Would you be supportive of the bottom 7 dropping out right now in favor..

[SeveneightyWhoa]

..of the "BIG TWO", aka Clark and Dean?

[mlawson]

1. It isn't going to happen. n/t

[Democrats unite]

2. No, no and no,

Why should they? Whoever ends up in the top spot should have to work hard to get there.

[Bucky]

12. thank you

Although if such a thing were to happen today, it would almost certainly assure my candidate--Clark--of the nomination, this suggestion is nothing but ignorant of everything this country stands for.

[Racenut20]

3. Have there been ballots cast yet??? Did I Rip Van Winkle or something?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. Why not cancel elections and govern by polls? Bush wins

We're all wasting our time!

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. As I have said, I believe Dean/Clark is THE ticket to beat Bush

But there has not been a single primary yet. We can't exactly criticize the 'Pukes for their theft of the 2000 election and likely fraud in 2002 and then turn around and subvert the process ourselves, even if it's for the best of intentions. However I do believe that candidates who are hopelessly behind after Super Tuesday should do the reasonable thing and step aside. The nominee needs a solid 6 months to battle Bush and only Bush.

[Cocoa]

6. yes, let Kucinich and Gephardt battle it out

drop the dead wood.

[redqueen]

9. MWAH! n/t

:hug:

[DemBones DemBones]

58. Now, THAT is a proposal I could support!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[RetroLounge]

7. No

Rediculous thought. Isn't that why we vote?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

8. Yes, its clearly "rediculous"...

..but is it RIDICULOUS? That, my friend, is doubtful!

[RetroLounge]

100. I am not responsible for my spelling after midnight!

But thank you my friend for pointing out the error of my ways...

[maddezmom]

10. No

[Bucky]

11. I'm shocked that almost a fourth of us (so far) support this idea

It's a terrible idea. As bad as that stupid shit Ted Rall was saying this week (Rall suggested--apparentlly in all seriousness--that we call off the primaries entirely).

There is no short cut to democracy. We won't save America by abandoning the processes of arguing, campaigning, and voting.

[Padraig18]

13. No, and I support Dean

I want ALL of them to stay in for as long as possible--that way we have NINE voices attacking *. Tony and I have even set up a small fund to help cash-strapped candidates to stay in a bit longer.

Think strategically, folks!

[Cheswick2.0]

27. I think you are fabulous!

really great of you to set up that fund.

[stevedeshazer]

35. Who is Tony?

What fund?

[Padraig18]

97. Tony is my 'significant other'

He and I have a small fund that we plan to use to donate to those non-Dean campaigns who may be in danger of shutting down because of a lack of funds. We believe that, as a strategic matter, the more candidates that can stay in the race and keep focused on attacking B*sh, the better it is for our party come next November.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[SeveneightyWhoa]

16. Gee.

I can't see how the media created Mr. Clark, but hey, if thats your opinion, feel free to stick to it. Your loss.

[DinkyDem]

20. CNN WARTIME Commentator, anyone?

And I heard the Big Media buzz about a possible Clark candidacy long before I ever heard it at the grassroots.

People like you have been SUCKERED.
Suckered by a Big Money Media and a Big Donor Party Aparatus.
The Clintons' fingerprints are all over Clark. But then again, maybe that is why you like him.
Maybe you are one of those people who needs Bill Clinton to tell if you should wear boxers or briefs.
Maybe you are one of those people afraid to think on your own, or consider anything without the Big Money Corporate Media giving their approval first.

[mikehiggins]

25. Ummm, maybe we're some of those people who have taken the

time to think beyond cliches and slogans to see what we really need to take on an incumbent president and have a decent chance of winning.

Maybe we're some of those people who ignore repetitious and pointless criticisms that strive to be more clever than useful, and fail at both.

Maybe.

[DinkyDem]

28. And just maybe you're some of those people

who only care if the President has a 'D' or and 'R' by his name, and not about his policies or vision for the future.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

33. I don't want to embarrass you further but

here's your quote:

"...And I heard the Big Media buzz about a possible Clark candidacy long before I ever heard it at the grassroots..."

Again, if you didn't hear about the Clark candidacy at the grassroots, it's because you just weren't listening or paying attention. The grassroots movement, to emphasize again, has been large and vocal, second only to that in support of Dean. And it has been large and vocal for quite some time, long before that alleged second-hand reported statement was made by Clinton at a cocktail party about Clark being one of the party's stars. I think the fact that such a large grassroots movement has gone almost unnoticed in the press is another story altogether.

[DinkyDem]

38. maybe in Republican-lite circles

but certainly not in the circle that I travel in.

I can't see how any real Democrat on the grassroots level would want to run a Republican as a Democrat unless they got duped by the Powers That Be as they hoisted him on us.

Hoisted... hell, "perpetrated".

What's the point in even running a candidate at that point?
So we can claim he's "one of ours" when he really isn't?
Because we like the letter 'D' better than the letter 'R'?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

39. I'm sick of this. If Clark is a "Republican"..

..then your man Sharpton is a member of the Communist Party. Do you like hearing that? Maybe we should just cut down on the irresponsible, factless rhetoric.

[DinkyDem]

41. Issue for issue

the Reverend Sharpton carries the Democratic Party banner, and he speaks to the People -All- the People. Just as a good Democrat should.
Clark speaks only to the Democratic Party Machinery and Republican Fundraisers.

Now you my friend are becoming unhinged.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

45. Then You Travel In A Very Small Small Circle

Clark never was a Republican, another issue on which you lose. He had no party affiliation. And if you bothered to read anything about Clark's stand on the issues, you would know that he's one of the most progressive-thinking individuals in this race. Tell me, what Republican would have joined an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of the University of Michigan's affirmative action policy? Clark did, long before he even considered running for office. Maybe you're the one blinded by whether or not someone has had a "D" next to his name. Our fellow Democrat Zell Miller has one, but isn't one tenth the progressive that Wesley Clark IS.

[DinkyDem]

47. No, he only voted

for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush's father.
And praised Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in speaches and while raising money for Republicans in 2001 and 2002.

But no, you're right, he never officially had the little 'R' by his name.
So he's A-OK!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

50. You May Become The First DUer In Orbit With This Spin

Clark voted for Clinton twice and for Gore. Clark worked in the campaigns of three Democrats, in addition to joining his name to an amicus brief on behalf of affirmative action that I mentioned. I don't approve of his kind words about Bush, but if you bothered to read the full text of his speech, it was against every Bush stands for: namely engagement with the world and developing consensus regarding the trouble spots of the globe. Regarding his having voted Republican 15 years ago, I know that my own dad, a lifelong Democrat voted for Reagan too. I think there's something that has to be stressed about the people of Wesley Clark's generation. I don't know how old you are, but you only have to go back about 50 years to know that there was a much smaller distinction between left and right. There were left leaning or centrist Republicans like Rockefeller, Eisenhowever, and Everett Dirksen and some very nasty right-wing states' rightist Democrats like Strom Thurmond, Orville Faubus, Lester Maddox, and George Wallace. For people who grew up in Wesley Clark's generation, left and right didn't always translate into Democrat and Republican as it almost universally does now. Quite a few Republicans, in fact supported the 1960's Civil Rights legislation while many Democrats opposed it. I personally don't hold Wesley Clark responsible for the way he voted decades ago.

[DinkyDem]

61. you sure are white

washing Clark's record.

Fine. Go ahead. Discount all of the money he raised for the Karl Rove during last election cycle. Money that the Republicans used to win elections with.
Clark who had very close contact with this administration. Remember, he said the White House called him after 9/11. And he also said that he called Karl Rove, but Karl never returned his call otherwise he would have been a Republican. He said he just as easily could have been one!

Just ignore this, but remember: when you do, you do it at your peril and mine!

[SeveneightyWhoa]

63. "You sure are white"

Hmmmm--do I smell a covert race-baiter? Go back to Anti-Clark central where you came from!



..kidding, but really.

[DinkyDem]

65. SO that's all you got?

You're just going to take me out of context and then smear me with false accusations?

That sounds like something a Republican would do.
No wonder you support Clark.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[DinkyDem]

71. excuse me!?!?

YOU called me a "race-baiter", an accusation I've only seen leveled by Republicans.
And now you accuse me of being "childish" and a Freeper??
AND you want to play the victim?

Take a good look in the mirror.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

72. Do you understand what the word..

.."kidding" means? I put it there for a reason. It means that my post wasn't necessarily serious. And its pretty obvious that my comment about race baiting was an attempt at a stupid joke. I'm surprised you can't figure that out.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

66. So Now Clark Has Both Rove's And Clinton's Fingerprints On Him?

Your earlier post said that Clark has Clinton's fingerprints all over him. Now you're saying he's in Rove's hip pocket. If Adolphe Hitler weren't dead, might you be suggesting some connection there? Or perhaps you're saying that Clinton = Rove? By the way, I heard that Clark spoke at a fundraiser but never that he personally and intentionally raised funds for the Republican Party. At the fundraiser in question, it was my understanding that he was invited in order to receive some kind of award.

Anyway, I appreciate your concern, but I think that it is ill-founded.

[DinkyDem]

67. Maybe, who knows?

I have no idea, but he said it. But he's said a lot of crazy things - like believing in time travel. Maybe Wesley Clark actually was a Republican in the future.

I suggest you read this Newsweek coverstory where Clark was quoting as having said it.

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:YWrsgCb8JugJ:www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp

MSNBC removed the story and I could not find it in the archives. Maybe Newsweek stories run for a limited time only, or maybe they were whitewashing for Clark like so many here are trying. I don't know.
But I found the story archived on Google.

It has crossed my mind a few times though. What if Wesley Clark is NOT the Clinton's candidate, but actually Karl Rove's candidate instead?

The bottom line is Wesley Clark just doesn't have enough of a political history for us to know one way or another.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

74. Clark NEVER Said He Believed In Time Travel

He said he believed that it might one day be possible to travel faster than the speed of light. Some physicists agree with him, particularly with regard to the potential use of worm holes in space. The reporter who quoted him at a campaign stop and who wrote that article retracted it, apologizing for having interpreted faster-than-light as time-travel. His retraction is at the link below.

http://www.pc-radio.com/clark-timetravel.html

I have to say, however, that you really are getting that GOPPER rhetoric and spin down.

[DinkyDem]

75. And you are really getting that TREKKER rhetoric down

:tinfoilhat:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

77. I've Been Trekkin' Too Long Today

And I have to crash. But it was nice exchanging views with you. I leave you with three instances of Wesley Clark's courage:

#1 At a time when almost everyone in America, even a lot of DUers on these boards were criticizing Michael Moore for saying "Shame On You Mr. Bush" at the Oscars, Wesley Clark came to his defense on live television, saying that what Moore did in expressing his opinion was patriotic.

#2 At a time when everyone, I mean EVERYONE in America was calling the French people frogs, saying their language was a bastard tongue, and that they were genetic inferiors, Wesley Clark was quoted by the Washington Post on March 12, 2003 as saying that out of all the nations of the world, France is the one most like the United States in terms of its values and ideals of freedom and equality. That took guts and was not the popular or safe thing to say.

#3 In a recent interview in the Arab News, Clark stated that "we must understand the Islamic perspective". That also is not a popular view, but one that he honestly believes.

Clark hasn't spent most of his life acquiring wealth and power. In fact, when he wasn't performing as a general, he has spent his life reading and writing. He admires people like Pablo Neruda and Nobel Prize winning author Gabriel Garcia Marquez. He's also been learning the three foreign languages he speaks. Someone who spends time in non-money-making pursuits to acquire civilization and a global view of humanity deserves a special look in my opinion. That is a rare person to have in the White House and it's someone I would tend to trust more than a professional politician, which Clark obviously is not.

Anyway, take care and keep an open mind.

[snoochie]

93. re: voting for gore and clinton

They're more like republicans than Democrats, after all, though, aren't they?

As soon as the Democratic party got in bed with corporate money convincingly enough to be considered "republican Lite" (I've heard clinton compared to Eisenhower), then he votes for us.

So, the way it looks from my perspective, he's happy to be a Democrat now that you can be a Democrat in name only and still get elected.

:shrug:

[DinkyDem]

94. I assume you are talking about GENERAL Wesley Clark

right?

[snoochie]

95. Yep

Doesn't prove he's a Democrat to me.

[DinkyDem]

98. Clark has ONLY voted for Democrats who won the Popular Vote

You are absolutely correct.
Since both Clinton and Gore are Republican-lite and have the Big Business Corporate Interest, "Free" Trade NAFTA rather than *FAIR* Trade Made In America, welfare "reforming", deregulating, military adventurism, Big Donor money-grubbing power-hungry record to prove it, then a vote for these guys DOESN'T neccessarily make you a Democrat after all.

Especially when you throw in voting for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. into the mix.

Let's also not forget that while he did vote for Carter his *first* term, LOTS of other Republicans did too because of Ford's Nixon pardon, and he WASN'T there for Carter when he needed him on re-election.

After all, what does voting for a couple Republican-lite Democrats in your lifetime really prove when you've supported Republicans far more often than not.
As it is the election only has two choices!

Furthermore, Clark has ONLY voted for Democrats who won the Popular Vote (and NONE that have lost it), so that just PROVES he is ANYTHING BUT COMMITTED to Our Party and goes whichever way the wind is blowing that day.

The bar is being set WAY too low on Clark by his apologists.

[Tinoire]

57. March 2003, Salon Interview, Clark was still heaping roses on Bush

The spin doesn't help your cause. It pisses me off so much, I have to set the record straight. If some people would stop spinning, the stories could go away but why insult people's intelligence like this? If you like Clark fine- but enough with expedient half-truths masquerading as the whole truth. It was a lot more than 2001 & 2002. This continued well into 2003, while Clark was supposedly being "drafted" by Liberals. If Liberals were indeed drafting him based on interviews like this, one must wonder where the excitement for the "draft" was coming from. :shrug:

March 23, 2003

Salon: Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ...

Clark: I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

(Deputy Secretary of Defense) Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. (Deputy National Security Advisor) Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy) Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with (Pentagon advisor) Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.

Salon: Do you disagree with them on their worldview?

Clark: I disagreed with them on some specific aspects. I would not have gone after the war on terror exactly as did and I laid that out in the . But I also know there's no single best plan. You have to pick a plan that might work and make it work. That means you've got to avoid the plans with the fatal flaws. This administration came into office predisposed to use American troops for war fighting and to realign American foreign policy so it focused on a more robust, more realistic view of the world than the supposedly idealistic view of the previous administration.

But the views that President Bush espoused recently at the American Enterprise Institute, if his predecessor had espoused that view he'd have been hooted off the stage, laughed at, accused of being incredibly idealistic about the hard-nosed practical politics of the Middle East. So this is an administration that's moving in a certain direction, and now that that's the direction they've picked they've got to make it work. Like everybody else, I hope they'll be successful. It's too important; we can't afford to fail.

