The Cult of Clark

[Superman Returns]

Clark is one of my top candidates. I like him. I think he is one of our best options to take the executive office. Frankly, he is a true American patriot. However, a certain portion of DU is throwing his name into my face every second, and its turning me off to him. With so many issues to discuss, I'm tired of seeing 10 Clark threads in a row. I'm also tired of his name on every hypothetical ticket related thread: Clark/Obama, Clark/Clinton, Clark/Edwards, Clark/Kucinich. What is this, a cult? Calm down!

[madmunchie]

1. If you are so tired of Clark threads, why are you starting another one?

[madmunchie]

2. Obviously, MORE people want to see threads and MORE people want

to participate in Clark threads than those that don't. Seems rather obvious to me, doesn't it to you?????

If you don't like all of the Clark threads or mentions, 1st don't add to them and 2nd learn to ignore them.

[wiley]

14. Really, quite a brilliant post.

(anti-Kerry comment withheld)

Question: Is someone paying for Vilsack to run for President, starting in Iowa to diffuse the winner as nominee hysteria that will be created by the MSM?

Discuss.

[Superman Returns]

3. why?

I'm aware this thread is a sort of contradiction. But I'm attempting to bring light to the obsessive amount of Clark threads. I'll post one more Clark thread if it means the Cult gets the message.

[madmunchie]

69. I don't believe that there is an obsessiveness.

There are, simply put, a great deal of Clark fans on this board, and with good reason.

Imagine seeing Jesus and hearing Jesus, in person. You knew, just be seeing and hearing him, that this was something that doesn't happen often in a lifetime, so you become devoted to him because you believe and your passion is stirred.

Isn't that what we are looking for in a Presidential Candidate, someone that stirs passion and devotion?

Don't we have enough people in this Party divided about...oh about anything?

When you find a common passion, devotion and recognize a true gift, why WOULD you not want to talk about him?

Furthermore, why would you yearn for huge amount of the differences of opinions that always exist with Democrats? I personally think that it is wonderful, that there are so many people that can come together, united believing in Clark. That is a positive, not a negative. That is what we want, not what we fear!

One last thing, the Jesus mention was simply made to illustrate, how impossible it would be for some of us to turn away from him. I don't mean to say that Clark is Jesus, as good as Jesus... I simply am using Jesus to make a point. So please don't misinterpret what I have said.

[venable]

78. yes, this this board is very divided, moreso than the Party

and I would attribute the division of these boards to the very strong attacks on different candidates, rather than reasonable arguments.

(some are called, repeatedly: vile, lying, ambulance chasers, egotisitcal pretty boys, murderers, etc)

this is not very helpful, and reflects very poorly on the posters who use this language.

[lillilbigone]

4. That's the nature of cults... you get sucked in in spite of yourself...

[1932]

27. I was reading American Theocracy today.

At page 205, Kevin Phillips cites Fundamentalisms Observed (The Fundamentalism Project) (edited
by Martin E. Marty R. Scott Appleby; http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentalisms-Observed-Fundamentalism-Project-Martin/dp/0226508781).

Phillips quotes Marty and Appleby's common factor when "strong religions" (fundamentalist religions) appear around the world:

"Fundamentalisms arise in times of crisis, real or perceived. The sense of change may be keyed to oppressive and threatening social, economic, or political conditions."

That would be similar to a situation where everyone tells you that there is certain doom around the corner, that everything is dangerous, and you must sacrifice a lot of important social concerns just so that you can live. In the next paragraph, Phillips writes:

Bruce Lawrence emphasized five sypmtoms of fundamentalism. Among them were a predireliction to impose God's will--the one true faith--on other peoples, an intolerance of dissent, and a central reliance on the inerrant scripture for ideology and authority.

An internet discussion board parallel might be, oh, say, people try to get you tombstoned if you don't follow the one true faith. Or, say, you see ambiguity in the texts you cite to make your arguments, yet others shout at you that the text is unambiguous and say you're all sorts of evil for not seeing it their way.

Phillips's next paragraph cites Charles Kimball's book, When Religion Becomes Evil (http://www.amazon.com/When-Religion-Becomes-Evil-Warning/dp/product-description/0060556102)

Kimball says the five warning signs that we can recognize when religion moves toward evil are:

(1) Whenever a religion emphasizes that it holds the absolute truth-the one path to God or the only correct way of reading a sacred text-to the exclusion of the truth claims of all other religions and cultures, that religion is becoming evil;
(2) blind obedience to religious leaders;
(3) apocalyptic belief that the end time will occur through a particular religion;
(4) the use of malevolent ends to achieve religious goals; and
(5) and the declaration of holy war.

That was an interesting tutorial on cults. And timely.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Oooh, you were able to squeeze yourself in......

With a book you read.....how cool is that? :headbang:

[1932]

52. Setting aside the ad hominem nature of that post for a moment, a question:

Kevin Phillips writes great books about American political and economic history. Have you read any of them?

[jonnyblitz]

5. great post!! stand by to get your eyes ripped out, though.

Clark supporters are rather "intense". :scared:

[FrenchieCat]

20. Oh come on....show us a little bit of some Clark Cult Love.....

will ya?

I'll make the first move!

[Jai4WKC08]

6. Not all Clark threads are by Clarkies

The Clark/Obama etc threads were part of a series that also included Clark/Edwards, Edwards/Obama, Gore/and several folks. They weren't started by Clark supporters.

Several of the other Clark threads that are have been kind of hot right now have been started by anti-Clark people. Fact is, some of the pro-Clark threads are an obvious counterpoint to the anti-Clark threads.

[LittleClarkie]

7. Gee, are you sure it's not Kerry?

We Kerrybots better get on the ball if all you're seeing is Clark.

They got that tactic from us, you know.

Copycats.

[janx]

9. ...

:rofl:

Comic relief is such a good thing. Great post!

[MH1]

11. ...

:rofl:

Seriously though, I like seeing both Kerry and Clark threads.

What I don't like is when gangs attack a thread with off-topic sniping about the candidate. It's one thing to criticize the stuff discussed in the o.p., but totally something else to bring all the other complaints about the candidate in and derail the discussion of current issues.

[mike_c]

8. agreed, 100 percent....

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. GEEZUS! If you don't like it...hit the hide button!

Better yet, maybe the lounge is where you should be?

[janx]

21. A new pic of Isabelle!

I like it. Her face is much more visible in this one.

[FrenchieCat]

32. I used to have a Weimariner when I was little living in Paris!

His name was Kibus (french dog name). About a year after we had gotten him, and 1 tickets later for him peeing on a Gendarme's shoe, my mom announced that we were moving to an apartment that didn't allow dogs. My brother and I were hearthbroken, but it was (and still is) so hard to find apartments in Paris, till my mom felt she had no choice. My mom sold Kibus to a nice country guy who lived in a banlieu (suburb)in the country maybe 35 miles from where we lived.

