Here is my problem with Clark.

[AP]

He may or may not be a decent person (and I'm totally inclined to think he's the most decent of human beings). However, I don't think he's a very good symbol of the solution to what is wrong with America today.

I think that generals are for banana republics, and I'm not convinced that America is so screwed up that it needs to elect one just yet. I'm totally willing to admit that I could be wrong about this. Maybe we do need an American Castro or William Walker, or something like that. But I don't think we're in that kind of deep trouble yet, and I don't see someone getting elected president in a democracy based on the kind of popular sentitment that we are in that kind of trouble (I still think we need an FDR).

Also, as discussed yesterday, Clark kind of set me off with his criticism of Edwards's tax plan yesterday. Among other things, Edwards wants to raise the tax on long term cap gains by 10% for income earners over 350K and Clark wants to raise tax on income earners over 1 mil by 5% (without regard for the source of income).

Clark just sold $1.2 million worth of stock in a company on whose board he sat. The value shot up because the company was sold. Presumably, as a board member, he knew this was happening. Furthermore, what if the corp was conscious of which insiders owned stock and how long they held it? They could have timed their sale to guarantee that many insiders would only pay 15% on the sale of their equity ownership.

It may have been the case that Edwards's tax plan would have incurred a tax bill as high as 90,000 more than Clark's tax plan. How can Clark have much legitimacy on this issue if he's earning money this way and then pretending that a tax plan that charges him less is more progressive?

More significantly, how can he be a symbol of the solution to the corporatocracy problem when he has wrapped himself up in the corporatocracy in the last couple years?

And here's the next problem: over in LBN, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=356602 , there's a dicussinon about an orgainization called NED which is trying to subvert democracy in Venezuela. Guess who's on the board of directors, along with Bill Frist and Frank Carlucci?

For all I know, Clark is the voice of reason on that board. However, I just don't know how you can have legitmacy on these issues when you're so much a part of the problem.

I should note that I would happily vote for Clark if he were the nominee. But I would by lying to myself if I said these things didn't depress me.

I suspect that, if pressed, I would back off on some of the harsher criticisms this post implies, but I just feel like I have to get this off my chest.

[Justice]

1. Thank you for Getting This Off Your Chest Today

Your chest must be weighed down significantly because you need to get this off your chest every day.

Sincere Good Luck to Edwards.

[wyldwolf]

2. Yeah, more of the same...

..literally the same.

Similar posts with almost identical content.

Doesn't happen every day now like it used to. But still familiar.

[AP]

Obviously, the way this race is going, I see Clakr as an obstacle to a

Kerry vs Edwards debate, which I think Edwards is going to win.

So, naturally, Clark is going to be in the forefront of my thoughts.

I make no apologies for that. I think it shows that I'm paying attention to what's going on.

What I'm not trying to do is say Clark is a bad man. I'm just saying that he's not the right symbol of the solution to Ameirca's problems right now.

[democratreformed]

7. At least you are honest.

To be truthful, I already knew your reasons.

[democratreformed]

11. Oh, and AP

your guy was included in the article I read that reported party leaders calling for others to drop out so "we can focus on the task at hand - beating Bush". I honestly believe they don't want ANY opposition to their plans to pick a very early nominee.

[AP]

20. Yeah, that article was object of scorn by all non-Kerry supporters.

[democratreformed]

23. You know, I don't dislike Kerry (too much - lol)

I hope he can win. But, I very much resent the gamble they are taking with our future by pushing this thing. And, being in a late voting state, I also very much resent the attempt to take my choices away.

[Tweed]

14. Fine, Clark isn't the right symbol, Edwards isn't the right actual person

Edwards isn't ready to be president. He doesn't have enough experience from the international or domestic side. How many times do we have to go over this?

[Rooktoven]

60. He has as much as dubya had,

so it's a wash.

[BeyondGeography]

Then don't call him a "Generalissimo"

and equate him with the kind of man who would run a "banana republic" if you're not trying to say he's a bad guy.

That's an obvious slur.

[AP]

34. I'll delete it. It was actually a reference (that, perhaps ony I remember)

to a discussion last summer about this issue.

It argued that banana republics elect generals and that we hadn't reached that point yet.

[Justice]

31. I see Clark as a Candidate

and actually see Edwards as a candidate also.

[Tweed]

33. So your ACTUAL problem with Clark is that he is keeping Edwards down

because Clark has experience whereas Edwards doesn't

[AP]

36. That's a large part of it. Is there actually some doubt about the fact ...

...that there are lots of candidate advocates here who feel strongly that their candidates offer the best solution to America's problems?

I'm not trying to hide this.

I sincerely feel this way and I'm trying to be totally honest about my feelings. And I really have no vested interested other than the desire to see America work again.

(Incidentally, I think the "experience" part of your statement is largely irrelevant -- I think there's nothing to suggest that Edwards wouldn't have a brilliant foreign and domestic policy based on the experiences he has had, his concerns and his character. Also, I'll note that voters seem to make decisions based on that same critieria.)

[Tweed]

39. So Clark would continue to make America not work?

Yet you say you would be happy to vote for him in the election. I'm so confused by this all.

[AP]

44. If he isn't a symbol of fighting the corporatocracy, or of the importance

of taxing unearned income at a higher rate than earned income, I would not expect those crticial aspects of our government and society to change.

However, he's clearly much better than Bush and I would vote for him.

In the unlikely event that he would be able to beat Bush despite not precisely capturing in his persona what's wrong with America, I would be happy, of course.

[BootinUp]

3. I'm stayin out of it right now.

Maybe I'll be back after a few drinks, not ready for the bashing just yet.

[maddezmom]

38. I resemble that remark

plus I respect AP, even though we don't see eye to eye on Clark.

[Jack_Dawson]

4. Topicality?

Seems like a weird time to clear your conscience.

[AP]

6. I just read the post in LBN about Venezuela, which got me thinking

about the tax thing again.

[democratreformed]

5. Generalissimo? It is on the very bottom of my list of reasons why I

think he is the best. He is given a raw deal by those who look at him only as that.

[AP]

10. Clark has done a good job of trying to be something else.

But it doesn't seem like, no matter what he has tried, the public is not able to separate that part of his persona.

[democratreformed]

15. At least you didn't say what I thought you were going to

You are right that some can't seem to seperate that. I think that's really sad considering the fact that I knew him as much more long ago.

[AP]

24. Symbols are very powerful. Even the candidates know that.

There are plenty of great people who don't run for president because they know that their greatness may be overpowered by a symbol which they can't avoid.

There are great ex-fellons. There are great chefs and stand-up comics. There are great gamblers and gangsters. There are great baseball players. They may be the most liberal people ever, but they know that, symbolically, they might not be right for America.

What if Clark's son ran for president? He seems like a great person. However, would Americans rally around a struggling screenwriter?

[Tweed]

8. Ah I get it, Clark would create more of a dictatorship then Bush

"I think that Genarlissimos are for banana republics"

"There's a dicussinon about an orgainization called NED which is trying to subvert democracy in Venezuela. Guess who's on the board of directors, along with Bill Frist and Frank Carlucci?"

Thank you for your commentary on a man who has fought for his country and Democracy for 34 years. The same man who also has nothing to gain from running for President and is running because he wants to see the Patriot Act go.

[Bombtrack]

9. you ARE wrong

Clark isn't a totalitarian at all. He's a clear Wilsonian. He would do wonders for growing the democratic party for generations to come, as McCain would have done for the GOP in all liklihood.

Edwards would have been the best nominee before 9/11 and the occupation of 2 middle east countries and the next presidential term was therefor made into the most important foriegn policy wise of any since even before Vietnam

[AP]

16. Civil War, WWI, WWII, Cold War...there have been other times in American

history when the future of the nation was at even greater risk of surviving, and we never really needed a general to negotiatie the difficult terrain. I don't think people are seeing a compelling reason to go with one now.

