2008 Presidential Poll

[Don1]

What kind of ideological candidate should the Democrats nominate in 2008? Conservative, moderate, liberal, even further left?

[JohnLocke]

1. I vote for Democratic people, not Democratic ideological labels (nt).

[Don1]

2. I am actually asking about

issues which can be inferred from ideology.

[Vincardog]

3. Lets worry about 06 first. We can plan for the 08 after the impeachment

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. I wouldn't call Nader a "leftist."

These days he's more of an egomaniacal opportunist.

[Don1]

5. I think he is just as much an

opportunist as many other politicians, like Hillary, for example. He over-generalizes Democrats just as much as she gives in to the right-wing and religious right.

[MADem]

7. Shit, he got more cash from the GOP than some of their Congressional

candidates. If dough makes the candidate, that sorry old bastard is a Republican!!!

[Don1]

9. So what?

John Kerry got money from Halliburton. Big deal. It doesn't mean John Kerry was a sell-out right winger, war mongerer.

[MADem]

23. Percentage, percentage

Kerry got pennies from Halliburton compared to Monkey. A big chunk of Ralphie's war chest came from the GOP. Everyone covers their bets.

[Don1]

33. References?

[MADem]

77. Have you been living in a cave? This is common knowledge

But hey, I will accomodate you, Google being my good friend and all:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31K1.DTL

Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1, 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, who has criticized the practice in the past.

The donations from wealthy Republicans -- combined with increasingly vocal Democratic charges that they represent a stealth GOP effort to wound Democrat John Kerry -- prompted Nader's vice presidential running mate, Green Party member Peter Camejo, to suggest the consumer advocate reject the money that doesn't come from loyal Nader voters. ...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0327-05.htm

Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at least $250 each have a history of supporting the Republican president, national GOP candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted review of financial records by The Dallas Morning News.

Among the new crop of Nader donors: actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, Florida frozen-food magnate Jeno Paulucci and Pennsylvania oil company executive Terrence Jacobs. All have strong ties to the GOP.

..."Republicans are well aware that Ralph Nader played a spoiler role in the 2000 election. And there is no reason why they wouldn't want to encourage and help him do so again in 2004," said Jano Cabrera, a spokesman for the Democrat National Committee....

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/10/ale04057.html

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Funders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a right wing PAC, have made thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Ralph Nader, United Progressives for Victory (UP for Victory) announced today. In addition to accepting contributions from donors of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Nader has also taken money from conservative PAC donors who have given to the Club for Growth, along with legal representation and ballot help from Republican consultants, lawyers, major donors, and state parties.

According to Federal Election Committee records, five major donors who have given $13,500 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to air its attack ads on John Kerry’s military service have also given Nader $7,500.

Specifically, Travis Anderson (NJ), Brian Pilcher (CA) and Donald Burns (FL), are three of Nader’s largest donors and each has given him $2,000 (the maximum allowable contribution), while also contributing to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Charles Eckert (CA) and Oliver Grace (NY) have also given to both Nader’s PAC and the swift boat PAC.

And as ELECTION DAY grew closer, the PERCENTAGE in battleground states increased!

http://tampatrib.com/floridametronews/MGBRTG7COWD.html

TAMPA - More than one-third of the money Ralph Nader has raised for his independent presidential campaign in Florida comes from people who also have given to President Bush, the Republican Party or both.
The amounts involved are small by presidential campaign standards. Nader has raised $25,550 in Florida, part of $1 million nationwide. But the situation mirrors what Democrats say is a national pattern of Republicans seeking to help Nader as a way of hurting Bush's Democratic challenger, John Kerry.

``Obviously the Republicans feel George Bush does better with Nader on the ballot. Apparently the only one who doesn't understand that is Nader,'' said Trisha Enright, who runs an anti- Nader Web site and political committee.

https://lists.portside.org/pipermail/portside/Week-of-Mon-20040628/006153.html (many media links here, all worth perusing)

Ralphie is all about Ralphie. Voice of the people, or self-aggrandizing asshole? I vote for the latter. But hey, still a free country, your mileage can vary, and the Kool Aid on his end of the spectrum tastes pretty similar to the stuff the BushBots guzzle, I reckon.

[Don1]

89. You didn't prove your case.

You used the word "big" and implied that Nader gets more from Republicans than Kerry did. Can you prove it? Did Kerry get at least 10% of his money from Republicans?

[MADem]

104. Hey, Google is your friend, go for it

Any Republican who contributed to Kerry did so because they were sickened by the MonkeyKing and intended to VOTE for Kerry--that was the impetus behind the REPUBLICANS FOR KERRY effort. Where would the benefit come from if Bush supporters gave their money to Kerry?

Are you suggesting that Ben Stein and the Swift Boaters pulled the lever for Nader? Get real.

It isn't the source of the money, it's the INTENT of the donations. Too tough a concept for you to wrap your mind around, is that the problem?

[Don1]

105. No insults please, sir.

I am not insulting your intelligence.

I just asked you to provide evidence.

Obviously, you don't have any.

[MADem]

109. Hey, you posted the strawman, you are now up to bat

Just because a group of GOP registrants, who made commercials stating their reasons for voting for Kerry over Bush, and raised cash for him, and voted for him, and who actually gave him support, http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Republicans_for_Kerry_2004 you are DESPERATE to find some odd and unfathomable "equivalency" to the Swift Boaters, right wing loonies, and Bush toadies funneling cash to Nader. Problem is, those folks DID NOT VOTE FOR NADER. They provided Nader the cash so he could chip away at Kerry's voting base.

You're the one without the argument, you need to show me HOW GOP money to Kerry somehow helped Bush. I have shown you, through links ad infinitum, how GOP money to Nader benefitted Bush. THAT is the point.

Put up or shut up. No insult intended. But logic is expected, and you are not demonstrating any that I can see.

[Don1]

114. You are not demonstrating logic.

How silly. Whoop-dee-do. 10% of funding came from some Republicans out of the arbitrarily defined "big" donors. That is simple cross-talk of donations and exists with just about any candidate. I am surprised actually that the 10% is so small.

Now, this is why you are afraid to answer my question. You see, you know that the cross-talk for Kerry is higher than for Nader.

