Any Dean supporters switching to Clark?

The latest CNN/USA Today poll suggests that, as of now, any of five guys are in a dead heat with Bush. Clark and Kerry edge Bush out; Dean, Gephardt and Lieberman are barely behind him.

I hadn't picked a candidate, but as of tonight I'm really hoping it's Dean. If it's Clark, I'll be along for the ride -- maybe enthusiastically, depending on his performance. Kerry looks done. If Clark and Dean both stumble badly, I think Gephardt or Edwards is most likely to pick up the pieces. But as of now, I'm really hoping it's Dean. Regardless of who's best suited to beat Bush (and frankly I think that might be Dean too), I just want him to be president.

 

I am a Dean Supporter that would vote for Bush over Clark..

Clark has made it completely clear that he is only a Democrat because the Republicans wouldn't have him.

“I would have been a Republican,” Clark told them, “if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.”

Source-MSNBC


One of the main selling points of the Clarkies is the military vote..
So me not being a military man I decided to go and see what the general concensus online among the military men/women are about the possibility of a Clark nomination..



Military.com Forums

Military.com Forums- "Clark For Prezzzz"

Overwhelmingly negative... Coupled with the fact that he hasn't issued any policy speeches thus far, it makes him sound more like a Democrat in Name Only.. He has hiimmed and Hawwed about being a Democrat and after he announces it he waxes poetic the Republican Party.. As well as flipping and flopping on the Iraq issue.. The more I hear from him and about General Clark the less I like him...

 

Murdock:

Did you actually read the MSNBC article? He was joking.

He has supported Republicans in the past, but I'll take an indepedent who's supported both parties in the past but clearly opposed the Iraq war as a matter of conscience over a proven, life-long Democrat who supported the war as a matter of political expedience. Kerry, Edwards and (especially) Gephardt deserve the problems they're having. Their war vote was about politics more than anything else. The Dean campaign was about the opposition of conscience when it seemed like political suicide. He deserves to be where he is. Clark also opposed the war when it wasn't a politically smart thing to do and he has my respect for that, whether he voted for Nixon or not.

p.s. (edit) You're getting it wrong when you say the appeal of a Clark candidacy has to do with the military vote. It doesn't. It has to do with making civilians comfortable that the Dem nominee is strong on defense and security issues, which Republicans usually win on. Clark has that, regardless of the relatively small enlisted demographic's preference.

 

The Patriot Act thing pissed me off too about Edwards, but I think Will's right that his populist message is fresh and smart. (It reminds me of Dylan's 'Only a Pawn in Their Game.') I also agree with him that whoever gets the nomination should co-opt it.

 

What are you talking about. The reason the military guys don't like him is because he is a Democrat.

So how is he a Republican again? Why do you think these Republican politicians suddenly recalled this story from last year? They are afraid of him. He is a charismatic well spoken southern democrat who is socially liberal with a spottless military record.

 

Did you actually read the MSNBC article? He was joking.

Yeah after the crap hit the fan, sure that what he says.. The people who he was speaking to didn't consider it a joke.. and I believe he was fully serious about his remark, while else if you read on would it describe Clark as "Furious" after attempting to contact Rove? The Fact of the matter is simply this.. He is bitter because the Republicans found no use for him.. I find it difficult to support someone who isn't even true to himself.


Their war vote was about politics more than anything else. The Dean campaign was about the opposition of conscience when it seemed like political suicide. He deserves to be where he is. Clark also opposed the war when it wasn't a politically smart thing to do and he has my respect for that, whether he voted for Nixon or not.



The 2004 Election should be about change, instead of someone who's desire is to be the status quo.. You do realize that if General Clark had his way he would be fighting against change, and fighting on the side of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Pearle, Wolfowitz, Bush, and Rice... Don't you? Is this really someone who is trustworthy? For crying out loud he tried to start World War 3.. Thank goodness for the British General that put him in his place.. He's definatly not someone that I would trust with the codes to the most powerful Nuclear arsenal on the planet..

You're getting it wrong when you say the appeal of a Clark candidacy has to do with the military vote. It doesn't. It has to do with making civilians comfortable that the Dem nominee is strong on defense and security issues, which Republicans usually win on. Clark has that, regardless of the relatively small enlisted demographic's preference.

That "small enlisted" demographic Knows Clark and Clark's policies his leadership style and what a potential POTUS that he would make better than anyone else, certainly the people that served with him/under him know him better than anyone else. If this former General doesn't even have the confidence of the Military how can we possibly say he would be an even medocre President?

 

As far as being a leader, having the requisit ability ( and then some) and his stances on foreign policy, I almost think that Clark was groomed for this office.


I still want to know his positions on : the economy, death penalty, abortion, immigration, etc.

Another thing about Clark is that he has incredible qualifications in one area: foreign policy and military management..and can surround himself with qualified people in areas where he isn't on the same level...unlike Bush, whose primary assets going into his term, I thought, were his ability to generate bi-partisanship and his supporting cast. The first has been a failure, and the second has been a severe dissapointment, but moreover the weaknesses we already knew he had have been magnified, or worlse than expected. I honestly think he;s the least intelligent President I've ever seen, and less intelligent than most politicans I see at any level.

But unless I hear of some big surprises with Clark, he's my guy by a longshot...I am actually just thrilled he ran. If only we could get Powell to run, it would be win-win.

As said, short of major weaknesses not yet revealed, it's Clark. I would have voted for Dean or Kerry as a concession; I'll support Clark with conviction. He is not only the man best suited to beat Bush ( aside from being an incumbent, what exactly does Bush have over Clark? Clark is more charsimatic, has yards more experience in related areas than Bush had, has been a success at every level where Bush failed, is self-made whereas Bush, er, isn't. He is a million times more intelligent, eitc.)


Serious question to Bush supporters...objectively, if you look at both men, and both of their resumes, and put aside positions on issues for a second ( I'm not asking who you'd vote for) which guy, in and of himself, is a more qualified and able leader?

 

He hasn't gone into specifics about the economy yet (but who has) except he thinks the bush tax cuts were misguided. He believes, much like Warren Buffet, that most of the tax cuts should have been for the poor and middle class because they are the most likely to spend the extra money.

He is also definitely pro-choice. Stated on almost every Clark site.

I don't know about the death penalty or immigration.

He is also anti Patriot Act.

 

Ugh. Less enthusiastic, but suspected it. I wish we could push buttons on our consoles and design candidates who have the qualifications, persona AND match all of our positions.

Like last time, I had Bush, anti-abortion ( yay!) and pro-death penalty ( Ugh!) or Gore who was the reverse. I find it so hard to figure out why it seems that almost everyone deliniates along this line; to me both issues have the same priority, and the same problems with pronouncing judgemnt before the facts are in.


Anyway, if he's also pro-death penalty, I'll be in trouble, but these days I pretty much know going in that I'm gonna be 1 for 2 on those issues.

As little as he has said about the economy, I like the alignment with Buffet. Need to know a lot more though.


Anyways, thanks for the info.

 

A married friend of mine was stationed in Germany with her husband for a while and the husband was under Clark's command apparently, Belgium or Kosovo I believe. They said he was a straight shooter pretty much. They didn't have any personal contact or anything but they didn't have anything negative to say. Oh well...

 

Murdock:

1. I can't even believe you're repeating the 'almost started WW III' crap. That line's almost, nearly, close to being as dumb as the notion that Bill White is Jesse Jackson's puppet (truly the most hilarious thing in this forum in weeks).

2. POTUS is a funny acronym. Never seen that before. It sounds like an insult.

3. If you think Clark's for status quo, you're obviously getting all your info on him from oppo sources. No one who's run for president in the last twenty years has been more of a free thinker or -- more to the point -- thought outside the box more naturally or successfully than Clark. Except, that is, for Dean. Which brings me to MacBeth...

MacBeth:

Clark's smart as hell. I think Dean's smarter. Read this article for a good account of his innovative approach to societal problems:

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/41/features-wolf.php

It's this story, coupled with the sure belief that Bush is imminently beatable (by several of the guys running), that put me over the edge tonight for Dean. He is the real deal. He doesn't have the credentials Clark does, isn't as sure a bet to beat Bush (though he certainly has the best, smartest, coolest strategy to come down the pike in a long, long time), isn't as good with the cameras... is shorter... But he's the kind of guy I can really, truly get excited about being the president. Or, as Murdock put it, the POTUS. I'll happily support a few of these guys for president (Clark over the rest except for Dean), but Dean's the guy that gets me excited about voting again.

 

Clark has a better chance of winning over moderates and some Republicans. I hope he wins it, we could use another Rhodes Scholar as President.

 

This is a joke, right?
Please tell me your joking. You sound like talking points from Rove and co. on what to say about Clark, who scares the hell out of them.

At least you got to use one of Tom Clancy's favorite terms these days for Jack Ryan... POTUS. Yes, I know what it means. I would come up with a derogatory substitute for the letters, but I'm trying to preserve a higher level of discourse.

MacBeth, Clark's position on choice is one of the things I admire about him. I know that you and others feel differently, but it's kinda like the Green Party in the last election... does someone who thinks Bush is one of the worst things to happen to this country vote for him anyway or not vote at all because of one issue?

Do people who thought there was no difference between the two major parties still think it didn't matter if they voted for someone with no chance or didn't vote at all?

I don't know if Clark will get the nomination, but I hope people look at the big picture and vote for someone who is overwhelmingly better than Bush... and not get fixated on one thing they disagree with. The stakes are too high.

Of course, you won't be voting, but I won't hold it against you.



(Batman... President of the United States- POTUS)

 

Deckard: I got it -- I just thought it was funny. I don't read Tom Clancy.

 

Oh no, I must have given the wrong impression if you think abortion would make me vote for Bush....I will be voting AGAINST Bush, no doubt about it. What I meant on issues was a general complaint about limited options and about which Dem candidate I'd support.

But the things Bush has done in office terrify and amaze me. I think he has us on the worst path I have ever seen us go, and am more afraid than during the Cold War. I think he is bringing out all the worst aspects of America as a Superpower, and is exploiting and fanning the flames of the lowest common denominators; fear, patriotism as meaning don't object, etc.


I am against Bush far more than I have been for anyone in a long, long time, although Clark could change that ( Powell too )...I supported him last time, but man do I regret it. What exactly has he done right? He managed to beat a mosquito with a bazooka, which anyone could have done, and he ( or Powell?) successfully avoided a minefield with the Turks...bu that's about it. Everything else he has done has been a zero or a negative or a HUGE negative.


And why can't I vote? I almost always have before...God, has Patriot cancelled absentee ballots as well?


I'm also an American citizen, as well as Canadian. People seem to not know this, don't ask me why.

 

My interests in literature are pretty broad. I really liked his first two novels. The novels he's written since are pretty bad, imo. I've skimmed through some recent ones I borrowed. They read like thinly disguised ads for the GOP's far-right faction.

I also listen to Rush on occasion. I like to know what the other side is putting out. Sometimes I laugh out loud... he's so ridiculous. It helps me to recognize when some of the posters here are just regurgitating Limbaugh. You can tell.

POTUS does sound funny. The plot in one of Clancy's recent novels (a few years back) that had a 747 fly into the Capitol and take out almost the entire government (except for Jack Ryan, of course) before 9/11 used it a lot. Sometimes I wonder what Clancy thinks now of that particular work. Pretty creepy.

 

My apologies! I knew you were a dual citizen. I just forgot.
Does being a dual citizen mean you can vote against him twice??