Clark isn't part of any conspiracy

[quinnox]

Why do these right wing conspiracy theories get so much play? The ones where Hillary is blamed for putting Clark in whether to set up a later entry for herself in the race, or to cause the Dems to lose in 2004 so she can run in 2008. The left spin one is Clark is a part of the DLC puppet masters, in order to stop Dean.

Is it so hard to believe Clark made a decision based on what he thought was a decent shot at winning the Democratic nomination and then a chance to become president of the United States? Mundane I know, but so often that is what the truth turns out to be. Boring and mundane.

[bahrbearian]

1. Bla Bla Bla bla bla

[Classical_Liberal]

2. Who said it was a conspiracy

Politicians represent the views of who pays the bills generally, and despite his anitwar record, his bills are currently being footed by Iraq war hawks. You were an Iraq war hawk, so ofcoarse you are dismissive of this concern.


Between a candidate that is being funded by war hawks, although not a war hawk himself, and a candidate that is being funded by regular people and not war hawks, I trust the candidate supported by regular people more. He will be more consistent. Indeed Dean is more consistent in his criticism of the war than Clark.

[quinnox]

5. You always paint things that

aren't so. I was not an Iraq war hawk. I was against the war. I didn't even join DU until after the war was over for one thing. Just because I support candidates that were for the war doesn't mean I approve of that particular vote. It just means I look at the whole record, and I'm not a one issue voter.

[Syrinx]

8. The war ain't over yet

You've gotten over a thousand posts since Captain Codpiece said "mission accomplished?" You're very prolific. :)

[quinnox]

10. I forget my actual join date, it says in my profile before July 6, 2003

Yes, I have been very active here at DU.

[Classical_Liberal]

11. You made fun of people who were against the war

and always supported candidates that supported it,what purpose would that serve?

[quinnox]

12. No I didn't

You are mistaking me with someone else. I have never made fun of that. Maybe you are thinking since I have said negative things about Dean (never negative about his war opposition though) you transpose that to your perception as making fun of anti-war.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. Whatever!

You didn't make fun of people who thought the PNAC was actually bad and actually were responsible for this mess.

[quinnox]

15. On that one I admit

I did make fun of the PNAC conspiracy people. But I make fun of a lot of conspiracies, like Skull and Bones and DLC conspiracy theorists too.

Anyway, it is always done in a lighthearted manner, never in a cruel manner.

[Classical_Liberal]

18. I rest

I think the PNAC is pretty established by now as not being just a theory. Just look at their website, and all the Bush and few DLC people that are in it. It was pretty established as a fact from the biginning. So are the DLC's mostly Corporate and republican constributers. So is the DLC record of supporting their views.

[Syrinx]

7. A bunch of people on here are saying it's conspiracy

And I mean many people.

[Donna Zen]

21. Proof

n/t

[Donna Zen]

23. Who

Who are these people? Where is the proof? How much money are we talking about? I gave him money and I'm not a hawk.

Do you have the donor lists for the two candidates you are referring to? Dean has done multiple fund raisers aside from his online donations.

Or is this your opinion stated as fact? We all have opinions and it is wonderful to care about the future of the country; however, to put forward unwarrented statements about someone would seem rather dishonest. Don't you agree?

[QC]

3. Sez you! I heard that he was created in a secret DLC laboratory

using DNA from Klintoon and Hitler to ensure that the Repuke Lites would maintain their grasp on the levers of power.

Hey, it's as plausible as most of the other stuff posted on this subject.

[Classical_Liberal]

4. If you and Qinnox ever address a point anyone makes

instead of mischaracterizing it maybe someone will give a damn.

[QC]

9. That's rich coming from someone

whose notion of penetrating insight is mischaracterizing other people's positions and then attacking the resulting straw man, as you did above.

[clar]

14. not a conspiracy

but that the Clintons are involved with the Clark campaign, that Al From has expressed pleasure that Clark has entered, and is talking Clark up widely known. It's all over the press. I'm withholding judgement on whether or not it's a stop Dean effort. If it is, stuff leaks, we'll find out in the coming weeks.

[Donna Zen]

22. Links

I read that From said that it was too late and I admit that I don't have the link right now; however, if I come across it I'll pm you.

Now Clark's son (at the daily kos) says that the Clinton connection is not all that strong.

[rman]

34. sure, ridicule and go over the top

in an attempt to discredit.

along the lines of ie associating the global elite power grab with UFO's, aliens and "4th lower dimension".

[MoonRiver]

6. I am really amazed by it all. But I am starting to develop a theory.

It almost seems like we Dems have been beaten down so long by the forces of rightwing darkness, we're actually afraid to win (which it's looking more and more like Clark CAN do). That phenomenon does happen to victims of abuse. They fear the abuser so much they start in some way to identify with him/her. (On a subconscious level they think that becoming more like the torturer will make them powerful like him/her.) Plus, they develop a distorted belief that only by staying with the perpetrator of their pain is personal survival (physical or psychological) possible. Yes, I'm describing brainwashing, but when I hear very leftwing folks spouting Rush Limbaugh lies and distortions about a Dem candidate, I really do wonder.

I just throw this out, cause other than the board being infiltrated by wingnut trolls, it's about the only way I can begin to explain what's going on. :shrug:

[Classical_Liberal]

16. That is because we have been betrayed by many democrats

over the years. Particularly those that get funded by republican funders.

[MoonRiver]

17. So are you agreeing with my theory?

BTW, I wasn't being flippant when I posted it.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. no

I think our fears are valid.

[MoonRiver]

20. But, but.....

you said "That is because we have been betrayed by many democrats".

That looks suspiciously like an explanation of why things are the way I stated.

And what is this "we" business? The vast majority of Democrats don't hold any of these conspiracy theories. That's why Clark is leading in the first poll that came out since his entry into the race, TWO DAYS AGO.

In addition, I have to ask you that if you feel you have "been betrayed by many democrats" why are you in the Democratic Party. That had a decidedly hostile ring to it. Hmmmmmm.

[Classical_Liberal]

24. What conspiracy theory?

That poll also showed Lieberman in third. I am not impressed.

[MoonRiver]

25. "What" conspiracy theories?? Surely you jest.

You and others on this board have been desperately trying to tie Clark to the PNAC, and declare him a war criminal with absolutely no evidence supporting those spins. All I know is "Something's rotten in Denmark", or to put it more bluntly: I smell a rat.

[Classical_Liberal]

26. I have never said Clark was a war criminal

infact I fought with some ANSWER snob just the other day over such claims. I do think Clark may very well represent the prowar DLC hedging their bets. I do want to see the people who told the dems to support Bush on this unemployed after the election is over. If those are his supporters, I don't see how this can happen.

[MoonRiver]

27. I'm not pointing fingers at any particular person. But it's out there

Why is the question. I'm feeling very alienated from a section of my party right now. It's not because we like different candidates. That's par for the course. I feel this strain following the absolutely vitriolic and conspiracy oriented posts here, directed at Wes Clark, a candidate I favor and truly believe in. What many who disagree are saying is not typical discourse for DU, IMO. They are sounding like Repukes attacking Dems. That's my take at least. I don't mean to offend. I just seek to understand. :cry:

[Classical_Liberal]

29. The policy of this board in allowing leftist that

aren't necessarily interested in seeing Dems/or leftists elected makes trolling by freepers alot easier no doubt, and it creates more suspision than I think is necessary or would tolerate, but it isn't my board.

[Eloriel]

28. The vast majority of Democrats aren't nearly as

well-informed as DUers. So much for your argument against what you perceive to be "conspiracy theories."

I'll tell you this. There was a time when I eschewed any and all conspiracy theories too. Guess what? I was pretty much wrong on all of them. Now, admittedly, there are a few that I've never researched on my own, and so haven't "bought into." But for every one I have, the so-called conspiracy theorists are right.

Don't be so automatically dismissive of what you think is conspiracy theory. You too might one day say, as I do on occasion, "I wish I'd have paid more attention to that back then."

We seem to have an AWFUL lot of new people here at DU over the last 2 months or so. Some of them have come with a particular purpose (or assignment, perhaps) in mind. Others are no doubt simply regular newbies. It's difficult to tell them apart. And not totally necessary (and besides, Admins freak over the mere discussion of this for some reason). In any case, here's my advice to the newer members among us -- the ones without a specific assignment, that is -- DO NOT automatically dismiss the thoughts and rants and comments from people who've been here a pretty good while. It's one thing not to buy everything you read, and no doubt a healthy attitude. But withholding final judgment even on things that may seem a bit outlandish with your current worldview is also a healthy attitude.

Oh, and Clark is leading primarily because of name recognition, if it's national polls we're talking about.

Eloriel

[ComerPerro]

30. He is involved in a conspiracy

He is involved in a conspiracy to get him elected President.

[MoonRiver]

31. Now that's one I'll buy into!

:grouphug:

[WillyBrandt]

32. The devious Republican plot to elect Democrats

That's what it sounds like to me.

Clark has progressive instincts on foreign and domestic policy, and has had as consistently anti-Iraq war statements as any candidate, excepting perhaps Sharpton and Kucinich.

So, explain why again the Republicans are pushing forth this extremely strong candidate who can beat Bush. . . so that Bush can win? What sense does this make? The wingnuts want to run against Sharpton, not Clark.

(Incidentally, I am PROUD Clinton was my President, and I am PROUD that Clark and he are friends.)

Oh, no--let me guess. There's a link to a story in CounterPunch or ZMag, or some other apologetics for Serbian acts of genocide that will make it all clear.

[rman]

33. that's assuming Clark is indeed a Democrat

which isn't as obvious as some would want people to believe.

I think it's striking that the topic starter would call it RW conspiracy while in fact many DUers are suspicious of Clark.

I also think it is striking that is was as though Clark's election campaign had already started here on DU while it wasn't clear if Clark would run at all, let alone whether he'd run as Dem or Repub. All we'd here is "he's a 4 star general so he's the perfect candidate".

And now we have people saying that to be critical of Clark is to be an apologist for Serbian genocide.
That's a typical RW argument, used often wrt the Israel/Palestine conflict and wrt Bush/Saddam.

All things having to do with Clark just don't come across as being very Liberal.