Clark undisputed winner

[quinnox]

I was really impressed with Clark. In my opinion, he blew all the other candidates on the stage away tonight.

When Brokaw tried to catch Clark on the Iraq war, Clark was inspired in his answer. He said all the right things, and made a great impression.

[GCP]

1. Where do you live?

I'm still waiting for the debate at 9.00 EST.

[quinnox]

2. I'm in the far west

The debate was on at 1 PM pacific time.

[Melodybe]

4. I want a Dean/Clark ticket so bad I can taste it...

and I have to agree with you though that Clark won this one hands down. Dean didn't do too much but then again he didn't have to.

[HFishbine]

6. Me too

Clark's only stumble, and it was a big one -- not irreprable though, was about allowing programming jobs to go to India.

[Robin Hood]

69. That was a big dumb ass answer,

and couldn't believe that he said it. Other than that, I see a Clark/dean ticket.

[Padraig18]

26. I think that ticket would kick Repuke ASS!

I think a Clark/Dean or a Dean/Clark ticket would be the strongest one we could offer the American people next November! :)

[robbedvoter]

48. Try some chicken instead. We didn't draft Clark to prop your insecurities

about your candidate. This is very offensive to Clark and all of us hete. STOP it please!

[robbedvoter]

3. My feelings exactly.

Loved the answer to the Brokaw trap: "Would you have sent troops on the ground after Cole?" He elegantly veered this Kosovo/Clinton bad loaded thing into "the Buck stops here" - W is accountable for 9.11! Brilliant!

[karlschneider]

5. I have to agree, even though I'm still undecided.

;-)

[CWebster]

7. Now when Dean does that he is "too angry"

So, of course, Clark sounded strong. But, god damnit, so was Kucinich and he got the lion's share of the applause, but no one acknowleges how much people appreciate wht he says.

This is what I want to know. Clark talks about "success" in Iraq, what does success mean, because Bush talks about sucess too.

[StephNW4Clark]

8. Here is where to go to get a definition of "success" by Clark

http://clark04.com/issues/iraqstrategy/

[CWebster]

13. I think I prefer Kucinich's version

Clark doesn't seem to take into account that we have no right to be there from the start, so when he talks about overcoming "insurgents" he isn't being completely upfront suggesting that we must crush them by using different tactics than Bush -if the attitude is still the same. The Iraqis resent the occupation and that is the first thing on the agenda that should be addressed.

[Donna Zen]

51. insurgents

Right now Iraq is up for grabs, literally. The people that Rummy calls "dead enders" or Wolfie calls "remanents of Saddam regime, are neither. This is a tribal country with many factions after power. He has said he wants to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. When Russert said, "When?" Clark answered, "Tomorrow."

That was not a quip. Clark has recognized that by killing Americans, the insurgents are scoring points with possible followers. He is calling for a new set of overseers from various countries to take over the transition process because if the US is involved the new leadership will lack credibility. The so-called insurgence will simple attack them too.

Why a military role for the US? Clark wants the US out of the major cities, to be replaced by an all Iraqi force if possible. A force preferable trained by non-US (NATO) troops. Our sole responsibility would then become "bad" guy patrol. And like it or not, there are bad guys there. This is a country that has a history of some very harsh leaders. But there are also plenty of smart, very smart, Iraqis who want to see their country do well. US troops would assume a supporting role until a new government could gain the upper hand sans Halliburton.

Why us? For many reasons: we broke it, we have the capability, and we and Iraq's neighborhood benefit from a stable Iraq. Since bush shot his Axis of Evil mouth off, the dynamic has gone down hill. If relationships with Syria and Iran are so become more stable, then we must first calm Iraq, and also, leave with a better feeling in the region than now exist.

Currently bush is headed in exactly the opposite direction. We took over the oil for food program and fired 28,000 teachers. Of course we could just scram, but that has all sorts of consequences with most of them scaling from bad to worse.

[CWebster]

86. You know, it sounds good -

but it isn't working. Other countries do not want anything to do with it, The UN and the Red Cross has pulled out. NATO is just another military force.