So, you resort to ad hominems. All you do with your ad hominems is prove my case that you have no point at all.

Oh yeah, and how did it benifit Republicans? Well hypothetically, Kerry's stances are closer to Republican stances than Nader's. So, there you go. There's your answer.

Now, answer my question. What was the cross-talk for Kerry donations?

[MADem]

116. You are not making one lick of sense

The discussion point is not if Kerry was a sufficiently liberal candidate, the discussion point had to do with Nader's candidacy and its impact on the election, and where his cash came from. And you conveniently avoided the point about the percentage -- a THIRD of all Nader cash raised -- for the FL battleground.

Your angst about Kerry's candidacy--and he WAS the Democratic nominee--is an entirely separate issue. But hey, when you cannot come up with a goal, move the goalpost, eh?

I gave you a link to GOP supporters of Kerry, above. Read it. These were people who VOTED for him. Unlike the GOP stoolies who gave cash to Nader to SCREW Kerry and voted for Bush. Why is that so tough for you to comprehend? And whatever the fuck do you mean by "cross-talk?" Crossover voters??? The list of big names is in the link above.

I think you are just spouting, and uninterested in real discussion.

[Don1]

117. You didn't even comprehend my point. n/t

[MADem]

118. Clearly, you are challenged in your articulation skills

I answered your gripe, and you changed the subject from Ralph getting cash from the GOP to help Bush get elected, to Kerry isn't left enough to suit you.

I am not alone, apparently, you seem to be doing that same 'change the game' business downthread as well.

I'm concluding this by restating my same point--Ralph is a shill, a Ralph lover, and a bum who meddles in politics solely to aggrandize himself, not to make a difference of any sort. He helps no cause, except perhaps his own. He is a hubris-laden ass who needs to retire from public life, and think about how he has helped this nation become a police state by his actions.

[Don1]

120. Wow, can't answer the question

so you resort to Nader bashing when all else fails.

Whatever.

[MADem]

121. Oh, please, we're done here

Nader's actions in taking GOP cash from people who did not support him was the entire NEXUS of this pointless exercise, which has turned out to be somewhat akin to wrestling a pig, frankly.

Try rereading the entire discussion. Reading is fundamental, and you seem unable to have a cogent conversation without changing the subject or whining that I do share your love of that millionaire con man. You have my sympathies.

[Don1]

122. Which millionaire con man?

Kerry, Bush, or Nader? and how is the campaign coming along?

[wyldwolf]

129. once again, leaps of logic, semantics play, and facts denial

makes for a comedic Don1 thread.

[MADem]

24. Percentage, percentage

Kerry got pennies from Halliburton compared to Monkey. A big chunk of Ralphie's war chest came from the GOP. Everyone covers their bets.

[karynnj]

133. Be careful because on some sites when

the information is money to candidates by company, it is really the contributions of the people employed at the company. So if a programmer working for Halibuton gives money to Kerry this comes up. I doubt very much the company gave him anything directly - if they did it just proves that they didn't buy him because he spoke against them many many times each day in the campaign. Last year he was furious that they took some "small business" money and that they were given the LA clean up.

[Donkeykick]

13. I Agree.

I wish that he would just stay out of the races myself. That is a good call you made!

[tn-guy]

138. "These days" meaning from 1970 forward

[MADem]

6. I can't get behind those labels, and I am gonna wait to see what

the candidates actually say (as opposed to their supporters) in the debates and on the stump before I make my decision.

[Casandra]

8. Clark again!

I keep seeing Wesley Clark's name on all these polls and I keep hearing him referred to as a 'Liberal'. Sorry, I just don't see this. Had to listen to him this morning, supporting us attacking Iran next.

'SOMEONE' has to lift his head and use some shock politics (my words here)!! Whoever does this and presents a REAL DIFFERENCE will catch the eye of all those trying to find someone to carry their 'peace' banner, end all these wars and stop trying to justify this horrific situation in Iraq. Give the people a chance to see there are real differences to choose from this time. These centrist candidates are no more than conservative 'Republican lites'. Just my opinion..

[Don1]

10. Oops.

Good point. I should have called him a liberal hawk. I'll change it.

[Sparkly]

12. "Liberal Hawk?!?"

:wtf:

[Don1]

14. Oh crud.

Look, I can't please everyone.

Did he advocate invading Iran or not?

And is he for an immediate pull-out from Iraq?

or just one of those against the "handling" of the war folks?

I'll change it again, if I can get some decent facts.

[Sparkly]

16. How about just leaving out the labels

especially if the term "hawk" applies to people who opposed the war in the first place.

No, he did NOT "advocate invading Iran."

[Don1]

39. The poll is about issues

based on ideology. The people are just examples and they all label themselves exactly as I put them in the poll. Clark calls himself a liberal, right?

I apologize for including the word hawk, but actually like Casandra I believe he is, too. I shouldn't have put it in though, because it is a bias.

The poll is no longer biased, though, as it is totally fair, showing an example of someone who calls themselves the label.

Completely objective.

[Casandra]

34. In response...

So many of you want to know what I"m talking about, when referring to Clark as NOT a liberal. I remind you I am only expressing my opinion, but it's an opinion formed from keeping a very close eye and ear on everything he has said and is saying. He does NOT advocate attacking Iran. What he does advocate is keeping that option on the table, therefore IMO, far-far too hawkish for my taste. I'm tired of hearing about all the options, things we did wrong..etc..etc..but must stay there and keep up this 'farce'.! I am looking for someone with enough 'balls' to step up and loudly advocate ENDING this RIGHT NOW!

No, I"m not a defeatest, as our fearless leader would call it (sarcasm). I'm a realist and a peace activist.

Furthermore, what is this 'TABLE' that the option of attacking Iraq refers to. Whose table is this and when did we become the 'all determinate' of what goes and what doesn't? We are NOT rulers of this world...

[Stinky The Clown]

87. This response to you is NOT about Clark ..... it is about your view ....

<edited for typos only ... not substance>

.... that we need to just get someone to step up and say 'end this right now'.

Just exactly what 'thing' is it you want ended? I suspect you mean the War in Iraq© and all the shit that it has brought down on all of us.

