Clark "ties" Bush on defense, loses on every other issue

[Paragon]

Imagine, if you will, that I'm an undecided voter, and Clark and Bush are debating...

OK, we all know the reason Clark was "drafted" - so what happens when the debate turns to other issues? While Bush is no expert in, well...anything, Clark has no experience whatsoever. None.

I'm talking sheer quantifiable experience time - which is enough for some voters - NOT their obvious differences on the issues.

[AnnitaR]

1. You've got to be kidding me?

"Clark ties Bush on Defense..."????? That statement alone is so off base it astounds me that it's coming from a Democrat!

So, I guess if Clark is our nominee YOU'RE voting for Bush because he's the most qualified?!?

:eyes:

[Paragon]

3. There's a reason I put it in quotes

That's not how *I* feel -- imagine I'm an undecided voter, having to choose between Bush and Clark.

Bush is a wartime president, Clark has the stripes. They cancel each other out -- and Clark has no experience on any other issue.

Bush wins.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

47. Clark is a Rhodes Scholar and Prof. of Econ., Has an excellent tax plan

HE at least won't cut all kinds of programs in order to give a people a tax cut.

[lib 4 all]

58. he has Hoover's tax plan.

[Tim_in_HK]

69. explain please n/t

[lib 4 all]

72. please see my reply in #37

[lastliberalintexas]

76. And Shrub

has a Bachelor's from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. And technically served his country during Vietnam by serving in the NG. (yeah, I know WE know this isn't true- but how many network news watchers do you think will believe that?)

See why it's a bad idea to rely solely on a resume? The voters that so many Clark supporters say will flock to Clark in droves really won't see that much of a difference between the 2.

Oh- except that Shrub is a known quantity who has actually governed.


If Clark is our nominee, we will have a ton of work to do to keep our base fired up and still try to convince the so-called swing voters to vote Dem. I just pray that we'd be able to do it- but hope it doesn't come to that.

[Dookus]

2. that's just a ludicrous assertion

[Paragon]

5. That's just not an answer

Something I've come to expect from Clark supporters, unfortunately.

[AnnitaR]

10. Yep, we Clark supporters are just too dumb to answer questions.

Maybe we just think that you could seriously look into Clark's domestic agenda yourself. No one can look at the plan's he has and still feel like Bush would be the better choice!

[Paragon]

12. I notice you didn't answer mine.

I've looked at his positions on the issues on his website - and I'm still convinced no one will really care, because:

1. His candidacy is based on one issue
2. He has no political experience

How does Clark make up for having zero experience? Because his positions are really swell? (Assume for a moment that America is not California, and experience actually counts for something.)

[AnnitaR]

28. Well, I guess Dean is fucked too then!

Why don't I feel like I need to answer your question? They AREN'T valid! If they were I would be more than happy to have a discussion with you.

When you already have your mind made up that "his candidacy is based on one issue" it's a non-starter with me.

[Cheswick2.0]

30. exactly how is Dean "fucked too"?

Dean has political experience.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

50. Clark put together a huge group of allies to fight a humanitarian war

He has the intelligence, capability and diplomatic skills to do so. THAT is political experience on the WORLD stage.

[lib 4 all]

54. and this will discredit Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" how?

Kosovo is pretty small-time compared to Iraq.
The mass graves were at least discovered in Iraq.

Clark's best quality advanced so far by his supporters is that he is like Bush, but on a smaller scale.
How is this going to win?

[lib 4 all]

4. Defense will not be the #1 issue in the election

it ranks somewhere around 5th according to most polls.

[Paragon]

6. Good - but if that's so, explain Clark's candidacy

It ain't his positions on issues #1 through #4, whatever they might be.

[lib 4 all]

7. scared Democrats who have lost faith in the Democratic party.

Democrats who are afraid of being called "anti-american", "unpatriotic" and "weak on defense".

NO other reason.

[gulliver]

52. Let Clark explain his own candidacy to you. Just watch him.

All you have to do is watch Clark in interviews and town hall meetings. The rest he will do himself. That's why he keeps surging in the polls. As people get to know him, they understand that he is an all around perfect candidate for the Democratic party and the United States. Under Clark's leadership, both will flourish.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

56. Foreign Policy will be the #1 issue unless the economy crashes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/12/10_clark.html

-snip-

the reason I decided to support Wes Clark and not one of the others is that I believe they are unelectable, and Clark is George Bush and Karl Rove's worst nightmare. Why do I believe that?

Because I believe the election this year, unlike in most years, will not be decided on domestic issues but on foreign policy: the war on terror, Iraq, our relationship with our allies (or lack thereof). The economy is turning around and although it is not clear yet where the job market will be in a year, it seems clear to me that at best the economy will be a wash as a key election issue. That leaves foreign affairs as probably the pivotal issue in the next election so let's look more closely at that.

