February 2004 Archives

Please read the comment here for context.

Derek,
I didn't post the supporter comment. My brother did. See the posted by "Tony" ;)?

I agree with your comments about Clark, generally, although opinions on Clark don't matter too much anymore. But opinions on Health Care and Taxes do.
The tax burden for Middle-Lower class Americans is overwhelming; I know I paid $8000 this year alone.

And one might think one could figure out a salary from the taxes paid, but I dare you to figure out mine. The tax percentages are too unclear and foggy. I do know I would much rather pay taxes for socialized health care than socialized war. But how indeed could we have socialized anything, without war to begin with? Another discussion for later I suppose.

Currently our Defense budget sucks up most of our ability to manage any of the dire needs of this nation or nations abroad.

I was looking at Wesley Clark's tax plan more from the overall perspective of taxing those who need to be taxed (Big Businesses and the extremely wealthy) rather than those who can't afford to be taxed. The upper-class in this country and around the world have indeed bitten and ridden the backs of the lower-middle classes for too long.

I saw Clark as a compromise of lesser evils, and unless a large enough body of people in this country, including you and I, are willing to stand up and FIGHT for our beliefs, be it through democratic or other change, we will not see the change we want very soon.

Supporting Clark I felt was the best decision to make. I wanted to get the conversation going with the people I know read this site, and you are one of 3 people who actually commented seriously, which doesn't really surprise me, we all are overworked and have little time for anything, beyond our little circles of interest.

I felt Clark could bridge the divide and truly swing voters, like I still feel Kerry can't. And that perhaps Clark could turn the Democratic Party back into the party of the people. Generals are familiar with leading regular people, more so than Senators, in my opinion.

More importantly I think even when going into a discussion or conversation about something one's interested in, it is important to have one's own opinion on whatever is the subject of discussion/debate. This still leaves room for one to listen and compromise, and perhaps change your opinion, which was the most appealing aspect of Clark to me. He seemed to listen, even though he had strong opinions. Good leaders listen and are willing to compromise based on the facts they understand.

I'd love to also have you write on this site, although I haven't had too many women that I've invited, contribute much to the site and that is starting to present more of a male voice, perhaps more opinionated less-paternalistic men like ourselves will get these women we know to offer their side of the world too.
Thanks for commenting Derek, and I'll write more on the election soon.

For those of you sick of the "Democratic Race" coverage, I really recommend
you read Dave Eggers serial over at salon.com.

What's wrong with an email that looks like this?

Listening to the primary election speculations this evening on NPR and John Edwards speech this evening, has indeed made me revisit General Clark as an optimal candidate.

Also, the fact that he doesn't blink very frequently has bound to explain why he has gotten such cheap overage in the press and so few vote in the primaries.

But honestly I have to admit, the overarching reason I have thrown my weight (ha!...what weight?) behind Clark in this election is: a) that I felt his idealogical viewpoints were more inline than John Kerry, John Edwards, or Howard Dean (and I don't think any of the other have a chance to win). I think if you read over the Senators voting records over at Vote-Smart.org you'll see what I'm talking about (That is if you have similar liberal views as I). b) I am looking for a candidate that is strong on issues that I support (that are in-line with the Democratic Platform) c) and probably most important, a candidate that has the ability to crush George Bush.

However, it seems I over-estimated the affects of the media and news coverage of the primary results, personalities, and the levels of coverage each candidate will get on mainstream T.V. , Radio, Print, and the Web. Unfortunately, I think Clark has been buried. Although many articles I've read has had overall great things to say about the man (despite their titles (which I think shows illustrates the bad press his son is talking about), and how he stands up for his beliefs and supports the people that advise him. I guess it's easy to do when one doesn't watch T.V. , except when I visit my, or tracie's parents.

polling shows that clark and edwards are tied in Oklahoma, that's awesome...but still speulation...I'll bet by the time I finish this post, it will have changed. And an Oklahoma resident is saying "...that there is a little bit of a suspicion of northern liberals...and that Oklahoma favors those with a military background...." -James Davis-NPR 8:36PM This is all very interesting, anyways back to my thoughts.

Earlier I heard Howard Dean, say that even if it isn't he isn't the Democrat running, he is "...for whatever candidate gets the democratic nomination...", and for the first time completely I agree with Howard. Whatever it takes to vreate unity, in fact my take is that a few of the candidates ought to just pull out of the race completely. Of course ego outwieghs that likeihood, but i think it would create the unity the Democratic Party needs.

It's too bad it seems that the head of the Democratic party seems to be backing Kerry, which I just heard a Edwards supporter on the connection mention that, Kerry against Bush, would be like a Silver-Spoon against a Silver-Spoon. And syas that Edwards can connect with the people "...not because he's articulate, but because he isn't snobbish (relating that Gore was...earlier)..." I agree, and that is why Kerry is on the bottom of my list. My list is Clark, Edwards, Kerry, Dean, in that order.

I lived in Texas for 25 years, Kerry doesn't stand a chance in Texas, whereas Clark will appeal to a great number of Texans on several levels. Clark is a retired General, Clark is a former Republican [update] historially a supporter of Republican candidates (despite his support of democratic candidates in recent elections-thanks for the correction), and Clark is a Southerner. All of the factors can play a critical weight in swaying the vote not just in favor of Clark. I grew up in San Antonio, and Military bases are scattered all over that city and the entire state. And it seems to me if he was to win the nomination, would bring the greatest chance to sway the vote away from a large enough section of Texas republicans to vote for Clark.

However, I'll weigh that ideal scenario with the reality that, Texas has elected Lamar Smith, Dick Armey, George Bush, etc. , all who had strong Christian stances on the sanctity of marriage, the alleged vileness of abortion, and their appeal to business interests, which do tend to vote at a higher rate that the democrats of that state.

Yes! Clark is predicted to come in 2nd in Arizona and 1st in Oklahoma

Anyways, I'm steady for Clark, but I'll weigh that with I'm excited with Edwards as well. Kerry I'd vote for, but I don't think he could win the election. Then again what do I know about electoral politics?