Please try to understand what I am about to say. Please don't parse it or make interpretations. If what I am about to say is unclear in any way ... ask me about it. Don't assume anything because you'll probably make a wrong assumption about **me** and miss the whole point.

Okay?

Now ..... I want the crap surrounding the elective, unnecessary, unplanned-for, pointless war of aggression that is our monkeyboy leader's personal wet dream ended as much as you do. I was opposed to it before we went. Not ambivalent. Opposed.

But now that we're some three years down the road, circumstances are different and I have no good answers. I still want us out. Where I am without answers is just how we do that.

If we 'cut and run' as they like to call an immediate withdrawal (I do not agree that it is cutting or running ... it is but one option and worth discussing.) then it is likely that some of the real bad people in the world will see it as cowardice. just because monkey boy uses that excuse doesn't make it untrue. If we take emotion out of our thinking and just look at facts, that is a very likely scenario with some of our enemies. We will be seen as weak and there is an increased likelihood that we will see more attacks on us or our interests (our allies are 'our interests'). Had we not gone in in the first place, we would not be discussing this. But we're there. Given that, I'm not a strong advocate of this option. I am not opposed to it, but I have yet to be convinced it is in our current best interests.

If we wait and establish time lines milestones, we may never leave. Or we might leave next week. I see this as somewhat viable. But also extraordinarily (and maybe unacceptably) open-ended. I guess it all depends on what the milestones are.

Now ..... Iran. Iran has had it out for us since the Carter administration. They are a threat to us. To take the threat of force off the table would be wrong. I am NOT advocating the use of force, but neither am I saying it will never be necessary. And to consider talking to them without the power to make the threat real is to talk to them from a position of real weakness. Teddy Roosevelt had it right when he said to 'speak softly and carry a big stick'.

I suspect Clark and those of his ilk are really saying that very same thing. It seems to me that talking to Iran directly .... face to face .... not through intermediaries .... in an honest and open way .... for as long as it takes ..... with power in our pockets and an acknowledgment that we will use it **if we need to** (not as a threat, but as a fact) .... is a proper way to go forward with them.

What monkey boy is doing .... threat by speech and innuendo .... childish name calling, if you will ..... is counterproductive and pushes our enemies to do things to protect themselves ... which in turn and my equal measure threatens us ..... does nothing but move us closer to war. So I would advocate doing the hard diplomacy. But with the implied threat that we have the way to wage war if needed and, as a last resort, have the full will and resolve to do so .... and then work to do ***everything*** humanly possible to avoid the very war we use as threat.

So, when you say 'end this right now' what do you mean? The War in Iraq© or having some of our citizens in uniform and armed, serving as a barrier to aggression on our interests by bad world actors?

And in case it isn't clear ...... I am a liberal and use the term proudly. I am also a person who favors strength to weakness. And who favors reason over force.

The world is complicated. One size does not fit all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. No. Clark is the one urging direct dialog with Iran

Clark is the one saying diplomacy must be exhausted before ever using force. Clark is the one who is calling out Bush on the Right Wing's own network for not being willing to even talk with people they don't like, like Iran's President. Clark specifically contrasted the fact that Europeans are willing to talk with Iran, why shouldn't the United States be willing to talk with Iran? Clark always points to diplomacy as the missing piece in United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Clark is fighting the hawks on this, he always has been. His positions may not be as purely dovish as some would like, but calling Clark a hawk completely misses the mark. He consistently has worked to prevent Bush's wars, not start them.

[Don1]

49. Huh?

Bush said the same thing with Iraq. Yeah, diplomacy first. Then, attack.

WTF? Why is diplomacy even needed unless you support pre-emptive wars?

Do you support a pre-emptive war against Iran?

I don't.

So what the hell is up with the force option???

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. 90% of Americans understand and accept force options

The argument is always over when is the use of that option correct and needed, as opposed to inaction or another remedy. There are Hitlers in the world who use diplomacy only as a cover to cloak the pending use of force, granted. Always have been and always will be. But that doesn't mean that anyone who engages in diplomatic efforts without out right eliminating the use of force as a final resort is disingenuous about seeking a diplomatic solution.

And preemptive is a somewhat slippery term also, it depends on what is being preempted and why and what the alternatives to preemption are. Leaving Iran aside for just a moment, yes, under certain very specific scenarios I can support preemptive use of force. Let's start there. I supported Clinton when he launched a cruise missile attack against Al Quada training camps in a failed attempt to kill Bin Ladin, to give you one concrete example of preemptive use of force that I supported. But I knew that Clinton had also tried negotiating with the Taliban for them to turn Bin Ladin over first as an alternative to using force in Afghanistan.

To be honest I don't know enough about what is going on in Iran to have a firm opinion about whether or not I could ultimately at some point support trying to stop their nuclear program, and that is not from failing to pay attention. It would depend a lot on knowing some things that I am out of the loop to know. I AM completely opposed to using force in Iran before exhausting ALL other options, and I do not trust this Administration at all to do that. To the contrary, I expect them to lie to justify whatever it is that they want to do.

But if we actually care about stopping a war in Iran as opposed to just wanting to stake out a righteous position regarding it, the best card that we have to play right now that can possibly slow Bush down is to INSIST that the United States talk DIRECTLY to Iran before any use of force there is even considered. That is a unifying position that can bring in moderates and even some Republicans. The truth is that Bush is still Commander in Chief and we do not control Congress. If we want to stop an attack against Iran the strongest tool we have is demanding TALK NOW! People see what happened last time when Bush pulled the plug on diplomacy. If he has any weak point to stop him on, that is it: Why won't he even talk to Iran before risking another war? I'm sorry if discussing tactics is not of interest to you, but I am more concerned with stopping an attack on Iran now than I am in taking a radical line that will not change the situation within the matter of weeks that we have to work in.

[Don1]

66. Pre-emption is not slippery at all.

Are you going to start shouting that we need to go into Iran to get WMDs after Bush's diplomacy fails or not?

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. False

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to explain my thinking in detail the first time? My instinct is to just say reread my post, but carefully this time. However somehow I don't think it would make a difference.