Foreign affairs, especially in a time of war, has always been a Republican issue. True or not the Dems have always been painted as weak on defense and the military; and this year especially, because of 9/11 and the war on terror, Iraq etc., Republicans have been literally foaming at the mouth to use this as an election issue. So much for not politicizing 9/11. The reality is both parties are going to politicize the hell out of it and the one that does the better job will win the presidency.
The Republican strategy, which we can already see, is to paint anyone who disagrees with the president as a traitor. This will work when it's reinforced by 200 million dollars of advertising. I'm afraid I have a rather low opinion of a large part of the electorate to believe that. Just remember what Bush and Rove did to McCain in South Carolina and what they did to Max Cleland in Georgia more recently. Yes, if you say it enough you can make some people believe that black is white. So the Democrats need a Teflon candidate when it comes to this issue. Three candidates, maybe four, have tried to meet this qualification; most notably Lieberman and Kerry, but also Gephardt and of course Clark (who can do it without trying - that's what four stars on your collar gives you).

[lib 4 all]

57. not according to the polls. #1 is the economy.

Education, healthcare, social security all beat foreign policy, national defense, terrorism, and Iraq.

[jpgpenn]

8. your thoughts are way off base.

As I know you here as a Dean supporter let me make a suggestion to you. This kind of on going attack on fellow Dems is exactly what has destroyed your candidate. He and his camp will then start crying when other feel the need to act in kind. My suggestion to you and others in the Dean camp is to rethink yourselves.

Although I also feel at this point nothing will save Dean.

[Paragon]

9. It's not an attack - I'm trying to think ahead

You're right, Clark is not my first choice - but I also will support him on the off-chance he gets the nomination. Imagining what a Clark-Bush debate might look like is not an attack.

You'd be better served to answer the question than to just assume it's "Clark-bashing".

[AnnitaR]

11. Oh it's Clark bashing when you say that he loses to Bush

on EVERY issue except his "tie" with Bush on Defense.

I don't like Dean but I can tell you one thing... I would NEVER say that he was below par to Bush as you just did Clark!

[Paragon]

13. Answer the question.

How does Clark respond when Bush touts his "experience" in Texas and Washington?

[lib 4 all]

14. he will tout his experience cluster-bombing Kosovo

[SahaleArm]

16. Don't forget Waco or JFK n/t

[lib 4 all]

17. That's right, Clark has "experience" in Texas, too

I see that you have edited your original post of "Don't forget Waco n/t" to include "or JFK" in an attempt to discredit my reply.

So I am acknowledging this change for the record.

[SahaleArm]

15. What experience - Putting the country in the sh*tter?

Iraq?
Osama?
Energy giveaways?
Pharma giveaways?
Turning Texas from a surplus into a deficit?
Losing 3+ Million jobs?
Creating a state of permanent deficits?

What the heck will Bush run on? Mission Accomplished? Flight Suit?

[Paragon]

19. Agreed, but what will Clark run on?

Is "Bush sucks" enough to turn undecideds and moderate Repubes to the other side?

[SahaleArm]

21. Strong on defense - Strong tax plan...

Sprinkled with a solid economic growth package; Clark actually made money in the private sector, something GW failed to do with handouts from Sr.. It's the economy and defense that will win this election and Bush is weak on both.

[lib 4 all]

23. Clark has merely stolen Hoover's tax plan

[SahaleArm]

25. Funny - Hooverian zeal to balance the budget?

On the backs of the middle class? Who would want that?

[lib 4 all]

37. actually it was the exorbanent taxation imposed on the uppermost brackets

that dried up stock market investment and lead to the Great Crash of 1927, officially ending the "Roaring '20s" and ushering in the Great Depression.

[mmonk]

66. More likely a run up on stocks

with no money behind it (investor paper profits) with no corresponding run up on the bottom lines of the companies, coupled with deflation. Most democratic presidents have had a progressive tax structure. You're really reaching.

[lib 4 all]

71. that is just plain untrue

That isn't what either history nor economics teaches us at all.
Kennedy reversed the bad economic policy of past administrations, and created a huge economic boom. Kennedy ushered in the era of the middle-class.

Clinton was also an economic centrist and shied away from more progressive taxation. Clinton created the longest period of sustained economic growth in American history.

[SahaleArm]

18. You're premise is wrong Clark is better on defense...

And Bush is in the red on everything except religious fundies and corporate welfare. Clark is not the businessman who couldn't find oil in Texas.

[lib 4 all]

20. no, he's the Lobbyist who couldn't find the Lobby.

[SahaleArm]

22. Bored trying to defend a failed doctor? n/t

[lib 4 all]

24. Once again, what makes you think I support Dean instead?

[SahaleArm]

26. Who says I'm talking about Dean? n/t

[lib 4 all]

27. don't insult my intelligence

[SahaleArm]

29. This reminds me of an experiment...

http://www.twinkiesproject.com/

[mmonk]

67. we didn't notice.

Don't insult ours.

[imhotep]

31. it looks as if

nobody has learned the lessons of appeasing the republicans.
Clark supporters have either forgotten what happened in 2002 elections, or more accurately don't care.
The only reason a person could vote for Clark is if they are AFRAID to fight.

[Turkw]

35. AFRAID to fight what, the hysterical hyperbole that masquerades as issues?

You want to bash Clark supporters, come up with real criticism. All I see is innuendo, assumption, straw man arguments, cut and past constructions of arranged snippets that mislead, and regurgitation of unsupported accusation when it comes to attack on Clark.

Imhotep, you attack is offensive and impotent.

[lib 4 all]

74. I think what he is saying is that Democrats behind Clark are surrendering

to the Republicans and ceeding them the issue of national defense.

[Turkw]

32. Clark has experience governing the civilian side of all the NATO bases

He dealt with a whole range of civilian issues, education being one issue that he can easily TRUMP Bush. Clark helped create a new curriculum for the schools of soldier's children. He also had to go to members of congress and work with them to get additional funding for it.

Clark also has taught courses at West Point, teaching subjects such as political philosophy. He was an instructor of social sciences. Clark's EXPERIENCE with education is one of success, in all ways, as opposed to Bush, who's experience with education is a failure in all aspects.

Clark took on domestic abuse as a military commander. He was one of the first commanders to not on recognize the problem, but take steps to combat it. This is one issue that I think will help solve the gender gap.

Clark worked as a White House fellow, in the office of Office of Management and Budget of State. He received high praises from the director, whom Clark was special assistant to. Here is more direct experience working in Washington, getting experience, with out being a part of the political establishment.

Clark was a very successful business man, making money, as opposed to Bush, who had only one business that made money, baseball. As a lobbyist, for all the bashing that Clark has gotten, Clark did not rely on selling weapons system to the pentagon. He actually lobbied department of State and other offices where he did not work in as a military officer, for the most part.

So, all around there is a lot of experience, education and ability. Clark is Bush's worst nightmare.

[CWebster]

33. Apparently a stunning revelation for some

Nothing like being blind-sided by reality.

No record of experience on anything other than military leadership and that record can be torn to shreds with little effort.

That is the reality and anyone who would throw their support behind a candidate who marginally can be considered a Democrat, at a time in our history when we need strong and decisive identity from the Democrats to counter and hold the Republicans accountable, must be entertaining a fantasy.

[Turkw]

36. How do you "know" this, many of the Clark supporters have answered

this question many times, as well as many other repeated attacks. But the Clark bashers keep recycling them, without addressing the answers given. Perhaps we are tired of answering the same questions again and again, often by the same group of people here.

A stunning revelation would be that some are grasping at any straws they can to "discover" a reason to invalidate Clark.

[CWebster]

51. Yes, I have seen the repeated response:

Zzzzzzzzzzz

[Turkw]

78. But you have not disproved them, just ignored them and made the same

assertions as before.

[lib 4 all]

38. to tear apart Clark's military record, Republicans will just say "fired".

And that will be the end of it.

And I'm not interested in debating why he was retired early. It won't matter when Rove is done with him.

[Turkw]

41. It will backfire on Rove, just like using the negative flyers at the Clark

rally. It gives Clark a reason to talk about things, such as stopping ethnic cleansing, going against the UN- but STILL being multilateral and forming andworking with a true multinatiion coalition. Exhausting diplomatic avenues BEFORE going to war.

[lib 4 all]

43. and that will backfire on Clark - it will only validate Bush's Iraq war

Those circumstances you list sound awfully familiar to me...

[Turkw]

79. On what planet? Clark regularly bashes Bush on NOT focusing on Al-Qeada

and going into Iraq instead.

[CWebster]

53. the Republicans will not be mincing words

unlike the General who refuses to utter the words, insisting instead it was some kind of encouraged retirement.

What a potential humiliating liability.

[lib 4 all]

55. yep, as if valued Generals are EVER "encouraged" to retire.

[JVS]

75. Kick

[FreeperSlayer]

34. Yep, Dean's "experience"...

...trumps them all! I mean, what a wide range of qualifications.

[meti57b]

39. In 2000, bush had no experience and if all the votes had been counted, ...

Gore still didn't win by much and he was VP. The time bush spent as governor of Texas wasn't anything to speak of because in TX, it is a so-called weak governor.

Who wins is based on factors other than actual experience, such as the electorate's perception of the candidate's abilities and experience.

[lib 4 all]

40. Bush at least proved his electability twice as Governor, unlike Clark

[Turkw]

42. Who had to work and earn everything he got, unlike aristo's like Bush

[lib 4 all]

44. Ted Kennedy? That's splitting hairs when it comes to experience in office.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

45. Foreign Policy, Masters in Econ, Rhodes Scholar, Diplomat

n/t

[lib 4 all]

46. That will look great on the business cards Clark hands out after losing

[kerry-is-my-prez]

48. Clark is well-respected and well-liked in Europe and elsewhere

The Europeans are praying for him to win. We may actually be able to get our allies to work with us in Iraq, etc. Unlike Dean - who can't even get along with his fellow Democrats.

[lib 4 all]

49. that and a passport will get you a bag of chips in France

It won't win you an election in America, however.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

59. An AWOL National Guardsman "ties" a war hero 4 star general?

Don't think so.

[lib 4 all]

60. Bush is a "war-time president". That trumps all in the voters' minds.

Bush has two wars and 9/11, and that goes a long way with voters.
Most voters care more about substance than window-dressing.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

61. Clark a Visionary - has well thought-out 100 year plan

The man is BRILLIANT.


Posted on DU:

I'd like you to vote for Clark because Clark's ideas are simply far more visionary. Do you know that on his website he has a 100-year plan? Do you think any other presidential candidate or president has ever considered what the effects of their actions will be in 100 years? This is a person who was recently CEO of an alternative energy company -- this could be the guy who stops the world from being dependent on oil.

Do you know that on his website he has now broken down, state-by-state, how many lives he pledges to save by tightening clean air standards, how much the standard of living will rise in each family ($3,000) during his first term, how many additional teens will go to college, how many more people will be covered by health insurance...Here's a link if you're interested. http://clark04.com/issues/turnaround/states/

This is not a guy who is making politician promises. This is a man who makes plans and implements them. These are good plans, people.

[lib 4 all]

63. people vote 4 years at a time. His "100 year plan" is irrelevent.

Can you imagine what Teddy Roosevelt's "100 year plan" might have been like?
How ridiculous. As if we would still be following Teddy Roosevelt today!
:eyes:

[Killarney]

62. What's the difference between democrats and cannibals?

Cannibals only eat their enemies.

Try attacking the real bad guy... Bush.

Even though I doubt you really want to hear any answers since you already have your mind made up against Clark and are just wanting to bait people... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take the time to give you my opinion:

Clark has the best chance to beat Bush. I do believe he is highly qualified. He blows Bush out of the water with foreign policy experience. Bush is a draft-dodger, Clark is a war hero. He led NATO. He is respected by our allies. Domestically, Clark is a brilliant man compared to Bush's sub-par record. He is a Rhodes Scholar and has three masters degrees--one of which in economics. He taught economics at West Point. He worked in the Office of Management & Budget under Ford.

What is more important to you... that your candidate gets the nomination or that Bush loses in the GE? Because that's what it comes down to. Clark can WIN the GE.

[lib 4 all]

64. and what will that leave us with for 4 years? Another militaristic Repub.

[Killarney]

65. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

I don't know how many times you need to be reminded that he is not a Republican. Never was a registered Republican.

Every single one of your posts is flame-fodder.
I'm pretty convinced at this point that you are a freeper that came here to stir the pot. No Democrat would be as ridiculous as you've been the past two days.

[lib 4 all]

68. Why was Clark drafted to begin with?

It wasn't for his long-time support of Democratic candidates, because he had none.
It wasn't for his anti-war stance, because he had none.
Nor was it for his experience in elected office, because he still has none.
It wasn't for his criticism for the Bush administration, because he had none. In fact, he had nothing but praise.
It wasn't even for his party affiliation, because at the time he had none.
It wasn't for his positions on the issues, because he had none until his handlers told him what they were.

It was for his war record, which may be better than other Democratic candidates, but it will not beat Bush's in the general election.
A "war-time president" trumps a retired General in the eyes of the voters.
We need to bring the debate back to our turf.

[mmonk]

70. My opinion is if you post to present someone as a bad choice

you should know that person's positions on the issues. I find many disparaging posts about candidates that show little knowledge of that candidate's positions. Wouldn't it be interesting if a post declaring someone not a good candidate had to dwell in more specifics?

[lib 4 all]

73. you're ignoring the thrust of my objection

it is over how recently his positions have been adopted.
Other candidates have spent a lifetime creating the platform that Clark is just picking and choosing like he's at the Democratic buffet table.

It does a great disservice to these fine leaders.

[Turkw]

77. Let's see- promotion of minorities and women, education of children,

combating domestic abuse, pursuing diplomacy before war- and then multilaterally, and a positive stand on endangered species. These are a few of the things Clark has a strong history on, not a bad start for any Democrat.

Add to that civil union legislation, wanting the military to lift the ban on gays, a progressive tax plan, and a pro-choice belief. I'd say any candidate would be competitive.

The cherry on top is that he is a former general, with strong and positive connections abroad- one plank, not the entire platform as some have alleged- and he looks like the winner he is.