all hours of the day and night posting constantly to protect Deans image?

[WI_DEM]

78. unless you haven't been noticing

Clark has the most support here and gets as many if not more posts regarding than Dean, but of course you see what you want to see.

[greenohio]

81. Really, show me a post where someone says they're leaving if

Clark doesn't become chair of the DNC?

[Guaranteed]

86. LOL show me a post where someone says they WANT Clark to become

Chair of the DNC.

[greenohio]

88. Thank you for supporting my point. Now back to the Dean interns....

[Cheswick2.0]

91. There are no Dean interns

unlike the DLC, Dean is not employing interns to speak for him on message boards.

[greenohio]

94. Uh-huh. So they're full blown employees. Lets not split hairs here.

Who are these DLC internes that you keep talking about Ches?

[Cheswick2.0]

98. I think you know better than I do

[greenohio]

102. That applies in so many areas.

You just keep that open mind Ches.

[Cheswick2.0]

106. Nope, just that one area concerning the DLC

[Cheswick2.0]

87. Clark is not in the running for DNC chair

so what would be the point of people saying that?

[greenohio]

89. Clarks not running for president either. So what IS your point?

[Guaranteed]

92. See, now, I HAVE seen those posts. They're all over the place, in fact.

When someone starts a "Clark in '08!" thread there's suddenly 200 Clark supporters coming out of the woodwork singing "Praise Wesley!"

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Guaranteed]

97. Yeah, all that means is that he has a lot more interns.

Hey, who are you working for? Kucinich?

[greenohio]

99. So Dean does have interns. You better tell Ches, she says there aren't

any. I really couldn't imagine Dean running his PR shop without them. But I guess they all could be contractors.

[Guaranteed]

103. Well, apparently, not as many as Clark.

Maybe they're drawing up some kind of domestic policy for him.

[Cheswick2.0]

104. What PR shop?

The DLC needs a PR shop, Dean doesn't.
Bullgoose is goofing on you. He knows Dean has no interns working for him here at DU... unlike the DLC which needs paid interns because no one else will make their PPI/PNAC case for them.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[greenohio]

109. Are you saying Ches makes stuff up?

She is a she BTW.

[Guaranteed]

113. Ridiculous.

That's it, this conversation is over. Go play somewhere else.

[greenohio]

115. Aww come back. I'm sure you had a point.

and were going to get to it.

[greenohio]

108. Prove to me there are DLC interns here.

If Dean doesn't need PR, why must you ALWAYS run to defend him? Let it be Ches, he doesn't need it.

[Cheswick2.0]

110. why do you always run to attack him

do you have an opinion about anything of is Howard Dean your whole reason for being here?

[greenohio]

114. I don't worship him, and that is perceived as an attack.

Dean is OK with me. Its his supporters who are so easy to get riled that I enjoy. They want him as a liberal reformer when really he is mostly a moderate. They hate moderates so then they have a dilemma. Meanwhile they constantly attack decent Dems like Rendel, Stabenow, Cantwell, Feinstein and Bill Clinton because they are DLC. This hypocrisy I find amusing and fun to point out.

If Dean supporters don't want enemies, tell them to stop making them.

The funniest thing is, I don't support the DLC. I just don't think they are traitors or repukes.

[Cheswick2.0]

128. you imagine people are riled

I think that is amusing. What else is amusing is your imagining Dean supporters don't like moderates when many of them clearly are moderates.
What else is amusing is your inability to distinguish between moderate democrats and the DLC.

PS.. I couldn't care less if you feel you need to be the enemy of Dean supporters. That seems to be a really useless purpose for posting on DU, but whatever floats your boat.

[greenohio]

132. So Dean supporters like moderates. Is Dean a moderate?

What other moderates do Dean supporters like Ches?

It is good we amuse each other. A relationship made in DU.

[Cheswick2.0]

100. ?

When did I say Clark was running for PResident.

[greenohio]

105. Here let me help you.

You asked what the point of people saying "I'm leaving unless Clark is DNC chair." becase Clark wasn't running for DNC chair. My response was that there were posts supporting Clark for president, even though, Clark is not running for president....thus your point is mute. A person does not have to be running for something in order to have posts supporting him.