Iraq was bogus. We know that. Iran and North Korea were always greater threats, and do you know why? Because not only were both nations on the verge of developing Nukes but the leadership in both nations included unstable elements. In Korea the problem resides at the top of the chain. In Iran the situation is more complex and fluid. Kim Jong-Il at least only wants to hold onto power and just wants to blackmail the U.S. with nukes while perhaps selling a spare one here and there to terrorists to raise a few extra bucks. Iran has strong elements inside it that actively are interested, for fundamentalist religious reasons, in exporting their version of a revolution throughout the Middle East. In other words Iran is much closer to potentially being what Bush falsely claimed Iraq was.

I don't know the future and neither do you. Even if I had a handle on who is calling the shots in Iran now and what their plans for the region are, that could change. Because the United States destabilized the whole region, not just Iraq, by invading, I don't know how internal conditions in Iran will evolve. I think that the Iraq invasion has already contributed to a relative fanatic becoming Iran's President. Right now I am fully opposed to using force against Iran, and I expect to remain fully opposed to using force against Iran even if Bush proclaims that he has to do it because he has exhausted all other choices. Because I do not believe or trust Bush to put it simply.

And I can not imagine a scenario that could play out in less than 9 months that remotely could possibly justify attacking Iran, which is not saying that I support attacking Iran ever, just that they don't have nukes now and according to Israel, who I figure has good intelligence, they won't for at least a year. However if Bush has his way, and we don't stop him, he will force the issue with Iran before this Summer.

[Don1]

72. Are you going to answer the question or not?

Here it is again:
"Are you going to start shouting that we need to go into Iran to get WMDs after Bush's diplomacy fails or not?"

It's a simple yes or no question.

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. Do you have a reading problem or are you auditioning to become a D.A?

"Right now I am fully opposed to using force against Iran, and I expect to remain fully opposed to using force against Iran even if Bush proclaims that he has to do it because he has exhausted all other choices. Because I do not believe or trust Bush to put it simply."

I am sorry if your world view requires that everything in life only be boiled down to Yes or No. Do you have difficulty with the concept of uncertainty in life? What I reposted here is just part of my answer. Now I will just say reread it. If you can not imagine any circumstances under which a preemptive strike may be justified, than you live in a black and white world where yes and no answers should suffice for everything. Then a simple categorical No would suffice.

Congratulations for your clarity. Bush is clear also, he thinks force is virtually always justified. I don't feel safe living in a world controlled by people with black and white thinking, but maybe you do.

[Don1]

78. So you disagree with Clark

or are you saying that Clark didn't say what Casandra says he said?

Casandra: "If he didn't support that action, he would have totally dissed the whole idea right then and there. He reminds me of Hillary, using a pair of crutches to stand on the middle line and not fall off.. I don't like him!!!"

So, is Clark for or against killing Iranians as a "last resort" whatever the hell that means, yes or no?

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. I do not disagree with Clark but I do disagree with how Casandra

characterized Clark's position. Neither Clark nor I nor at least 90% of Americans rule out all preemptive use of force as an option if the circumstances are compelling enough to justify it. What Clark said was that the circumstances can not be compelling enough to justify it now since we haven't even attempted to negotiate directly with Iran about their nuclear program. Beyond that Clark took the same stance that all of our Presidents have taken and that virtually all if not all of the 2004 Democratic Primary candidates took. They believe the United States reserves the option to use force if our legitimate national security interests necessitate it, and that includes the possibility of taking preemptive actions. Clark and the other Democrats running for President however came out very strongly against Preventive War, which is the doctrine that Bush embraces.

Loosely put, Preventive War justifies the first use of military force against an adversary who is believed to be pursuing a program that will eventually result in a direct threat to our national security. Preemptive war justifies the first use of military force against an adversary who is believed to be on the literal brink of attacking us first. Very very different trigger points set under these different standards. Alliances may come into play here since in a military alliance an attack on one's ally is the equivalent of an attack on one's own nation. Israel is for all practical and in some cases legal purposes in a military alliance with the United States, which is a relevant factor.

In the earliest stages of diplomatic negotiations all options are almost always retained as, at the very least, bargaining chip incentives to be surrendered as part of a mutually agreeable resolution to a conflict. In other words if a real perceived threat to our or our allie's security is being subjected to diplomatic efforts at peaceful resolution, essentially no American President would say in advance "and in the event that we fail to reach an agreement on this matter, and if we believe that your position continues to gravely threaten our security, don't worry, we promise we won't use force against you anyway." The refusal to rule force out is not the same as a commitment to rule force in. Other options can be always settled on instead, like economic sanctions or a policy of containment. If this was only a trade dispute about tarrifs on cotton, yeah sure any President or political figure would rule out any use of force up front. But nukes are nukes and Iran's President says he wants Israel wiped off the map etc. etc.

Obviously Clark believes that it is dangerous to many if Iran should develop and stock pile nuclear weapons, and he would like to find the right combination of carrots and sticks to convince Iran not to go down that road any further. However the only position he has taken is that the Bush Administration is itself threatening our security by refusing to negotiate directly with Iran. Clark also described in some detail the dangers to America associated with any American use of force against Iran. Right now he is the one National Democrat, in my opinion, who is actually doing anything practical to stop Bush's plans, because he is the one going on national television to blow the whistle on those plans, and he is placing responsibility on the Bush Administration to defuse a possible deadly confrontation by opening up talks with Iran rather than pursuing military action against Iran. I wish more Democrats would join Clark in sending that message.

[Sparkly]

96. Well, Tom...

I tried to fit all that on a bumpersticker, but no luck. :P

[Tom Rinaldo]

98. OK try this: "Heaven Forbid" , That's about as clear, no? lol n/t

[Sparkly]

100. Aha, you used the word "NO!"

So is your answer "NO?"
Or is your answer "YES?"

Yes or No, Tom -- YES or NO!!!

(What was the question, again?) ;)

[Don1]

106. huh?

don't rule out pre-emption as an option if circumstances are compelling enough to warrant it??? Talk about a tautological argument. Of course, if something is compelling enough, then it should be done. That is true by definition, silly!

As for your spiel on pre-emptive war, you don't know what on earth you are talking about. The pre-emptive doctrine is not supported by Americans, by Democrats, or by the UN.

National security? Your pro-war stance is actually starting to show now...

[Tom Rinaldo]

127. Earlier I used the example of the cruise missile attack

Clinton staged on Bin Ladin's training camps inside of Afghanistan. Do you think most Americans think that was a mistake to attempt? Clinton first tried to negotiate with the Taliban for them to turn over Bin Ladin by the way.

The only reason why I made a point of stressing the need to consider how compelling a need existed is because you were at the time trying to box me into a black and white Yes or No commitment on whether or not I would support an attack on Iran, and the real answer was, it depends. It depends on how compelling the argument in favor of it was. If the secret intelligence agencies of Jordan and Egypt and Great Briton and Russia and Israel and Syria and the United States all reached full agreement from multiple independent sources that Iran intended to supply back pack nukes to Al Quada terrorists for use against American cities, I would support a preemptive war against Iran's ability to do so. That is an extreme example of a compelling reason to do so, and I picked an obvious one just to make the point.

[Don1]

11. Done. n/t

[Sparkly]

15. "supporting us attacking Iran next"

He did NOT support attacking Iran!! He's consistently advocated engaged diplomacy in the whole region, and NEVER tried to "justify this horrific situation in Iraq." He did say that the threat of force has to be "on the table" -- but he said our intel is suspect, all options have to be exhausted including talking, he's long said BushCo's calling Iran part of the "axis of evil" made the situation worse, he's talked about the Iraq fiasco's potential to strengthen Iran, but he did NOT say, "Let's attack Iran next." Good grief.

[Don1]

20. If that's true, then why are so many people clicking the

"Liberal Hawk" option? And what is Casandra talking about? Can you address her directly?

Wait a second, wasn't he the NATO commander during the whole Yugoslavia thing? and didn't NATO employ Al Qaeda disruptors during that war?

In the meantime, before these questions are answered, I am going to change it to Liberal (?Hawk?) because I simply don't know how hawkish he is.

[Sparkly]

25. "Can you address her directly?"

I did, in the post you just responded to.

[Don1]

35. Wow.

I am getting a lot of flack from you guys.

All I did was give labels to people that the people give themselves.

With the dumb exception that I listened to Casandra.

It's gone. I remove it.

[Casandra]

41. What he said...

Regarding this justifying this horrific situation in Iraq, that was not addressed this morning. That has been addressed several times in many prior interviews. I know...I watch this guy like a fly on a honey stick. What WAS addressed was the Iran situation. I did NOT SAY he advocates that attack, I said he supports that option. If he didn't support that action, he would have totally dissed the whole idea right then and there. He reminds me of Hillary, using a pair of crutches to stand on the middle line and not fall off.. I don't like him!!!..and for those of you who do, you have as much right to do so as I do to feel different. I'll respect your opinions and can only hope you will respect mine.

[Sparkly]

82. Casandra...

"I know...I watch this guy like a fly on a honey stick."

Many of us here have done the same for years -- and he NEVER "justified this horrific situation in Iraq." Never.

"I did NOT SAY he advocates that attack, I said he supports that option."

You said this:
"Had to listen to him this morning, supporting us attacking Iran next."
He did not support us attacking Iran next.

As it's been said: You're welcome to your own opinion, but not to your own "facts."

[Totally Committed]

19. You've lost your mind, or your hearing, or both...

He said no such thing. Did you even watch the video?

TC

[Don1]

22. I don't watch Fox and never will.

[Totally Committed]

94. You don't have to...

Here's the link:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/3415

TC

[Don1]

107. I looked it up.

My take on Clark was that he is iffy. He seemed to be framing things for conservatives to understand and I did not like his constant use of the word "we" as if he did not really mean BushCo. These are two separate things. Now, if he was not really framing things for conservatives to understand and that is really what he believes, then there is a problem. Like for example his stance on the necessity of American troops being there for security reasons. What the heck is that? No. The freedom-loving Iraqis do not want us there and occupiers like BushCo have no right to be there. Get it?

[stray cat]

26. Clark said we needed to keep all options on the table

and start efforts to negotiate some control of their nuclear weapons program directly or through responsible intermeidate countries. If we try negotiations you have to have both a stick and carrots. Why let people know in advance whats in your hand when you play poker?

[Don1]

58. What's with the "you" and "we"?

We are not talking about us going in there or us being diplomats or us using force. You are talking about BushCo.

Here is what you meant:

"Clark said BushCo needed to keep all options on the table and start efforts to negotiate some control of their nuclear weapons program directly or through responsible intermeidate countries. If BushCo tries negotiations BushCo has to have both a stick and carrots. Why let people know in advance whats in BushCo's hand when BushCo plays poker?"

[Clark2008]

125. He did NOT advocate the US attacking Iraq.

You must not have listened.

He pointed out what BushCo. is going to do - he gave us a heads up.

Geesch.

[Totally Committed]

17. Wes Clark -- "Liberal Hawk"???

I really think that is nearly so inaccurate as to be untrue.

This is a man who believes everything should be exhausted before war.

This is a man who says no case was made for going into Iraq.

This is a man who has seen enough war to last him a lifetime, and would probably do everything in his power to avoid ever fighting again.

This man is a Liberal, for sure. He embraces the label proudly. And his stance on domestic and economic issues reflect that fact.

But, he is no hawk. I couldn't support him if he were.

TC

[Don1]

21. Sheesh. I changed it again back to what I had.

You should speak with Casandra. I frankly don't get it or why for that matter a whole bunch of Clark supporters were still voting for Liberal Hawk.

[Sparkly]

27. Because his name stands for more than your label. nt

[Don1]

36. His label not mine.

And the poll is not about people, but issues based on ideology.

Do you care about issues or figureheads?

[Sparkly]

38. He called himself a "hawk?"

You said: "I frankly don't get it or why for that matter a whole bunch of Clark supporters were still voting for Liberal Hawk."

Because "Wesley Clark" was in front of it -- that's why.

"Do you care about issues or figureheads?"

You made the poll -- if you want to poll on issues instead of people's names, write a poll about issues instead of people's names (= "figureheads"). :eyes:

[Don1]

40. Nope.

Liberal Hawk was in front. Clark was at the end.

[Sparkly]

42. WhatEVER!

The point is people will vote for him based on what they know about him, despite the label you had before, after, or anywhere else.

[Don1]

44. This isn't so much about Clark but instead the issues.

Please don't take it so personally.

[Sparkly]

73. Then make a poll about the issues.

"Please don't take it so personally."

I'm not -- it's not my name up there. :shrug:

[Casandra]

37. I get it!

I really do get it! I see why so many of you are clicking on Clark. Hope you'll take the time to research this guy a bit further.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. No, people were clicking on Clark because they HAVE researched him

So we knew that "Hawk" violated truth in advertising as a label on him. I voted for "Liberal" and I voted for "Clark". That combination is accurate and that is what I support. My post number #43 above explains my position more.

[Casandra]

50. No Liberal

I repeat, this man is no liberal! As for 'Hawk, ...I think he's a full fledged card carrying hawk! Such is my opinion...

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. Opinions can vary. I can respect that part

But it really was misleading to stick a unique Hawk rated warning tag alone in front of Clark's name. Edwards isn't listed in this poll, but he, unlike Clark, actively supported the invasion of Iraq, and no one would call him a "Liberal Hawk". Warner whose name is used in this poll, has not taken any dovish stands and he has expressed less interest than Clark has in exposing all the lies that got us into Iraq. Now Lieberman, granted, is a hawk, with or without the Liberal tag, but his name isn't up there. Him I could accept getting tagged that way, and maybe some others.

[Pithy Cherub]

57. You are entitled to your opinion uninformed or otherwise.

Clark is the first and ONLY 4 star General to go on the Daily Show and PROUDLY state he was a Liberal. Clark came out against invading Iraq in congressional testimony in 2002. Clark stuck up for Michael Moore's right to speak when others ran away. Clark had his pic on the front of the Advocate. Clark is and has demostrably proven he is a Liberal.

Clark is a Liberal whether you accept it or not. Clark also has solid liberal to moderate support. As a bona fide Liberal, I absolutely love him!

[jen4clark]

83. ^5

That ^ means right on. I agree with what you said. Thanks PC!

:loveya:

[Clark2008]

126. Have you looked at any of his domestic programs?

The position papers he put out in 2004?

If you think he's not a liberal, then I doubt that you did.

The man's a liberal.

Oh - and how, exactly, is using force as a last resort being a "hawk?"

And I HAVE researched him - for four years now.

[stray cat]

53. I agree with what I heard Clark say

so maybe we just disagree on the issue. I have to admit I'm not thrilled with Iran having nuclear weapons with their current president in charge. I think we should negotiate and I think we at least have to try for some leverage. The invasion of Iraq really puts us in a difficult situation. I want leaders like Clark who realize it really is a difficult situation and don't run at the mouth with simple platitudes that ignore reality.

[ChiciB1]

91. Liberal??? NOT!

[existentialist]

18. I don't like the labels either.

I'm not sure that Wesley Clark qualifies as a "liberal hawk". I'm not sure that Nadar qualifies as a leftist. therefore I did not vote on this poll.

But of the candidates listed, so far, tentatively, I would favor Wesley Clark--subject to change, and I also like Warner.

[Totally Committed]

28. The labels suck!

Conservative like Zell Miller -- Zell Miller is not a Conservative, he's a Right-Wing whack-job

Moderate like Mark Warner -- Mark Warner is not a Moderate, he's DLC... there is a difference.

Liberal Hawk like Wesley Clark -- Wes Clark is a Liberal, for sure, but no way a "hawk"

Progressive like Dennis Kucinich -- Dennis Kusinich is Progressive, and the only one you got right, imo. But, even a broken clock shows the right time twice a day.

Leftist like Ralph Nader -- Ralph Nader is no "Leftist". He's an egomaniac who has become the mirror-image, the other side of the same coin, that is Zell Miller.

TC

[Don1]

31. Clark

calls himself a liberal.

Warner calls himself a moderate.

Zell Miller calls himself a conservative.

Kucinich calls himself a progressive.

The labels are extremely fair.

[Totally Committed]

65. He doesn't call himself a "hawk"...

that's YOUR label, and it's untrue.

TC

[Don1]

67. I took it out because you guys had a point.

I even apologized for it. Right?

The other labels are fair. They are what the candidates call themselves. Right?

[endarkenment]

29. Wrong way to poll.

Just put the names up and let people vote on the names, not on your interpretation of where they fit in ideologically.

[Don1]

32. It's there own interpretations of where they lie!!

Clark calls himself a liberal. Dennis calls himself a progressive. Warner calls himself a moderate, etc, etc.

[endarkenment]

45. George Bush calls himself a moderate.

And I don't think Nader calls himself a leftist. But either put the names up without your interpretation or put the ideology up without the names. Joining names to ideology wrecks any validity in your poll.

[Don1]

48. It's not my interpretation.

It's the candidates'.

And George Bush is crazy, so what does it matter what he says?

[endarkenment]

61. So you have lots of responses indicating that the

way you are asking your question is flawed, and your answer is too bad. So basically lots of people are just going to not answer. Have a nice day.

[Don1]

63. Actually

I have ALOT of answers. 60 is big for this soon.

And if you do not like what the candidates call themselves then take it up with them. Not me.

I am not a punch pillow for disaffected campaigners.

[stray cat]

30. Feingold, Clark, Warner, Edwards.

All strike me as progressives who won't send moderates and independents running to embrace a republican candidate.

[McCamy Taylor]

46. These categories suck. No one votes for a label, except for "winner".

[dapper]

51. Anyone but a Yale bones man

Anyone but a Yale bones man

[Don1]

54. I agree,

The Yale bones men are a recruting tool for the CIA. It's a web of connections of powerful elite ruling class, a secretive cabal. No thanks. I want transparency in government and in elections and in the candidates.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[nickshepDEM]

55. This poll is ridiculous and misleading. Warner is a 'moderate' why?

Because he won in a red state and supports the second amendment? I suggest you take a long look at his record.

Sure he holds some moderate and conservative positions. Like his strong support for the second amendment, but overall he is a solid democrat. Very much within the mainstream of the party.

[Don1]

59. He is moderate and calls himself moderate.

I used people's labels for themselves. Agree or disagree?

[endarkenment]

60. when did 'moderate' become 'non-mainstream democrat'?

I agree the poll is ridiculous - are you supposed to resond to the name or the ideological label? What if you like the name but dislike the label or vice versa. The OP doesn't appear to be interested in fixing it.

[Don1]

62. If you don't like the labels talk to

Wesley Clark or Mark Warner or Dennis. They give themselves these labels.

[AntiCoup2K4]

70. When corporatist Republicans in the DLC hijacked the word "moderate".....

They also use the word "centrist" but reality is they are neither.

[IndianaGreen]

68. Clark is not a liberal and Nader is not a leftist!

The 2008 elections will be completely irrelevant if the Democrats fail to impeach Bush/Cheney for abuse of power in 06/07.

[Don1]

71. Here's the deal with labels

I tried to make the poll appeal to each faction on DU by labeling each candidate with labels that the candidates give themselves. I am not sure that Nader calls himself a leftist, but all the other candidates call themselves these labels.

I have always thought of Nader as a leftist, though. I am surprised that you do not, since we are ideologically similar. How would you classify Nader? I know he is not a Socialist, but he does advocate for peace, human rights, civil rights, and economic justice (to a lesser extent than a socialist but a greater extent than an average Democrat), right?

Also, how would you classify Clark? I called him liberal because that is what his supporters here call him and he calls himself. Some here in this thread disagree and call him an apologist for war (basically). What do you think of this? do you think he is left or right of liberal?

[IndianaGreen]

80. Nader is a compassionate corporatist

Nader is one of those that think that if we could make corporations to act more like responsible citizens, e.g., friendly to labour, the environment, etc., that capitalism could become humane.

Even a proponent of black capitalism, like W.E.B. Dubois, came to realize towards the end of his life that "capitalism . . . is doomed to self-destruction" as "no universal selfishness can bring social good to all."

[Don1]

84. Nader is probably a capitalist

for capitalism with socialist reform, but he is not a corporatist.

"The dreaded supremacy of corporatism over civil institutions, stomping both conservative and liberal values alike, has broken through any remaining barriers by the two major political parties.

Corporatism has turned federal and state departments and agencies into indentured servants for taxpayer-funded subsidies, budget-busting lucrative contracts, and dwindling law and order against the widely publicized corporate crime wave. This resistant crime wave has looted and drained trillions of dollars from millions of workers, their pensions, and from small investors.

...

We have a moral imperative to take a stand, help rescue our besieged democracy, and secure our country and its liberties. To restore the sovereignty explicit in the preamble to our Constitution — 'we the people,' not for sale, can decide to displace the corporate controls that try to make 'everything for sale.' "

-- Ralph Nader

[rman]

124. "if we could make corporations to act more like responsible citizens"

That's what regulations are for.

The problem isn't with capitalism or corporations per-se, the problem is with (lack of) proper regulations.

Point being, corporations -can- be made to act responsibly, as long as we don't allow them to (de)regulate themselves; as long as we don't allow selfishness to run free.

I think that as a matter of principal, this is common ground between even the most staunch leftists and traditional conservatives.

[AtomicKitten]

75. thanks for the poll.

It is interesting to actually calculate strategy. My gut says a moderate although I would prefer a liberal.

But I WANT a populist/progressive like AL GORE. No, I'd prefer just plain 'ol AL GORE. I think he's a candidate that can cross the ideological lines you've drawn (at least I understand that it's an outline although some are intent in picking it apart).

GORE/OBAMA for me, please.

[Don1]

88. You're welcome. n/t

[jackpan1260]

79. Can't vote. Their performance in the general election matters some.

If one candidate is really great but, in my analysis, would get slaughtered in the general election, and another candidate is really good and, in my analysis, would do well in the general election, I am going to go with "really good" regardless of wether they are moderate or progressive.

[Lefty48197]

81. Brain says Wes Clark, heart says Russ Feingold.

I'll be voting my heart in the primaries.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. Same here, but I'd be proud to have either of them as the nominee

My first choice is Feingold/Clark

My second choice is Clark/Feingold

[last_texas_dem]

85. I think it really depends more on the candidate than anything

I would support anyone from a moderate to a progressive Democrat (I'd include "leftist" but I really can't think of any true leftist Democratic politicians) if he or she could beat the Republican candidate. That's the bottom line for me, really, as any Democrat (except for perhaps a few crazies like Zell Miller) would be a marked improvement over Shrub's administration.

The bottom line for me is if the candidate can win over enough of the American people to defeat the Repug. I like Russ Feingold, who could probably be described as a progressive, and, based on my experience campaigning in Wisconsin in '04, believe he could win over plenty of independents and Republicans if he ran an effective national campaign. I also like John Edwards, who could probably be described as a moderate, and Al Gore, somewhere between a moderate and a liberal. With the right campaign, I think either of them would have a shot at defeating the Republican as well. Much will depend on the '08 climate who our best choice will be. Ideologically myself, I'm somewhere between a liberal and a progressive, but would support various stripes of Democrats to keep the right-wingers out of the White House, so may the best (or at least the one with the most appeal) Dem win.

[Nimrod2005]

86. The General of course, but realistically? Warner has the experience

[ChiciB1]

90. I'm For Edwards... But Have Been Looking Closely At Feingold

these days. So what kind of ideology would define that??

[AmericanDream]

99. Progressive...

They are both progressives... and have ideals they stick to. Edwards, however, has very broad appeal: he satisfies conservatives, liberals, and moderates alike and that is why he has a 73% favorable rating (highest of any democrat)... I don't know how he does that.

[ChiciB1]

130. I Think Edwards Has More Appeal Other Than His Good Looks...

However, that doesn't hinder him! If one were to look closely at him a few of his pluses include not only location, but his "family values" persona!

I said this many times before, even though I consider myself a Wellstone Liberal, I looked at a broader picture here. Not only has he continued to fervently work for justice for poverty stricken people, he has appeal to the middle class too! He didn't sit back and "do nothing" after the fiasco of 2004, he went out in the same fashion that Carter has to find ways to help the common man.

I realize many are upset with his vote al la Iraq, and this is no small issue, I sincerely believe he may well take a closer look at this type of vote in the future. Where as Hillary has been "courting" the conservatives to appear more "middle of the road," Edwards has yet to be to obvious. He still touts the "two Americas" position and I respect him for that.

Democrats NEED to attract more of the "red" state vote, and even IF there are those who say he didn't help Kerry last time out, I simply discount that theory. IMO, the election was a fraud once again, and the Swift Boaters were sent out to destroy Kerry's image. I went to an Edwards rally and was surprised at my reaction to him and the kinetic energy I saw!

[Demi_Babe]

92. How about well rounded and intelligent like John Kerry

he's got my vote...again!:)

[zann725]

110. Mine too! (While anticipating widespread JK-bashing).

But he's STILL the best man for he job. 'Steady-handed.' Eye-on-the-ball...kind of guy.

[PermanentRevolution]

95. Don't really matter, sadly...

By the time Florida's primary gets here, the candidate's already locked in. I think Kerry and Kucinich were the only ones still in the race last year. Maybe a few others. But Kerry had the nomination locked down. Makes these strategy questions kinda useless to me, since I don't get to participate in the primaries in any significant way.

I think we should restructure the primaries to eliminate the early front-runner effect. Say, every state starts the primary on the same day and keeps the polls open for the whole week, like Florida's early-voting method, and all states tally the results at the same time. That way, New Hampshire and Iowa aren't giving any one candidate an early lead to gain momentum with, or giving the media fodder to undercut its least-favorite candidate's campaign (*coughDEANcough*)

My 2 cents. I'm just tired of the primary being over before I get to vote in it.

[Clarkansas]

97. I like Warner and Clark. I don't care about labels.

[Cocoa]

101. presidential pigeonholing

[wisteria]

103. Well, Kerry is missing from this poll, so I register my vote for him

here. Kerry-just the right balance of liberal,tough and compassionate.

[zann725]

112. Agreed. And I second that nomination (as above).

All other things aside (JK bashing included), I still believe it's JK's destiny to be Prez...delayed far too long now.

[karynnj]

135. Me too - still for Kerry

love your description as well - he is liberal, tough and compassionate. Also a brilliant statesman with a love for American historical values, such as citizensip, and the Constitution.

[bemildred]

108. Goddammit! Nader is NOT a leftist. nt

[Don1]

111. I disagree.

State your case.

[Charlie Brown]

113. Wes Clark is a liberal?

that's kind of a stretch. I don't think I'd compare Clark to someone like Conyers or Kucinich. He (and Edwards, too) are more like populist reform candidates.

Nader is certainly not a "leftist." The only person he represents is Nader (unless you count his GOP donors).

[Don1]

115. Peronsally, I like your labels better.

But I used the labels that the candidates and their base uses to try to be objective and detach myself from the personal opinion.

[Jai4WKC08]

128. Just so you know...

Clark has also called himself as a populist. I only point that out since you seemed to be relying on how the potential candidates identify themselves (until you put the "hawk" crap in there, since Clark is NOT a hawk in any sense).

Point is, populist and liberal are not mutually exclusive terms.

[radio4progressives]

119. I think Russ Feingold is the Progressive that should be on this Poll,

If it were my poll.... ;)

[iconoclastNYC]

132. Yes. Definately.

Who should be our nominee:

1. Conservative Zell Miller
2. DLC Joe Liberman
3. Centrist Hillary Clinton
4. Liberal Barbara Steisand
5. Progressive Mark Warner


Wow....gotta go will Hill! BARF.

[Don1]

123. POLL ENDED

Please address this one instead:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2346106

[iconoclastNYC]

131. Who says Wes Clark is liberal?

Does he have a record in the Senate or as a governor? How are we supposed to know anything about how he'd govern based on his military service?

Is he a liberal just because he says so? How do we know this isn't a bait and switch. Who's pulling his strings? He'd be to the right of Bill Clinton on any trade or economic issue I bet you anything.

Clark is a DLC democrat, and he has no record in politics.

[Tom Rinaldo]

134. Clark has NEVER been DLC and there's no excuse for not knowing that

if you are going to put something in print get it right. If you want to state your views clearly as opinion that's different.

I know a lot about Clark and I strongly disagree with you, but let's leave both of us out of this for a moment. Clark is no more a DLC Democrat than Michael Moore or George McGovern, both of whom endorsed Clark last time.

[iconoclastNYC]

139. First of all this isn't print

secondly...i didn't say he was a member of the DLC i said he was a "DLC Democrat"....meaning he puts the corporate agenda first, and those endorsements don't mean anything to me.

If he wasn't a former general we wouldn't know his name. He hasn't worked in politics, he has no record of fighting for progressive issues, and we don't know where his loyalities lie.

The fact that the Clintons were rooting for him tells me all I need to know about him.

[CarolNYC]

142. Did you by any chance

read Jai's post below?

[Jai4WKC08]

136. And what makes you think...

Congressional votes are any guarantee of how liberal a politician is, considering how inconsistent most of 'em are? You show me a "liberal" Democrat in Congress from a solidly blue district or state and then prove that he or she is really liberal he or she claims to be -- I'd bet I could show you plenty of centrist or conservative votes on the record of any one you can point to.

Clark has lived a liberal life. He protected the environment when it didn't sit easy with his superiors. He defended the civil rights of women, minorities, and gays in the units he commanded. He worked with civilian employee unions to make sure wage-grade workers got a fair shake. He fought for education and health care for service members and their families. He hosted town-halls where the troops and their spouses were welcome to exercise free speech and question command programs and priorities. Ultimately, he put his career on the line to carry out the intent of a Democratic commander-in-chief, and stopped a genocide in the process, when his Republican boss and most of his fellow generals in the Pentagon were working against them both.

There's a helluva lot more to proving liberal credentials than whether you vote like one when it's easy and convenient.

[iconoclastNYC]

143. OK.

So vague assertions of doing liberal things in the military trumps putting your reelection in jeopardy in order to vote for liberal bills or against conservative bills. That seems reasonable. NOT.

You'll twist your argument like a pretzel to tell us we should vote for a Military man with no record in public office over known quanities like Feingold or Edwards.

[bobthedrummer]

137. Someone like Senator Russ Feingold eom

[Renew Deal]

140. Your labeling of these people is very manipulative.

But you already realized that.

[jackpan1260]

141. Don1's threads are usually about labeling and purging.

I don't think he likes the idea of a big tent for democrats.