Clark has inpressed alot of people including some former republicans. The last election split the country, hopefully this one will heal the wound.

Posted by: sophia at September 18, 2003 07:06 PM

If there is one thing that can convince a moderate republican that Clark is not the answer it is the endorcement of Moore

Posted by: P. Ingemi at September 18, 2003 08:18 PM

P.Ingemi
The one thing that has convinced moderate republicans is Bush actions.

Posted by: sophia at September 18, 2003 08:36 PM

Sophia,

Michael Moore hates this country. Go read his Rolling Stone intervew. He talks about the way the country was founded on “fear and greed”, that everyone who came here, ever, was either afraid or rapacious and we have absolutley nothing to be proud of. All the people fleeing religious persecution, all the people fleeing famine and chaos, all the immigrants looking for a better life, all the vietnamese boatpeople: fear and greed explain it all for him and he looks down on all of them.

Moore was honest enough in that interview to say how he really felt. Michael Moore hates this country and he despises anyone who loves it.

This is a free country and Moore can say what he wants. I say he’s vile. He loathes himself and he projects his loathing onto the whole country. Clark would be smart to turn around and denounce him.

Posted by: lewy14 at September 19, 2003 12:31 AM

lewy, lewy,

You forgot the part about Michael Moore being a total, self absorbed a$$hole.

Posted by: Elvis at September 19, 2003 02:09 AM

Andrew Sullivan writes about Clark. Sully is playing catchup, I wrote about Clark here. Advantage - lewy!

Posted by: lewy14 at September 19, 2003 04:19 AM

Alan —

All opinions of Michael Moore aside, that letter specifically says further down that it is not an official endorsement — it’s too early for that as Clark doesn’t even have a platform yet. It is merely a letter of support. I think this is an important caveat.

Posted by: tom at September 19, 2003 01:05 PM

I thought Moore stated that our actions in Bosnia/Croatia were war crimes. When we accidentally hit a school and killed civilians, he stated that that was a war crime and violation of international law.

Didn’t he end “Bowling for Columbine” with scenes of civilians in the former-Yugoslavia who had been killed or injured by American bombs?

If our military action was war crimes, and General Clark was the C-in-C of that operation, isn’t Moore endorsing a war criminal?

I know, I know, Moore is a crank. But these are his views.

SMG

Posted by: SteveMG at September 19, 2003 01:28 PM

1. Moore hates this country and mis represents the facts….and for sure distorts them.
2. Moore supports Wesley ‘Ashley’ Clarke
3. Therefore Sophia supports someone beholding to a man who hates this country! buzz off

Now here come Ted Kennedy saying the President is bribing other countries and that this war was devised in Texas. Damn, 270 in the house and 77 in the Senate voted to give the Administration the power to go to war if necessary. Democrats should all go to California so we can have a nice big earthquake and put all those bastards out to sea.

Posted by: DickD at September 19, 2003 07:18 PM

DickD - Could wait until I’m finished with class out here before the big quake? Just let me get on the plane first.

Clark presents the dems with still another support-splitter. They should be culling the herd at this point, not adding to it. If this keeps up, they could get dangerously close to election with 60% still undecided. Frankly, one has to question Clark’s decision-making skills at this point. He’s never pulled more than 2 to 3% at his peak, so what chance does he have at this point (unless he just wants to signal his availability as a VP prospect for some Peace Weinie).

Then again, fat self-loathing white guys like Michael Moore need a role model.

(PS Ted Kennedy’s obviously off his meds. His public pronouncements are no longer differentiated from his statements after 12 Highballs.)

Posted by: torpedo_eight at September 20, 2003 02:31 PM

Lets face it, Clark is entering for the Democratic party. He is the only war general they have. I dont think he ever thought previously about becoming President. Only because 9-11 came, Hillary is waiting for 2008, did he ever become a viable candidate. The only way to beat Bush is to play the War on Terror card that keeps him popular. Questioning Iraq and foreign policy as a war general will give him credibility. By far the Republican Party has the most to fear in Clark not Dean.

Posted by: John at September 20, 2003 06:34 PM

Even if you don’t like Clark, look at it this way: if he manages to get elected, at least Hillary won’t really be able to run until 2012. Anyone think she can last that long without either burning out or fading away?

there’s always a silver lining …

Posted by: AP at September 20, 2003 09:57 PM

Wow, you peoples is very smart! Torpedo you are both smart and funny. AP, I think the Dems are outsmarting themselves again.
After Wesley got his physical he was asked for a specimen. He didnt know what that was, so he asked Hillary. She told him to go piss in a bottle. Insulted, Wesley told her to ‘go fart in a jug’ and all hell broke loose!
Check on Monday and see if he still has a band aid on his face….ha ha ha

Posted by: DickD at September 20, 2003 10:50 PM

Yup. I see the candidate to beat Bush is here!

Do you know how excited people were when Ike said he would run in 1952? Scared the living daylights out of Truman, who could have run again, but wisely didn’t.

What’s Bush’s choice, ahead?

He’s a fool who will lose either way. But you can choose his exit. (The kind of a guy on stage who never finds the working door when he needs it.)

Since he can’t find an exit strategy to save his life, you tell me how he handles the next two years? (Maybe, he will invite Clark into his government and fire Rumsfeld?)

Ah, the sounds of laughter. Pretty for us. But very detrimental when you’re a Bush Family member.

Posted by: Carol in California at September 21, 2003 08:35 PM

Hey Carol, your litter box is full.

Posted by: DickD at September 21, 2003 09:00 PM

Carol,

Speaking of laughter, comparing Wesley Clark to Eisenhower got me going.

Sorry, let me wipe the tears ouf of my eyes for a moment - there, that’s better.

Wesley Clark’s to Eisenhower as Pee Wee Herman is to Robert DeNiro. People will be shaking in their boots once they can remember something Clark’s done.

We’ll call you, okay?

Posted by: torpedo_eight at September 22, 2003 01:48 AM

Considering Clark’s myriad of “Bush-called-me-after-9/11” stories, I’m not surprised that Michael Moore looks up to this guy.

SteveMG, you sure made my day.

Eisenhower? Whoa… …which war did Clark win for us again? Kosovo? The war that was launched to prevent ethnic cleansing, exaserbated it, and created an environment where reverse ethnic cleansing is rampant? Oh yah, I guess that’s a war that Democrats can look up to.

Posted by: KC at September 22, 2003 07:21 AM

I’m sorry torpedo, did you just insult Peewee? Or did I read it wrong. Because if you did….
GRRRRRRRR

So a bunch of you are saying somehow Clark’s lack of posistions on anything will push America farther than Bush ever did by getting Saddam out of power? Chances are Clark would hand over the control in Iraq to the UN, and they’d screw it up, then blame it on the US.

Posted by: Greg at September 22, 2003 06:26 PM

Greg, Sorry, didn’t mean to slight Pee Wee. That said:

Eisenhower - D-Day, VE Day, and the last time the republicans controlled both the House, the Senate and the White House.

Clark -

Posted by: Torpedo Eight at September 23, 2003 03:53 PM