I used to go by the name "Clarkie1" here, and I'm here to tell you General Clark is wrong.

[calteacherguy]

I worked my ass off for Clark in 04', and I've just been banned from posting blogs at his site because I put up a positive entry about Obama's leadership in calling for increased opportunities for national and international service. It's dissappointing coming from such an advocate of "dissent," but that's politics.

Clark made several statements before endorsing Hillary that he was very "uncomfortable" with Kyl-Lieberman. He has since changed his tune.

I still have a great deal of respect for the man, but I'm here to tell you that in my opinion, from this strongest advocate of General Clark in 04' (and yes, even for a couple of weeks after he endorsed Hillary) he is wrong on Kyl-Lieberman, and wrong when he says "Obama started it."

That's my opinion, from a long-time Clark supporter. Take it as you will.

[msongs]

1. good thing obama voted NO on kyl-lieberman to show his position nt

[calteacherguy]

3. Better than voting for it. nt

[Clintonista2]

9. “Pathetic response from camp Obama, given that he didn't even bother to vote." -Calteacherguy

"Pathetic response from camp Obama, given that he didn't even bother to vote."

""Hillary supporters will also note that Obama co-sponsored a bill designating the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, though the Obama campaign has said that their objection to Kyl wasn't to that facet of it but to the fact that it blamed Iran for problems in Iraq."

"Sounds to me like the Obama campaign is looking for any sort of excuse they can muster to throw mud at Clinton, frankly.""

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3592288#3595118


OOPSIES? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Good Catch

ROTFLMFAO

[Clintonista2]

24. I've posted that quote about 3 times in different threads for Calguy...he ignores it each time

*Yawn*- just more Calguy hypocracy.

[calteacherguy]

47. I understand.

It hurts worse coming from a former supporter than someone who never was....but I'm not going away.

[cuke]

160. He never responds when his "misstatements" are revealed

[Clintonista2]

182. No kidding. He has ZERO integrity

I can understand people switching candidates, that's perfectly normal. But I just love his approach. First he was supporting Obama. Everything that Obama did was right, and everything that Clinton did was wrong. Then he became a "Clinton supporter," and suddenly all of those "right things" Obama had done became horribly wrong, and all those "wrong things" that Clinton had done became right. Then he switches back to Obama, and once again, Obama is right about everything, Clinton is wrong about everything.

His ability to switch his opinion on every issue depending on who he is supporting, is extremely Orwellian, and deeply troubling. I thought DU was a forum for freethinkers.

[calteacherguy]

45. I was doing my best to support Clark's choice for a couple of weeks.

Despite my better judgment. I'm not promoting anyone's agenda now except my own opinion...as Shakespeare said, "to thine own self be true."

[Occam Bandage]

109. So you admit to being dishonest to support "your guy?"

Why would you expect anyone to take you seriously after that?

[MattSh]

141. Maybe he'll be taken seriously because...

Who on this board will remember what's said in this thread next week?

Except maybe you and 2 others.

:hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

132. You Like Shakespeare

" ... it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."


How do you like that Shakespeare?

[MethuenProgressive]

137. Will the real Clarkie1/Calteacher please stand up?

Looks like he's trying to get a seat at the 'cool kid's table' by copying what ever trend is fashionable at the time.

[rodeodance]

ha ha

[rucky]

152. What do you say to the candidates who did vote No? n/t

[calteacherguy]

2. delete. nt

[durrrty libby]

4. Oh indeed..You are sooo much more knowledgeable and credible than General Clark

get over yourself:boring: :crazy:

[calteacherguy]

6. As I said, take it as you will.

Your response is what I would expect from a Hillary supporter. Just don't assume all (or even most) Clark supporters are supportive of his endorsement of Hillary. We are not. We are a very independent lot...that's why a lot of us were attracted to Clark in the first place.

I do hate to see such a man casting his lot with the Titanic.

[Cameron27]

5. k

[ClarkUSA]

7. You were great as Clarkie1 and you're terrific as calteacherguy

Sorry that happened to you, PC. Send me an email, will ya?

[surfermaw]

8. The only reason he was in the race was to stop Edwards

If Clark hadn't gotten in at the same time as Edwards, we could possibly have edwards in the White House now. Clark in my opinion was running interference for one now in the race,however I will vote for the person selected in our primaries.

[Cameron27]

11. You keep spreading this nonsense,

how about backing it up with some proof.

[Inspired]

16. I have no proof but this is has been talked about for years.

The General's endorsement of Hillary Clinton is really the only proof I need for confirmation of this widely known 'rumor'.

[Cameron27]

18. Lots of things have been talked about for years,

and not just about Wes Clark, but on this board, I try to deal in facts and sourced information, not in innuendo and speculation.

[JI7]

96. hahha, you claimed Edwards would have won Iowa if Clark did not run there

well, Clark DIDN'T run in Iowa.

[1932]

138. Suferma didn't say that, btw.

[JI7]

172. she did say it in another thread some time back

[Clark2008]

131. Or to stop Dean... depending on what stupid shit you believe.

No... he was in the race because 50,000 people asked him to be.

Geesch.

[elizm]

10. Clark disappointed me in 2004...but even more so in 2007.

What a shame. Too bad he let his ambition for VP cloud his vision so much.

[Cameron27]

12. His vision is fine,

and he's backing someone he believes in.

[calteacherguy]

120. He has a good vision for the country (putting aside his choice of candidate)

which I believe was probably based on the known vs. the unknown more than anything else.

He's a great asset to the Party and to America.

I'm sure Obama will listen to his counsel.

[mtnsnake]

13. Holy shit, I just got a unique email message from Wes Clark

Dear mtnsnake,

As you know, I am endorsing Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States because I feel she is the best choice for America. Working together, we can all make a difference for the Democratic Party by calling for change. Speaking of change, please tell calteacherguy that I appreciate him changing his name from Clarkie1 to anything without the name Clark in it. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

Best regards,
General Wesley Clark, retired

[Cameron27]

17. There ya go!

:rofl:

[durrrty libby]

21. Hey..I got one too, but he didn't mention any losers.Lucky me

[dionysus]

25. did you hear that at the railway station?

[AuntPatsy]

163. That was cute.

:7

[gulliver]

15. I still have to go with Clark and his support of Hillary

I think Hillary would take us back to Clinton-style govenment. I know that worked, and I want it back. Obama is an unknown. Of course, Obama or whoever else wins the nomination if Hillary doesn't will get my vote in the GE.

[Adelante]

19. I will tell you

You've been over there promoting a candidate (who is also my candidate, btw) in opposition to the one Clark endorsed in the primaries. It's his frigging website. He gets to endorse and promote his candidates. Do you really think that was appropriate of you? I wouldn't have dreamed of doing such a thing. You're the one who is WRONG. You should have used your fucking head for once and respected HIS space.

[durrrty libby]

22. He has a tough time with boundaries. Truly shameful

[Cameron27]

23. Yes, that's one of his problems.

[durrrty libby]

26. I know...Not enough bandwith

:rofl:

[dionysus]

27. you're sure one to talk about being shameful...

:rofl:

[durrrty libby]

33. WOW my stalker is back

:nuke: :scared: :nuke:

[dionysus]

87. LOL... a quick perusal of your posts and noticing your nasty attitude

does not the stalker make...

why, i abhor ugliness, that's why i must point it out once in a while when i see people do it.

[last_texas_dem]

124. I'll second you on that one. nt

[KoKo]

20. Well you aren't the only one who "worked ass off" for Candidate and felt betrayed so join the club..

at least you are honest about your feelings. And, it's sad when it happens...but at least you are sticking up for what you believe.

[faithfulcitizen]

28. I am Clarkie too.

I too am disappointed about his support for her candidacy. BUT, I also understand that he is a loyal friend. My guess is he doesn't agree with her about Iraq or Iran, but nevertheless supports her in general and trusts her. I just disagree with him on that and I don't trust her. I still admire and respect him deeply for how he has served our country and spoken truth to power when others wouldn't. Just my 2 cents.

GO BIDEN! :)

[calteacherguy]

42. I feel the same as you regarding Clark.

And I think Biden has many great qualities. He's a fine candidate. We have great choices this time around.

[NCarolinawoman]

29. I was just over at CCN, and you were not banned from the site.

You posted two blogs in a row, and one slammed Hillary in the same way that you do here. The pro-Obama blog is still up, last time I looked.

I am a Joe Biden supporter and have posted some nice things about Joe over there and so have some other people. Heck, there have been a lot of nice things about Obama stated, and then there is the usual back and forth discussion.

Having said all that, I would never think to start a blog slamming Hillary Clinton on General Clark's own web-site. Don't you think that's kind of unseemly and in your face? Frankly, I appreciate the fact that I, and others, are welcomed into the discussion when I say nice things about Joe Biden.

[durrrty libby]

55. HA...I have never been to that site and I called it.

boundary problems and considering his supposed profession....that could be troublesome

[DemocratSinceBirth]

133. I Want To See Him Respond To That

You can't go to other folks websites and slam the candidate of their choice...For those that know basketball it would be like going to the Los Angeles Lakers website and saying Kobe Bryant sucks or going to the Cleveland Cavaliers website and and saying LeBron James sucks... You're going to get reamed and you're going to get your posts scrubbed.

It's beyond troubling that a self professed teacher is so unaware of boundaries...

[Connie_Corleone]

30. I unsubscribed from his emails.

I was part of the Draft Clark movement in the summer of 2003. I gave the maximum amount to his campaign in the primary season. It was the first time I ever gave money to someone running for office. I mailed letters to voters in New Hampshire for him. I used to post on his website under username "sneaky".

I didn't have a problem with him endorsing Hillary. I expected as much. But, the whole "Obama started it" nonsense was it for me.

On edit: I didn't know the OP had posted a comment blasting Hillary on the CCN website. Obviously, that's not going to stand since Clark supports Hillary. It's common sense.

[ClarkUSA]

38. The OP did not do that, Connie.

His posts were pro-Obama.

[Adelante]

50. Yes, he did post an anti-Hillary blog in addition

I read it.

[ClarkUSA]

66. Ah. I haven't seen it...

Recently, his blogs have been pro-Obama.

[Adelante]

69. How you been, btw?

You still in the same place? You know I live in Mexico now, right?

[mtnsnake]

76. Where bouts

Where in Mexico?

My wife and I went there a couple years ago for a week's vacation. Visited Guadaljara, Manzanillo, and then Puerto Vallarta. It was awesome.

[Adelante]

81. It's a wonderful country

I live in Zacatecas, a really beautiful colonial city in a high desert area. I love it here. The people are so nice to me. They get a laugh out of my lousy Spanish, but I can't blame them for that.

[mtnsnake]

86. It really is

We found the people to be really kind wherever we went. I hope we can make it back there someday.

[Adelante]

88. Let me know if you're ever coming my way, snake

:hi:

[mtnsnake]

92. If I'm down that way, most certainly will, my friend

:hi:

[Auntie Bush]

99. Is that area safe for vacationing?

We were thinking about going somewhere in northwest Mexico on vacation...but my husband heard it was very dangerous so we decided
not to go. I'm glad you like it there. I bet is smells a lot better
than NJ.

[Adelante]

100. Very, very safe here, Auntie B

Really, the biggest news is car accidents. Every single one hits the front page.

[rinsd]

54. Yes he did.

He also wasn't banned.

Apparently the OP much like you has a problem with the truth.

[ClarkUSA]

64. Link?

Because the blogs I have read by the OP recently have all been pro-Obama. And you're one to talk about problems with the truth
considering your supporting the Madrassa smear candidate's campaign.

[Tom Rinaldo]

140. See Post #50. WesDem saw it also and she is supporting Obama

Do you really expect Clark's website to leave a blog up that is bashing Hillary Clinton? How crazy would that be? Of course there is no "link" to give you now.

[durrrty libby]

31. You do know that he did "start it"

He said that he hadn't been planning to run for president for as long as some other people,
or something close to that stupid shit

Too bad you don't pay attention. You teach actual human children?:dunce: :hangover: :hurts: :beer: :scared: :thumbsdown: :shrug:

[Cameron27]

32. Well it was the fact that he attacked Clinton

by saying that she's wanted it for 20 years or something, while he didn't. If he didn't attack her with something that he's said or done himself, he wouldn't get a response. Even with Kyl-Lieberman, if he hadn't attacked Clinton, not many would care that he didn't vote himself.

[Connie_Corleone]

34. I seem to remember something about "naive and irresponsible" coming out of Hillary's mouth.

That was way before any of this latest stuff. But, this isn't kindergarten. It's the whole "who attacked who first" crap that is ridiculous. No one told Hillary she couldn't defend herself and point out differences between herself and the candidates. That's what you're supposed to do.

It's the complaining of being attacked that gets on my nerves. Don't whine about it. Fight back, but be adult about it.

[Cameron27]

36. Yes and Bush/Cheney lite

came out of Obama's, and so did Bob Novak. But I agree with you, I think she made a mistake with the kindergarten joke because the media tore her apart for it. The primary is dirty and ugly, and no one's clean. I can't wait for it to be over.

[Connie_Corleone]

39. "I can't wait for it to be over" --You and me both. LOL!!

[Cameron27]

40. I'll tell you something Connie,

I'm not going to lose online friends over it. Some posters eh, who cares, but there are a few Obama supporters, (like you and WesDem) and Biden, and Dodd supporters who I like & respect, and it's not worth going ballistic on this board.

[Adelante]

62. Well, I love you

:loveya:

I find myself biting my tongue and passing on discussions I know are going to go badly, because at the end of all this, the people I like and respect are going to still be here and I don't want to have to strain to regain a friendship or feel sadness because one's been lost. It's tough, though. It is. I so try to remain civil, but I so want to kick somebody's ass at the same time.

[Cameron27]

63. I feel the same way WD,

and I know I've gone over the top a few times, mostly because of certain posters (like the one who's out 'investigating'} but unless it's about Wes Clark, it's just not worth it to me.

[Adelante]

65. I'm trying to limit myself to defending Obama

In terms of issues and against misrepresentation. I don't want to be in the supporter wars, I really don't. It's not worth it. I'd rather add to my ever growing Ignore list, so I see more of sane discussion, what there is of it, and less of brute ignorance.

[earthlover]

43. Right! Hillary called obama "irresponsible and frankly naive"...IN JULY

To his credit, Obama didn't respond in kind at that time.

Now Hillary is going negative again.

I guess it doesn't matter if Hillary is ahead or behind....she goes negative either way.

Of course, it doesn't seem to be working for her any more....sorta looks desperate. Especially that crack about childhood....

[ClarkUSA]

48. Thanks for posting the FACTS, earthlover.

Somewhat predictably, Hillaryworlders have yet to acknowledge them. :eyes:

[rinsd]

52. Obama didn't respond?

EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA HITS CLINTON -- HARDER

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/25/290301.aspx

First Edwards supporters had amnesia and now Obama supporters?

:shrug:

[earthlover]

129. Obama responded on the issues, did not respond IN KIND to Clinton's personal attack

That's what I think Hillary supporters appear to miss. Their candidate attacked Obama PERSONALLY last July.

And it was also quite telling, since what Obama had said was he would talk not just with America's friends but enemies as well. I was shocked that a Democrat would attack such a sentiment in such a manner.

Obama's response, as pointed out in your article, had to do with issues and refuted Hillary's criticism. That is not the same thing as calling someone "irresponsible and frankly naive".

Back then it was all the thing for Hillary supporters to spread the meme that Obama was immature, did not have enough experience, was not ready for the big leagues, maybe he should try again later when he was ready, etc. Hillary only said what many of her supporters were spreading about Obama at the time (and some still do),

In an amazing pretzel logic, the same people can take disagreements with Hillary on the issues, even pointing out that she is slipping in the polls....in other words, NOT personal attacks....and call those who say it "HIllary haters".

I am afraid that some hillary haters are what has been written about as the "true beleiver".

[rinsd]

159. Bushlite ring any bells?

[FrenchieCat]

173. Here's some of the attacks.......chronicled in chronological order....

Clinton Counters "Vicious" Obama Attack, Defends Husband
February 21, 2007 10:26 AM

According to the New York Times, mega media mogul David Geffen, best known as the founder of Geffen Records and one-third of the Dreamworks trio including director Steven Speilberg and his-'Shrek'-ness David Katzenberg, blasted the Clinton camp, taking pointed shots at both Senator Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson responded sharply Wednesday morning, e-mailing a statement "demanding that Obama disavow personal attacks" and asserting, "While Senator Obama was denouncing slash and burn politics yesterday, his campaign's finance chair was viciously and personally attacking Senator Clinton and her husband."

Wolfson continued, "If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money," adding that there is "no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Senator Obama's principal fundraiser."

Under the header, "Obama's Big Screen Test," the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd wrote, "The Dreamworks co-chairman calls the former president "a reckless guy" who "gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country."

Geffen also said, "Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/hollywood_drama.html
---------------

Barack Obama apologizes for attack on Clinton
June 18, 2007

Sen. Barack Obama is now scrambling to soothe hurt feelings among some of his strongest supporters in the wake of a controversial attack memo last week poking fun at Sen. Hillary Clinton, his chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, for her ties to India and Indian-Americans.

Obama was working the apology phones today and planning a formal apology, distancing himself from the memo, which was headlined, "HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL TIES TO INDIA," It was prepared by the campaign's opposition research department and distributed to reporters last week in exchange for a promise that reporters not reveal the source. So much for trusting the reporters.

The memo got out.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/06/barack_obama_ap.html
----------------------

Edwards, Obama Attack Clinton on Lobbyists
08/06/07
Obama pointed that it is undoubtedly true that the reason why her health care plan of '93 was brutally flushed out was because of the massive blockade by pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists.

"You cannot say that the money did not make the difference. Those lobbyists are not just contributing to the public interest," said Obama.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/338851/edwards_obama_attack_clinton_on_lobbyists.html
-----------------

Thursday, October 18, 2007
Obama sustains attack on Clinton without naming her
http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-nevada-politics/2007/10/obama-sustains-attack-on-clinton.html
-----------------


Clinton's Foes Go on the Attack
10/30/07
Obama pursued Clinton most pointedly over her White House papers, most of which are still locked away in her husband's presidential library in Little Rock. She said that she had approved the release of the papers, a point that national archivists dispute.

"We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history, and not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem," Obama said. Clinton has built her candidacy on the assertion that she is the most experienced challenger in the race, in large part because of her time as first lady.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/30/AR2007103001940.html
---------

Although I support Obama over Hillary, I don't support those who care dogging out Wes Clark for the fact that he has something to say about this, even if I'd prefer that he didn't.

[Cameron27]

183. Thanks Frenchie.

[earthlover]

178. Bush Lite is an attack on policies too similar to Bush

[Maven]

35. How many times have you changed sides?

Geezus.

[Clintonista2]

37. I think this is #4?

[calteacherguy]

61. The rumors of my changing have been greatly exagerrated.

Seems Clinton supporters add about a change a week, LOL.

I understand how it feels to be jilted. But things change, and I do think it's way past time for everyone to move on. Accept it: I'm with Obama until the end.

He inspires me.

[ElizabethDC]

121. But you've abandoned Obama before, too

It was Obama for a while, then you made a big announcement about supporting Hillary, then you made another big announcement about about switching back to Obama. Does he only inspire you periodically?

[Progress And Change]

151. "Does he only inspire you periodically"

:spray:

[durrrty libby]

41. I know that if I changed candidates, I can't imagine trashing the one

I had previously supported. This is the behavior
of a jilted lover or something much.... more..... organic:scared:

[calteacherguy]

44. I'm not trashing Clark.

I respect him greatly. That doesn't mean I agree with him on everything. For instance, in my Congressional district, Clark supported a different candidate in the primary. My candidate went on to win the congressional seat. Of course, Clark supported the Democratic nominee for the district, and I will support whoever is the Democratic nominee.

In the meantime...GOBAMA!

[durrrty libby]

51. No you trashed 2 candidates who you once supported

No class..No scruples...No integrity

[calteacherguy]

56. An absolutely ridiculous assertion.

I do understand it always hurts more coming from a former supporter than someone who never supported. It's that way in all human affairs.

But that's the way it is. Has nothing to to with class, scruples, or integrity. It's just life. Things change.

I am sorry you feel jilted, but it can't be helped.

[durrrty libby]

57. Imbibe much?

:rofl:

[incapsulated]

90. No shit.

This is just silly.

[AlCzervik]

46. like Clark knows you were banned? Yes i'm sure he's sitting around on his throne

deciding whose head is coming off next.

[calteacherguy]

58. I am most certain he is not. LOL.

I have a great deal of respect for Clark's expertise in foreign affairs, and his integrity (although I have been disappointed of late, I understand his reasons).

He's a great American, and a great Democrat.

And Barack Obama is going to be the next President of the U.S.

[AlCzervik]

59. there you go, save the anger for the webmaster. I was for Dean last time round

but yes i voted for Kerry in the general, Dean broke my heart.

[Rowdyboy]

49. General Clark has earned the right to support whoever he chooses, my respect for him remains....

He knows and respects the Clintons personally. Considering their lengthy relationship, I'd be shocked if he supported anyone else. That said, I'm still voting for Edwards.

I don't think his choice of a candidate is wrong-its simply a choice that I don't share.

[Adelante]

53. I'm voting for Obama

But I feel exactly the same way. I feel no loss of respect for the General. He is still the great American he's ever been.

[NCarolinawoman]

78. Same here, WesDem.

I am a Bidenite and a Clarkie. No matter what happens in the primaries, most of us will be working
together again for our Democratic nominee.......Wes will surely be doing that.

and that includes you, too, CalTeacherguy.
:)

[calteacherguy]

60. I feel the same way.

Except for the Edwards thing. :-)

[Schema Thing]

67. Clarkie here who's liking what he sees in Biden

.... and hoping people will start looking beyond the beauty contest to the second tier.

Hillary would make a good president, I'm sure. I just think Biden has everything Clark says he sees in Clinton, and more of it, and a whole lotta potential for partisan reconciliation to go along with it. I think that latter is very important for America right now.

Obama and Edwards? They really are both just the sum of their speeches, padded by their ability to inspire hope (see: speeches), imo. Nice enough I suppose, but not reason to vote to place them in the most important job in the world, at this critical point in time.

[calteacherguy]

70. I understand your choice. I think Biden has some great qualites.

And his expertise in foreign affairs will continue to be valued by all Democrats.

I do perhaps put a higher premium than you though on the ability to inspire the people and generate hope. That's not just fluff..it's critical. I have no doubts about Obama's honesty, integrity, intelligence, and ability to lead. He listens. That's important in a President, and the opposite of what we have now! He takes his time, but he's also bold and he will say what he believes people need to hear, not what they want to hear.

He's what America needs now, in my view. Just my 2 cents.

[Auntie Bush]

105. My sentiments exactly.

[Eurobabe]

154. Seems like alot of us have migrated to Biden

:hi:

[Schema Thing]

156. Cool!

I'd feel a lot better about our country if Biden even got an honest look from folks before this primary thing is all over.

[BootinUp]

68. Opinions are like assholes

thats what I heard.

[AlCzervik]

71. everybody has one and knows many?

[calteacherguy]

73. Something like that, I believe. LOL. nt

[jenmito]

72. I feel the same way...

and although I still listened to him and respected what he had to say after endorsing Hillary, I saw a shift from an honest general to a partisan TH, unfortunately. I used to have a Clark avatar. But now he's outright lying for Hillary. I feel terrible about this, but that's how I see it.

[mtnsnake]

74. How nice of you to call General Clark a liar

But now he's outright lying for Hillary.

Sorry but he isn't lying. He's right and you're wrong.

[durrrty libby]

75. Sickening disgusting stooges...That is all

[mtnsnake]

80. They're consistent anyway

They don't care who they slander if it fulfills their purpose of sour grapes. What a bunch of babies

[jenmito]

82. He lied. He said Obama started this "back and forth" by saying he announced he's going to attack

Hillary. He never said that. Hence, he lied. He also changed his position on the Kyl-Lieberman bill. Sorry. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

[Jai4WKC08]

166. Bullshit

It was no lie. Obama may not have used the word "attack" but he said the exact same thing in essence. He definitely threw down the gauntlet.

I wouldn't believe Hillary could stand up to Repubs if she'd have taken Obama's challenge lying down. But that's not the point.

Clark has always been one who could see the reality of things, underneath the slick veneer of pretty words. And he's always been one to call things like he sees 'em, giving it too us straight up, whether we want to hear it or not.

You can spin the conflict any way that makes you feel good, but to call Clark a liar is to lose touch with reality.

[jenmito]

168. Clarks own words:

“I was at the debate in Philadelphia,” Clark said in a Wednesday conference call with reporters organized by the Clinton campaign. “That’s where it really started, and I think it started with Barack advertising that he was going to go on the offensive and start attacking.”

"Attacking" is very different from directly engaging someone. :eyes:

[BootinUp]

169. Its amazing you are disputing it. Did you even watch the debate?

How about if I go scrounge around the net for some news reports from after the debate. Lets see we could look at liberal blogs, MSM coverage, conservative blogs, where do you want me to start jen?

[jenmito]

170. I'm stating a fact. And I posted Clark's quote which shows him saying

Obama said he's going to start ATTACKING. I sure DID watch the debate. Scrounge around all you want. I watched not only the debate, where EDWARDS was the aggressive one, but I remember the analysis after the debate where most people said the same thing-that Edwards was the one who was so aggressive and MEAN, even, while Obama was more subdued. Start wherever you want!

[BootinUp]

174. You're not really serious, this is some kind of bad joke.

Maybe you and ClarkUSA are auditioning for a spin room job or something. I'm impressed with how you can spin fantasies, let me know if you need a rec or something.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/us/politics/31debate.html?ref=politics

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York came under withering attack from the rest of the Democratic presidential field last night in a pitched two-hour debate that her opponents used to challenge her candor and electability and to portray her as enabling President Bush to prepare for an invasion of Iran.

It was the seventh time the candidates had met and it was strikingly different in tone from any of the prior debates. At times, it seemed that Mrs. Clinton was parrying criticism from every corner of the stage, reflecting the vulnerabilities that come from being a high-visibility candidate who has built large leads in national polls with just two months to go until the first vote.

The tone of the debate, which was sponsored by NBC News, had been established before the candidates walked onto the stage at Drexel University in Philadelphia, when Senator Barack Obama of Illinois proclaimed in an interview over the weekend that “now is the time” to begin drawing tough distinctions with Mrs. Clinton.

He did so almost immediately, accusing Mrs. Clinton of “changing positions whenever it’s politically convenient,” pointing to the North American Free Trade Agreement, torture and the war on Iraq. “Now, that may be politically savvy, but I don’t think that it offers the clear contrast that we need,” Mr. Obama said. “I think what we need right now is honestly with the American people about where we would take the country.”

[jenmito]

175. Thanks for quoting his own words:

The tone of the debate, which was sponsored by NBC News, had been established before the candidates walked onto the stage at Drexel University in Philadelphia, when Senator Barack Obama of Illinois proclaimed in an interview over the weekend that “now is the time” to begin drawing tough distinctions with Mrs. Clinton.

That's not attacking. Try again.

[BootinUp]

176. What a waste of time. nt

[jenmito]

177. You're not very good at trying to prove your point.

[BootinUp]

179. lol nt

[Jai4WKC08]

185. "Edwards was the one who was so aggressive and MEAN, even, while Obama was more subdued."

More subdued, but doing essentially the same thing. Just a matter of style really. And letting Edwards take the lead.

You're in denial if you can't see what Obama is up to. This is hardball politics and Obama is playing to win. That means attacking Hillary. And that's exactly what he's doing. Nothing wrong with it, but playing Mr Nice Guy while you try to set your opponent up for the kill is at best hypocrisy of the first order; at worst it's blatant dishonesty. LOL -- it's also precisely what we all condemned Edwards for back in 03.

Clark did not lie. He characterized Obama's behavior as attacking. If you refuse to see it that way, fine. I think you're being blind, but that's your privilege. But you have NO right to deny Clark the legitimacy in calling it like he sees it.

And I go back to this all boiling down to Hillary-hatred, and you're only fooling yourself if you think otherwise. If Clark had endorsed ANYONE else, we would not be having this conversation. We all (Clarkies and former Clarkies, that is) would accept that he is working for what he believes is best for the nation, even if we disagree with him, and take what he says at face value (instead of parsing what "attack" means) and questioning his motives or this honesty. There are a lot of Clarkies who are now supporting Obama, Biden, Richardson, but still respecting Clark enough to recognize his right to support his own choice.

[Cameron27]

77. Well I used to respect you,

but calling Wes a liar is something I'll never respect.

[jenmito]

83. I will try not to lose any sleep over it.

[Cameron27]

85. I'm sure you won't,

and frankly, I could care less.

[jenmito]

89. Awww, thanks...

If you said you COULDN'T care less, THAT might bother me. ;) (Or not).

[ClarkUSA]

79. What does TH mean?

Email me, if you want. :pals:

[jenmito]

84. Talking Head.

Sorry for my comment, but it really hurt me to hear him saying these things once he became a Hillary-supporter and not just a brilliant general who had no ulterior motives. :hi:

[ClarkUSA]

93. Don't be sorry.

You're right. :hi:

[Jai4WKC08]

158. Well I'm disgusted with the both of you

My God, I guess Hillary-hate means more to you than loyalty to anyone.

You should be deeply, deeply ashamed.

[jenmito]

162. That's too bad, because

it has nothing to do with "Hillary-hate" and everything to do with a previously non-partial general (who I wish would've won in '04 let alone run this time) who has started getting "in the game" in a negative way just to support his candidate. He changed his position on Kyl-Lieberman after Hillary voted for it AND he said Obama "started it" (the "attacks") by saying he was going to go on the attack. Obama NEVER said he was going to go on the attack. The media spun his words about being more direct in pointing out distinctions between them as "going on the attack." If you forgot, in that debate when everyone EXPECTED him to "go on the attack" he said right away that he was NOT going to be attacking her but pointing out the differences. And as a matter of fact, it was EDWARDS who turned out to "go on the attack" in that debate and afterwards. It's sad to see Wes Clark being dragged into the Clintons' games.

[jenmito]

164. Thanks, ClarkUSA

:hi:

[incapsulated]

91. And we should give a flip, why?

Lemme tell you something, you were never anything more than a pain in the ass for Clark supporters.

Good riddance.

[Bluebear]

94. "Get out of Iraq now" is not a plan for success . . .oh GREAT thread!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5608921

[DemocratSinceBirth]

134. "Infant Democracy"

LOL

[FrenchieCat]

95. This is disgusting!

I'm not sure how we are all supposed to get behind the nominee once these primaries are over considering that DU has turned into a silly ass playground.

Clark can support who he wants, and he has told enough truths for the benefit of the entire Democratic party and for these United States. If he has chosen to be a partisan at this time, so be it.

This denouncing shit of one you so supported is silly and stoopid.

I am supporting Obama more than anyone else, but the dumb shit that I have witnessed from both the Hillary camp and the Obama camp will not bring a surprise from me when Edwards and Biden end up winning Iowa. For neither (Obama and Hillary) to realize that they are currently playing the "Dean & Gephard" roles in this election at this time is sheer lunacy. We have too many problems that we share for this primary to be reduced to this.

I will say that I am disappointed with the Wes "He started it" email that I received.....but Wes Clark has done enough good in totality, that I wouldn't dream of starting a "He is wrong" Op. It is so over the top and shows that you did not improve simply by changing your Screen Name. As Clarkie1 you were irritating to me, and I find you to be just as irritating now....but at least Clark doesn't have to be associated with your attack posts any longer. That is the only solace that I can find in this circus you call a thread.

[calteacherguy]

101. As I said in the OP, I still have a lot of respect for the man.

But the most important thing now is not to support Clark's choice; it's to get Barack Obama elected President of the U.S.

I am in no way "denouncing" him. I agree with:

"Clark can support who he wants, and he has told enough truths for the benefit of the entire Democratic party and for these United States. If he has chosen to be a partisan at this time, so be it."

Perhaps I should have included more of that sort of language in the OP. I have said as much elsewhere.

As far as "he is wrong" I meant that in response to his claiming "Obama started it" and the flip-flop on Kyl-Lieberman. The implication of the thread started today by a Clinton supporter is that all those who support Clark would support his views on this two items. That needs to be refuted, and refuted strongly.

Yes, Clark has chosen to be partisan, and that is fine. It seems to be the season for that.

[IA_Seth]

108. Anti-Hillary posts at CCN does NOT equal respect..

Look, I don't have a problem with you, I've enjoyed your posts in the past and I can understand your disappointment/frustration/discontent with Clark's endorsement of Hillary, I struggled with his endorsement (and the loss of his possible candidacy) myself, but to post an anti-Hillary blog on Clark's website is not respectful.

[calteacherguy]

123. Politics is politcs. I hoped to change a few minds over there.

I would be disrespectful to myself not to express my opinions, on Clark's blog or anywhere else. And I will never stop, until forced to do so. This may be the politics of hope...but it's still hardball. As Clark said today asking for help for Hillary's floundering Iowa campaign,:

"It's so close that anything -- no matter how small it may seem -- can make a difference. It could be one group of voters I talked to yesterday. It could be a donation you make today that puts Hillary over the top. I know from experience that everything we do at this critical moment matters."

Politics is politics. I said nothing negative about Hillary, only positive things about Obama. Perhaps I changed or at least opened some minds. Perhaps I made the difference. I still respect Clark's views on world issues and his character. In that arena he has no equal.

You may call it disrespect for Clark, I call it doing everything possible to help Obama win. I did not smear her. I will not stoop to that level.

The poltics of hope should not be confused with softball.

[Tom Rinaldo]

171. Let me make sure I got this straight.

You say here "Politics is politics" to explain why you used Clark's own web site to campaign for a person running against the person who Clark is campaigning for himself. You say you hoped to "change some minds" there, which would of course include trying to get some of the people who were influenced to support Hillary Clinton by the arguments for her that Wes Clark has made, to change their minds and oppose the person Wes Clark is supporting. And you say that you will continue to express those feelings, on Wes Clark's blog or anywhere, until you are forced to stop.

Let's go back to the begining then; "politics is politics". In your OP you specifically said that you were disappointed in Wes Clark for not allowing you to openly and strenuously campaign for Obama at Clark's own site. But you admit that a more subtle type of feedback that gets periodically expressed at CCN about needing to stay mindful of the fact that we are all guests there on Clark's site will not stop you from pressing ahead to use Clark's site to try to change minds toward a person opposing Clark's own choice. Plenty of criticism of Clinton is toletated there inside the context of any number of discussions about issues, but most of us understand that it crosses a line to use Clark's own site to either trash Clinton or recruit supporters for a candidate running against the woman who WesPAC is supporting.

I'm sorry but politics is politics, just like you said. There is a political campaign going on and Wes Clark's web site does not owe you a right to use it to argue against Clark's political agenda. You said you would never stop until you were forced to. It appears to me like you forced them to force you to stop. You can call your behavior respectful if you want, but it does not fit my definition of that word.

[calteacherguy]

180. Well, Tom.

I do still have a great deal of respect for Clark, but that certainly won't stop me from supporting who I believe is the best choice for President of the U.S. on Clark's site or any other site. The Presidency is pretty damn important. At this point, that trumps the rest.

Imagine two football teams in the Superbowl. Does it show a lack of respect for the other team to do everything possible to win, barring things such a cheating? Of course not. Both teams expect that.

I agree with what you said, otherwise. I was surprised I wasn't shut down earlier. I don't feel it's wrong for Clark to control what's on his site, but I'm going to call it as a see it when I think he's wrong and when I think he's right. And for the record, I never "trashed" Hillary there. I believe in the politics of hope, not trash.

[mtnsnake]

167. Amen, Frenchie. Obama himself would be embarrassed by all the shit some of his supporters here spew

about Hillary or about General Clark

[Cha]

97. I remember those

"first couple a weeks"..because I took note that you're for Obama now. Thank you for your observations and your reporting.

[calteacherguy]

103. My loyalty to Clark went and still goes a long way.

He is a great asset to the Party. But the end I realized my loyalty could not go that far. I will still post postive threads regarding Clark's thoughts on world issues. He's a man who does need to be listened too...and I hope Obama will.

[Cha]

107. I'm sure you gave

me grief in 2004 as I was a passionate Dean Supporter..this time I'm just observing so far..but your General Clark endorsed the one candidate that has done nothing but disappoint me here in New York. She didn't speak for us..she spoke for Middle America and now, disgustingly, she's scurrying around defending her Iranian Guard Terrorist, "YAY", vote.

[calteacherguy]

115. I understand.

Let's leave 2004 in 2004.

[Cha]

119. It was just a little

history..some of my best DU cyber buddies are Kerry Supporters whom I was always locking horns with back in the day(2004):)

[MalloyLiberal]

98. Clark will do anything to be VP or be in the administration

Sad, sad.

[Donna Zen]

112. And you know this...how?

Anyone watching this all unfold must realize by now that Senator Clinton and her team are politicians all the way. I don't mean that comment to be a judgment for or against; I'm just watching the parade go by. Hillary's VP will be someone who brings the standard political "gifts": money, operations, and above all, location. General Clark brings none of this to a Clinton ticket.

Thus, to somehow turn General Clark's support of Hillary as his "do anything" for a job is absolutely wrong. Team Clinton has a host of surrogates stumping around for them, and if you listen, they all say nearly the same thing. Maybe they say it because they believe every word, although it is just as likely that they get talking points around which they craft their message. Is everyone of these folks lining up for a job? No likely.

I have noticed that General Clark does get exercised whenever Hillary is attacked. Honestly, I think he actually likes her...24 years is a long time to be friends.

As for K-L: yes, I will never agree with that vote. The defense of the travesty is that it helps with diplomatic efforts...bullshit. There are no diplomatic efforts, and calling people terrorists will not help the cause.

I am not a Clinton supporter. Her foreign policy team, that does not list the name Clark, is filled with people that I don't want in power. Starting with O'Hanlon, and the asshole Lee Feinstein, the list reads like "old thinking" neoliberal CFR trouble brewing. Those are people in line for the jobs. Yep, that is a comment against her...

[Catherine Vincent]

102. That's just like an Obama supporter....

Trash a candidate you once respected just because he supports someone you don't like.

[calteacherguy]

104. How can you say I am trashing Clark?

I have great respect for the man. Please read the OP again and the rest of the thread!

[Catherine Vincent]

111. Not you per se but your other comrades in this thread. nt

[calteacherguy]

113. Comrades?

Look...in politics nobody is going to be in absolute agreement with everyone else on all issues. "Comrades" implies a sort of blind adherence...like, well the communist Party or something.

I'm not sure I"m quite to the point of having "comrades" here. Fellow Obama suporters, maybe. None of us will agree on everything.

Oh, and why doesn't Hillary want to be VP? :-)

[Sparkly]

106. I trust General Clark more than I trust anyone here.

If he says he doesn't see K/L authorizing the Chimp to invade Iran (especially considering the resolution that passed afterward, specifically saying he may not), I believe him. This man does NOT want to see an invasion of Iran -- he's been out there against it earlier and more vocally than anyone.

[Auntie Bush]

114. I trust him too! Also, Clark KNOWS both Clinton's very well and if he

thinks Hillary would make a good president...then I think so too. He should know and I'm sure he knows what he is talking about. I frankly think many of the things people say about Hillary aren't true. If they were...he wouldn't support her!

[calteacherguy]

117. Why do you think he tried so hard to "find a way" to run against her?

It appears to me Obama has found what eluded Clark.

[Sparkly]

142. I don't know what you're talking about.

My point is that General Clark knows a lot more than anybody here, and nobody cares more about avoiding war with Iran than he does.

I trust his judgment on this issue.

[Cameron27]

148. Me too Sparkly,

when it comes to foreign policy, he knows what he's talking about.

[Hippo_Tron]

110. Hillary is smart to make usage of General Clark

Hope Obama does the same when he wins the nomination.

[calteacherguy]

116. Agreed. nt

[FrenchieCat]

118. What is nice to see in this thread, although I called it "disgusting".....

(there is a silver lining in everything far as I'm concerned :) ) is that Clark supporters are now supporting quite a range of our candidates running. Shows that we weren't "ClarkBots" after all, although that was insunuated so many times. In that, I feel additional solace.

[Hippo_Tron]

127. Agreed, plus Kyl/Lieberman is a big fuss about nothing

I can't believe that people think that Bush's decision to use military force in Iran will actually be altered by a non-binding resolution from congress. Bush doesn't even give a shit about congress' authority, much less about non-binding resolutions that say what they think. You know that, I know that, and General Clark certainly knows that.

Kyl/Lieberman is political posturing and nothing more. If I were in the Senate I'd vote NAY and give a speech about how I voted NAY because political posturing isn't the right way to get serious about Iran. But I'm not running for President. Kyl/Lieberman is spun as an approval for war by Obama and spun by Hillary as a way to prevent war. In a campaign you manufacture these differences and play them up, that's how you win.

If General Clark ever makes an off-base remark about actual policy in order to shill for Hillary (in the primary) I will certainly call him on it. But Kyl/Lieberman isn't policy. Obama and Hillary, as well as all of the other candidates, are just creating the illusion that it is policy. So naturally, Hillary is bringing out her most prominent foreign policy advisor to defend her position.

[Sparkly]

143. Good points.

:thumbsup:

[Clark2008]

165. Must be nice.

I'm not necessarily a "Clark-Bot" because there were a couple of other potential candidates I could have supported if he didn't run. The sad thing is that NONE of my three main candidates decided to run, leaving me candidate-less.

I don't like anyone running. I'll probably end up voting for Kucinich in the primary simply by default - he's the only one proposing single-payer health care coverage.

:( This election season has been tremendously boring for me.

[Cameron27]

184. You know, I've decided to back Clinton

because I think she'd make a better president than Obama, and it took me awhile to come to that conclusion. But I'm not emotionally invested in her campaign, or in anyone else running, the way that I was for Wes in 04. I really do understand where your coming from, and I think (or hope) that I can be more objective because of that. It's just a whole different feeling this time around.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

122. I'm with you...

I was a HUGH!111!!! Clark supporter in '04, but I don't agree with him about Hillary. I haven't decided yet which candidate I'll support (except for Not Hillary), and I'm sure Clark has his own entirely legitimate reasons for his endorsement, but there's no way I'll base my decision on someone else's support -- even that of someone I respect as much as Clark; I'm pulling for Edwards OR Obama OR maybe Biden.

So I guess at least some of us alleged Clarkbots aren't 'droids after all...

[2rth2pwr]

125. Anything else you're wrong about?

how about wild photoshop accusations?

[MrSlayer]

126. I'm a great fan of General Clark.

I really wanted him to run again and I would support any future runs he may make. However, I cannot take my marching orders from the good general in respect to Hillary Clinton. I still support and admire him but I'm with Edwards this time around.

[Beacool]

128. So, you're disappointed that he didn't endorse Obama.

Did you really think that he was going to endorse him over the woman who he has known for 24 years and whose judgment he trusts and respects???

None of you seem to take into consideration that Hillary is the senator from NY. Remember 9/11? Well, some of us were actually there and not watching it unfold on TV. She would have been clobbered if a few months after 9/11 she hadn't supported the Iraq resolution.

[Clark2008]

130. I still wish he was running.

No one is perfect, but he still would be a better choice that what we have.

Sigh.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

135. I Wish He Would Have Won In 04

DSB

[DemocratSinceBirth]

136. I Wish He Would Have Won In 04

DSB

[MethuenProgressive]

139. Kerry/Edwards was a huge mistake. Kerry/Clark would've won.

Edwards brought nothing to the ticket.
Wes Clark as our VP choice would've destoyed the Swiftboaters.

[laureloak]

147. Whaa, whaa, whaa.

[MethuenProgressive]

150. Please use quotation marks when quoting little Johnny Edwards, laurel

Is that "whaa" with or without his phony hillbilly accent?

[politicasista]

181. I agree with you

The General was a strong surrogate for Kerry. Had he been chosen, he would have smacked those Swifties down so hard like cockroaches. Plus, he would had more Foreign Policy experience than Edwards did.

[Tom Rinaldo]

144. Let me start by saying this. I would never in a million years...

...even think of calling myself the strongest advocate of General Clark in 2004 or any other year. The idea would never occur to me to bestow such a distinction on myself or any other person. There was and is an entire nationwide movement of people who came together in support of General Clark. It is a populist movement with a galaxy of bright stars. To self boast of one's own perceived prominance in it smacks of an unseemly degree of "ME! ME!" MEism as does the OP of this thread.

I still go by the name of Tom Rinaldo. I haven't changed my tune. If you want to claim that you were a bigger supporter of Clark than I or anyone else, let that reflect on you as it will. And if you use the fact that you once took Clark's name for your DU ID to attract readers to a thread where you call him out, let that reflect on you as it will also.

[Bread and Circus]

146. I don't think the op meant strongest in the comparitive sense...

I bristled at first but I don't think the op was pounding his/her chest but rather just stating he/she couldn't have supported clark more.

[Bread and Circus]

145. I used to be familydoctor and was one of the original pro clark people...

on this board, back when the Dean crowd owned it.

And I can tell you he's lost a lot of face with me for his support of Hillary.

Overall, I still like him but politically he just does some very dumb things.

[BootinUp]

161. Just curious

who would you say "owns" the board now?

[youthere]

149. I am a Clarkie too, who agrees with you 100%

Although I did not become a Clarkie until after 2004. I had high hopes for Wes, and he has disappointed me lately.

[Eurobabe]

155. yeah especially the latest email "24 years"

I've known Hillary for 24 years, blah-blah. While I really liked and like Clark and respect his judgment, this is one area where we part company.

I betcha a gazillion dollars he will be her Veep.

[youthere]

157. That would be difficult...

for Hillary to choose a VP when Biden is going to win the nomination! :evilgrin:

[Eurobabe]

153. I gotta chime in here....

I was very disappointed that Clark endorsed Hillary. I think he's gunning for Veep. Would make an interesting ticket, but for right now my primary vote is going to Joe Biden. :hi: