BS: Clark vs Dean

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Nerd
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:28 AM

I noticed a big score for Dean tonight. At every debate, in attack ads and in every campaign speech, Kerry has pummeled Dean by saying that Dean wants to raise middle class taxes by eliminating the Bush tax cuts. When Dean is there (at debates), he points out that the middle class did not get a tax cut because Bush's cuts to services, especially No Child Left Behind, health care, special ed, and higher ed, have raised property taxes, payroll taxes, insurance premiums and college tuitions so that the average family pays far more than they did before the Bush cuts. Kerry then puts on his mock outrage and says, "come on, what are you thinking?" Or he says something like, "not according to Hector Garcia, a mechanic from Dubuque who saved 1800 dollars this year!" Or, he mocks Dean, by saying, "the middle class tax cut, which Howard somehow doesn't realize people ever got..."

Well, today in Daschle's post-State of the Union speech, he took a paragraph almost word-for word out of Dean's stump speech, pointing out that the middle class did not get a tax cut for all the reasons stated above. In the next debate, if Kerry tries his BS routine, Dean can just say "your own leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle, said it himself last week. It's really not that hard to understand, John!" Personally, I'm hoping this will happen!

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 01:38 PM

I agree with Thomas when he says that "Dean has shown his capability to access what is actually do-able, and has spoken of it often... he seems to be aware of the realities of legislative workings... while at the same time standing sure and fast for what he believes in."

One thing that bugs me is that people talk a lot about "foreign policy experience" (which in the Senators' case means sitting on a committee) but no one talks about "executive branch experience." Dean knows what powers the executive branch has and what powers it doesn't have, and he knows how to work with legislators from the other party as Chief Executive. Surely this is as important as experience in this or that area of policy!

Example: In the last debate, when Kucinich questioned Dean on Health Care, Dean pointed out that his plan has the virtue of actually being able to get through Congress. Kucinich said, "but don't you think that as President you would have the leadership and natural authority to get a single-payer system passed?" This of course was like saying "but don't you think you'll be godlike and invincible, as I will be if elected?"

Dean said, "look, Clinton tried that and failed, as have several other presidents. I tried it and failed in Vermont. I am tired of having millions of Americans with no health coverage. So I will try to get this plan passed, which will cover 99% of us by expanding the systems that Congress is already familiar and comfortable with, and THEN we can worry about replacing it with a more efficient system."

THIS is the kind of thing that convinces me Dean is the right candidate. Kerry and Edwards and Kucinich have some great and noble ideas, but they want us to believe that we can have it all: tax Breaks, Deficit reduction AND expensive new programs. (Except for Kucinich, who wants us to believe he can single-handedly push a left-wing agenda through a right-wing congress). Dean won't lie like that, which is why he hasn't yet detailed what his new tax fairness plan will be, and why he won't pander to the left with a single-payer medical proposal which has no hope of ever being enacted.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 08:58 PM

Yeh, Frank, I get your point... But here's my mind...

Kucinich is the most 'correct', but he seems singularly unbending. His high and noble ideals are commendable, and I enjoy listening to his analysis of the status quo... but I just can't imagine him in a compromise... finding common ground... working with the hard-line concervatives...

Dean has shown his capability to access what is actually do-able, and has spoken of it often... he seems to be aware of the realities of legislative workings... while at the same time standing sure and fast for what he believes in. He's my first choice... for what it's worth

Clark, Kerry, and Edwards are more moderate realists also...

Gephardt is the most diplomatic, and may have given in a bit more than I am comfortable with in his long tenure of 'on the hill' politics... he is extremely qualified as a 'compromise oriented' professional, and could prove to be the most effective of the whole bunch...

...and I will vote for him... if I have to... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 04:19 PM

Thomas, can you imagine any Democrat working with a Republican
congress?

As I recall, every primary has it's candidates attacking each
other which becomes irrelevant once a front-runner emerges.

Much of the characterization of the candidates comes from a press
that is increasingly less about substantial news and more about
editorializing, sometimes subtly and other times blatantly.

Part of it is the problem with supply and demand. By in large,
Americans like to characterize candidates as heroic or flawed
and this seems to be more important than the issues.

I don't believe anyone here, myself included, really knows the
inner-workings of any of the candidates minds and what they
will really do if and when one gets in. It's a pig-in-a-poke.

The evidence is that what almost every candidate said in the past
to get elected was contradicted by their actions when they got
into office. Some of this was due to a changing environment and
some cynically saying what they thought the constituency wanted
to hear.

You almost have to run on blind faith these days.

I don't think it matters who becomes the Dem front-runner. I'll vote for 'em to dump Bush and that's the major reason.

Hope a lot of Democrats feel the same way.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 01:53 PM

I really wish the Democratic candidates - and the party - had gone at it differently. At this point, I don't blame the Republicans - and the media - for ridiculing them.

If the candidates had not attacked each other but instead if all of them had attacked and demolished the Bush administration's efforts and 'accomplishments', at every turn and every opportunity, people across the country might have sat up and taken notice.

Then the people might have paid attention to the debates amongst them, because that is where they could have attacked each other's ideas.

But no. Instead, they have acted like puppies at a milk bowl.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 08:42 AM

German weekly magazine Der SPIEGEL runs a Bush-o-meter (the German word 'Bushmesser' is, BTW, identical with the German for Bush-knife): They estimate his chances for reelection with 80 % this week.

I guess (not: hope) they are right.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 08:17 PM

Can you imagine Kucinich trying to work with a republican dominated congress? Ohmaghod... That abrasive raising of his voice hour after hour, as he PCs himself into his very selfrighteous corner... Yes, He's likely to be more correct in his analysis, like Nader before him... So what?

And another thing...

We're on to this toxic media! Pure propaganda anymore... Owned and directed by the same people that brought us GWB... Never a false word is said about the Bush debacle...

It isn't about the money anymore... We mean business. And when it comes to democracy, patriotism means a heck of a lot more than being torrid shoppers, or waving a plastic flag for control of the world's resources... absolute control...

Meanwhile, back here in the states, we're losing buying power by the mouthful... and the everpresent mall is creeping into every happy hollow... and because we have less free time than any other leading nation, and less health care too,... we don't even have time to chat or forgive...

We are not afraid, we are just waiting... "You are going to have to let go, George..."
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 04:33 PM

I heard Jimmy Carter say, I think on Charlie Rose, that, No, he is not saying that he'll vote for Dean, that he'll vote for any Democratic nominee, period, that he thinks it's imperative to get Bush out of there. (Slight, but only slight, paraphrasing)

And that is what I think we have to stay focused on: T'row da bums out!

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: SueB
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 03:15 PM

I just read on the BBC News site that Jimmy Carter, while not endorsing any candidate specifically, appears to favor Dean.

I like Michael Moore, I buy his books and watch his films, but if it was me, I'd prefer the support of Jimmy Carter to Michael Moore -
to me this more than makes up for Moore's support of Clark.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: SueB
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 03:09 PM

Here's a link to another article in the Village Voice about Clark:

VV article

which discusses his support for the School of the Americas, his work as a lobbyist for a company seeking a War On Terror contract, and his apparent unwillingness to be pinned down on his feelings about the Patriot Act.   

There's another article in the same issue about Dean - the author makes the point that media is portraying Dean as harried, temperamental, and prone to flipflopping on major issues, but that when she actually saw and heard him herself, he displayed none of those characteristics.

Sometimes the labels the media comes up with for candidates aren't exactly accurate - but the subtle effect they can have on your thinking is almost scary. Painting Al Sharpton as a buffoon, a joke, or even the "comic relief" of the campaign is a case in point - lots of people aren't going to listen very closely to a candidate that the press doesn't take seriously. Jesse Jackson was thoroughly discredited by the media a long time ago, but I heard him on Democracy Now the other day and was impressed by how thoughtful and intelligent the man seemed.

Here's an idea - Dean for President, Carol Mosely Braun for VEEP.

Would anybody go for that?

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 10:11 PM

Strangely enough, the Rev. Al Sharpton comes across as a man I'd like to see get more power. I say, 'strangely', because I had gotten the impression some years ago that he was a bit of a buffoon. But, I tell you, he's easy to listen to. I find myself saying, That's right! That's right!

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 07:12 PM

Opps... Sorry Reverand. You are in my 4th position but in 1st place be a pre-election appointee as what ever danged acbinet position you want short of defense. State included..

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 07:07 PM

As I have said before on many occasions. I'm gonna put my Grren leanings aside, hold my nose and support *and* actively wok for any Dem. Dean is still my 1st choice. Dennis my second. Clark my third. Edwards, Kerry and Joe, ahhhh, still running....

I'd like to see either a Dean/Clark or Dean/Kucincih with Clark pre-announced and signed on as the next Secretary of Defense... and, overtures to Powell to remain at State, even though we know Powell wouldn't be able to comment on such a scenerio...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Cluin
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 06:48 PM

Well, I think Dean Martin was a much better singer than Clark Gable, but then I only heard Gable sing a bit in "It Happened One Night".

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 06:20 PM

Personally, I don't care for Dean or Clark. But I will vote for either one of them as a deterrent to Bush.

Dean is not as vocal on gun-control as Kerry. He also is in
a position to support AIPAC which shows some bias there.
I realize that he is a catalyst for those who are emotionally
upset by Bush's antics. I guess the new term for him is that
he's "Butch".

This reinforces my opinion that how a candidate gets elected to presidency may have nothing to do with how he/she runs the country.

Clark has an interesting war record. How about in former
Yugoslavia where as head of the NATO Supreme Command he ordered
British general Sir Mike Jackson to block Russian planes about
to land at Pristina airport causing Jackson, who defied these orders to say "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."?

Then there's that depleted uranium.

In style, I'll take Kerry or Kucinich.

Kerry is appealing to reason which is not the "Butch" way but
I like it. He seems to have less of an abrasive manner than
the other three. He seems to focus on content over harsh criticism.
Of course, this isn't the popular MO on the circuit these days.
It seems to be something like wanna' beat Bush? Be more like him in style.

Lieberman is too close to Bush and I think that it's OK
that Gore dumped him. Who betrayed who?

Kucinich is my first choice because he is totally reasonable
and consistent but that doesn't buy you a cup of coffee in
a presidential election.

Let's face it. You've got to be some kind of ruthless
power-hungry person to become a US president. Check Neustadt.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 04:59 PM

I've just read this whole thread, and found it interesting, intelligent, and in some cases, illuminating. I'm for Clark, myself, but since I'm not American, that makes no difference. I think what you all need to keep in mind is:

ABB!! ABB!! ABB!!

(That is, Anybody But Bush!)

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 01:58 AM

...oh yeah. One more thing. Clark is the person responsible for the use of depleted uranium warheads in the Balkans war. That doesn't give me very much hope that he has any regard for human rights or for the environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 01:54 AM

I know, Sandinia. I was saying the exact same thing about Nader supporters in the last election. Right here in this forum, in fact. I voted for Gore last time around, although I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about it.

I don't know. Maybe I'm getting old. But before Bill Clinton, both parties looked more the same to me than different. I thought Clinton was different, but I've learned things about him since he left office that have caused me to reasses this view. The big difference I see between the two parties at this time is that when the Republicans are giving it to you up the ass (which they do every chance they get), they're quite obvious about it. At least to anyone with any degree of discernment. But the Democrats are giving it to you up the ass, too. They're just being a lot more covert about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: SueB
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 01:32 AM

Here's a link to an article about Clark in this week's Village Voice

The more I go read about Clark, the less I like him - that includes a few hours spent following the links from robinia, on this thread and on the thread about Dean taking the heat off lawyers, ('cause it's really doctors who are the scum of the earth.)

How about a Dean/Kucinich ticket? I'd vote for that. If Clark's on the ballot at all, I'm going to have serious misgivings.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Sandina
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 05:22 PM

Oh, for pity's sake--I can't believe that ANYONE would find Dean, Clark or Kerry "too similar" to George Bush!!! I heard that same drivel four years ago from the Nader supporters......and believe me, under Gore we wouldn't have had the economic mess, unemployment, widening gap between the rich and poor, Fascists being snuck onto the Federal bench in defiance of Congress (Shrub just pulled THAT fast one with Pickering this afternoon, misusing the Constitutional "recess appointment clause"), wholesale slaughter of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers, abridgement of our civil liberties, irreparable damage to our relationship with the rest of the world, etc. that we have today under Bush...who would NOT have been elected had Green Party voters in Florida not "stuck to their principles." Most 2000 pro-Nader voters I know concede that they should have heeded our warnings--and have defected to Dean, Clark, or another candidate this time around; and will also support whoever we put up against Bush.
If Kucinich runs on his own after he loses his bid for the Democratic nominations, I will blame him and his voters for four more years of that frat-boy from Kennebunkport.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 02:17 PM

Bush MIGHT choose Rice, but the downside for the Republicans would be that if they win Rice would likely face Hillary Clinton in 08. Given the Republican racial tactics in the south since Nixon, southern racists who in the last few elections have been reliable republican voters might stay home. This could be offset in many places by the black vote, however, so who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 01:30 PM

The other night - and I've forgotten who it was- someone on TV said he believes, or hopes (I had been out of the room), that Bush will choose Rice for his vice presidential running mate, and gave fairly convincing reasons.

Last night Michael Moore was on Charlie Rose. He, as has been noted, supports Clark. He says that Clark's inconsistencies are part of his learning and growing process, that he has changed his views on a lot of matters.

I really enjoyed listening to Moore- his fierce dedication to truth and freedom rings loud.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 01:11 PM

I expect that the race will simmer down to Clark and Dean and hopefully they will not be so pissed at one another by then that either one wouldn't be willing to run as VP and strengthen the ticket.

Bush is going to be a hard bump/pothole in the road to roll over. But the attempt is well worth all our support.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 01:05 PM

Um, Robinia, as you will remember Clark said that he "probably" would have voted for the war resolution the first time he was asked that question. Later he said he would not have, and later still put the inconsistency down to "bobbling the question," whatever that may mean. So I don't think Dean's charges that Clark was pro-war and/or inconsistent are based at all on the Drudge report; in fact, Dean made the charges long before the Drudge Report did. Dean's charges were based on statements Clark made in the early days of his campaign, and at GOP fundraisers before he started running, where he praised Rumsfeld, Rice and Cheney.

Dean has nothing to be super ashamed of, although the negativity that all the Democrats, including Clark, are showing, is a bit trying. In Dean's case, I honestly believe it is because he has been taking a lot of damage from desperate Kerry and Gephardt, whose campaigns will end if they don't win Iowa and NH, respectively. So after three weeks of very little negativity of Dean, with his poll numbers falling, he decided he has to come out swinging again. I can forgive that.

I don't like Clark much, but I'll vote for him in the general if he takes the nomination. I do think many of Dean's charges are valid. Clark was not a registered Democrat until recently, frequently in the past voted Republican, and has the luxury of making up whatever position he thinks will play best with voters on almost every issue, since he has no political record for us to consult. For this reason, it is almost inevitable that he will misrepresent his positions now, then move significantly to the right for the general election.

In Dean's case, of course, he actually IS to the right of where he is usually portrayed by others, so he has a better chance of withstanding both the primaries and the General Election. I know where he stands on most things, not because he says "I support this" or "I don't support that," but because he has a record to look at. I will admit, though, that on certain issues such as NAFTA I am trusting what he says, not what he did in the past. That's because in most cases he gives reasons for the change in position that are coherent and logical.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 12:52 PM

I think Howard should tap Clark for Veep. It would be uinbeatable in the Democratic priomaries and a meaningful shot for the 04 election too.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 11:44 AM

I just don't see that much of a difference between the Democratic candidates (with the exception of Kucinich), and Bush, other than cosmetic ones. So I'll be voting my conscience, which means I'll be voting for Kucinich in both the primaries and the general elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 10:21 AM

CarolC's advocacy in another thread persuaded me to read up a bit on Kucinich who, all things being equal, would get my vote if I had one. But all things are not equal. I read elsewhere that Bush has accumulated an election war-chest of around $170 million. (Can that be right? It seems grotesque that so much could be blown on mere electioneering.)

So surely the relevant question has to be: which Dem candidate has a chance of getting to the White House? Here I'm afraid I have to go with Michael Moore: in a head to head with Bush and all his dollars, only Clark would stand a chance - and then not much of one. Only Clark would have enough street cred to go for the way Bush has wrapped himself in the flag, with no risk of being labelled unpatriotic.

Hillary would of course have the best chance of all. The fact that she's standing back is fair indication that she realises even she would probably lose, but that she will have a clear run after another four years of Bush cronyism.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: robinia
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 03:58 AM

Well, with all the mudslinging going on, I'm happy to report on a politically neutral website here -- a critique and analysis of 2004 campaign coverage, by the Columbia Journalism Review.   What they have to say about the Drudge Report and its breathless "revelations" about Wes Clark (that he was "inconsistent" and even "pro-war" when he testified before the House Armed Services Committee in 2002!) should make Dems who've been making that charge (yes, I mean you, Dean) feel ashamed.   Because it's only believable if you DON'T read the transcript from which Drudge drew his "evidence," i.e. the cherry picked sentences strung elliptically together -- "ellipses with malice aforethought," says CJR -- to create a very different meaning from what Clark was, in fact, saying.   Three cheers for CJR!

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Sandina
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 03:56 AM

I hope we don't shoot ourselves in the foot refusing to support the eventual Democratic nominee because he's not ideologically pure of heart. So what if Dean is too liberal for the "moderate" independents, has no foreign policy or national security experience and insufficiently anti-gun for those (myself included) who despise the NRA? So what if Clark was a general (thereby scaring longtime antiwar activists) and used to be a Republican? So what if Kerry used to be (operative words "used to be") for the invasion of Iraq? (Let's not even mention Gephardt or Lieberman--they have no chance of winning any primaries/caucuses but Missouri, Iowa, or Connecticut, so we won't have 'em to kick around much longer anyway). Guess what: they all have one very important qualification: THEY'RE NOT BUSH!!!!!!    I could get behind just about anyone we nominate: Clark can be forgiven for the error of his formerly GOP ways--the Bible says to welcome the religious convert, so why not the sincere political convert (especially one who's saying all the right stuff and knows all about foreign policy and national security)? Dean did very well for the people of Vermont--and as for his failure to be militantly against guns, he IS in favor of Federal gun control and reasonable state gun regulation. Kerry now believes that given the facts we have now, we should not have invaded Iraq. Edwards may be green as grass, but ya gotta start somewhere. Kucinich? Snowball's chance in hell, but of course I'd support him --IF he gets the nomination.
I hope that whoever said they'd write him in if they had to meant 'in the primaries." If OTOH she meant in November, well I'm having horrible Nader 2000 flashbacks. (Heck, I'm having horrible McCarthy 1968 flashbacks--if enough of my friends had worked for Humphrey back then, Nixon would have been a footnote), Nader's vote totals in Florida far exceeded Bush's margin of "victory" over Gore--butterfly ballot be damned.
If we keep holding out for Mr. Right, we're gonna be stuck with four more years of Mr.Right Wing. And even that Nader-in-2000 stalwart Michael Moore knows that.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 12:30 AM

Six of one - half dozen of the other, in my opinion. Unless I learn something about Kucinich that I can't live with, he'll be getting my vote. Even if I have to write it in.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 12:02 AM

I'm still waffling on which one to support- it will definitely be one of the Democratic candidates. I just wish I felt prouder of the candidates as a group- it's a pretty graceless bunch at the moment.

At the moment- if the vote was due today, I would definitely vote for Howard Dean. No candidate is perfect- and he has some quirks that disturb me- but he comes across as a decent, thinking man who is on a learning curve.

When I'm not familiar with a candidate or an issue, I tend to vote with people whose views I trust. I like the fact that Gore, Bradley, and now Braun have put their confidence in Dean. On the other hand, Michael Moore is endorsing Wesley Clark.

Al Franken said on Charlie Rose the other night that he has not yet made up his mind, that there are several of the candidates he likes, and all for pretty different reasons. I figure I'm in pretty good company.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 10:20 AM

Dean AND Clark! Then the only issue is who's prez and who's vice-prez...

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Nerd
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 12:08 PM

Robinia is right. Clark did call for multi-lateralism. But so did Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and indeed all the dem candidates except Lieberman (and even he claims that's what he meant). The more crucial question is did the candidate naively trust GWB to handle the situation in the best manner and, thus, would they have given him the authority to do so? And in Clark's case he has given many answers to that question, which leave the impression that he would have done just the same as the other congress members (except Kucinich), and voted for the resolution to allow W. to take congress's power to declare war. ("Giving away the store" to use Kendall's phrase). Dean has been clear from the outset that this was a bad idea.

Another crucial fact is that Clark has openly and effusively praised W., Condoleeza Rice, Rumsfeld, and others in the administration at Republican fundraisers. This makes many Dems nervous, as most of us saw through these folks from the get-go. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be considered just because he hasn't been a democrat for very long (indeed it seems he may still not be registered as a democrat, but he has voted dem in several recent primaries and elections), but if he agreed with Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld I'd like to know when and where and how his positions changed, and what they changed into, etc. He's been a bit elusive on these questions.

One good thing: the candidates are appearing, one at a time, on Mondays, on Hardball with Chris Matthews (MSNBC). Matthews is one of my favorite interviewers on this kind of show. He lets people talk and finish their sentences, but tenaciously makes sure they answer the question by following up. He is kind of a centrist democrat himself, which is a nice change from the right-wing pap the network serves up most of the time. On these shows, Matthews and members of the public are allowed to ask the candidate questions, and the candidate answers without strict time limits or other constraints. This sounds like the kind of environment Clark needs, according to Robinia. I look forward to his appearance, as well as Dean's.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: GUEST,robinia
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 09:02 AM

Grrr.   How do you eliminate posted-by-mistake messages? Anyway, I should have added that there's a Clark "meet-up" tomorrow, well, today (Monday) 7PM at Kells in Post Alley. Come and learn more....

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: GUEST,robinia
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 08:54 AM

Re Clark's "pretending" -- You can read of his call for multilateralism BEFORE the war in Iraq! Go to Google and search "Wesley Clark"; about halfway down the search results page is an article from Washington Monthly from September 2002 called "An Army of One?" written by the General. Worth reading. In fact, I've been very impressed with his extended writings (and with first-hard reactions to his "town meeting" engagements. He DOESN'T shine in the crowded "debate" forum; my sense is that he needs more than sound bytes.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From:
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 08:30 AM

You can read of General Clark's call for multilateralism BEFORE the war in Iraq! Go to Google and search "Wesley Clark" and about halfway down the search results page is an article from Washington Monthly from September 2002 called "An Army of One?" written by the General.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 02:20 AM

Go Alice, go Amos! I think Kendall was expressing support for Dean. He doesn't like Clark, and doesn't like any of the congress members, which leaves Dean, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun and maybe Kucinich (who WAS in congress but at least voted against the giveaway). Of these, to me the most plausible is Dean, and of course the others weren't being discussed in this thread.

I'm fairly sure by "giving away the store" Kendall must have meant the Iraq vote. The "store" in this case was the authority to use military force. But maybe Kendall will come back and tell us what he meant?

In US law, that authority rests ultimately with congress. By voting in advance to allow Bush to use force when and if he felt it necessary, they essentially abandoned an extremely important responsibility. Now both Kerry and Gephardt backpedal and say they wanted the authorization to show Saddam Hussein and the UN that the US was serious in the hopes of achieving more international action. But my feeling on this is, if they trusted Bush not to simply declare pre-emptive war they were wrong to do so, and we should not reward them for it.

Clark has been remarkably fluid in his response to the war question. Within about six days he announced that he probably would have voted for the resolution giving Bush authority, then that he would have done so only to put pressure on Saddam, not to start a war, then that he would never have voted for it. He also was in print, before any of this statements, praising Bush's actions in the Iraq war. It is impossible to know what the truth is here, but it seems to me he has more to gain by pretending to be anti-war than by pretending to be pro-war, so the anti-war stance is probably the fake one. In reality, though, it was a complex issue and his waffling may have had more to do with being unprepared for the question than anything else, as the six days I mentioned were the first week of his campaign.

The Iraq war is of course ony one issue out of many, but it is a bit of a sticking-point for me, more so than gun control or the retirement age.

And DougR: Really? YOU think Dean is too liberal? I am shocked, deeply shocked :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Alice
Date: 12 Oct 03 - 01:43 PM

I think Dean's most compelling attribute is that he says what he believes, even when it isn't popular, even when he has to change his mind when he gets new facts, even when it doesn't fit into the typical Dem template, even when he knows it will bring on attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 03 - 10:01 AM

I believe he can and should be put forward and over the top. The insensibility of the current crowd of zombies is most unsettling. Talk about your walking dead...at least Dean plays blues guitar. This may be his most compelling attribute!


Vote DEAN!

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 12 Oct 03 - 03:30 AM

The main objection I have to Bush is... that he seems unswervingly attracted to hell... ;^)

Dean shoots straight, and tells the truth. His proposed policies and adgendas are calming and well considered, as well as being grounded in both democracy, and fiscal policy... and best of all, he just might be able to win.

We could all breathe easier, and stop all this bickering and negativity... lets just make up our minds and do it! ...After all, it's gonna take some effort on our part to get him elected... I like the idea of having Clark as Dean's VP running mate! ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: DougR
Date: 11 Oct 03 - 01:34 PM

The main objection I have to Dean is ...he is too liberal. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 10 Oct 03 - 09:33 PM

I told you that Sept. 23, but nobody listens.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Alice
Date: 10 Oct 03 - 09:14 PM

Clark's campaign manager has quit. The campaign now has pronounced that it is a Clinton run campaign for Clark.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Oct 03 - 08:28 PM

Kendall, which Clark were you goggling? The Presidental candidate Clark was never elected to any office.

I'm still waiting to see how the Clark campaign team shakes out.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Alice
Date: 10 Oct 03 - 10:32 AM

kendall and McGrath, neither Clark nor Dean were in Congress. General Clark was in the military and Dean was the ll.5 year governor of Vermont. When you say "gave the store away" what does that refer to?

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 03 - 08:02 PM

So presumably that means "neither of the above"?

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: kendall
Date: 09 Oct 03 - 07:26 PM

I looked up Clark on Google and I didn't like what I saw. I don't want to support anyone who was in congress when they gave the store away.

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: Alice
Date: 09 Oct 03 - 01:24 PM

The latest poll out today (scientific, not media) regarding the New Hampshire primary shows that Clark has not made much difference in the line up of candidates. Dean still leads, 29%, 10 points ahead of Kerry.
Here are the results:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/dem/
"The results of the poll, conducted October 5th through 8th, reveal that Clark's entry into the race has had little impact in New Hampshire. The numbers (with September/August in parenthesis):

Dean 29 (31/28)
Kerry 19 (21/21)
Lieberman 6 (5/4)
Gephardt 6 (8/10)
Clark 5 (2/1)
Edwards 3 (2/2)

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: LadyJean
Date: 26 Sep 03 - 01:17 AM

Ulysses Grant was a brilliant military commander, and a political progressive. He was also a political naive. He presided over one of the most corrupt administrations in our country's history.

Then there was Andy Jackson. Well, he was a loyal husband.   

Clark supported Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. I'd love to know when his road to Damascus happened, or if he's still a closet conservative.

Vermont is a hunting state. So is Pennsylvania, so I understand how this works. I have several friends who are sport hunters. They own expensive rifles, which they keep under lock and key. I have no real problem with this. The young idiots who have me on a first name basis with the 911 operator have pistols, which they, most likely, stole, or bought from someone who stole them. It isn't legal to steal guns, or sell stolen guns. If someone would make a real effort to enforce those laws, as Dean proposes, I could leave the poor 911 operator alone. Dean also opposes the sale of guns at flea markets and gun shows, to which I say a hearty Amen!

Subject: RE: BS: Clark vs Dean
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 25 Sep 03 - 12:56 PM

Ted Kennedy will be 72 by next year's election. Bob Dole was 74 when Susan Estrich said he was "soooo old". Guest is consistent in supporting Kerry, Dean and Kennedy, althought the latter does not need anyone to send him money.