[Cheswick2.0]

117. LOL, I think you need to get to the store

and buy yourself some more blanks.

[greenohio]

122. Why

when I can find them right here worshiping Dean?

[Guaranteed]

72. I dunno, does Clark have a domestic policy? I mean, other than

outlawing flag burning?

[robbedvoter]

77. You mean like your candidate signed into law in his state? yeah, a few:

http://clark04.com/issues/

[Guaranteed]

80. I'll take a link to that outlawing of flagburning in Vermont, thanks. nt

[WI_DEM]

93. Well in reading all these posts it certainly hasn't been enlightening

First it just brought out a lot acrimony left over from the primaries. Rather than stating "Is Clark on the left of the Democratic party" which is pretty neutral--it is "Is Clark on the left of Dean", not Kerry, not Edwards, not DK, not Sharpton, not Gep or any of the other candidates who ran in '04--but Dean. When it singles out one person it becomes a contest between the supporters of Clark and Dean. I don't think either man has to defend their liberal principles. And both are preferable to what we have. It is easy to say that maybe Clark is more liberal than Dean because Dean has a 12 year record as Governor where he has had to take on a variety of issues. Still overwhelmingly he would have had a positive record to present to the American people and one much better than Bush. Clark, may very well be more liberal--I guess we are talking degrees, but we can't really say for sure because we don't know how he would govern. It would be interesting if he would run for Gov. of Ark or something and maybe have a couple of years of governing to get an idea.

[janx]

116. Why the attempt to revisit the primaries?

:shrug:

[greenohio]

124. The primaries are over?

I thought Dean was still running for president?

[newsguyatl]

118. clark is wherever is good for him at the time

[robbedvoter]

123. Clark has been consistent throughout. Unlike candidates finding

Jebus before South primaries of promissing to talk differently after nomination.

[Cheswick2.0]

129. LOL, he would have been a republican if Rove had returned his calls

Where as Dean has always been involved in his church.

[greenohio]

130. Doing lots of laughing today. Must be the holiday season.

Tell me about Dean's church.

[robbedvoter]

135. You and manhatanite post the same stuff, same words (#7)Waiting for your

22. The Real Reason Michael Moore "Likes" Clark
Because Moore's endorsement would be the kiss of death to any real candidate, so he pretended to "like" Hillary's stalking horse.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1446795&mesg_id=1446992&page=

That's the one I frame as the standard in delusional/stevetsen

[Cheswick2.0]

143. Clark said it

I'll guess that manhatanite and I are not the only ones who know this.

[robbedvoter]

146. Gore said his mother sang him the Union song as a lullabye.

I guess Berke the Jerke is not the only humorless hack there is.

[janx]

153. Who is

"Berke the Jerke" ?

[Sparkly]

184. Perfect comparison

I don't know who Berke the Jerke is, but the Al Gore "Union Lullabye" hoopla is an *Exact* parallel to this. :hi:

[Uzybone]

190. Berke the jerke

Richard Berke, a particularly odious NYTimes "reporter" who slimed Gore throughout 2000.


Lord this thread is awesome.

[janx]

216. I think it's sick, frankly.

But it was meant to be so.

[janx]

207. But Sparkly, what was the Union Lullabye, and why was it

offensive (if it was...)?

What was the "Union Lullabye" ?

If it is what I think it was, it's time we all revived it.

[FrenchieCat]

134. Clark is always where it will do some good for someone...

Like when he was screaming about what was happening in Rwanda.

Like when he was one leading the Dayton Peace Accord with Bosnia.

like when he was helping 1.5 million Muslim Albanians retain their lives in Kosovo.

Like when he was testifying at the Hague against Molosovic (when other U.S. official poo-poo International Law and the International Court.

Like when he was writing the Army's portion of the brief supporting Affirmative Action in the U. of Michigan Supreme Court case.

Like when he was pointing out that Bush should be held accountable for both 9/11 and Iraq.

Like when he was showing up everywhere as a surrogate for John Kerry.

Like when he was defending Michael Moore's right to speak out.

Clark has been serving our country for 34 years......

bout you?

[JNelson6563]

126. Here's a thought

Who gives a shit?

This post is nothing but opening up old wounds not yet completely healed. The evidence for this claim is to be found in the predictable sniping throughout this thread.

I don't agree with those who say you are late to the party Clarkie1, I am more inclined to believe you are whipping up new shit real early for the 08 primaries.

Have at it, at the rate you are going you will have stirred up so much bad sentiment toward your cause it will be all the easier to recruit DUers to my cause.

Thanks for the unwitting aid you provide me. :toast:

Julie

[janx]

131. The funniest part about it is that nobody's running in any

primary right now. I could just as well start a thread about my dog running for president and create flambait out of that...! ;-)

[Cheswick2.0]

144. really

who gives a shit. We have the 2005 and 2006 elections to worry about.
If people want to start imagining some candidate running four years from now I think they are going to be sorely disapointed when that person disapears from the landscape.

[janx]

149. My dog's not going to disappear! He'll still be here.

And I am going to organize now for his run in 2008. Who cares about 2005 and 2006? That's no fun! ;-)

[Radical Activist]

151. Is Lieberman to the left of Dean?

Just asking. Other than the war I think the differences in thier positions are pretty small.

[mzmolly]

163. Is Lieberman to the left of Kucinich?

Afterall, Lieberman has always supported womans rights and flag burning ie. (civil rights) and he's not in favor of charging and jailing minors with the rest of the brutal adult inmate population like Kooch is.

So I guess it depends don't it?

Lieberman has a solid record of defending Democratic causes *with the exception of the war which divided Democrats. Kucinich was right on the war, but his record is not so peachy overall.

[Radical Activist]

194. Good change of subject. We can take it that direction

If you want to bring DK up then lets look at some issues where Lieberman and Dean agree with each other but disagree with Kucinich.

NAFTA/WTO: Both Dean and Lieberman supported it and now want to make some changes and reforms to include protections for labor and the environment. Kucinich wants to repeal both.

Iraq: Both Dean and Lieberman said we should stay in Iraq for several more years and that we should bring in an international coalition. Kucinich said we should withdrawal in 90 days and turn control over to the UN.

Health Care: Dean and Lieberman supported varying degrees of health care reform that didn't cover everyone and kept the private insurance industry in place like it is now. Kucinich supported single-payer Universal healthcare.

Gay Marriage: Dean and Lieberman say it should be left up to the states and don't support a nation-wide civil unions bill. Kucinich supported
gay marriage with full benefits. Now, is that more or less important than flag burning as a civil rights issue?

Those are four of the biggest issues right now and I could easily go on. I made a valid point. On major issues Dean and Lieberman are not far apart.

I find it an odd contradiction that you would criticize Kucinich for changing on the abortion issue yet support Dean who has flip-flopped on so many more issues. Everyone changes their mind sometimes. Not everyone tries to have it both ways.

It isn't enough for me that someone badmouth the DLC in order to get support from liberals. I want people who are substantially different from the DLC leading this party.

[mzmolly]

195. Lets make a similar statement comparing Dennis Kucinich and George Bush.

Both Kucinich and Bush denied a woman the right to choose in the past decade. Both Bush and Kucinich wanted to: deny American servicewoman the right even to pay for their own abortions overseas, prevent Washington, D.C. from funding abortions for poor women with nonfederal dollars, prevent research on RU-486, prevent health coverage of basic contraception for federal employees. In 1996 Kooch told Planned Parenthood that he did not support the substance of Roe v. Wade. He received a a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL.

Both Kucinich and Bush believe that minors should be jailed with adults in maximum security prisons.

Both Kucinich and Bush believe that it should be against the law to burn a flag.

Both Dennis Kucinich and George Bush governed into bankruptcy.

If I have to choose between someone like Joe Lieberman and someone like Bush, I'll take Lieberman any day.

[Radical Activist]

198. That was really pathetic

First of all, Kucinich has voted pro-choice consistently for two years now. Yes he was wrong before, but that's the only major issue you can come up with and he doesn't even hold that position anymore.

Cleveland did not go bankrupt, it went into default and it was just fine. That one isn't even true.

So I guess flag burning is right up there with trade, gay rights, and the Iraq war huh? Please. How long ago during the primary did you get these anti-Kucinich talking points you keep using?

Can you tell me how Dean is much more liberal than Lieberman on major issues? You haven't even tried to so far.

[mzmolly]

203. Oh my, two whole years!

Do you know how long Dean has been anti-Nafta?

Yes, flag burning ie. civil rights is right up their with gay rights and other issues.

Though, I didn't support the war, Dennis originally did not protest if you read what Michael Moore said:

"...let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against a resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained."

Seems Dennis likes to remain aloof on certain issues.

And, you and others don't get to decide what issues matter to me and what issues don't.

You are not the "leftist police" and neither am I.

Lieberman is consistant and a man of integrity. He hasn't changed his position for political reasons as Dennis Kucinich has.

[Radical Activist]

210. 100% rating from NARAL in 2003 for Kucinich

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BC032003

That's where he stands. I don't think either of us can read his mind to know why he changed.

The idea that Kucinich wasn't strongly against the Iraq war is the most far-fetched idea I have ever read on this site. I heard DK speak at a protest against the war in person and he didn't sound aloof. Since this thread wasn't even about DK I'll leave it at that.

[janx]

219. I used to like Kooch. I don't anymore. He was anti-women's

rights for too long, and he pitched his delegate votes in the Iowa primary to Edwards.

It makes me sick.

[Cheswick2.0]

172. Is DK to the right of Dean

DK spent his whole career voting against women's rights. He also voted for legislation allowing children to be tried as adults and for the anti-flag burning ammendment.

That makes him right of Dean and I can't imagine why such a radical activist could have supported him in the primaries.

[mzmolly]

185. Adult white male Radical Activist?

;)

[Radical Activist]

193. No, he didn't spend his career voting against women's rights

He was against abortion in many cases but didn't support overturning Roe v Wade. His record on other women's issues and women's rights is very good. Check it out. Your statement is only true if you think abortion is the only women's rights issue.

I guess attacking Kucinich was easier than defending Dean.

[mzmolly]

196. Actually, it seems he supported overturning Roe v. Wade.

In 1996, he said, "Life begins at conception." In 2000, his voting record earned a zero rating from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.

"One thing you won't find on Kucinich's website, though, is any mention of his opposition to abortion rights. In his two terms in Congress, he has quietly amassed an anti-choice voting record of Henry Hyde-like proportions. He supported Bush's reinstatement of the gag rule for recipients of US family planning funds abroad. He supported the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits anyone but a parent from taking a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion. He voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime, distinct from assault on a pregnant woman, to cause the injury or death of a fetus. He voted against funding research on RU-486. He voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception. He even voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers--a huge work force of some 2.6 million people (and yes, for many of them, Viagra is covered). Where reasonable constitutional objections could be raised--the lack of a health exception in partial-birth bans clearly violates Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart--Kucinich did not raise them; where competing principles could be invoked--freedom of speech for foreign health organizations--he did not bring them up. He was a co-sponsor of the House bill outlawing all forms of human cloning, even for research purposes, and he opposes embryonic stem cell research. His anti-choice dedication has earned him a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020527&s=pollitt

[Radical Activist]

199. Appealing Roe v. Wade

never came up for a vote in Congress, so you're article doesn't refute what I typed. He never supported overturning Roe despite his support for restrictions on most abortions. Is one issue all you've got? Everyone knows Kucinich *used to* be anti-choice. That doesn't make him conservative in todays world now that he changed.

[mzmolly]

202. Roe V. Wade is about choice, Kucinich believes that

"life begins at conception" and his record backs up that belief.

Dean used to be pro-Nafta, that doesn't make him a conservative. Lieberman is also NOT a conservative just because he's a person OUT with his faith and he supported the war.

Lieberman has a respectful voting record strong on choice, environmental protection, human and civil rights, education etc... he's not the villan some here would have others believe.

[janx]

206. Please don't bring Kucinich into this, if even to react. n/t

[cindyw]

154. Dean was never that far to the left. most people never understood this.

He was always a semi conservative democrat. Most of the candidates except Lieberman were to the left of Dean.

[janx]

155. But here's the problem.

What is the definition of "Left" these days?

[cindyw]

156. point taken, but in a relative sense Dean was to the right of everyone

but Lieberman. I don't know where the middle is these days, but in a relative sense Dean was to the right of the others. Or at least he was his entire career until he ran.

[janx]

158. How so? He is a fiscal conservative, true, but what other

policies of his were to the right? And by "the others," whom are you referring to?

[cindyw]

167. I was referring to the primary candidates. Also my point is not to suggest

that there is some sort of linear definable line of right to left. My point is that in many cases when given the choice between a liberal and a moderate decision in office (conservative, civil unions, environmental) Dean tended to the moderate when he had the clout to choose liberal. I'm not suggesting that Dean was Zell or some neo con repub, I was referring to his decisions compared to the history of the others.

[madfloridian]

170. But the party establishment defined him as liberal...

That is what was so wrong. He never really got a chance to define himself...they did it for him.

[janx]

200. So your really can't answer my question--or won't.

What policies are you talking about?

[cindyw]

208. Won't. Just didn't think I had to explain Dean's record to a Dean

supporter. Dean had a history of handling the environment like the Bush administration. Rather than do what was right environmentally he would find a "compromise" between the two sides that included giving in on some enviromental needs and creating "special" areas of land that are saved, while overall having a relative decline in the regulations or protected land. As far as civil unions Dean was given the opportunity and political cover to legalize gay marriage. He choose civil unions. Understandable choice for governor who does not want a culture war on his hands, except that there are over a thousand rights that are afforded to marriage that are not included in Dean's civil unions bill. He went for the least he could in his situation, rather than going for the recognition of rights and equality.

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

215. Deleted message

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

[janx]

217. No. I don't insult people. I just ask for the reasoning behind their

insults of my positions, that's all.

There's no reason to attack me.

[cindyw]

221. You just called me a liar and I'm attacking you?

And how is explaining my position insulting yours?

I am making no value judgement on Dean. I understand the need for pragmatism. But I also understand that while pragmatism is needed it still makes you more moderate.

Let me give you an example on this subject. Kerry and Kucinich held the same belief on gay marriage. That is that gay couples should have all the exact same rights on a local and federal level afforded to them as straight couples. Both hold a very liberal/progressive belief. Kucinich though, was willing to embrace this gay marriage by calling it gay marriage and be done with it. Kerry was more pragmatic. He thought that on all levels rights should be the same, but was unwilling to say the word "marriage" should be set as the word for those rights because he thought it would set off some culture war and encourage the opposite outcome. While Kucinich and Kerry held the same core belief on rights, Kerry was pragmatic. While they may smart it still makes him more moderate on the subject simply because he chooses pragmatism. It's not an insult to say someone is pragmatic.

[madfloridian]

224. Janx has never been insulting.

She is like most of us, we know the Dean campaign inside and out, and we know exactly what he stood for in different areas. We have followed it closely and we know of what we speak.

Janx is much nicer than most of us, and I resent your implication that she insults.

[cindyw]

226. She just did. Called me a liar and said it was insulting her positions

if I disagree with them.

As far as Dean, prove me wrong if you must. I don't care to argue Dean's favorability as you clearly do. But there is no deneying that Dean history, not necessarily his campaign positions, were tending to the moderate democrats side.

[madfloridian]

227. We know about his record in every aspect.

Unless you were a supporter and followed the campaign, then you are not really speaking with knowledge. Why do you think we don't know he was moderate? But you are misrepresenting his positions in areas, and that is wrong.

[cindyw]

228. I said two things.

1. That he was moderate on environment. While he was extremely liberal in the campaign on this subject, such is not his record.
2. That he had the political cover to push for a civil unions bill that recognized more rights.

That is all non-disputable. I have had to argue this civil unions thing up its ass including the vermont thing. I know a thing or two about it. If you all know Dean was a moderate, why are you arguing with me? That was my original point.

[madfloridian]

230. You make it sound as though we are not aware.

It was not Dean who ran "liberal", it was his own party who labeled him. He ran on what he was. He never tried to be anything else. The others said that to cover their votes for the war and tax cuts for the wealthy.

[madfloridian]

161. Then why did Clinton make those calls? If Dean was so to the right.....

Why did Clinton call Dean folks to tell them to vote for Clark because Dean had signed the VT civil unions bill and thus was unelectable.

So...did this mean Dean was too far to the right or too liberal? Or what? Does it mean Clark was acceptable because he was not for civil unions?

How confusing can it get. Dean was centrist as a governor. His positions vary, he is open-minded.

Why do we have to use the labels all the time. I don't fit in any label.

[cindyw]

166. I'm not so sure Clinton was operating on a right/left scale.

Clark was his guy because he was one of his ties to him in his administration.

Let me add that Clark had the "electablility", and by that I mean military history that many thought comprised that definition, that Kerry had without having taken liberal stands against Clinton as Kerry had. I think this is why Clinton tended Clark rather than Kerry.

[madfloridian]

168. I disagree. Electability was not given a chance.

TPTB decided it all for us.

[Guaranteed]

205. I've talked to a lot of Republicans who like Dean.

And they like him because he's not a bullshitter. It's really pretty simple.

[cindyw]

209. That really has nothing to do with right or left though does it.

[janx]

220. Actually, yes, it does. n/t

[Guaranteed]

232. No, it has to do with standing up for what's right when you're

a liberal. And, while he's moderate, Dean is a liberal. And he lets it be known.

[cindyw]

222. There are people on both sides who are not bullshitters.

Many racist are very open and don't bullshit you on the subject. All non-bullshitters are not to the left.

[Guaranteed]

233. Yes, and that's why the Republicans are winning. nt

[cindyw]

213. I am not suggesting that having a military background is equal to

electability. Just that they thought it did and that Clinton's support may have been based on this. Look how much Clinton's military background caused problems for him. I think Clinton may have tended to think that that definition of electibility was accurate. Given that Kerry had taken some stands against Clinton, it would make sense that Clark was the clear choice.

[janx]

218. ONE MORE TIME:

How is Dean "to the right of everyone" ?

Give me reasons and policies. If not, then we'll all go to sleep.

[cindyw]

223. I didn't say everyone.

[mzmolly]

164. It depends on the issue. Kucinich is anti-choice, Edwards is pro-patriot

act. Moore's label of Dean and Clark being left/right is meaningless.

It prevents discussion of the issues. Most of our candidates (Kucinich included) could be considered moderate if you break down the issues and look beyond rhetoric.

[madfloridian]

174. Not started by us, but many posts say we need to get out of the primaries.

Surprise, we did not start this.

[Geek_Girl]

188. Are both of them thinking of Running in '08?

I really like Dean and I really like Clark I would have a hard time deciding on who to support in the primaries. They both are great candidates. I just wish one of them had won the primaries in '04 instead of Kerry. I believe we would have had a new president if that happened.

[twenty2strings]

191. Wish we had them both...NT

[outraged2]

192. yes

.... but I think the right/left thing isn't the main point. Clark understood the up and down split- I mean he is a populist. He is much more in touch with the problems and concerns of ordinary people than most, and he was able to connect in a way that no other candidae did. That is the most important distinction IMHO.

[Obviousman]

204. I would have loved to see a NH showdown

between Dean and Clark.
William Donohue

[janx]

214. That was not allowed. n/t

[madfloridian]

225. It was all taken care of beforehand.

And then he screamed.

[0007]

238. Who cares?

[bklyncowgirl]

239. Thank you. Both are good men and stand up guys.

Examining the minutia of a politican's issue positions from years back to decide whether or not he is more left or more right is a great way to stir up a fight and when the politicians happen to be the two biggest Darlings of DU the discussion is sure to generate more heat than light.

Compared to Bush these guys are off on the left side of the seesaw. Compared to the guys who the Democratic Leaders seem to want to promote, both are well on the left.

Arguing about who's a little further out on the seesaw than the other is futile.

But I guess its fun because if it wasn't no one would be on this thread.

[unblock]

240. locking due to size.

please continue here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1449073