Russ Feingold or Wes Clark

[burythehatchet]

...and why. Please kick.

[rzemanfl]

1. Clark is a former Republican, too much like marrying an

ex-prostitute in my judgment. Russ is the real deal, but they will probably shoot him.

[HootieMcBoob]

9. Clark is not a former Republican!

That's total BS. The Democratic Party is the first and only Party Clark has ever belonged to. He's done a tremendous job since his run in the primary for The Democratic Party and for Dem candidates.

[rzemanfl]

13. I cannot be the only person who thinks this. Didn't he support

Bush in 2000? Doesn't that make him a Republican? I have never voted for a Republican in my life. That makes me a Democrat.

[wyldwolf]

22. No and No

Simple.

[rzemanfl]

28. Okay, wrong Bush. I still never voted for a Republican in my

life.

[wyldwolf]

30. So?

(He didn't vote for the other Bush, either.)

[rzemanfl]

175. I find it really odd that all the comments on my post are about

my assertion that Clark was a Republican and none about the statement that they will probably shoot Finegold, or is that a given?

[Tom Rinaldo]

191. Because it is too disempowering to dwell on the possiblity

that any good Democrat might get assasinated. For you that could be Russ. For me that could either Wes or Russ, or a few others too. But we can't give up before we start, and that is what it would mean to assume that we can't have a leader we can honor. I honor any Democrat who stands up against special interests. We can't really determine how likely it is that someone might be assasinated, but the facts on Clark's registration are black and white so it was something obvious to comment on.

[wyldwolf]

206. "subthreads"

you entered a new subtopic into the thread. Did you not think it would be addressed?

But if you insist, it is conspiratorial nonsense that they will "probably shoot Finegold."

[madmunchie]

249. Is there a Wes Clark permanent site on DU to dispel all of the

incorrect presumptions and beliefs about WC? When people who do not know WC make charges, comments...why not just refer them to this site on DU where they can read up on the FACTS if they choose to know the facts. Seeing threads started and misstatements made constantly about Clark is getting so redundant and frustrating. This site, if nothing else is expert in its knowledge of WC and could put something together to refer "newbies to Clark" to, so that ALL of the BS could be addressed in one spot.

I say Feingold and Clark or Clark and Feingold.

[Le Taz Hot]

269. I wish there was so the rest of us wouldn't be

subjected to this every week or so . . . 10 or so "threads" by the same people, over and over, pushing the same person who was never a real candidate in the first place.

[FrenchieCat]

284. You're not being subjected to anything.....

It's like who forces you to open up a thread and read it?

Hel-LO....There is an Thread ignore feature at DU, and I suggest that when you see Clark's name in the header.....you use it.

The rest of what you said doesn't even deserve a response.

[democrank]

25. NO. Clark did not support Bush in 2000.

He has answered that question....many times.

[radio4progressives]

246. As an Independent in 2000, who did he support? Nader or Gore or other? n/t

[wyldwolf]

265. Gore

[Virginia Dare]

94. Neither have I, but I'd vote for Clark...think outside the box...eom

[radio4progressives]

245. He voted for Nixon and Reagan and Clinton and Kerry

don't know what he did about Poppy Bush, or Gore.

[LittleClarkie]

289. Having company in your opinion doesn't make you right

He supported Gore in 2000. His voting record, I believe is

Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Gore

He was a registered Independant. He leaned toward Repubs until he worked with Dems under Clinton and found out they were nothing like what he'd been told they were. He found that while Republicans kept people divided, Dems tried to bring people together. He found that his beliefs matched up with what the Dems stood for. Hence, he became one.

Shit, does anyone remember the name of the website during the campaign that debunked that myth in the first place? They generally checked the truth of ads. Some thought they leaned right, but they did take on that bit about Clark during the primaries. Short term memory always the first to go. I can't believe I can't remember. It was the website that Cheney tried to give the name of in the veep debate, but he goofed it up.

But anyway...

[Texas_Kat]

298. Snopes and Annenberg Fact Check

and Columbia Journalism Review??? CJR anyway.

Those who can't seem to remember the answers to these same questions that get asked over and over should check there first.

[LittleClarkie]

316. Thanks. Fact Check is what I was thinking of

they have an entry devoted to it. I believe the quote they provide from Clark is from "Meet the Press".

[radio4progressives]

15. You didn't know that Clark is a former Republican?

That came up in the 2004 primary season... he said he switched parties when he saw was happening to our country when the Bush admin and the Neo Cons hijacked it... :shrug: weird, i thought everybody knew this.

why do the clarkies always run polls on DU?

just askin'...

[sandnsea]

19. That's not true at all

He wasn't registered as anything. IIRC, he voted for Clinton and Gore. And he had previously voted for Reagan and Bush. Military people can't be affiliated with an political group, he was nothing before 2003.

[radio4progressives]

40. Whatever...he supported REPUBLICANS in his career ...

what's the difference?

[sandnsea]

45. Clarity and accuracy

It matters.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

46. Even assuming that was true, do we not accept converts?

If, 20 years ago, somebody voted for a Republican but subsequently saw the errors of their ways and became a Democrat, do we still reject that person as not a good enough, true-blue Democrat because of that long ago vote, now repudiated? If your very first vote at age 18 wasn't for a Democrat, do we say that you can't be one now?

You know what happens to groups that don't accept converts? They die out.

[HootieMcBoob]

48. Reagan was a Democrat n/t

[radio4progressives]

248. Reagan was REPUBLICAN both as a Governor in California and as President

Reagan's opposition to John F. Kennedy, and support for Nixon's bid for President, is when Reagan changed his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Interesting litmus test factoid.

[Totally Committed]

264. I think Reagan was a Democrat longer than he was a Republican!

If that's not true, it's close. He was even the head of one of the most Liberal Unions that ever existed -- the Screen Actors Guild. He was very open in saying it was this Party that let him down. When asked why he left the Democratic Party, he said, "I didn't leave the Party, it left me." A lot of people do say, however, it was Nancy who greatly influenced his conversion.

But, he was, indeed, a Democrat -- a liberal one, too, and for a long time.

TC

[radio4progressives]

137. you talking to me? i think people are being too defensive on this point

it isn't necessary. (to my mind) what matters is what anybody is doing to stop the fascism right NOW. not tomorrow. not january 2007.

NOW.

that's what counts to me.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

54. Randi Rhodes of AAR said she voted for Reagan in 1980.

:popcorn:

[Dinger]

83. Confessionn Time (I'm Ashamed):

I voted for ray-gun twice, and bu$h senior. Much to my shame. I was young, and didn't give a shit about politics, so I just voted to say I voted.

[Crunchy Frog]

177. I don't have a problem with it.

People grow and change. I can't tell you how many Democratic party activists I met who voted for Reagan at least once, including the leader of our local Kucinich meetups.

I care about where a person is now, and about the process by which they got there, rather than about what they may have supported in the past. Two of my favorite people are Arianna Huffington and David Brock.

Oh, and I voted for Nader in 2000, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

[radio4progressives]

138. not at all surprised...

[Clark2008]

211. Big fucking deal

Most of the country supported Reagan in 1980 - he only lost one state.

Think outside of the box. THINK.

Do you really THINK who Clark supported when I was 10 is going to matter in a general election?

He was a registered Independent. Like I am.

[radio4progressives]

250. back off kid... don't get your shorts in wad over this..

you may have only been 10 years old, but those of us who were young adults REMEMBER - and there's more of us than there are of you.

so be nice, and you THINK outside of your own narrow box for a change before condenscending to others about our own personal MEMORIES of that era, because that ain't no small matter.

you better figure out why it's important to those of us who think it's important, if you want to develop a pursuasive campaign to be open to considering Clark over someone else.

By the way, many Greens are Indepenent, and now many Democrats as well as Libertarians and Socialists are independents. So start convincing yourself that "Independents" are like minded creatures or a tribe unto itself.

[madmunchie]

252. The difference is that he was a military man that supported whatever

Commander and Chief was in office. As I said before, common military way of thinking.

[guidod]

198. Clark was a registered Independent and

voted for Nixon, Regan and father Bush once. He voted for Clinton twice and became a democrat in the year 2000.

[sandnsea]

205. You don't register for party in Arkansas

So he was registered to vote, and that's it, just like everybody else in the state.

[Texas_Kat]

300. Well in Texas in 1992, he requested an absentee ballot

for the Democratic primary (info direct from the county clerk's office in Bell county, Texas).

Since that's as close as Texas gets to party registration, that means he was a member of the Democratic Party in 1992.

[wyldwolf]

21. I know it's pointless to ask you for proof considering your track record..

...but what the hell... Proof?

[radio4progressives]

36. geezus - it came up in the PRIMARIES - hell i didn't run a transcript for

pity sakes... i really DIDN'T see it as big deal personally.

they're all right wingers to me except Sharpton, Kucinich and Dean.

edited to insert the word "DIDN'T"

[wyldwolf]

207. What you contend did not come up in the primaries

he said he switched parties when he saw was happening to our country when the Bush admin and the Neo Cons hijacked it... weird, i thought everybody knew this.

Nope. Someone has mislead you.

[HootieMcBoob]

26. Clark was never a Republican!

Q: Your Democratic Party credentials in this race do matter to many within the party

CLARK: I voted for Bill Clinton & Al Gore. When I got out of the military, I looked at both parties. I'm pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-environment, pro-labor I was either going to be the loneliest Republican in America or I was going to be a happy Democrat. My wife & I spent our entire time in the uniform taking care of people. That's what the Democratic Party does. And that's what I want to do as president. I'm in this party now, and I'll bring a lot of other people into this party, too. That's what we need to do to win in November.

Q: Do you look, then, at your lack of experience within the party itself as an asset?

CLARK: Well, I've got a lot of experience in leadership. I've never run for elective office before, and in the military, most of us were never members of a political party. But I think what matters in this party is the clarity of your ideas and the strength of your convictions.

Source: Democratic 2004 Primary Debate at St. Anselm College Jan 22, 2004

===============================

Q: You said in an article in the Times of London as the war ended, "Liberation is at hand. Liberation, the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions." As to the president, you wrote, "Pres. Bush & Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt." Could not a reader conclude that you did indeed support this war and were pleased by its outcome?

CLARK: No. If you look at the whole article, I lay out a whole series of tasks that have to be done later on. And it's written in a foreign publication. I'm not going to take US policy and my differences with the administration directly into a foreign publication. But I made it clear in the article that they've got to focus now on the peacekeeping, the occupation, the provision of order. I did not support this war. I would not have voted for the resolution. But once American soldiers are on the battlefield, then I want them to be successful and I want them to come home safely.

Source: Democratic 2004 Primary Debate at St. Anselm College Jan 22, 2004

===================================

Q: On May 11, 2001, you addressed the Republican Party Lincoln Day Dinner in Arkansas. You expressed your support for Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, his staff and Cabinet, and indicated they were needed in place. Do you believe it now?

CLARK: I think it's been an incredible journey for me and for this country since early 2001. We elected a president we thought was a compassionate conservative. Instead we got neither conservatism or compassion. We got a man who recklessly cut taxes. We got a man who recklessly took us into war with Iraq.

I was never partisan in the military. I served under Democratic presidents, I served under Republican presidents. But as I looked at this country and looked which way we were headed, I knew that I needed to speak out. And when I needed to speak out, there was only party to come to. I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I'm pro-environment, pro-health. I believe the US should engage with allies. That's why I'm proud to be a Democrat.
Source: Debate at Pace University in Lower Manhattan Sep 25, 2003

====================================

[radio4progressives]

39. If memory serves, the question came up in the debates before the

Iowa Caucus ... I watched all of this stuff on C-span - ALL of it.

But really people, it's really no big deal. So WHAT if Clark was formerly registered as a Republican? You've got a transcript showing his support for Reagan.. Reagan is as Right Wing as any of these people..

please, calm down! There are plenty of DINO's in the party, I never said Clark was one of them.

[HootieMcBoob]

Sweet Merciful Jeebus!

Dude! He was never registered as a freaking Republican - end of story!

[Ice4Clark]

58. Wes Clark has NEVER been registered as a Republican!

During his Army service he registered to vote as an independent in his home state of Arkansas. He 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.

I'm so friggin tired of folks still spewing the same bullshit lies about his "loyalty" to the republicans and who continue to accuse him of having been a registered republican! How many times must Wes defend himself on this shit. Has he not been in the line of fire for the democrats for years now? I used to be a democrat, but identify myself as independent, so am I not welcome on this board or by the party? My spouse IS a registered republican and he voted for Wes in our state primary. Is he not welcome on this board? If we can't get over this "eat them alive" attitude, why the hell would anyone run for any office, no matter which political party? How do we expect to kick ass in 2006 if we don't attrack voters from all parties? The democratic party cannot win without the cross over voters. So, before you continue to spread lies about a man who has devoted his entire adult life to this nation, please educate yourself.

[radio4progressives]

77. Look.. personally i don't give a damn one way or the other

i really don't. and i never ever said he wasn't a "loyal democrat".

but i remember the question being raised in the debates or the primaries, he voted republican , so maybe i got that criss crossed - but what's the difference between being a registered Independent who voted and supported Reagan and a registered Democrat who voted and supported Reagan, or a former republican who voted and supported Reagan?

Please explain the difference..

just curious, what's the difference? (apparently it matters to you)

[Virginia Dare]

96. No difference to me..he's a Democrat now....eom

[radio4progressives]

118. last weekend i posted that i was impressed with Clark in an interview

broadcast on C-Span. I said then that he'd likely make a good Secretary of Defense in the next administration - (i don't see him as president) i was then reminded that he's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and that sort of makes me pretty queasy given their pnac/dlc and other connections but that's pretty much where we are in this country, isn't it?

my optimism for brighter days ahead fell straight into the pits after the defeat of Alito confirmation, the rolling over on the Domestic Spying, the rolling over on the additional gestapo, fascistic provisions in the reauthorization of the PA bill - i am simply drained of any hope or vision, or awareness by the very people I'm constantly told are going to "lead" us out of these dark days, as soon as "we're back in power".

never mind that they still have plenty of power to wield in Congress, if only they would choose to do so. Since the start of 2006, they've shown either they don't know what they have, or they don't care, or they're too scared or something else that hasn't been quite clear.

But just because Clark is hired as a consultant for Fox news doesn't make make me excited, and he's not the leader that I'm personally hoping to see emerge from the fray... i do have an open mind - and am willing to listen, but i won't be listening to him on Fox - not ever. I'm glad he's there if he's correcting the facts sufficiently, then good on him.

but if he's telling people we need to continue this war in Iraq, then we're on opposite sides of the fence. If he's advocating immediate troop withdrawal and no permanent bases, well then cool.

but on the matter of whether his registration as Indepndent who voted for Reagan is different than being a registered Republican who voted for Reagan - ok, i'll admit my error, but it still makes no difference to me one way or the other.

[Jai4WKC08]

215. Not a member of the Council of Foreign Relation either

Clark is a member of a number of bipartisan agencies, but CFR isn't one of 'em. And a number of liberal ones as well. Just for the record.

Perhaps you are confusing CFR with the Center for American Progress. He's a director there.

Clark does not, however, advocate for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, altho he wants the war over, troops withdrawn, is adament that invading Iraq was a mistake from the start, and has on Fox primetime defended Sheehan, Murtha, Durbin and others for their opinions. He specifically called for not putting in permanent bases in a NYT op/ed. But if you see "the fence" as being between those who want to pack up today and everybody else, then yeah, I guess you're on opposite sides.

Clark wasn't "registered as Independent" either. He registered to vote. Period. Arkansas residents did not register by party until the mid-1990s, and most still do not declare a party when they register today. Fwiw, military officers usually did not identify with either party until as recently as the 1990s. Eisenhower wasn't even registered to vote when he got out of the military. That was the tradition at one time, and personally I think we'd be a lot better off if we could return to it. The military should be completely non-partisan, and the parties shouldn't have any more incentive to pander to the military than they already do.

I also think there's a big difference between voting for Reagan and being a Republican. For one thing, a large majority of American voters would be Repubs by that definition, and I don't think that's a message we want to reinforce. For another, it's just wrong to accuse someone of being a Republican when he or she isn't. All the more so when that someone is working his butt off, and with no little financial sacrifice, for the Democratic Party and liberal causes.

[Totally Committed]

267. Hi, radio4...

Take a look here, and you might not be so concerned:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2468198&mesg_id=2470121

TC

[Wesin04]

59. You didn't pay close attention during the primary

Wes Clark was an Arkansas resident when he retired from the military. He had considered Arkansas his home during his entire life after age 4. Arkansas does not register its voters by party, and Clark never, never, never was a registered Republican. He only officially joined a political party in 2003, and he joined the Democratic Party. If the Democrats excluded current members based on a Republican vote or two during a lifetime, we'd be a much smaller party. Current beliefs, convictions and most importantly, actions are what matters.

[ICantBelieve]

72. Yeahbut

The FACT is he was never registered as a Republican. That's just the plain truth. That's all. Yeah, he voted for Republicans in the 70's and 80's because that's what military people did.

[Tom Rinaldo]

166. People should be judged on their actions past and present

and the present looms larger than the past, but it simply is not true that Clark ever Registered as a Republican. 100%, not at all in dispute, nothing gray about it untrue. Clark NEVER registered as a Republican in his whole life.

Why does it matter? Because you and I can reach a friendly agreement about what should and should not matter but that only binds us two to that agreement. Some people have a very strong emotional political reaction to that specific lie. Clark and every other Democrat who runs for office has enough to worry about in having to defend the true things about their records and beliefs. If there are 5% of voters in a Democratic Party primary who would not vote for Clark if they believed he once was a Republican but who might if they realized he was always an Independent, one who voted for Clinton twice and Gore before registering as a Democrat, it simply would be dirty politics to knowingly saddle him with an untrue label when the facts are easy to establish.

That didn't stop some Democrats from doing it before the New Hampshire primary of course. And Kerry's State campaign manager blasted Clark for voting for Reagan before having to admit that she had also when someone dug up a record of her having admitted it before.

[snowbear]

192. I can't believe R4Progressives of all people is doing this....

There are a handful of DU'ers who absolutely love to spew out that nasty lie about General Clark, but wow --- YOU R4P ???


You -- and every single person who has been a member here for any length of time, or who has listened to General Clark slam R-THUGS for lying about his political affiliation knows damn well he was NEVER A REPUBLICAN ----- NEVER!! :mad:

It's pretty obvious that the DU'ers who are irked at how much the good General happens to come up on here like to spew the lie the freeper types started just to piss off their fellow DU pals.



As the former NATO Commander and a 4-Star General, General Clark (a registered Independent his entire life) was PAID to speak about foreign affairs at various Republican and Democratic functions.

Big friggin Deal.

Republicans and Freepers cherry-picked his speaking engagements and chose to publicize the one paid engagement he attended held by an R to make Democrats think he was "one of them", to "swiftboat him". Funny how they never mentioned the Democratic functions he was paid to speak at.

EVERY SINGLE DU'er who has been here for any length of time knows damn well that Clark was an Independent until he became a Democrat.

The sad thing is, this lie will pop up here again down the road. It's been happening since the last presidential campaign.

When we're actually "swiftboating our own", we've sure stooped pretty damned low here.

[radio4progressives]

228. this thread is too weird.. i don't understand why people are freaking out

about this - i'm not trying to bash, or demean Clark. If you think voting for Reagan is not something to be concerned about, (which i have not said or implied) but voting for Reagan and Poppy Bush certainly requires a conservative point of view at the minimum, which i think is what people want to cover up for some reason... (explains the reactionarism to making the mistaken impression that Clark had been formerly REGISTERED as a Republican.

If you vote Republican what the hell is the DIFFERENCE???????????????

[snowbear]

231. Yeah, whatever.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2468490#2468515



You are a piece of work.

[radio4progressives]

243. actually, this thread is mind numbingly imbicilic ..

and so are the reactionary responses.

somehow, making a hair spitting Technical distinctiong on Clark's registration party affiliation, as something significant when he's on record as voting for RICHARD NIXON and RONALD REAGAN (presumably Poppy Bush ?) as somehow distinctive different than actually being TECHNICALLY registered as an Independent rather than Republican, because that's the way it's done in Arkansas.


This is a totally MORONIC position to argue.

But if this how Clark supporters are going to try and promote their guy, then something is really really really weird and wrong with this picture, because this is not the way to go about it.

I think Clark himself deserves a hell of a lot better than what's being offered here in this thread. If ardent supporters can't be a bit more circumspect, and thoughtful rather than the knee jerk reactionary attacks on issues that Clark himself knows how to respond to quite effectively, and intelligently, then i feel bad for Clark. With supporters like you guys, who needs opponents? I'd say, Clark supporters here ought to take cues from their own candidate, and figure out how best to respond to the fact he did vote for republican presidents, at least Nixon and Reagan that we know. Just because he wasn't technically registered to any party, is simply a difference with no practical distinction.

Better understand the significance of that point before carrying on further with the campaign because you're not going to "win" any argument or persuade any minds by parsing out the definition and the meaning what "IS" is.

[Crunchy Frog]

280. Clark supporters promote their guy by correcting the misinformation

that gets continuously posted on this site. The difference may not be important to you, but there is a difference, and it is important to many people, between having been a REGISTERED REPUBLICAN, and having never had a formal party affiliation, but having voted predominantly republican prior to about 15 years ago. There is also a HUGE difference between having voted for Republicans back in the 70's and 80's and having voted for W in 2000. Again, this distinction may be unimportant to you (though you are in fact the one who brought it up), but it's for sure that some people consider it to be important. It's pretty clear that the corporate media knew that the distinction was important for some, based on the way they played it up.

Clark supporters on this board have had to deal with the same misinformation and outright lies being posted over, and over, and over, and over again, and many of us have concluded that it is important to address these on the spot, rather than to simply let these things slide. John Kerry's swiftboating incident showed what can happen when you don't address deliberate misinformation, and there is no doubt that some of the spreading of misinformation about Clark is very deliberate and intentional (I am not accusing you of doing so, just trying to let you know why we react so strongly to this sort of thing).

In future, in this sort of thread, it might be better to simply say that you have problems with supporting a person who voted for Nixon and Reagan, or address other FACTUALLY based concerns. That way the actual issues can be debated and your posting won't bear the appearance of disingenousness.

I apologize for your having inadvertantly stepped on a landmine here. I hope that you can understand somewhat where the other side is coming from.

[ken-in-seattle]

309. Well then lets collect money to run an ad,

advising every Democrat that voted for Reagan that they are not welcome back in the party. Advise them that we don't need any help saving them from the protofascist future.
And have a nice day.

[Tom Rinaldo]

235. Is there a difference between being an Independent and a Democrat?

I think there is. Not as much of a difference as between a Democrat and a Republican, but still a difference. Independents tend to be ticket splitters. Republicans and Democrats tend to overwhelmingly vote for their Party's candidate.

We know that Clark was never a Republican, but that he previously voted for some Republicans for President, and in recent years for Democrats for President. Actually we also know that Clark was inspired by JFK but was too young to vote for him in 2000. Clark has explained that he backed some Republicans for President for reasons based on his views then on National Security during the Cold war, and that his views on that had changed by Clinton's time. We also know that Clark's views on Domestic and Social issues have always been closer to traditional Democratic rather than Republican views.

It makes a significant difference in my opinion that Clark never related to himself as being Republican. But whether or not it makes a significant difference, it is simply the truth and it is always better to make true rather than false statements about other people. It really is that simple.

[radio4progressives]

244. There are Independent Socialists, Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians ..

Bernie Sanders is registered as an Independent. so is Jefferds. Apparently Robert Byrd was formerly a Republican, ran for President as an Independent and then registered as a Democrat. People's party affiliations change with the times, changing political philosophies either internally or externally.

Clark voted Nixon as well as Reagan. I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned about his ideas and justifications on waging and making Wars. I haven't read his book, 'Winning Modern Wars' - I understand the CFR gives high praises for it as do others. The bombing of Kosovo is still a very ugly and bitter memory for many, and most things about the Bosnia/Croatian conflict has been redacted from the news scripts - just like it was done regarding El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua... most Americans have no idea what happened there, don't knwo about Negroponte's role and a whole panaply of other charachters and events - the CIA drug running, oil pipeline interests and so forth. There's always more to the story than we will ever know.

If he was to be a presidential candidate again, i'd want to look at both of his domestic and foreign policy positions. I'd want to know his positions on NAFTA, and other matters concerning trade policies. I especially want to know how he feels about presidential authority, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Separation of Church and State, and a plethora of matters that are on the table right now.

I know that he has put out policy positions expressing deep concerns about global warming and the environment, i know that he's pro-choice and things like that. So there's things on the surface positions that w/should have mass appeal. I'm not promoting or opposing Clark. My hero du'jour happens to be Feingold. I don't know everything there is to know about Feingold, i have learned some things - and what i do know i like very much.

But that election is two years from now. So, people better calm down and knock off the vicious attacks against people who are merely asking questions.

[Tom Rinaldo]

277. It is fair to want to look into things like that about any potential

candidate, and for each one there will be unique questions needing answers. You know more about Feingold than Clark, he's a fine choice, and most of us know more about one Democrat than another. Maybe sometime on an appropriate thread we'll take a crack at answering some of those questions you have about Clark. I already have to my own safisfaction, but this thread is probably not the time or place to go deep into it.

Peace.

[madmunchie]

254. Independents didn't drink anybodies koolaide. They tend to

look at the person actually running instead of just voting party lines.

Seeing Bush in 2000 sent me, an Independent, running to register as a Democrat (and of course voting straight Democrat since). Little good that it did.

In edit: Yeah, and to some extent, I have been choking on some of the Democrat Koolaide.

[Clark2008]

212. Clark didn't participate in that debate.

Neither did Sharpton.


Hear that noise? It's a buzzer because YOU'RE WRONG.

[madmunchie]

251. He never registered as a Republican.

He may have voted for Reagan but he didn't register for party affiliation. His own words..."He worked for whatever Commander and Chief was in office, no matter Repulican or Democrat." Which is the way that many military people think. If you followed Clark's campaign (he wasn't in Iowa) he was asked this and this was clarified, he never registered for any party until shortly before ran for office when he registered as a Democrat.

[radio4progressives]

258. Clark Independent Voted For Nixon and Reagan Clinton and Kerry

don't know if he voted for Poppy Bush or Dukakis, or Gore or Nader or W in 2000.

So far his KNOWN voting record was in favor of 8 years for Nixon, 8 Years for Reagan, 8 years for Clinton, 4 Years for Kerry .

16 years for Repulican, and 12 for Democrats.

To get an ACCURATE finding on his party affiliation voting record - would be to learn how he voted in 1988 and 2000.

[madmunchie]

262. He voted for Gore

Lets just all split some more hairs. He ran as a Democrat for the Presidency and campaigned for Kerry when he dropped out of the Primary. Why does it make any difference in HOW MANY times he voted this way or that? It is just so imbecillic and counter productive to what really matters. As far as I know, this country still offers free choice in politics doesn't it? People that like to split hairs on candidates are actually working for the Republicans and doing their work for them. Normally it would be O.K., but in a state of emergency (which in case you don't know, we really are in) why would you spend so much time and energy shooting the Democrats in the foot?

I always was an Independent until Bush ran. When he ran, I ran to register as a Democrat, because I realized that an emergency was unfolding before my eyes. I vote straight Democrat because I am desperate to but a balance of power back into Washington. Unless we get that balance of power back we are all screwed and people slicing and dicing up our old Democrats or our new Democrats are missing the point of what is really important for our nation to survive.

[radio4progressives]

274. Yeah! I agree - All Critisim of Anybody with a D after their name

should be considered as treasonous. end of story.

thanks for reminding me why i voted in favor of Feingold, and why the WAR MAKER Clark WAS NEVER EVER ON MY RADAR SCREEN before now. Not until you just reminded me, because when I saw the name of the most relentless defender of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Russ Feingold, i got so excited that i forgot to put on my brown shirt before entering this thread which had Feingold's name in it.

Now i see that there is another Clark Thread and if you take a look at that one it has all the Clark supporters giving a shout out and high fiving each other -- running all throughout the thread.

I forgot those were the rules...

i'll make sure to stay out of everything and anything that has Clark's name in it, because we never ever want to give the impression that he might not have massive support across the board, and we should never raise questions of why he voted for Richard Nixon for eight years (though that was thankfully abbreviated) and Ronald Reagan for eight years, and did he also vote for poppy bush or did he switch to Dukakis? dollars to donuts it was likely Poppy Bush, but if he voted for a New England Liberal that would be of some interest to some people, maybe. Like when did he decide he didn't favor Republicans anymore? but that's not a legitimate question for a Democrat to ask a candidiate with a D after his name.

we only need to put on our brown shirts, shut up and fall in line...

i got it now.

[madmunchie]

283. You really have a chip on your shoulder

I don't know whether I like Feingold or Clark at this point. I was in full support of Clark during the Primaries and I still admire the Hell out of the guy. Feingold is impressing the Hell out of me though.

My point is why should WE slaughter other Democrats, especially possible strong Democratic Candidates, won't the Republicans do that for us?

So he voted for Nixon? I kind of liked Nixon to. I know I'll be shot for that one. ANYONE voting for Reagan is beyond me though. Clark has a brilliant mind is undeniably a Patriot. If his opinion over 30 YEARS ago so happens to go against your opinion, than should he be crucified for it today? Has every decision you made in your life been correct or stayed constant for over 30 years?

Did you even bother to notice that Feingold came the closest to Clark's numbers in the poll than any other candidate that I have seen on polls like this one? Does it not give you hope that people are beginning to see Feingold's attributes? Why kill him with so many on this board by being so attack dogish about Clark? Can't we agree that both would be great candidates for us? The fact that Feingold is showing strong is maybe the start of a new rising star. I will keep my eye on him for sure. Clark is brilliant and he has so much to offer, but I am practical, if he isn't electable for WHATEVER reason, then we need to find someone and maybe it will be Feingold. Don't shoot yourself in the foot on this one.

[Coexist]

109. THANK YOU! Can we please put this to bed now.

[Crunchy Frog]

51. Could you point to some evidence that Clarkies are constantly

running polls here? It's not been my experience that that's the case (the person who put up this poll has said that he's undecided). I have more respect for you than to think that you would simply post an assertion that is unsupported by evidence.

No, Wes Clark has never been a Republican. There are always plenty of unsubstantiated allegations that get thrown about in political campaigns (I hear that John Kerry faked his injuries in Vietnam).

Wes Clark was unaffiliated for most of his life (Arkansas did not even allow registration by party until a few years ago). He's been very open about the fact that he mostly voted Republican prior to '92, and has voted Democratic since then. That may make him a former Republican leaning Independent, but not a former Republican. He has said that, as a military man, he bought into the notion that Republicans were better on national security issues, but that he eventually realized that they were not, and that they did not stand for anything else that he believed in either, hence the change in voting patterns. He has been voting Democratic since long before the * administration. If you thought that everyone knew otherwise, then you are getting your information from unreliable sources and may wish to re-examine them.

I have no problem with people opposing Clark over things about him that are true, and it is certainly a legitimate position to say that you wouldn't vote for someone who voted for Reagan, say. I don't like seeing anyone making arguements that are based on information that is demonstrably wrong, however.

I've respected you as a poster in the past, while not always agreeing with you, and hope that I can continue to respect you in the future. Posting unsubstantiated assertions, either about Democratic political figures, or about other posters on DU, will not incline me to have the same level of respect that I've had for you in the past.

[radio4progressives]

97. wow... I wasn't bashing Clark, i was just asking a question.

that's all. i was just curious why.. if i wanted to bring up negatives about Clark, it can be done just like negatives can be done about anybody. but i'm not interested in doing that. that wasn't the intention of my question .. as far as his voting record goes, i really don't care much about that either - my impression was that he was at one time formerly a Republican, apparently based on his votes/support for Reagan - which is likely why that transmitted as "former republican" ..

frankly it's splitting hairs about an issue i really don't care anything about. I'm sorry!

[Crunchy Frog]

120. I wasn't accusing you of bashing Clark.

It bothered me that you were repeating inaccurate information both about Clark, and about posters on DU who support Clark. I have no problem with criticism of Clark or of anybody else, but it does matter to me that the criticism be factually based.

I remember the debates quite vividly, and recall how the corporate media kept asking Clark over and over again whether he was a Republican or whether he was still a Republican.

You of all people, I would have expected to see past the machinations of the corporate media.

Once again, criticize Clark all you want, I don't expect everybody on this board to approve of him, but criticize him for things that are true and not for things that you heard about him from the corporate media.

By the way, the guy who ran our local Kucinich meetups voted for Reagan in 1980.

[radio4progressives]

157. I watched C-Span... but you have a point, that "moderators" were MSM'rs

didn't think of that, and yes that's probably how i got that ...

my bad!

you know, i probably payed MORE critical attention to how Kucinich was responding to moderator, i.e. what kinds of questions and how they were being presented to him than anyone else there, except for Dean - because Kucinich was the ONLY Dem i knew anything about (naturally)

Dean, Clark & Edwards i knew very very little about. (i knew somethings about Kerry) so I probably tried to absorb what i needed to first for the candidate of my choice and when Dean was the one looking hot i started paying more attention to what he said about things - and when Clark wasn't doing to well, i probably paid less attention to what he said.

But i recall being very sympathetic to him when he showed up at a work site somewhere (i think Oklahoma or Texas or somewhere in that part of the country) C-Span was broadcasting, showing Clark leafletting and hand shaking with workers clocking in at some work site of some kind. He was really sweet, and genuinly eager to meet and greet and keep a smile going. So it wasn't like i didn't pay any attention to him.

[Crunchy Frog]

161. Thanks for the acknowledgement.

I absolutely detested the entire debate format. I don't know how we ended up with a situation where hostile, RW, corporate media are in charge of moderating our primary debates. It enables them to entirely frame each candidate exactly the way they want to. It is seriously a way in which what is essentially an arm of the Republican party is able to manipulate our primaries to a great extent. They determine how much time each candidate is given. They determine what kinds of questions each candidate gets (Sharpton was often given a larger number of policy questions than Clark was, while Clark was repeatedly asked if he was a Republican). Kucinich was generally given far less time than others, and was generally treated dismissively.

Didn't these things used to be moderated by the League of Women Voters? I don't understand why they changed that. :argh:

[radio4progressives]

168. you just reminded me of the bruhaha over the League of Women Voters

being shut out of these debates..

well, we know happend. First the Fairness Doctrine was abolished then the last nail in the coffin was the The Telecommunciations Act in 1996 (or there abouts) which Clinton signed.

every time i think about that, i shudder with anger. It wasn't as if no one warned him of the consequences - he signed it being fully warned in advance. It's just one more item on a long list that a brilliant genius was to be so utterly stupid about.

Did he think maybe that the media would somehow be friendly to him after that signage? He gave them a liscense to cultivate more on the air hatred, misinformation, lies and distortions, with utter contempt and cruelty.

You'd think he would have tried to fix it before he left office..

weird weird weird.

now look at where we're at.

[Crunchy Frog]

171. Well, it certainly laid the groundwork

for his being practically destroyed over a sexual indiscretion. As bright as he was, he didn't seem to realize who he was up against, and that he couldn't win their cooperation by appeasement.

I really don't know what he was thinking when he enabled the deregulation of the media, but it had the effect of virtually destroying his own presidency.

I don't know the history of what happened with the League of Women Voters, as I guess I wasn't paying much attention to things at the time that they got cut out of moderating the debates. I wouldn't mind it if you would refresh my memory.

[radio4progressives]

253. the issue of the Women's League of Voters was barely on the Radar Screen

but it did come to MY attention during the debates between Bush and Kerry. To refresh my memory, i'd have to research the facts behind how it is that they were left out, the behind the scenes machinations specifics escape me right now... but i think it deserves looking into, especially before the next election cycle.

[NCarolinawoman]

173. It was also under Clinton that Rush Limbaugh was given permission

to broadcast over Armed Forces radio. Ugh!

[Crunchy Frog]

176. I love Bill Clinton, and miss him dearly,

but am continually amazed at how he could so often be his own worst enemy. I'm constantly learning new things about his presidency, since I was fairly apolitical at the time, and there was so much that I simply wasn't paying attention to.

Simply incomprehensible that he would have done that though. How smart is it to give your most rabid enemy unrestricted access to the military. He could have been laying the groundwork for a military coup.

[radio4progressives]

255. I've often wondered if we actually have been victims of a military coup

on some level... it's kind of hard to tell, given the pro-military media etc.. (that might be considered as big clue, eh?)

[snowbear]

201. Uh.

Bull.

[1932]

34. He wrote speeches for Al Haig and his wife volunteered on capitol hill

with a Republican Senator when they lived in DC.

That Al Haig info is from an article in the Nation which was linked here at DU today (check the archives).

Can't remember where I read about Gert.

[FrenchieCat]

123. He wrote a speech for Al Haig.....when? What year was that?

Was it when he worked in the Pentagon under General Haig? Please provide more on this. Hope you didn't this from the Matt Taibbi's fictional black magic Nation Hit piece on Wes Clark written in 2003!

[1932]

183. Did Clark specifically deny that part of the Nation article?

Which claims in that article have been specifically refuted or denied by Clark or his supporters?

[Tom Rinaldo]

185. So what exactly is your problem here?

What is your point in throwing this out in the first place? Clark once worked directly under Haig. It was his assignment at the time. Tim Russet once worked for Cuomo and who was it Tweety once worked for, I can't quite remember, but it was some leading Democrat. What does that say about them now? Not very much does it. Reagan once was President of a Union. He later broke the Traffic Controllers Union. Clark was assigned to work with Haig by the military. Where's the Beef?

As an aside I saw Clark directly refute Haig devastatingly well once during a TV interview. Haig was on before him saying that Americans had to line up behind the Commander in Chief during times of war. Clark's comment was, so are we supposed to suspend elections during time of War? What if they war is of indefinite duration? Should suspend our Democracy then until it is over? What if the critic of the Administration have it right and their efforts to reveal the truth can save terrible errors that will hurt America from happening? Is it wise to say that only a Presidential Administration is allowed to have opinions in a time of war?

I'm not worried about Clark having once been assigned to work with Haig.

[Crunchy Frog]

186. Tweety was a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter.

Some leading Democrat indeed.

He was also an aide to Tip O'Neil for six years. Since these things cut both ways, that must mean that Tweety is really one of ours.

[1932]

214. Tweety once was a Democrat and money and power corrupted him.

He used to believe what he was writing. He doesn't believe in what he's doing now, but he knowingly tells his lies in order to maintain his power.

Dr West calls that (cultural) nihilism. It's a cancer that's ruining democracy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

331. Very True. n/t

[1932]

213. That's fair. RFK once worked for a committee chaired by McCarthy, right?

However, when I read Clark's books, I did think they revealed a conservative streak-=an enthusiasm for a different kind of American empire. And I thought that the pro-empire streak seemed to run right through the Reagan administration. So, it seems sort of relevant that some formative moments in his professional career were spent thinking about ways to persuade people that things Al Haig was doing were OK.

As for Clark disagreeing with Haig about lining up behind the president, that's kind of like him saying that he supports Cindy Sheehan's right to criticize Bush, but he doesn't agree with her criticism. He disagrees with Al Haig about whether we should disagree with the president. However, does he agree with Haig that we need to stay in Iraq until we win in order to protect vital American interests in the Gulf? A debate about dissent is great. But a debate about the underlying issues is even greater. It's great to wear the cloak of a free-speech liberal, but it's not so great if you're wearing it just to cover up the fact that that's one of the few differences between you and the right wingers pushing a neoliberal foreign policy.

By the way, your knowledge of Clark is encyclopedic. Do you remember for whom Clark's wife volunteered on the Hill?

[Tom Rinaldo]

219. We continue to have our basic disagreement

But of course viewpoints are subjective. You frequently respond to any mention of Clark on a thread by bringing in your view that you believe he is "enthusiastic for a type of American empire" and we have gone around and around on it, and that simply is a viewpoint that colors how you perceive Clark. You know I strongly disagree with you on that. My problem with it is the way you, in my opinion, selectively focus on Clark for even discussing the large picture of U.S. foreign policy and the various manners in which the United States, much like every significant nation state that has ever existed, has in the past and will in the future attempt to pursue objectives it believes will be favorable to itself.

Every nation state is controlled by one or more ruling elites, and they tend to be most powerful in the nations that are most powerful. You can talk about any era and find that constant basic dynamic: Egypt, China, Rome, Spain, England, France, the United States, Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union, the European Union, etc. etc. Even a leftist socialist will acknowledge though, that the common people of any land also have legitimate self interests that are in some ways competitive with the interests of common people in other lands. How those differing needs are promoted and balanced against the needs of others always has a moral dimension, but that doesn't change the fact that all people want the best standard of living they can obtain by means that they can live with. The devil is always in the details.

I don't trust your sincerity in these discussions 1932 partially because they are themes you almost never show interest in regarding any National Democrat other than Clark, and partially because these talks often start out by you injecting a comment about Clark and the War in Viet Nam or about how Clark worked for Al Haig at some point, into the middle of a typical "let's talk about 2008 contenders" thread. Same thing about your trivia question. I can name her, but go ahead and play out your interest in Clark's wife yourself if talking about her is that important to you.

And I think you unfairly again have twisted Clark's views. Actually he agrees with a lot of Sheehans criticism of Bush, to start with he agrees with her that Bush should never have sent our troops into Iraq and he has said so loud and long. Of course Clark's and Sheehan's views are not identical. That is well known, but it is disingenuous to cherry pick part of a view that Clark holds; not agreeing with Sheehan that we should commit to pulling all of our troops out of Iraq now or within 6 months, and then equating that with Al Haigs views. By that standard Russ Feinglod and John Edwards are aligned with Al Haig also. And you are aligned with Rush Limbaugh if you think one should stand during the playing of the National Anthem at a public event.

[1932]

220. Yeah, whatever.

I, personally and subjectively, believe that there is a wide margin between what Wesley Clark says about himself and what his supporters say about him here at DU. Into that wide gap, fall my posts. I can only base my judgments on what I read and hear straight from the person in question. Clark has written two very long books, which I've read. His supporters post frequently on DU. Thus there is great opportunity to interject my opinon. (By the way, I think it's absurd to deny that Clark doesn't believe in a new kind of American Empire, since that's the whole point of his second book, and since he repeated those themes recently when he responded to WT2's questions at Table for One. That's kind of like pretending that he didn't say we could have won Vietnam, and that the answer as to how is in the Mao biography.)

If you want to suggest books, MP3s, videos etc by or about other politicians and if their supporters would like to take up their arguments as enthusiastically as Clark supporters take up their guy, and if I feel like I can contribute in any way to clarify points, I will SINCERELY do that. But you have to admit, the opportunity to do that doesn't lend itself quite the way it does with Clark. Again: (1) Clark has written TWO LONG BOOKS which I have read (in which he makes arguments about American Empire with which I disagree), and (2) People talk about him here ALL THE TIME, often in a way that is quite different from what Clark says about himself.

By the way, I think it's funny that themes in PMs initiated by you (which were ended at my request) are now being repeated in a different context in your public posts about me. If you're going to accuse me of being insincere, it might be fair for readers to know the context of our discussion about sincerity, no?

[Tom Rinaldo]

222. Whatever

Bring up anything you want 1932, I have no problem with it. My PM to you was in reply to a request you made to me on this board, and I also made an attempt to address issues we had from the past and and clear up relations for the future. You chose to cut that off. You don't trust my sincerity, and you saw no point in discussing matters further because of that judgment and we left it there when you requested it. Exactly right.

What I said in my post above about my hit on your motives regarding Clark is NOTHING that I did not already post in public to you before on DU, WELL BEFORE any PM's between us. There is nothing new, I've said it all before, and I've explained why I said so all before. It's not far from being word for word, only the specific examples have changed. So there we have it. We don't trust each other. But I will still act civil to you on this board, and I acknowledge that you have done the same. We do have our opinions though.

Feel free to not answer this question. Who do you think said the following, and what do you think he or she means by America's Moral Leadership?:

"The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth. While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong--and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.

The urgent question isn't just how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure. A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity, and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help. These objectives mean nothing, however, in the absence of meaningful action. Passive pursuit of these objectives and failure to reach aggressively for benchmarks of progress are unacceptable. Month after month of an unchanging, or worse, increasingly dangerous, landscape in Iraq not only demoralizes the American people, it unfairly burdens those who are already making the greatest sacrifices.

Too many mistakes have already been made for this to be easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and--most important--our troops who have died or been injured there and those who are fighting there today deserve nothing less."


edited to clarify that the Board request I replied to was one you made to me personally.

[0007]

218. Hootie McBoob where have you been?

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

239. President Jimmy Carter asked Clark to run for POTUS.

And to the few plants here,.. I doubt Jimmy Carter would ever ask a Republican to run for POTUS! President Carter knows better; and that's why he asked Wes Clark to run for POTUS.

Clark has always valued the Democratic Party and fought to protect the ideals of a liberal democracy.

[donjoofWeThePeople]

312. I would hope that 2006

brings a lot of former Republicans to the Democratic fold. However, it's not even an issue that Clark was NEVER a Republican; military people at the officer level don't join parties, since their allegiance is to whomever is the Commander in Chief, irregardless of party. They can certainly vote any way they choose, but most are going to choose the guy signing their paycheck. Human nature.

[theshadow]

10. Clark/Feingold ticket. eom

[democrank]

20. Wes Clark has more Democratic leanings

than the majority of our party`s elected leaders in Washington. I couldn`t care less if he`s a former Republican. What matters to me is his position on issues.

[Ice4Clark]

74. When I read the disinformation about Wes on this board.....

I sometimes feel like this is the Faux news blog...............I guess some of you weren't paying attention to Wes before his run or during and after his campaign. Noone has affected me more politically since John F Kennedy.

[Sparkly]

208. It's like the old "Al Gore said he invented the internet" list of smears.

No matter how many times they're refuted, they keep coming back here. :(

[Sparkly]

261. I see nothing wrong with marrying ex-prostitutes OR ex-Republicans.

I see the correction has already been made that Clark was never a Republican, but I'd support him even if he had been. I know many good ex-Republicans, and several good current (so far still current) Republicans. And we NEED votes from people who voted for Chimpy -- so I don't think it hurts a thing in the general election, and could well help quite a lot.

(And for the record, I don't think ex-prostitutes are necessarily evil or dangerous, either.)

[bookman]

2. Two fine choices

I voted for Clark because I think a Senator has a hard time running. Voting records can get real twisted.

[burythehatchet]

5. I'm undecided but that's my concern about Russ as well

[hopein08]

3. Feingold...

because...

-he isn't afraid to fight up, even when the whole party is against him

-I know more about him than about Clark

-he does have valuable political experience on many different levels

-he is completely in line with my political leanings

[Sugarcoated]

4. BOTH

For chripes sake BOTH!

[burythehatchet]

6. OK - who drives?

[Hippo_Tron]

273. Well whoever wins the nomination :P

[Pharaoh]

7. Fiengold

He lives near me and he is the most sane person we could run right now.............

course if Dean would run again , that would make a great ticket.....

[radio4progressives]

17. Feingold is the only Dem i have any esteem for right now.

[Radical Activist]

8. Feingold has more experience in government and a record.

Wes may be great but he's still a wild card. He's never taken a vote I can check against what he says on the campaign trail. He also lacks experience with electoral politics and Congress, and that is very important if a President wants to be successful at getting things done. Congress and the media don't take orders like military subordinates. Yeah, I know, NATO commander, negotiating with other nations...blah blah blah...yes he has a great resume but it isn't the same as having experience in American politics. Its just not the same.

Feingold has shown amazing courage and conviction with his stance against the PATRIOT Act, championing of campaign finance reform and other issues. He has shown he knows what kind of populist message will appeal to swing voters outside the two coasts. He proved he can carry a swing state. With Feingold, we know we're getting a progressive with conviction who can appeal to swing voters.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Clark has a record of amazing courage witnessed by the fact

that he risked his career for what he thought was right, and didn't think twice about it.....

The long knifes in the Pentagon got him retired early. He wrote a book telling them all to kiss his ass.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Clark as Prez ....so that he can restore sanity round the world, while

VP Feingold can put some order in the Senate.

Feingold's marital situation can get resolve during his 8 years as VP....and then it would be his turn. He is younger anyway...and by the time Prez Clark finished his two terms, Prez Feingold would be able to maintain the peace that Clark would have achieved!

[Pharaoh]

12. Dean/Feingold

Clarke as secretary of defense

[FrenchieCat]

16. Clark WITHOUT THE "e" at the end cannot be Sec of Defense...

until 2010.

[Pharaoh]

32. OK honey

He'd make a great sec of state then...........

[FrenchieCat]

44. Your honey is in your fridge!

[Pharaoh]

57. Sorry frenchie..........

I guess I was smitten by your graghphics..

[sandnsea]

18. Feingold

I just really like knowing what I'm buying.

[Radical Activist]

24. exactly

that's my biggest problem with Clark as well.

[Kosmos Mariner]

23. Clark

Feingold is great in the Senate, but I don't see him as a President. Clark has decades of command and leadership experience. Sometimes you need a "hawk" to bring the olive branch. Joe Sixpack wants to be "let out" of their Iraq support, but they need a credible alternative. The image of a strong and tough warrior protecting America has a strong pull, even if there is suspected lefty baggage.



:dem:

[Catchawave]

27. Definitely Feingold

He's fighting a lonely battle in Congress right now, we need to rally behind him. Or defend him. Or something. Like Edwards and Warner, he's sincere.

[Frosty1]

29. Clark works for fox

I'm still trying to figure this one out!
:tinfoilhat:

[burythehatchet]

31. Its a good thing

He consistently destroys their talking points. I find it curious that they have him on.

[HootieMcBoob]

33. Clark isn't afraid to confront the enemy

He's not there spouting Republican talking points. He's there to give his opinions on things. If he is able to get his face and opinions out there in front of the typical Fox viewer he may very well change some minds or at least get some people to look at things from a more rational point of view than the typical Fox analyst. You don't win new converts by preaching to the choir.

[Radical Activist]

91. Like saying we're doing great things in Iraq?

That sounds more like foolish pandering.

[Tom Rinaldo]

170. No. By saying America's actions in the world betray our ideals

People really should view the video themselves and form their own judgments about what Clark did or did not say. Don't worry folks, you don't have to dirty yourself with FOX to view it. The vid was captured and you can view it at Clark's site or at a Dem blog. Here it is at Clark's site:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/4587

Clark spent 15 seconds praising Americans who are serving their country in Iraq and 5 minutes absolutely tearing about Rumsfeld and Bush over Iraq.

[FrenchieCat]

47. It's called going into the lion's Den....Kicking ass and taking numbers...

It's a dirty job, but someone had to do it! They ain't going anywhere anytime soon ya know....and they do influence our political world.

[Frosty1]

65. Cool!

:smoke:

[snowbear]

200. Maybe your tin hat is on too tight?

He's a foreign affairs correspondent, just like he was at one time with CNN.

Sheezus Ababea -

[Frosty1]

202. I keep my tin hat on to protect me from nasty people

like you appear to be. There is no need to be rude.

[zulchzulu]

35. Both are cool, but...

...if I had to choose to see a speech by either candidate at the same time, I'd go with Russ. Nothing wrong with Wes at all, just my preference. I've seen both speak publically.

[bigwillq]

37. Feingold (nt)

[saltpoint]

38. Both Feingold and Clark offer the Democratic Party and the U.S. in

general a fresh, invigorating interpretation of what it means to be a true citizen. What it means to be a true individual in a dynamic democratic nation and what it means to be a democratic citizen among global entities.

Can't we have both run strong in the primaries so that the planks of the party's platform are informed by fresh, capable people?

I'd vote for either one instantly without hesitation, no matter who the Repukes trot out.

[burythehatchet]

41. Is it not remarkable

to consider what they could possibly put up. Frist? Allen? I'm pretty sure its McCain's turn.

[saltpoint]

50. Hi to you, burythehatchet. You make a good point on who the GOP may

nominate.

I tend to agree with you and John McCain will be their guy. Frist is a mess, just a total mess, a psychologically Cubist mess. Allen is dumber than a vat of cement. Giuliani is way out of his league and would not exactly endear himself to ultraconservative Rethugs in places like Mississippi and Idaho -- they just would not support him at all I don't believe.

Mitt Romney is a Mormon and an idiot, and neither of those things will serve him very well in the primaries.

McCain is their high-profile Meet-the-Press candidate and I think you're right -- it's his turn.

[SammyBlue]

42. America isn't ready for a Jewish President.

We are too bigotted of a country still. Feingold being Jewish will be the reason to torpedo him by the GOP and I cringe at the idea of watching.

If they would swift boat veterans, they will anti-Semite Feingold. Nothing is below these people!

So, for the sake of not wanting to punch the fuck out of Republicans (I am Jewish), I'm voting Clark! That said, I WANT RUSS FEINGOLD!!!

[Radical Activist]

43. I think Lieberman settled that question.

Gore's numbers went through the roof right after Lieberman was selected for VP. Anti-semites already vote Republican no matter who is running. I don't buy your argument.

[SammyBlue]

49. Lieberman isn't a Democrat!

Don't buy it or not. . .I've seen it, lived in, argued it.

Would you say the same if Obama ran?

Why is it easy to nay say anti-Semites! All I said was America isn't ready for a Jewish "PRESIDENT!" Gore was the PRESIDENT, Lieberman as Veep. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

America isn't ready for a non-WASP President yet. Whether you disagree is your business!

[Radical Activist]

53. Yes, I would say the same for Obama.

I don't doubt there is anti-Semitism in America but I think the majority of anti-semites vote Republican or live in states that Democrats have little chance of winning no matter who runs for President. Lieberman's religion was applauded, if anything. A non-WASP candidate would generate excitement, even among WASPS.

[radio4progressives]

129. i totally agree about a non-wasp candidate -

i was crazy about Obama when introduced during the convention, he took down the roof in the house ... but i'm not happy about him at all anymore. i can see the dems putting him on the ticket as a "token" for the progressives and AA community, which would be a big boost for the DLC creds.. (the way things tend to play out)

arrgggh...

[jen4clark]

55. So right SammyBlue!!

If anyone can afford even $10. - whatever - help Ned Lamont in CT!!

http://www.nedlamont.com/

Matt Stoller, over at mydd has a great diary re: Ned

As for the poll - General Clark all the way!! Feingold would be my choice if General decides not to run (Is Russ running for sure?) - but as many point out, Senators have a hard time and not to mention what a gift he is as a Senator! One of the very few who are actually fighting for "we the people!"

(edited to say I agree with the part about Lieberman not being a Dem.)

[Crunchy Frog]

189. Thanks for the link.

I just threw some money at Ned Lamont.

[radio4progressives]

really? Lieberman's numbers went through the roof?

hmm.. thought i read it went up, but only marginally.. don't remember anymore.. too many years ago now. i remember not knowing a thing about him at the time. (i know a whole lot more about him now, though.)

[smoogatz]

60. Wait--you'd oppose a jew because the Republicans will make fools

of themselves defaming him? And you're Jewish? I'm struggling to grasp the logic here.

[ICantBelieve]

63. Actually...

Wes is half Jewish. What I'm hoping is that we're ready for someone as "obviously" liberal as Russ. I'm afraid it'll be too easy to use the "L" word against us with Russ, but not so easy with Wes. And Wes is pretty damn liberal, so we can have the liberalness without the "L" word sticking if we go with Wes. But, maybe the country will have awakened to what the "conservatives" have done by 2008 and it won't matter. They're both great guys. If it comes down to these two, I'll be happy.

[MoonRiver]

181. Well, I want Clark. But I think being Jewish would serve Feingold well

with the religious reichwing nutcases. Hear me out. Those idiots believe Israel has to be under Jewish control in order for the "Rapture" to occur. Something tells me that they might just think a Jewish American president could ensure that continues to be the case.

:crazy: yes. But look at who we're dealing with.

[radio4progressives]

256. Clark is Jewish too... (ethnically, not by religion)

His father, Benjamin Kanne, was a Democratic politician, World War I veteran, and lawyer who died in 1948 when Wes was five years old (some sources say four years old). He was a Reform Jew and the son of Jacob Kanne and Ida Goldman, Jewish immigrants from Russia (Clark's middle name, Kanne, refers to his father's lineage as a Kohen, a descendant of the ancient Jewish priests).1

After the death, Veneta Updegraff Bogard Kanne, Clark's mother, returned to her home in Little Rock, Arkansas. In 1954, she married former banker Victor Clark. Wesley grew up as a Baptist and attended public schools.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Early_life.2C_education.2C_and_military_career

[IronLionZion]

303. Clark's father was Jewish

so depending on your definition of Jewish, Clark is half Jewish if you think of it as an ethnicity.

Nothing wrong with that, but they'll find a way to smear him for it.

He'll definitely get swift-boated big time for Vietnam and they'll spin his leadership during Kosovo.

[Crunchy Frog]

52. Wes Clark is my favorite, but I would enthusiastically support Russ

were he to get the nomination, and he is probably my second choice after Clark. I can't say that there are many Democrats being talked about right now that I would support at all as presidential candidates.

[Tom Rinaldo]

172. That is my position also, although I might be more willing than you to

suck it up to fight against the Republicans if neither Wes or Russ gets the nod. Probably my next in line right now would be Gore after Clark and Feingold, but I think Clark has the best chance to win on top of my personal support for him as my preference.

[CarlSheeler4U]

56. Sheeler - They'd make a hell of a ticket

Strictly from a political strategy, I think Russ might work the Legislative angle better than Wes and this might make him the more idea Pres. Combined, they'd make an awesome ticket.

I'd love their endorsements!

CarL
Sheeler for US Senate
www.carlsheeler.com

[Crazy Guggenheim]

61. I choose Clark because he strikes as a brawler! Before the primaries

I saw him almost pound the crap out of Tweety. Tweety was reading something off a script and Clark reached over and ripped it out of his hands! I just laughed when he did that!!

:popcorn:

[smoogatz]

64. It's one thing to take on Tweety. Feingold is the ONLY Senator

to consistently stand up to Bushco. He's been right on every one of their major initiatives, including Iraq and the Patriot Act.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

67. What I'm saying is Clark is ready for a fight. Would have any other

do that. I want someome who has guts like that.

:popcorn:

[ICantBelieve]

69. Gee...

I seem to remember Wes taking on BushCo when he testified before HASC.

They're both great. I'm not so sure we need to be focussing on one over the other right now. If these are the two front-runners, we're doing a-ok! Now, can we please convince Hillary to stay in the Senate?

[Crazy Guggenheim]

71. YEAH!!

:woohoo: :applause: :rofl: :spray: :popcorn:

[smoogatz]

75. Agreed.

I believe it was Digby who said "Clinton was a pretty good President, for a Republican." Hillary's just another corporate water-carrier.

[blm]

151. BushCo goes back a long way - there have been lots of battles -

are you SURE Feingold is the ONLY Senator standing consistently against it? There have been alot of issues leading up to today that Feingold could have addressed or fought for during his time in office. Like gays in the military or CIA drugrunning or judiciary issues.

[radio4progressives]

259. damn i wish i caught that! is it archived with can o' fun? n/t

[smoogatz]

62. Feingold. Clark has no experience in Government.

Feingold is the sharpest guy in DC by a country mile, IMO. But Clark would make him a fine running-mate--one thing Russ lacks on his own is military cred.

[ICantBelieve]

66. LOL!

No experience in government? Other than holding 19 nations together? Other than developing the national budget? LOL!!!

[smoogatz]

70. THIS government.

He's never held elected office, in the US or anywhere else. He has NO track record as a legislator or elected executive. That's a major defecit, IMO.

[ICantBelieve]

76. So what?

Elective office is not all there is to government. I think Madeline Albright might disagree with your assertion that he has no experience in THIS government. Would you also object to an SOS? Because SOS's aren't elected.

And the Office of Management and Budget that he worked for was THIS government as well.

[smoogatz]

84. Elective office is not all there is to government, but it does seem like

an important bullet point to have on your resume if you're planning to run for the highest elected office in the country. I frankly don't think the country can afford to wait around while another president-elect gets the hang of DC politics. The whole outsider thing has no charm for me--I want a competent insider who's a proven progressive with a track record a mile long. Feingold fits the bill for me--but as I said in an earlier post, Clark would make him a fine running mate.

[ICantBelieve]

225. Clark has the hang of DC politics...

But he hasn't been corrupted by it. He worked in the Whitehouse. Has Feingold worked in the Whitehouse?

[Ice4Clark]

68. Clark has no experience in government? WTF!!!!!!!!!

His 34 years in uniform doesn't equate to experience? Give me a friggin break.

[smoogatz]

73. Nope. Being a general and giving (and taking) orders is in not the same

as being a politician responsible to the electorate. Boy, point out the obvious and the Clarkies go berserk.

[FrenchieCat]

79. It's the smoogatz going berserk, if you ask me.....

Point out all of the experience that Clark does have.....and Smootgatz starts attacking DUers because they support Wes Clark. How tacky!

[smoogatz]

89. Did I ask you? Did anyone?

No. But don't let that stop you...

[FrenchieCat]

100. I'm a Clarkie...so far as I'm concerned, you were talking to me....

got it?

[wiley]

229. She's right.

That's your problem.

[Ice4Clark]

80. Your right, he was not responsible to the electorate, but tell me

of the worthless bunch of do nothing assholes we have in DC in both parties, who has been responsible? The only thing they have been responsible for is the destruction of this once great nation. Wes speaks the truth, believes in duty and honor. He's a great teacher and would be the best leader this sorry state of the nation could hope for. Russ is a fine man too. I've met them both and Wes speaks to and for me.

[ICantBelieve]

82. You met Russ?

I didn't know that. When?

[Ice4Clark]

85. Several times.........

It's been a while.

[smoogatz]

88. You guys know each other? Quel surprise.

It's the Clarkie mafia.

[Ice4Clark]

90. So, did you mean than in a nice way? or were you just

being "republican"?

[smoogatz]

98. Are those the only two choices, Ice4Clark?

If you'd been around a bit longer, you'd know that there's a large and extremely avid group of Clark supporters actively promoting his prospective '08 candidacy here on DU. You'd also know that they tend to get their drawers in a wad over the least suggestion that other candidates might be better qualified or more proven than their boy. And you can take your "republican" remark and cram it sideways--at least until you get yourself a donor star.

[FrenchieCat]

103. If you've been around longer, you'd realize that we've already

had the primary wars, and the next ones ain't starting till after 2006's election.

If you didn't notice Ice4Clark has been a DU member longer than you have! She just doesn't "talk" as much as you do! :rofl:

[smoogatz]

105. Whatever.

I don't bother much with looking up people's profiles. If she's been around, she should know her cheap "republican" crack was out of line. If she's been around, she probably doesn't need your ass to jump in and defend her.

[Crunchy Frog]

112. And a cheap "mafia" crack isn't out of line?

I guess I'm a member of the "mafia" too. I'm sure Ice doesn't remember me, but I did get to attend a talk that she gave at a meetup I attended in Little Rock. Does that make me a part of some sort of evil conspiracy?

[Ice4Clark]

116. Hey, another Mafiess...........Quel

nt

[Crunchy Frog]

125. Hey Ice.

I loved the talk that you gave at the NCCM. It was great to have a chance to put a face to the name. Love all the work that you've done archiving Wes's appearances as well.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[Ice4Clark]

132. No pay here...........

It's amazing that we all just genuinely admire this man. Whether or not he ever runs again for any office, I will continue to support him till I leave planet earth.

[smoogatz]

136. Well, bully for you.

Is it okay with you if a few of us out here in the midwest have opinions of our own?

[Ice4Clark]

140. I have no problem with that........is that what

democracy is all about?

[Crunchy Frog]

144. My God! I wish!

I wish I could get paid for posting on the internet, and I wish that Wes Clark had that kind of money.:rofl:

[Tom Rinaldo]

194. No. Just like Dean inspires strong loyalty for many activists

A lot of us feel that way about Clark. I am confident that were Dean not now DLC Chair you would find many of his strongest supporters keenly engaged in 2008 debates on his behalf also. They will show up to defend Dean whenever anyone attempts to smear Dean, as well they should. I like Dean a lot also, and I respect the passion of those for whom he is their guy.

It isn't blind loyalty, it's informed loyalty, that's the important thing to realize, but yes it is strong. All of us on DU have seen how the power of the Presidency has done so much damage to our country since Bush took office. I think Clark is our best chance to win in 2008 and I am willing therefore to spend a lot of personal time hopefully helping that happen. I became a Clark supporter during the 2004 race, and I still believe that Clark 1) would make a great President and 2) has what it takes to turn some Red States Blue while advancing a Liberal to Progressive agenda. Plus Clark has given me no reason not to trust him. But I stay involved in local politics in the real world also, and post about issues that don't directly involve Clark as well.

Clark actually has less money to work with than most of the potential contenders for 2008, and he is not in an elected office that comes complete with a pay roll to hire a lot of seasoned political aids on the publics dime. Clark's paid staff is relatively small. A lot of his supporters worry about that, but Clark wants to stay focused on raising money to help Democrats regain Congress in 2006. He has us convinced on that also and you will find Clark supporters very active helping other Democrats this year.

edited to correct a typo in a date

[smoogatz]

126. They keep piling on...

Anybody else feel like jumping in? And further proving my point?

[Ice4Clark]

134. And your point is?

nt

[Texas_Kat]

165. Texas checking in

Sorry about Russ, what state did you say he would carry that Kerry didnt?

[FrenchieCat]

115. This is where you need to quit now.....while you're not as far behind

as you will be if you keep it going!

[smoogatz]

122. I do believe I detect a threatening tone.

What's up with that?

[FrenchieCat]

142. It means to pay attention to your signature line.....

may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.

and understand that DU has rules about stereotyping and using blanket statements against its members. You must understand that Clarkies are DU member just like everyone else. We don't all know each other.

Here are a couple of DU rules you need to get familiar with in particular....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The

[smoogatz]

153. Hilarious.

I'm pretty sure quoting the rules is like calling someone a Nazi. It means you lose.

[Moderator]

159. Moderator Message to smoogatz & FrenchieCat

Knock it off, both of you! I'm getting sick of it.

[smoogatz]

164. She started it.

No he did. No she did. Okay, I'm sick of it now, too.

[Crunchy Frog]

146. I believe I detect a threatened tone.

What's up with that?:rofl:

[Name removed]

216. Deleted message

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

[Ice4Clark]

107. I've been here since sep 03.

Yes, thank you for pointing out the Clark supporters group. Perhaps his supporters "get their drawers in a wad" when folks seem to minimize his qualifications and contributions to the democratic party? I would also like to point out that he's not our "boy" but our "MAN". As for cramming it sideways, perhaps you could explain to me the procedure. Will the star make it easier?

[smoogatz]

119. If by "minimizing his qualifications"

you mean pointing out his obvious lack of experience in electoral politics (barring his humiliating primary defeat in '04), and the big, fat blank space on his resume under "elected offices held," "legislative track record," and/or "successful state or federal executive policy initiatives," then I guess I'm guilty as charged. But maybe you could enlighten me--what's with all the militancy? Clark seems reasonably inoffensive, but I don't see much there to get excited about. Are you guys all working for him, or do you really see something there that isn't apparent to us mere mortals?

[Auntie Bush]

147. Well it's apparent to me and I'm a mere mortal.

If you'd been paying attention this past year that you've been here you'd know this isn't the place to say derogatory things about Wes Clark if you don't want to flair tempers or get your head handed to you in a basket. I hope you're learned a lesson! Complement Feingold all you want but don't trash Wes or his followers if you know what's good for you.

[Crunchy Frog]

141. The only thing that gets my drawers in a wad

is people on here, many not as long as I've been, who insinuate that my presence here is somehow illegitimate, or part of some conspiracy, because I happen to support a particular Democrat.

I realize that this is a diverse group, and that not everyone is going to like everyone else's favorite political figure. I'm a big enough girl to handle that. Everyone else on here who has a favorite political figure has to deal with the same thing from time to time.

Suggesting that I'm somehow uniquely part of some "personality cult" or part of some "swarm" because I support Clark as opposed to Kerry, or Gore, or Dean is what really does get my "drawers in a wad". I've been tempted to respond in kind, but I choose to take the high ground on that.

I've also never quite understood the unique level of vitriol that the man brings out in some people. Disagreeing with someone's positions or past actions is one thing, but the vitriolic hatred that I see a small number of people here directing at Clark is something that I find beyond the pale.

[Ice4Clark]

145. Here, Here..........I'm with you..................

very nicely put!

[smoogatz]

156. It's "hear, hear."

As in "listen to what they're saying." "Here, here" doesn't make any sense.

[Crunchy Frog]

162. I think she needs to be sent back to operative school.

I will be reporting the grammatical transgression to Clark headquarters forthwith.

[Ice4Clark]

169. Oh My.......busted by the Grammatical Forum Police.........

perhaps I used here, here, because I don't always hear, hear...........

[Totally Committed]

270. Yeah... that pisses me off, too.

Here's how I deal wth it: I ignore it and post on! And, you should too. :hug:

Speaking of Wes, you said: "I've also never quite understood the unique level of vitriol that the man brings out in some people. Disagreeing with someone's positions or past actions is one thing, but the vitriolic hatred that I see a small number of people here directing at Clark is something that I find beyond the pale." I see that, too. And, it hurts me to read the stuff I read here, too. "The vitriolic hatred", indeed.

Crunchy....... :yourock:

TC

[wiley]

230. You meant to say Edwards supporters, didn't you.

Yes, you did. That donor star comment - classist crap. You've made your point of view quite clear. Why persist?

[ICantBelieve]

227. OK, you've lost your mind...

Of course Clark supporters know each other. God forbid the Democrats should be organized for a change. God forbid we know each other. Get a clue. It might be nice to WIN elections for a change. It might be nice to WORK TOGETHER to make that happen. It might be nice to get to know each others TALENTS so that we can most effectively run this mission to take back the country.

Perhaps this will be Feingold can never win. His supporters are too "INDEPENDENT" to ever want to team up for victory.

Yes, Clarkies know each other. We meetup--in person and online. We also know Wes Clark. And he knows us. What an outrage!

[smoogatz]

86. Feingold is both responsive and responsible.

I live in Wisconsin, and he's done well for his constituents here. He's anything but a corporate sell-out. He's a life-long progressive who has not found it necessary to right-shift in order to keep his job. I'm not saying he's perfect (who is?), but he's a damn good Senator and would make a fine President. Clark's okay, and would make a fine VP or Sec of State, IMO. But hey, what do you care what I think? You've obviously made up your mind.

[ICantBelieve]

81. Berzerk?

Nope. And much of his experience was not in "giving orders." You should read his book and learn about what the SACEUR actually does. You don't give orders to 19 member nations to keep them united.

You also don't give orders when you work for OMB.

His position in NATO was much like a cabinet position. It was about diplomacy and getting everyone swimming in the same direction. (oops.. was that a Wes Clark pun???)

Your definition of "obvious" is just plain wrong. One could argue that he's never been through a major election. OK. That's a deficit. Same would apply to any cabinet member who'd never been elected.

[ArkySue]

178. NATO SACEUR

has "Head of State" status in Europe. As in President, Prime Minister, etc. That is Executive Leadership in spades.

[ArkySue]

179. Feingold does a great job in the Senate

Therefore, I hope he stays there. Would he have a chairmanship if the Senate is turned Democratic?

[Virginia Dare]

99. I don't see many politicians being responsible to the electorate

on either side these days, just an observation, nothing against Feingold in particular. He probably does more than any of the others, but I don't think that should be a prerequisite at this point.

[smoogatz]

102. You don't think being responsible to the electorate should be

a prerequisite? Jesus Willy. Just so you know, Russ is well-liked here in Wisconsin and is not a corporate tool in any sense. He is pretty much exactly what he claims to be--a people-powered progressive.

[Radical Activist]

87. Like I wrote in my earlier post

You can go on all day about Clark's resume (many of his supporters do) but it just isn't the same. I want someone who can get laws passed. There's no point having a President who doesn't know how to get things done.

[HootieMcBoob]

135. The legislative branch crafts legislation

The Executive branch either signs or vetoes it. And, especially if the Democrats have taken back the house and Senate it won't be difficult for a Clark or Feingold administration to craft a progressive agenda that will move the country in a positive direction.

The main quality a President needs is leadership and Clark has proved himself in that area on countless occasions.

[FrenchieCat]

78. Clark was a White house fellows.....

he's has various practical experience as well....from almost dying, to winning a war without any U.S. Casualties, to being a professor, an author, a commentator, an editor, negotiating peace agreement, pointing his finger in the face of dictators, etc., etc., etc....

He's got plenty experience....he's just not a politician, is all. But for many, that's the best part!

[Sparkly]

236. Apparently Chimpy is qualified as Preznit, yet Clark isn't

because Chimpy was a governor. :eyes: Go figure!!

(And I agree -- I think not being a career politician is a PLUS!!!)

[Capn Sunshine]

92. Please God

Let EITHER of them win the presidency in '08. PLEASE?

[burythehatchet]

106. my other prayer

is that DU not turn into the war zone it was the last two elections. We should be committed to our candidates AND respectful of each other?

[Crunchy Frog]

149. My prayer too.

I've pretty much decided that once it gets started in earnest, I will simply put anyone on ignore who supports an alternate candidate who I respect (pretty much Russ Feingold), and who also posts rudely about Clark. That way I won't sour on Russ by confusing an honorable man with some of his more obnoxious supporters, and won't feel alienated from him should he end up getting the nomination.

I do hope that situation can be held off for as long as possible though. At least until after the midterm elections.

[Tom Rinaldo]

187. Exactly. Let us be so lucky! n/t

[Virginia Dare]

93. We need someone to get us out of the effed up mess that

those neo-fascists have gotten us into. We need to figure out a way to get all of our soldiers out of Iraq safely without causing a total bloodbath and a third World War. If anybody can do that, Wesley Clark can. And I'm not saying he can.

[MoonRiver]

95. I love them both, but I gotta go with Clark!

He's a true American hero, and uncompromising liberal to boot. GO CLARK 2008!!!
:kick:

[Radical Activist]

101. I've never seen anyone come close to beating Clark on a DU poll.

I'm amazed at how well Feingold is doing, even after the swarm has descended. He has MO.

[FrenchieCat]

104. The Swarm.......

Would that be somebody's mama's name or something?

I could have sworn that Clark's name was part of that OP title......Should Duers supporting Clark stay out of those threads....and just not vote?

[Capn Sunshine]

108. lol

the swarm is a fact of life. I love you guys, but c'MON.
You just might be the Queen Bee , mistress Frenchie.

[FrenchieCat]

110. LOL.....Well Capn Sir....

Better a Queen Bee than a smoogatz Wannabee!

[Capn Sunshine]

158. Frenchie dollink

if I knew what you were talking about, we could rumble.
but I love you too much. You're such a babe for Clark.
:loveya:

[Crazy Guggenheim]

111. OOOOOOOOOO.

:popcorn:

[Radical Activist]

114. I mean the swarm

of people who descend on any comment critical of clark and all make the same point over and over again, then high five each other afterwords as if the same argument hasn't been made on DU a million times before. Like a swarm of bees.

[Ice4Clark]

124. Well, I just happened to being flying by, pollinating flowers

and heard Wes mentioned. I can't help myself. When I read untruths, my wings perk up and I may inflict a sting or two. I'm protective of any politician or concerned citizen who has his countrys best interest at heart.

[Radical Activist]

321. There's nothing false about

anything I've written about Clark. My concerns about him are pretty clear cut. I don't need to hear his resume recited for the millionth time, which seems to be the default response to almost any criticism. Kerry ran a campaign based on his great bio in 2004 and it didn't work. Clark can be swift-boated just as easily, if not more easily. I'm not impressed.

[FrenchieCat]

128. !

[Radical Activist]

320. Sounds like you've heard this before

like maybe its a reoccurring theme? Maybe there's a good reason for that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

329. So what are your views on Darfur? I've got a thread up on that

And included in that thread is a link to Clark's views on Darfur.

Here's the thing RA, someone like me, who likes Clark because he is willing to speak out on important issues and tell people what he thinks is true whether or not they want to hear it, tends to spend time watching threads like this. And I'll tell you why. Because I can bet dollars for donuts that someone on a thread like this will up and call Clark a Republican, or a very recent Republican. I can count on someone dragging in something like, "didn't Clark once write speeches for Alexander Haig?" (yes when he was assigned to work with him by the military decades ago). I figure the odds are good someone will quote completely out of context two sentences Clark wrote in an Op Ed for a London Newspaper written while people were celebrating "Mission Accomplished", and claim Clark was a war supporter, conveniently leaving out the three paragraphs that immediately follow where Clark accurately warned about every disaster that followed in Iraq, when few dared open their mouths to counter the war hysteria.

It happens all the time on DU Radical Activist, so now I scan DU threads routinely, and when I find misinformation being passed on about Clark, I comment. I know others have taken to the same policy. I wish it wasn't like that. I haven't said a single negative word about other Democrat or the people who support them on this entire thread. I am interested in accuracy of information being spread about leaders in our Party and I am willing to provide accurate information for the claims I make, and will gladly stand corrected and apologize when I am mistaken in anything I say.

I would rather talk about what is going on in Darfur then engage in this pettiness, but I feel forced to do both on DU.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

133. Notice how my comment immediately got two similar responses

Kind of proves my point.

[smoogatz]

148. Yep. And this is the 2nd time I've fallen for the bait.

You'd think I'd know better. Here's a poll: Clark vs. X. Please vote and explain.

So we can tell you what an idiot you are for not supporting Clark. Never again.

[Ice4Clark]

150. I've not said one word against your choice.

I've not called anyone an idiot.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

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

[Crunchy Frog]

167. You mean like calling other members of this board "mafia"

and "operatives"? Yes, absolute paragons of civility.

[Tom Rinaldo]

188. What I notice

I notice that some people always try to turn political discussions about possible Democratic candidates into attacks on supporters of a certain Democratic possible candidate. Happens with clock work precision. Almost an automated response. It is particularly ridiculous on this thread. You may have noticed that many many Clark supporters also hold Russ Feingold in very high regard, myself included. I said so on this thread in fact. So here we have a case where someone who is not a Clark supporter starts a poll naming Clark and Feingold as the two main choices. A lot of people vote for Feingold. A few more people vote for Clark, Clark supporters tend to say nice things about Feingold in the process, and the topic takes a turn to how awful it is that Clark supporters so clearly support Clark and are willing to let people know about it on a thread where that is the question being posed.

I've seen lots of Gore and Kerry "swarms" on DU over the last few months, the difference is I have no problem with those men having committed supporters. Do you? Is there something wrong with me for not wanting to have it in for "Feingolders" because they are rising up to challenge Clark? Do I really need to have stronger opinions about the people who support people than I do about the people they all support in the first place in order to fit in with DU culture?

[Ice4Clark]

139. Is my webcam showing? whoops........

nt

[Crunchy Frog]

163. I'm just rolling in the cash that I get from posting on here

as a Clark "operative" baby! It's a great way to make a living. You should try it.

[xkenx]

197. In a way, it may be ultimately good that some come on here to trash Clark.

It gives us the opportunity to sharpen our Swift Boat-sinking skills. Plus, if some people are uninformed about Clark, but say nothing, we don't have a chance to clear their vision. BTW, I didn't save it but some of us must have the copy of the Arkansas voter registration form showing Wes as a registered independent.

[IndianaGreen]

113. Russ is for US

and people disgusted with business as usual are taking notice of Feingold as we did of Kucinich four years ago.

[Radical Activist]

117. I like that comparison

I like to think he has the same conviction as Kucinich but Feingold has held a larger office, and might run a more "together" campaign with a better chance of winning.

[Tom Rinaldo]

190. They both are good men, but Russ has a better chance than Kuch did n/t

[Dignity]

308. Clark Has a Better Chance of Winning

I too think Clark has a better chance of winning than Feingold. I shudder to think of all those ads calling Feingold the "L" word and lumping him in with Dukakis and the like. Oh, no not those lame and bogus arguments again! But let's face it, with an American public too often persuaded by sound bites, those kind of ads work.

Personally I prefer Feingold but I am a liberal and most Americans tend toward the middle or the right(wrong)side of the middle. Feingold is a true patriot who has moral courage and does not seem to be the sort to listen to focus groups and cynical political advisors.

I really wanted Wes Clark to win the nomination in 2004, but he never got a fair hearing, in my opinion. Just listening to him makes me feel confident that he is capable, practical and idealistic. But did you see how those other military generals attacked him? That hurt badly, I feel, because the same electorate which would like a general as president will listen to the military naysayers. For me, the most worrisome thing about Clark was when I heard him say that there is no evidence that depleted uranium is harmful to our troops. That was a real red flag to me and I can't stop thinking about it. Is he his own man or not? Will he be truthful and not just toe the party line on matters which the political establishment finds inconvenient? We have had enough of lies and liars.

[Tom Rinaldo]

317. There are too many examples of Clark being willing to buck the tide

for me to worry about his being his own man. I know he is. He doesn't always say the things I want to hear either. On DU he blogged that he was willing to revisit the science on it, the last stuff he said he saw didn't prove links to health risks, but his mind is not closed on the matter, and like so many other things, all of our Congress critters have a more direct say on this matter than anyone not currently holding office there. This issue hasn't risen to the top of the deck for many of them yet.

[bobthedrummer]

195. Things have changed. Some Clark partisans haven't.

I voted for Feingold.

This 2003 American Prospect article mentioned some of the legitimate concerns about Clark when he entered the Democratic Party primaries.
http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/10/vest-j.html

[xkenx]

196. The American Prospect article

was generally positive about Clark and pointed out the genuineness of how he evolved to be a Democrat, more progressive than an awful lot of the so-called Dems. in national politics.

[bobthedrummer]

199. I disagree xkenx.

Read the last paragraph again.

on edit: of course I'm biased too. We all are.

[xkenx]

223. OK, I read it again, and

aside from the author calling Clark disingenuous, which is probably the LAST thing most people would say about Clark,(see Mario Cuomo's comment below), the article bolsters the argument that Clark can actually WIN.
2008 is all about flipping a few red states into our column. Hillary certainly can't do it. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone.

[Captain Hilts]

268. Being in the army is as close to socialism as you get in this country. nt

[radio4progressives]

285. there's truth to that.. at least in the old days it was that way...

i grew up in the military.. in the days when commisaries is where you bought your groceries for about 25% of retail, and pretty much the same at px's (my very first job after high school) and nco clubs where my folks bought their hard liquor. where military housing was furnished with the same exact pieces for all the rank and grade - and so on. don't know what it's like these days, i heard it changed a lot. Viet Nam war cost this nation alot in terms of lives and dollars. I'm sickened that we as a nation cannot seem to learn a freaking thing from past mistakes.

[tsuki]

121. I'll take them both. #1 & #2.

[johnfunk]

131. A Clark-Feingold ticket in '08

Picture Wes and Russ pitching the five planks of the Contract for the 21st Century:

1) An administration that will be unwavering in bringing down criminal "terrorist" thugs and strong on defense because they will level with Jane and Joe Average about the real threats to our nation.

2) Pro-growth at home, creating American jobs that will stay in America, using technology and energy independence to generate those jobs.

3) Busting the Beltway/K Street "three-C culture" (corruption, cronyism, corporate codependence) while restoring integrity, honesty and accountability to the federal government.

4) Improving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by backing a health care system that works for everybody, not just the crooked insurance/HMO/PhRma cartel.

5) No young adult left behind as they restore a strong public education system, because an educated populace equipped with critical thinking is the foundation of our our nation's security.

Sounds like a winner to me!

[HootieMcBoob]

143. nice!

I like it :)

[bvar22]

152. Voted for Feingold in the Poll, I am much more alligned with him,

but Clark has a better chance of collecting votes from middle America. Middle America (dumbasses) don't vote issues, they vote for the best TV SpokesModel.
While both are charismatic, Clark is prettier.

Because I am a Centrist,
in the Primaries, I will be heavily supporting the Anti-War, Anti-Free Trade, Pro-LABOR, pro-cut Defense Spending, Pro Civil Liberties, Universal HealthCare, Restrictions on Corporations, pro-Environment candidate ALL the way to the convention.

This IS the American Center:
In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a REAL Democratic party:

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

204. Wow!

I had no idea how liberal the general public is. The Democrats should definitely not be afraid to embrace these issues.

[IA_Seth]

305. Hmm..

Anything coming from someone that brushes aside "Middle America" as dumbasses really doesn't move me much. Are you honestly trying to right off the entire midwest?

[HuskerDU]

155. I voted for Wes Clark because I think he is the best candidate

to heal wounds in our country. IMO, Clark has the personality of Bill Clinton, the politics of Paul Wellstone, the military knowledge of Eisenhower, and the life's story of an All-American.

Feingold is my second favorite candidate. These are the two that I am most enthusiastic about.

[HootieMcBoob]

160. I agree n/t

[Castilleja]

174. Feingold N/T

[LivingWithGhosts]

180. I'm for Feingold

But I like Wes, too.

[NCarolinawoman]

182. I support Wes Clark because the problems facing this country and the world

today are so very awful and complex. General Clark knows most of the current world leaders and is respected by a great many of them; including those in the Muslim world.

He's is highly intelligent, courageous, and a truth-teller. He can be a visionary and a pragmatist all at the same time. He has little patience with corruptness and lies; he is almost old-fashioned in that way.

I am also confident that his heart will always be with the "little guy". He is from very humble beginnings and doesn't appear to have forgotten his roots.

I also respect Russ Finegold very very much. These two men have a lot in common. Neither man is someone who bends to the political winds.

By the way, I saw that some Clarkies were being accused of being political operatives. LOL! Don't political operatives get paid for what they do? (I think I read somewhere today, that Bob Shrum's firm made something like five million dollars during the '04 election. All of that and "W" still ends up being President!!!)

[InsultComicDog]

184. I like 'em both but I like Feingold more

Because his pet issues are my pet issues

[MrSlayer]

193. Clark.

Why? Because he's brilliant and can deal with every facet of the Presidential agenda. He has no match in foreign policy and is well respected throughout the World. He's also an economic expert and socially liberal.

Feingold is a good guy but Senators never win Presidential elections. I'd be fine with him as the VP on Clark's ticket.

[OneBlueSky]

203. Other . . . Gore/Clark, with Feingold in an appropriate and . . .

prominent postion in the new Administration . . . also need to involve people like John Conyers, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, RFK Jr., Bill Moyers, Gary Hart, Bernie Saunders, Ben Cohen, Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, and other skilled and experienced progressives . . .

as well as leading DLCers, true Conservatives, Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, and other non-neocons . . .

because we're going to need every last one of them to even make a dent in the ungodly mess we'll be facing . . .

[Vinca]

209. I love Feingold. He's probably a long shot, but I'm sick of voting

for who the majority thinks can win. This time I'm going with the person I believe in. If Democratic candidates were smart they would go back to their roots and quit trying to be Republican-lite.

[JNelson6563]

210. Feingold,or, as a brilliant DUer put it

Spinegold

[jackpan1260]

217. I am hoping for Feingold and Warner. eom

[SONUVABUSH]

221. Russ Feingold or Wes Clark? For what?

Victory in an arm wrestling match? Olympic curling game? Most quail shot on a hunt in Texas?

I know it can't be for the presidental nomination in 2008, I hear Billary Clinton has that locked up.

[FrenchieCat]

224. Well you've heard wrong...but that's what happens when one

listens and believes the Corporate Media.

If what you are saying is that we should just accept and go along with what the media pushes....like good little Germans, They'll be coming for you in just a matter of time.

Smart folks don't allow themselves to be influenced by 5 Corporate entities who bought up most of the Free Press. If you believe and buy into an overt "push" in an election 2 years away, then you are part of the problem--part of the Sheeples.

[xkenx]

226. Speaking of "Good little Germans,"

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

Martin Niemoller
(Niemoller was a church leader and fervent supporter of Hitler for quite a few years, until the
Nazis came after HIS church. He spoke out, but they tossed him into the camps). When you control everything, then the Constitution truly becomes what B**h calls "That 200 year old piece of paper."

[SONUVABUSH]

238. I dunno....

It seems I read that a lot on this website, not only the corporate media. I do like Wes Clarke if he runs. Not really familiar with Feingold.

[LWolf]

232. 231 responses to argue over these two men?

It's barely 2006. I think I'll retire to a sound-proof room when the primaries actually begin and there are actual candidates to choose from.

For the record, it will not matter to me how fervent, repetitive, or pushy any supporter is for any particular candidate. I'll make my own choices based on the person's record on the issues I care about. The only thing aggressive campaigning does for me is to turn me off to that candidate. Someone I just didn't prefer over someone else may become a candidate I'll never vote for, no matter what, because aggressive campaigners pissed me off.

LOL It's a good thing most voters don't react to campaigning this way, isn't it? I think I'll just let the fur fly from a safe distance this time around.

[Totally Committed]

233. I agree...

I am a Clark supporter, but feel both these good men are a blessing to this Party. A BLESSING.

We could do FAR WORSE than either of them.

TC

[snowbear]

234. I'll 3rd that request and hope they will lock this flame fest of a thread.

It really did get out of control.. :cry:


:patriot: ~~ ~~ :patriot:

"All Patriot -- No Act -- And NEVER a Republican!!!"

[Tom Rinaldo]

237. There was little if any fighting between Feingold and Clark supporters

That's the odd part. Almost every Clark supporter I know also thinks highly of Russ Feingold. The "fighting" started when some non-Feingold supporters chose to use this thread to make negative comments about Clark and/or his supporters, and after literal false statements were made here about Clark.

I'm not fighting anyone over who they support in 2008 or whether or not they care about 2008 yet. There's time for that later. And the only concern I have ever voiced about Russ Feingold is over whether or not it would be hard for him to get elected, and even with some concerns about that, Feinglod is currently my second choice among all Democrats.

It's possible that a lot of Feingold fans may not like Clark, though I don't see a lot of evidence for that, but I don't know a single Clark supporter who doesn't like Feingold. Honest, I don't.

[radio4progressives]

263. I'm a Feingold Supporter and I was wrongfully attacked and accused

by a few Clark supporters (who are most engaged in attacking others as well) of "attcking Clark" just because i mentioned that he was a former republican - turns out i was technically wrong - only because of registration issues in Arkansas - but a huge deal was made out of that when in fact Clark is ON RECORD for having voted for Nixon in both terms, Reagan (16 years of Republicanism) vs his voting for Clinton (don't know which terms) and Kerry. don't know how he voted in 1988, (poppy Bush vs Dukakis) or 2000 (Gore vs W vs Nader). It turns out that Clark registered as a Democrat just before throwing his hat in for the 2004 presidential bid.

It was unfair, it was uncalled for, it was out of line, and it was reactionary to the extreme.

So, the people that engaged in the flaming were ardent Clark fans. I cast my vote for Feingold and said so. but i never launched into an "attack" on Clark. raising questions by the way, is not an "attack". Though Bush Co would like us to think so, surely Clark supporters should know better. I would have at least expected as much.

[Tom Rinaldo]

278. I just wrote you a friendly post above, before reading this

I would rather sign off our exchange on that tone, than potentially have another spin out, lol.

You walked into a lot of history with that "technical mistake", because that "technical mistake" has been made INTENTIONALLY by others numerous times in the past, including during the 2004 Primaries. And as I pointed out in other posts, I disagree that the differnce between the accurate or inaccurate version of comments about Clark's past voting patterns is only technical. Still, I like where you are coming from in general, your overall stance is completely reasonable, so I will again try to leave this off on a positive tone with you.

Peace.

[radio4progressives]

287. I wasn't here during the primaries... i was over at the kerry forum

so none of these arguments came up on my radar.. i hadn't previously known that it was a bone of contention before today.. (in this thread) there were clark supporters there, (some of my favorite blog mates were Clarkies) but i think by the time i got there, kerry was pretty much looking like he was winning, or had won the primaries... guess that's why i missed it (if it ever was discussed there).

for me it's splitting hairs, but I see that isn't viewed that way by supporters, so apologies for any unintended offense.

what would interest me at this point, is to know why/how Clark turned the corner from be a republican supporter (nixon/reagan) to supporting Clinton /Gore and then becoming a registered Democrat. In other words, did he become more liberal on certain issues ?

In other words, what happened along his journey, his life path that made him choose this fork in the road when he came to it?

That would be of interest to me...

[Tom Rinaldo]

294. Again, I'm sorry you got blind sided, thanks for hanging in there

and trying to understand. Back during the primary days a lot of disinformation was put out about Clark, a lot of the initial stuff got traced back to Republican type sources, but some came from Democrats too. Lieberman was real big on accusing Clark of being a Republican to give you one example, and there were attacks on Clark at DU claiming he was really a trojan horse for Republicans also. A lot of disinformation from those days is still floating around and it pops up from time to time, sometimes innocently, sometimes not.

A basic answer to your question essentially ties back to the height of the Cold War, and changes that happened when it started to wind down. If you start with Nixon, well he was a very strange guy for many reasons, and those of us like myself who fought against the Viet Nam War of course hated him from the get go, but you know he wasn't nearly so conservative on domestic issues as todays Republican Party. Nixon started the EPA, he started OSHA, he supported price controls at one point when the cost of basic consumer needs was sky rocketing. The Republican Party back then lined up in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment almost as solidly as the Democrats did, and was frequently Pro Choice, and so on. Nixon pursued detente with Russia and established relations with China. Nixon obviously did a lot of really fucked things too, like helping over throw Allende and undermining our Constitution to name but two. But the Republican Party was more moderate then than it is today when Clark first began voting for Republican Presidents.

Clark's record in the military always reflected his progressive values though regarding racial equality and the need to provide women with equal opportunities for example. That's been well attested to by women and minorities who worked with him in the Army. Clark took a keen interest in assuring good housing, health care, and education for the families of those under his commands. He won at least one award from environmentalists for the way in which he seriously dealt with environmental concerns at bases under his command. Clark also showed a lot more understanding and tolerance for gays in the military than most of the Senior officers around him. It is no coincidence that Clark ran with strong minority support during the 2004 race, including Gay and Lesbian support.

Another thing to realize is that the military is virtually the least elitist institution in America when it comes to pay and perks for the "management" as contrasted with the "workers". That always felt right to Clark. He viewed the Army as a team and everyone on that team had to be taken care of. Leave no man behind was really a creed in the Army, associated foremost with combat situations, but it carried over to non combat circumstances also, and Clark believed in it. So in short, on domestic issues, Clark I think has always mostly thought like a Democrat, and frequently a Liberal one, even while he voted for some Republican Presidents. Clark had some friction inside the military because he never did exactly fit the standard mold. He earned three advanced degrees from Oxford; in Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy.

Clark told Bill Maher back in 2003 that he was proud to call himself a Liberal, because the United States was founded as a Liberal Democracy, and that meant in a classical sense that we choose to use reason and engage in debate to understand the world, rather than accept traditional views on faith alone. It was completely in character for Clark to call himself a Liberal with Maher, he never flinched at the title, none of that "labels aren't useful" crap that so many Democrats hide behind to avoid being tarred as "a Liberal" by Republicans.

So to get to the heart of your question, when Clark talks about his earlier views about the two Parties as it related to the Executive Branch specifically, he says he was in an institution where he was surrounded by a lot of bright people at the top who mostly believed that the Republican Party was more expert at providing security to the United States than the Democratic Party was, and he mostly agreed with that perspective also during the course of the Cold War. Clark was one of the guys who had to know how many tank divisions the Soviets had massed in East Germany, and how many ICBM's they had targeted at American cities, and all of that, but he also saw that while Republicans were committed to maintaining a strong military, which he agreed was important at the time, they also were fully committed to the trans Atlantic Alliance and to the critical role of diplomacy as well. Remember how Reagan and Gorbachev actually hit it off rather well personally and immediately began negotiating cuts in nuclear arsenals? All that "Trust but Verify" stuff dates back to a time when even Republican Presidents understood that the United States needs to engage in direct diplomacy with our adversaries, unlike the current disgrace.

What changed for Clark was the end of the threat he believed once was posed to the United States by the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War. He quickly got that it was an historic shift in paradigm, and that our previous bi-partisan policy of containment now was antiquated, and that the threats that the American military had studied and prepared for were no longer the pressing threats that faced the United States and the world. Clark's mind was flexible enough not to keep running on automatic pilot. Unlike many of his peers in the military at the time, Clark stopped trying to find new excuses to justify old strategic thinking. And when he looked around at an increasingly smaller world where a prolonged severe drought in Africa, or an epidemic like AIDs was more likely to be destabilizing to the world than an opposing power bloc lined up against America, he saw more flexibible thinking in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party, which was still stuck using the old cold war derived script.

It might sound easier than it actually was for Clark to break ranks with most of his fellow Senior officers and accept that Bill Clinton had a better grasp of what the United States needed to do in the world after the collapse of Communism then a couple of old World War Two Vets like George Bush Senior and Bob Dole, but that is what Clark realized, and knowing that meant realizing he had to realign his thinking regarding the two Partys relative to providing for America's National Security leading into the 21st Century. Clark worked extremely well with the Clinton Administration, including with the State Department, because Clark believes in the value of diplomacy, alliances, and international institutions, in sharp contrast to how George W. Bush expected our military to take the lead in all aspects of our foreign policy.

But the other thing for Clark to get past in his transition to becoming a Democratic politician was the strong long tradition of bipartisanship and service to our nations civilian leadership that is ingrained in Senior Officers and which Clark himself took very seriously. The straw that broke the camel's back on that one for Clark was the utter ineptness of the Bush Administration in the wake of 911, once it became clear to him that Bush had no real intention of focusing on Bin Ladin and Al Quada, rather he was using what happened on 911 as a pretext to pursue the neocon agenda of serial Mid East wars, starting with Iraq which Clark did not think posed a serious threat to America.

edited to correct some spelling

[burythehatchet]

266. Believe it or not my intent was to gauge

where DU was in their support for these two possible candidates. I like both of them very much and I will have trouble choosing if they both run. At this point I wouldn't mind if the mods do lock this thread. Its depressing to see the vitriole between people who claim to have similar interests.

[Totally Committed]

272. The supporters of neither of these candidates started the vitriol...

it was started by the usual cast of characters whio have to get their shots in whenever or wherever possible.

TC

[radio4progressives]

275. not true... go back and read it from the beginning... n/t

[IndianaGreen]

240. Anybody But Hillary!

or Biden, or DiFi...

Anyone that voted against cloture on the Alito filibuster is fine with me, except for a couple of them that I already named!

[Adelante]

241. Clark/Feingold 2008

I couldn't even read this thread. I have a headache just scrolling through.

[Totally Committed]

242. I could second that!

Don't worry about reading it. It's a bunch of the same old-same old, with the same cast of characters pissing in everyone's cornflakes.

I could get very excited by a Clark/Feingold ticket, I don't mind telling you!

TC

[Sparkly]

260. I'll third that.

What a great ticket that would be!!! :D

[Clarkansas]

247. I'd like any combination of Clark Warner and Feingold

[vikegirl]

257. Welcome to DU!

What a cute username! :hi:

[SnookieDog]

271. No one on earth can question his "patriotism"

Wes swings the "national security" issue to our side.

[Dhampir Kampf]

276. Feingold over Clark

Feingold is still against the Patriot act.

[OctOct1]

279. I agree

I been for Clark for a Long time.
We made a big mistake by not putting him up in 2004.
He was the only Dem (I felt) that could be strong on Terrorism and take that one thing away from Bush.
Anyways, He has one weakness. His personality is not as forceful as I would like.
Were as Feingold seems very forceful and bold.
Clark can back him up with Brains, wit and Military experience.
I really want Clark to be the front runner, but, he may not sell as well as Feingold.
Just my 2 cents

[Sparkly]

282. They seem to be on the same page re: Patriot Act

Both advocate changes to it, especially concerning warrantless searches.

The changes Feingold was seeking included an amendment that would set a four-year expiration date on Patriot Act provisions regarding National Security Letters — demands made to banks, libraries, Internet providers and others without warrants — for records of their customers or clients.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act

General Clark has proposed a complete overhaul of the Patriot Act. He's advocated a review requiring the Attorney General and others to testify as to how the Patriot Act has been used, and to what effect; and he said many times during the 2004 campaign (I'm paraphrasing -- someone else may have a link to an exact quote): "If the government wants to conduct searches, they can do it the old-fashioned way: GET A WARRANT."

I'd trust either of them, as president, to turn back these abuses and re-establish citizens' rights and the rule of law. I trust that Feingold is being a realist in calling for "expiration dates" rather than outright abolishment of these outrageous provisions.

[radio4progressives]

288. I didn't know Clark said that... Now that's the language i want to hear...

straight talk and with Clarity. Feingold would if he was in the position to repeal the whole damn thing, he voted against the act. But he can't even get these bastards to leave out the most egregious, the worst of the worst provisions (new gestapo type) .

it's freaking weird.. i can't handle the thought most americans don't seem to care.. (i don't really think that's true, but i have no way to prove it)

[last_texas_dem]

281. Feingold

Canvassing for Kerry in Wisconsin back in '04, I was amazed at the number of people I talked to who were supporters of both Shrub and Feingold. Considering what a "swing", almost evenly-split politically state Wisconsin is, it's awesome that a senator as liberal as Feingold is able to appeal to so many moderate and conservative voters. Unlike pseudo-"maverick" John McCain, Russ Feingold is the real deal. He's willing to take on his party and take unpopular stances when something really matters to him (such as his lone vote against the initial installation of the Patriot Act) but he's a solid liberal who rarely sells out.

Some will argue that Wisconsin is not America, and Feingold would have a much tougher time appealing to America as a whole. While this may be true to an extent, I don't think it's as true as many believe. Certainly Wisconsin has some very liberal areas such as Madison, but it also has some deep red places to, like some Milwaukee suburbs and many rural areas. I think with a strong campaign, playing on his independence and integrity, Feingold could be a very strong Presidential candidate for the Democrats.

I wouldn't mind a Clark candidacy, either, and I think he's definitely got his strengths. But I feel more enthusiasm about Feingold, while also believing he would have a chance at winning. The combination of these two things makes me favor him in '08.

[FrenchieCat]

286. I respect what you said......

and I am happy that you have enthusiam for a politician.

....But I do have a question out of curiosity. One of the reasons you gave for your enthusiam was that you believe that Fiengold has a good chance of winning. Considering that Feingold is a Bachelor twice Divorced, Jewish and a Senator....who has voted down just about every defense bill ever introduced, why do you see his chances of winning in a national contest to be better than others?

Note that this question is not to Bash Sen. Fiengold; it's just stating the known facts that are obvious. :shrug:

[radio4progressives]

291. fwi.. Clark is Jewish too...

personally, i think we as a nation ought to get over these periphials that matter not at all when it comes to running this country.

I think Feingold would be less distracted, personally. Although he does have kids.. ;)

[FrenchieCat]

301. Clark is 1/2 Jewish via his father.....and it is the mother that makes one

Jewish, from what I understand. Similar to John Kerry, Wes Clark is Catholic, and similar to John Kerry, he didn't find out that his Dad (who had died when he was 4 years old) was Jewish until he was a grown up.

But beyond that.....That was only one of the handicaps I mentioned in reference to Sen. Feingold's electibility.

PS. I realize that we both wish everyone would be enlightened, etc....but many people are not....and most of these same unlightened folks vote.

As a minority myself, I have no allusions as to what is the realities out there!

[last_texas_dem]

295. Good points

Certainly a Feingold Presidential candidacy would have its weaknesses. Although Feingold is one of the potential candidates I have the most support for, I don't believe he is the most electable. In fact, if the poll question had been: "Who do you think is the most electable, Feingold or Clark?" I would go with Clark. I just believe both would be electable.

I think Feingold has a well-earned reputation in his home state as being a straight shooter, as being someone who does what he believes is right regardless of the political implications. He succeeds at appealing to independents and even some conservatives, despite having one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate, because people trust that he is standing up for what he believes in, even if they don't agree with some of the stances he takes. (In an eerie way, this is similar to Shrub's appeal to many, despite the fact that his reputation as a straight shooter isn't "well-earned" and he's pretty much the polar opposite of Feingold in every other way!) I think it's important that the Dems pick a candidate with great potential for appealing to voters in this way, as I think Gore and Kerry were both hurt substantially by the media and Repugs' efforts to define them as "flip-floppers" or politicians with no core principles who would say whatever it took to win. (I should note that I think such character assassination was garbage and I am a big fan of both guys, especially Gore.)

As for the potential flaws you point out, I see what you are saying, especially on the issue of the Senate record. It's sad but true that it seems that being a U.S. Senator has actually become more of a negative than a positive for a politician wanting to run for President. There's something in any Senator's voting record to piss off anyone. Some of Feingold's votes could certainly be called into question and possibly hurt a Presidential campaign substantially. I think it would depend the most on whether a Feingold campaign could effectively rebut whatever distortions the right-wing noise machine decided to make about his record without allowing them to paint a distorted picture of him based upon a selective reading of it.

It's hard for me to say for sure what effect I think Feingold's being Jewish would have on his candidacy. I would assume a negative effect simply because of America's substantial Christian majority, a good number of whom I would assume might be bothered by someone outside of the majority religion being President. But I think, outside of fundamentalist Christianity, most Americans would not have a problem with having a Jewish President. (For example, I think Joe Lieberman actually helped Al Gore's 2000 Presidential ticket, and I heard very little criticism of his Orthodox Judaism. Whether having a Jew at the top of the ticket rather than second would make a substantial difference I can't say.) And the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians would not consider voting for a Democratic Presidential candidate, Jewish or not.

I'm not sure how much being divorced makes a difference, as there are so few examples of divorced Presidential candidates that I can think of. Divorce didn't seem to be an issue with Ronald Reagan, and didn't seem to be with John Kerry, either. (The Repugs seemed more concerned with showing how "weird" and different from the Stepford Wife-ish Laura Bush Teresa Heinz Kerry was, but didn't seem to dwell much on making an issue of Kerry's divorce.) Perhaps Americans aren't really bothered by divorce as much because so many of them are now divorced themselves or have plenty of friends who are? Feingold's current status as a bachelor might actually bother them more, but there's always a chance he could remedy that before making a Presidential run!

[Sugarcoated]

297. I say we should just go for it

go with who, in our hearts is the right man. Throw out the 'who is electable' out the window and go with the man with principles and who connects. The Repub's are screaming the challenge into our face, "the Dems don't STAND for anything". Let's assume they're right - let's call their bluff.

I checked out some of Russ's campaign commercials today, here's a link:

http://www.russfeingold.org/multimedia.php

If he can translate that likablility into a national campaign, he can win.

Edited to add - the bottom three commercials are must see.

[Tom Rinaldo]

299. I respect your position. If I didn't actually like Clark so much

Feingold would be my first choice. It does helps a lot for me that I think the guy who I really want to run, Clark, also is the guy who I believe is most electable, so I don't have to face that problem in making my choice. Winning is of course important. I think Feingold does face the obstacles mentioned above to get past, and they are real, but Feingold is talented and he may be able to manage it. I think he would make a great President. Next to Clark there is no one I can be as enthusiastic working for as Feingold. I just really like Clark also, and think that not only would he too make a great President, but having Clark run as our candidate will help the most Democrats all the way down the tickets and will shift help broad public perceptions favorably toward the Democratic Party away from the Republican Party, because Clark is best at presenting why Democrats are the Party with the best answers for keeping America safe while we are also restoring the prosperity of average Americans. But again, I would work enthusiastically for Feingold and would be thrilled if he becomes our next President. Peace.

[Sugarcoated]

302. I love Clark as well.

Both are integrity personified.

There's no perfect candidate. The Repub's will do what they do best - smear the opponent and divide the country. We have to go with who we feel in our heart is the right man.

Both men have obstacles, as will any Republican candidate for that matter. It's about how they run the campaign and if they can get out their message, if they can translate to the masses who they are. Clark and Feingold, I think, if they play their cards right, can shine through the mud slinging. I like Feingold so much because he's his own best PR - if he is just himself he will win people over. I've been saying for a couple weeks now that they ARE the ticket. I guess I'd prefer Feingold at the top of the ticket, but either way it's the winner. The other candidates either don't ring true, are too wishy-washy, won't take a stand, are Repulican-lite, don't translate, are too polarizing and/or demonized and have had their chance. The Repub's are rabidly pushing for a rank-and-file establishment Democrat.

[Tom Rinaldo]

304. If both men seek the nomination, I hope we can set a positive tone here

I think most of us who currently are supporting either Clark or Feingold also respect the other man also. If it comes to them both competing, we should be able to discuss our reasons for leaning one way or the other without having to tear down the other man or his supporters while doing so. I have a lot of confidence that most Feingold and Clark supporters won't fall for smear tactics and angry rivalry, which I honestly think is egged on by freepers anyway.

Last time almost all of the true activists on DU were able to put aside our differences after Kerry got the nomination and work together well to defeat Bush. Next time hopefully we can keep it from ever getting nasty to begin with. When I have debates with friends and co-workers about which Democrat has the best message or whatever, it never descends into ugliness, we just talk about it. We can work together next time to keep it real here.

[Sugarcoated]

307. I hope so

I won't be dissing the general if he's the one. I just think they'd be a perfect team.

[radio4progressives]

290. What's up with Kohl? Why doesn't he back Feingold?

which district is Kohl from basically?

I understand that Feingold has lived up to all of his principle campagin promises, in holding townhall meetings all over the state ever since he was first elected back in '92. And that 90% of his campaign contributions are not more than $60 per constituent..and he caps his funding at a certain level . (i forget what that $ amt is).

on the issue with the patriot act, what in the hell is up with Kohl?

do you know, any clues?

[last_texas_dem]

296. I'm really not sure

I'd assume Kohl is just more of a traditional politician than Feingold, a little more of a go-along to get-along type. Feingold has more of an independent streak and is willing to take more risky stances. I would think, after seeing Feingold's right-wing opponent Michels trying and failing to make an issue of Feingold's opposition to the Patriot Act during the '04 election, with Feingold being re-elected by a wider margin than his previous election, that Kohl might have realized that to stand against the Patriot Act would not necessarily be that costly politically. But maybe Kohl just doesn't want to be seen as some sort of rabble-rouser, or really doesn't see the Patriot Act as that big of a deal. (That does seem to be the stance taken by far too many Senators on the matter.)

I can't really dislike Kohl that much, though. After all, I could only dream of having a Senator who was right that much of the time here in Texas! He's one of the better Senators in my view, if not as good as Feingold.

[Warren DeMontague]

292. I'll go with door #3, Al Gore.

But Feingold would look pretty good in the #2 slot. And that's nothing against Wes, he's a fine man. I could support any of those gentlemen.

[Sugarcoated]

293. I think Feingold's likability is his greatest strength

If far-right Faux people can get excited about Condelezza, I think he'd be able to get some disenchanted Repub's, moderates, independents would run to him. We're in different times.

It was once believed a certain Catholic senator didn't have a chance . . .

[lojasmo]

306. Feingold....a real democrat

Who has served as a democrat in the US senate, caucused as a democrat, and supported democratic values in the senate.

[donjoofWeThePeople]

310. I like Feingold as my senator.

He's honest and doesn't take crap from anyone. Neither does Wes Clark. Imagine 2 former Rhodes Scholars that are honest, bright, articulate, and respected gentlemen on the same ticket. What a concept. However, honestly, Feingold is not ready to be Prez just yet. He's got to get more FP experience and learn how to negotiate. Wes has him beat in spades on that issue. I've been supporting a Clark/Feingold 08 ticket since the Kerry fiasco. Still the best one, IMHO; but I would worry that Feingold, like Edwards, would bring only limited voting support to the ticket.

[high density]

311. I like both of them

But Clark has a certain national security gravitas that Feingold doesn't have. The security moms will be back in 2008 and I have no doubt the GOP is going to play up the "we'll keep you safe, vote for them if you want to die" thing once again. I like that Clark isn't a politician as well, since politicians generally rank low on my respect list these days.

[iconoclastNYC]

313. Feingold - a record, Clark - Manchurian Candidate?

I dont know enought about Clark to judge what kind of president he'd be, but I can look at Feingold's record in politics.

What's Clark's record in politics? Oh right, he wants to be president but hasn't even run for dog catcher.

[donjoofWeThePeople]

314. Then maybe it's about time

you pulled your head out of your ass and did some research.

[iconoclastNYC]

315. What political office has he ever held?

I like to judge people on actions and not on campaign promises. Maybe you would too if you'd take your head out of YOUR ass.

[xkenx]

323. You clearly don't know diddley squat about Clark, so here's

some relevant input. 2008 is all about flipping a few red states into our column. Hillary certainly can't do it. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone.

[Geek_Girl]

318. I'm leaning toward Feingold these days

I thought Clark was our best chance in '04 but I'm cooling off toward him. I can't quite put my finger on why. Maybe it's the Faux News thing?

[xkenx]

328. Clark on FAUX News--the smartest move,

to get his voice of reason out to the people watching FAUX who could maybe vote Dem. the next time.
It's called having the guts to go into the lion's den. And he destroys O'LIElly and HanRATity every time he's on. Clark has a great ability to explain his thoughts and positions in terms everyone can understand. See my post #323 just above for more.

[PVK]

319. I think Russ talks straight but Clark talks straighter...

Plus it puts to bed that Democrats being weak on national security crap.

[Sugarcoated]

324. They should run together -

Clark would make up for any national security BS flung at Feingold, and Feingold, (who has just as much spine, strength and likability, btw) will make up for the whole Clark's 'lack of governing experience' BS.

[radio4progressives]

322. I voted in this poll in favor of Russ Feingold...

because i've been praising his courage of conviction and righteous stand on principle and what appears to me to be his fearless willingness to confront this administration's fascists power grabbing mentality and illegal and unconstitutional actions.

but now i'm thinking just based on this thread that something is not right with this picture, and i regret participating at all.

I really like Feingold very much, if the elections were held today, i'd vote for him. I don't see him with Clark, but I could be wrong.

Regardless, I will not be participating in any future DU "polling" as regard preference of candidates. It reminds me as a pyschological set up, a sort of mind control operation and I don't think we need that, and I think others would do well to avoid any future polling as well.

[Sugarcoated]

325. Are they gonna run?

If so, what are they waiting for?

[Tom Rinaldo]

327. I think they are waiting till after the mid term elections in 2006

At least Clark is. He never wavers on that. He isn't acting coy, Clark's admitted that he would like to run for President if circumstances permit, but he wants Democrats to stay focused on winning one or both houses of Congress in 2006 now. He thinks if he begins positioning for himself for President now it would make him a less effective advocate for a range of Democrats across the nation running in 2006. He doesn't want to compete with them for funds or attention and in fact is mostly doing fund raising for them. Clark only does enough fund raising for WesPAC right now to keep it functioning. His priorities are very clear.

[CarolNYC]

330. Yes, I think it was at the San Fran event earlier this month....

...that he said anybody running already is doing a disservice to the midterm election process. For Gen Clark, it's always country before party or his own personal ambition and he definitely thinks winning at least one House of Congress back is vital to the future of this country. Too bad it's not the same for all political figures. :(

[Dawgs]

326. BOTH!!!

Fiengold/Clark 08'

[derby378]

332. Feingold is not a gun-grabber, unlike Clark

He was also the only Democratic US Senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act when it was first unveiled.

Those two factors make him my new Howard Dean. :loveya: