Clark is the DLC's attempt to maintain control of the Democratic party, even at the cost of a Bush win this year.

From: qwerty qwerty@earthlink.net>
Date: Monday 05 January 2004 10:55:27 am
Groups: alt.politics,alt.politics.economics

http://www.SmirkingChimp.com/article.php?sid=14403&mode=nested&order=0

Most Democrats routinely vilified Nader for his comment that there was little difference between Gore & Bush, yet, many of these same Democrats now speak as if there were little difference among the Democratic frontrunners for the 2004 presidential election.

I've read many comments by fellow Dems to the effect that they would vote for any of the Dem candidates to beat Bush, which is fine in November, but this is too early for us to declare that there is little difference among the frontrunners, as Nader did in the 2000 election cycle.

DLC backed Clark was a conservative republiKKKan his entire life before deciding to run for President of the US. What happened? Is he so fickle that he'll switch his loyalty whenever a new opportunity for personal gain presents itself?

Isn't it funny how Clark appeared on the scene just as Dean began establishing himself as the candidate of choice among Democratic voters? In other words, why did the DLC back Clark when it became evident that most Democrats wanted Dean?

I maintain that Clark is the DLC's attempt to maintain control of the Democratic party, even at the cost of a Bush win this year.

Bits from my posts on Friday:

Dean's an outsider that never had to suck DLC cock to "win" his party's backing. If Dean wins, the DLC's future influence in selecting candidates that share the DLC's neo-republiKKKan ideology comes to a screeching halt. All the cozy, lucrative relationships with big business campaign contributors that conservative DLC members have cultivated over Clinton's reign, which allowed them to ignore their constituents, will abruptly end.

Dean is a threat to the neo-republiKKKan, DLC cancer that's killing the Democratic Party. If Dean wins, the DLC financial lifeline to big business contributors will be cut, and they'll have to solicit campaign contributions from their constituents, just like Dean, but they will fail because the DLC agenda is not supported by the majority of Democrats.

There doesn't even need to be a conspiracy organized by late night whispers over the telephone: there just needs to be silence from the DNC. Why do you think the DNC is not seriously trying to persuade presidential candidates to avoid specious attacks against the party's frontrunner?

With Gore's endorsement, Dean can attract conservative Democrats, but I doubt that Clark could attract progressives, the Democratic Party's left, or any significant number of republiKKKan voters -- especially when you consider that Clark is basically a DLC candidate being pushed by Clinton, which won't go over too well with potential republiKKKan voters, most of whom revile the Clintons, or progressive voters that despise the DLC.

Gore's endorsement of Dean really gives Dean a better chance against Bush because Dean appeals to a wider group of Liberals that previously hesitated voting for DLC Democrats. [Gore really took a bullet for Dean this election cycle, and more than likely burned a lot of bridges to his former DLC supporters.]

Since DLC backed Clark's only claim to fame is his military record, it should be unimpeachable, but this is not the case. His military record will be smeared by republiKKKans, just as easily as they have smeared the military records of both John McCain & Max Cleland; consequently, Clark's claim that only he can challenge Bush on the Iraq fiasco is nothing but wishful thinking, at best.

Clark is a one-trick pony, and his military record isn't passing the smell test.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040102/COGEE02/Columnists/Idx


There were atrocities committed in Yugoslavia under Clark's watch. Of course, Clark had nothing to do with them, but it should be an easy smear campaign to suggest that he could have prevented them, but failed to do so because of his poor judgment & lack of leadership.

The smear campaign against Clark has plenty of ammunition already:

***********************************************************
http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/clarkatwaco.html

Yugoslavia:

Non-combatants were killed in large numbers "by accident" using the most vicious of weapons. Video evidence of assaults was "lost" due to unlikely technical problems.

Clark's PR people claim the flight camera malfunctioned in the US warplane that killed 87 Albanian refugees in Korisa in Kosovo. Clark's extensive use of cluster bombs and his targeting of hospitals and other health care facilities, including old age homes and maternity wards, is well documented.

Waco:

General Wesley Clark was involved in the siege and final assault near Waco, Texas that killed, by a combination of toxic gas and fire, at least 82 people including some three dozen women, children and infants.
***********************************************************

Clark's strong support from Clinton & his involvement in Waco will alienate many conservatives that would otherwise vote for Dean.
http://sierratimes.com/03/12/29/ar_carlworden.htm

This entire election cycle smacks of Democratic party politics orchestrated by Clinton & his DLC buddies to maintain their tenuous hold on the Democratic party, and prevent mainstream Democrats from selecting a candidate that does not cower in the presence of DLC lapdogs. Gore knew, that's why he threw his support behind Dean early in the campaign. Gore does not want his party in the corrupt hands of the ethically & morally prostituted DLC.


"republiKKKans do best what they do on their knees."