So a couple days before we moved, my brother and I are coming home from school...and who is on our doorstep, all scratched, torn, scraggly and dirty?....none other than our Kibus. We hugged and kissed him and when my mom got home we tried to make our case that Kibus had to come, because he loved us so much that he might die if he was sent back. As young kids, it was all very dramatic and tragic. There we were just a cryin' and Pleadin'! : But mom had a heart of steel (I guess), and no....Kibus had to be sent back to our chagrin. :cry: Well we visited him a few times. He seemed to adjust. It was a hunting farm, and my mom insisted that he was happier there...and so, Kibus lived out his life on the farm chasing chickens and such.

Beautiful dogs, and so loving.... the Weimariner

Ps. Hadn't thought about that in quite sometime! :cry:

[janx]

38. Aw, Frenchie...

Your mom was probably right, but I'm sure you know that. The weims are very loving dogs, no doubt, but they have to be able to run. in addition to the activity of chasing things, he probably got scratched up trying to run home to you!

My daughter and I adopted a pup from the Humane Society recently, and the weim really likes her. She's a husky/retriever cross--very cute and smart. Someday I might get another weim pup.

YOU SHOULD TOO!

Was Kibus ever allowed on the bed? Huck is a terrible bed hog.

Eisenhower had a weim--Heidi. If you are ever in an appropriate situation to do so, you should really look into getting another weim.

This is what Huck looks like now (sorry for the size of the pic):


DO IT, Frenchie!

[FrenchieCat]

40. How beautiful is that dog? I mean just lookit!

Unfortunately, my hubby isn't big on dogs. He explained to me that because he grew up extra poor in the projects.....to a single mother who was raising 6 kids by herself....they never had a dog.....cause there wouldn't have been enough food. I think he may be exaggerating....but I couldn't have a dog living in a house with someone who didn't truly love dogs. and so.....I'll just admire yours.

[janx]

44. That's sweet of you, Frenchie.

I hope one day he changes his mind. ;-)

[in_cog_ni_to]

60. Thank you! She was very bored while I was taking her picture *yawn* and

this pic always makes me laugh.

I saw your big pic of Huck down thread...he's a beautiful dog and looks so SWEET! That face and those eyes just melt my heart.:loveya:

[Tinksrival]

12. It's a free country!

Anybody can join the Clark Cult :silly:

[Bucky]

18. Great picture!! How did I ever miss Clark's three way lesbian kiss rally?

Clearly photoshopped. The real Clark would have had Andre 3000 in on that action, too.

[Schema Thing]

13. You will come to love great leader Clark. Your ego is resisting

just let go of ego, and recognize that great leader adds to you, not take away.

Read position papers and biography, and open heart.

Peace love and Clark, out.













}(

[Cameron27]

61. Aww nuts,

I guess I'd better rethink the whole tatoo thing:+

[eleny]

15. Telling people to calm down around here is a mistake

We're Democrats, after all.

[wiley]

16. Superman Returns? Buy the DVD?

Really.

[Tinksrival]

22. I heard the new Superman stars Wes Clark!

How can you resist??

[Pithy Cherub]

23. YUMMY!

Now if you could just follow it up with the hunky speedo one sigh! HOT! HOT! HOT!
I'm Pithy Cherub and I approve of this picture! :woohoo:

[FrenchieCat]

25. Keep it up......

we have a reputation to maintain!

[janx]

26. Please don't do that...

I know the Clarkies like it, but...it's just not for everyone, OK?

[FrenchieCat]

35. But....but...but.....

I thought this was nothing more than just another Clarkie thread.

I mean, the pic is appropos considering OP author's name.....

Now the "getting out of the swimming pool" may not be needed here. On that, I will agree. :)

[janx]

39. I don't know that I'm familiar with "getting out of the swimming

pool" ?

It's probably just as well. General Clark will do fine on his merits as a leader, right? Please?

:rofl:

[Leilani]

45. Frenchie, What was funnier, the Speedo pics

or the Haitian man-boobs? (Or was it tits?)

I used to laugh so hard on those threads, I'd be crying.

[FrenchieCat]

47. You know that I have proof on that-- Clark was never ever involved

in the Haitian man-boob thingie...dontcha? Which is why his look perfectly normal in those speedos (or is it speedo-singular?) !.....snarf!

YEP!

PM me, and I provide you with the info/links/everything. Hint, it's a couple of official sources published from Haitian officials who would have known and says the timeline doesn't fit and they were there at the time and Clark wasn't anywhere remotely in that part of the world. They said the first time they ever knew anything of him was when he was working the strategic diplomatic Haitian angle under Clinton.

So yes, the man-tits hold a certain amount of nostalgia for me! LOL!

[davidinalameda]

108. amen to that!

he's the hottest candidate out there right now

[Pithy Cherub]

17. We are Clorg!

You will be assimilated willingly or unwillingly... :P
Your strategy is magnificent though start by a complaint so Clarkies have another opportunity to speak to his many attributes of which for brevity's sake and your transition to Clarkiedom, I'll save for the next Clark thread! :rofl:

On the Serious tip though, DU has this hide thread thingy...

[FrenchieCat]

19. And last week it was the "Obama" cult and a month or so ago before

it was the Gore Cult, which I'm sure shall be back.

Warner was "hot" and getting some Cult love too while he was making some noise.

Edwards and Kerry have also had their very large cult share.

So It appears that It's Clark fucking turn....

Someone should have warned you! :banghead:

Visalk and Biden and Clinton thus far have a cult of one.....but that could change! :eyes:

Even Lieberman had his day, although that cult was out for blood! His!

MY OH MY.....All these political cults all in one political place.

So Weird, hey? :crazy:

[Phredicles]

24. "Even Lieberman had his day, although that cult was out for blood! His!"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Best line of the day!

[mhatrw]

28. Clark, Clark, Clark, Clark! Clark, Clark, Clark, Clark! Wonderful Clark!

Glorious Clark!

[LittleClarkie]

30. But I don't LIKE Clark!!

Wonderful Clark, Glorious Clark...

[Bucky]

29. Thank you for this. Yes, some of my fellow Clark supporters are acting goofy.

You don't quit listening to Beatles music because some of their fans screamed like hysterical idiots and never even heard the music. You don't quit going to Star Trek movies just because some of the fanboys are socially maladjusted misfits who spent their free time writing slash fiction in the Klingon language.

As immediate and surprising as the netroots are, the reality to any presidential campaign is never accurately represented by posters on an online forum. The relative (and I'll try to be kind here) retardation of people speculating on Vice Presidential nominees 20 months before the nominating convention is goofy and irrelevent, but hardly reflective of the caliber of leadership Clark (or any other candidate) would offer.

There's no point in letting it shape your impression of him. It's not a real cult. It's just a bunch of political fankids.

Here on DU Clark's fanbase is turning out to be the 2008 version of Howard Dean--loud, silly, and a bit of a herd. I remember being very turned off to Dr. Dean four years ago principally because of the high silliness and political naiveté exhibited by his supporters here. Once I focused on Dean himself, I came to see he wasn't the lord of the dings, as I'd feared from visiting this forum.

I'd suggest mostly paying attention to the long-term Clarkies here: Tom Rinaldo, LittleClarkie, FrenchieCat, Husband3Sparkly and a few others who post substantive points about their candidate and NEVER suggest who their DreamVeep is. Hopefully your OP will encourage some of the more boisterous of the general's DU supporters to quit acting like door-to-door Mormon missionaries.

[1932]

31. LittleClarkie?

[Bucky]

33. It's late and I can't remember everybody's fucking screen name sometimes

My larger point stands.

[LittleClarkie]

42. It's cool. Kinda confusing having a Kerrycrat named LittleClarkie, I'm sure

Bound to be mistaken for a Clarkie on occasion.

[Bucky]

48. I think I was thinking of Clarkie1. I often confuse John Edwards with John Edward, too.

In the future we will all have numbers instead of names and such things will no longer confuse me.

[1932]

50. Is the cult of personality orientation so strong with you that they only way you

can make sense of anyone else's political attitudes is by imputing the same cult of personality on them?

And, my gosh, fertile ground there for ad hominem attack -- screen names. We are really going to move this discussion forward now.

[1932]

51. Is the cult of personality orientation so strong with you that they only way you

can make sense of anyone else's political opinions is by imputing the same cult of personality on them?

And, my gosh, fertile ground there for ad hominem attack -- screen names. We are really going to move this discussion forward now!

[FrenchieCat]

34. OK...Not LittleClarkie.......

LittleClarkie is a KerryBot....right LittleClarkie?

She only "dated" Clark for a brief while but ended up marrying Kerry.

[LittleClarkie]

41. I love Kerry. He is much better than Cats. I want to see him again and again.

Kerry Krishna, actually.

Yeah, I had a cheap fling with Clark, but settled down with Kerry. It was an arranged marriage (ABB), but we've grown to love one another.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Cheap?

such a little tart! ;-)

[FrenchieCat]

37. Actually most of the CLark supporters that I see on DU are very

Nice and well informed and quite articulate...and even brave to identify themselves as Clarkies, considering the flack that one gets just for supporting Wes Clark, like getting accused of belonging to a Cult, freeping polls, being a uniform worshippers or Star struck and such.

Personally, they are my faves at this here forum. Maybe I'm biased...although it doesn't mean I don't enjoy others posters who are quite personable, well reasoned, informed, articulate and factual...cause I do.....but I have yet to meet a Clarkie here at DU who's sole reason etre was simply to be mean, nasty and arrogant.

Certainly sometimes shit happens, and when I see that behavior (and yes, I can go there too if pushed very well thank you) it's usually in response to having been stereotyped simply for supporting Clark or having the temarity to respond in kind when folks drop in with their Clark one line bombs, cut and paste anti-Clark site googleligook or when they make it a habit of parsing Clark's words into a lie.

:hi:

[PurityOfEssence]

91. Mama Mama, pin a rose on me

Yes, the moral superiority of you and your friends release you from all the moral constraints that mere mortals have to obey. Slash on; you're deserving of being above the comportment of the rest of us unenlightened peons and in fact you owe it to the human race to attack and deride at will.

Privilege; it's the best, isn't it?

Facts? Feh!

[janx]

46. (Cough) n/t

[jonnyblitz]

54. HA, the old timers you mention were the first ones that popped

in my head when I first read the OP. They are the MEANEST or most hateful with the personal attacks if you question their hero. I don't even notice these new ones you talk about. :shrug:

[Jai4WKC08]

63. Yeah, that Tom Rinaldo is a real meanie

:rofl:

Actually, two of the "old timers" he mentioned aren't even Clarkies. Sparkly is a Clarkie. Husb2Sparkly isn't. Ummm... he's not much of a meanie either.

But Frenchie? Yeah, she can be mean. It's one of the things about her I treasure most. :)

So given that some of us are assholes, before we start judging Clarkies by name, can we review something? Have you, jonny, ever been mean to Clark? Moreover, can you point to a single instance when a Clarkie was "mean" that the target of the meanness wasn't mean to Clark first?

Something occurred to me last nite when I first saw this thread. It has occurred to me before. We Clarkies tend to take insults and false accusations against Clark more personally than many (not all, but many) of the supporters of other candidates. There's a reason for that.

Wes Clark is our friend. Not just a politician, not a celebrity, and certainly not a cult idol. A friend. We know him. He blogs with us. He and his wife spend time with us. He introduces us as his friends to other politicians. He stands up for us to other politicians.

His son blogs here.

When someone becomes a celebrity, in or out of politics, most people tend to forget that they remain real people. Maybe it's that when they see celebs on TV, at some psychological level the celebs are no more real to them than anything else they see on tv. Intellectually they can distinguish between truth and fiction, of course, but at a gut level it's all just smoke and mirrors inside the magic box.

Well, whatever the head-game behind it, it's just a fact that a lot of people feel they can say anything they like about these famouse people, no matter how ugly, and too frequently no matter how untrue, and think there's nothing wrong with doing so, and no one should take offense. And for most celebs, maybe it's no big deal because they don't interact with "real people" and mostly live their lives completely isolated from what we might say or think about them.

But that's just not true for most of the Democratic leaders we write about here at DU. And most of us sense it. That's why when Clark (or Kerry or Edwards or whoever) blogs at dKos, for example, no one says any of the mean things until well after they're sure they're gone. Usually they don't even ask 'em particularly tough questions. It's not being star struck. It's just being reminded that they're real people and the conventions of common courtesy kick in.

Mind you, I would never suggest there's anything wrong with asking hard questions, and I think most Clarkies, even us "mean" ones, will almost always give as fair an answer as we can (at least unless or until we sense that the hard question is not an honest one). Nor do I see anything wrong a vigorous discussion of any political figure's strengths and weaknesses, even when it gets personal, so long as the personal pertains to political (which it almost always does).

But I do think it might behoove some to step back and remember who we're talking about, and who will be reading what we write, before they start to just sling mud. Assuming they don't want people to be mean, that is.

[PurityOfEssence]

72. A true evocation of superiority

Your caring and belief is greater and deeper than others'.

As for your contention of "meanness" always being defensive from the extremists within the Clark camp, there are MANY examples of Clark-based aggression. Clark supporters regularly crash into pro-Edwards threads to slag him. Once again, the Clark extremists are rarely attacked; they're the attackers on other threads. To play the victim is nauseating; the truth of this seems to be that the acolytes of the hero are to be always in the right, and if they encounter praise of another that annoys them, they have the god-given right to attack, and if countered, they are suddenly being victimized. If one knows the religious truth, any impediment is an attack, even if one is in the aggressive act of proselytizing. (You're the one who raised the religious devotion metaphor, and it's a damned good one for the Clark extremists: it's religion, beyond the need of proof and exalted above any pedestrian desires for tolerance or coexistence.)

This is precisely the problem: privilege. Somehow those who've found their messiah are loosed from any restraints that the rest of us peons must obey.

Do you really think that other candidates don't have family members posting here? Elizabeth Edwards has posted under her own name.

It's disgusting to claim moral superiority and privilege when done so ignorantly. Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're so self-blessed with the bright light of salvation that anyone else doesn't have a right to exist. This is conservatism: selfishness and intolerance. This is why the extremists of the Clark camp grate so: a haughty demand to be treated as the aristocracy of the soul.

Other people care, too. Other candidates care, too.

Join the party and be a part of pluralism; manners are the stuff of decency.

You're not just hearing this from the Clark supporters' bete-noirs (the Edwards supporters) you're hearing this from EVERYONE. Non-aligned, partisans and those who support more than one candidates ALL have been getting the faces of the Clark extremists. There's a reason for this: the tactics are out of line.

Your love is greater than that of the rest of us. This means that YOU are a more valuable human being than the rest of us. That's privilege, aristocracy, conservatism and the dismissal of others.

The undercurrent of the devotion of the extremists in the Clark camp is deeply disturbing. It smacks of conservatism and intolerance.

[Catchawave]

135. Thank you, Clark does deserve better

representation from his supporters.

[Auntie Bush]

59. Knock, Knock! Hurry, someone is at your door! Better get out

of here and answer it. And you don't even have to bother to return to this cultist/fun/silly thread.

[JNelson6563]

49. It's not all that bad

If you have problems with what you see these days I advise you to steer clear of this place during the primaries.

IMO many of the Clarkies are really pretty swell. Very few total bots lacking reading comprehension etc. that go into attack mode at the drop of a hat and those won't last through primaries so no matter.

It is my hope that all the cult-like posts, for ALL the potential candidates, will be limited to GD Politics. No need to clutter up the whole DU with that stuff with so much other stuff to be discussed.

We're all on the same side here. Let us ignore each other's quirks and strive to reach our common goal.

:toast: Here's to the Clarkies, the Kerryites, the Gore-fans, Edwards-lovers, and whatever/whoever else we got goin' on here!

Julie

[Clark2008]

53. Well, we do need them all, or this wouldn't be Democratic

Underground!

:hi:

[JNelson6563]

55. I seem to recall

pretty much everybody getting on-board when the primaries are over. In the end that's what really counts.

:toast:

[capi888]

57. Nicely said Jnelson

Thank You very much for stateing your wonderful comment. We Dems, demonstrate our rights of freedom of speech, individual thinking, and no one can smother our voices. We don't follow a memo. We are a party of individual knowledge, for candidates, to share with others. So when the final candidate is chosen, we are well informed, to stand behind the 2008 Democratic candidate.
Kudos!!!

[WildEyedLiberal]

73. Nice comment

I have no beef with any group of candidate supporters, and I can find something nice to say about every candidate besides my own. The nastiest people on DU aren't really candidate partisans, anyway - sure, they claim to support this or that candidate, but they never actually *say* anything positive about their favorite, but rather spend all their time writing hateful and vicious things about other candidates/candidate supporters.

I think every faction on DU has people who go overboard - but as long as they're not going *out of their way* to be nasty to people who like other candidates, I cut them slack, because I understand the passion that goes into defending someone who touches and inspires you personally. I'm not going to begrudge a Clarkie for defending Clark as passionately or voiceferously as I defend Kerry - and, as JaiWKC2004 (I probably fucked up their screenname, sorry) said upthread, very rarely do I see candidate supporters get nasty until someone says something really uncalled for and nasty about their candidate. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who go around DU and say "Clark sucks and is a secret Republican" or "Kerry sucks and loves the war" and then get attacked by supporters of that candidate.

As a Clarkie said upthread, yes, they may be political figures, but they are PEOPLE. I've met Kerry, and I know what kind of a man he is because I have seen it firsthand. So I probably have less patience than most for some of the more ignorant flamebait posted about him here at DU. I am sure the Clarkies and Edwards and Dean fans who have personal experience with their guy can relate.

Anyway, nice post Julie, I do think every group of people committed to a good Democrat in 2008 has something valuable to add to DU.

[Eurobabe]

56. Hey, you are RIGHT. Maybe because I have all the other candidate threads hidden

[dionysus]

58. People can post as many Clark threads as they want.

As long as no one is no one is bashing you for not being as enthusiastic as they are, I don't see a problem.

It's when people get overzealous and go after you is when it crosses the line.

[xkenx]

62. Just exercising freedom of speech at DU

[PurityOfEssence]

64. Yesterday, of the 80 threads on page one here, 10 of them were about Clark

Considering all of the subjects out there in politics for a general discussion, this is nuts.

Your point is well taken. Many of us get bent out of shape by the sheer volume of the approach. The guy's got a lot going for him and many of his supporters are perfectly polite and unassuming, but the volume of the posts and the vehemence is very off-putting. Also, the antipathy of the extremists of this group for virtually any pro-Edwards post is just galling; there is no other equivalent infighting than this dynamic: a core group of Clark supporters consistently attack threads about Edwards, while the Edwards supporters are pretty consistent about leaving the "ain't Clark great?" threads alone. The squabbling is almost always on a pro-Edwards thread.

It would be nice for this to simmer down.

[FrenchieCat]

68. Ok, but not really

As there are enough Edward Fans that do comment on Clark threads with enough snark to earn snark back. And that I personally do not believe that Edwards supporters are any better behaved than are Clark supporters, but just the fact that there are more Clark supporters on this forum and so the odds are greater that you will find what you are talking about.....however, You may not think so, but as much as you believe that even daring to mention Edwards' co- sponsorship of the IWR vote bby a Clark supporter as an attack, it really isn't. It is a fact, and there lies the difference!

In otherwords, y'all ain't no angels now....

[PurityOfEssence]

71. Pure crap

Pro-Clark threads aren't habitually invaded by Edwards supporters. Pro-Edwards are virtually always attacked by extremists from the Clark camp.

The extreme lies and distortions about Clark's ever-changing positions are met with vigorous denial. There is a hypocritical sense of privilege among the more combative of Clark's supporters that seems to grant themselves a freedom from decent social comportment.

Clark played the field on the issue of the IWR; there's so much evidence of this that it's disgusting. For him or his supporters to claim that he was always against the ugly war against a sovereign nation is nothing short of deliberate deception. It fits with the other deceptions: vouchers, lies about votes on the Bush tax cuts and denial of support for the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

The Iraq War Resolution was premised on vigorous verification and diplomacy before military action was to ensue. Democrats fought many rear-guard actions, the greatest of which was to limit the authorization to action against Iraq; people don't seem to remember this. Bush laughed at this; for him it was merely permission.

To characterize voting for the IWR as bloodthirsty endorsement of immediate war is as deceptive as the use of selective statements from someone who wasn't held to account. How would he have voted? We'll probably never know. He HAS stated that he'd have voted for the resolution, but who knows?

Clark has waffled, parsed, played the field and denied his actions. He's also lied about his opponents with no apology and distorted records when called to account. That's a sign of moral deficiency. The acceptance of equality is the basis of democracy; he seems to be a bit above this concept and the more extreme of his supporters just scoff at the concept: they're superior and the rest of the world can just be damned.

Dislike him as you do, Edwards has stood by his actions and admitted his mistakes. That this isn't obvious is an issue for the person reviewing the evidence. Clark has NEVER acknowledged his premeditated lies about Kerry and Edwards and has never retracted his distortions about voting records. This shows not just lack of character but bad character. Still, the guy seems to have his heart in the right place now that he's a civilian. It's tough. I'd probably like him a lot more even with the ugly lies if his most strident supporters weren't so irritating. Coupling the scorched-earth approach of his extreme supporters with his tactical immorality takes him down too many pegs to see him as "good". His most vigorous supporters on this board are not helping him.

Once again, "a critic is a eunuch in a whorehouse".

[venable]

80. I agree with POE

Though I would add that some of the Clark supporters (one in particular - Tom R) is trying to make the arguments with less heat, and is therefore not diminishing his candidate.

I can say, honestly, that I am less inclined to become enthusiastic about Clark, on a purely gut level, due to the tone of his supporters attacks. This is not fair to Clark, as he is not the one brandishing the clumsy sword, but the association is not doing him any good, in my humble opinion.

In addition to the very harsh language and judgement of other candidates, the Clark supporter's failure to admit that Clark may have, just maybe have, waffled, ever so slightly, on the war, or in any way ever said anything in support of a Republican, is very disconcerting, because it is a flat denial of evident, documented reality. I think that's where the OP comes up with the notion of a cult. It's not just that a collection of Clark supporters assemble here in greater numbers than is reflected in the country or the Party. That's fine. It's a free internet. It's that they demand fealty to their man, unwavering and absolute, and the price of insubordination is pretty rough.

Even if one tries to be accomodating, some Clark supporters insult that gesture as trickery and snarky.

If you disagree with their reading of source texts, you are called intellectually dishonest. I think that phrase is a reflection of something other than dishonesty on the part of the accused. When used repeatedly by one writer about a number of other posters, it says something, I don't know what, about the speaker.

I would guess that Clark would not endorse the language and vitriol used by a few of the supporters here. I would hope that, as an Edwards supporter, I would not write in a way of which he would disapprove, though I am not confident I have always succeeded in this.

I go out into the world, and discuss politics and candidates with activists and progressives and campaign workers from many camps, and Clark is almost never mentioned. I come here, and little else is mentioned.

[last_texas_dem]

101. I agree with you

The only real negative association I have with Wes Clark is the nastiness of a few of his more vehement supporters on DU. It would be silly for me to hold this against Clark in considering him as a candidate if he decides to run in 2008, but a few of these more extreme Clark supporters might want to consider that their "enthusiasm" just might be hurting their cause more than helping it.

[1932]

102. That's a great way to put this issue.

[Clark2008]

92. This statement is the biggest bunch of dung I've ever read:

Clark has waffled, parsed, played the field and denied his actions. He's also lied about his opponents with no apology and distorted records when called to account. That's a sign of moral deficiency. The acceptance of equality is the basis of democracy; he seems to be a bit above this concept and the more extreme of his supporters just scoff at the concept: they're superior and the rest of the world can just be damned.

No wonder you're an Edwards fan, you don't understand how to read hardcore foreign policy in a dynamic fashion.

THIS is why I'm NOT an Edwards fan: he's simply to simple for me in the arenas in which we need nuance, complexity and UNDERSTANDING.

[1932]

103. And yours is exactly the kind of post 80 and 101 are talking about.

[Clark2008]

110. I'm sorry, 1932, but PoE started slinging around the crap

well before I ever entered the thread.

You want to see bitter? You want to see abusive? Re-read that bile-spewing sludge posted above. It's hateful. It's full of jealous venom and it's not worth my time.

I did nothing but respond to something tasteless. I've corrected that and placed the author on Ignore as so I shant have to listen to it again.

I don't agree with your choice of candidate, but you weren't so disgusting as the original post.

[PurityOfEssence]

105. Sheer bilgewater

You claim to dismiss contentions without offering any specifics. Beyond that you can't even use the language properly: if you want an adjective that's "excessive" use "too".

If you're going to arrogantly dismiss others as unsophisticated, get your act together.

As for the understanding of the current world situation, there is NO evidence that Clark gets this any better than Edwards. They're both very smart guys and Edwards was on the foreign intelligence commitee when in the Senate.

Of the many good traits Clark has exhibited, subtlety, nuance and diplomacy aren't evident.

"Hardcore foreign policy in a dynamic fashion" is simply flak thrown up by a partisan. Why did he so praise the Bush Administration's foreign policy in '01? They'd already shown themselves as unilateral conquering puritans by that point. It seems like he was sucking up for favor from the right, after studiously keeping himself unaligned for years. Once that failed, he became a sudden convert to the left.

The very idea that Clark understands the international situation better than Edwards does is nothing short of stupid. Yes, the word is "stupid", meaning lack of ability to understand something. These are both very smart individuals who care about the world. While Clark spent his life in the military, and thus not so aware or involved in international relations, Edwards spent his in the law, similarly removed. As they both saw their calling, they became quite involved and aware.

Your basic inference is that Clark is more engaged in international relations and that he's smarter. The latter point is an open question, since they're both shockingly bright, but the former is ridiculous: Edwards is intimately and vigorously engaged in international relations. If you've seen him recently you'd know that his focus is more on the international situation than the domestic one. (His previous campaign was more focused on domestic issues.)

More than anything else in dispute of your contentions, Edwards has the diplomatic touch, which is something Clark lacks. Clark simply hasn't the intrapersonal skills needed for a leader in a non-military situation that demands consensus.

Do you really think Clark is smarter than Edwards? Beyond that, do you think that his arrogance and prickly character combine with his other gifts to make him a better spokesperson for the country and the world? Enough of all that; what about the moral character of a man who has no problem lying about his opponents for momentary gain and when caught not only won't admit it but fires back with gross distortions? Please explain this ethical convenience. I don't want someone who won't stand by his actions being in control of the greatest power on earth. Edwards has been called to account on many pivotal votes like the tax cuts, the IWR and the Patriot Act. He's admitted his mistakes, stood by his rationales and been very consistent. Clark is a cipher and has deceived and played the field as convenience presented itself. If reality is your benchmark, he's simply not to be trusted.

What he understands is one thing, but he doesn't understand the international situation any better than Edwards. His ability to deal with it is the issue: he doesn't have the chops and Edwards does.

[Clark2008]

109. Ooohhhh - I'm scared. An Edwards supporter is correcting

my spelling on a BLOG.

:eyes:

I have better things to do than deal with your subjective bile.

P.S. Don't bother responding. I've put you on ignore. I don't need to read such venom directed at both the candidate I like and at his supporters. It's tasteless.

[PurityOfEssence]

115. Superiority must make you very comfy

Hypocrisy is the stuff of those angling for privilege.

[NCarolinawoman]

104. I find your post reprehensible n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

116. Bummer

n/t

[Eurobabe]

74. Same SHIT, different PRIMARY

I feel like it is Ground Hog Day, all over again.

[Writer]

65. Right. Because those supporting Dean weren't a "cult" at all...

and don't get hyperdefensive anytime he's criticized. Never! :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

66. True that! Plus, Clark supporters here didn't get all pouty, leave, and start their own forums...

...

[NoPasaran]

76. Some of us are still here, you know

[JNelson6563]

88. Oh? You must not have been invited

to the Clarkie forums, the secret one OR the open to the rabble ones, eh? Not surprised. Probably met the Heather quota early on.

Julie

[madfloridian]

106. That's right.

They're still around. Hi, Julie.
:hi:

[PurityOfEssence]

75. Not being much worse than nightmares isn't that great a virtue

I vividly remember the night back in the fall of '03 when the first wave of Clark extremists stormed the board like the Vandals taking Rome. The Dean supporters were spluttering and shocked with the vehemence, and many of the rest of us found it quite amusing. The Clark supporters trampled the Deanies, with people like "Kahuna" and others snorting derision at anyone who didn't love Clark. Thus, from the very beginning, the most vocal Clark supporters were outrageous.

Many of us who weren't Dean fans were extremely irritated by the sanctimoniousness of the extremists within the Dean camp, and we were constantly hammered by their moral superiority. Tiresome and abusive though this was, it paled in comparison to the first assault from the extremist Clark supporters, and although the tenor of superiority has ebbed a bit, it's still there.

Saying that blistering screaming and bandwidth crowding isn't so bad if there's another similar example is a pathetic argument. It's like conservatives who belittle anti-war voices by saying that it's nowhere as bad as World War 2 (humanity's worst calamity) or Bob Novak dismissing current economic hardship as being less than when he was a kid (the Great Depression, America's greatest financial disaster).

Yes, at their height the Deanies were almost as bad as Clark extremists at their worst. This means nothing; both groups at their worst have been selfish, derisive, abusive, deceptive, ill-mannered and extreme. Presuming one to be above the accepted standards of comportment of others is hypocritical, self-centered, intolerant and just plain unpleasant. Please embrace democratic ideals: you're not morally superior and basic social etiquette still matters.

What a pathetic excuse. Yes, your camp doesn't suck much more than a truly sociopathic bunch; that's a fine justification. The Clark extremists are worse than any other group of partisans on this board since I've been posting here in the spring of '01. There's no comparison. The only people who even come close were the Deanies in their heyday, and they were nowhere near as strident.

[Writer]

77. I had the opposite experience on another Democratic board...

at that time I frequented Smirking Chimp, and I had a similar experience being a Clark supporter and grassroots leader. One of the very first posts on Clark was "Wesley Clark: War Criminal." Now, can you imagine the nature of our conversations following a post like that?

The Dean supporters on that board were so castigating with their comments I felt I had no choice but to stop posting there. I started lurking on DU for quite a while then eventually joined, but this was well after the primaries.

To say that any one group or another was "better" or "more rational" than the other is, in my opinion, disingenuous. That's why I pointed out the "cultish" (although I think that term is a bit harsh) nature of Dean supporters.

If you want my honest, albeit provocative opinion, I think the Dean campaign was successful because it was "all about me." (ref: "Mediated" by Thomas de Zengotita). The Clark campaign had a similar feel to it, but it was ephemeral and had less emotional punch than the Dean campaign.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[Clark2008]

98. Nevermind - it's not worth it.

But, I will leave this:

And, speaking of snide and belligerent retaliations - I would suggest you read your last two posts again. Snide doesn't even begin to describe your allegations.

[Cameron27]

100. Yes ma'm!

:thumbsup:

[PurityOfEssence]

117. No, no, no; you're supposed to say "ditto"

Surely this is obvious.

[Cameron27]

Cute

but find somebody who actually wants to play your games.

[Cameron27]

129. delete

dupe

[Renew Deal]

67. Clark fried Clark, Clark a Cola, Clark and Beans, Clark Bars

:nuke:

[CJCRANE]

70. Clark/Kent '08 n/t

[snowbear]

81. Hey....

Maybe Kent Conrad (D-ND) will run just so we can have a Clark/Kent ticket?

[snowbear]

79. I know what you need Superman.... You need to sit back and enjoy a nice.....

Clark Bar !!!!!!

[FrenchieCat]

82. Amazingly the Edwards supporters in this thread who shall remain nameless

examplified the problem that they are so outraged about. I counted 3 out of 3 clearly identified Edwardians that came into this here thread moaning, screaming and crying and pointing their little fingers, etc... It's kinda of funny, IMO. :)

Anyways interesting thread....with losta of joking and interesting comments! It does appear that the Majority of Clarkies who posted really didn't have a problem with the subject title...which should tell you a lot! Maybe were just used to it or maybe we just don't take ourselves as seriously as folks might have thought! :shrug:

:hi:

[Pithy Cherub]

83. Who enjoys bitter Pity Parties - Boooooring!

Anywho, I like the fact that Clarkies have great senses of humor, laugh, and cry and on occasion beat each other up only to be best pals right after, just like a cool Family!

Hey Frenchie:pals:, have you seen Robbed Voter lately? She had the funniest pics!

[FrenchieCat]

85. Robbed Voter lurks more than anything...cause as you know.....

Robbed Voter don't play that! :)

[venable]

87. play?

exactly.

[venable]

86. Frenchie Cat, who speaks like this?

You really don't get it, my friend. We (and I suspect I'm one of the unnamed) point out something, a simple, measured statement, and you characterize it as:

' moaning, screaming and crying and pointing their little fingers,'

Nobody is doing any such thing.


This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say the Clark supporters use inflammatory language. Sadly, it is very typical.

Notice I am not using inflammatory language. I am pointing out the behavior, evidenced clearly right here. I am not making any attack, nor am I characterizing you in a diminishing way. I am pointing something out. This is an important distintion.

I do not feel like a victim (to preempt a common rebuttal to a post like this), so please don't say I'm acting like one.

Just use decent, adult language. Please. Thanks. (and now you'll say 'Don't tell me how to talk". Fine, talk however you want, but you will get few readers who care. If persuasion is, in fact, your goal, which would be worthy, you really might consider, on your own, how you speak to people.)

Your language and characterizations are not cute, smart, funny, or persuasive.

And by the way, this is not a Clark thread...it's a DU thread about Clarkies. Make sense?

[FrenchieCat]

96. This is my last response to you in this thread...because the posts in this thread by

you and others speak louder than I ever could.

In reference to others who might "chime" in to turn the knife as we are speaking, please know that there is a "history" on these boards between certain posters going back to the primaries of 2003...and some folks have long memories, and even though they attempt to give the appearance of having gotten over it....many just haven't. Some of these folks just plainly resent Clark supporters as many arrived out of nowhere once Clark announced. These posters had been running the DU boards till then and so I understand the frustration. However, I am no one's child and I will continue to defend Wes Clark vigorously....as well as speak my mind, as you do in reference to what I think about other politicos.

So peace to you....and you can certainly just put me on ignore, and that way you won't have to even read the "ugly" things that I post about John Edwards. How's that?

[venable]

111. nice try, a bit transparent, but nice try..

but it doesn't fly and you know it. the posts I've made here do not in any way, at all, make an argument on your behalf. at all. and you know that as well as everyone who is unfortunately burdened to read this back and forth pettiness. but nice try.

very happy to sign off on our 'conversations', in this or any thread, frankly. Time to speak seriously, with serious people.

[Catchawave]

136. venable speaks for me :)

Thank you.

[citizen snips]

137. same here

keep up the good work venable.

[Catchawave]

144. Hi matt...have you seen Old Crusoe?

He always brought reasonable thoughts to controversial threads too.

[Clark2008]

121. Veneble: the only person using inflammatory language on

this thread - or started using it - was an Edwards supporter.

I put that person on Ignore because it was hateful, venomous and resentful.

You're not doing that. I can understand that you see things differently and can respect and honest disagreement with no invectives, but, honestly, with an open mind, go back and read what that poster said - they're not on your ignore list - and contrast that to what most Clarkies were saying. Most Clarkies were laughing, joking and spurring along the OP teasingly. They weren't hateful or vapid.

BTW, isn't a thread putting down "Clarkies" actually a violation of DU rules? We could alert and complain, if you want to get techical, because the rules clearly state that DUers cannot put down other DUers - and, while the OP didn't point out specific posters, the OP clearly called out other DUers.

We didn't do that - I haven't done it and don't plan to - but an argument can be made that it's beyond the pale of the rules clearly stated.

I don't see any Clarkies (or otherwise) starting threads about The Cult of Obama or The Cult of Kerry or The Cult of Edwards. I don't think we would.

[venable]

125. I appreciate the reasonable tone

of your post, and can actually read it. that's really all I'm talking about.

I know there are some Edwards supporters who speak more decisively and sternly. I do think, though, that the Edwards posters who do so, do so in the context of actually making honest arguments, or genuinely attempting to. I suppose it's not surprising that I would think that, being an Edwards supporter myself. I sometimes get, from a small handful of Clark supporters, arguments that are less than convincing, but delivered with in a tone and language that is harsh and insulting. It's the combination of harsh tone and slanted argument that is restrictive of actual, mature, honest discourse.

I have nothing whatsoever against Clark, though he is not my main guy. If he were nominated, I would be in the front lines for him. And I am impressed by certain Clark posters, who are able to bring the temperature down, and present honest arguments. Humility, even when you are confident in your position, is a very appealing and persuasive quality.

Humility is not being weak. It is being strong and courteous. Your post is appreciated.

[Clark2008]

127. And I apologize for mixing it up before retracting my statements

up-thread.

I'm pregnant and really, really, really shouldn't let myself get my blood pressure up as high as it more than likely got last night when I first read the posts in question. I thought better of my Peanut (our affectionate name for the little bugger until we know the sex, then we'll start calling it by its name) and decided I should just put the most offensive poster on ignore.

I'll mix it up more after the baby's born this summer. :hi:

But, I'll try to remain reasonable.

[venable]

140. take care of yourself

and Peanut.

[JNelson6563]

90. To be honest Frenchie

POE made many good points that should give everyone pause just before the primaries. I wouldn't be shining a light on those thoughts but they are surely worth pondering.

Just my .0125

Julie

[FrenchieCat]

97. I read POE's posts....

and I did not get the same impression you did.

TO each his/her own.

I'm glad you've got good points out of it....as for me, I didn't.

See you in some other thread at some other time.

[FrenchieCat]

141. To be honest, POE broke many DU rules in many of her posts.....

lacking civility being just one of them. :eyes:

[Clarkie1]

89. And why do you think Clark's name is on every hypothetical ticket related thread

as you say? What does that say about the broadness of Clark's appeal?

Just because Clark has broad appeal among supporters of various candidates does not mean it's a "cult." Quite the opposite, it shows broad as opposed to narrow appeal.

[JNelson6563]

93. Oh boy.

First of all, as I think I've pointed out to you before, anyone who utilizes their hero's name as their own doesn't usually get viewed as all that objective of a source, subsequently credibility can suffer.

Secondly, considering you and many other die-hard Clark supporters start the lion's share of those threads (that are frankly getting way out of hand to the point one is almost embarrassed for the OP of those brain-dead, unimaginative "polls"), I wouldn't be pointing at those as "proof" that Clark has broad support.

I consider myself neutral on Clark. I like him OK, don't really have any problems with him. I've come to like a lot of the Clark supporters here at DU (the only place I ever have contact with any FYI) but it saddens me to see some of the 04 primary behavior rearing its ugly head. Purity of Essence has written some good posts in this thread. If you weren't here last primary season read them and know it to be true. If you were here, read them anyway, remember and contribute to the effort for DU to avoid that same path for 08.

Julie

[Clarkie1]

94. "Utilizes their hero's name as their own?"

God, that would be hilarious, wouldn't it...can you just imagine a bunch of DU'ers in real life calling each other by their screenames...THIS AIN'T REAL LIFE.

I became aware of DU first in the 04' primary season right before it was completely clear Kerry was going to be the nominee. I can here then for the express purpose of supporting Clark. It reflects my strong support for Clark as the first political candidate who ever inspired me to actually become actively involved in a campaign, and by golly, I'm damn proud of my screename!

Yeah, I kind of like the alterego, although like Tom Rinaldo I have considered using my real name as my screename (few here choose to do that, and I'm often one for going against the grain).

But frankly, I just think Clarkie1 might be too cool a screename for me to give up...you jealous? :-)

[PurityOfEssence]

118. Is there ANY poster on this board who incorporates "Edwards" in his/her moniker?

Not that I've seen, and I've been here daily since the early spring of '01.

How many posters use some version of "Clark" in their names? Many. If this isn't an expression of abject worship, what is?

This is beyond weird and it's anti-democratic; the righteous zeal of the faithful propels them with a proselytizing mandate to dominate. Decency and manners are swept aside due to the unquestionable superiority of their cause.

It isn't just me; many others see this too.

[Pithy Cherub]

119. Who cares - answer you.

There is no charter on this website as to what names may be used. This is a blinding glimpse of the obvious but, DU's a POLITICAL website meant for advocacy and discussion. That advocacy may be a user name - so what, it is fully the person's choice and shall remain their FREEDOM of choice. Anybody with any name can discuss whatever they like. Expect more Clark names or Kerry names, even Clinton's. Maybe somebody, somewhere will like Edwards enough to use it, then you can berate that person for abject worship and proselytizing and tell them Edwards wasn't worthy of manners and promoting Edwards is not good for the unquestionable superiority of your cause.

[1932]

107. In the Marty/Appleby book Phillips writes about in American Theocracy

they argue that cults are motivated by or organize themselves around (I can't remember the exact language) a sense that their very identity is threatened by people who disagree with them. People who wrap the identiy of a politician so tightly with their own and then feel that any criticism of that politician is a criticism and a threat to themselves seem to be doing what Marty and Appleby describe.

[Clark2008]

123. I can't believe I need to say this - or, as a former journalist,

that it's coming out of my mouth, but: you need to read less and experience more.

Not everything is found is a book. They're wonderful compliments, but you're not charged with diagnosing people on this board - I doubt you're even in the mental health field, but, if you are, then you should know that you can't play Bill Frist and diagnose people from afar.

I'm willing to bet that people using Clark as a user name put no more thought into "wrapping themselves into the identity of a politician" than I did - we just wanted a user name that reflected our candidate of choice - nothing more and nothing less. Most people pick their user names dependent upon what they're feeling AT THE TIME and how fun it would be to have said user name. It's not as big of a deal as your book alleges, not as it relates to user names. :eyes:

Do you want me to analyze why you use "1932?" Is it because it's the year of your birth, or the year of the LA Olympics? Or the year Grand Hotel won the Oscar? I don't know - and frankly, I don't care - it's yours. Use it in good health.

[Catchawave]

133. Well stated 1932 :)

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding "cultish" behavior, because if there was a serious effort to promote Clark the discussions would be more issue oriented.

That speaks volumes to me.

[Clark2008]

122. They actually weren't good posts.

They were well-written - and most DUers do write well, so that's no surprise, but these posts brought up arguments against Clark that have been debunked numerous times and should be well under the board's belt. That said, I have no problem with someone questioning Clark - he's a big boy and there is plenty of information (mostly stored on Frenchie's databases :7 ) that can debunk those concerns. No issue there.

What I do consider poor form, however, were the poster in question's posts throwing invectives toward fellow DUers - which, in my reading of the rules, is against them.

[1932]

146. How are you so sure that your interpretation is the one true interpretation?

And what exactly are the invectives to which you keep referring?

[Catchawave]

112. I don't understand the reason you posted so many Clark polls

today? They just look like feeding frenzies for the Clarkies. The stuff posted about Edwards and Kerry are digustingly RW talking points which I thought were against DU rules :shrug:

[Clark2008]

126. Actually, Catch, the OP posted a lot of other polls that didn't

include Clark, but those sunk like stones.

The OP posted a variety of candidates v. other candidates. The only ones still up front are those who include Clark.

[Catchawave]

128. Clinton v. Vilsack ?

:rofl: Just more villification of candidates not named Clark, but with less blood in the water.

Clark v. Other might have done well :evilgrin:

[gulliver]

95. Oh man! This post bummed me out.

I thought you were starting a Clark Cult. I wanted to join. I was looking for a cult where people could go to take the long view of what's good for the country. You know, Democrats and Republicans basically getting along, solving problems rationally, thinking things through. Basically a cult where people matter again, are equal, have opportunity, respect and receive education, have jobs and health -- and health care when they don't.

If anyone knows of a Cult of Clark starting up, I'm game. I'll sell flowers in airports, whatever.

[citizen snips]

99. most generals have a cult following

but I don't see a big one for Clark because his military achievements are not as noticeable as other US generals who became president like Eisenhower and Ulysses S. Grant.

[FrenchieCat]

113. A lawyer who doesn't know boo till it hits him upside the head.....

would be soooo much better. :eyes: Rejoice, you might just get your wish!

Like they say.....Clark ain't nobody's eisenhower, and John Edwards sure in the fuck ain't no JFK or Clinton for that matter!

More Edwardians in this thread than you can shake a stick at, throwing their little Booboo mud that won't stick than Clarkies who ironically seem NOT offended about a silly thread started by who's knows who for who knows why (Well ok...I know --It's green...that evil thing!)...

that ought to give anyone, without one, a fucking Clue as to what's what!


Lordie, Lordie! Hillarious actually!


John Edwards has got the kiss of the media on his ass! He's way ahead of the game. Wish they could appreciated it!

[citizen snips]

130. my post was not an attack on Clark.

My point is about the mythical status of US generals in american politics. It is not a character attack on Clark.

[Leilani]

132. No, the character attack on Clark came from an

Edward's advisor.

IMO it was the dirtiest attack on a Dem, within the primary season.

It reverberated all the way to the trial of Milosivic.

How do you defend your honor, once someone has so completely savaged you?

I have a pretty good sense of humor, & I tolerate all sorts of outrageous comments on discussion boards, but the attack on Clark's character by an Edward's advisor was a new low. Especially the fact that Edwards would not separate himself from that remark.

That low, from "Mr. Sunshine," will be long remembered.

[clarquistador]

114. It is a MOVEMENT not a CULT.......

Whether people like it or not, General Clark has had a movement backing him. That's what happens when you BELIEVE in someone based on their merits and not because "They're the flavor of the moment" or because "The media told you to like them".

[Pithy Cherub]

120. Welcome clarquistador!

Love the fighting spirit of your name! :hi:

[clarquistador]

124. Thanks

Been lurking on DU for four years now, thought it's about time to join up and show EVEN MORE support for the General on this forum.

[Auntie Bush]

131. Thank you Clarquistador for joining us Clarkies.

More the merrier and needed. :hug:

[Superman Returns]

134. this is one long thread

did I do this???? haha

[Catchawave]

138. Was wondering what happened to you

:hi:

I think the thread needs help understanding your definition of "cult" !

[FrenchieCat]

142. Yes you did.....

and as a Black woman and an immigrant, I already know the feeling of being discriminated against for something that shouldn't be.....and so I am used to it.....

So first, I thank you for starting a thread that not only was meant as flamebait, but also discriminated against a DU group of posters. In addition, thank you for showing that tolerance of the opinions of others is something that shouldn't be considered on these progressive boards.

Second, I take my hat off to the many Clarkies that have attempted at being graceful in this thread by exhibiting a sense of Humor in the face of being openly derided by your OP title as well as the many supporters of other candidates who have put piled on their .02 cent as they expose their own lack of civility and their willful disregard of DU rules that discourage posters from broad brushing a segment of the DU community.

What your post did serve in an insight on the vitriol that exists here by many of those who are apparently allowing green monsters to rule their lives.

So in the end, I thank you for your service to the DU community. Without insightful and tolerant folks such as yourself on these boards, where would we be? :sarcasm:

[Catchawave]

143. Was the sarcasm smilie necessary ?

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

145. Even more necessary than was

This tread.

[Catchawave]

147. I thought it was an important "tread" (sic)

We have a problem on DU, it needs to be addressed. I'm tired of defending my candiate's hair fer crissakes.

Let's talk issues !

[FrenchieCat]

148. The problem with the thread is the same problem that you have...

which is you would easily accuse an entire group based on who they support of being the "guilty" ones....which is really NOT the problem at DU.

Problems, if you think they exist on this forum are not resolved by name calling and pointing fingers.......but I'm sure you already know this.

So in the end, I really do hope you got the personal satisfaction that you were seeking. Personally, as an adult, I've handled minor irritation a different way by putting certain posters on ignore and hidden various threads so that I don't have to put up with what I personally don't want to....as opposed to putting up a post to show off my ability and willingness to chastise an entire group of people on a political forum board based on the candidate they support; a board, oddly enough, that is supposed to provide the ability of many to experience the relatively free exchange of views of all kind, as opposed to just my kind.

In Conclusion, based on the your statement that "we have a problem at DU".....I would take this opportunity to correct you by saying....if anything maybe YOU have a problem at DU.....

[rocktivity]

139. Duck.

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[proud patriot]

149. I'm locking this thread

Too many Personal Attacks and Group Attacks for salvage .

proud patriot Moderator
Democratic Underground