Saturday, November 29, 2003

My hot button - don't push - or I go Boooom!!#$%&!!!!

By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sat Nov 29th, 2003 at 05:40:21 AM EST


Some months ago on DU (I was candidateless then) I spotted some Nadercamp positions "how W staying in there will be good for us" kind of thingy. After peeling myself from the ceiling, I was able to articulate something like this: "I don't care what candidate you support, I don't care where you are coming from - Democrat, GOP, Green, alien, freeper, troll - if your goal is to work towards ending the present junta in power you are all my brothers in arms - if not, you are my enemy"

It was appreciated as a rallying cry - although the "who cares" crowd objected: "Isn't that an "are you with us or against us" thingy?" Yes, it is. I made no excuses. Not committing to this larger goal at this time in history puts you in the seat opposed to mine. So: CHOOSE!

Of course, I am more specific these days: to be with me, you have to support Wesley Clark - although I still see the common goal with the rest of them.

I appreciate the huge array of interests, backgrounds and make-ups of our people: philosophers, veterans, Democrats, Republicans, Natural Law, Christians, Pagans,Budhists sportsmen and geeks, peaceniks, students, old hippies,moderates, - we are certainly a worthy sample of America. And I do revel in our differences. It takes a beautifully complex man like Wesley Clark to attract such diversity.

There's one difference from me I can't stand though: lack of passion. being vague and wishy washy about the common goal sends me back to the ceiling. When I read stuff like "It's not nice to attack out president, he is a very nice man who sacrificed his Thanksgiving to be with the troops and he he was too elected so stop saying that" I can only ask one question: "Why are you here?"

But that's just me. Don't push that one button, and we are brothers (or sisters). The more passionate you are, the more I love you.
War vote, schmwar vote - just make the damn thing stop! Remove from Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog on Thu Nov 20th, 2003 at 07:00:34 AM EST
Who cares now a day how everyone voted? (except for some rabbid  Dean&Kuchinich supporters)?
   Many parents confronted with fighting siblings came to the point of saying: "I don't care who started it, just make it stop"
I just surprised myself realizing that  while reading and viewing Dean's spot attacking  Gephardt.
I was one of these people almost saying: "I'll never vote for someone who voted for the war". Gephardt was especially eggregious in his actions - his support for Bush undercut the Senate vote on the Biden Lugar amendment . It was a timid amendment, but the votes were there for it.
    Still, while watching that ad I realized: who cares at this point?
All these purity tests are playing well to the converted, not to the majority that wanted the war (yeah, even Democrats, unfortunately).
   That's why, in the field of "others" - Kerry looks increasingly better than Dean who comes off as some  fanatic counting the drops of blood required for racial purity.
  The whole "flip-flop" fabricated issue about Clark is becoming more irrelevant with each body coming back home. Clark is the guy who can stop it - everything else is talmudic hairsplitting to rile the faithful.
Sabotaging Clinton's ME peace - by Bushco
I knew of Perle - and my story is a bit less one sided than yours - and fits better with the facts: Perle sabotaged the peace talks by going to BOTH SIDES in the conflict and making promises to each that if they hang on with the signing business hereby helping Bush the Lesser ascend the throne - there'll be something special in it for them.
As it happens, it was Arafat who went for it and not Sharon. It would take 6 months later, Summer Solstice 2001 - Arafat would figure out he was taken and would say: "I now want to sign that peace"
The half of the story you tell was printed in the Guardian reflecting their biases. The missing half reflects the facts.
Yes, Bushco (Perle was just a proxy) is responsible for every death in ME since 2000. And knowing this, how much more despicable and cynical is W's mind-boggling pronouncement: "The killing in ME is Clinton's fault - he raised expectations" (Fleisher voiced it, retracted it, then Bush said it again in an interview with a German magazine and had to sorta apologize).
Richard Perle didn't really resigned from anything. Seymour Hersch from the New Yorker had exposed his corruption and PNAC conquest dreams. Arrogant Perle threatened to sue Hersch - and in UK, no less. He was advised to step off the limelight. He is still there, same duties, just less titles.
As for Tom Delay's demented rantings - they surely don't help any these days. But I am not aware of his involvement at the time there was an actual chance of peace.
How to (not) make me explode - rant

Some months ago on DU (I was candidateless then) I spotted some Nadercamp positions "how W staying in there will be good for us" kind of thingy. After peeling myself from the ceiling, I was able to articulate something like this: "I don't care what candidate you support, I don't care where you are coming from - Democrat, GOP, Green, alien, freeper, troll - if your goal is to work towards ending the present junta in power you are all my brothers in arms - if not, you are my enemy"
It was appreciated as a rallying cry - although the "who cares" crowd objected: "Isn't that an "are you with us or against us" thingy?" Yes, it is. I made no excuses. Not committing to this larger goal at this time in history puts you in the seat opposed to mine. So: CHOOSE!
Of course, I am more specific these days: to be with me, you have to support Wesley Clark - although I still see the common goal with the rest of them.
I appreciate the huge array of interests, backgrounds and make-ups of our people: philosophers, veterans, Democrats, Republicans, Natural Law, Christians, Pagans,Budhists sportsmen and geeks, peaceniks, students, old hippies,moderates, - we are certainly a worthy sample of America. And I do revel in our differences. It takes a beautifully complex man like Wesley Clark to attract such diversity.
There's one difference from me I can't stand though: lack of passion. being vague and wishy washy about the common goal sends me back to the ceiling. When I read stuff like "It's not nice to attack out president, he is a very nice man who sacrificed his Thanksgiving to be with the troops and he he was too elected so stop saying that" I can only ask one question: "Why are you here?"
But that's just me. Don't push that one button, and we are brothers (or sisters). The more passionate you are, the more I love you
Welcome, newbie! You have passion - you'll fit! (#7) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 11/29/2003 05:13:04 AM EST
Reply
This CCN will evolve as the story of all of us - and you are part of it. Don't hesitate, tell your sttory, we are listening! (I have already revealed my pet peeve - people who hang around just cuz...fer sure...not nice to say bad things about that nice man in the White House who sacrificed his Thanksgiving for the troops). Everyone else - I consider you all my brothers (sisters) in arms

Friday, November 28, 2003

Clark's humanitarian record

Samantha Power's meticulously researched and notated 600+ page Pulitzer
prizewinning tome, "A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of
Genocide." .

General Clark is one of the "heroes" of Samantha Power's book. She
introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes
his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to
contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or
about the Hutu and Tutsi. She writes, "He frantically telephoned around
the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda.
Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to
Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) . He advocated
multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant
General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The
Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says.
'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and
we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or
high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action,
midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant
proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials"
(p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about
humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as
Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe. When genocide began
to occur in the Balkans, he was determined to stop it. She details his
efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command
of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who
probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's
battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign
succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring
the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for
Albanians the right of self-governance. Yet in Washington Clark was a
pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as
supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and
ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian
intervention had never been a great career move."
From "He's cute" to "He's electable"

I spent Thanksgiving with the same bunch I was with some weeks ago for a birthday party. Lefties, internet unconnected - Castro good, both parties bad kind of people. I have a hard time usually because of their "what 2000 coup?" attitude. Last time however they responded to my Clark buttons thusly:
"I'd vote for anyone against W - and at least Clark is very good looking" "As good a reason as any" I smiled.
Last night some of them were at the Thanksgiving dinner. They signed my ballot petition, expressed pessimism over the outcome of the election (based primarily on the Bagdad stunt) and then reprised the theme from last time: "The only reason I'd vote for Clark is because he might beat Bush" "As good a reason as any" I said again

Thursday, November 27, 2003

My Letter to The Nation Add to my Hotlist

Re:Clark's True Colors  http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&c=1&s=taibbi

Disappointed. I waited for the obvious lines: "heh, heh, heh = Bababouie" The date was all wrong too: you meant to publish that on April 1st.

Whenever I start appreciating anything in your publication, an election comes along and then you remind me the real reason you get funded: suppress the vote by advancing the right wing friendly meme: "they are all the same". The good news for this democracy: after what you did in 2000, no sane person in this country is likely to look for voting advice from you.

