portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government selection 2004

Clark is the DLC's attempt to maintain control of the Democratic party,

even at the cost of a Bush win this year.
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


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.


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:



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.


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.

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."
They all want the same thing 05.Jan.2004 12:55

yer mom

Activism in the Dems is a waste of time.

Dean wants the same thing as Clark. Clark wants to cloak it in the neo-lib rhetoric. Dean wants to cloak it in the middle of the road rhetoric. D.K. doesn't stand a chance in hell of doing it, but he wans to cloak it in liberalism.

I am sure people thought LBJ was a better alternative to the Repubs, but I bet there are a lot of dead Vietamese, Cambodians, and Laotions that disagree, not to mention dead americans and vets. How many Iraquis did Clinton kill? More than Bush, thus far.

Electoral democracy is an illusion here. At least the people pushing a third party are aware of that.

Quick picks 05.Jan.2004 14:00


About the only interest tidbit in yesterday's "debate" was the acknowledgement that the Democrats have not had a majority of the white vote in a presidential election since LBJ. But white America has the best education opportunity, best medical coverage, and best transportation access of the population.

This marketing ability of the country to represent lazy, apathetic voters as 'disenfranchised' and some how less responsible for the election outcome is another sick joke on the world. If you want to not vote for the candidates vote for yourself but get off of your ass. One way would be to surcharge Federal Income Tax 10% for those who don't vote. If you don't make any money and don't vote then you should have free counseling.

In the national election there will be one spot, and only one spot where everybody gets to decide. This will come down to Someone and Bush. In local elections there will, hopefully, be more choice, therefore more openings for progressive candidates. But for the country to re-elect (yes elect for the first time) Bush will pretty much tell the parts off the planet that may not have gotten it yet, We the People of the US mean to conquer or kill all of you. If by some odd chance the voting machine don't work, or a chad is being hung, or the computerize count is out of SciFi don't go to work the next day. Go to public areas and say no more business as usual. No election this time means defacto rebellion.

Meet Stealth Republican Wesley Clark 05.Jan.2004 14:03

more militarism is not the solution

Only the Democraps would be stupid enough to run a Republican as one of their own. For a full expose on Republican war criminal Wesley Clark, see comments at:

WESLEY CLARK: his corporatist connections and war crime past 05.Jan.2004 14:04


WESLEY CLARK: his corporatist connections and war crime past
by clarkwatch
26 Oct 2003

I was in shock when I saw that "Wes" Clark is coming to speak in Madison on a flier around campus. Why shock? If anyone goes to this charlatan puppet's talk, do so in order to ask about the following issues of his career--as an illegal military operation commander who ignored posse commitatus issues in the territorial US, working to assure the success of the heroin drug-running terrorists of the KLA, globalist corporate connections, and a state war criminal right up their with Bush. CLARK: Another fake 'man of peace' sold to continue the wars of the Bush regime.


The above is a thorough review of his 'career' and corporate crony connections, excerpted from a Ruppert summary of the Democratic candidates. It has a nice picture of Clark smiling and shaking hands with known KLA terrorists and heroin smugglers in Yugoslavia. It talks of Clark' NWO connections to Soros's NWO connections. It opens with:

"I have great respect for author and filmmaker Michael Moore, but when I saw him endorse Wesley Clark, I nearly choked. Let's refresh everyone's memory by looking at the retired NATO Commander's history. It shows us is that he has the perfect resume to continue the job that the Bush gang began, and then botched. "


A contradiction 05.Jan.2004 14:31


>> Electoral democracy is an illusion here. At least the people pushing a third party are aware of that.

Then why are they "pushing a third party" if by their own assertion electoral democracy is an illusion?

That's like saying: "I know that 'oasis' over there is a mirage, so let's hitch up our camels and go get a drink."

The Perfumed Prince in his own words: see image with Clark Quotes! 05.Jan.2004 17:31


seems to verify the perspective above of a Republican running as a Democrat!


Moore: 0-for-2 05.Jan.2004 19:43


Nader in 2000.

Clark in 2004.

Maybe he'll support Lieberman in 2008.

I like the guy on a great many issues, but his selection of candidates for the presidency leaves a lot to be desired.