And here is the most important part - WE ARE THE BAD GUYS! The military and their arrogance of holy righteousness has decreed themselves the good and moral force---and they are not, they are occupiers, destroyers, invaders--and nothing will change until the mindshift changes. Can Americans do it, I doubt it, everything has the veneer of success and honor, god and country. American lives matter, Iraqis do not.

[KittyWampus]

54. Clark Was Showing Passion-Concentrated Energy

That is somewhat different than Dean's anger.

Clark gives off Light or Illumination.
Dean merely gives off heat.

That's my spin and I'm sticking to it. :)

[robbedvoter]

79. But Maa! he did it too" - it's so funny considering how the press

is coddling your fearless leader. Have you noticed who was the only one last night not beaten with the gay marriage stick?
Have you noticed how brokaw sanitized the CF ugliness to "Southern White Males" and tried to pay back Sharpton for having attacked Dean? In fact Brkaw tried to punish everyone who ever attacked dean and then extolled dean's virtues: "He said you heve no compassion, yet you agree with him on medicare!" Wow! An honest to God Ghandi we have here!

[MoonRiver]

9. Agreed!

:kick:

[Ksec]

10. Hes got the drive

Number one types have drive most of us can only dream about. I have no doubt this Clark will rise to the top. Look at his career...Everything hes touched has been a challenge that he has taken on and rose to the top.

I have little doubt when this is over that he will do the same in this election. Its in his bones.

[Donna Zen]

58. Gene Lyons

Describes it as seeing a mountain lion, and saying "oh what a beautiful cat." And then Lyons said, you look again and think, "oh man, I better not fuck with it."

One morning he had Soledad O'Brien just scratching up her legs. You had to see it.

[britpopper]

71. You nailed it...

Clark has achieved major success in everything he does, it took him a little time to get his "political" footing with the media, but it appears he has come out on top of that too. Anybody who watched today's debate, whether pro-Clark or not, had to agree that Clark was dead on with his straight-forward, honest answers and the audience clearly agreed with the most consistent applause of any candidate...
And what everyone must truly think about is what Clark said in his closing statement--Who, as a Democrat, do you want to see debating George W next year? The answer is clear-General Wesley Clark! He would obliterate little Georgie, making him look like the confused little chimp that he is! Bring it on W!!!
GO CLARK!!

P.S.-Go Steelers!

[rumguy]

11. Kucinich won hands down

everyone else was just play patty-cake in his shadow

[no name no slogan]

61. Kucinich and Sharpton

Rev. Al was his normal awesome self, especially when Brokaw tried to nail him on Brawley. Kucinich really nailed the tough questions, and raised points the others paved over with rehearsed stump speaches.

It was really quite funny to watch Geph and Kerry and Dean dicker over their minor differences and try to distinguish themselves, while DK just simply stated why he was different and why that was important.

Of course, our "liberal media" will completely miss all of this, and say how brilliant Clark/Kerry/Dean/whoever was.... :eyes:

[elfin]

12. Thought so too

but only saw the last half. Will tune in again. I liked that his anger was directed at Bush and not other potential nominees. His energy was palpable - he's getting his campaign "legs." Loved that he refused to allow Tweety pin him down on gay "marriage" in the segment later -- with a grin.

Just got a call from Dean folks - told them I had switched my affections (and wallet) to Clark - they were very nice - but didn't ask WHY?

[farmbo]

14. Oberman's Countdown: Dean is the Winner

(per Craig Crawford)

:grouphug:

[MoonRiver]

15. Who's Oberman?

:shrug:

[Kira]

17. what did he say

I missed it.

[wyldwolf]

27. Said Dean won by not saying anything... or something like that...

[VolcanoJen]

68. Just watched the repeat.. he said Dean won by not losing.

Whatever in the hell that means.

Who hires these political "experts" anyway? Nothing against Dean, who I thought did a smash-up job, as usual, in this debate, but what exactly in the hell does "Dean won by not losing" mean?

Are these guys really that lazy? That's all Mr. Political Instincts had to say? He could have at least cited an example, or seven. There were plenty to choose from, but he just chose to "dumb it down" and give a lazy reporter answer.