Incidentally, during those periods, we had a lawyer, an academic, and law graduate, and a playboy as president.

[efront]

12. My only issue with Clark supporters

is that some I've encountered are only voting for the resume' without paying attention to anything else. No doubt Clark has a GREAT resume', but I believe he has serious liabilities as a presidential candidate.

[Bombtrack]

19. like what? Being able to run circles around Bush on foriegn policy

AND economics for that matter?

[AP]

27. ...like not being a genius rhetorically or on the stump.

Clinton and Edwards have a genius -- they have a power that they use to do good.

It shouldnt' be ignored.

[Bombtrack]

41. I wouldn't give Edwards quite the level of charisma as Clinton

he has charisma, don't get me wrong. He's talented, he becomes the litigator easily. But I think that he's not imposing to the opposition like Clinton was. I don't think Edwards would intimidate the GOP, and he wouldn't give the feeling to voters that he intimidated our enemies(in the middle east mostly) Clinton was this big tall guy and he wasn't a lawyer, but a governor, so he connected better than Edwards might because they would have their lawyer-guards up

[AP]

47. I think there are aspects of his personality which surpass Clinton's in

terms of their appeal to the electorate.

He seems to have a more appealing family life, and there's something about him not being a career politician.

When Clinton was out of government, I get the impression that he was kind of a mess, professionally speaking. Edwards seems to be in total control.

I think the GOP would be afraid of Edwards powers of communication to the same degree that were afraid of Kennedy's.

He seems to be able to control and frame the issues as he pleases, and when people hear him, the understand what he's trying to tell them with further mediation required.

[Bonobo]

28. But you are doing what you accuse Clark supporters of.

You are judging the man based predominately or perhaps solely on the basis that he is a general.

[efront]

48. Uhhh, no

I'm basing my opinion of him on his performance in debates, interviews I've seen (Chris Matthews, Larry King, Tom B, etc )and of speeches I've watched on C-Span.

I don't believe he has what it takes to beat Bush in the fall. He doesn't generate the same enthusiasm that Kerry, Edwards, and especially Dean does. He's flip-floped so much all ready on a number of issues that the Republicans will tear him apart in the fall. Not to mention what some of his former collegues have said about him, which I believe is rare in the military ranks.

My 2 cents. I'm sure the love fest that has become DU recently will certainly take issue.

[Turkw]

30. Other than education, isn't a resume what you have done? so shouldn't

the record of things you have done, not just voted on, but actually worked at or accomplished, count?

[mmonk]

61. What are those liabilities?

Everyone seems great at open ended inuendos against Clark. I want REAL answers to the liabilities everyone talks about.

As far as Edwards goes, I'm a constituent and I do not care for him to be president. If he ran for his seat again in NC, there is a chance Erskine Bowles could defeat him for it.

Also, I still can't figure out Edwards' foreign policy positions since he never spends any time going over them on the stump. It's all the son of a mill worker stuff and how much he cares for all the little people out there. Problem is, he will have to face foreign policy questions in the general election BIG TIME since bush is going to run heavy on that and security. Do you see any liabilities there in a general election against the repub smear machine?

[Bombtrack]

13. You're wrong, way way off base.

Clark isn't a totalitarian at all. He's a clear Wilsonian. He would do wonders for growing the democratic party for generations to come, as McCain would have done for the GOP in all liklihood.

Edwards would have been the best nominee before 9/11 and the occupation of 2 middle east countries and the next presidential term was therefor made into the most important foriegn policy wise of any since even before Vietnam

[Tweed]

18. Excatly

[mmonk]

17. Part of the problem

argument gets me. Who currently is in the US government? It's not Clark. So there for, he can't be part of the problem right now.

[BootinUp]

22. hehe, isn't Edwards currently in there?

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. I think you made a sincere post

On another day, maybe even tomorrow, I would go into my links file and pull up material that may or may not address your concerns. You know, that NED project is a very mixed bag, a lot of generally agreed positive things come out of there along with some negative ones. Paul Wellstone used to be on it's board also etc. etc.

But you weren't simply trashing Clark, I appreciate that, and we all have our reasons for supporting the guy that we do. Today though, I have to get back to making phone calls.

[jpgpenn]

25. I personally have a MAJOR problem with Trial Lawyers and what they...

Have done to our country, let alone being led by one. The sad part is that is only experience Edwards has at anything!

[Bonobo]

26. I got as far as your "Generalissimo" comment.

And then I said to myself, why bother reading a post based on such a false and scurrulous implication.

I mean, if you have something real to say, why don't you say it without building up a straw man? If being a general automatically makes him a "generallisimo" than that would have ruled out Grant, Eisenhower, etc. Besides, your subtext is quite clear. If he is a military man, than he is a fascist. Yup, I get it.

[AP]

32. There was a -- to me -- famous DU debate about Clark last summer which

made the same argument -- that banana republics turn to generals to solve their problems during times of national insecurity.

I think this is a legitimate debate, and I've said that I think America is very fucked up, and that I'm not sure it's that fucked up.

I said I could be wrong and that maybe we are that fucked up, and that would be a ciricumstance in which I'd feel more comfortable voting for Clark. But I think if it reached that point, Republicans are going to win, so that it was would be net sum zero gain if Americans were driven that far.

[Bonobo]

35. Again, underlying your point, is the implicit assertion that

because he is a general, he will have fascistic tendencies. And I do not accept that implication.

[AP]

42. I'm in no way suggesting that. I've said that he may be a great person

(and he may be a great liberal) but he's not sufficiently a symbol of what's wrong with America and how to fix it.

It will make it very hard for him to beat the people with whom he's trying to contrast himself, and it will make it very hard for him to turn his presidency into a referendum on those issues.

Clinton was able to have his presidency turn on the question of how to make the middle class wealthy because he was a great symbol of that.

Furthermore, Clinton's presidency probably saw the greatest shift in the way Americans thought about race, due in no small part to the fact of his own biography.

Symbols are powerful. I'm not sure that Clark is the right symbol, historically speaking.

[Bonobo]

45. Well stated. Let's just agree to diagree.

Actually, I'm one of those that think America is THAT fucked up.

[BootinUp]

40. This argument is a house of cards..please allow me to

pull the card.

The only way this argument makes any sense, is if you accept that Generals are Generals and offer nothing more to the job of President due to their unique personality, life experiences, heart, soul, or intelligence. In fact you basically write off any of these factors as being in Clark's favor as the best candidate without even looking at them. Therefore the house of cards comes down.

Next house?

[DU GrovelBot]

29. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[returnable]

37. Your problem with Clark is...

...that your man Edwards can't knock him out :hi:

[Democrats unite]

43. For so little words

You are absolutely right!

[Justice]

46. Amen To That

[AP]

49. We'll see what happens today.

[Justice]

51. Ah, At Least Now You Are Being Honest!

as opposed to just getting some stuff off your chest.

I've no problem saying Edwards is a good guy. I wish him well. But I don't need to try to drag down Edwards to make Clark look good. Clark looks good all on his own.

[AP]

53. I've been honest throughout. Read my last post which is below.

I'm stating my honest opinions and I have only one vested interest: as an American, I want this country to have the best president possible.

[Justice]

62. So You Want Clark Then?

We all have opinions about who would be best, but the most persuasive cases are not made by bashing the other guys.

[AP]

65. Not sure I'm bashing here.

I'm actually complimenting Clark personally, and just showing concern about what he's a symbol of.

[jpgpenn]

50. You are correct sir!

:yourock:

[AP]

52. I've admitted as much.

I don't think Clark could beat Bush. I think Edwards could. I think Clark is standing in the way of a Kerry vs Edwards debate.

And I'm SO willing to admit I've got it wrong, if I'm proven wrong.

