TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Some reservations about Clark; thinking about Kerry
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Some reservations about Clark; thinking about Kerry
Woooo. Things are really getting exciting in the Democratic primaries!
It looks like Dean is losing steam pretty fast, and I'm sure that as more people see his seemingly drunken ranting speech in which he yells in Spanish that was aired live on CNN, his support will erode further. It actually makes me feel a bit bad for the guy, because I think he really thought he could win against Bush. He signed that civil unions bill and is a friend of Ann Richards, so he�s still a good guy in my book. His tactics also inspired other leading Democrats to take on Bush, and to stop being such candy asses. Lieberman doesn't have much of a chance at the nomination at all, as he could easily be a moderate Republican. Sharpton is doing his best to get out the African American vote, and that�s why he�s running.
So, it's down to a three-way battle between Clark, Edwards, and Kerry for the Presidential nomination.
In National polls, Dean is still ahead by a slim margin over Clark, but I suspect Dean will continue to slip in polls Nationwide. It remains to be seen what the fallout of Iowa will be, and in a week, there�s New Hampshire. Since John McCain beat Bush in New Hampshire in 2000, I think Clark has an excellent chance as long as he erodes some more of Dean�s numbers. Kerry is going to put on a tough fight in New Hampshire though I�m sure.
The most significant reservation I have about Clark is that he lacks political experience, and thus a voting record.
I can look at the voting records of John Kerry, John Edwards, and I can see if their words match their true actions. They do. They stand up for what they say they do, and I respect them for that.
With Clark I have no way of knowing if he believes what he�s saying on some issues that are important to me in order to win over some of the more left-wing voters. Thus, I'm starting to lean towards John Kerry and hoping that the General will take a VP slot on a Kerry/Clark ticket in the event he doesn�t win the nomination. As VP, we can know where he�d really stand on the issues by the actions he'd take, and Kerry could also override him as well in the strange event Clark turns into Richard Perle hehe. Clark could still be a great leader and travel to other countries, negotiate peace settlements, etc. as Vice President. He�d also have a vote in the closely divided Senate. It seems obvious now that the General really loves campaigning, and he�s said it�s the most fun he�s ever had in his life. Because of this I think he might jump at the chance for VP if it were offered to him, despite what he�s said earlier. Gore initially said he would not take a VP position in 1992, but Clinton offered and he did take it.
The combination of the two war heroes (Kerry & Clark) on the same ticket would be an unbeatable dream ticket for the Democrats in my opinion, and it would put to rest any bullshit about how Democrats are weak on National Security. In fact, it would be the strongest ticket that the Democrats have had since perhaps John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson in 1960. It would also garner a significant portion of the military vote, and especially the vote of those veterans who�ve had their benefits cut or proposed to be cut by the Bush Administration. Kerry and Clark aren�t the kind of leaders who�d send our soldiers off to die for an unjust war, and then cut their benefits when they get home! That�s fucking outrageous! Unlike Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, these guys aren�t chicken-hawks.
They�re real men.
Moral men.
All Bush has against the Democrats is �National Security.� Bush certainly can�t talk about all the many jobs that have been created under his leadership; he can�t talk about how all the Nation�s children have health coverage like all other Western Nations; he can�t talk about how his tax breaks have helped ordinary people; he can�t talk about how poor parents are able to send their children to college with his cutting of Federal Pell grants; he can�t talk about how clean our air, water, and environment is; he can�t talk about how well respected our country is in the world as a �beacon of freedom� with his unilateralist, preemptive wars, and 13 y/o children locked up in Guantanamo Bay without being able to see their families for over a year without trial�
He�s really got nothing.
All he and Rove have is the hope of going against Howard Dean, and asking the country if they�d trust Dean with national security. Well, the Democrats aren�t going to fall into that trap I can tell you that! 
I know Michael Moore endorsed Clark, but Moore�s opinion doesn't matter to me at all and I don't think it's necessarily indicative of how Clark will govern as President. Furthermore, some voters might actually hold his lack of political experience against Clark in the general election. I am however concerned with winning some of the Southern and Midwestern states that are crucial to victory. In reality though, Clark doesn�t even talk with a strong, folksy, Southern accent like Clinton or Jimmy Carter did, and John Edwards clearly does. Clark�s home state of Arkansas is a key state however, and the vast majority of people from that state are Independents. Perhaps the Democrats should concentrate more on the Southwest states of Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona where the vote is very close, instead of the South (except Florida).
But, let�s not forget that the country as a whole still gave a left-wing mandate for as weak a candidate as Gore in 2000. If you add Nader�s votes onto that, Florida also gave a left-wing mandate. The United States is really a left-leaning country in terms of Presidential elections, and has been since 1992. It�s just a matter of getting people out to the polls, and since (according to the latest New York Times/CBS poll) Bush has the highest disapproval rating of any President at this time in his term in modern history, that shouldn�t be too hard as long as we don�t see deliberate disenfranchisement of poor and minority voters as we did in 2000. Kerry�s record is very pro- environment and pro-public health, and he led the fight in the Senate against Bush and his oil buddies� plan to drill for oil in America�s Serengeti: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So, with Kerry�s strong environmental record, and his endorsement by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, head of the Natural Resources Defense Council, I know we can win Florida and many other swing-states with enough Green Party and veteran�s support with Kerry at the top of the ticket; Clark as VP.
Anyways, I was thinking of going to volunteer for Clark, but now I am reconsidering Kerry. I had counted him out, and hadn�t counted on Dean�s campaign dieing. Well, I didn�t give the Democratic voters of Iowa enough credit I guess. And neither did the media.
Kerry and Clark: I can only dream.
Check out Kerry's site, and tell me what you think:
http://www.johnkerry.com/
Cool Electoral College Map on John Edwards' site:
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/
(You can see what the key states are, and why the Republicans are trying so hard to hold the House in the event of a tie)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorses Kerry:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/...2003_0917a.html
Now on the other hand, with John Edwards we could win N. Carolina and maybe some other Southern states.
P.S. I was watching CNN the other night, and a former Republican Senator from Wyoming was squirming in his chair when he saw all those VFW hats at John Kerry's campaign ralley. Bob Dole also lashed out and insulted Clark live on the air.
They're scared of those two guys. Hehe. 
Give me some advice for whom to volunteer for!
Kerry or Clark?
I would go with either guy but I am a huge Clark supporter but Kerry has the momentum right now. Dean does not have the credentials to beat George W. Bush and that is what the Democrats who voted were looking for. Clark will somehow have to now win in New Hampshire or come strong second ala Edwards. I hope Dean gets trashed again in New Hampshire. Gotta love how Dean was saving face by rolling up his sleeves and ranting about where he is going next
nice post dave
i'm not too into all of them but i am a clark supporter even though Kerry seem to be a good candidate too
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSaenz Give me some advice for whom to volunteer for! Kerry or Clark? |
You're no help. :P
I think Clark needs a strong showing in New Hampshire to stay relevant though eh? I see he has the backing of some NAACP members in S. Carolina now. 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NYCTrancefan I would go with either guy but I am a huge Clark supporter but Kerry has the momentum right now. Dean does not have the credentials to beat George W. Bush and that is what the Democrats who voted were looking for. Clark will somehow have to now win in New Hampshire or come strong second ala Edwards. I hope Dean gets trashed again in New Hampshire. Gotta love how Dean was saving face by rolling up his sleeves and ranting about where he is going next |
I wouldn't count Dean out just yet. I mean yeah, Dean did make a fool of himself last night, even though it was pretty hilarious to watch. But do remember that Kerry had his "OOPPS" moment too when he he said "Bush fucked Iraq up" to Rolling Stone. Only time will tell..
I'm not counting him out--Quite the contrary--I'm counting on him 100% to provide me with election year antics and to be a constant source of entertainment.
But seriously though...you are right. Dubya got 3rd place in the Iowa caucus as well, so he's far from out.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I'm not counting him out--Quite the contrary--I'm counting on him 100% to provide me with election year antics and to be a constant source of entertainment. |
Dean is going to make one crazy nut of a surgeon general.
My main concern about Kerry is that I don't know if we can win the country with him at the top of the ticket because of those crazy Southerners. He also comes from a rich family, so that might turn off some people. In contrast General Clark's dad died when he was young, and his mother worked as a secretary. I've read Clark's positions again, and they do sound great to me. I dunno, he seems like an honest man.
I think I'm going to stick with Clark for the top job, and both Kerry or Edwards would make great VPs.
Kerry playing up his military service is really getting him broad support, so Clark needs to do that more too I think.
The main thing is to go out and register voters, and we need poll watchers in Florida, Missouri, and other states to make sure they don't stop minorities from voting again.
If they had enough votes to win legitimately they wouldn't have to resort to setting up roadblocks, purging voters from the rolls, or handing out fliers in poor neighborhoods that say you need to pay your rent and parking tickets before voting.
Clark/Kerry = Bush has nothing against the Democrats on Nat. Sec.
We'll get many many veterans to switch from Republican like my uncle; we'll get green party people with all the environmental endorsements.
Clark/Edwards= We use the tried and true "Southern strategy" to win Florida, Arkansas, maybe N. Carolina. I think Clark can win Arkansas at least easily.
I live in Texas so my vote won't count, but I'll be sure and help get out the vote in other states. That way my vote will count.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSaenz Clark/Edwards= We use the tried and true "Southern strategy" to win Florida, Arkansas, maybe N. Carolina. I think Clark can win Arkansas at least easily. |
Have you guys heard Edwards speak?
He's the best orator of the bunch. I was just listening on NPR and conservatives are most scared of Edwards & Clark. That's who we need on the ticket then.
This is the winning ticket:
Edwards/Clark
Clark/Edwards
John Kerry at the top will have a harder time winning the South imo.
Listen to him speak:
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/home.asp
Well that's it ... the final nail on the coffin to secure my anti-Dean vote:
| quote: |
Democratic Hopeful Dean Calls for Greenspan Ouster Fri January 23, 2004 10:19 AM ET LONDONDERRY, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean said on Friday that he thought Alan Greenspan had become too political and should be replaced as chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve. "I think Alan Greenspan has become too political. If he lacks the political courage to criticize the deficits, if he was foolish enough -- and he's not a foolish man -- to support the outrageous tax cuts that George Bush put through, then he has become too political and we need a new chairman of the Federal Reserve," Dean said in response to a question from an audience at a town hall meeting in Londonderry. He said he thought the Fed had done a "terrific job" and that it was "absolutely critical" to make sure it remained independent. Although the Fed chief in 2001 backed the notion of tax cuts, Greenspan has in the past warned of the dangers of high budget deficits. President Bush's tax cuts -- which the administration is now pressing to make permanent -- and an economic slowdown helped fuel a record $374 billion budget gap last year, or about 3.5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), the highest proportion since 1993. The White House expects even larger deficits this year that will hit about 4.5 percent of GDP. In a book about Paul O'Neill's tenure as Treasury secretary, Greenspan was quoted as saying Bush's 2001 tax cuts -- if implemented without "triggers" to cancel them if budget deficits swelled -- would be "irresponsible fiscal policy." However, a Fed spokesman last week said Greenspan has denied saying this. He has, however, raised the issue of triggers in the past. "In recognition of the uncertainties in the economic and budget outlook, it is important that any long-term tax plan or spending initiative ... be phased in," Greenspan said in testimony on Feb. 13, 2001, a time when government forecasts envisioned mounting budget surpluses for years to come. "Conceivably, it could include provisions that in some way would limit surplus-reducing actions if specified targets for the budget surplus and federal debt were not satisfied," he added. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Well that's it ... the final nail on the coffin to secure my anti-Dean vote: |
is dean insane? everyone knows that greenspan is g*d 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSaenz Edwards/Clark Clark/Edwards |
Clark all the way 
Yes Dave, I did hear Edwards speak. I'm still undecisive on all of his stands. He avoided the question about whether or not he approved of the war on Iraq by quoting how Bush said he did what he felt was right at the time... Some of his platform seems quite interesting, I might check up on that a bit later.
Kerry... I think he'd make a good VP
| quote: |
| Originally posted by anuneventrade Clark all the way Yes Dave, I did hear Edwards speak. I'm still undecisive on all of his stands. He avoided the question about whether or not he approved of the war on Iraq by quoting how Bush said he did what he felt was right at the time... Some of his platform seems quite interesting, I might check up on that a bit later. Kerry... I think he'd make a good VP |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rizen Edwards voted for the Iraqi war. Don't know how much more proof you need that he approved of the war. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by anuneventrade [font=comic sans ms][color=red]Clark all the way |
| quote: |
Clark: GOP agenda at play in New Hampshire debate HOLLY RAMER, Associated Press Friday, January 23, 2004 �2004 Associated Press URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/01/23/politics1458EST0651.DTL (01-23) 14:24 PST NASHUA, N.H. (AP) -- Presidential candidate Wesley Clark on Friday complained that one of the moderators in Thursday night's debate was carrying out a Republican agenda by questioning his Democratic credentials. Brit Hume of Fox News Channel, who worked as both moderator and questioner during the two-hour debate with the seven candidates, pressed Clark about when he had first realized he was a Democrat. Clark told reporters Friday, "I looked at who was asking the questions, and I think that was part of the Republican agenda in the debate." Democrats have complained that Fox News Channel shows a Republican bias. Clark joined the Democratic Party after announcing his bid for the presidency. He has said he voted for Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush but also Democrats Bill Clinton and Al Gore. In defending himself as a Democrat, he cited his pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-environment and pro-labor positions. "I think voters understand that I am a Democrat," Clark said Friday after an appearance at Rivier College in New Hampshire. Fox News spokesman Paul Schur said Clark should be used to facing tough questions about his record. "This is not the first time General Clark has been questioned about his party affiliation," Schur said. "His handlers should spend their time on more constructive things, such as trying to come up with reasons for the general's slippage in the polls." For several weeks, Clark has shared the Granite State with only one other Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, as their rivals focused on Iowa. In that time, Clark showed gains in the polls, surging to second place in some surveys. But some eyebrow-raising remarks have taken a toll on Clark's candidacy, and advisers have conceded that he lost all the ground and momentum that he had gained while the rest of the field was in Iowa. They hope he can cling to a respectable showing in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, setting the stage for making a stand in the Feb. 3 states, including South Carolina and Arizona. On Thursday, Clark said he supported a woman's right to have an abortion "as modified by" a 1992 court case that allows states to impose limited restrictions. Clark's comments, at a news conference, marked a far less sweeping position than one he staked out in an interview earlier this month, when he told a New Hampshire newspaper he opposed any legal restriction on abortion at any point during pregnancy. Clark also has stirred controversy with his comments that the Sept. 11 attacks were preventable and lobbyists make America safer. During the debate, Hume noted that Clark had voted for Republican presidents and had complimented President Bush and his father before entering the race. "I think it is not unreasonable to ask you when you first noticed that you were a Democrat," Hume said. In response, Clark told Hume he was not a member of any party when he was in the military and considered joining the Republican Party after he had retired. Clark served in the Army for more than 30 years. Clark often let his friends and former colleagues in the military tell voters why he should be the next president. Cris Hernandez, who was part of Clark's security team when Clark served as NATO supreme allied commander, said soldiers have told him, "When you see the boss, you tell him to get us out of Iraq." �2004 Associated Press |
Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton & John Edwards = teh win. 
Clark just issued a statement supporting statehood for Puerto Rico. He lost my vote. 
Have to agree. As the campaign proceeds, I worry more and more about Clark's political inexperience. I would really like to see a Kerry/Clark or Kerry/Edwards ticket. I think the Democratic party has come up with some great candidates for the primary and I'm delighted that I won't be forced into voting for the least of several evils.
I also think that Edwards is a bit too young and inexperienced to run a winning campaign against Bush. I think putting him the the VP position now would make his campaign a juggernaut in 2012.
So I have to say my support goes to Kerry. I like his platform and I think he has the right charisma and experience to win the nomination and the general election. I hate to say it, but you need a politician in the White House. I don't want to see who voted for the war in Iraq become a big issue in this election because it doesn't really matter anymore. I'm far more concerned about what the future president is going to do domestically than anything else. I care a lot more about where this country is going because I'm living here (although I realize our policies abroad affect our lives here).
Daff, I agree with you about the strength of the democratic candidates this year.
I think Kerry rocks indeed. His plan to invest in alternative fuels will help create new jobs that Bush has lost for our country, and it will help us reduce our dependence on middle east oil at the same time. Kennedy was able to win the country in 1960, but that was before most Southern Democrats had switched to Republican.
Look @ Dukakis'1988 electoral map:
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/
Dukakis' campaign was also very plauged however.
At the same time, I think Kerry's visionary energy plan could win over many green party voters in the key state of Florida.
He's been endorsed by the League of Conservation voters:
http://www.lcv.org/
Florida was a left-wing state in the last election with all of the Nader votes, and Gore was a weak candidate with less charisma than Kerry or Edwards.
One thing that worries me is about people's votes not counting or being rigged. Whomever a person votes for, Bush or a democrat, they deserve to have their vote count.
My prediction is that Kerry will win New Hampshire, and Edwards will win S. Carolina. Democratic Senator Sen. Fritz Hollings of S. Carolina has endorsed Kerry though.
Democratic winning strategy:
The war heroes vs. the chickenhawks!!
| quote: |
January 31, 2004 Today, Michael McClintic, a Michigan veteran who is widely credited with saving Wes Clark's life in Vietnam 34 years ago, came forward to publicly endorse his candidacy. This is his story: In February 1970, Captain Wes Clark was leading Army soldiers on patrol in Vietnam. Suddenly, they came under intense small arms fire from well-concealed enemy forces. Clark was shot four times before another soldier, Michael McClintic, pushed him out of the line of fire. McClintic, who now lives in Michigan, describes what happened that day: "In Vietnam, I saw Captain Clark get shot before I was able to push him to the ground and out of the line of enemy fire. Despite his wounds -- Clark was shot four times -- Clark remained in command, and under his leadership we quickly overran the enemy positions." Clark was later awarded the Silver Star for his leadership that day. McClintic noted that Clark continued his courageous leadership throughout his military career, and expressed confidence Clark would be an outstanding president. �The Wesley Clark I see running for president possesses the same kind of courage and leadership that I saw in Captain Clark the day we were ambushed in Vietnam. There is no question in my mind that Wes Clark is the leader America needs to address the many domestic and international challenges that are facing us,� McClintic said. �I was proud to serve under Wesley Clark when I was in the Army, and I am proud to support his candidacy for president. I look forward to working for Wesley Clark once again." We all have our personal reasons for supporting Wes Clark. What are yours? Like Michael McClintic's, Wes Clark's life is simply an American story. With your help today, he will make an extraordinary American President. |
From another messageboard:
| quote: |
Kerry is the man to defeat Bush. My conservative granpa, who is a vet, is voting for kerry if he gets the nom, and so are his vet buddies. |
DEAN
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.