Clark or Kerry?

[Clarkie1]

If it came down to a choice between these two for the 08' nomination, who would you choose and why?

[Donnachaidh]

1. as much as I like Kerry -- he's damaged goods

I'd like to see a Clark/Webb team up.

[davidwparker]

7. I agree with the Kerry part. I disagree with the Webb part. I'd like to

see Webb be my senator. Webb/Obama 2016.

on edit: I need to qualify the damaged goods part -> He conceded, not because he gaffs. Well, he does that too. Had he 1) sued the Swiftys or 2) worked for verified voting for all Americans, then he would have redeemed himself to be considered. Since he did not, its just words, man. Next candidate, please.

[Donnachaidh]

10. Can I trade you?

You can have Saxby Chambliss. We need someone like Webb in Georgia. And yes, I'm being a smartass. :grin:

[nealmhughes]

37. Hell, I'll raise you: Shelby and Sessions for Webb!

eom

[Donnachaidh]

49. aarrghhh -- please no!

If we can't have Max Clelland back -- we need WEBB!

Oh hell -- I'd take a dime store mannequin -- we just need to get RID of Chambliss!!!!

[EST]

21. You have put your fingers on the part of this whole deal that

really hacks me off.
I busted my ass to help get sen. Obama elected. I even got people to go vote for him who had zero interest in politics but I was able to convince/pressure/shame into doing their civic duty so we could have a man of integrity in the senate.

I did not do this so he could spend a couple years learning the ropes and spinning his wheels just so he could play rock star and fulfill his personal ambitions by running for president. I realize that the human life span is not long enough to allow a person to do everything he wants and I am very much against his candidacy.

He needs to fulfill his responsibility by contributing at least a term or two doing the job that we hired him to do--he has a responsibility to me and a lot of other people to do the job he said he wanted to do and promised he would do.

I am feeling cheated and abused that he may be going off pursuing a will-o-the-wisp and that so many people think that it is such a wonderful idea.

[wisteria]

45. I like to think of Senator Kerry as wiser and smarter and able to

take it all on forcefully.

[WildEyedLiberal]

2. See my response in your other thread

Clark is probably my second or third choice, though, so it's certainly not because of anything Clark lacks.

[Bucky]

47. That

is an awesome picture of John Kerry. Consider your sigline illustration stolen. That image now belongs to me. John Kerry's got a lot of George Clooney in him.

[John Gauger]

3. Clark.

Kerry was one of the worst candidates this party has ever run. All you need to know about him is that the corporate interests liked him more than Dean. So he's right out in my book. Kerry was a hero in 1971, but he is just another politician now. He has lost his outrage and his conscience, and as far as I can tell his integrity. What's more, do we really need another member of the pampered elite in the WH? Even if Clark is a general, he was not raised with the Presidency in mind.

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. Um, Kerry doesn't accept corporate PAC money

:crazy:

I guess you get special kudos for being unable to come up with a reason to vote FOR Clark and instead have to resort to posting ad hominem attacks on Kerry. Shame, because as far as I can tell there are plenty of positive reasons to vote for Clark.

[blm]

6. Kerry also wrote Clean Money, Clean Elections public financing of campaign bill

to get all corporate money out of elections. He and Wellstone submitted it in 1997.

Funny how those who claim they care about corporate money don't even know who the longtime advocates are in Congress for that very issue.

Sad.

[John Gauger]

13. I was given a choice between two candidates.

I was asked to say which one I like better. I don't like Kerry. I didn't say anything about not liking Clark, therefore it must follow that I like Clark better than I like Kerry. Clark is not my pick for Democratic Presidential candidate, Dean is. But he has promised not to run in 2008. I'm not gung ho about Clark running for President. I'm just a fan of him as an individual. I watched a speech on the Internet that he gave about the war. He talked about how we have to leave immediately and about how the decision to go to war was made (or rather not made - it was always just assumed, without any discussion, within the Administration.) He was telling the truth - he was being candid about the way in which our government works, that it does not care about what we think, and that it does not care about the wellbeing of its citizens. I think that's a pretty bold thing for a member of the Establishment to say. That showed me that he has a conscience, candor, and integrity. I haven't seen any evidence of Kerry being honest since 1971. To be blunt, I think Kerry is full of shit. He is not capable of taking a definite stand - like both Jon Stewart and the Onion pointed out, the only thing Kerry had to run on was that he was not George W. Bush. He kept saying that Bush had mismanaged the war, but he never offered any solutions for fixing the mess. That's fine if you're willing to admit that there are no solutions, but in order to do that you have to call for withdrawal, which he never did until after the election. Kerry is a career politician and I don't see anything about him that makes him any better than any of the others. And I never said he accepted corporate money, I just said that he was favored by corporations over Dean, which seems to me to be common knowledge.