:shrug:

My money says he was down the pub during the whole thing...

[Walt Starr]

16. Clark has lost my vote today

I was leaning towards Clark, until today's debate. Sine he's so hot to send software engineer jobs to India, he can run for public office there.

No vote for Clark even if he is the nominee.

[wyldwolf]

18. Good luck!

If Clark gets the nod, you'll own stock in Bush's next four years if others follow your lead.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

25. Don't Believe the Hype, Walt Starr Has NEVER Been a Clark Supporter

He has said many negative things about Clark in the past. He appears to enjoy playing an "undecided" just to lend credibility to his oh-so-sincere conversions, however.

DTH

[NNN0LHI]

29. Don't even think he has ever been a Democrat if you want to know the truth

[NNN0LHI]

19. You going to vote for Bush instead? n/t

[Walt Starr]

20. Yes

I have a bad habit. I like to eat. I also do not want to live in India.

Fuck Clark forever.

[NNN0LHI]

23. Have you ever seen this guy in the mirror?

[Selwynn]

32. Bush is doing so much for high tech jobs..... *rolls eyes*

[KittyWampus]

34. Walt, Clark Believes America Can Create New Jobs

Structure the tax code to keep jobs here
Peg Trade Agreements to higher standards and wages

Protectionism is not the answer. At this point, Protectionist policies would help the GOP.

Investing in green technology and cleaning up our environment is.

And the new middle class in India will have money to buy our products.

Please read Krugman's article on "Lumps of Labor"

Protectionism is the Kneejerk Leftist reaction and unfortunately it will not help our economy to get back on track.

Visit this website:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/ProtectOrDeregulate.asp

[AmericanDem]

21. Hope you dont buy national PC either

you know, DELL, Gateway, etc..

its always nice talking to the Indian folks when i have issues with my DELL!

[Walt Starr]

24. Not for my home I don't. My home PCs are assembled by me.

At work, I purchase what is right for the company.

[AmericanDem]

31. really ?hmmm

The way u sound, I would think you would be against that also. Oh I see selective thinking. Got It!

[Walt Starr]

33. At work, my choices can be pretty limited

I work for somebody else who has built a relaionship with Dell, ergo, I order from Dell.

Recently a peer and I started making headway and we may end up purchasing servers from IBM in the not too distant future.

None of that has any bearing on how I feel about Clark right now.

[AmericanDem]

38. sure it does

Why dont you get on a soapbox dealing with your employer? Its going on everywhere now. What have you done so far to voice such strong opinions?

Clark was just more or less saying , we are capable of doing many many things. perhaps in a few seconds at a moments notices he didn't get the full message out.

Take a step back and wait to hear the more detailed answer to such an involved question.

[sandnsea]

62. American made parts??

Or memory from Taiwan, hard drives from China...?

[theHandpuppet]

81. Um...

You do know that Michael DELL of Dell computer fame is one of Dubya's close personal friends and among the biggest contributors to Republican candidates and Dubya's campaign fund? (See: "Mother Jones 400")

[SayitAintSo]

47. He'll recant on that ... just wait ....

I do think that was a mistake tho ...

[Renew Deal]

65. I am in tech too...

But I didn't take that answer the same way. He didn't just say ship the jobs to India. He said focus the people in other new technologies. I think he said energy and science. I hate to break it to you but he is right. In the world we live in, we have to keep getting educated and keep moving forward to get anywhere. I don't know if you are a COBOL or RPG programmer but if you are, you probably aren't that busy. That's how technology is. You want stability, get into sanitation. You get paid well, you don't take anyone's shit, and it's a short day. It would be so much easier to do that. I don't know why I beat my head against a corprate america wall.

[Ksec]

22. he needs some work on rereg

actually I like Clark but not his trade policies. He needs some work. Like any diamond.

[MoonRiver]

28. I just think he needs to clarify it.

These short sound bite debate questions don't give candidates a chance to elaborate on their positions.

[Walt Starr]

30. His stance was pretty clear to me, he wants to export my job to India

My job has to come before any other consideration.

He's lost any chance with me.

[quinnox]

35. Who you will or won't vote for has been an ever evolving drama

First it was no vote for Kerry ever, then you switched. And now no vote for Clark. But maybe you will yet change your mind.

[Walt Starr]

36. If he retracts his statement about software engineer jobs and Inida,

I might.

He's lost any chance of getting my vote in the primary, though.

I cannot support somebody who wants to export my job to India.

[Ksec]

Welcome to my world

This has been going on in manufacturing for years and we had no help from anyone.

[Walt Starr]

39. It's pissed me off for years

And I'm sick of it.

Now it hits home and people get pissed because wwhat was my number one choice for the Democratic nomination now slips behind Bush because he wants to ship my job to an Indian.

Fuck Clark. I'll go Bush if the bastard gets the nomination.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

42. Deleted by Author (eom)

DTH

[Walt Starr]

45. IF I cannot support the Democratic nominee

I will not be exiled as I will simply cease ever coming to DU. This is Skinner's house and I respect his rules.

If Clark is nominated and I honestly cannot support him, You just won't see any posts from me.

My hope is that he'll come out and clarify because his bullshit today sounds like he wants to ship my job to India. I respected him greatly, but I cannot support any candidate who outright says my job belongs in India.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

46. Bad Timing, I Deleted My Smarmy Post, But Not Before You Saw It

I apologize.

And I agree with you, I hope he comes out and clarifies. Seriously, I urge you to read his position papers on this issue (generally, I don't think he addresses IT specifically) at his website.

DTH

[robbedvoter]

50. Boo-Hoo! He merely accepts a reality and sees a solution.

Jobs that already left cannot be brought back. Others can be created. End of statement. I loved it!

[SahaleArm]

70. Thanks, I now have faith that some people on DU do live in reality.

:)

[britpopper]

75. Exactly

He should be glad he has a job as of today with George W in office, many of my friends have lost their jobs already. A vote for Bush in 2004 is like saying you enjoy being unemployed and that everyone else should try it too. Unless you are employed by Halliburton, you are not guaranteed to have a job tomorrow with W in office. What Clark said was not to ship a job to India but to create like jobs in America.

GO CLARK!!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. Clark doesn't want to export your job to India

What I wrote below I also just posted on antoher thread about this issue, so this is a repost but it seemed to fit here also so here is...

A lot of emotional content was projected onto Clark's short debate comment about "let India write the software". I think it was a quickly thrown off rhetorical phrase, poorly chosen I would conceed. It wasn't some type of Royal decree by which Clark was officially ceeding the future of software development to India. It was said in the tone one might use when someone asks "but what if the neighbors find out and gossip about this?" and one replies, "let them talk!" It is a tone of defiance and optimism about the American inventive capacity that Clark was trying to strike. That being said, the issue of job loss is very real, and the loss of software jobs is a very real compoonent of job loss.

Underlying Clark's short comment I believe was what some might feel is a near fatalistic assumption; Countries less developed than the U.S. are continually striving to advance their own economies and create wealth for their own citizens, same as we do here. Even if somehow the U.S. Congress were to pass legislation submitted by a Democratic Party President that somehow forbade the outsourcing of a single American software job, software programming will continue in grow in India, and elsewhere, and the quality will improove over time. If no U.S. company were ever again allowed to replace a single American software writer with a foreign one, British companies still might. And even if British companies didn't, new Indian companies would eventually emerge to create and market their own new software program packages. And if those packages were good enough, and if they were cheap enough by a wide enough margin, they would find an eager world market and displace American products. U.S. companies making similar more expensive products then would suffer. Even if U.S. consumers and companies were somehow forbidden to purchase foreign products, or if new trade barriers imposed high enough tarrifs so that U.S. products remained competitive in our own domestic market, both the cost of living and the cost of doing business in this country would rise, making the U.S. less competitive in other areas, with economic consequences. These are complex issues, not completely subject to our control.

Clark wasn't "giving away" U.S. jobs and industries. The rest of his comments indicated that he would make an effort to preserve current U.S. jobs, and create incentives to replace those jobs that can not be saved. Clark's comments were forward looking on the topic of investing in America much more than they were a commentary about what steps could or could not be taken to protect jobs in American industries currently under seige. It was a 60 second extended sound bite, not an fully developed economic blue print. It left unspoken what forms of regulation, or reregulation, or derregulation, Clark would or would not support. And no one else in that debate offered anything more specific either. Clark is now on record favoring the repeal of all tax incentives that contribute to the outsourcing of American jobs. He wants new tax incentives for American companies to create American jobs. He wants to invest money supporting emerging areas of new technology, such as energy and the environment, that he feels the United States can and should dominate far into the coming decade. He said no more, or no less, than that in a 60 second off the cuff reply to a detailed question that he had no opportunity to preview.

The problem Clark had was he tried to honestly answer the question as opposed to spinning off immediately into some pre rehearsed spiel about the importance of jobs to America. That's what most politicians do at a moment like that. They duck the question and say what they always planned to say anyway. Suppose Gephardt or Dean or Kerry had said something like this: "I feel for the family of each and every software writer who sees his job being shipped off to India. The jobs that we are loosing every year under the Bush administration are good paying jobs, jobs that support the American dream. Bush praises the economic turn around he sees in the latest statistics, but he fails to note the increase in part time jobs, of jobs without benefits, of low paying food service jobs replacing managerial jobs, and manufacturing jobs. Bush doesn't get it but I do. We are facing a growing economic crisis, and I promise you this. One of the first things I will do when I take office is submit legislation to ensure that no American corporation will ever again receive special interest tax credits while they are busy shipping American jobs overseas."

Would that have given anyone any more real information? That's what politicians usually say when hit like that with a specific question about the projected growth rate of the software industry in India over the next ten years. One it would be impossible to specifically prep for. Sometimes Clark gets in trouble for being thoughtful when he should stay rhetoric. There are unanswered questions about Clarks detailed economic plans sure, but to somehow twist his simple bravado comment about American ingenuity into a premeditated policy to surrender the software industry to India is much more than a stretch.

[SEAburb]

37. "he wants", Ha-Ha >can you be more overdramatic.

Your over-the-top antics are hysterical.

[MoonRiver]

40. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

Who goes balistic over one sentence, except another candidate's activist with an agenda?

[Rowdyboy]

63. Well, now, I certainly would

if my job was directly involved. Wouldn't you?

[SahaleArm]

73. Software engineer here - Embrace change or reap the consequences

The principles of computer science has changed very little since the days of John Von Neuman and Alan Turing. What does change are the technologies and practices of building software. The future of the software industry relies upon adapting to new technologies, building them, and evolving them. The US will always be ahead of the curve, it's driven through the culture and education system. The latter is probably the biggest issue facing America in the next decade.

[jumptheshadow]

84. I winced when he said that

But then my partner, who is a technician, pointed out that jobs have been going to India for some time. "He's talking about cycles, and he's right," she said. "We have to work on new technologies."

One of the problems, I think, is that Clark is a deep thinker about complex topics. That gives him a more difficult path in a sound bite era.

[KittyWampus]

44. Clark Did NOT Say He WANTS Your Job Exported To India

You are making that up, and in the process, changing the meaning of what he said.

The jobs are ALREADY going to India. That is not Clark's doing.

There are no NEW JOBS being created. That is not Clark's doing.

Clark has a plan to create new jobs and technologies by investing in Green Tech and would use tax code to keep them here.

[Donna Zen]

56. Dear Walt

Clark has nothing to do with your job going to India...every night now Lou Dodds drones on about jobs leaving that will never come back. Clark doesn't wish that on us, but he does see it. That is one of his gifts; he sees the big picture. Some people just think that way.

Now couple that with his absolute belief in the American people and our country, and he finds this solution. That we can't protect our way out of this, that we can't hide our head in the sand and solve this, but what we can do is prioritize the money and think our way out of this. He does have experience with the issues. His last job was finding the funding for emerging technologies. We could lower the cost of living and doing business if we moved to green energy. Clark says it is right there, it just needs the "push." And government dollars can provide the push that makes it happen. IMHO, he will move the Star Wars money into the "good for people" column. That's what I like about him; he can do that and no Tom Delay can say Wes is weak on defense.

Yesterday on cspan I watched him working a room in NH. He stopped at one table and was talking to some man about a high milage car that the Chinese are developing. He was alarmed that no one is paying attention to what is going on in Asia.

I think his point is that we need to be doing something positive. His program also provides some protection for existing industries by applying laws that are currently on the books. While no one invisions an America without an IT industry without programers, the consequence of not diversifing into new industries is devasting and will result in our decline into the third world.

Krugman has been yelling about this for months. It is kind of weird but cryingshame posted the link to Krugman's "Lumps of Labor" which dovetails with Clark's outlook. Last night I was up until four correcting papers and came across a hard copy of that article. After reading that piece, I was so impressed that I made copies and handed them out to everyone I knew.

So, Clark does not want your job or my job going anywhere. My job will probably disappear because is making schools jump through hoops without funding, just so we can be privatized. Your job? Well, many will stay on our shores, but don't hold your breath waiting for Bush to care enough to improve this country. He doesn't care. Clark does. I have written to people who will be seeing him over the next few days in hopes of getting him to clarify his statement by posting on his blog. I'll let you know if he does. I enjoy your posts, and while I don't expect you to vote for anyone, I think we must all remember that anyone of the Democrats are better than what is living in the WH now.

[DemCam]

41. Wes is on his way....he's ahead of the curve now...

He energized everybody on that stage today. When Brokaw ignored him in a little while we were all snoozing again.

He is vitality personified. It is going to get better and better.

[AmericanDem]

49. Full Steam Ahead!

Clark is very well in stride now.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Clark did win the debate...

and some are jealous...reminds me of Larry, Curly and Moe...
you know those generals?

Yep......I got what Clark was saying.....I guess maybe a policy paper will help those who don't want to understand.

[bloom]

52. Well - if you are a Clark fan - then he won...n/t

[mmonk]

53. The winner is in the eye of the beholder

That said, I was glad Clark got to express some of what Clark people already know concerning what he thinks about Bushco and the direction the country is heading (beats fending off those attacks about whether he is a "Democrat" or not). He has substance.

[Malikshah]

55. Where's the starter of this thread...

Hmm after a post or two...off they go.

This sort of practice (which takes place QUITE often) is what brings the level of debate down here.

Such a shame. There oughta be a law--but--it'd be too hard to enforce.

[NNN0LHI]

57. Sometimes I post stuff and have to leave or I follow up in the morning...

...when I wake up. I would not worry about it too much. Small potato's.

Don

[Malikshah]

60. Normally I would, but

Having been an avid reader over the last few months, I've noticed a distinct pattern in this thread starters MO. It is akin to the rash of threads that hit the boards every week or so--

Other's it appears have noticed the same patterns. Just an irritant I know--but after a while any irritant gets infected and gangrenous.

(Sorry for the analogy--but it's apropos):evilgrin:

[Rowdyboy]

64. I think you misunderstand something

You may start a thread to begin conversation on a particular subject. You are not required to manage that thread, to post to it, to follow up, to answer questions or anything at all.

I love it when people choose to defend their beliefs, but, if someone wants to post a topic without followup-thats cool too. Its a "discussion board"..."Talk amongst yourselves..."

[chaska]

67. I often start threads that I do not later post in.

I do that when I want information. Maybe I'm not sure what I think about an issue and need some input.

This paranoia is getting old, and makes those who engage in it look really stupid.

[Malikshah]

95. Paranoia...?

I love that-- paranoia. That is so often used to belittle someone's observation on these boards. Also--it's a great freeper response to the LIHOP/MIHOP crowd, akin to the "get over it" line. Ah, the last bastion of discourse..."you're just nuts!"

I was simply making the observation that this is an ongoing habit with the thread starter--that's all. It's the same old thing--make a bold statement, and not come back to discuss it. That is not a discussion board action of any great shakes. That is simply agitation.

Like a puppet master...pull the string, push the button and watch folks dance.

Were I to go in a crowded room--and state something sure to get folks riled up and then simply leave...is that productive for debate and discussion.

I'm just sayin--it's kinda funny to watch folks dance to someone else's tune. It would be funnier if it wasn't so self-destructive in the long run. Here's hoping folks wise up post-primary season.

[Renew Deal]

66. The poster is a regular

and usually hangs out. He has been a Kerry supporter. I don't know if that's still the case.

[britpopper]

72. Without a doubt...

Clark walked away with this debate while Kerry, Dean and Gephardt fight amongst themselves, Clark continues to shine!

[joeprogressive]

74. Clark won me over last night, but still undecided

I started as a Kerry supporter, drifted towards Dean about a month ago and now have landed in the Clark camp for now. I think this speaks to the strength of this field. I mean DK looked very strong but is not electable. Gephardt has done consistently well and I have never liked him in the past. Al said it best regarding any of the candidates asleep is better than W. Remove Lieberman and you have 8 excellent candidates. However, only 3-4 that can beat Bush. I really think the VP selection will be critical.

[britpopper]

77. VP Pick very important...

I agree with you although I don't think 3-4 could beat Bush, maybe 1-2, but God knows I wish it were any of them. Kucinich is an extremely intelligent man, but would get eaten up on the national stage, we all enjoy Sharpton at the debates but know he couldn't beat Reagan with Alzheimer's in 2004. The Republicans want Dean so bad because they know they can beat him, but it is clear that the only candidate who the GOP fear is Clark. Rove must have sleepless nights picturing little Georgie W in an actual debate with Clark, that is their worst nightmare. My dream would be to have Kerry as VP simply because he is a strong Dem from New England, who also has Vietnam experience and having two ex-military guys running against a non-military guy who advocates military force in Iraq. We claim the North, the South and hit the road out west.
GO CLARK!!!

[Adjoran]

76. Yes, his stock went up

Kerry also appeared more involved and aggressive than in previous debates.

One analyst said "Dean won, by not losing." That is Frontrunner's Syndrome, a deadly political disorder. You can't run out the clock in politics.

We need to winnow the field after the first few primaries, at least for those included in debates. The debaters should be candidates with a serious chance to win the nomination, and should have shown some strength in those early states.

[deminflorida]

78. Well, I read this thread....

and, I'll tell you what. I'm glad that at least the issue of outsourcing has been brought up. I'm in tech as a Senior Systems Engineer, and I think Clark's approach at looking at the reasons that the jobs are leaving are correct. There has to be an incentive to keep them here. Right now, as far as my take goes...Indians working cheaper is the only incentive because the engineering support you get from 75% of them sucks. Maybe they are better at the software writing arena, but engineering wise you still have to offer support to your customers at some point. And trust me no offense to Indians in general, or Indian Americans but they have a long way to go in the technology market. The support you get from U.S. engineers is far superior. Let's face it, it's a global economy. The GOP has already destroyed our forgein relations in the world...let's try and move ahead as Americans and at least compete economically. Bye the way, I think Clark won the debate tonight. Dean's beating a dead horse now with "the what was your position on the war" issue. Likewise the "white southern male/confederate flag" issue is dead too. As a matter of fact the right is running pretty desperate right now. Otherwise you wouldn't be seeing them trying to make gay marriages, and patriotism the center platforms of the 2004 election. The democrats need to take advantage of this by not beating dead horses and discussing real issues that are important to American swing voters and independents, as well as former republicans. Oh yes, I believe there will be alot of former republicans this time around. The Iraq war is an absolute disaster for the Bush administration.

[robbedvoter]

80. His campaigning style caught up with his resume" Jesse Jackson

He summed it up. Dismissed.

[theHandpuppet]

82. Clark Won Me Over Yesterday...

I hadn't committed to any candidate until yesterday, but was leaning towards Dean/Kucinich. I must admit that I was sorely disappointed in Dean's performance during yesterdays' debate -- it became obvious to me that the man doesn't have that Clintonesque "something" needed to win next year's election. From a purely practical standpoint, I sadly had to admit that for me personally, I don't believe Dean can project an image that can connect with a broad base of Americans, at least enough to take the WH back for the Dems. He's way too stiff, snarky and fidgety on the public podium, giving him an air of aloofness.

I think Kucinich, Sharpton, and Moseley Braun also did well, but again, I don't think these three are electable. Sad to say, because I like Dennis and if a Dem IS elected next year I would like to see him get an important post in the administration. (Secy of State?)

Gephardt is truly an impressive debater but hearing him trying to rationalize why he spent so much time kissing Dubya's ass turned me off. He didn't take a stand when it really counted and it's a little too late to shut the barn door, Dick. I would have respected him more if he had just admitted he furked up and promised to rectify the mess he helped to create.

Kerry may be a good man but he leaves me with a profound sense of indifference. I can't even explain why that is, but I don't think John could really encourage a rush to the polls.

Edwards -- come back in about 12 years and you won't remind me of my nephew. Great promise, but needs seasoning for me to take him seriously for the top post.

When all was said and done, I walked away most impressed by Clark. I not only liked what I heard -- A LOT -- but he has the charisma to pull it off. I expected him, not Dean, to be stiff and aloof, but I can now see that Clark can really light a fire in folks. AND I think he's electable.

No flames, please. I've completely avoided all debates here about the various candidates because I wanted to take a good deal of time to sort through the candidates, not only issues-wise but I also needed to see how each performed on a public stage. I came away yesterday convinced that Clark/Dean is the electable ticket, perhaps the only one.

[kentuck]

83. I think Clark's weaknesses at this time are :

his support for the trade treaties and his comments he made while commentating for CNN. He is being called on a lot of those comments and he appears to look very contradictory in most of them.

[SahaleArm]

85. No protectionist will win this election.

Running on a stop trade platform won't win the election. The world won't stop because we say so.

[flpoljunkie]

89. Am sorry but just have to laugh at your calling Clark out re contradictory

statements. Especially, if you are a Dean supporter. It is laughable!

[CWebster]

87. This is what bothers me and everyone ignores it

"The retired Army general, in the harshest assessment of a rival to date, said Dean's plan to re-regulate U.S. businesses is a major departure from Clinton, who strongly backed deregulation of energy and telecommunications markets.

'The results in the '90s spoke for themselves,' Clark said at a brief news conference in which he referred to Clinton by name six times. 'Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again.'

Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom.

Responding to Clark's criticism, Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Wednesday, 'Under the Bush administration, the balance of power has shifted against the American people and toward greedy pharmaceutical companies, powerful energy corporations and media monopolies. If Democrats are not concerned with protecting consumers, workers and the average American, then they are truly out of touch.'"


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-19-clark-dean_x.htm

This is an absolute must read for all who are concerned about the growing corporate dominance of our country. It tends to get obscured in Clark's general persona and it is so vitally important.

[SahaleArm]

88. What does Dean mean by re-regulate?

That's the $25,000,000 question and hasn't been answered yet. Personally I think Dean has moderate tendencies and he's playing up this angle to solidify the unions. He's certainly never been a protectionist in the past.

[CWebster]

90. It isn't Dean who concerns me

It is Clark!

Address it!

[SahaleArm]

91. Clark's for regulation if it's needed not for the sake of regulation.

He's for the enforcement of current standards (including Sarbanes-Oxley), requiring share-option expensing, more transparent disclosure, and for removing executives from the board for better shareholder representation. Right now with no enforcement it's difficult to judge how much more regulation is required. He also supports bringing back media objectivity rules and doesn't support the new ownership rules.

Your act has become laughably transparent.

[Tom Rinaldo]

94. A more general look at the General at the debate

Given the problem earlier with the General Discussion Forum, thought it deserved a kick.

[bowens43]

92. Too bad he has no verifiable record....

as a liberal, progressive or even A Democrat. All we have is his word and after the flip flops and support of the bushies and the republicans, his word isn't worth much. IMO he is an oppertunist who will say or do anything to become president.

[in_cog_ni_to]

93. kick

:kick: