What would be your reasons not to vote for Clark.

[LZ1234]

This question is for non-Clark supporters. Out of curiosity, what is it about Clark that would make you not vote for him. (Is it that there's something you don't like about him or there's another candidate that seems better to you?)

[AP]

1. Like I said in the other thread: dicursively and rhetorically he isn't

great.

He's not much of a persuader or communicatory. He's a biography. He's a resume. But he' isn't turning that into something real, that people can feel anything powerful about.

He seems like a guy who spent part of his life taking orders, and another part of his life giving orders, and not much of his life learning how to develop the skills of argument and persuassion.

[aquanut]

3. Linquistically

Have you heard him speak in person?

[AP]

22. Even if there were a huge difference between live and televised Clark, I'd

still go with the canidate who doesn't need to communicate in person in order to persuade. Anyway, I doubt there's a huge difference.

[Joe the Revelator]

31. He's not a trial lawyer

its the only thing that the Edwards people think they have over clark.

[eaprez]

2. Primary or General Election?

I was part of the "Draft Clark" movement but no longer believe him to be a viable canidate. I think perhaps he could be in the future if he gets a political resume of some sort and some experience in the art of politics. On the campaign trail -- he comes across as an amature. I believe he's genuine and I like him and find him appealing. I think most have decided that this election is much much too important for an amature. Being a savvy politician is also going to be very important - because if we are fortunated enough to get a Dem in the WH - he will have a Republican controlled house/senate to contend with and political skills will be VERY important then.

[mlawson]

4. I have no problem with Clark, and would vote for him.

I support John Edwards because I firmly believe that he has the best chance of beating bush, with Clark having the second best shot. It's as simple as that; I like Clark very much, and hope that he is on the ticket, as well.

[salinen]

5. His second vote for Reagan

But I like him. I've made mistakes too.

[anti-NAFTA]

16. How do we know he voted for Reagan?

I know he admitted to it, but if he hadn't would we know? Is everyone's vote on record, so if I vote and decide to run for president people will know whom I voted for?

[salinen]

26. Gosh anti

I don't know. I only reason I know is because he let it be known.

[Demobrat]

6. Well, for one...

He's against abortion. Sure he says he'd have to support the law of the land, but there's no law that says he can't appoint judges who would overturn it. The right to choose is too important to me to vote for somebody with his attitude. I can't believe he would ever fight for it.


From Salon.com:

Clark wants to clarify abortion comment
By Beth Fouhy
Feb. 5, 2004 | CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) -- Democratic presidential contender Wesley Clark on Thursday sought to clarify his comments from a day earlier in which he told a Tennessee voter, "I don't believe in abortion."

"I would hope that it would be done only on rare occasions, but it's a woman's right to choose. It's a private matter and I support the Supreme Court. I support Roe v. Wade. And I support a woman's right to choose," Clark told reporters as he campaigned in the state.

snip

Within days of those comments, Clark told reporters in New Hampshire that he supported a woman's right to have an abortion "as modified by" a 1992 court case that allows states to impose limited restrictions.

snip

On Wednesday, a woman in Tennessee pressed Clark on how he felt about abortion, and he said, "I'm against abortion, but there's the law of the land and that comes from the Supreme Court and the law is called Roe v. Wade. And I support the Supreme Court. I have to support the law."

Clark continued, saying abortion "should be safe, legal and rare. And I think what you've got to do is you really have got to work with families and you really got to help people understand what their choices are and not do the wrong thing because I don't believe in abortion."
___________________________________________

[For PaisAn]

9. Link please?!

n/t

[Demobrat]

12. There's a thread on it now.

*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=276877

[anti-bush]

14. Link

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/02/05/abortion/index.html

[citizen snips]

7. I have lost total interest in Clark.

I think he is good person who I will support if he is the nominee. But I think his campaign went down hill when he decided to skip Iowa. His recent victory in OK was nothing to brag about. But it was indeed a victory. It is sad to see that the media has written off Clark. I use to support Clark but I chose Edwards after he had a second place finish in Iowa and all the attention turned to Kerry and Edwards who made miraculous comebacks.

[PurityOfEssence]

8. Well, since you asked...

He's lied about Edwards' and Kerry's votes on the Bush tax cuts, knowing full well what he did. That alone is a character issue of Deanlike proportions for which I would not vote for him.

He's represented himself as unequivocally against the IWR, when he said many conflicting things about it at the time.

We have nothing to go on about him except for his word, and that's now proven to be worth very little.

He ducked the Peter Jennings sandbagging terribly, which displays lack of sense, lack of presence and a presumption of privilege. To explain all that, let's start here: he's a novice, and the last thing he can use as an excuse is that he's a novice. He has to point out how knowledgeable and skilled he is at every turn. He can't consider him above answering for the actions of his prominent supporters. Above all else, his answer needs to be direct, as if he takes it seriously, instead of making light of it and then using the answer time to go off on a tangent. He's supposed to be the big decisive no-nonsense leader; that's completely wrong.

The Republicans can slag Democrats with the harangue that we hate ourselves so much and are so pathetic that we had to go out of the party to even find anyone we could rally behind. Ouch.

He rode in on a high horse of privilege, presuming that he was the only one who could trounce Junior on what would be the only issue. I hate that kind of approach.

He's absolutely awful at times in debates. Yes, he did very well in the last SC debate, but he was TERRIBLE in New Hampshire. I can easily see him being befuddled in a debate with Junior or making missteps along the campaign trail. It's 9 months 'til the general election; hell, look what happened in the last three weeks!

Some lefties may not buy the rap, and he will lose fringe elements and others who just aren't so energized to vote. He could even spark a third party mess if Junior starts falling in the polls. It could be a disaster.

He entered with the Emperor's new Uniform, and stumbled and cooled from then. That dynamic is hard to shake in politics. Even with that huge outcry coming in, and powerful and monied support, he's given a truly ho-hum performance.

He lied. He lied. He lied.

To a great degree, success in the Presidential process is determined by two things: identifying the right issues/presentation, and making the least mistakes. He's made many, many missteps, and even though it's nowhere near Dean proportions, that's scary as all hell.

I'd like to hear anyone explain how the lying issue isn't just a deal-breaker by definition.

On edit: I would support him in the general election, and suck up my problems about him. I was coming around on him as having his heart in the right place, and perhaps he does, but, well, whatever.

[Qutzupalotl]

20. Maybe he made a mistake.

Instead of saying Kerry and Edwards voted for the Iraq War Resolution, No Child Left Behind and Tax Cuts, he should have said they voted for the Iraq War Resolution, No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act.

Lying by intent would be a deal-breaker, I agree. But he was at a rally, and could have simply misspoken. Intention must be considered.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. The quote is damning; it's unequivocal

It's also time to remind everyone that only one Senator voted against the Patriot Act (Russ Feingold) which passed 98-1 with one no-show.

Wellstone, Kennedy, Boxer, Durbin, Levin and all those other worthless so-and-sos voted against it. 66 Congresspeople voted against it, among them 3 Republicans. Such stalwarts as Kucinich, Bonior, Schakowsky, Stark, Frank, Nadler, Lee were on the correct side of this, but many whom I love and respect weren't.

A smear is a smear is a smear. Here's a paragraph from today's L.A. Times:

"They're criticizing No Child Left Behind," he said, referring to the president's legislation to improve academic test scores. "They voted for it. They're criticizing the tax cuts. They voted for them. They're criticizing the war in Iraq. They voted for it. They're criticizing the Patriot Act. They voted for it."

Apparently, this is not the only instance. This is horrendous.

[Qutzupalotl]

30. That's the same quote.

It's just quoted in another source. It's disingenuous of you to pretend he said this more than once. (Unless you're intentionally lying, of course, since we're not allowing people to make a mistake. ;) )

Anyway, you're avoiding the issue of Edwards and Kerry voting for the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act.

[PurityOfEssence]

39. I'm aware of that; my writing was not as precise as it should have been

By saying that it wasn't the only occasion wasn't meant that I was proving it with that quote. There have been other occasions of him having said comparable things recently.

Fine. Let's talk about the other issues. The war resolution decision was based on the heap of lies he was given in classified briefings. Among other things he was told there was that Hussein had nuclear capabilities within a short period of time after obtaining fissable material, and that this was possibly in the offing. He was fed a pack of lies by sources that should have been accurate.

I don't like that either, but I wasn't fed the same crap, so I don't know how convincing it was. He is on the Intelligence committee, so he gets some of the extra special horseshit; judging him against the actions of someone not so intimately involved is a bad comparison. Yes, some of the greybeards like Carl Levin didn't buy it, but he's a very special case. Generally principled and sophisticated people like Tom Harkin voted for the resolution. It's a sad thing all around, and since we weren't given the same briefing, it's hard to say.

No Child Left Behind is a horrible crock of shit in retrospect, but at the time, it had promise. It's very easy to look at the Edsel and see it as a failure, but when designing it, it seemed like a great idea and a real winner. It's not so much a mean bill as it is a clumsy one that's been rendered moot by lack of funding.

The Patriot Act, John Edwards will remind you, was partially written by him. He doesn't duck this, and he says that it's been misused and was too extreme. He considers it essentially a mistake, and the elements he likes are things like tapping an individual, rather than a phone line. The latter is antiquated thinking, and the former more sensibly models the modern world. He goes at great length to excoriate John Ashcroft; he was probably Ashcroft's greatest single nemesis during the confirmation process, and vehemently opposed him.

Many people got this one wrong, so it's all very tidy to rant about it now, but in context it was much less simple.

Clark and his supporters have the luxury--as does Dean and his--to criticize the actions of the sitting legislators without having their own actions examined. That's a bit greasy when their own statements on the subject are anything but obvious.

[PurityOfEssence]

34. after-the-edit-time corrections...

I should have said Wellstone et al. voted FOR the Patriot act. Moving too fast here.

[MGKrebs]

10. I'll vote for him in November if he's the nominee.

But I never felt like he could build a successful campaign in the short time he gave himself, and with having no experience at this. I just haven't thought he could be successful.

[liberalnurse]

11. If Dean is still on the ballot, he gets my vote.

If not, Clark looks good. Never Edwards or Kerry.

[anti-bush]

13. Why I wouldn't vote for Clark

I wouldn't vote for Clark because I have no public record of this man, and his political stances that give me an indication of what policies will prevail in a Clark presidency. He may be a really good guy, and he could be the best president we've ever had. I just don't feel it in my gut. The fact that his political stances seem to have all been created in the last 5 months does not sit well with me.

Clark has been shown to be a gaffe prone speaker who does not cleearly state his positions in a manner that is unequivocable. He has often taken both sides of an issue, and had to clarify on further questioning. He quibbles with minor nuances in order to try to take both sides of a position at times. He has never held a public office, and I don't believe that being a General in the Army, however noble that is, qualifies one to make decisions regarding the domestic policy of this country. I would much rather have a man who has been elected to a public office as my president. I know other people don't feel that way, but I can't change that.

[Auntie Bush]

21. Please Clark supporters...don't confuse me with anti-bush

Anti Bush does not agree with one word of those comments.
There is no comparison between Clark and Edwards. Edwards has nothing to offer the presidency and Clark has everything. Got to go now, expecting company...but couldn't let our names get confused.

[citizen snips]

23. No Comparison????

Clark has fliped-floped on many issues and has made too many mistakes in this democratic nomination.

[JNelson6563]

15. You mean if he won the nom?

If that's what you mean, nothing would stop me from voting for him. I might even do more than just vote. Not so for Kerry. He'd get a vote and that's it.

Julie

[poskonig]

17. Spending limits.

I was initially uncomfortable with Clark's political past. However, we have a great opportunity to get Bush out of office, and I'm willing to give Clark the benefit of the doubt.

I'd probably be in the Clark camp right now if he could raise unlimited money against SpaceShrub before August. *I* want to be able to help the nominee the same way I helped Dean though, and many Democrats will next summer too. Why handicap ourselves?

I support Kerry, and will support anyone who gets the nomination.

[anti-NAFTA]

18. 2 Reasons

1. He is sickeningly pro-NAFTA.
2. I don't trust Pentagon insiders.

[Taeger]

28. I haven't heard

I haven't heard any pro-NAFTA stuff in his language. I've heard the same ambiguous stuff coming from all the front runner. Modify trade agreemants, etc...

Michael Moore has endorsed Clark. Is there anyone more anti-NAFTA than Michael Moore????

[corporatewhore]

19. SOA Vieques Freetrade....

[no name no slogan]

32. and might I add:

* his claims that the radiation in DU weapons don't cause long-lasting problems-- contrary to many documented studies, and 10,000 dead servicemen/servicewomen who died after DU exposure in Desert Storm.
* his decision to bomb civilian targets in Serbia. That's STILL a war crime, no matter how you triangulate it.
* his belief that our tech jobs should go to India. As a recently unemployed tech worker, that hits too close to home for me.
* his past as a lobbyist/consultant for the arms industry.
* his lack of electoral experience and/or record.
* his complete lack of positions/stands on issues PRIOR to declaring his candidacy. I visited his site the day he declared, and his Issues page was "under construction". That hardly inspires confidence in potential voters.
* Generals tend to make lousy presidents (Eisenhower, Grant, etc).

HOWEVER, if he does indeed get the nod, I will vote for him, grudgingly.

[corporatewhore]

38. ditto except i wont vote for him after i met four women from vieques

at the sencond annual women and war conference

[arewethereyet]

25. after the 'calls from the White House' incident, he was out of considerati

if you're going to lie to make yourself seem important just for TV, why would anyone trust you with any responsibility ?

[Shanty Oilish]

27. Let's start with ambition

He wants to be president. Being a Democrat was secondary. He hesitated about announcing party allegiance---why else would he do that but because he was weighing other options? The main thing was to run for president, and he announced Democratic affiliation after eliminating other avenues for his ambition.
He's a military man, thinks and reacts like one, and I think if given the opportunity he'd rule like one.
Then there's the quality of some of his supporters, who make him sound like a white knight, when to my mind he's a white sepulcher (a hypocrite). They say he's a gift, I see a trojan horse. The less a man can prove himself, the more fanatical his supporters, and Clark's got some very woolly supporters.
He has no record politically except for certain glowing opinions about the Bush team.
He cites having voted for Dems, which is unproven, cannot be proven, and like everything else about his campaign it's a plea to be taken on blind faith, which I consider the hallmark of a dishonest man.
Then there's his positions on issues. Just to mention one, he considers it appropriate to conscript civilians into mandatory service in times of crisis. (It's on the clark04 site.)
I would never vote for such a man. Too many people in my family have fled countries run by very similar ones.

ed: in addition, unanswered questions about Waco, Kosovo, and SOA.

[OneBlueSky]

29. if Clark is the nominee, I will gladly vote for him . . .

in the primaries, however, I prefer Kerry . . . largely because of his environmental record, but also because of his generally progressive record throughout his Senate career . . . I believe his overall record cancels out the few bad votes that he's cast . . .

[vision]

33. He's my third choice

Kucinich is my first choice in my heart and who I have supported with money.

Dean is my second choice and I think I will shortly support with some money. He is passionate and that is missing IMO from the current frontrunner.

Clark is a fine man and he says many things that I agree with. I could certainly vote for him with a clear mind but right now he is behind my first two choices.

I have already voted in my primary so all I have left is a little money and my vote in the GE. So we'll see what goes from here. :)

[George_Bonanza]

35. Clark's my second choice

I would gladly vote for him if Kerry, God forbid, stumbles badly.

[BurtWorm]

36. Dean is still in the race.

[frustrated_lefty]

37. Honest

his smile is warm, his eyes are cold.

He's good with kids, weak on policy, but ok

I don't mean this as a jerk comment. I saw him with a baby girl and his eyes lit up, he looked like a perfect grandpappy. Clark must connect with people at a deeper level. I could see Clark babysitting my kids; I could NEVER see Kerry doing that.

[shivaji]

40. Not a single * * * * general has endorsed Clark after ...

Clark spent a LIFETIME in military. That shows only one thing.
Clark is NOT likeable. He does not make friends. He is probably
cut-throat.

I came across a anecdote of Clark back when he was a colonel.
He was at a BBQ party for colonel's and their families only.
The story goes like he asked every wife present personal details
about their husbands. The assumption is he was developing a
database on how to out maneuver the others in getting promotions.
That is nothing short of devious.

[mikehiggins]

41. Golly, Gen. Barry McCaffrey is his friend.

And devious? Printing an entirely unverifiable anecdote from Clark's past? Any evidence it ever even happened? Any evidence any such "data base" ever existed?

And a four-star general is not likeable?

That isn't why they get four-stars. Likeable doesn't win wars, though there is ample testimony as to his being likeable as a person.

No prize for this post, Shiv. You've done much better in the past.

[dawn]

42. He's my second choice, but these are my reservations:

- What he said about software jobs going to India. "Let them make the software in India!" That would be my husband's job, so, no thanks.

- Sometimes I feel that he just represents the military-industrial complex.

But I agree with many of his views, and he is great on national security. I think he'd make a great President. He's just not my #1 choice.

I'm an Edwards supporter, so the past few days here on DU have been kinda weird. Clark's my #2, and lately the Clarkies are totally bashing my chosen candidate. So I'd have to say that it's some of the things said by Clark supporters that also make him my #2, rather than my #1. I'm really turned off by negativity. Sorry if I've offended anyone on here.

(edited for spelling errors!)

[DebJ]

43. I don't want an Executive to be biased by a general's perspective

I want someone horrified by war, not one good at conducting one, in the White House.
Checks and balances.
Checks and balances.
Checks and balances.
Generals: I appreciate what you do for us...in the Pentagon.