If Clark enters the race, will you support him over your current choice?

[IA_Seth]

The Gore poll made me curious...

[youthere]

1. Oh hell yes.

[skipos]

2. Yes I would, but not if he has Dodd/Kucinich/Biden (1-2%)level of support

If he makes the same mistake of waiting until the last minute, and his numbers suffer, I'd probably support someone else. Clark was my 2004 pick, and I still think he would have been our best candidate.

[bowens43]

3. Not a chance.

The last thing we need is general in the oval office. We have a civilian government and I want it to stay that way.

[Adelante]

4. Clark is a civilian, of course

Surely it depends on the civilian.

Here is a speech the General gave yesterday for anyone who wishes to listen:

http://www.sais-jhu.edu/media/may07/wesleyclark051607.mp3

[RufusTFirefly]

6. Ditto

No men on white horses, thank you very much.

Besides, I have things that have been in my fridge longer than Clark has been a Democrat.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Like being a Long time Democrat automatically means that one will do the right thing......

I don't believe in the "Automatic" assignment of "credit", nor do I believe that just because someone says they will do something it means that they will.

Civilians have brought us were we are up to now.......and although Wes Clark is a civilian and has been for some years now, he is one that already has demonstrated that he will put country before self. That quality is much more impressive to me than how long one has belonged to a political party (see Lieberman until this year) or if they were always a civilian (see Bush and Cheney). But you examplify my point as I made it in the other post that I made to this thread; too many judge based on stereotypes that generalize without too much digging. We are our own worst enemy and we will get what we deserve due to it.

[RufusTFirefly]

14. Yes, but he's a blank slate! He has no voting record

I don't vote for faith-based candidates. I need evidence.

Politicians can claim to be pro and con all sorts of things but ultimately if you're an elected representative, you reach a moment of truth: you actually have to cast some votes. And that's a good thing for democracy. It provides a record that enables us to distinguish rhetoric from results.

Clark should run for some lesser office, actually cast some votes (much harder than simply saying what people want to hear), and then and only then consider running for President.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Clark has not just given mouth, he has devoted action to back up

his words, although not necessarily in votes. His calls for intervention in Rwanda being one. When it was an unpopular thing to do, he did it, and he was right, and most of the civilians paid professional politicians opted not to "involve" themselves in such matters. That's 800,000 lives that were snuffed out, if you are tallying votes.

His testimony before congress prior to the IWR vote is another. He was one of the leading generals warning against a blank check, and against starting an elective war. His testimony was cited by no less than 5 senators who voted NO against the Blank check.

He stood up for Michael Moore time and time again (as well as others), at a time when the media was skewering Moore, and basically telling all of us to shut the fuck up. It could have easily hurt his reputation and staying mum was the way that most politicians chose to deal with the issue of free speech at the time. The pols didn't have to vote on this issue......but it was something that was going on that had more profound meaning than many of the votes that politicians cast. Adhering to our constitution isn't always about vote tallies....If so MLK jr. wouldn't have a holiday that we celebrate.

Winning a humanitarian war and prior to that negotiating a peace treaty based on a conflict that killed 200,000 is not a vote....but it is most worthy, IMO.

And don't forget that he took 4 bullets during his service for this country. Guess that action is not a vote and can be discarded.

BTW, On the one hand you conveniently state that votes are everything....yet on the other, we have candidates that only have to be sorry about such votes to become the darling of many progressives. So which is it? Do the votes count, or can they just as easily be discounted? and if they can, what makes voting on some bills the end of all qualification for becoming leader of this great nation? Why doesn't personal courage, intergrity, and being on the right side of the issues when it matters as if not more important? Do actions done without political caculation count for anything anymore?

[IA_Seth]

38. Damn, Frenchie!

If a post could be recommended, this one surely would be!

Hear, hear!

[Clark2008]

29. Wow - you have things in your fridge that are 15- 20 years old?

Ick

[RufusTFirefly]

34. Registered independent throughout his military career: Retired May 2000

"Clark has said that he voted for Al Gore in 2000, but has voted for Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, held equal esteem for Dwight D. Eisenhower and Harry S. Truman, and had been a registered independent voter throughout his military career. Ultimately as Clark himself put it, however, he decided he was a Democrat because "I was pro-affirmative action, I was pro-choice, I was pro-education... I'm pro-health care... I realized I was either going to be the loneliest Republican in America or I was going to be a happy Democrat."

Wikipedia

(I believe I have a jar of capers and some hot sauce.)

[Texas_Kat]

36. Honey I have it first hand from the County Clerk in Bell, County Texas

She's been the County Clerk since LBJ, and is a fearsome little old lady.

When Clark was stationed in Texas at Fort Hood in 1992, he requested, received and used a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY ballot.

In Texas, that makes him a Democrat.

You can call this little old lady a liar, but I never would.

[RufusTFirefly]

39. FactCheck.org disagrees

Apparently Clark, like several military folk I know, voted in his "home state" rather than in the state where he was stationed.

Clark has never been registered as a Republican. During his Army service he registered to vote as an independent (as do many career military officers) in his home state of Arkansas. Clark says he voted for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan out of concern for national security during the Vietnam and Cold War years. But he says later he found Republicans to be "shrill" and "isolationist." And so he says he voted for fellow Arkansas resident Bill Clinton and most recently for Al Gore, both Democrats. Clark changed his voter registration to Democrat only after retiring from the Army in 2000 and declaring himself a candidate for the party’s nomination late in September, 2003. Clark also spoke approvingly of President Bush on two occasions in 2001 and 2002 that were captured on videotape. You can see these for your self by clicking on the "video" box at the right.

FactCheck.org

Voted for Nixon. Voted for Reagan. Praised Dubya. Yup, he's my man!

[Texas_Kat]

41. You (and FactCheck) need to check facts

Arkansas's system was the same as Texas' until 1996.

No one registered by party at all -- there was no 'independent' registration. He voted in the Texas Democratic primary in 1992 -- nothing you posted challenges that.


Clark spoke ONCE at a Republican county fundraiser in Pulaski County in 2001 (not twice). I've seen the entire video --

Here's what Clark had to say about it:

Do you think that if you run for president, the 2001 speech you delivered at a Republican Party fundraiser in Pulaski County, Ark., will come back to haunt you?
Why should it? That's just part of the freak show. If you read that speech, you'll see that what I actually do is criticize the directions of the policies of the (Bush) administration. All I did was put a little honey on it by complimenting Colin Powell and some of the people who were in the administration a couple of months after the administration took office. But I never complimented George Bush.

http://securingamerica.com/node/1972

[FrenchieCat]

43. I don't see the problem. Most Military are Independent....or were in the good ol' days.....

But still all in all, he has voted Democratic for the past 15 years minimum.......




and him speaking "approvingly" of Bush is questionable at best. The imfamous video footage cuts Clark off in mid-sentence......thereby effectively substituted a period where a coma was.

Brown Daily Herald 4/26/07
http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/11/28/CampusNews/Q.A-With.Clark.i.Havent.Said.I.Wont.Run.For.President-2509968.shtml


Do you think that if you run for president, the 2001 speech you delivered at a Republican Party fundraiser in Pulaski County, Ark., will come back to haunt you?

Why should it? That's just part of the freak show. If you read that speech, you'll see that what I actually do is criticize the directions of the policies of the (Bush) administration.

In otherwords, FactCheck.org ain't the boss of me. They are not as unbiased as you want to believe them to be......and although the FREAKS loved the show, doesn't mean that what is implied in the GOP 5 second to the Drudge footage truly represented reality. It is true that the FREAKS hoped that the most retarted portion of us would just swallow that little diddy whole, and so some did.

Voter Manipulation via some bullshit media trick has almost become an art form.....but fortunately it doesn't qualify the FREAKs as artists; not even close (see swiftboats or Dean's scream for more details on this art form).

[last_texas_dem]

67. I'm not trying to split hairs, but...

...I would disagree with the contention that voting in a Democratic primary makes you a Democrat. In many parts of Texas, particularly in East Texas, the vast majority of voters participating in a primary vote in the Democratic primary because it's the only game in town (because all or most local offices are held by Democrats.) For example, in my home county of Orange, which voted 64-percent for Shrub in '04, somewhere around 4 out of 5 voters, IIRC, who voted in a primary voted in the Democratic primary. This was the case even considering that the same voters would vote for a Repug state rep and U.S. Rep. and vote for the Repug in all of the statewide offices in the November elections.

That said, more power to Clark if he has considered himself to be a Democrat since 1992. I know he has been voting for Democratic Presidents since at least that far back, so perhaps he has considered himself to be a Democrat since that year I just don't think participating in a party's primary in a state with an open primary system is an accurate way to gauge someone's political party preference.

[Texas_Kat]

69. Regardless of how you feel about it

It's the way it's done in Texas.

The same system makes George Bush a Republican -- since there's no other way to 'register' as a Republican in Texas either.

You'll find many states with the same primary system -- and good Democrats live in all of them.

I've been voting for Democrats since allowed to vote for the first time in 1972 and working for candidates and the party for at least that long. Does that make me a 'better' Democrat than others who claim the title just by voting in the primaries? I don't think so -- we need all the people who are willing to vote in Democratic primaries as we can get.

[last_texas_dem]

70. It has nothing to do with how I feel about it

The point I'm making is that there are thousands of conservatives voting in Democratic primaries in Texas, who would certainly object to being tagged as Democrats simply because of this, and no doubt plenty of liberals voting in Republican primaries as well, who I'm sure would feel similarly about being considered Republicans. Which primary you vote in an open primary state can be based upon your desire to affect local races in an essentially one party county or precinct or to have a strategic effect on statewide races that you don't think your party has a shot at, among other things. For example, if Strayhorn had decided to run in the Republican primary against Rick Perry rather than run as an Independent, there are plenty of Texans who consider themselves to be Democrats who would have voted in that primary in the hopes that they could prevent Perry from being the Republican gubernatorial nominee. These Democrats would have chosen to cast a strategic vote in the Republican primary to support the "lesser of two evils", due to the strong likelihood that the eventual victor in the gubernatorial race would be a Republican; taking this action would cause them to be considered Republicans?

[Texas_Kat]

31. Clark's been a Democrat since he voted in the Texas Democratic Primary in '92

That's the way many states (including Arkansas until recently) do it. No party affiliation, just voting history.

I'd say you should clean out the fridge.... leftovers almost two decades old surely rate as a biohazard.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. And we've all seen how brilliantly our current civilian government,

comprised entirely of chickenhawks, draft-dodgers, guys with five deferments, and other assorted fuckwits with absolutely no military experience, have handled the Iraq debacle.

[Clark2008]

30. Snort!!

:thumbsup:

[Egnever]

22. While Clark is not nearly my first choice.

I still have a lot of respect for the man. When he ran last time I was of much the same mindset as you and fought against him here quite hard. However since that time he has gone on to do a lot of good for the Dem party and I have grown to respect the man immensly.

While you may not want a General in office I think you should take a look at what he has been doing since the last election and maybe you will have a little less scorn for him the next time you see his name.

[IA_Seth]

23. Thank you.

It takes a good person to say they were wrong, especially when you don't consider him your first choice.

It's appreciated.

[FrenchieCat]

5. In a "Just" world, Wes Clark would be the candidate to beat.......

considering the issues. National Security and our foreign policy is still what we discuss day in, day out. Our foreign policy stance has affected all of our politics, including the domestic issues. How can we pay for Health Care when we pay out a Billion per week on a war that we didn't have to fight? Clark is not a conventional business as usual "tell them anything" type of pol , and therefore I believe that he would be very effective in truly changing the direction of this country.

But of course, we don't live in a "Just" world.....we live in a Fast-Food-American-Idol-feel-good-disposable-fuck-the-recent-past country addicted to listening and buying into what our corporate media dictates that the majority should conclude. And so great thinkers with track records of sound judgments cannot become president , only those who repackage themselves according to what media standards judges to be "acceptable" and "do no harm" will succeed. That's just the way it is.

The 1996 Telecommunications Act should have never been signed. It has affected the politics of this country in a very disturbing and profound way. Bill Clinton didn't understand it fully, I guess......but it is part of what caused the last few years of his presidency to become marred in scandal; the 24/7 news channels attacked him in a manner that was truly biased. Those same news channels now dictate much of the public discourse.....cause everyone watches TV, while not enough read the newspapers (some who are owned by those same television media moguls), and so it is these cable channels that literally determine the news, and everyone else follows. It is too much power in the wrong hands taking away too much power from the people!

[IA_Seth]

7. Fast-Food-American-Idol-feel good-disposable-fuck-the recent past country

LOL!

You are on to something with that though. I truly think that our fast-food/sitcom culture has made everyone here less patient, less attentive, and more eager to hear a quick-fix than to experience a real-fix.

[Beaverhausen]

9. He should be the VP candidate- no matter who is at the top of the ticket

[wildhorses]

13. i would like to see him as veep

with gore at the top of the ticket :shrug:

don't think it'll happen though

[Dinger]

11. Die-Hard Clarkie, But Starting To Look Around

I like this poll. Interesting.

[IA_Seth]

21. I think you almost have to...

It doesn't hurt to consider all of our candidates, it's just that the more I do, the more I realize that we really need Clark's voice at the debates and in these campaigns.

[Dinger]

28. I Hear Ya Loud And clear : ) nt

[Clark2008]

32. I'm looking around, too, and the field is... um... well... um...

I don't like it much.

:insert holding nose smilie here:

[Texas_Kat]

37. .... uninspiring.... that's the word

It's more polite than 'lame".

[William769]

12. I said it once and I'll say it again.

I won't back a quitter. He has proven to me he is not presidential material.

[FrenchieCat]

15. ho-hum!

You mean like not making a peep before conceding to Bush/Cheney in '04 and then saying he would have only if......? :wow:

[Jai4WKC08]

16. Maybe the question should be

If Clark doesn't enter the race, will you be supporting anyone else?

Just kidding, since that question has been asked many times in one form or another. But I sure can't get worked up about the current field. Even the ones I sort of like are deeply flawed. They may have the potential to be good presidents, but they'll have to get there without my help.

I guess if Clark doesn't run, I can focus on state or local races instead. And be glad my vote doesn't count for much in Kansas anyway.

[Andrew_Lindsey]

17. I agree

And it is a shame I can't recommend a post yet.

The current field doesn't energize me the way I'd like to be. Yes, their domestic policies seem solid (if not varied), but their lack of foreign policy experience is concerning. This lack of experience is especially frightening given the state that the world is in, and the current reputation we have as a nation.

Clark would have my support.

[Andrew_Lindsey]

18. double damn. n/t

delete.

[Colobo]

19. No.

[Andrew_Lindsey]

20. I am surprised...

I am surprised more Obama supporters haven't chimed in here. I wouldn't expect you to switch, as you seem pretty die-hard Obama, which isn't a bad thing. I think if Clark doesn't run Obama may pick up some of his supporters by default.

[Cameron27]

24. Yes, my vote would go for Clark

and I'm still not without some hope that he'll run. Right now, I'm leaning towards Obama.

[mitchtv]

25. Probably not, but it would depend on who was in

the top tier. Clark's supporters' behavior has done little to reccomend him

[Clark2008]

33. How so?

Because we don't let smears against him slide? Because we see flaws in other candiates? Hell, everyone does that. Not just Clark supporters.

I see this all the time on this board: Clark's supporters' behavior is blah, blah, blah. What does that mean?

[mitchtv]

44. You catch more flies with honey

than with vinager. And you don't see the level of negativity from the other camps as I have perceived from Clark labeled posters. Do not mistake this for a slam on Clark. Apparently others have noticed something too

[Adelante]

62. How could they not?

"Apparently others have noticed something too."

When there has been so concerted an effort to spread this misperception in thread after thread? Year after year.

The fact is there are negative posters in every single candidate support group. Every. Single. One.

I, as a Clark supporter, could go from thread to thread and pointing out that so-and-so supporters post negatively and sooner or later, I guarantee, it will stick and begin to be repeated by others.

I always think that if I ever have the time I will do a study of negative posting on DU, make a collection, you know? The results could surprise me .. or they could surprise you.

[Clark2008]

64. Exactly.

Look at the flaming going between Edwards and Obama supporters currently.

At least Clark supporters use facts and don't rely on the likes of Counterpunch to make their assertions.

[rocktivity]

26. Well, let me put it this way...

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[Carolina]

27. Absolutely

was part of the draft Clark movement in 2004 and would support him readily today.

[dogman]

40. A couple of reasons I support Clark.

First, I believe he can win the general election. Second, I trust him to do the right things regarding domestic and foreign policy issues.

[BikeWriter]

42. Clark IS my current choice!

[ArkySue]

49. Me too! n/t

[Alexander]

45. What if my current choice is Gore?

:shrug:

If Gore stays out and Clark jumps in, then the answer is "yes".

[FrenchieCat]

46. your answer just highlights that you have a top notch intellect and understand the nature

of what this country should be about. :patriot:

[MrSlayer]

47. Absolutely, in a heartbeat.

He's so much better than anyone currently in there.

[burrowowl]

48. If Kucinich wins, I support Kucinich

Kucincih/Clark or Richardson ticket a hell of a lot better than the rest.
But it will probably never happen.

[Canuckistanian]

50. Clark over Gore

As far as undeclared candidates go.

But I have no major objection over any of the current candidates.

With the exception of Clinton.

[jenmarie]

51. Since I am waiting for Clark

to enter the race I can't take your poll. My second choice is Gore. If neither enter I'm looking at Obama. I would love Obama to be VP for 8 years first, (with Clark or Gore).

[Andrew_Lindsey]

52. My thoughts exactly..

Clark. Gore. Leaning Obama.

[bobbie]

60. Same here, until Clark decides I'm uncommitted

He's tops.

[avrdream]

53. Secretary of Defense

Or some kind of top military adviser.

That's where Clark will be effective.

I like him a lot but don't think he would make it into the top tier so I hope that the eventual president would use his experience well in their administration.

I feel the same way about Al Gore, if he doesn't enter the race.....he would be one hell of an asset.

[Clark2008]

65. Clark can't be the secretary of defense until 2010 - two years after

the 2008 elections.

Federal statute requires the Def. Sec. to be out of active duty military for 10 years. Clark retired in 2000.

Why should we pigeon-hole his great intellect into only military matters?

If not president, Clark should be Secretary of State. You wouldn't catch him shoe-shopping during Katrina or hiding during a Lebanese/Israel "war."

[calteacherguy]

54. Yes, and it's 50% Clark as of the time of this post. nt

[IndianaGreen]

55. I will welcome Wes Clark's entry into the race

but I won't stop supporting my top choice which is Dennis Kucinich (there are others that I like in addition to Dennis, but not to the same passionate level).

[Awsi Dooger]

56. No

I like Clark but wasn't impressed with him in 2004. I prioritize correct handicapping and entering late and not contesting Iowa were remarkably boneheaded moves. At that point I begin to question his judgment going forward, as in what type of a nominee he would be, and he's done nothing to stem that concern by staying out of the mix this long and no clear cut answers about a time line or his decision process.

Clark supporters on DU have been far superior than in 2003-2004. I see there are comments about the conduct up thread so I may have missed some disputes, but overall it's not a situation where every thread, particularly Edwards threads, are hijacked by the same posters with the same tired claims.

[Clark2008]

66. If this was August, I'd agree with you.

But, since it's May and not many people outside of political junkies are paying attention to the race, yet, I'd say he still has a lot of time.

The political season started far too early this year.

[ourbluenation]

57. Gore/Clark 08

[sanskritwarrior]

58. Clark is a military man

so of course he is wildly more qualified than anyone running.

[bobbie]

59. Clark's my top choice, even over Gore

He's ideal

[BreweryYardRat]

61. Instantly.

[Andrew_Lindsey]

63. 52% say yes. n/t

[calteacherguy]

68. 53% yes as of this posting. nt

[bigwillq]

71. I would not

support him over Gore...if Gore does not announce his plans to run...then maybe I will support Clark, although I think Clark would make a better Sec. of Defense or another cabinet position.

[FrenchieCat]

73. Well I understand about Gore....but good to see you would consider Clark if Gore ain't a go....

:hi:

[imlost]

72. Still my #1 choice. n/t