Salon: But certainly you're contemplating running for president -- I understand you haven't made a decision -- so even though you root for their success, you can't agree with their methods.

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/print.html

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark

If you don't have a salon subscription, watch the ad and get a day pass.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

60. Well of course he's saying nice things about them!

Its a wellknown fact amongst the political underground that if you publically disrespect any PNAC/AEI members or affiliates, YOU DIE! Clark knew this. He chose to live. End of story!

[DinkyDem]

62. heh

:tinfoilhat:

[DinkyDem]

68. I've got your back there

Maybe you replied to the wrong post, or perhaps you misunderstood the clearly sarcastic tone of my post.

Of course Clark is not "A-OK".
ANd I was unaware that his cheerleading for the Bush Adminstration went all the way into this year.

That certainly squelches any claims of a "grassroots movement" to draft Clark prior to his Made for TV campaign.
But some would have us think that we were just "not in the know" enough to hear about a super down-low draft movement for someone as underground as General Clark!
HAH!

[Tinoire]

78. I got the sarcasm... That was your back-up!

as I work on another post that will get your back even more.

You're a brave man to wade into these waters. You're not going to be alone. I have a soft spot for those who dare to scratch below the surface no matter how unpleasant it is and how much it ruffles feathers, even those of cyber friends and sincere voters with a little too much partisanship.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

73. Sorry But I Dont' See Your Point

I read the entire article twice in fact and I think it makes the very opposite point of the one you purport that it makes.

Earlier in the article, Clark was asked this question:

"...You've referred to the campaign against Iraq as "elective surgery"; I imagine that means that you support disarming Saddam in principle, just not with the same urgency the Bush administration feels..."

Clark makes it clear that he didn't support the Bush go-it-alone modus operandi and sided with the rest of the world, including the French, Germans and Russians:

"...My view on it was and has been that at some point you're going to need to take actions to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. But those actions didn't have to necessarily be military and they didn't have to be now. It's the administration that chose to do this set of actions at this time. And the reason they've had problems persuading people of the necessity for doing it has been because they couldn't address the urgency..."

Elsewhere in the article, in fact, Clark references the fact that Colin Powell wanted to impose "smart sanctions" against Iraq to get them to comply but that the Bush administration blew it by not backing him and choosing war instead. At another place in the article, Clark references any potential occupation by U.S. forces as a "colonial presence", certainly not a flattering or supportive view of Bush's prospective war at that point in time. Also, he opines that there would be no beneficial "dominoe effect" of Democracy spreading throughout the Arab world as a result of an Iraqi occupation by the United States.

The portions quoted in your own post further make the point. He specifically choose his words carefully in saying that he disagreed on specific points regarding the world view of the Bush Administration. Clark is a careful speaker and uses the word "supposedly" regarding the "idealistic view of the previous administration". He is making it clear that this is the Bush or Republican supposition about Clinton's world view, not his. His world view in fact coincided with that of Clinton. He also states point blank that if Bill Clinton had chosen the same plan for the Middle East that Bush had and had gone before the American Enterprise Institute, he would have been laughed off the stage, clearly suggesting that Bush has gotten away with this flawed world view because he is a conservative doing it.

Clark does say that he likes the people in the Bush Administration and he wants them to succeed. Meanwhile, he has strongly criticized the actions of these people. I see nothing unprogressive about this. Later in the article, when asked about the Democratic leadership, he also says "I like them. I've got friends on both sides of the aisle". Later in the article, Clark condemns the Bush Administration's Patriot Act: "One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended habeus corpus".

Sorry, but by any reasonable reading of this article, it supports the notion that Clark criticized the Bush's Administration's world view and particularly their unilateral approach to Iraq and that they did not make the case a war he clearly calls "elective". I have not spun anything in this dissection of the article. It's all there in black-and-white.

[Tinoire]

81. Not to worry. If you don't, others will & I will have said my piece

They'll also see past the current meme from your previous post that Clark was only praising Bush in 2001 and 2002 implying that in 2003 he did so much soul searching that he began to hate Bush so much he thought he'd run against him and save the country. I've noticed this with Clark supporters. Anytime people want to talk about Clark's praise of Bush, there's a reluctant admission that he did so in 2001 and 2002 but never, ever any mention of 2003. Why is that? That's the part that really gets my goat.

You vote Clark if you want and I'll respect your right to do so and even believe that you sincerely believe he's a great Democratic candidate but I can't let that misrepresentation stand. It needs to be clear to all Democrats that as late as March 2003, when he was already considering a run on the Democratic ticket, Clark was still lavishing praise on the Bushistas.

Why does this need to be clear? Because it shows that during all the hoopla of drafting the greatest liberal since sliced bread, Clark was no such thing. It shows what a smoke and mirror show the entire "Draft Clark" movement was, regardless of how many innocent people got sucked in. That of course is my opinion but I didn't just wake up one morning and decide that out of the blue. There was too much leading into it- too many strange things going on.

I know of NO Liberal who ever praised Bush, let alone still praising him in 2003 saying that he hoped Bush succeeded because the mission was that important. You may be a very forgiving person; I unfortunately do not have it in my heart to forgive so much that I can overlook all the baggage as Clark has. And it's not just old baggage- he's still dragging much of it around as we speak.

Bush, with the help of the National Endowment for Democracy, has already tried at least twice to get Chavez out of Venezuela (since after all the supply the US with more oil than the entire Middle East). What the hell is Clark still doing sitting on their board? With Evan Bayh, Frank Carlucci (Carlyle fame) and Morton Abramowitz? All of this fueled by the Soros money crowd that goes through countries with resources we want and topples progressive governments to replace them with more US/corporate friendly "democratic" ones?

Here's the info on the NED... I am going to sleep now. Tomorrow I'll come back and give you the info on the American Enterprise Institute. Leave it to say that CSIS, Markle, Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institute, Saban Fund, Acxiom, NED, etc don't sit well with me.

----
April 25, 2002

National Endowment for Democracy Funded Venezuelan Coup Perpetrators

Someone should tell the NED that a coup is the opposite of democracy
In a stunning revelation the New York Times reported on April 24, 2002 that the US-government funded nonprofit agency called the National Endowment for Democracy - whose board chairman is former Republican Congressman/Super Lobbyist Vin Weber, had funnelled more than $877,000 into Venezuela opposition groups in the weeks and months before the recently aborted coup attempt.
Specifically, the New York Times point to $154,000 given by the endowment to a Venezuelan labor union that led the opposition work stoppages and worked closely with Pedro Carmona Estanga, the businessman who led the coup.
The endowment also gave money to the US Republican and Democratic political parties for work in Venezuela (!) The International Republican Institute, apparently an arm of the US Republican party that has an office in Venezuela, recieved a grant of $339,998 for "political party building." On the day of the coup, this group that received money from the US government to promote democracy, hailed the takeover. The former president of the Institute has close ties to the Bush administration, and is now the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor! The Institute itself also embraced the coup.
The NED's senior endowment officer, Chris Sabatini, said it had hurriedly funnelled money to Venezuelan opposition groups in the past year as "Mr Chavez and his supporters restricted press freedoms and sought to suppress growing dissent against his leftist policies." Which is a completely ludicrous statement, given that the Venezuelan media led the campaign against Chavez!

<snip>

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/ned.htm

U.S. Bankrolling Is Under Scrutiny for Ties to Chávez Ouster

By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS (NYT) 885 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 6 , Column 1
ABSTRACT - United States channeled hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to American and Venezuelan groups opposed to Pres Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in last year, including labor group whose protests led to Chavez's brief ouster this month; funds were provided by National Endowment for Democracy, nonprofit agency created and financed by Congress; endowment quadrupled its budget for Venezuela to more than $877,000 as conditions deteriorated in Venezuela and Chavez clashed with various business, labor and media groups; State Dept's human rights bureau is now examining whether one or more recipients of money may have actively plotted against Chavez; $1 million grant to endowment has been put on hold pending that review (M)

<snip>
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F0091FFA3F5A0C768EDDAD0894DA404482
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/ned.htm

[mot78]

44. THANK YOU!!!

For bringing that out. Since Clark became a declared candidate, I've had to endure RW diatribes about how Clark is only running because the Clintons told him so, and DUers parroting this crap. If I were John Hlinko, I'd punch Roger Ailes in the face!

[Tinoire]

51. There was no grass-roots movement. I documented this at DU from the start

I posted about this at the time with all my evidence of the DLC and AEI's involvement in Clark's campaign.

The entire thing was orchestrated from the very beginning and I will provide you threads with names and links to the stories about how the DLC consultant, Chris Kofinis, drafted the idea of the "Draft Clark" movement with the DLC, to the orchestrated commando raids on internet web-sites, and down to Clark himself telling the troops to "crank it up". I can provide all of this to you because I watched this campaign from the start and posted about these developments at the time because many of us never bought the story. I will even post for you a slide or two from the DLC's PowerPoint Presentation used to "draft" the idea & the selling of Clark to the American Public- and if the slide is gone, you can still read the thread that had the slides linked. I can also show you how this forum was used to post poll after poll, usually by suspiciously new Clark-supporting posters who came along with a "hey guys, how do liberals feel about this" as the positions were being developed (note to the headquarters of the candidates who were watching those polls- I have it on very good authority that some sly, slick, liberals purposefully skewed those polls because we don't want to hear what you think we want to hear, we want to hear what you really believe!)

It would be most gracious of you to stop either spinning or repeating campaign smoke & mirrors propaganda while trying to belittle a perfectly honest & knowledgable poster who knows exactly what he/she is talking about.

The entire premise of this thread is an insult to every thoughtful Liberal, Progressive or Leftist who cares for this country & the democratic process.

The more threads like this people post, the less inclined I am to vote for either of these two candidates.

Note to candidate headquarters- we are not geese to be force-fed for you foie gras. The entire tactic is repulsive and a total turn-off. If the DLC and DNC want 4 more years of Bush- smoke and mirror campaigning & premature coronations are indeed the way to go about it.

The Centrists in charge must really be getting scared of the vigor with which Liberals, regardless of which of the 9 candidates we support, are holding firm.

Good. Because we mean business this time. We will not allow this sterling opportunity, at this most opportune time for Progressives to make headway and place a reasonably Progressive person in office, to be destroyed by the typical tools used to keep the corporate powers happy every 4 years.

We will not crown Ceasar until after the 9 candidates have gotten their fair votes in fair Primaries.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

53. Oh my God--the AEI played a part in Clark's campaign?

Would you like to show some proof before making such outlandish accusations?

[Tinoire]

82. Just start googling.

You'll find plenty of stuff to keep you occupied until tomorrow morning when I'll have the time to respond

[SeveneightyWhoa]

87. Um, you do realize..

..that there's a WHOLE SHITLOAD of unreliable garbage on the internet, don't you? I'd rather watch Fox than read some of the bullshit out there.

But please do show me at least one article that has to do with PNAC or AEI supporting Clark's campaign.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

59. You're Absolutely Trippin' But I Guess That's Okay Here

Despite your suggestion that I stop expressing myself, I think this is still a forum that encourages and values open dialogue. I'm just an ordinary person. I'm an immigration attorney in the Los Angeles area and not a very rich one because I have done quite a lot of pro bono work. I don't think I need to be lectured by you on what it is to be a progressive. I have been involved in the Draft Clark movement since late May early June 2003. I attended the first Meet-Ups in the Los Angeles area and spoke to most of the individuals in both of the rival Clark groups in two parts of the country trying to get this off the ground. At no time, I REPEAT AT NO TIME did I ever meet anyone who was DLC or in any power structure representing the Democratic Party. The movement was ALWAYS short of funds and we had to pass the hat at Meet Ups for things like Draft Clark buttons and bumper stickers. I specifically recall when Clark said "Crank It Up". We were all a very loose and all-too-disorganized group of people from every walk of life, thrille that it might have signaled Clark's intention to run. If Clinton, the DLC or any other structure were behind this campaign, I don't think I would have had to spend my own money going door-to-door for months, designing my own flyers and even making custom campaign buttons for this campaign and literally becoming a scrounger along with every other grassroots campaigner in the Clark movement all across the United States. I remember the first meeting we had in Los Angeles right after Clark declared. THERE WEREN'T EVEN CAMPAIGN BUTTONS AND WE HAD TO HAVE OUR OWN CUSTOM MADE! Your post is most exceptionally laughable because I recall some of the posts here wondering whether Clark would even declare himself and run as a Democrat. In fact, the Draft Clark movement was started by two individuals, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, the latter who was disillusioned with Bush. If the truth about a candidate stops you from voting, then that's YOUR regretable problem and Bush's unearned reward. I was there, almost from the start. I know to what degree this has been a grassroots effort and still is.

[Tinoire]

86. For starters... There were more than 2. David Wallace, AEI, was there too

I'll get back to you tomorrow because I'm tired. In the meantime...

In fact, the Draft Clark movement was started by two individuals, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, the latter who was disillusioned with Bush That's more spin that conveniently ignores information that would displease most Liberals.

You left out David Wallace, media relations manager for the American Enterprise Institute, who had principal action on the UN (a lively account given UK membership on the UN Security Council); CSCE; narcotics; human rights and refugees issues; Latin America; and the Liberal Democrat Party.

There's a brief mention of him on the Draft Wesley Clark page but no one likes to make too much of a hoopla about him. One can understand why.

About the DraftWesleyClark.com Leadership

David Wallace has spent more than a decade working in the trenches of Washington journalism and public affairs.

Wallace began his career with the MacNeil/Leher NewsHour, where he acted as field producer covering events at a range of venues, including Capitol Hill, the State Department, and the White House. Wallace has also worked with the Olympic News Agency, where he coordinated multiple news crews in coverage of the 1996 Olympic Park bombing. He has also headed media relations for one of the nation’s leading public-policy think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute.

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/who_we_are.htm

There are plenty more dots... Will bring you some more. and more interesting ones, tomorrow.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

29. Your Hearing Is Not Very Good Then - Oxycontin User?

The facts, if you care at all about them, is that the Clark grassroots movement existed months before Clinton and Clark were ever mentioned in the same breath. I know because I was in the Draft Clark movement as of late spring, 2003, pledging $2000 via the internet if and when he decided to run. The truth is that the grassroots movement surrounding Clark was and is the second largest besides Dean's. I don't know if you belong to the Meet-Ups, but I have been going to the Clark ones for months and they have grown by leaps and bounds since late spring. The difference is that Dean had a structure already, having been a professional politician for many years. Clark had nothing. All he had was the Draft Clark people by the thousands, in every state, in every major city, writing him, pledging him money in an internet fund, and urging him to run. Clinton had nothing to do with this. You cannot win this argument because I've been there ... you haven't. You heard nothing at the grassroots about Clark because you haven't been listening.