And I totally appreciate that Clark supporters feel exactly the same way I feel, except they'd like to replace Edwards with Clark, above.

I don't think we should be discouraging discussions like the one I'm trying to have here just because I'm not the only person who feels this way.

[jpgpenn]

55. so let me get this right!

You say "Clark is standing in the way" of Kerry and Edwards, then you say," your willing to admit you are wrong if proven wrong"....so you want us and the future of our country to hinge on your belief system?

...and you are also wrong that as a Clark supporter I would feel exactly like you if the candidates were reversed. all I ever wanted was Clark to get the air time that guiys like Kerry, Dean and edwards have got. I knew that once Clark had as much as a fair shot as they had it wouldn't take much for most of the voters to feel as I do. One thing stood in the way of that, the repukes and media refised to show Clark at all and in the very limited times he was shown it was in a very negative way.

[AP]

57. I can't see this future. I can only say that I believe Clark can't beat Bu

and I can only say that I believe America would embrace Edwards's vision of America rather than Kerry's, in a fair fight on a level playing field.

If I turn out to be wrong -- if Kerry beats Edwards straight up or if Clark is sworn in as president next year -- I'll say I was wrong.

There's no shame in having an opinion based on history and logic and passionately advocating it.

I think Clark got a ton of air time up to the time he announced. He was the ONLY think anyone talked about for a month last summer.

As soon as he announced, he started getting the heat and he wilted. Kerry got the heat too and came back.

[Justice]

68. Clark can beat Bush

no question in my mind.

There is no reason Clark should exit the race, as far as I am concerned he and Edwards are running a dead heat. There are compelling reasons that make them both attractive as candidates.

[citizen snips]

54. I just don't like these negative attacks from Clark.

Personally Clark is a great guy who will make a great president. But now that he is starting to attack other candidates I am starting to dislike him. If he stops these attacks than I will have no hard feelings.

[jpgpenn]

56. Where were you when...

Kerry was calling Clark a repuke back near the Iowa election? Funny, I didn't see a post by you hammer away at Kerry for going this low. Also where were you when your own candidate posted on his own website that he finished "TIED" with Clark in Ok. even though he lost by more then 1200 votes!

[citizen snips]

58. You missed my point.

If Kerry called Clark a repuke than bad for him. But I said I don't like these negtive attacks by Clark and if he stops it I won't hold any hard feelings for against him. And oh yeah OK is old news anyway.

[jpgpenn]

64. "OK is old news anway", LOL

nuff said! Thanks for showing up!

[AP]

59. I don't remember that. I do remember Dean giving lots of heat to Clark

along with giving it to everyone else.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. Yeah, that did go down

One of Kerry's staff went so far as to call Clark , literally, a Republican Lobbyist - no hedging of words involved, and Kerry's campaign put out literature which stopped just short of saying that made but essentially said it anyway (voted for Republicans and other crap combined).

[jpgpenn]

66. The campaign flyers DIDN'T stop short

They said it in full words. I no longer kept the link to the flyer , perhaps someone else will provide them!

[library_max]

67. We need to cut this shit out.

Taking cheap shots at those candidates who are not our first choice is dumb, dumb, dumb. It makes us and our candidate look bad. It antagonizes the supporters of the target candidate and makes them less likely to support our guy in the event that he is nominated. It debases the debate and invites retaliation.

Whoever ends up being nominated, that candidate is going to need the full and enthusiastic support of the supporters of all the other candidates. The more we crap on each other, the harder that's going to be.

[Bread and Circus]

69. I don't like Edwards at all anymore, he seems like a big phony.

[jpgpenn]

70. agreed, Trial Lawyer are known for giving people that feeling!

[tishaLA]

71. I agree too

To me, he is Lieberman without the relatively progressive stand on civil rights. I could never vote for him.

[hippywife]

72. I don't want to type this all again...

so here is the link to my problem with him:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=299976&mesg_id=302446&page=

It's not a slam or a flame at his character. It's just taking a man at his word.