[beachmom]

16. Kerry DID have a plan for a solution for Iraq

I believe the Baker Commission is now putting that plan out there: a big diplomacy effort including a summit of members of the region including the Arab League, Syria, and Iran. Kerry's 4 point plan in the 2004 campaign:

1. Have elections
2. Do reconstruction
3. Train Iraqis to take over security of country
4. Get the international community involved

He also said that if things went as scheduled, he wanted troops to start leaving within 6 months which would have been June 2005. You couldn't really get our troops out before an elected government, so that was reasonable at that time.

Didn't you study our 2004 candidate's platform?

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. Clearly not

It's obvious he knows nothing about Kerry and is just mad because Kerry was our nominee and not Dean. Fair enough, but that's no excuse for the pack of untruths bundled up in that post.

[John Gauger]

25. I did study it a little.

And what I saw I wasn't too impressed with. I remember thinking, in fact, that I was not being fairly critical. I was apologizing for him simply because he was a Democrat. Since the election, I have been thinking about Kerry and liking him less and less.

I do recall thinking that his stance on Iraq was wholly unsatisfactory and hoping that he would change it when he became President. I remember thinking that the only way was to get out immediately and that that was not his strategy.

[WildEyedLiberal]

18. No, it's not "common knowledge." None of your post is

Because most of it isn't true. Your comment about Kerry not being honest after 1971 is so full of shit I'm not even going to waste the time and energy arguing with you. You sound, at best, very, very young and naive and uninformed.

Do you even know what BCCI is? Iran Contra? If you did, you would have said none of the shit you just said about Kerry.

[John Gauger]

24. No, I don't know what BCCI is

and I have no idea what Kerry had to do with Iran/Contra. I suppose he certainly couldn't have been involved, so I guess he had something to do with the investigation. Would you care to enlighten me?

[WildEyedLiberal]

29. The reason you've ever heard of Iran Contra is because of Kerry's investigations.

You haven't even HEARD of BCCI and yet you are making outrageous claims about Kerry's honesty? Honest to God, you don't even KNOW anything the man's ever done!

Read this link, for starters: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

Investigating BCCI meant uncovering the dirty laundry of Washington's elites on both sides of the aisle, which earned him enemies that still to this day loathe him.

[John Gauger]

36. I'm sorry.

I really didn't know anything about Kerry. I am astounded to find out that I did not know about two such important services that he had provided this country. I was acting like an idiot. I suppose I took my dissatisfaction with Kerry's previous stance on the war and let my ignorance paint an ugly picture. Before I looked at Kerry with scorn, but now I am somewhat impressed by his accomplshments. I must apologize for bothering you like that. I should not say anything unless I'm sure I know what I'm talking about. But, every time I make an idiot of myself I learn something, so thank you.

[WildEyedLiberal]

39. Well I'm really impressed by your ability to admit you were wrong

Seriously. That is SO RARE on DU.

I'm glad you were able to learn something... and, please, check out the links I provided in my other reply to you. UNfortunately as far as I know there's no internet megadatabase of info about Kerry - I've been a supporter of his for over two years so what I know has been gleaned over a long period of time. But it says a lot about you that you're willing to admit you were wrong, and learn.

:thumbsup: Peace.

[John Gauger]

42. Thank you again.

Thank you for the compliment and for putting up with my bullshit. I actually get my ass handed to me rather often in arguments, so the least I can do is learn from them.

Peace.

[John Gauger]

33. I just looked up BCCI

It would appear to be the mother of all corporate scandals. I am surprised I have never heard of it. Kerry's name is right at the top of the investigation. It seems that he performed quite a service for this nation, and I respect him more for it. I don't know where I heard about his corporate support from but I am going to try to investigate to find out if it holds any water. I remember reading some very disappointing revelations about Kerry, but it would seem that I was mistaken. I'm sorry I started this little flame war. I just don't like Kerry and I guess I should figure out why before I open my mouth.

[WildEyedLiberal]

35. Or perhaps be open to the fact that he's not what you thought

I, unfortunately, am not one of those people who bookmarks links all the time, but I HIGHLY encourage you to read and research for yourself before jumping to conclusions as you did. Your opinions about Kerry were very strong, yet admittedly not really based on anything you actually knew about him. No matter who you decide to support in any venue, you should make sure you have all the facts before you make up your mind.

Here's a REALLY meaty thread about BCCI with tons of crosslinks: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2870996

Here's a small list of some of the stuff Kerry has done since the election (only updated through April): http://www.returningsoldiers.us/whatskerrydoing.htm

He's also been a strong and consistent advocate for the environment. As blm pointed out, he sponsored a bill with Paul Wellstone to provide for public financing of elections. He's also sponsored a bill to provide universal health care for all children in America and his ultimate plan is to make the federal government's insurance plan available to all Americans.

Anyway, read for yourself, and don't be so quick to make assumptions.

[John Gauger]

41. Thank you.

I will read those links carefully.

[sandnsea]

12. Bullshit

The 'corporate interests' (see Clintons) killed Dean because they expected CLARK to beat Kerry in New Hampshire.

[John Gauger]

17. Wait, as I recall

Clark was already far behind. I had forgotten about Clark's connections to the Clintons. That's definitely a negative. I had forgotten Clark was even a contender in '04 until you mentioned it. I'm not so much a supporter of Clark as a candidate as a fan of him as a man. I do like him better than Kerry though. I remember a lot of complaints against Kerry having to do with his stance towards corporations.

[WildEyedLiberal]

20. Like his public financing of elections bill? Or his refusal to take corporate money?

:crazy:

[MH1]

23. To be fair....

it probably has to do with that crazy idea to bring jobs back to this country by eliminating the highest corporate tax bracket WHILE closing tax loopholes and otherwise disincentivizing outsourcing.

Unfortunately many on the "left" will never get past "bracket" in the above sentence before exploding in an apoplectic fit. :eyes:

And it might confuse some to consider that the US has the highest corporate tax rates of comparable economies in the world (i.e. Europe). Corporations currently have big incentives to move jobs out of this country. But anyone trying to change those incentives gets labeled a corporatist by the likes of Matt Stoller of MyDD. (I'm too lazy to get the link but he's one who lost his credibility on that issue).

[FrenchieCat]

28. Clark's connection to the Clintons is that he served as NATO Commander

under Clinton. They are both from Little Rock...however Clark did not run to help the Clinton, he ran to help this country.

Actually, Clark was 2nd only to Dean in a January 13, 2004 Gallup poll (One week before Iowa), after having been in the race for 3 months! He didn't contest Iowa...and basically was hardly ever mentioned after Iowa...no matter that he came in behind Kerry and Dean in NH, and went on to place 2nd in Arizona, New Mexico and North Dakota, and win Oklahoma....all without any free Publicity.

Considering how "powerful" the Clinton are supposed to be, it would seem that they could have endorsed "Their guy" Clark or done a little more than allowing Wes to use a footage of Bill pinning his "earned" Medal of Freedom on his lapel in one of his ads. :eyes:

Obviously, whatever Clark accomplished in the short time that he was in the race and considering the vicious attacks against him by both the media (The Michael Moore incident) and his opponents (Eek, he's a Republican)...the General, a newbie in politics did damn good...and certainly better than most were expecting. He'll do even better this time......That, I know.

[Clark2008]

26. That statement is bullshit, too.

Clark knows the Clintons because he is from Arkansas and served under Clinton. They're not best buds or anything.

The Clintons didn't want ANYONE to win because they wanted to make sure Hillary could run in 2008.

[WildEyedLiberal]

30. I do believe that

I don't think the Clinton crowd shed too many tears over the loss in 2004 at all.

[beachmom]

15. I know, like that pampered elitist FDR -- what the heck did THAT guy

do for the poor of this country?

[John Gauger]

22. Sorry to break it to you,

but Kerry is not FDR. Roosevelt started out as a fortunate son but learned compassion from his affliction with polio. Kerry was once a courageous, principled activist, but now he is a wishy-washy professional politician. How many Presidents have we had that were raised as wealthy elites? Only one of them ever did anything for the poor. FDR is an exception in a long chain of distant do-nothings.

[WildEyedLiberal]

31. Read about BCCI and tell me how wishy washy Kerry is. n/t

[PresidentObama]

4. Kerry.

Though Clark would be a very good candidate. Kerry is the better of the two.

[davidwparker]

8. He would have been a great president. I agree with that. However,

many feel betrayed by the concession and that will not go away. Sorry.

[MasonJar]

9. Either. We have the most wonderful potential candidates! I am

still flying high from Nov. 7.

[rep the dems]

11. Definitely Clark.

I'm okay with Kerry, but I think Clark would have a better chance, and I like him better overall.

[beachmom]

14. Kerry -- you can read my long answer on the Kerry/Edwards thread

The short one -- great CIC -- he knows what to do to keep this nation safe and restore our moral authority. He'll get us out of Iraq.

[nickshepDEM]

27. Clark

[EST]

32. I think John Kerry would have made a marvelous president.

His entire career has been an example of integrity and substance, from his military service, his willingness to sacrifice himself on matters of principle, to his commitment to service to the country and his personal values.

Although he was not my first choice for 2004, I was willing to back him enthusiastically.
However, he showed a naivete in campaigning that was appalling. his trust in his "advisors" was nothing short of a denial of reality.

During the waning days of his campaign, I defended him, based on his promises and record, explaining to people, over and over, that this was the man we could depend on to do the unexpected--that he was going to-any minute now-turn his boat into the incoming fire and destroy the lying hacks who, like jackals, were trying to destroy him.

I was wrong. He was an enormous disappointment.

He promised, again and again, that this time every vote was really going to count-that his army of lawyers and activists would not allow another election to be hacked and stolen and I believed him.

On his word, I subjugated my doubts and worries, even though even I, a political neophyte, could see the handwriting on the wall.

He blew it and I will not trust him again. There may not be any better candidate than he but I cannot forgive him and will not support a second run by him for the presidency. There are too many candidates who are just as qualified and deserving of my support.

[dogman]

34. I supported Kerry until the Draft Clark movement gained viability.

I was well aware, as a Vietnam Veteran, that the swiftboating was coming. I was aware of it's potential and felt Clark was more electable. I was impressed with Clark's analysis of the Iraq War and pleased that on most issues I was comfortable with his stand. His policies that were developed on the fly, as he entered campaigning quite late in the season, contained the truth and common sense that he had displayed throughout his career. He has always enjoyed public service with little personal reward, a trait that I hope resolves into a Presidential bid for'08.

[snowbear]

40. You mean you was for 'em before you waz against em?

LOL... Ok, I'm just joking Kerry DU'ers!

Ah geez.. I'll just step in here for the next two minutes------>

Back in two minutes.

[femmocrat]

38. I just saw Clark on C-span this week.... and

he didn't sound very definite when asked if he is running. He said he hasn't even raised any money.
Could it be that he won't run?

[Clarkie1]

43. Could be. He did say he had a lot of fun running in 04', though.

Clark will do whatever he thinks is the best interests of the country. For him it's about America, not his own personal ambitions. When he makes statements they are not calculated poltically, he is saying what he really thinks is in the best interests of the nation. After watching him for awhile, I sincerely believe that about him. I don't think he'll ever truly be a politician in the truest, least flattering sense of the word, and to me that's a big plus.

[dailykoff]

44. Sounds like a good ticket

with North-South appeal and a lot of experience.

I suspect that the '08 primaries will end the way '04 did, and that the only real fight is for Veep.

[wisteria]

46. For me, it will be Senator Kerry, no one measure up to him on multiply

fronts. General Clark is certainly an experienced war hero, but he does not have all the other experience I personally feel is necessary to become President at this time. Why doesn't he run for a Governorship or even a Senate seat? I would even consider him a good candidate for the VP slot, but not as President at this time.
This doesn't mean however, I wouldn't vote for him if he did become our candidate.

[StoryTeller]

48. Kerry, definitely

I don't have any gripes about Clark, and I know that most other Kerry supporters have a lot of respect for Clark as well.

But I really value Kerry's long experience and leadership in the Senate, and the good reputation he has with leaders from other countries. By the time the Bush debacle is finally, mercifully over, there is going to be an awful mess to clean up. Not that I'd wish such a thing on ANYONE, but our country--and indeed the world--is going to need some massive clean-up efforts. Kerry is excellent at that.

He's got the experience necessary. He's very smart. He's well respected around the world. And most important to me is his personal integrity. This is a guy that has never waffled on his convictions. He's made mistakes, but he is humble about them and he learns from them. He tells the truth. He doesn't shy away from taking a stand on things, but he doesn't bulldoze over other people to get his own way, either.

He has excellent ideas, and he has the ability to put those ideas into practice if he's given the opportunity. By his own words, he considers being an elected official an opportunity to serve his country and the people of this country. You can see this is true by the decisions he makes and how he treats others and by the proposals he puts out for how to improve the lives of Americans. He's never been in politics to collect power, and his refusal to compromise on his personal convictions has made him somewhat of an outsider even in his own party at times. I deeply admire and respect such a person, especially when what they believe in are things I can support with a clear conscience.

None of this is to imply that Clark isn't just as smart or doesn't have just as much integrity. I honestly haven't followed him as closely as I have Kerry. But even if everything else was equal, Kerry's experience and the fact that he already has established a global reputation that is, as far as I know, positive would tip me his way.

No matter who gets the presidency, they're going to be inheriting a disaster. We need someone with a lot of experience and maturity and integrity to have any chance at all of putting things to right.