[DinkyDem]

31. Nonsense

I'm talking about BUZZ.
Clarked didn't have it until the Media created it for him.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

32. Man, relax.

Everything I've come to know from Clark has basically from the Internet. Unless you call the Internet "The Media", then you have no clue of what you're talking about.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

40. Further Information

The Draft Wesley Clark movement was founded in late 2002. Clark blogs started going up around that time, including Yahoo! Groups in almost every state in the nation. The national Yahoo! Group devoted to Clark was established on October 17, 2002.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wesleyclark2004/?yguid=52461176

The comments made by Clinton, apparently overheard by another reporter that Clark was one of the two stars in the Democratic Party occurred on September 9, 2003, nearly one year after the Draft Clark movement was started. At the above Yahoo! Group's main page, you will see that the group alreadyhad 721 blog entries in May 2003; 3311 entries in June 2003; 4548 entries in July 2003; 5733 entries in August 2003, and 9495 entries in September 2003. Again, the Draft Clark grassroots movement, second only to Dean on the internet has been there all along, through many hard months. The fact that no one has paid attention to it and that Internet campaigning is attributed only to the Dean organization is the "nonsense". I admire the Dean campaign's organization and energy. But I think the Clark Internet grassroots campaign is even more extraordinary, because for many months they continued with no money, no formal candidate, and a would-be candidate who had no experience or organization and was not an insider. I think the Clark grassroots Internet campaign is truly the untold story of this election so far. Even more extraordinary is the fact that the media has completely ignored this large and vocal movement, despite the Clark bars, Meet-Ups, booths, and tremendous outreach all across America. But then in America, reality doesn't matter and perception is everything. Dean is now perceived as the Internet grassroots campaigner and Clark is seen as the Clinton machine's candidate. But when you use the term "suckers" as your original post did, I think you should be very, very sure that you have fully weighed the facts in order to know exactly who is being suckered.

[saoirse]

80. So what's do bad about the Clintons?

Record low unemployment.

Budget deficits turned into SURPLUSES.

Stock market at all-time record highs.

Peace.

Peace.

PEACE.

[DinkyDem]

83. wrong wrong wrong wrong

-Record low unemployment.
Useless over-saturated non-productive employment sectors.

-Budget deficits turned into SURPLUSES.
Inflated long-term growth and revenue projections based on false profit reports that never materialized.

-Stock market at all-time record highs.
Short-lived bubble that only defrauded working people and transfered wealth from the working class to the investment class.

-Peace.
Foreign adventurism in the Balkans, Haiti, Falkland Islands, and Somalia.

-Peace.
Inaction against foreign terrorism. Give-aways of nuclear technology to China and North Korea, giveaway of the Panama Canal. Failed peace talks.

-PEACE.
Wag the Dog bombing campaigns in Iraq and Sudan.


some of my own:

Welfare "reform".

Deregulation.

General abuse of power (FBI/IRS/Secret Service as personal thugs.)

Disgrace to the Office.

Nafta.

Nafta.

NAFTA.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[DinkyDem]

85. Why?

Because I'm not a Clinton sychophant or apologist?
Because I hold ALL my elected officials to a high standard, not just Republicans?
Because when I see a Democrat act like a Republican I call him on it instead of cheerlead?
Because I respect Principle over Power?

[DinkyDem]

88. And most of all

because the Clintons don't care about the Party or our Principles.
They only care about their own Egos, Power, and Enrichment.

I want meaningful Progress, not Triangulation.

[DinkyDem]

89. We are all pawns held captive

in a war between Clinton and Gore for Power of the Party through their operatives Clark and Dean.

Why should we stand for this as they sell-out what our Party represents?
It is time we take the Party back for OURSELVES!
We need to let go of the past and look to the Future. OUR FUTURE. THE FUTURE OF WHAT OUR PARTY IS TO BE!

We can do it, but we have to free ourselves from the bondage of the Party Power Aparatus. We have to wake up from this hypnosis, this idol-worship, this Zombie-like sleepwalk of blindly following people who only care about their own Power and aquiring more of it at our expense. TAKE OFF YOUR BLINDERS!

We are not sheep to be herded.
Please! for the soul of our Party and our Movement!

[OneBlueSky]

15. no . . . regardless of what the polls say . . .

not a single vote has been cast yet . . . and we need the perspectives of the "lower tier" candidates to help keep us honest and to not neglect the disenfranchised populations that some of them represent . . . way to early to call this . . .

[Booberdawg]

17. No, it's too early. They all add something to the debate.

[ozone_man]

18. Perhaps a better question would be

when should some of the others should drop out? I don't really know, but maybe after SC? The first three primaries ought to sum things up. At least to the top two or three. Gephardt should drop out after Iowa, Kerry should drop out after NH, and Lieberman should probably drop out now.

So, I didn't answer the poll, but being a Deanite, I was tempted to the make the top choice. However, I like the debate, so how about we leave Kucinich in until the end (to keep the left in the debate) and whittle the rest down to Dean and Clark after SC? Dean/Clark/Kucinich my choice for debates.

[KaraokeKarlton]

19. I'd like some of them to bow out of the debates

Not because I don't think they have anything of value to say, but because with so many candidates they never really amount to much from lack of time. I don't think anyone should drop out of the race until they want to. And no one should tell them not to be in the debates. I just wish some would voluntarily sit out for at least one debate.

[mzmolly]

21. NO..

The bottom 3 perhaps.

[littlejoe]

22. Yes and No

[IronLionZion]

23. some should drop out but not all

[aquart]

24. I believe the decision is up to the Democratic voters.

I am completely against anyone dropping out before a single ballot has been cast.

Democracy is messy. Try it.

[mikehiggins]

26. No. Let the voters decide who wins, not the polls n/t

[GoldenOldie]

30. The best of the best

This is the best group of Demo candidates that I have seen in years and they all seem to bring something to the Party.
It also seems to be driving the media and political anlayst whores to distraction because they are unable to really start a good attack on a final candidate.

The Neocons and politicos of the Republican pursuasion attempt to select the best(?) Dem candidate to run against Georgie ....don't ya just love it....they want to be sure the Dems will select the one that will beat Georgie????

[Kenneth ken]

34. I've always kind of liked

democracy in action, so NO, I would not be supportive of stupidity.

I've now given this thread more time and attention than it actually merits, though.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

36. Well, 25% of DUers would disagree with you.

I guess a quarter of this forum just hates democracy?

[littlejoe]

49. I don't know. It's been so long since I've seen any.

[arewethereyet]

46. re your signature

if you don't use your brain your heart never has a chance

[Myra]

37. No. No. No. I want the opposite of what the corporate media wants.

I want to hear what Kucinich and Sharpton et al have to say,
and decide for myself if I want to vote for them.

[moondust]

42. No. They all have things to add.

1. It's good for people to see diversity for a change. It's exciting and it reminds people how feeble-minded and boring the Pugs are with all their eggs in one leaky basket.

2. The more official Bush Bashers the better.

3. Nine targets are harder to knock down than three, especially for the simple-minded. As soon as it's down to one the Rove/media mulching machine will kick into high gear. I'd like to see them all stay until election day.

[arewethereyet]

43. No. I do not believe that ether one will be the nominee.

seriously.

[goodhue]

48. No

But I would be in favor of the "big two" dropping out right now. But probably not realistic so why waste time with pointless hypos.

[arewethereyet]

52. I'm favor of the big two dropping out

they don't have the stuff to win IMO

[SeveneightyWhoa]

54. Riiiiight.

And who does, then?

[arewethereyet]

56. clears away the static for Edwards

as will eventually happen

[DrFunkenstein]

55. No, But I'd Watch A Debate

I'd love to see everyone broken into smaller groups. How about Kerry, Clark, Dean, and Gephardt "just happen" to get into one group, and Edwards, Kucinich, Lieberman, Braun, and Sharpton in the other?

Note: I like Edwards and Kucinich alot - certainly much more than Gep, but I have yet to hear a plausible scenario where they come out on top.

[Ksec]

64. Last man standing

Say Clark Dean were the only two left standing(this is only hypothetical yuns guys)

Kucinich to Clark
Braun to Dean
Kerry hmm
Sharpton to Dean'
Gep to Clark
Lieberman to Clark
Edwards to Clark

Thats just my opinion.

[DjTj]

79. I think almost everyone would go to Clark...

...but that's just reading the general anti-Dean sentiment of DU.

It may look a little more like:

Kucinich to Nader
Braun to Dean
Kerry to Clark
Sharpton to Dean
Gep to Clark
Lieberman to Clark
Edwards to Clark

[curse10]

70. funny, none of the "yeses" have posted

:-)

[jsw_81]

76. No

I would, however, like to see everyone except Dean, Clark, Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman, and Edwards quit the race ASAP. The other three are clowns who shouldn't be allowed in the debates.

[IndianaGreen]

90. It is up to the voters to decide

It is up to the voters to decide and not for the Supreme Court, or the TV networks, or the Democratic Establishment to decide for us.

[ldoolin]

91. No

Kucinich and Sharpton are important voices and they need to stay in the race until the end. They won't win but their presence helps give the other candidates some backbone to take more progressive positions.

I do expect to see most of the others drop out after the first couple of primaries though.

[buddhamama]

92. no.

narrowing the debate now is not in our best interest.

[Zynx]

96. No. I support a diverse primary.

Besides, a Dean/Clark debate would get boring real fast.

[LWolf]

99. No.

Voters need a choice. I don't need anyone deciding who the "BIG TWO" are and narrowing my choices for me. I do wish the field were a little smaller. But my smaller field would not include Clark or Dean.

Here's the smaller field I'd like to see:

Kerry
Kucinich
Edwards

[UTUSN]

101. Who Decided Who Are the Bottom 7 and Big 2? n/t

[youngred]

102. Hell, why stop at 7!

Let's just hand the election to Bush! That's what the media keeps telling me anyway. Bush will beat Dean! Bush will beat Dean! Bush will beat Dean!

:eyes:

more voices in the primary means a better debate

[DinahMoeHum]

103. Methinks it'll boil down to Dean, Clark and Kerry. . .

in no particular order. I could live with any combination. Sadly, it also means a very qualified candidate could be "odd man out". Still, I could see that third person in a Cabinet position yet.

:kick: