Who are you leaning towards for the 2008 nomination?

[WI_DEM]

These are some names commonly mentioned as being interested in running in '08. For my fellow Dean supporters, I'm sorry, but I didn't add him to this list. He is in the race for DNC Chair and if he gets this very important job--and I'm beginning to think he may--he has vowed not to seek the presidency in '08 (of course that doesn't rule out the VP nomination if he does a good job and the nominee feels he needs him).

[The Sushi Bandit]

1. Is Sen. Boxer Jewish?

[wryter2000]

3. I think she is. eom

eom

[manhattanite]

18. Yes. nt

[justy329]

34. why do you ask? n/t

[LifeDuringWartime]

137. my guess is

it might be difficult to convince some people to vote for her because of that

id vote for her though!

[wryter2000]

2. ABDino

Anyone But a Dino (I was going to say anybody but Hilary, but DiFi is worse.)

[AntiCoup2K4]

4. Howard Dean, if he's running.

Clark or Boxer would be possible. Edwards a maybe. DLC'ers a HELL NO!

[PassingFair]

12. Agree, Dean or

...whomever he vetts from his position as DNC Chair.

[ClarkUSA]

53. Dean has promised to be neutral

It's not the DNC Chair's job to play favorites among primary candidates. I got sick of that in 2004 with Terry McAuliffe and John Kerry.

[Crunchy Frog]

173. Well said!

It is not the DNC Chair's job to pick the presidential nominee. I would hope anyone in that position would respect the voters enough to stay neutral allow them to choose. The fact that Terry MacAwful played favorites was one of my biggest issues with him. Any DNC chair that did that for 2008 would drive me out of the party by it. Even if the person they selected was Wes Clark. It's the principle of the thing that matters to me.

[PassingFair]

225. Funny,

that you were not driven out by Mr. Kerry's being rammed down our collective throats.

[Crunchy Frog]

232. I was willing to do just about anything

this time around to get rid of Bush. I swallowed alot that I normally wouldn't have to try and get him out. I was sickened by it, but I did it anyway, as did millions of others. I won't be playing that game in the future. I will no longer support or vote for a ticket that I don't believe in, just because it's not quite as bad as the alternative. I will also no longer support a system in which party bigshots try to make our choices for us.

So who did you vote for this last time?

[sellitman]

192. I voted for ES & S, Diebolt and Sequoia

Until we beat these Repuke funded vote stealers NO ONE from that list you posted stands a chance. When will you all get it?

:mad:

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. He promised not to run is he becomes DNC Chairman

[ClarkUSA]

56. He promised not to run as President in 2008, but that leaves VP in 2008

say, if, Gore decides to run and becomes the nominee (and we hope Dean can keep his promise to stay neutral if Gore does emerge as a 2008 primary candidate) and wants Dean to be his VP, as some here have enjoyably speculated.

[rainy]

5. I'd love to see an Edwards Boxer ticket

[wryter2000]

6. I'm a Deanie, too

I think Dean can do us the best service as head of the DNC. In fact, I get the distinct impression that he never expected to do as well as a candidate as he did. I think his early success surprised him. I truly believe he's in this for the good of the country, not his own glory. That's one of the reasons I love him.

[BattyDem]

7. I chose Boxer, but I'm a Deanie ...

If the good doctor runs, he's my man ... but damn, I love Boxer!

[formernaderite]

14. Me too....Dean would still be my first pic,

I voted Boxer.

[madfloridian]

8. Dean.

.

[janx]

9. Nobody is running!

So I'm not "leaning" in any direction. ;-)

[Clarkie1]

45. Oh, there are some who are running.

They just haven't officially declared yet.

[Sparkly]

10. Has Boxer made any statement

either ruling out a run, or hinting at interest? Just curious.

[TheDonkey]

11. I'll probably size up the crowd during primary time

that is when I learn a lot more about them. I'm excited for '06 to come around so we can see.

[Rosco T.]

13. Clark/Boxer, Kerry/Clark, Kerry/Boxer... all have their good points...

Clark/Boxer - assuming we're still in deep kimchee in Iraq/Iran/Syria/China (a safe bet), Clark wipes the 'security'/'experience' issues against anyone the 'thugs put up. Boxer for restoring the rights we've lost under the rule of George II.

Kerry/Clark - if Kerry goes again, what NEW do they have to smear him with? Swifties proven liars, 'medalgate' debunked and real 'government' experience compared to Bro' Jeb. Clark has the advantages of the above.

Kerry/Boxer - same as above.

[Zensea]

15. Too early to be thinking about this stuff, really

unless you are running for president yourself.

Time to focus on the base, not the superstructure.
If we don't get things cranking on the local levels of things it won't matter who runs in 2008.

[WI_DEM]

16. oh sorry

This is a discussion board and this is just a fun little poll. We are all working towards '06 and rebuilding the party. I do wonder why people who complain about this sort of thing actually take two seconds out of their busy lives of rebuilding the party even to look at a thread like this?

[FrenchieCat]

17. LOL!

So true!

[sundancekid]

50. a-a-a-amen to that!

[Zensea]

22. I wasn't complaining

don't be so defensive.
I voted in the poll.

It was more just thinking of things in a philosophical sense of this always looking to a leader worries me. I worry about it, I'm not complaining about it. See the distinction?

[Cheswick2.0]

20. I agree Zensea

We have a lot to do to to get ready for 2006, who cares who is running in 2008?

[Hissyspit]

74. Never Too Early to think about this

...but, on the other hand, A LOT will happen between now and 2006.

[MercutioATC]

19. Dean!

Maybe next time, people will reconsider what's "electable"....

[Totally Committed]

117. What is ELECTABLE???...

May I humbly say that if GEORGE W. BUSH is ELECTABLE, then the bar is irrevocably changed for the Democrats?

-- A failed businessman

-- A C student

-- A semi-disastrous Governor

-- An international embarrassment (on his best days)

-- A meglomaniacal imbacile to whom "God talks" (on his not-so-good days)

-- The PNAC-ers wet dream of a puppet (on his worst days)


So, to bring up the "electability" of Wesley Clark on this forum time after time is not only in error but as imbacilic and self-sabotaging a Democratic error as I have ever seen.

Wes is...

-- A Rhodes Scholar with an advanced degree in Economics (which he taught at West Point)

-- Rose to the rank of 4-Star General as SACEUR of NATO where he ENDED GENOCIDE in the Balkans, fought against those who wanted all-out war to wage a LIMITED AIR CAMPAIGN that save hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. His acts of heroism in this region are recounted in books written by Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke, and Samantha Power.

When that war was over, General Clark was one of the negotiators and signitaries of the Dayton Accords -- the Peace Treaty which came of the war in the region.

-- As a General, ran entire military bases from Education, to Supply, to Housing, to issues of Family Welfare. His love and respect for the troops is legendary. His care for their lives and families is well-known. Our government should only be as responsive as he was to their concerns.

-- Since retiring, has been a tireless and vocal advocate for those in active service to this country, and for the veterans being treated horrendously by this government.

-- As an author, he has also written two books, many articles for major publications, and Op-Eds for many major newspapers.

There is MUCH MORE I could say, and will, if asked. But, I ask anyone who sees Wes Clark as having a problem with "electability" to consider that JUST the things I have mentioned here would make him, on paper, a better POTUS than Bush could ever dream of being. Off paper, reading what I have written, if you don't see him as AT LEAST JUST AS "ELECTABLE" AS your favored candidate, I humbly submit your beains are scrambled by a misplaced loyalty that effects your impartiality in a way that is a real danger to this Party's welfare.

Thanks for reading. Please reconsider the next time you decide to question Wesley Clark's electability. Also, as a personal request, learn more about him before regergitating all the old Regressive Wingnut lies about him here in the forum. You do yourself, your Party, and your country no service by trying to tear Wes down time after tiresome time.

A personal promise: Get to know Wes Clark -- REALLY KNOW ABOUT HIM -- and even if you find he's not your candidate, I guarantee you will respect him immensely. Those of us who support him so doggedly do so out of the deepest respect for his courage, integrity, intelligence, and passion for his country and her pepople. You'll see all those things and more if you get to know him as we do.

Thanks!

TC

[MercutioATC]

132. Sorry, that was directed at those in the primary who said that

Dean wasn't "electable" but Kerry was.

We see how that worked out.

No slight intended toward Clark. Personally, I don't know that he has the political experience necessary, but I do like him.

[MrSlayer]

21. General Clark.

[LSdemocrat]

24. Gore

That is, of course, if Dean doesn't run.

[saltpoint]

25. Voted 'Other' and would pick Bill Moyers.

We need someone to shatter the GOP's demographic victory margin in the South and border states. Moyers is a Texan, a Baptist minister, and a brilliant liberal.

With maybe Alexis Herman or Robert Menendez as VP.

In the off-chance that the party skips Moyers, I could back nearly anyone except Lieberman.

[RUMPLEMINTZ]

27. Brilliant pick

Bill Moyers would be fabulous but he's too old I think.

[saltpoint]

29. I honestly don't know his age. Is he older now than --

-- Reagan during his presidency?

Anyway, in my ultimate political fantasy, Moyers would be elected and would carry all of New England, most of the midwest, the Pacific Coast plus Nevada and New Mexico, AND all southern states except South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia.

We'd atomize the GOP stronghold in the south.

And I would by god pay attention to an Inaugural Address by Bill Moyers.

[RUMPLEMINTZ]

31. I googled

his name and Moyers was born on June 6th 1934 which would make him 74 in January of 2009. Too bad!

[DrGonzoLives]

26. I think it has to be Clark

The way this country is going to go over the next four years, and the world, Clark is the guy who has the credibility and experience to win.

Clark/Feingold? Hmmmmm

[ArcRabbit]

28. Clark/Boxer

But I would prefer boxer be the Head Woman personally. I do like Clark though.

[Canuckistanian]

30. Clark. Do it right this time

The repubs are terrified of him. They got nuthin' on him. Articulate, reasonable, affable, genuine war hero (not that Kerry wasn't).

[RUMPLEMINTZ]

32. I just cant get excited

about Clark. Having to watch him in 2002 praising BU$H for his leadership after 9-11 made me want to

[FrenchieCat]

35. Sorry that I must correct you.....but I must....

The speech occurred in May of 2001 and was done pre 9/11

It was a nonpartisan speech made with the express purpose of encouraging the Bush FOREIGN POLICY TEAM in staying engaged in Europe...where just a year before Clark had retired from his position as Supreme Allied Commander Europe and of NATO. Europe relations were important to Wes Clark.....and he found it his duty to stress that the US should continue to work with her allies.

He gave virtually the same speech the next week at an Arkansas Democratic fundraiser and was pictured with Blanche Lincoln in the AK papers the next day.

He was paid for his appearance at both fundraisers.

That's is one of the reasons that the Repub fear Clark. He speaks our language, but in their words. That means the sheeple Bush voters might actually understand what it is that Democrats really can do to make their lives better.

[deadparrot]

33. I was thinking Clark/Richardson.

They're both southerners (albeit the southwest). Clark's a military general whose record will be a lot harder to smear than Kerry's (though I'm sure they'd try). He's also got significant foreign policy experience, though he hasn't put in a lot of domestic time.

Richardson is a governor from a southern swing state, I'd hope he would bring in the Hispanic vote in droves.

Oh, well. Clark is my first choice for president. VP isn't that huge of a deal.

[ThorsHammer]

36. Me too

I'm pretty sure they could swing at least one, and likely several, states that were slightly red. Among the blue states that could go red, I don't think they would lose any major ones. PA is getting more blue each time, MI is still safe, and WI should be safe.

[ThorsHammer]

37. Addition - I don't think it really matters who runs

The GOP has no one who could win anyway, so any reasonable Democrat will win.

[Leilani]

105. Are you still underestimating the Repubs?

EOM

[ThorsHammer]

200. Not underestimating, maybe a little optimistic though

(Sorry for the late response, haven't been on much today)

Frist has zero charisma, Santorum has narrow appeal, Jeb won't win b/c Americans don't want dynasties, Arnold is ineligble, Rudy has been tainted by Kerik, and they don't have anyone that I can think of with star potential (for example, Obama; not saying he'll be the candidate yet as it's way too early IMO, but he does have "it"). McCain is perhaps the one guy who could win, but others have posted that the fundys don't like him. Also, like I said, if things continue like they are in the ME and at home with the economy, most moderates should be looking for a change. It's the perfect chance for a good Democratic candidate to emerge as a "Hope for America" type.

[Leilani]

203. Agree with most of your analysis

I doubt McCain will get the nomination, because the Bush lovers hate him, but if he does, he'll be tough to beat.

Also watch Hagel...he's more moderate than the fundies, & could pose trouble.

I think the sleeper candidate is George Allen...lots of Pubs talking him up.

[ThorsHammer]

227. Good points; IMO 2008 will define the GOP

Do they continue to stick with the neo-con, W side, or do they move towards a moderate? McCain would be tough to beat, but I don't think the neocon wing will let him get out of the primaries. Hagel seems decent too, but might have the same problem as McCain (not a neocon favorite; IIRC he has been critical of W's foreign policy). Allen is very interesting, and might be a good choice. On the flip side, Mark Warner could easily counter him. I do think the Dems have a much bigger pool to draw from - Clark, Dean, Hillary, Edwards, Kerry, Boxer, Warner, Richardson, etc.

[ThorsHammer]

228. Good points; IMO 2008 will define the GOP

Do they continue to stick with the neo-con, W side, or do they move towards a moderate? McCain would be tough to beat, but I don't think the neocon wing will let him get out of the primaries. Hagel seems decent too, but might have the same problem as McCain (not a neocon favorite; IIRC he has been critical of W's foreign policy). Allen is very interesting, and might be a good choice. On the flip side, Mark Warner could easily counter him. I do think the Dems have a much bigger pool to draw from - Clark, Dean, Hillary, Edwards, Kerry, Boxer, Warner, Richardson, etc.

[me b zola]

73. Love Clark.

I really think that he is the real deal---sorry, John.

But Richardson for dog catcher does not cut it for me. He seems to be obstructing the investigation into election fraud. I'm tired of bastids playing the game and not giving a second thought to our Constitution nor our Democracy.

[Cats Against Frist]

265. Yeah, I like this ticket, too

I think it's a winner, for sure.

[digno dave]

38. Oh God...a liberal female in a time of war...You're all kidding, right?

This is America folks. Will you people never learn? Flame away, but know this. These aren't my prejudices but the prejudices and tendencies of an America that just elevcted Body Bag to a second term.

[ThorsHammer]

39. Clark as VP could mitigate this some

[digno dave]

40. VP counts for sh*t up against this

[digno dave]

41. delete

[Clarkie1]

44. Clark as VP just doesn't make sense...he's a leader not a yes man

[seaj11]

72. The VP isn't so much a yes-man anymore.

Not since Gore made the veep into an active role in the administration.

[AntiCoup2K4]

258. Gore wasn't the first to be an "active" VP. Poppy invented the concept.

How much do you think Ronald Reagan actually did in the White House?

Like Junior, he was just an empty head in a suit. But at least Reagan acted the role well. Junior can't even do that convincingly.

[ThorsHammer]

102. IMO Clark/Boxer would work better, but Gore and Cheney have expanded the

VP's role over the last few years. I don't think the VP is necessarily a yes (wo)man, and often can bring skills that the President lacks (ie intl. vs. domestic, economic knowledge, etc). In this case, Clark would bring good international and security knowledge, while Boxer would bring the political experience and domestic expertise. Barring something unexpected, any Democratic candidate should win easily. The GOP has no one lined up, and if Iraq and the economy don't get better then many moderates will switch to the Democratic side.

[kerstin]

109. And such a shrinking violet too (right).

I do get your point though in terms of electability.

[IndianaGreen]

169. The Iraq War is as criminal and immoral as the Vietnam War

Now, you can choose to stand on the side of the warmongers, and see the rest of the Left turn its back on your "stay the course" candidate, or you can do the righteous and moral thing and stand with us against the war.

As to the polls, the American people will vote in favor of mandatory Christianity and torture if they were given the power and the means to do so. I have as much faith in the rest of my compatriots as I would on the Germans were I a German living in Berlin in 1939.

[Radical Activist]

221. Of course! We can only win if we nominate a war hero who sounds tough

Oh wait...isn't that what we did in '04? I think history just proved you wrong. We need a new approach.

[FrenchieCat]

255. It's not the War Hero label that makes Clark a force to be reckoned with..

It is his superior expertise in National Security in a time of war among so many other things.

Kerry's war performance 40 years ago obviously was a little too dated...and according to all that we heard, a little too blurry.

Clark's experiences at winning a war and negotiating a peace go back 5 years ago.....well documented by massive press coverage written by many who are in the business to this day.

Apples -----------------------> oranges

Not only that but we are talking about a SOUTHERN General who has CHARISMA.

So no....not the same. Sorry.

[lojasmo]

42. I vote for "conspicuous absence" N/T

[Clarkie1]

43. Dean should be on list in fairness

Unfortunately these polls only allow a maximum of ten choices. Dean supporters were forced to vote for "other" in the last poll like this. I don't think that's really fair.

[ken-in-seattle]

46. It could happen...

I am pretty sure he is "spoiled" as a presidential candidate. That may change, but he would have to be high profile between now and the 2006/7 start up.

Though I would rather see Rosenburg as DNC Chair, if Dean gets it we shall see if he can repair the party and himself at the same time.
It could happen...

[Clarkie1]

48. I'm just saying in fairness to his supporters, not making a judgement. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

63. Dean said he wasn't going to run in 2008 if he became DNC Chair

and it looks as if he's serious, so why don't we wait until after Feb. 12 before we start including him and that's only IF he doesn't become DNC Chair.

[Clarkie1]

65. O.K., that does make sense then. Just don't want supporters of other

democratic leaders feel like we don't respect them.

[lojasmo]

93. Or, since he hasn't won the chairmanship.....

We could include him, in fairness. There are 8 or so others running.

[CatholicEdHead]

47. Kucinich

[Cell Whitman]

126. agree

I think, had he won the nomination, the country would have fallen in love with Dennis. Then, after he was elected, the powers that be would have shot him.

[Clarkie1]

49. I'm pleased to see Boxer in 2nd place; Clark/Boxer or Clark/Obama would

be a real powerhouse of change. With Clark at the top of the ticket it would open up a lot of viable choices for VP that would not be viable otherwise, in my opinion.

[FrenchieCat]

51. agree....

Once you have a charismatic self made southern national security expert progressive oxford trained economics Master Degree holding Non-Pol Rhodes Scholar that won a war and negotiated a peace without any votes to smear him and who appeals to a broad spectrum of voters and who ain't afraid of the Republican Noise Machine and know how to speak the Democrat's language using Republican buzz words so that even they can understand that voting Democrat is their best opition ......on top of the ticket,

then the VP pick just needs some solid domestic experience as backup. Hell, doesn't even matter what part of the country they come from. A minority or a woman or a governor or a senator....take your pick!

[trillian]

52. Wes Clark

Democrats have to start looking at who has the best chance of WINNING!

Wes Clark is the ONLY candidate who can capture votes from moderate Repubs and Indys while being liberal enough for Progressives.

First rule should be NO MORE CONGRESSCRITTERS. Period! Full Stop.

And no one who supported the IWR or the Patriot Act.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[donheld]

54. NOBODY

I'm still worn out from the last campaign. Do we have to start this already?

[Kilkenny5]

55. Only in DU is Wesley Clark popular

All my liberal friends aren't impressed.

[Quixote1818]

58. Not just on DU! Take a look at this poll by Ed Schultz

http://www.bigeddieradio.com/index.html

Clark stomped everyone!

[Tinoire]

59. Clark isn't THAT popular at DU. He just has some very dedicated

very persistent supporters who post nowhere else in this forum (except the Wesley Clark Supporters group where they strategize about how to best work for his 2008 run) and about little else.

The calculated intent is to snow you to death with Clark, Clark, Clark AS IF he has a huge base on "even the Leftist Forum DemocraticUnderground.com". Go to the other Leftist sites and you'll see almost no following.

It was the same thing during the Primaries. Barely anyone had heard of Clark when masses of Clark supporters descended from nowhere (well, not nowhere because we did find the traffic signs to DemocraticUnderground.com on their Clark forums) with the stealth of a bunch of Jumanji rhinoceri trying to build him up as "the most", "the best", "THE answer". "The answer to what?", you really, really have to ask. I won't link in this post to an example of the freeped polls that had to be shut down because the manipulating was too obvious for the admin to miss but I bookmarked such things for the record.

Sheesh, we even had a note for the General himself asking his supporters to work harder at getting his message out at FreeRepublic and DU. It's like an annoying military operation complete with Captains, First Sergeants and Squad Leaders marshalling the troops.

[FrenchieCat]

60. Tinoire......

Please know that what you have just said is what you would like it to be. Sorry that there are Clark supporters on the Internet and sorry that Clark supporters have joined DU. I guess that DU was supposed to be for "others" only.

And like I mentioned to you the last time you attempted to deride Clark supporters...which is really all that you are doing here, again...you really don't know any of us, and your presuppositions are uncalled for. You don't know what any of us do in private or even on the Internet.

Please do not take your "oh so wise matriarch" role so seriously.

Like what makes you so knowledgable anyway?

[Tinoire]

64. "Amazing powers of observation"

as a certain poet put it ;) and bookmarks out the ying yang. I hope you really don't think people are so blind they don't notice or that naive.

As I clearly said "in this forum. So what you maintain you do in private has nothing to do with my observation.

If you don't like the observation, that's... unfortunate- nothing I can do about it.

[FrenchieCat]

66. So what's your point of the comment

except to deride Clark supporters as "Johnny-on-notes".

I will let you know that thus far you have insulted only the 75 people that voted for Clark in this thread.

Some Folks are blind.....starting with those who make uninformed proclamation that serve no purpose but does attempt to put down others.

The difference with your post that makes it mean-spirited and only shows your own bias is that you are deriding Clark's supporters...which is against the rules on DU.

Why is there a need to attempt to put down DU posters who also happen to support the General. What does it bring you? Does it make you feel better about the politicians you like? Does it make you feel that you have spoken and so it shall be?

Your original post is the kind that most at DU would rather not see....cause it serves absolutely no purpose beyond allowing your own jealousy and pettyness to shine through.

I presume that since you can dish it out....you can also take it? Right?

[Tinoire]

76. After a quick skim... Yawn. n/t

[Totally Committed]

123. "Clark supporters as 'Johnny-on-notes'."

People who post with me elsewhere, and know me off this board will tell you I have MANY strong opinions about ALL THINGS POLITICAL, but the only one that matters here is my fervent belief that Wesley Clark should be President of the United States.

A Democrat of 43 years, I have politics that have been described by some as "just to the left of Che Guevara". I was BORN anti-war, and was an active protester of the Vietnam War. I was in Chicago in '68, and swear on some days I can STILL smell the tear-gas as I wash my hair. I have organized and marched for Civil Rights in the South, No-Nukes in the Northeast, and Pro-Choice and Feminist causes everywhere. AND IF I CAN SUPPORT WES CLARK FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES I BELIEVE ANYONE CAN... AND SHOULD. So, when I see lies and distortions about him and his record, I reply to those first. Having limited energy and time, that leaves me (these days) no time to respond to other things.

I'm not a Johnny-One-Note at all. But, I don't resent being seen that way if the cause is Wes Clark. He is worth all the political capital I have left to expend, imo. He should be President of the United States. I will die believeing that.

TC

[Sparkly]

68. That's a BS insult

You're telling me I post nowhere else on this forum.
You're telling me what the Wesley Clark Supporters forum is for.
You're telling me what my "calculated intent" is.

And you're making those accusations against every Clark supporter here.

What a truckload of bull.

[Tinoire]

77. You did notice I said "some" did you not? n/t

[Sparkly]

81. How many of the now 81 votes above are the ones you ridicule, then?

How few do you subtract to reach your conclusion that he's not all that popular on DU? That's the number you've insulted in your post.

[Tinoire]

88. You'll never know will you

;)

[Sparkly]

89. It'd have to be about 50

to bring the total above down to the 30's and match your claim he "isn't THAT popular at DU." That's a lot of people you've insulted in one post.

Or, if you're saying it's only, say, 10 people you're insulting, then your claim that he "isn't THAT popular at DU" doesn't hold up. That leaves, at this moment, 74 votes here.

So either you've generalized about, and insulted, quite a large number of people here, or you're simply wrong that he "isn't THAT popular at DU." It's quite obvious you're wrong either way.

[Tinoire]

92. Then 50 it may be since that's what you believe

The erroneous belief that Clark is that popular may very well be yours as it was during the Primaries when poll after poll was posted here and flooded by alert (and alerted) Clark supporters to try to give the illusion that his support was stronger than it was. It's unfortunate that there's history to back up my present observations and belief that not much has changed. If you would like the link to the poll that Skinner had to shut down because it was being freeped by Clark supporters called in from other sites, I'd be happy to provide it for you. What the hell, I'll even provide it for you right now as well as a representative post from the period.

You guys are dedicated. You're organized. But you're not above organizing to create illusions the Clark has am amazing amount of support in the hopes of creating a "fact on the ground".

===

Poll question: Democratic Presidential Primary Poll (December 8, 2003)
Poll cancelled:

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Mon Dec-08-03 05:11 PM
Response to Original message

46. I'm shutting this down.


Our server logs indicate that we've had an influx of new registrations from at least one clark website who logged on to vote in the poll.

I want to say welcome to all of you -- I'm impressed by your enthusiasm. I hope you'll stick around. But in the future I'd prefer if you avoided freeping our polls.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=849826#851776

===
Sun Nov-30-03 03:01 PM

I found proof of poll freeping here at DU...

Before anybody accuses me of being intentionally posting flamebait or agitating etc... I think people here at DU have a right to know how the Clark folks are trying to manipulate them and dishonestly skew polls and discussions with ringers.

I did a search on the clark04 official blog for "democraticunderground.com" and found several instances of calls being made to Clark blogers to come to DU to promote Clark, bas Dean, and vote for Clark in DU polls... some even with direct links.

They are openly calling for Clark folks to flood DU, to freep polls and convert people here. SO keep that in mind when you see the "testimonials" and the so called independent evaluations of Clark from the glut of newbies who suddenly show up.

This is an organized and orchestrated effort to create the appearance of DU being massively for Clark to try and win over converts with the good old bandwagon method. Just like Bush has to truck in his own supporters to photo ops... Clark Corps have to bring their own people in from the Clark Blog to act as converts and undecided voters and to try and drown out non-Clark voices on DU.

Vote in this poll
By Harry
Posted to Harry's weblog on Thu Nov 13th, 2003 at 07:27:41 PM EST
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=703 769&mesg_id=703769

http://blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/13/192741/61

Interesting threads going on at DU...
By wyldwolf
Posted to wyldwolf's weblog (Soapbox) on Sun Nov 30th, 2003 at 02:28:15 PM EST
New allegations of Howard Dean sealing his records because of a hint of graft?

Dean supporters in deep denial... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=797 202&mesg_id=797202

http://blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/30/142815/81




By dmurch
Posted to dmurch's weblog (Call To Action) on Wed Nov 26th, 2003 at 12:44:06 PM EST
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=703769&mesg_id=703769

This is a link to the Democratic Underground web site and forum. There is very little support for Clark on this site. This a forum for all Dems to discuss the issues and to talk up your candidate. If we have enough people go and participate we may be able to win some converts. My name on the forum is

dougforclark
http://blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/26/12446/234



===

And then we have the hilarious results of this CNN poll that cause a lot of laughter

Poll: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/quickvote/frameset.exclude.1.html

Results: http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/6110.html
Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at 15:38:56 EST
Which Democratic candidate has the best chance at defeating President Bush?

Carol Moseley Braun 0% 637 votes

Wesley Clark 91% 1642151 votes

Howard Dean 8% 142227 votes

John Edwards 0% 1811 votes

Dick Gephardt 0% 1161 votes

Bob Graham 0% 234 votes

John Kerry 0% 2515 votes

Dennis Kucinich 1% 9635 votes

Joseph Lieberman 0% 1298 votes

Al Sharpton 0% 977 votes
Total: 1802646 votes

===
I'm sorry, but I remain firm in my opinion that he is not that popular even at DU and firm in my agreement with the original point made in post 55.

[Tom Rinaldo]

98. And I remain firm in my opinion that you are still recycling primary wars

I know that much of the content you are posting now is not a rehash of the past but speaks to current conditions, and I do not consider that part to be a return to primary wars. But your discussion of DU polls illustrates my point. After the period you cited Skinner made some changes in who could vote on polls here to prevent the results seemingly being skewed by an influx of new members. Clark was still winning those reformatted DU Polls well into February.

Personally I never "freeped" a poll in my life though I frequently appreciate a heads up to go participate in one. I never try to vote twice, and I do not participate in polls in bad faith. For example, I do not participate in local news outlet polls of viewers or readers if I am not living in that media market. But I never mind being told of an ongoing poll that I am fully eligible to participate in. Scan any day's threads on DU and you will find several asking DU members to go "DU this poll". When we send people from here to other sites it is not called Freeping of course. I don't understand the outrage. I do accept that the matter of Clark's actual popularity on DU or anywhere else is a valid topic for discussion however.

I don't pretend nor do I need to that Wesley Clark has an amazing amount of support. He has significant support, and he has adequate support to build on from here, in the nation, not just at DU. Does that mean his support is certain to grow? Of course not, it could also plateau or wain, time will tell. But Howard Dean and John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich had insignificant national support back in 2000. George W. Bush had insignificant national support back in 1996 also.

Clark has been more popular relatively speaking at DU than some other leftist oriented sites, though there are other leftist oriented sites where Clark has been and remains quite popular. That is not atypical to human nature and it frequently shows up with other inconsistencies of distribution. People self select where and what they talk about partially based on whether or not like minded communities exist at this or that site. However Clark's core support has continually grown with average Democrats and with the general public. I distinguish that from the flavor of the month type explosion of interest in Clark that was generated when he first announced for President. The last serious measure of polling regarding Clark came in the run up to Kerry's VP selection. For what it was worth, which is very little, Clark was always among the top three or four names for that post supported by polls (as opposed to supported by pundits). And since Clark became a media surrogate for Kerry, even more Democrats came to have a positive informed opinion of him .

One of the reasons why I am harping on what I see as an unhealthy focus on our past primary wars is that the relevancy of who had what amount of support then is now for the most part just a historical footnote. The first time Al Gore ran for the Democratic Party nomination for President he did very poorly. That didn't prevent him from rising in the Party or going on to win the popular vote in the 2000 Election. During the time Clark competed he was in the final four along with Kerry Edwards and Dean, far outstripping veteran Democrats with national reputations such as Dick Gephardt Joe Lieberman and Bob Graham. That is good enough to keep Clark's political career alive and viable depending of course on what happens over the next few years.

[Sparkly]

118. So you insult 50+ people today based on something over a year ago??

Get over it. Welcome to 2005.

The fact is, your post was wrong. Clark obviously has a lot of support here, his supporters do post on other topics contrary to your assertion, and even if they didn't, so what?? Nobody here deserves the level of attack and ridicule continually heaped on them in posts like that. Such posts are not smart, they're not clever, they're not witty, and they're not productive in any way; they're simply vicious, rude, and adolescent a la "Heathers."

[janx]

157. It's still happening.

http://chat.forclark.com/story/2005/1/21/19425/9214/

(#200) (Rated 5.00/4)
by paulcornett (paulcornett at forclark dot com) on 01/21/2005 11:18:25 PM EST
Reply

Tom Rinaldo posted this over at DU. It's an important reminder of how important it is we build Clark's base and support democratic causes and candidates we believe in in 06' and beyond whenever we can, wherever we can, and with whomever we can. Remember every action you take, however small, ripples and makes a difference.

I edited the post to remove references to name of a poster who was unhappy with Clark leading in the DU poll, and attempted to discredit Clark's base of support but saying Clark's vocal support existed only on DU, and only to promote Clark.

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

"Wesley Clark is never again going to win a shred of Democratic Party institutional backing for a run at the Presidency without forcing them into grudging acceptance through the sheer power of his campaign and the manifest depth of his support. Most of the insiders who threw Clark support last time never really wanted him, they felt they were down to Clark or Dean and they feared Dean, but they never "wanted" Clark. Clark is ultimately too independent for them, he's not a real member of their club no matter how many think tank corporate board, institute overlaps you may cite. They always wanted one of their regular Congressional Democrats to become the nominee, but it looked like none of them stood a chance so they rolled the dice with Clark. 2008 will be different. The race is wide open with no incumbent Republican to run against. They are busily grooming any number of tried and true office holders to push for the nomination. They won't turn to Clark again because they won't have to, not unless we force them to by building a strong movement behind Clark.

If you don't have insider backing you need outsider backing and vice versa, but outsider backing takes a lot more effort to build up, as it comes from the grass roots up. Dean did a superb job of that last time around, but he started early against a weak field. It will not be a weak field in 2008 and Clark will not have insider backing. That means that those of us who believe that Clark is best for America have to start expanding the foundation of Clark's grass roots support. We did well at it last time but we didn't have enough time. We are not making that mistake this time. So yes, we are here and we talk about Wesley Clark, and our reasons for doing so are transparent, far more transparent than the reasons some have for attacking Clark. But we are here as equal members of the DU community and we are three dimensional flesh and blood people who care about a great many things and are involved in a great many things. If you don't want to read a Clark thread, don't open it. But don't ever imply that I care less about this country or the Democratic Party than any one else who posts here. Don't ever assume that I and other Clarkies am not active in a host of other ways to improve our nation and promote peace and justice at home and abroad beyond just supporting Wesley Clark."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=15 17014#1518345

[Sparkly]

158. So WHAT?!?

What is wrong with this, janx?

It's an important reminder of how important it is we build Clark's base and support democratic causes and candidates we believe in in 06' and beyond whenever we can, wherever we can, and with whomever we can.

Is it evil to organize? Is it wrong to support democratic causes? Is it terrible to quote a good statement from one blog in another? What exactly is your problem?

[janx]

188. It's a silly, targeted effort...

It's not very important, but is dishonest to pretend that these poll results are those of DUers. I wrote DU "polls" off a long time ago because they were so skewed. :shrug: It's just silly. It has been going on for a long time.

[Sparkly]

193. Prove it.

There are many people posting even in this thread in support of General Clark who I've never even seen here before. You can make another visit to Clark04 if you'd like to try to dig up some conspiratorial effort to get people to vote in this thread. You can invent any sort of explanation you'd like to imagine. The fact is, the General has quite a lot of support on DU, whether you choose to admit it or accept it or like it or not.

[janx]

197. There's ample proof here in this thread.

And for those of us who have been around for awhile, there's even more.

The "General" is a good man. I've always had good things to say about him. But things are getting out of control around here.

[Sparkly]

198. "Things are getting out of control around here."

Are they really? And you've got proof of a "targeted effort," janx? Well, do tell! Hey, I've got an idea -- let's have a big fight about it! Wouldn't that be fun?! :eyes:

[janx]

202. No, it would not. n/t

[Sparkly]

207. Really? Then I've got an idea for you, janx.

STOP AGITATING.

Just a suggestion. Let me say it once more, to make sure you understand that I'm onto you:

STOP AGITATING.

I understand your game, Janx, and I'm suggesting you quit it. No doubt it's lots of fun. But I'll suggest once more: QUIT IT.

QUIT.... IT.....

It's just become really obvious now. So with that in mind, eventually I hope it'll become less fun until finally you give it up altogether.

[Tom Rinaldo]

224. She is not an agitator

There are agitators but janx isn't one of them. The agitators are the ones who repeatedly dig up discredited misinformation, like "Clark is (or was) a Republican", or who somehow manage to group Wes Clark together with Zel Miller in one category to cite a couple of convenient example. They act as if everyone on this board was asleep through the entire 2004 Election and didn't notice that Wes Clark fought, and fought very very hard, for the John Kerry and John Edwards throughout all of it, while criss crossing the country raising money and speaking out for Democratic Senate and Congressional candidates.

Janx with some regularity makes sincere positive statements about Wesley Clark. She, in my opinion like many of us regardless of who we support, gets frustrated from time to time with the sniping and ugliness that consumes this board. When people are frustrated they don't always say and write the most even tempered and even handed remarks. They don't always show the best judgment about what really is helpful to bring up and what will most likely only feed into another spiral of frustration. It is not only Dean and Clark supporters involved, but we are two large groups of DUers and frequently it is, though for most of us there is no initial intent to be aggressive, it is more reactive.

If you think I am bending over backward to not fix blame, you are right, sort of. I do fix blame on the true agitators, the ones who lie about Clark as I described above, or the ones who insist on repeatedly belittling Dean's past Presidential campaign right now while he is right in the middle of a tough fight to become DNC Chair. Those people deserve blame, and there are more than a few of them, but they are a tiny minority on this board. Yes I can take offense at something janx, a another Dean supporter, or anyone else posts from time to time. Actually often I do and sometimes I say so, but I recognize that I see the aftermath of agitation at work, not the intent at play.

Where I agree with your post is that too many of us are playing right into agitators agendas. A few vicious and inflammatory posts are made against Wesley Clark and Clark supporters myself included rally to refute them. Then others see us as consumed by righteous anger and fixated on Wesley Clark and comment on that, then we attack them for being complicit in Clark character assassination, then they say why didn't you care about Dean's past character assassination, then we say why do you always bring up the primary wars, we were attacked too, then they say that Dean is the only one running for something right now, and so on and so on and we are off to the races yet again. I realize that the script I just wrote is only one variation. There are many others and I could write them too.

So I rise to defend janx here because I know she is not a Clark hater or someone who intentionally wants to stir up the pot. But I actually agree with the main thrust of your post. We all have to stop feeding the agitators. There will always be a hundred relatively petty issues that never get totally resolved. We can never have the time or energy to replay the past in real time to dissect what really happened or what someone really meant in this or that past incident. We all have to stop being consumed by the past that divides us and look to the present to unite us in our commonality's where and when they exist, and God knows there are many, and each of them is more important than any perceived slight any of us have suffered at the hands of sincere passionate flawed human beings who happen to support one or another of our once opposing candidate.

[janx]

271. Thank you, Tom.

I can and do disagree strongly with people sometimes, but I'm not an agitator; you're right.

[Sparkly]

184. Looks like you're up to about 110 now.

To bring it down to a level where there's really not much support for Clark on DU, as you contend, you'd have to put about 110 people into your category of "annoying" conspiracists.

[Sparkly]

212. You're up to about 120 now, Tinoire.

And I didn't do a thing.

Is it possible to admit you were wrong about something? Or is your version of the "LEFT" not one that allows for admissions of error? Because my "LEFT" does, and it's clear you've usurped that term to mean something entirely different from responsibility, honesty, goodwill, caring, truth, fairness, justice, or anything related.

So knock yourself out with cynicism, insults, propaganda, cut/pastes from various websites, & etc. since that's YOUR definition of what's now "LEFT," supposedly...

[newsguyatl]

78. LMAO

thanks for the chuckle tinoire :hug:

[Clarkie1]

84. He had at least the 3rd and probably the 2nd largest base in the primaries

If you think Clark doesn't have a large base, then you must believe the primaries were "not really" an expression of popular opinion either.

[Tinoire]

90. Clark's base was passionate

very dedicated, very well organized and worked very hard, as it's still doing now, but I'm sorry, imo, it was not that large. Had it been that large, he would have done a lot better in the Primaries.
Had his base been larger, the DLC running his campaign wouldn't have asked him to drop out, line up behind an uninspiring candidate like Kerry and smartly salute.

John Kerry 2162
Al Sharpton 27
Dennis Kucinich 23

John Edwards 534
Wesley Clark 57
Howard Dean 170

==January 19, 2004:
Iowa - Presidential Caucuses
Results: John Kerry, 38%; John Edwards, 32%; Howard Dean, 18%; Dick Gephardt, 11%; Dennis Kucinich, 1%; Al Sharpton, 0%
Notes: Clark and Lieberman did not campaign in Iowa; Dick Gephardt dropped out of the race on Jan. 20.


January 27, 2004:
New Hampshire - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 39%; Howard Dean, 26%; Wesley Clark, 12%; John Edwards, 12%; Joe Lieberman, 9%; Dennis Kucinich, 1%; Al Sharpton, 0%


February 3, 2004:
Arizona - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 43%; Wesley Clark, 27%; Howard Dean, 14%; John Edwards, 7%; Joe Lieberman, 7%; Dennis Kucinich, 2%; Al Sharpton, 0%

Delaware - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 50%; John Edwards, 11%; Joe Lieberman, 11%; Howard Dean, 10%; Wesley Clark, 10%; Al Sharpton, 6%; Dennis Kucinich, 1%

Missouri - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 51%; John Edwards, 25%; Howard Dean, 9%; Wesley Clark, 4%; Joe Lieberman, 4%; Al Sharpton, 3%; Dennis Kucinich, 1%

New Mexico - Presidential Caucuses
Results: John Kerry, 42%; Wesley Clark, 21%; Howard Dean, 16%; John Edwards, 11%; Dennis Kucinich, 5%; Joe Lieberman, 3%

North Dakota - Presidential Caucuses
Results: John Kerry, 50%; Wesley Clark, 24%; Howard Dean, 12%; John Edwards, 10%; Dennis Kucinich, 3%; Joe Lieberman, 1%; Al Sharpton, 0%

Oklahoma - Presidential Primary
Results: Wesley Clark, 30%; John Edwards, 30%; John Kerry, 27%; Joe Lieberman, 6%; Howard Dean, 4%; Dennis Kucinich, 1%; Al Sharpton, 1%

South Carolina - Presidential Primary
Results: John Edwards, 45%; John Kerry, 30%; Al Sharpton, 10%; Wesley Clark, 7%; Howard Dean, 5%; Joe Lieberman, 2%; Dennis Kucinich, 1%
Notes: Lieberman dropped out of the race on February 3.

February 6–9:
Democrats Abroad


February 7, 2004:
Michigan - Presidential Caucuses
Results: John Kerry, 52%; Howard Dean, 17%; John Edwards, 13%; Al Sharpton, 7%; Wesley Clark, 7%; Dennis Kucinich, 3%

Washington - Democratic Presidential Caucuses
Results: John Kerry, 48%; Howard Dean, 30%; Dennis Kucinich, 8%; John Edwards, 7%; Wesley Clark, 3%; Al Sharpton, 1%


February 8, 2004:
Maine - Presidential Caucuses
Results: John Kerry, 45%; Howard Dean, 27%; Dennis Kucinich, 16% John Edwards, 8%; Wesley Clark, 4%; Al Sharpton, 1%


February 10, 2004:
Tennessee - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 41%; John Edwards, 27%; Wesley Clark, 23%; Howard Dean, 4%; Al Sharpton, 2%; Dennis Kucinich, 1%

Virginia - Democratic Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 52%; John Edwards, 27%; Wesley Clark, 9%; Howard Dean, 7%; Al Sharpton, 3%; Dennis Kucinich, 1%
Notes: Clark dropped out of the race on February 9.

February 14, 2004:
District of Columbia - Democratic Presidential Caucuses
Results: John Kerry, 47%; Al Sharpton, 20%; Howard Dean, 17%; John Edwards, 10%; Dennis Kucinich, 3%

Nevada - Presidential Caucuses
Results: John Kerry, 63%; Howard Dean, 17%; John Edwards, 10%; Dennis Kucinich, 7%; Al Sharpton, 1%


February 17, 2004:
Wisconsin - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 40%; John Edwards, 34%; Howard Dean, 18%; Dennis Kucinich, 3%; Al Sharpton, 2%
Notes: Dean dropped out of the race on February 18.

February 24, 2004:
Hawaii - Presidential Caucuses
Results: John Kerry, 50%; Dennis Kucinich, 26%; John Edwards, 14%; Howard Dean, 9%

Idaho - Presidential Caucuses
Results: John Kerry, 54%; John Edwards, 22%; Howard Dean, 11%; Dennis Kucinich, 6%

Utah - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 55%; John Edwards, 30%; Dennis Kucinich, 7%; Howard Dean, 4%; Al Sharpton, 0%


March 2, 2004:
California - Presidential & State Primary
Results: John Kerry, 64%; John Edwards, 20%; Dennis Kucinich, 5%; Howard Dean, 4%; Al Sharpton, 2%

Connecticut - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 58%; John Edwards, 24%; Dennis Kucinich, 4%; Howard Dean, 3%; Al Sharpton, 3%

Georgia - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 47%; John Edwards, 42%; Al Sharpton, 6%; Dennis Kucinich, 2%; Howard Dean, 1%

Maryland - Presidential & State Primary
Results: John Kerry, 60%; John Edwards, 26%; Al Sharpton, 4%; Dennis Kucinich, 3%; Howard Dean, 1%

Massachusetts - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 72%; John Edwards, 18%; Dennis Kucinich, 4%; Howard Dean, 3%; Al Sharpton, 1%

Minnesota - Presidential Caucuses
Results: John Kerry, 51%; John Edwards, 27%; Dennis Kucinich, 17%; Howard Dean, 2%; Al Sharpton, 1%

New York - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 61%; John Edwards, 20%; Al Sharpton, 8%; Dennis Kucinich, 5%; Howard Dean, 3%

Ohio - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 52%; John Edwards, 34%; Dennis Kucinich, 9%; Howard Dean, 3%

Rhode Island - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 71%; John Edwards, 19%; Dennis Kucinich, 4%; Howard Dean, 3%

Vermont - Presidential Primary
Results: Howard Dean, 58%; John Kerry, 34%; Dennis Kucinich, 4%
Notes: Edwards dropped out of the race on March 3.

March 8, 2004:
American Samoa
Results: Not yet available.


March 9, 2004:
Florida - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 77%; John Edwards, 10%; Al Sharpton, 3%; Howard Dean, 3%; Dennis Kucinich, 2%

Louisiana - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 70%; John Edwards, 16%; Howard Dean, 5%; Dennis Kucinich, 1%

Mississippi - Presidential Primary
Results: John Kerry, 78%; John Edwards, 7%; Al Sharpton, 5%; Howard Dean, 3%; Dennis Kucinich, 1%

Texas - Presidential & State Primaries
Results: John Kerry, 67%; John Edwards, 14%; Howard Dean, 5%; Al Sharpton, 4%; Dennis Kucinich, 2%


March 13, 2004:
Kansas - Presidential Caucuses
Results: John Kerry, 72%; Dennis Kucinich, 10%; John Edwards, 9%; Howard Dean, 7%; Wesley Clark, 1%


March 16, 2004:
Illinois - Presidential & State Primaries
Results: John Kerry, 72%; John Edwards, 11%; Howard Dean, 4%; Al Sharpton, 3%; Dennis Kucinich, 2%; Joe Lieberman, 2%; Wesley Clark, 1%


March 20, 2004:
Alaska - Presidential Caucuses
Results: John Kerry, 48%; Dennis Kucinich, 26%; Howard Dean, 11%; John Edwards, 3%

Guam - Presidential Caucuses
Results: Not yet available.

Wyoming - Presidential Caucuses
Results: John Kerry, 77%; Dennis Kucinich, 6%; John Edwards, 4%; Howard Dean, 3%


April 13, 2004:
Colorado - Presidential Caucuses
Results: Not yet available.


April 17, 2004:
U.S. Virgin Islands - Presidential Caucuses
Results: Not yet available.


April 27, 2004:
Pennsylvania - Presidential & State Primaries
Results: John Kerry, 74%; Howard Dean, 10%; John Edwards, 10%; Dennis Kucinich, 4%

http://www.factmonster.com/spot/campaign2004primaries1.html

[Clarkie1]

94. He had a larger base than Edwards, and probably a larger base than Dean

As can be seen by the results of the early primaries before he dropped out.

After he dropped out of the race and threw his support to Kerry, his supporters followed his lead.

The numbers for Iowa aren't relevant because he didn't have time to campaign there.

In any case, the past isn't important except for educational purposes. It is clear that Clark has the largest or one of the two or three largest bases of support of any potential nominee for 08'.

I intend to focus my most of my current efforts on 06' through WesPac, educating others about the best hope we have at the present for America and the Democratic Party, and working again to defeat the Republican incuumbent in the 11th congressional district of California.

[Tinoire]

99. Well you go for it Clarkie1

I've run into you in too many other threads that had nothing to do with Clark to bemoan your subtle, non-annoying support of him here.

I disagree that Clark has the largest or one of the two or three largest bases of support of any potential nominee for 08'. It's just, imo, very dedicated, vocal and organized.

I've been cranky tonight. Gotta go and focus on other issues because Clark is really not a concern of mine right now. Good-night.

[FrenchieCat]

103. Thank you for all of that hard work in gathering data to

attempt to prove your point.

When I add up the primary race results calculated in terms of total percentages for each candidate, when combining all of the states (where both Clark and Dean contested---using Dean, because I believe that he had the most grassroots support) the math shows that your assertion that Clark did not have such a large "Base" is without merit. In addition, your labeling is confusing and unclear.

First up, the math (excluding Iowa since Clark did not compete there): According to my calculations, Wes Clark received 12.58% combined of votes cast from New Hamphire until Virginia, and Howard Dean received 12.33% of votes cast....yet Howard Dean had a bigger "base?" sort of speak.

Further, I don't know what "Base" means to you. There are activists, supporters, and just plain folks....who all vote. Is the base the people actively supporting a candidate by going on the Internet, or are they the ones working in the field, or both...or just those that voted, or what?

Howard Dean I believe had the largest numbers of active supporters. Wesley Clark had the second highest numbers of active supporters. This conclusion is gotten by way of measuring Internet traffic data of each supporter's site around the time of the primaries, Donations figures and meet-up attendance figures.

However, John Kerry had the highest number of votes....because his votes came not so much from "supporters" or "activists", but from just plain folks who watch a lot of Teevee and voted the way the media told them they should vote (more or less).

So I will thank you for the backhanded compliment when you said that Clark's base was passionate and very dedicated, very well organized and worked very hard, as it's still doing now, but I'm sorry, imo, it was not that large." I agree...but don't know what you really mean by "not that large". What is large and what isn't. John Kerry had a smaller "base" than both Clark and Dean, but still came out on top.

I think that considering that Clark got into the race in Mid September of 2003, I think that Clark did damn good with the amount of support he did generate. We are talking about people activating in a very short period.....the majority in less than two months time. By the time the infamous "DU is being invaded by Clarkies" posts you so proudly display were occurring, Clark had been in the race less than 2 months. Are you saying that all Clark supporters should have located DU prior to Clark announcing to show that they were true Democrats or what? Are you saying that Clark's support wasn't supposed to build over time? It should have all been set in stone by September 17th when he announced?

Also remember that not all who vote on DU polls for Clark are "Clark Supporters" per se. Some may just prefer Clark although they don't actively work to garnet support for him.

and the last thing....when you throw in the DLC thingie like you did....wasn't Howard Dean DLC? Clark does not and has never belonged to the DLC....so what was that about?

[AP]

143. Where was his base in NY? He came in 2nd last, .1% ahead of LaRouche.

Kerry, John F. 437,754  61.2%

Edwards, John 143,960  20.1%
 
Sharpton, Alfred C. "Al" 57,456  8.0%
 
Kucinich, Dennis J. 36,680  5.1%
 
Dean, Howard 20,471  2.9%
 
Lieberman, Joe 9,314  1.3%
 
Gephardt, Richard "Dick" 3,954  0.6%
 
Clark, Wesley K. 3,517  0.5%
 
LaRouche, Lyndon H., Jr. 2,527  0.4%
 
 

[Tom Rinaldo]

146. What was the point in voting for Clark in NY AP?

Actually I did, but only because I spent 5 winter days gathering petition signatures to get his specific delegates onto the New York ballot. Most of the candidates failed to pass that New York provision by the way, and the only way you achieve it is by gathering enough signatures of registered Democrats.

Clark asked his supporters to vote for Kerry. Dean did not ask his supporters to vote for Kerry. Edwards Kucinich and Sharpton were still actively running. Lieberman is a neighbor and the designated Conservative Democrat protest vote. New York is a very populous state AP. The fact that Dean for example got 17,000 more votes than Clark is statistically insignificant and can be explained by Clark actively supporting Kerry and that many Clark supporters lined up with Kerry over Edwards as you know very well. Since Edwards was still in the running many Clark supporters cast real pragmatic votes for Kerry.

[Sparkly]

152. Exactly -- sheesh!!

I'm sorry to say I didn't vote for Clark here in Maryland, either. By then the contest was between Kerry and Edwards, and the media was hyping Edwards; so when I heard Elfin Bill Schneider on CNN say "Watch Maryland!!" I decided I had to vote for Kerry, not Clark. (I did vote for Clark's electors, though.) I could have kicked myself afterwards, though, because as it turned out Kerry won easily.

When Clark was out of the race, he was out of the race. Many of us voted for Kerry.

[AP]

154. How many Clark supporters like you didn't vote for Clark though?

I appreciate that many supporters followed the order to support Kerry, but I imagine that if you really really supported your candidate, you weren't going to vote for someone else -- especially in NY where Kerry was way ahead and there was no real risk of losing to anyone else.

I think there is a decent correlation between votes a primary candidate got and the size of their base, and I think that that holds true for all candidates after they drop out and even if they put their support behind another candidate.

In other words, I think what your post is arguing is that Clark just didn't have a lot of Tom Rinaldos in NY. Which is basically what is being argued by others in this subthread: in the real world Clark doesn't have a ton of Tom Rinaldos, but has a very vocal and organized internet presence.

I second Tinoire's analysis.

[Tom Rinaldo]

159. I disagree with your premise

Virtually no political candidate has tens of thousands of hard core activist supporters in any one state prior to a campaign entering into the competitive stage. Sometimes celebrity politicians like the Arnold in CA whip up a frenzy but that is not the same thing at all.

New York never reached a competitive stage for Clark or Dean (or Lieberman or Gephardt too for that matter). We never started mobilizing in New York which is a major media driven market. No real resources were put into New York because the squeeze of the primary calender did not allow for the luxury of building bases simultaneously in 10 later states that only would come into play if you were not eliminated in the first 10 States. There were thousands of very strong and active Clark supporters in New York, not tens or hundreds of thousands, but then when you are looking for numbers like that you are counting something else, you are counting people who have chosen to vote for, not actually work for, a candidate. That isn't just mixing apples and oranges, it is mixing apples and orangutans. A hard core activist base is never a mass phenomena, but they can create one in the context of working in a hotly fought election contest, and Clark and Dean and others were never in a hard fought election contest in New York. It was already over.

[AP]

190. No candidate put a real effort into NY on March 2nd.

Kerry won easily without much effort at all (I would be surprised if he spent more than 200,000 bucks in NY in the last 5 days and I bet he didn't have more than 3 paid staff outside of NYC & LI.)

A respectable showing for Clark in NY would have been maybe 4% of the vote (which seems to be what he was getting in other states). But .5%?

I should emphasize that I don't think this means very much, but I just wondered why NY was such an anomaly.

All the things you say about supporters and about fruit applies to all the states (and it also applies to all the candidates). So, I don't find it to be such a satisfying explanation.

By the way, I'm on the verge of changing my screen name to Apples&Oranges 'cause it seems to be one of the most popular phrases at DU these days.

[Texas_Kat]

268. There were 10,000 hard-core Clark volunteers in Texas

Let me second that, Tom. By the time Clark dropped out of the race, there were 10,000 hard-core Clark volunteers in Texas.

We had no campaign resources from Little Rock (other than what the grassroots came up with ourselves).

The Dean organization was slightly larger but was marred by internal fighting over organizational styles.

There was no Edwards organization (except for trial lawyer money), no Kerry organization.

Kucinich folks were active in some areas such as Austin, TX but not much else.

The Texas organization was composed of Democrats, Greens, and reformed Republicans but MOSTLY people who do not affiliate themselves with any specific party.

Clark was (and continues to be) very well received in Texas.

[Leilani]

204. I didn't vote for Clark

& I'm a passionate supporter.

When it got to Hawaii, it was between Kerry & Kucinich.

[AP]

208. You voted for the Kooch? Was Clark not on the ballot?

[Leilani]

213. That's my business

my vote remains known to me & me alone.

But I didn't vote for Wes...he had dropped out, so what was the point?

[FrenchieCat]

161. How ridiculous is your asking about Clark's base in New York....AP?

Clark dropped out of the race BEFORE New York....and he had already endorsed John Kerry and ASKED HIS BASE TO VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY.

Are we just going to go down the path of absurdity to prove a non-point?

Always amazed with the twists and turns that one is willing to take to be right.

Again...WOW!

[AP]

226. I thought there was no such thing as a stupid question.

I asked a question and I got an answer. His base obediently followed the order to vote for Kerry.

I have no idea what this means: "Are we just going to go down the path of absurdity to prove a non-point?"

And I have no idea what "twists and turns" you think I'm making. In fact, I don't understand that second last sentence at all either.

Clark supporters were arguing that Clark had a huge base.

I just pointed out that in a state as large as NY (with 177,000 primary voters) where there was little campaigning by anyone, only .5% of the voters voted for Clark -- last among all candidates other than Larouche, who had .4%.

Clark has a few passionate supporters here on DU, and the claim is made just above that he has a huge base. I thought someone would like to address the low vote in NY.

I posted before I read Tinoire's earlier post. She's making the same point. Had I read that one, I probably wouldn't have posted mine. In any event, the claims made above were inviting a response such as Tinoire's or mine.

I don't know how you can expect to make some of the claims made here without someone else pointing out these facts.

But, whatever.

If the claim is that he will have a huge base in 2008, I'm content to wait until 2008 to judge the accuracy of the claim.

[FrenchieCat]

273. Unfortunately you were able to come up with one....

Takes fortitude , but you did it!

let's see:

known Facts-----> -Wes Clark had dropped out by NY Primary
-Wes Clark had asked his supporters to vote for John Kerry
-Wes Clark supporters voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry
-Dean didn't ask his supporters to vote for Kerry by NY
-Kucinich was still in the race
-Edwards was still in the race

Question:
Why didn't Clark get more votes in New York?

Based on known facts....questions appears have already been answered. So the question seems stupid to me. Others might call it dumb, needless or just a waste of time.

[AP]

275. Don't ever go into teaching.

(I guess there's no way of knowing how many Clark voters there were just before Clark told them to vote for Kerry.)

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. Tinoire your sweeping generalizations and summations

are getting really annoying. You and I have had our email exchanges so we have a basis for dialog. I told you there that my primary activity on DU is supporting Wesley Clark. But I also told you that it is by no means my sole activity on DU and I told you some of the other areas of interest that I have. I also was very willing to explain in great detail to you exactly why I have chosen to focus as much as I have on Wesley Clark as the most effective use of my energy I can find to further a host of progressive issues, but you chose to let that dialog drop. So do I need to produce the posts I am making on DU about issues other than Wesley Clark to prove to you that am not a Clark infiltrator here only to lure Democrats into the General's camp? Or are you instead taking that alternate condescending route toward me, the "well you happen to one of the better Clarkies ("good nigger") dismissals of my criticism of your attitude?

Why is it that among all Democrats only Clarkies keep getting attacked for being active on DU? What is that about? The following isn't true, but even if it were: What would be so wrong if I came across Democratic Underground and said "WOW, look at that! DU is a place where tens of thousands of Democrats go to talk about anything that they want to involving the Democratic Party and social issues. It is a place where I can talk about Wesley Clark. It's a place where my Democratic friends can talk about Wesley Clark. Isn't that great? Let me tell them about DU so they can go there to talk about Wesley Clark." What would be the crime Tinoire?

But you know that isn't true. You have seen me and other Clarkies on lots of other threads. Meanwhile no one is acting upset that so many Kerryites flooded over to DU Groups as a place to hang after the Kerry Campaign blog got shut down. Good for them. They have every right to be here and use this place also. By the way please produce the statement from the General that you are referring to. You made it part of the public record here so now document it. I am curious if you are paraphrasing or citing an exact quote. I hope you don't mind my wondering about that but your paraphrasing doesn't always match up with mine and I think it better, since you noted it, that we have an objective basis for discussing it, don't you? Surely you are not posting here just to engage in anti Clark propaganda.

Why don't you blame Michael Moore too while you are at it? You know, that obscure pseudo Liberal cult writer. Remember he sent out an email to his entire mailing list over a year ago suggesting that they look closely at Wesley Clark as a presidential candidate? How many people do you figure that went out to, a couple of dozen? Yeah that's what I figure too. No I guess Michael Moore talking up Wesley Clark had nothing to do with an upsurge of interest in Wesley Clark at DU in the fall of 2003. Blame it on a conspiracy then. That makes a lot more sense.

And why is it that you completely gloss over the efforts of so many Clark supporters both on DU and elsewhere during the Presidential campaign to get Kerry/Edwards elected? I guess that wouldn't fit into your conspiracy theory. I dare you to find more than a handful of posts (there may not even be one) by any serious Clark supporter directly attacking either John Kerry or John Edwards during the Presidential Election race once our ticket was chosen. Some complaints about strategy sure, but none of us were saying don't work for them or don't vote for them. Very much to the contrary. Many of us busted our butts trying to get that pair in office KNOWING FULL WELL that almost certainly a Kerry/Edwards victory would mean Wesley Clark would never again run for President and that John Edwards, who many of us had some misgivings about, would become the heir apparent of the Democratic Party as a result. What were you doing to get Kerry/Edwards elected Tinoire? I didn't think for a moment Kerry would give Clark a serious role in his Administration, butI was not fighting for Wesley Clark Tinoire, I was fighting for my country against the Bush junta, so why do supporters of Wesley Clark get signaled out so for your contempt about our activities at DU? Why are you still fighting the Primary wars?

You actually know some of the reasons why I personally am promoting Wesley Clark, but let me explain something to you Tinoire. Wesley Clark is never again going to win a shred of Democratic Party institutional backing for a run at the Presidency without forcing them into grudging acceptance through the sheer power of his campaign and the manifest depth of his support. Most of the insiders who threw Clark support last time never really wanted him, they felt they were down to Clark or Dean and they feared Dean, but they never "wanted" Clark. Clark is ultimately too independent for them, he's not a real member of their club no matter how many think tank corporate board, institute overlaps you may cite. They always wanted one of their regular Congressional Democrats to become the nominee, but it looked like none of them stood a chance so they rolled the dice with Clark. 2008 will be different. The race is wide open with no incumbent Republican to run against. They are busily grooming any number of tried and true office holders to push for the nomination. They won't turn to Clark again because they won't have to, not unless we force them to by building a strong movement behind Clark.

You are a serious and attentive person Tinoire so you must have some understanding of how Presidential politics works. If you don't have insider backing you need outsider backing and vice versa, but outsider backing takes a lot more effort to build up, as it comes from the grass roots up. Dean did a superb job of that last time around, but he started early against a weak field. It will not be a weak field in 2008 and Clark will not have insider backing. That means that those of us who believe that Clark is best for America have to start expanding the foundation of Clark's grass roots support. We did well at it last time but we didn't have enough time. We are not making that mistake this time. So yes, we are here and we talk about Wesley Clark, and our reasons for doing so are transparent, far more transparent than the reasons some have for attacking Clark. But we are here as equal members of the DU community and we are three dimensional flesh and blood people Tinoire, who care about a great many things and are involved in a great many things. If you don't want to read a Clark thread, don't open it. But don't ever imply that I care less about this country or the Democratic Party than any one else who posts here. Don't ever assume that I and other Clarkies am not active in a host of other ways to improve our nation and promote peace and justice at home and abroad beyond just supporting Wesley Clark. I found the tone of your entire post to be personally insulting.

[Tinoire]

95. That's unfortunate Tom

I'd suggest you put me on ignore if it's that annoying because I'm not going to shut up just to avoid upsetting you or anyone else. That's not what I'm here for. I'm going to keep calling them like I see them and will always be prepared to back up whatever it is I have to say because I don't toss just any old thing out there. This applies to Clark, to Kerry, to Dean, to the war, to social security, to the beating of drums against Iran, to Palestine, to the myriad of issues in which I'm extremely involved. If anything, I usually try to avoid the growing creep of Clark threads in GD.

There are many annoyances at DU. For example, the premature, overkill trumpetting of Wesley Clark, as well as the organized movement to "let's get Dean in as DNC chair" because 1. he'll be ok & 2. he'll be out of the way for the next election is also quite annoying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x891

[Clarkie1]

97. More BS - it's getting old

I have actively supported Dean for DNC chair here with because I believe he has the skills to reenergize, organize, and expand the party's base as Chair. Neither I or any other Clark supporters are the least interested in getting Dean "out of the race" in 08'. I would welcome a Dean candidacy, as he is an important voice and I don't believe Dean would be a threat to Clark if they both should run. That's just my opinion. You see, I am interested in the future of the Democratic Party, not a particular candidate. The way some Dean supporters continue to whine about Clark being the "anti-Dean" has gotten old.

Entertaining the thought (and I do mean "entertaining") the thought that Dean could be a threat to Clark in 08' if they both ran and that was why some Clarkies (including myself) supported him as DNC never occured to me until some Dean supporters started whining about the supposed conspiracy.

I find it sad that supporters of some of our great democratic leaders seem to have nothing better to do with their time than to develop and entertain such victimization theories.

[Tinoire]

100. I posted a link. You can't say I made it up & there are others too.

So I don't know why you'd call it BS :shrug:

PS. I'm not a Dean supporter. Ask any of the Dean supporters here. They know very well what I thought about Dean and I didn't mince my words there either.

[Tom Rinaldo]

106. I don't have anyone on ignore Tinoire

No one promised me or anyone else a life free of annoyances. And I certainly neither said nor implied that you should shut up about anything. Actually I appreciate it most when you are willing to back up what you say and I asked you to do just that regarding a statement you attributed to Clark. I also raised a number of what I felt were legitimate points none of which you have responded to. Instead you give me this short speech about continuing to speak out on a variety of issues. I certainly don't want you to stop that, but I am disappointed that this is the extent of the dialog you are offering on the topics I raised in response to your post. I didn't just say I am annoyed, I said exactly what was annoying me and exactly what about it was annoying. In other words I "backed up" my feeling annoyed with specifics.

As to your link and the implications of it, I participated on that thread as you know. Here was my comment:
"I agree on principle, let alone pragmatic politics. Though we have all experienced the clash of True Believers friction in the past between our "camps", I think Dean has been very good for our Party. Dean is a Pro, I think he would fill the post quite well without starting a civil war in the Party, we need someone with a Spine at DNC. It is an advocacy position after all.

I have no problem backing Dean without having to ask for any pay backs. If Clark gains good will from some Deanies because of it, all the better."

Here is another post from a different Clarkie on that thread:

"I feel Dean is exactly who the party needs right now to be in charge. I have enormous respect for his ability to energize the base and get real grassroots movements rolling.

I also think Clarkies and Deaniacs alike should gain some common ground and join forces. At the very core, we both seem interested in similar outcomes: Quality, accountable leaders supported wholly by the people.

As I've said many times, Dean for DNC Chair, Clark for President in '08. That's the most hopeful and brightest future we could make for ourselves. And it's a pretty damn good one.

So, I guess I just should have said I agree."

And here is another:

"I've decided to sign the petition.
I don't like Vilsack & I don't like Hillary.

If Ickes gets in, Hillary will have the inside track.

I think Dean would be the most neutral, & I think he would bring a lot of enthusiasm to the party.

Also, he's a great fundraiser.

Finally, I always felt I had more in common with the Dean people than the other groups. I think change is needed, & I don't like the staus quo."

Now of course I know full well that other posts on the thread you linked either expressed negative concerns about Dean or emphasized that Dean getting the DNC Chair might keep him from running in 2008. But what I see you doing is first down playing Clarkie support for Dean, in other words you are spinning it with a summary such as "let's get Dean in as DNC chair" because 1. he'll be ok". Of course there is always a huge range of opinions among a large group of people but many Clarkies aren't simply saying that Dean would be "OK", we are saying that we think he is exactly the right man for the job and that the job is important. Then you focus in on aspects that support your premise, Clarkies wanting Dean out of the way. There are numerous posts then and later where Clark supporters openly say that aspect of the question is not what they are focused on. Those however are not mentioned.

By the way if you wade through that whole thread you will find that it shifted as it went on toward a discussion of the need to find safe ways of opening dialogs between Dean and Clark supporters.

Pulling individual threads or statements up and generalizing from them is dangerous. I have read Deanies (for example) make comments ranging from enthusiastically supportive to Wesley Clark to incredibly negative about him. There is a wide range of opinions, and the same can be said about Clarkies regarding Dean running for DNC.

But let me point something out to you. The thread you linked was dated November 19 2004. That's over two months ago which is a long time in an active competitive race. A lot changes in two months, Dean and Gephardt were thought to be running away with Iowa in late
November two months before the Iowa caucuses. That changed a lot. There has been a lot of discussion among Clarkies about Dean running for DNC chair since the time of the thread you posted, just as there has been among Democrats all across the country, so I find the pattern of you reaching back into the past to find discord disturbing (and no I won't put you on ignore because something is disturbing me). There is no "smoking gun" here Tinoire because there is no concerted effort to manipulate anything. I suppose you could dismiss this as a lie if you are so inclined, but I am in the middle of those discussions and there has never been a consensus to back or not back Dean, and certainly there was never a consensus to back Dean to benefit Clark. Depending on the post you focus on you can find a different picture every time. Actually any discussion of any advantage in backing Dean to help Clark has diminished and there wasn't that much of that to begin with. I think you already found the bulk of all comments made to that extent, back in November.

But this is the trend. Clarkies, just like many active and involved Democrats, have been following the race for DNC Chair, and opinions shift as people key into the debate. A lot of us watched Dean on CSPAN, a lot of us are reading the newspaper reports of what Dean is saying and who he is saying it to, and we are often impressed. Since November a number of Clark supporters who were undecided about who they supported have come around to strongly supporting Dean. These are people who did not view the race primarily from the perspective of what is best for Clark, that's why the getting Dean out of the way argument did not do the trick for them in November.

And what of all the Deanie threads that questioned whether it is a good idea for Dean to pursue the DNC Chair because him doing so might stop him from running for President? It is the flip side of the same thing. Though of course few Deanies would oppose Dean doing what he wahts, many were talking about the implications for 2008.
Again you give no credit to the sincerity of the feelings expressed by Clarkies who have clearly stated time and time again on DU why they honestly now think the Democratic Party needs Dean as DNC Chair. Instead you reach back for evidence that it is mostly cynical and self serving. I don't live in a cynical world. I know there is hate and deceit and treachery in this physical world we live in, but it is not my internal world. I will not be reduced to constantly viewing those who should be my allies through a perpetual veil of suspicion. I refuse to descend to that level.

[janx]

155. Wow.

Some nasty stuff in there...

[Leilani]

185. And some really good stuff about Dean also

Wonder what the Deanies say about Clark...oh, wait, they post their shit repeatedly: jackal, opportunist, etc.

I said in that thread I was signing the petition, because I thought Dean was the best for the job because we needed change & enthusiasm.

I also said I felt I had the most in common with Dean people. Unfortunately, this week they proved me wrong.

[janx]

187. The trouble starts when we start making sweeping

generalizations--e.g. "Dean people," "Clark people," etc.

It's probably time for each of us to take some personal responsibility for what we say and do. And that includes messages on message boards that are public.

No matter how sequesterd each of us feels when participating in a smaller group *anywhere* on the 'Net, unless those messages are blocked as private, they can be read by anyone.

There has been some terrible stuff happening in and around DU of late. One DU member was threatened with "outing" in the sense of who he was and where he worked. Another member was horrified to learn that messages on a DU-related board targeted her as an object of an organized "smackdown" and ridicule attempt.

So instead of blaming bad behavior on an entire "group" of people, perhaps it's time to start giving bad credit where bad credit is due: to the individuals who promote and participate in such behavior.

[Leilani]

199. You're correct, in that it's not wise to make broad sweeping

generalizations about groups of people. However, we have been attacked as a group, because of the person we support. This past week has been extremely ugly, & I know who's been posting the attacks, & I also know who's tried to calm the waters. Therefore, it's not over-generalizing about what happened recently on countless threads.

I hold myself responsible for what I post. I only wish others did as well.


Perhaps if some individuals were held accountable by their various allies, it wouldn't turn into a foodfight, as these individuals in question have no qualms about expressing their hate & contempt, & it will continue to be ugly unless they are reined in. It's unfortunate, but people are judged by the company they keep. A wise Clark supporter said that recently, & I agree wholeheartedly.


And as far as the outing goes, that's bogus, completely untrue.

The person in question had made his job public before, from what I've heard, & quite frankly, from his screen name, we'd have to be morons not to figure it out, as the location is not exactly a hotbed of journalistic endeavor. Just think about it.

And this so called "outing" did not justify nasty threats, against the posters in question.

For every story, & every accusation, there are 2 sides to be heard.
Things are sometimes more complex than at first glance.

[janx]

233. We'll have to agree to disagree. I saw a little of both sides,

and it was pretty ugly.

[Cheswick2.0]

234. Yes we knew he worked for a news organization...however

I saw posts on another forum threatening to contact his employer and out him. Just because that forum deleted the thread doesn't mean it wasn't there.
All I can hope is that the posters involved in making those threats have been delt with by peers.

[Clark2008]

241. I was one of the posters in question

And he led me to believe in private messages that the place in question was where he worked.

He wrote some nasty PMs to me; however, I didn't put him on alert. I simply put him on ignore. However, he must have put ME on alert because I had a tiny conversation with an admin. about it.

No big deal. He's on my ignore list, so I have no idea if he's still actually here.

There. That's the story. It wasn't an "outing" and, to be quite honest, given his lack of ability leads me to believe he didn't really work at the place in question in the first place.

(On edit: And I never threatened to call his employers. In fact, I made one last post about his ugly PMs to me and then left the conversation. Once he was on ignore, I did just that, I ignored him.)

[Crunchy Frog]

240. From what I know of the situation

there was no threatened outing. There appears to be a big misinterpretation going around of what actually transpired. I do know, however, that there were some really ugly, threatening, obscenity filled PMs, sent out to some people.

Let's face it. There's been alot of ugliness all around and all over the place from many different groups of people.

[Crunchy Frog]

239. Actually, most of that thread was extremely positive

towards Dean, unless some people would construe the ambivalence expressed by you and me as being ugly which I suppose some might. The only really ugly stuff came from someone who's not a regular on the Clark forum, and who has long been a notorious Dean hater. A number of people argued against him quite vigorously.

Of course, anyone will be more sensitive to anything the least bit negative about their guy, but I certainly didn't see anyone on that thread calling Dean an opportunist, a carpetbagger, or a jackal. There was even a Dean person who posted to that thread wanting to link it in the DFA group because he thought it illustrated how close many Dean and Clark supporters were and their potential ability to work together for a common cause.

[melnjones]

171. I support Dean as DNC chair without reservation...

It has nothing to do with fearing that otherwise he'd run for president because I think Clark would beat him anyway. However, I do have a lot of respect for him and want to see him in a high position. I think this position would be great.

You tend to make a lot of assumptions about clarkies, Tinoire, ones that I really don't see any truth behind.

[Crunchy Frog]

174. I don't think it's fair to take the statement

of one single Clark supporter and act like it's representative of the opinions of Clark supporters in general. To me, that's very similar to the way some of the media took the posts of a very small number of DUers about the tsunami and made it look as if those views were representative of liberals as a whole. It's disingenous, and I have a high enough opinion of you to consider that tactic to be beneath you.

I frankly don't give a hoot if Dean runs in '08. I'd be happy to see a fair and honest competition with the hope that the media doesn't interfere unduly in the process. I don't see Dean as a threat to Clark. I have supported him for DNC Chair, only because I think he could accomplish some serious good for the party in that position. I have had some reservations about him, mostly due to the behavior that I've seen in some of his supporters, so I admit to not supporting him as vigorously as I otherwise might have. It's been limited to signing the petition.

Don't you think that if I "desparately wanted" him as DNC Chair, in order to be out of the way for Clark (a ridiculous notion on its face, as it assumes that there will be no other candidates out there with strong backing, either grassroots or institutional), that I would be working my ass off and doing everything in my power to get him that position?

I have actually found this sort of ambivalence in many Clark supporters. They feel that Dean could do alot of positive things for the party as DNC Chair, but have some reluctance to get completely behind him, mostly because they fear that the behavior of some of his supporters is a reflection of his own character. Apart from that one post that you referenced, I have not communicated with any Clarkies who take that view, and the ones who have a lower opinion of Dean are more, not less, likely to support someone else for DNC Chair

I find that whole process of deduction highly illogical, but would be interested in hearing your further thoughts on it.

[melnjones]

170. Well said. nt

[Texas_Kat]

104. The Clark organization is still very strong and connected...

Not all Clark partisans operate in these kinds of public forums. Most are more interested in 'on the ground' organization.

WesPac is a viable and growing organization. Clark is staying active and speaking out on behalf of Democratic ideals.

Clark did MAJOR fundraising for downballot candidates during '04 and will continue to support candidates through 06 and beyond. WesPac did not use the same model as DFA, but was extremely successful raising money for Congressional and Senatorial candidates in the last election, it will be even more successful in the next one.

Just maybe the Clark grassroots was bigger than you think.

Maybe it has something to do with organizing instead of just talking about organizing.

[BootinUp]

125. free speech is so annoying

is that your point?

[ArtVandaley]

141. I think you'e right

I don't dislike Clark, but I think the universal consensus is that he ran a bad campaign, with a lot of verbal gaffes and he never found his footing.

[FrenchieCat]

164. To buy "The Universal Consensus" really is a dangerous thing...

One could also believe that Bush won the Presidential election....but I don't quite see it that way.

Who forms the "Universal Consensus" anyway?

Clark ran a bad campaign how? I agree that choosing not to compete in Iowa was probably the worse decision that his campaign made...but apart from that, I don't see how running for 4 months (while everyone else had been running for over a year)but coming in second in largest amount of campaign donations prior to the New Hampshire vote; having the 2nd largest grassroots organization; Coming in third in New Hampshire (only behind the 2 native sons); being the only candidate to win a non-Home state primary aside from Kerry; coming in 2nd places in states like Arizona, New Mexico and North Dakota....all while being being smeared by the media, GOP operatives and other Democratic Candidates (he was a Republican until 25 days ago--lie)......and then before voting even occurred in the first state that he ran, being ignored by the media while others are being nothing but media attention. All of that from a non-pol....

In my opinion, Clark ran a very competitive campaign...when one is FAIR-MINDED ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE ACTUAL RESULTS.

In terms of "verbal Gaffes"....who determines what those gaffes were? The Corporate media? Yea...I guess so! Let me know what those verbal gaffes were, please. Was it when he was defending Michael Moore's right to speak? Was it when he was taking Bush to task and demanding that he (Bush) be held accountable for 9/11 and the Iraq War? Was it when he was calling out PNAC and the Neocons? Was it when he said that he would "Kick GOP ass if he was personally attacked"....only to later correct himself to say he would "kick THE SHIT out of GOP ass if personally attacked"?

You see, the "Universal Consensus" aka "Conventional wisdom" is usually written and spoken by the proverbial mediaWhores and Presstitutes and is only bought by those who need something (anything) to substantiate their point....or when one is unwilling to actually analyse the facts for themselves.

PS: Note that the "Universal Consensus" aka "Conventional wisdom" was that there were WMDs in Iraq and therefore we should go to war. But on second look....those were actually nothing but a bunch of lies and deceptions.

[melnjones]

167. Not true...

I do post in the Clark group forum, but have found that far more people in DU support Clark than the regulars in our group. I see new names every time I post in other forums. I'm not sure how exactly this has evaded your awareness.

Also, where I'm from many democrats did know about and support Clark. I'd dare say he was the favored or close to the favored democratic candidate in my state.

[Crunchy Frog]

175. Could you post a copy of that note please

because I've never seen it. It may have been before my time because I didn't get really active supporting Clark until some time after he had entered the race.

I will tell you that I did not come to this site because I was directed here by a Clark site. I found this site back in March of 2003 just before the war started, because I was very upset about the war and I wanted to find a place that wasn't full of cheerleaders for it, as most of the internet seemed to be at the time. When I started lurking here, I had never even heard of Clark. I learned about him on this site by reading posts about the Draft movement. I didn't become a member of this site and start posting until October of that year, when I had already become a Clark supporter, mostly because I was shy, had never posted on a message board before, and was very reluctant to start.

If I had joined this board anytime between spring and probably July 2003, I would have joined as a Deanie.

That's the truth about how I got here. You can choose to believe it, or not.

I post more on Clark threads than other ones right now, mostly because Clark and his supporters keep getting attacked and I feel that it's necessary that these attacks be responded to, especially when they contain false and slanderous information about Clark.

[Clark2008]

244. Note?

I've was a drafter and a supporter from day one and I never saw any note from the General to work harder at getting his message out to DU, and certainly not to FreeRepublic!
We got messages to work harder to get his message out - but, big deal, so did everyone else's supporters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

264. I already asked for the source but got no reply

It doesn't exist. Clark has called on all democrats to challenge the dominance of right wing media outlets by, for example, calling into right wing talk shows and registering contrary opinions to the crap they spew. He feels we can not afford to allow them to rule the air waves by default. Obviously this is a stop gap strategy until we can free media from corporate control, but it is far far better than silence.

[Sparkly]

61. All mine are.

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

62. Who do your friends like?

I know that some of the Democrats run from the word liberal, and others are or were in the DLC. Hope that your friends aren't impressed by them either....just to be consistent.

[Tinoire]

96. Nope

I'll agree with you that there's a problem there. I'll even agree with you that Clark is more liberal than many other Democrats running.

My friends are, for the most part, activists & political junkies - they're very consistent. Right now, true to the progressive disease of disorganization, they're not even looking forward to 2008 as far as candidates go. The general feeling seems to be, let's wait and see what shape the country is in, how certain politicians act and go from there. Their favorites have always been people along the lines of Feingold, Dean & Boxer. But the again, I should warn you that my friends are people like Medea Benjamin, Stan Goff and other such Leftists. Honestly, outside of DU, I don't know a single Clark supporter in real life.

But lol, you guys are well organized. No matter how annoying I find the growing creep of Clark threads, I do have to admire your organization and dedication and give you points for that.

[robbedvoter]

119. Maybe we're organized because we already had a succesful DRAFT?

Soon, you will believe that the draft movement existed and Clark wasn't dropped ex machina by Clinton/Rove/the establishment/whomever
The point that comes out of this is that people who have worked for/with Clark are deeply affected by the experience/the man.
I for one am very skeptical that a meaningful election will happen in my life time. Yet, part of me cannot let go of the hope that we'd return to sanity, under the helm of a man with both competence and integrity.
So ask yourself - why are we so organized? Kool-aid it ain't. If you really look, we are as different a bunch as it comes - from very liberal to extremely moderate - and I met on line some republicans for Clark (not on DU). The point is, we each remain who we are, but see Clark as our hope for a future..

[Clark2008]

134. In real life, I only know Clark supporters.

I guess it depends on where you live. I think I knew one Dean supporter, two or three Kerry supporters and one Kucinich supporter. No other candidate need apply.

And I happen to live in a red state. These progressives and moderates KNEW that Clark could take at least two, posssibly three, red states, in a general election against Bush.

They liked Clark's goals, his biography and his intelligence.

Put those two together: electability on a nationwide basis AND a man with vision, and you have a winner.

I'm sorry, but Boxer, Feingold and Dean weren't blips on anyone's radar in any red state. And, until the Democrats start realizing that they need to start winning the hearts and minds of people IN these states, we'll never have enough for the landslide victory needed to overcome any election fraud.

[Quixote1818]

57. Clark People, send this on to the Media as the last time Mark Warner won

It got sent to his website and then his press people told the media all about it and DU was mentioned. Now Mark Warner's name gets brought up quite often and often they don't even mention Clark.

[marcologico]

67. Of the 3 remaining liberals, Kerry, Kennedy, and Boxer, I'll take Kerry.

Boxer doesn't stand a chance on either half of the ticket, and Kennedy won't run but I'd sure as hell vote for him if he did. The rest are Clintonian GOP-lites. If Clark is as popular as he is on the internet let's try Kerry/Clark.

p.s. If Dean gets DNC chair you can be sure he'll be horning in.

[Clarkie1]

69. Clark is more liberal than Kerry

One example is his tax plan, which was more progressive and would have placed an extra tax on individuals making more than 1 million a year.

On other issues Clark is as liberal or more liberal than Kerry, except Clark comes right out and says he is a liberal, whereas Kerry cowers from the word.

[marcologico]

70. No offense but talk is cheap. Kerry has a 40-year history of ACTION. n/t

[Clarkie1]

80. Whether or not talk is cheap depends on who is doing the talking. n/t

[marcologico]

86. A politician's promises are about as reliable as an AOL personal ad. n/t

[Clarkie1]

87. "So you can see as a politician he [Clark] has a lot to learn"-Mario Cuomo

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....

So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

-Mario Cuomo

[cosmokramer]

135. Sure, lets put Kerry in again...

...the Kerry/Edwards ticket couldn't beat the WORST PRESIDENT EVER, and an incumbent president with the lowest approval rating going in to election day.

Yea, sounds like a good idea to run the loser.

[Crunchy Frog]

176. Hi Cosmo! It's nice to see you again.

Why don't you pop into the Clark supporters group?:hi:

[Adelante]

181. Hey, Kramer

I was just wondering about you last night. :hi:

[ICantBelieve]

128. Liberal History???

What is Kennedy's "history" then, if Clark's history doesn't count? Do we need to parade out all the people that have worked for Clark through the years to show how liberal he is?

And speaking of Kerry, he might politic like a liberal, but Clark lives like one. Do you think Kerry would have had the confidence in his liberal values to pose for the cover of the Advocate like Clark did? Kerry didn't even have enough confidence in his liberal values to vote against the Patriot Act or the IWR.

[marcologico]

136. I'm talking about legislation, investigation, prosecution, testimony, and

winning reelections, not symbolism, campaign promises, or a couple of totally insignificant votes. Like Bush wouldn't have gone into Iraq if Kerry had voted no on authorization? Give me a break.

[Sparkly]

138. So their votes don't matter after all?

I have nothing against lawyers and politicians, and I have nothing against lawyers who are politicians. But it's not everything. (In fact, for many Americans, "politician" and "lawyer" are two professions that rank up there with "used car salesman" in trust and respect, fairly or not.)

There is no one "president school" or "leader school" -- there are certainly other courses through life that prepare people for great leadership. General Clark has done much more than make promises or show "symbolism." A million ethnic Albanians know that, the women and minorities he supported in the army know that, the people he taught, led and inspired through his career know that, the leaders he brought together through NATO know that, the people involved in the Dayton peace accords know that, people from Milosevic to BushCo neo-cons know that, and I'm sure if you think about it, you know it, too.

[marcologico]

140. In the case of authorization, obviously not. Incidentally calling it IWR

mischaracterizes the legislation. It simply provided executive authorization to use force as a negotiating strategy, not to go to war, even though that's what BushCo did, and would have done no matter what.

[Sparkly]

144. In a sense, a lot of what politicians do is symbolic.

I know what the IWR is, I know what it said, I know Kerry's vote wouldn't have mattered either way to its passing or not passing (in fact, although I disagreed with it, I defended his vote here many times).

All the more reason that when we talk about real "action" vs. "symbolism" or mere words and promises, it's worth noting that the work of people in Congress -- making speeches, casting votes, sitting in meetings, pushing paper -- is not the be-all and end-all of "Action." That kind of politics isn't the only "Politics," their effect is not the only Effect on what happens in the world, and often the games of politics in Congress have no effect on what happens in the world at ALL.

I think we shouldn't elevate Congress and governorships to the level of President School as if a few years there magically makes somebody an ideal candidate no matter what they did before, whereas no matter what others did with their lives before it can't possibly matter if they haven't spent a few years at a desk in Congress or a governor's mansion. Nothing wrong with either of those, but I don't think we should be narrow-minded about what politics, effective action, and leadership really are.

[Clark2008]

133. ROFLMAO! Some supporting a senator telling someone

supporting a general that their choice of candidates is MORE of a man of action.

If you don't see the hypocracy in that statement, then I'm beginning to understand why the Democratic Party has to be knocked upside the head to make the right choice in its nomination.

I'm sorry, marcologico, but while Kerry was sitting on his keister in the Senate, Clark was out spreading true American ideals and compassion to people who were being butchered by hate.

Give it, up. :eyes:

[marcologico]

201. Sorry, don't see the connection between killing people and running the US.

Anyway Kerry did his tours of duty, for what they're worth, which is something sure but not everything.

[FrenchieCat]

205. That's not the difference that anyone was referring to

But I will say that you missed the point.

Killing people or saving lives?

I found a book by Samanta Power about Genocide. In this book, Ms. Power constantly referred to a General Wesley Clark has having been one of the very few who wanted to stop a lot of Black people from being murdered. This General Wesley Clark also wanted to stop the murders of a whole lot of minority Albania Muslims. He was also an internationalist who had negotiated peace.

I looked him up and I liked what I read about him. I never saw him commentating on the war on CNN because I wasn't into watching Teevee and "war". Instead I read about him on Russian, German and French Websites. I read articles that had been written back during Kosovo and Bosnia, and I liked what I read about this Man. It was very clear that he had stood up time and time again when everyone else was sitting. Not just once, or twice, but time and time again. He stood up for human lives.....which is the most valuable thing that I can think of.

Maybe BECAUSE I came from Europe, but am also a minority, I truly appreciate what the General Clark did for the Minority Albanian Muslims. Maybe BECAUSE I am Black and part of me originates from Africa, I appreciate what General Clark wanted to do in Rwanda. Maybe BECAUSE I know (from experience) that many politicians talk a good talk, but frankly don't really give a shit if it means inconveniencing themselves, i.e., taking a chance, even if lives are at stake.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1517151#1519487

[FrenchieCat]

206. Take Note.....

Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.

http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.

Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006054164...
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details. The narrative surrounding the quotes was written by another person commenting on the book. Note especially Power's last comment below on Clark's pariah status in Washington:

General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.

She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .

He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.

She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."

"Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."


Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .

"Good afternoon. It's a real honor for me to be here with General Clark, and with Edita Tahiri. My name is Samantha Power. I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."

http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/the_subtle_ar...

[DFLforever]

71. Dean if he doesn't get DNC chair

or Gore/Dean.

We need strong Democratic senators in the Senate!

I think we should look outside the Senate for presidential nominees.

[Hissyspit]

75. Are those votes for Bill or Hillary?

[Yupster]

165. Just my opinion of course, but

I think as soon as Hillary throws her hat in the ring, she goes up to 40 % and the rest of the field goes to 8 %, 5 %, 3 %, 2 % etc meaning the race will be over before it starts.

[Clark2008]

242. And the Dems would loose again.

I'm female, so I'm not making any anti-woman statements here, but there's no way a politically devisive FEMALE will be elected president. If I had to venture a guess, the first female president will be a Republican. Many see female Dems as just being too liberal.

That's not exactly my opinion, I'm just speaking from the Heartland.

[Yupster]

277. You may be right, but

I think the Clinton name has such power that as soon as Hillary says she's running she will soak up 100 % of the press coverage and the race will be over.

I think if she wants it, it's hers and from the stuff she's been saying lately, it appears to me that she wants it.

[Quixote1818]

79. Clark/Richardson. Richardson will give us NM, NV, CO and AZ.

Bush is doing all kinds of favors to the Hispanic community which is pissing off the Right but it was enough to help Bush win this time by boosting his support among Latinos. We need to put a stop to this soon as possible because the Hispanic
voting block is growing extremely fast and could tip states like New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado into the Blue. We need to forget abut the South and go for the Southwest hard core!

[marcologico]

82. Why the heck didn't Richardson give us NM in November? And where has he

been for the last three months, besides cooking up legislation to give state benefits to the National Guard?

[David Zephyr]

83. Wes Clark.

Yep.

[haypops]

91. Boxer is great but Clark is a once in a lifetime opportunity

Boxer is my Senator, and a great one at that. Still I voted for Wesley Clark. In my 58 years of being a Democrat, I have never seen any one this qualified, or this inspiring.

[Clarkie1]

101. Boxer is my senator, too

I've written her many thank-you letters.

Clark/Boxer would be a great ticket, or Clark/Obama

Either would bring an new era for our country!

[kerstin]

107. I like Clark's wife.

I can't think of her name just now. Gertrude maybe? But of course I still have feelings for Kerry.

How about a Kerry/wife of Wesley Clark ticket? HA!

Don't want to start anything now - I know what fanatics you Clark people are! I remember you from the Kerry forum!

(I like the Gen. too and have always felt a kinship with his supporters.)

[FrenchieCat]

108. I agree that Gert is smart, attractive and real....

and has plenty of experience meeting with heads of states, etc...

That's the baby's mommy, Astrid Clark, a charmer too!

[Leilani]

110. I'm really tired of all this purity B.S.

I was here before the primaries because I hated Bush & was looking for an outlet.

I never joined or posted at Clark's website.

Sure, lots of Clark people came here during the primaries; so did lots of Kerry & Edwards people...probably Deanies too.

There were about a thousand giggly adolescent girls here for awhile, screaming about how "handsome" & "charismatic" Edwards could "charm the birds out of the trees." Where are they now? They flew the coop.

What about the hordes of Kerry supporters who are slowly drifting away, because they were only here for the election?

Depending on events, people come & go, as they look for similar thinking people. I would think DUers would say "Welcome to All, no matter who you support, as long as it's a Dem!"

The Clark people have taken a lot of unfair hits this week, & it's counter-productive. And as long as many here remain delusional about what it will take to win back the country, you'll keep losing.

A poster up thread said the Dems will automatically win in 2008, because the Republicans don't have anyone who can win. HA! Keep thinking that way, & you'll lose again.

What will you do if the Republicans lose their "purity" & nominate McCain or Guiliani? Who of the Dems will beat them?

I know, let's run Kucinich against McCain...or how about Kerry vs McCain or Hagel?

Wake up & smell the coffee.

[Clarkie1]

111. What a lot of people don't understand is Clark is not a move to the right

What is confused in a lot of people's minds is Clark's ability to communicate with open-minded Repbulicans and independents vs. Clark's values and beliefs. They confuse that ability to communicate and reframe a message to those who are not members of our party with the individual himself being "not a real democrat" They confuse the ability to open people's minds to our party and values with being "less liberal." Nothing could be further from the truth. Michael Moore is nobody's fool. When he said Clark was more liberal than Dean, he was correct. And George McGovern doesn't endorse anyone who doesn't share our values, either.

What it really takes to understand the Clark movement is to understand Clark's history and background in its entirety. That takes time. I will tell you one thing I have learned about Clark's supporters: they educate themselves about their candidate thoroughly. The fact that I have observed time and again Clark's supports become stronger and more supportive the more they learn about him speaks volumes, and I have found that to be the case myself. I have been told Clark is a murderer, that he can't be trusted, that he is a carpetbagger, that he is a political opportunist. Every time I dug deeper into the truth, into the facts, I found exactly the opposite: humanitarianism, altruism, true patriotism, and outstanding integrity.

Clark's not perfect. I'm not, you're not; none of us who share this planet are. But the truth will prevail, and so will Clark's message and vision for the country and people he loves.

[Leilani]

114. That's quite a beautiful tribute to the General

I know Clark is not a move to the right, & you know Clark is not a move to the right, but lots of the great unwashed masses don't know that.

It's ironic that SOME Dems reject Clark, simply because of the uniform, but that very issue is why moderates & some Repubs will vote for him.

And you're so right that the more you learn about Clark, the more you have to admire & respect him. For me, that's the opposite reaction I always have with politicians.

It seems the longer one is in politics, the more he or she compromises, & when trying to be all things to all people, they lose the core of who they really are. That hasn't happened with Clark...maybe because he hasn't been in politics very long, or maybe because he's just one of those rare birds...an honest man. I think it's simply that he's an honest man.

[Totally Committed]

124. I agree...

I am as "Left" as this party goes, and I SUPPORT WES CLARK TO THE HILT.

I believe he SHOULD BE POTUS. I BELIEVED HE SHOULD BE POTUS THE LAST TIME OUT, TOO. I sold my car to contribute the legal limit to his campaign. And, that was EVEN THOUGH JOHN KERRY WAS MY SENATOR. That should say all that needs to be said.

I am ready, willing, and able to fight as hard for him as I have fought for every other "cause" I have fought for for the last 43 years.

Wes Clark will be an OUTSTANDING American President of the United States. I pray I live to see him sworn in.

TC

[sellitman]

261. Clark?

Maybe for Sec. Of Defense. I've read enough about him to know he IS at best "Moderate". So was Kerry. I don't go by what others label him. His web site gives you enough to know this ain't the man. We need to do what the Pukes did and turn left. We first need to fix the voting system before ANYONE can be mentioned. Nowheres else but DU do I ever hear Clarks name mentioned. This alone makes me nervous and suspicious.

[Cats Against Frist]

266. Did anyone see this man tear up on 60 minutes????

That sold me on Wes Clark. I'm a pretty left-liberal libertarian, but I want to back the Dems because I cannot stand the GOP. I would DEFINITELY vote Dem if Clark was the candidate. I think he's more genuine than most politicians, and yes -- humanitarian. He's also a hottie (sorry, had to get that in :))

And I like the Clark/Richardson ticket.

[kerstin]

112. Is Barbara Boxer really 64 years old?

I read this recently but thought it couldn't possibly be true. Can anyone confirm this?

[FrenchieCat]

113. You are asking that we

try to confirm a woman's age? Good Luck! ROTFLMAO!

[kerstin]

115. Come on Frenchie, don't do me like that!

And you were so nice to me not but two hours ago!

[T Town Jake]

116. If victory is what we're interested in, it's Bayh/Richardson '08...

...everything else is an ideological affectation.

The goal is power, not specific purity. And they're the only two who can get it done for us in '08. All else follows from that basic concept.

DEAL WITH IT.

[robbedvoter]

122. Victory, power - but for me/us, not GOP in disguise.

Bayh is a co-sponsor of the IWR.
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P
PNAC will play him (and all on that list) like they play W. So, where os my 'power" then? I want a president who doesn't want/consent to take over the world.

[melnjones]

172. I'm in Indiana and like Bayh, but don't think he'd get enough support.

I doubt he could even get the votes of his own state. That's problematic.

[Crunchy Frog]

177. I wouldn't vote for that ticket

but obviously, my vote wouldn't be needed anyway, so it's a moot point.

[SpongeBob]

120. Clark

[BoristheBewildered]

121. Clark/Boxer

[Geek_Girl]

127. Biden would be an interesting candidate

Does anyone know if he is thinking of running?

[robbedvoter]

130. For which side?

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050116...

Biden also praised Rice, but noted that "relations with many of our oldest friends are quite frankly scraping the bottom right now.''
However, Biden also had blunt advice for European critics: "I have one simple message: Get over it. Get over it. President Bush is our president for the next four years. So get over it and start to act in your interest, Europe.''..........

[Crunchy Frog]

179. Yes, but he's a REAL Democrat.

Doesn't violate the purity rule.

[Sparkly]

180. I dunno, I'd need to see a bloodtest first. n/t

[Vidar]

129. If Dean isn't running (DNC chair), Clark by a mile

[tinonedown]

131. Wow - Clark!

Guess I'm part of the majority. His name is a little ahead of the rest in my book.

[ArtVandaley]

183. A lot of Clark supporters at DU

Not representative of the party in general or the progressive wing of the party. Just a high concentration here.

I don't dislike Clark, but I was unimpressed with his political skills last year.

[Clarkie1]

210. What data do you have to support that assumption?

Here's another poll you can vote in. It was announced over the radio:

http://www.bigeddieradio.com/

[JHBowden]

139. Governor Warner

I want to win, baby!

[Desertrose]

142. KUCINICH

or as yet an unknown.


Not Clark and not Dean and sure as hell NOT KERRY

I agree with Tinoire above BTW

:hi:T :)

DR

[RobertKennedyjr]

145. Does Clark have any "skeletons" in his closet that the GOP

will tear him apart on? That is the first question you must ask. I think John Edwards, Richardson, or Feingold are the best choices, and I do not know enough about Clark other than he did not do well in the 2004 primaries.

[FrenchieCat]

148. No, Clark has no skeleton in his closet.....

although the GOP tried real hard to create some during the Primaries...since he was the last one they wanted Bush to face.

Clark was born in Chicago, Illinois. His father, Benjamin Kanne, was a Democratic politician, World War I veteran, and lawyer who died in 1948 when Wes was four years old. His father also was a Reform Jew (Clark's middle name, Kanne, refers to his father's lineage as a Kohen, a descendant of the ancient Jewish priests).

After the death, Clark's mother, returned to her home in Little Rock, Arkansas. In 1954, she married former banker Victor Clark. Wesley grew up as a Baptist and attended public schools. He graduated from Hall High School as valedictorian, having led the swim team to the state championship.

In July 1962, at the age of 17, Clark entered the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York, beginning his 38 years in the U.S. military. Here Clark met Gertrude "Gert" Kingston of Brooklyn at a dance for the Navy. Clark graduated as the valedictorian in June 1966, first in his class.

A Rhodes Scholar at the University of Oxford, he studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE), earning his second B.A. in August 1968.

He was called to duty in Vietnam and served as the Assistant Staff Officer (Assistant G-3) of the Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Infantry Division. In January, Clark was promoted to Captain, and was given command of a mechanized infantry unit — the A Company, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division.

The next month, February 1970, then 25, Clark was wounded by a sniper in the jungle. Ambushed by the Viet Cong, Clark was shot four times (in the right shoulder, right hand, right hip and right leg) before he could find cover. He managed to shout commands to troops, who launched a counterattack and defeated the enemy force. was flown back to the United States to recuperate at Valley Forge Hospital. There he saw his new four-month-old son, Wesley Jr., who had been born in his absence. He also was awarded the Bronze Star and Silver Star.

From May to September 1970, Clark commanded the C Company, 6th Battalion, 32d Armor, 194th Armored Brigade at Fort Knox; from October of that year to May 1971 he commanded the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor, 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson. After this, Clark spent the June and July in Washington, DC as a Staff Officer in the Modern Volunteer Army program, working as a Special Assistant for the Chief of Staff. Clark later returned to West Point for three years as an instructor and Assistant Professor of Social Science.

After this, he graduated from the National War College and Command and General Staff College, as well as completing Armor Officer Advanced and Basic Courses and Army Ranger and Airborne schools.

From 1975 to 1976, Clark was a White House Fellow and served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Later, he was an instructor and Assistant Professor of Social Science at West Point.

Clark commanded the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor, 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colorado and later trained there and in Germany. He was later promoted to general. During the Persian Gulf War, Clark became Commander of the Army National Training Center, in charge of arranging the 1st Cavalry Division's three emergency deployments to Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm. In 1994, Clark was again promoted, and started working with the Joint Chiefs of Staff as Director for Strategic Plans and Policy. During this time, Clark ensured that the United Nations and Department of Defense worked together during the invasion of Haiti.

Clark headed the U.S. military team during negotiations that led to the Bosnian Peace Accords, in Dayton, Ohio.

From 1997, he was head of the U.S. European Command (CINCEUR), responsible for about 109,000 U.S. troops and all U.S. military activities in 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. As Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR) he also had overall command of NATO military forces in Europe and led approximately 60,000 troops from 37 NATO and other nations ...

Read more here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

[Sparkly]

150. The RNC will try to create skeletons with ANY candidate we run

As long as there's no major scandal (a Kerik closet, a Scarborough intern), I don't think we should concern ourselves with it. (And naturally, they can run a complete loser with a history of AWOL and DUI's and just say, "Yeah, but since then he found God.")

I think we need to get better at fighting back, though. I know without a doubt that whoever our candidate is, they'll come up with a group of people who hate him/her and heap attacks as 'history.' That's without question. The question is how we handle it.

(I'd hate to think we'd run some life-long hermit or bland milktoast just cause we think it's safer.)

[AmerDem]

156. exactly

we could run Jesus himself and they will gear a multi million dollar smear campaign to destroy him.

[Clarkie1]

151. Actually, Clark did outstanding in the primaries.

He started later than anyone else, did not have time to compete in Iowa, yet built one of the two or three largest bases of support in a very short amount of time.

Why did Clark start late? Because he's not in it for himself, he's in it for our country. He only ran when it looked as if no realistically viable candidate in the democratic field was building the momentuum and support they needed to win in November and an outpouring of grassroots supporters were asking him to run.

After endorsing Kerry, Clark fought hard for Kerry/Edwards and other democrats, as he will continue to do through WesPac and other means.

As for skeletons in the closet, I suggest you research Clark's history and background to put your mind at ease; Clark was more transparent than any other candidate during the primaries, and Clinton doesn't call someone one of the "two rising stars of the democratic party" if they have any skeletons in the closet, as you put it. Neither does Michael Moore.

[ken-in-seattle]

162. 4 star Generals don't have skeletons in closets...

If you get to be a 4 star General you don't have any real skeletons in your closet. The fake skeletons are lined up but thay will take many more dollars to bring to life than the wingnuts had to spend to float the switboat liars.

That is dollars they cannot use to lie on tv or give to the Southern Baptist for "voters guides"

[FrenchieCat]

209. Not only that....

But they threw that all of the smears at Wes Clark during the primaries....and the only thing that the GOP was reduced to was portraying Clark as a lunatic. However, he has had too many recent reviews, has participated in too many testimonies before congress, was written up about too much (as recently as 2000) positively by the mainstream press about his role in Kosovo and Bosnia. The Newspaper accounts of General Clark's actions in Kosovo have been closely documentated.

Even Gen. Shelton's (Edwards advisor) attempted primary slur ended up being refuted by Gen. Shelton himself when faced with questions as to why Milosovic would repeat something that Shelton had said about Wes Clark, during the Hague trial. Was it true? the Hague prosecutor wanted to know. Shelton replied...it was just politics.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

246. No, his skeletons are in the field. Southern Command? School of Americas?

I'll just wait to be flamed for those who want to continue the militarization of our entire culture for the empire. Kids will sign up in droves to be like the General President.

Has anyone noticed the Dem party and DLC and DNC have been infiltrated by corporateers and Republicans for years? And you want more???

Here it comes:

"Don't you want to win?"
"Clark is a hero."
"Just ask the Serbians."
"He had to support Bush and work with DARPA-types in the service, now he's one of us."

General Smedley Butler wrote 'War is a Racket' in 1937 after he realized the US military had used him to fight for United Fruit in the Caribbean all his career and he was pissed.

Can you imagine Wesley Clark writing or saying 'War is a Racket'?

Despite the influx of Clarkies and posts saying "my Republican insider friend said they really feared Clark the most", I ain't buying into the Gentle Genius Generalissimo and his DLC-centrist past in the service of American fascism.

Y'all go right ahead but I'm voting NOPE even though we can't even vote anymore until the electronic voting machines go away.

[FrenchieCat]

256. Southern Command. SOA?? Just checked, and no skeletons there either...

Clark one year in command is when things got changed for the better.

Wes Clark was in charge of the Southern Command for one short year in 1996. This was the time when the school's curriculum was changed to include human rights courses, etc...

That said, I dislike that school as much as other liberals do.

I do not, however, necessarily believe that the reasons for Clark's position are as nefarious as many here would like to believe.

Every President and the overwhelming majority of politicians have supported the SOA.

Let's tar Max Cleland with the same brush...

Having said that, in my opinion we should and must continue such efforts as military education for our allies through the Marshall Center in Europe, the School of the Americas, and similar programs. It has always been my belief that those who understand war, including the true costs of war, understand peace and all of its blessings. Today, we train our military in the strategy of war and the art of peace. U.S. military personnel are well schooled as students of (Karl von) Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, (Alfred Thayer) Mahan, and the best known writers of conflict and engagement. At the same time, they also receive thorough and effective training in such fundamental American principles as subordination of the military to civilian control and respect for human rights. While our foreign military education efforts have not always succeeded in instilling such values, I believe that recent reforms will eliminate any such shortcomings in the future.
KEEPING OUR PRIORITIES WHILE KEEPING THE PEACE - Senator Max Cleland
--------------------
Clark's main "support" for the School came in 1996, when he was the CinC of Southern Command for 1 year and at that time the school fell under his leadership.

Second, by the middle of the Clinton Administration, the U.S. had started to clean up its act significantly, with even State Department officials admitting that "they had done a lot of bad stuff in South America" in the '50s-'70s. The School now has a mandatory democratic education and civil rights component. It is a military training center that helps train officers from South American countries: newsflash--by the 1990s, most of the countries in South America had become developing democracies, as opposed to the authoritarian regimes the U.S. had supported in the '50s-'70s. The SoA also went through further reform, with an external independent oversight board. It's supported by countries like Canada--OK, not ALWAYS the paragon of virtue, but hardly an enthusiastic supporter of imperialism in the contemporary era.

Here are the facts on the School (conveniently dating back to around the time Clark was CinC of Southern Command), now renamed the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation, from a non-partisan and progressive research institute's project on South America.

People who protest that institution have a right to demand restitution for past injustices, but as far as having real impact, they should turn their attention to the secret detentions and support for anti-terrorism in Asia and so on.The skills that these people were taught at the SOA were not torture, murder and mayhem but strategy and martial expertise. How these folks become twisted is not happening at SOA but in their own countries.

As Clark said, the corporate executives pillaging our economy went to Yale, Harvard, etc. Should we shut down those institutions? Now I agree, it's not the same thing, but, think of a more likely parallel and ask yourself should the institution be closed due to the actions of a small minority of students/attendees? You've listed 18 people out of 63,000 graduates. That's .03%. As General Clark said, a small minority.
----------------------------
There are terrible problems in South and Central America, with the links to the drug trade, human rights abuses by rebel, government, right-wing paramilitary, and plain old criminal groups, corruption, and poverty. Any program that could be used in a positive way, should be. Human rights are certainly not going to served by leaving the worst of these militaries to their own devices.

Link to PBS article with debate-style format on SOA
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec99/sota ...

Posted by Du's Tom Rinaldo a while ago on this subject....

The School of the Americas (now known by the touchy feely name of Western Hemisphere Institute for Cooperation and Security) is a terror training camp run by the Us government, whos graduates go on to organize death squads in Central America, rightwing paramilitary units to overthrow democratic regimes, and commit other terroristic atrocities."

I don't think it would still exist, and it wouldn't have operated openly for at least the last 15 to 20 years after some of those major abuses started coming to light, if that was the sole or even major mission of that institution. Many tens of thousands have received training of all sorts there. In one instance or another, to varying degrees, everything you said though is absolutely true. And I will go further and say that under the likes of Kissenger, and Reagan's Poindexter and Ollie North crowd, covert efforts to do exactly what you said were hatched by some within its confines.

However I am just not enough of a conspiritalist, or a radical I suppose, to buy that that school existed during the Carter and Clinton years with that as it's main intent, and that both of those Democratic Presidents fully supported everything you note went on there and maintained that school for those expressed purpose. I am more likely to accept that Presidents like Nixon, who set up his own "plumbers squad", and Reagan, who gave a green light to Ollie North's covert operations, allowed those shady operatives to use the cover of working inside those institution to further their covert ends, the same way that illegal and immoral operations are conducted through every established Government institution whenever honor and decency is suspended, including the FBI, the IRS, the INS and so forth.

In short I would say that Clark backed that School when he did because he felts that there was still an appropriate mission for it to play. Reforms were already underway when he spoke. A number of people who were trained there have done some terrible things. More didn't. Clark believes that positive lessons and models for multinational military cooperation have been developed in South America for fighting Drug Lords that can be applied to our international struggle against terrorists, operating in places like Pakistan and Yeman.

I would certainly ask of Clark both now, and should he become President, that he ensure that strong curbs be placed on either that institution, or any other that replaces it and attempts to pick up whatever legitimate functions it pursued, to absolutely minimize the potential for human rights violations flowing from training done at that School. It is my limited understanding that much of the reform efforts that were undertaken focused on that problem, which was most acute in the 1980's during Reagan's anti Sandanista days.

I would go further and say that all abuses should be completely eliminated, and guarenteed never to occur again, but I am too realistic to ask for that about anything. The U.S. will never have full control over the actions of agents from other countries that train with our military. Having said that, I acknowledge that elements of our military have been directly involved in terrible actions.
----------
That being said.....I don't believe that Clark actually supports the SOA much more than most other Democratic politician. Period.

[FrenchieCat]

149. and I agree that you are both wrong.....

Boy, that was easy.....:-)

[AmerDem]

147. without a doubt, Wes Clark

:kick:

[HFishbine]

153. Dean

Conspicuously absent from your poll.

[ICantBelieve]

160. Conspicuous???

He said it right at the top! I agree, though, that if I'd written a poll, I'd have put Dean in there. Put I didn't bother to write a poll, so I'm stuck with the one that's there.

[Kazak]

163. Gore!!!

:thumbsup:

[TankLV]

166. I'm leaning towards throwing my TV against the wall well before then.

[IndianaGreen]

168. Did you purposely leave Dean's name out of the poll??????

When Kerry's man Vilsak was being considered as DNC Chair there were no demands that he renounced running in 2008, it is only when Dean's name comes up that such a demand is made.

As to 2008, it is too early to tell. I can only say who I would prefer in a 2-way race. For example, I would choose Barbara Boxer over Hillary Clinton, or Wes Clark over John Kerry.

We have a tough 4 years ahead of us, and our men and women are dying in Iraq for no justifiable reason. Let's end this war first, and bring the troops home ASAP first. Campaign 2008 will take care of itself.

My bottom line for 2008: I won't support a prowar candidate!

[Crunchy Frog]

178. Clark/Boxer. n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

182. Damn well should have been Clark this time so.........................

CLARK!

[Catchawave]

186. I think the poll is being "Clarked" ...lol......

I voted for Warner because of why he is a democrat:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/8/03116/3996

[Clarkie1]

191. That's a great speech; We need more democratic governors like that!

I hope Mr. Warner continues to serve formally Republican-controlled Virginia for a long time to come!

[Catchawave]

250. Warner can't run for Gov again in Va.

I think this is the last state in the union that the Gov can't serve more than one term. I really need to brush up on my home state's politics, but rumor has it Warner's going after (R) Sen.George Allen's seat this fall? If a Dem can grab a Repub seat in the Senate in a Red State.....this will look even better for Warner's Presidential aspirations, eh?

[googly]

278. LMAO...yeah there are a lot of fans here of that nut case Clark

who told Kerry he was just a lieutenent while he (Clark)
was a high falutin General! What a hot head.

[LynneSin]

189. Where's Fast Eddie?

I'm thinking Ed Rendall of Pennsylvania might make a run for it. He's so freaking charismatic I think he would easily win!

[bobwhite]

194. Hillary

[itzamirakul]

195. What if Bobby Kennedy, Jr. got into the race? He may be

running for Atty. General in NY State. That might be his first step toward seeking higher office. I like the way he thinks.

[AntiCoup2K4]

220. No Kennedy will ever run for President again.

And who could blame them?

[itzamirakul]

222. Stranger things have happened...

Like George Bush sitting in the White House for two terms.

I wouldn't be so adamant that "no Kennedy will ever run for President again." Anything is possible....

[American Tragedy]

196. Somebody with great powers of persuasion

You would be amazed at how many glaring political gaffes can be virtually overcome by sheer charisma; by that I mean overwhelming broad appeal, as opposed to narrow cult loyalty. As an example, my scary right-wing Republican great-aunt, with whom I spoke last month, casually mentioned how much she missed Clinton.

Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is charisma.

Oh yeah, and we just might want to look for somebody who doesn't have an extensive voting record in the Congress.

[Clarkie1]

211. the results of this poll so far are consistent with some non-DU polls

"Left wing radio talk show host Ed Schultz bragged on his radio show Thursday that Barbara Boxer was leading a poll on his Web site that asked "who do you think should be the next candidate for President?" Early Friday morning Boxer had slipped a bit and was the choice of 27% of those who voted in the unscientific online poll. She was just ahead of Hillary Clinton and trailed only Wes Clark who checked in with 40% of the votes."

http://www.bigeddieradio.com/

I suppose it could be that an inordinate number of Clark supporters listen to this radio show, just like an inordinate number of Clark supporters are drawn to DU, as some have suggested. Clearly though since the poll was announced on the radio it's not just an exclusively "internet" phenomenon....hmmmm.

Still, interesting in most of these polls Clark seems always around 40% or above.

DailyKos had one the other day and he was at 70%, but I think that was a little bit of an abberation. Probably most of the Clarkies hang out there, I suppose some might argue.

I want to add that I am very proud Boxer is my senator, and am glad to see her polling so high as well.

[New Earth]

214. a similar poll in 2004 Election forum

has Kerry winning :shrug: (he's my choice by the way :D )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=298876&mesg_id=298876

[Clarkie1]

215. I think it's pretty clear who the front-runners are at this point.

Incidentally, Boxer is my senator and I also think she would make a great VP. In my opinion a Massachusetts senator/California senator ticket is just not nationally viable, but I think a Clark/Boxer ticket would advance a liberal agenda more effectively and be very viable. Either that or a Clark/Obama ticket is my choice!
:toast:

[Cheswick2.0]

235. EdSchultz is a Clark supporter and so are most of his listeners

In addition, Clark freep polls here and have been called on it by management.

[Quixote1818]

236. Then why didn't Schultz talk much about Clark winning the poll? He

hardly mentioned Clark and went on to talk mostly about what a great candidate Hillary would be. I wrote him a letter asking him why he ignored Clark.

[Clarkie1]

249. And your evidence for this is?

By the way, I like your Dean for DNC avatar (and no I don't give a hoot if Dean runs in 08' or not, but I think he'd make a great chair).

[Tacos al Carbon]

216. Harold Ford

Unlike Boxer, Edwards, Dean, Kerry, Gore and many others, he could actually win. Others who could win include Richardson, Clark (if he learns to debate and campaign between now and then), Feinstein and maybe Obama if his wave of popularity doesn't break. I'm not sure about Hillary. My brain tells me she'd get smushed but my gut tells me that she could surprise a lot of people, as she has done in the past.

[Clarkie1]

217. Feinstein doesn't have the charisma or a chance, the rest of your list is

pretty accurate if you listen to your brain re: Hillary.

Except Clark has learned to debate and campaign, so you're a little behind the curve on that one.:toast:

Oh, and I have no idea who Harold Ford is.

[Tacos al Carbon]

218. You may be right about Feinstein

I think that she would have given Arnold a real run but she's probably not viable nationally. As for Clark, I guess we'll see if he runs in '08. Who knows, he may even get my vote.

[ScreamingMeemie]

231. He has a long, long way to go to "actually win". People have to know

who you "actually are" to vote for you. And many don't. Dean is my choice.

[Tacos al Carbon]

272. 2008 is a long way off

How many people outside of Vermont had heard of Dean in January, 2001?

Ford, should he choose to aim high, will have plenty of time to get his name out there between now and 2008.

[Cozmosis]

219. I really like Feingold but Clark is cool with me :)

[okcdem]

223. Dean/Boxer

n/t

[Untouchedalarm]

229. Votes

Great idea. I think after 500 or more people have voted. You should email this to all democratic senators. They all need to know we are watching them.

[ScreamingMeemie]

230. Howard Dean. I hope he goes back on his word. We need him.

And others like him.

[graelent]

237. Why so many Clark votes?

I am shocked by the number of Clark supporters. I have no desire to recreate the DU Flame Wars between Deaniacs and Clarkies, but it seemed to me that the 2004 election proved Clark does not have the political chops to make a run for office. Obviously a lot of people disagree with me, but what about Clark's candidacy inspires so many people? I found him a poor stump speaker, a mediocre debater, and his policies cut and pasted from other campaigns. The resume was wonderful, but he botched the interview big time.

I am rooting for Gore or Richardson.

[New Earth]

238. i think Clark would be good Sec. of State OR Defense

and i can see it happening. i don't know why, just gut feeling i guess.

[janx]

247. Because people post links to this poll and others at the Clark blog:

http://chat.forclark.com/story/2005/1/22/17632/4352/

http://chat.forclark.com/story/2005/1/23/1927/11902

http://chat.forclark.com/story/2005/1/21/19425/9214/


It happens all the time.

[Sopianae]

251. There are far more Clark supporters on DU than on the Clark blog

There are about 10 active users online on the Clark blog right now. Please, understand that most users stopped visiting and/or posting on the Clark blog since Wes dropped out. I only check it once a month or so, mostly when someone posts a link to the Clark blog on DU.

Btw, the following blogs have links posted on the Clark blog:

A Venture Capitalist
BartCop
Brief Intelligence
Calpundit
Carpetbagger Report
Chris Gonyea
Civic Dialogues
Clark for Pres
Crooked Timber
Democratic Underground
Diary of a Dean-o-Phobe
Digby
DNC's Kicking Ass
Donkey Rising
Isikoff-Newell Report
Kidding on the Square
Liberal Oasis
Mark Kleiman
Matt Yglesias
Media Horse Online
Michael Moore
Moderate Independent
Political Aims
Politus
Prometheus Speaks
Public Nuisance
Rob's DailyKos Diary
South Knox Bubba
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo
The Dolphin
The Poor Man
The Tough Democrat
To Sir With Love
Tooney Bin
U.S. 4 Clark (Media Clips)
Varied Interest
Wesley Clark Weblog

A Democratic candidate's supporters MIGHT be interested in other Democratic/Progressive blogs and discussion boards. I found many left-leaning sites through the Clark blog (not DU, interestingly - even though it is listed, I happened upon it from some other site). Is that a bad thing???

As for linking to specific polls, it's nothing more than linking to ANYTHING Clark related. Kind of like any other candidate's supporters do on their board/blog/yahoo group/whatever. Kind of what you would expect on a blog dedicated to promote one specific candidate.

Again, the numbers of active users on the Clark board is rather small. OTOH, DU has been growing for years. A small number of Clark supporters won't influence a poll on DU, since DU has much higher number of active users. To disregard the results of a poll on DU simply because of this is foolish.

I do recognize a lot of old-timers on other boards like Dailykos, Atrios and of course DU. After the primaries, a lot of Clark supporters found a "new home." It's simply because most of them are political junkies. They are NOT a part of some conspiracy to promote Clark and Clark only. Most of them are very active in their local party and participate in a variety of activities to promote Democrats nationwide.

[jfenway]

254. Why Clark?

Clark speaks to the heart and he's the only candidate that appeals to a broad spectrum of voters WITHOUT compromising his principles.

Among my circle of democratic friends (mostly academic types and ABB previously), Clark was the only one we could all enthusiastically support. Even my Republican Brother-In-Law (doesn't everybody have one) was leaning towards him. Nobody else came close.

BTW, I won't argue about "por stump speaker" or "mediocre debater" because that is pretty subjective and I disagree, but his policies were entirely his own. If anything, he was the only one trying to define the issues instead of reacting to Bush's at the time.

J.

[McCamy Taylor]

243. If nominated, Edwards will win. He would have won this time, too.

[Clark2008]

245. No he wouldn't.

He couldn't flip a red state to blue. We saw that this year.

[FrenchieCat]

248. Edwards got more Press....

than my shirts, and he still couldn't win any primaries beyond his birth state.....and he still didn't help Senator Kerry win those Rural areas that he was so heralded that he could.

Edwards was given the benefit via tons of free publicity.....and still wasn't able to parlait that attention into anything but a "bust".

[robbedvoter]

262. Like he won North Carolina? South? Counted every vote?

[AP]

276. So far, I don't see anyone who's better able to articulate a progressive

moral framework and fit progressive policies into that framework.

I do believe that if he had run a general election campaign like the primary campaign he was running (hilight hope, focus on middle class opportunity, and talk about progressive values) the Dems would have done extremely well.

I'm sure the Republicans would have run a "do you feel safe with a guy without military experience" campaign. However, if he could have kept people focussed on economic opportunity instead, it would be interesting to see how far he would have gone. The counter strategy would have been to fit even foreign policy within the same progressive value system that he fit his domestic policies into.

I would really like to have seen that.

[drdtroit]

252. Undecided:

4 years is an eternity in American politics and I guess the person i would vote for at this point has not yet emerged.

[googly]

253. Anybody but Clark

My choices in order are:

Dean
Hillary
Granholm
Any Kennedy

[FrenchieCat]

257. Hey maybe the GOP will start a movement like that....again.

They are really good at it.

Any particular reason you are ABC?

[googly]

269. Ofcourse I have good reasons

Gen Clark has never run for any political office!
And don't tell me Gen Eisenhower was the same thing.
It is a different ball game now. Now we have 24/7
news coverage and cable TV. Clark will make a great
S of Defense. But will not stand up to grilling on
the campaign tour. We don't need another statement like
"he was a lieutenant, I was a general". Shows total lack
of political instincts.

[Crunchy Frog]

274. Granholm will only run

if they pass the Schwartzenegger ammendment. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one.

[Sugarbleus]

259. Clark, unless someone more dynamic and faithful comes

along.... Because of Bush and DLC policies, we are right on the bottom hanging on by a thread as I type; things can't get much worse, so I'm voting my conscience next time.

[Bride of Cthulhu]

260. General Clark!!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

263. WTF? Dean is not here so people pick Boxer instead?

You people who think Boxer has a remotely serious shot at prez are...
well I don't know.

[Gothmog]

267. Evan Bayhl

I have heard that he is very electable. To do well in Indiana is a good sign.

[txaslftist]

270. Howard Dean

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

279. Gore?

How come you don't have Gore in there?

Watch out for Gore if Dean wins the DNC-chairship.

And, I'd vote for Gore in a blink. He would have been a terrific President, esp for techies...

[noonwitch]

280. Hillary and/or Clark

I see them as the strongest candidates. I know Hillary has a lot of baggage, but it is all public knowlege. A lot depends on who the GOP will be running. I think Hillary could beat Jeb, because of Bush fatigue. Probably Santorum, too, because he's a jerk and won't be able to debate her well.

I like Clark, I voted for him in the caucus last year. He's smart and he won't take any crap from opponents.

[Name removed]

281. Deleted message

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

[jsw_81]

282. John Kerry

I think a Kerry/Clark ticket would be very, very strong.