I hope you accepted the responsibility of doing your part in bringing about the present disaster: GWbush. Whether you accepted it or not, it's on your heads. Publishing shophomoric trash like that is your attempt to earn him a second term - only now even youngsters are on to you these days.

Have fun on your way down the drain - I see Taibbi having a glorious career at Faux. He'll have to ditch Kuchinich of course, but he looks like someone who is more comfortable spewing venom anyway. And if he's lucky, he'll even get to date Ann Coulter!

Sneer all you want, people want a competent leader who is anti-war because knows intimately its horrors and who knows how to bring about a peace - having actually done it.

How does it feel to always be on the wrong side of history? You savaged Al Gore last election - did you hear his speech at Moveon.org? With Clark, you are just repeating your idiocy. Congratulations! You are consistent. Only this time, only Beavis and Butthead will follow you. On second thought, just Beavis.
http://writers.forclark.com/story/2003/11/27/6204/6126

Wednesday, November 26, 2003

On Cris's blog:
General Clark is going hot! Best Of Blogs? · Add to my Hotlist
By cris [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to cris's weblog (Firsthand Accounts) on Mon Nov 24th, 2003 at 06:05:08 PM EST
I know my boss!  If you read my Nov 17th entry; you'll find that I said that General Clark has his "war face on!"  General Clark has a battle rhythm plan.  You have seen the preliminary opening phase of the ground offensive. 

 It's going to get interesting people!  The boss is mission focused.  The face I saw tonight is the same face when Admiral Ellis, Commander in Chief of Allied Forces Southern Europe reported to his boss, The Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, General Clark "Missiles are launched!"   

Sir, your former military staff salute you this evening!  Eight cruise missiles down range!

Cris Hernandez, Chief Warrant Officer (Ret) Former Personal Security Officer to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe   
http://cris.forclark.com/story/2003/11/24/1858/5262
My letter published in Am-NY - our free daily

Posted to Writers For Clark on Wed Nov 26th, 2003 at 06:25:18 AM EST
It doesn't have an on line version so here's what I sent: Thank you for putting a picture of my favorite General in your paper. There was of course a good story outside the studios as well, with a bunch of us waiting for Clark with signs, handing out Clark bars and having a good old time in the icy wind. Here are some accounts: mine: http://bestofblogs.forclark.com/story/2003/11/20/185241/21 and another Clarkie's who got to talk to him yesterday http://bestofblogs.forclark.com/story/2003/11/20/182757/71 and here are some pictures: http://homepage.mac.com/stopbush/clarkforpresident/PhotoAlbum21.html Anyway, I still am a fan of the paper. I loved the "Protestors Topple Bush" pic,and Felice's Cohen column is a riot. It keeps getting better and better. Today I am alerting every Clarkie in the city to pick up their copy to see the picture. Thanks again. Now, only the first paragraph made it, but the title was good: CLARK'S DA BOMB" it's important to note that this is the one NYC publication not rightwing/supress the vote sponsored and so far they had no primary coverage (other than the pic I am referring to). It's in paper dispensers throughout the city - and judging by my neighborhood, wildly succesful!
http://writers.forclark.com/story/2003/11/26/62518/999
President Gephardt ?- the Unions as kingmakers 
  

Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog on Tue Nov 18th, 2003 at 01:21:31 PM EST http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2003/11/18/132131/24
The media is taking for granted that Dean will be the nominee (or is the frontrunner) because he got SOME unions endorsing him. Even Novak, in his skewering attack today labors under this assumption
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/13/column.novak.opinion.dean/index.html
Let's look at some history. The only other candidate running for Presidency as often as Larouche is Dick Gephardt.
     He's been running since for ever (1988, 1992 that I know of) and always got ALL UNION support. So, where is the nominee/president Gephardt?
Did Carter get union support? I know Clinton didn't.
Now the unions are at odds with each other - competing in the race - yet one guy who got 1/3 of the endorsement - and not the other- is crowned as the winner.
  So, to the operatives ensconced here to inject some "healthy pessimism" as well as to the media I say: tell it to president Gephardt.
 

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

W Blinked part two: after draft dodging, "gay nightmare" Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (News and Links) on Sun Nov 23rd, 2003 at 09:30:10 AM EST
Yesterday I predicted that Dean's free ride in the media is over since the draft dodging silver bullet was finally released by the NYT Dean's Gay-Marriage Nightmare /a   It looks like the second silver bullet is out. Clift makes sure to print Dean's comment that was offensive to gays: "        "It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else," Dean replied. The remark made headlines and created friction with the gay community," When not attacking dean, Clift copies dutifully from the Rove memo: "        SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE scared to filibuster a prescription-drug entitlement even though they think the GOP plan is a scam, snip . If the GOP can keep rebellious conservatives in line and eke out a victory in the House, President Bush can claim credit for the biggest expansion of Medicare since the program was created 40 years ago. The benefits won't kick in until 2006 and the AARP membership is in rebellion. Nonetheless, Bush will have refurbished his compassionate-conservative credentials in time for the election" So, to repeat: Democrats scared, Bush compassionate conservative - and all Democratic candidates need to be put in their place. Sorry, Dr Boo-Boo, the teflon is due at the Rove's office.
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2003/11/23/93010/267
Quote of the Day Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sun Nov 23rd, 2003 at 04:53:35 PM EST
http://mykej.forclark.com/?rate=1&sid=2003/11/23/105838/05&op=displaystory&pid=&rati ng_5=1#5 "I'm not running to bash george bush. A lot of Americans really love him. They love what he represents, a man who has overcome adversity in his life from alcoholism and pulled his marriage back together and moved forward." There was another one, less subtle, but forceful enough on C-Span today. Caller answering the Time question: "Why do you hate W?" "I don't hate him. I don't like his policies, I think he is greedy, cruel, deceiving, dictatorial - other than that, he's fine" http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2003/11/23/165335/37

 
The anti-Goldilocks strikes again! Pledge? What Pledge? Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (News and Links) on Mon Nov 24th, 2003 at 09:54:38 PM EST
Reply-To: 911revelations@smartgroups.com Wesley Clark, the retired general and presidential candidate, insisting that the Republican National Committee pull a TV ad charging that President Bush's critics are attacking him "for attacking the terrorists," said on CBS' Face the Nation that the ad "violate [s] the pledge the president made not to exploit 9/11 for political purposes." http://www.ardemgaz.com/ShowStoryTemplate.asp?Path=ArDemocrat/2003/11/ 24&ID=Ar00102 Now, just between us, we know that Bush made no such pledge. They always accuse democrats of politicizing 9.11 whenever they bring it up, no matter how legitimate the context. Not only didn't Bush make such a pledge, he set his nomination to be made in NYC - next to Ground Zero - on the eve of 9.11. They even arranged for the cornerstone of the new construction on the Ground Zero to be set during the RNC convention - effectively making 9.11 the exclusive ownership of RNC. Of course, as Clark said, one cannot take credit without shouldering liabillity. So, Bush and RNC should be reminded that 9.11 is not an accomplishment but a tragic, colossal failure. And what's the best way of doing it without being accused of "politicizing " 9.11? Turning the tables around: Bush violated his own pledge. What pledge? Well, can anyone ask this question?
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2003/11/24/215438/83
Wielding wedge issues in the debate Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Mon Nov 24th, 2003 at 10:19:21 PM EST
In my second viewing I was struck by the length Brokaw went to to protect Dean, demean his attackers. In the process, he used two wedge issues: the religion - pointed at Clark and the Gay marriage pointed at everyone. Everyone? Not quite. There was one candidate conspicuously missing from the hot seat. And that was the very one for whom the damn thing was cooked in the first place. The annointed One - the one who said "I am as uncomfortable as anyone else" (about civil unions) was NOT asked his stand on civil unions. Brokaw wirked hard tonight for Peggy Noonan's men: Bush and Dean. And despite all that, Clark raised to the top. "His campaign style caught up with his resume" said Jesse Jackson. DU is Clark country since last night. Let's keep it clean and thoughtful. Deanie boppers - please throw the beer bottles in the trash. Thank you.
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2003/11/24/221921/81
Quote of the Day - John from Houston Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Tue Nov 25th, 2003 at 02:41:04 AM EST
On the famous Clark gaze: "His detractors have called that the-deer-in-the-headlights look. But it's really the-headlights-on-the-deer look. :o)"
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2003/11/25/2414/9975
Clark vs Tweety on Gay Marriage: Clark scored! Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (News and Links) on Tue Nov 25th, 2003 at 03:10:12 AM EST
Having cooked the Gay marriage issue for Dean, last night, Brokaw + mathews tried to beat every candidate with it (everyone that is, EXCEPT Dean) Tweety did his rapid screaming thing at Clark . Clark's answer was brilliant. Tweety was trying to get the money quote for Karl to be flashed in the South: Clark supports gay marriage" It was a trap and Clark avoided it. He said he supports their rights and WHATEVER LICENSE THEY NEED TO MAKE THEM WORK By saying that he both showed himself a good guy and denied them the money quote. Gay marriage is a matter of semantics - using words that make Moron-Americans squirm. They wanted Clark to use them - he declined. Keep it up, General!
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2003/11/25/31012/900
Quote of the Day - John from Houston

By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Tue Nov 25th, 2003 at 02:41:04 AM EST


On the famous Clark gaze: "His detractors have called that the-deer-in-the-headlights look. But it's really the-headlights-on-the-deer look. :o)"
Clark vs Tweety on Gay Marriage: Clark scored!
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (News and Links) on Tue Nov 25th, 2003 at 03:10:12 AM EST


Having cooked the Gay marriage issue for Dean, last night, Brokaw + mathews tried to beat every candidate with it (everyone that is, EXCEPT Dean) Tweety did his rapid screaming thing at Clark . Clark's answer was brilliant. Tweety was trying to get the money quote for Karl to be flashed in the South: Clark supports gay marriage" It was a trap and Clark avoided it. He said he supports their rights and WHATEVER LICENSE THEY NEED TO MAKE THEM WORK By saying that he both showed himself a good guy and denied them the money quote. Gay marriage is a matter of semantics - using words that make Moron-Americans squirm. They wanted Clark to use them - he declined. Keep it up, General!

Monday, November 24, 2003

The anti-Goldilocks strikes again! Pledge? What Pledge?

By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (News and Links) on Mon Nov 24th, 2003 at 09:54:38 PM EST


Reply-To: 911revelations@smartgroups.com Wesley Clark, the retired general and presidential candidate, insisting that the Republican National Committee pull a TV ad charging that President Bush's critics are attacking him "for attacking the terrorists," said on CBS' Face the Nation that the ad "violate [s] the pledge the president made not to exploit 9/11 for political purposes." http://www.ardemgaz.com/ShowStoryTemplate.asp?Path=ArDemocrat/2003/11/ 24&ID=Ar00102 Now, just between us, we know that Bush made no such pledge. They always accuse democrats of politicizing 9.11 whenever they bring it up, no matter how legitimate the context. Not only didn't Bush make such a pledge, he set his nomination to be made in NYC - next to Ground Zero - on the eve of 9.11. They even arranged for the cornerstone of the new construction on the Ground Zero to be set during the RNC convention - effectively making 9.11 the exclusive ownership of RNC. Of course, as Clark said, one cannot take credit without shouldering liabillity. So, Bush and RNC should be reminded that 9.11 is not an accomplishment but a tragic, colossal failure. And what's the best way of doing it without being accused of "politicizing " 9.11? Turning the tables around: Bush violated his own pledge. What pledge? Well, can anyone ask this question?

Sunday, November 23, 2003

Damning with faint praise

Quote of the Day Story score: · Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sun Nov 23rd, 2003 at 04:53:35 PM EST


http://mykej.forclark.com/?rate=1&sid=2003/11/23/105838/05&op=displaystory&pid=&rati ng_5=1#5 "I'm not running to bash george bush. A lot of Americans really love him. They love what he represents, a man who has overcome adversity in his life from alcoholism and pulled his marriage back together and moved forward." There was another one, less subtle, but forceful enough on C-Span today. Caller answering the Time question: "Why do you hate W?" "I don't hate him. I don't like his policies, I think he is greedy, cruel, deceiving, dictatorial - other than that, he's fine"

Thursday, November 20, 2003

What happened to you, Mr Rather?

By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog on Thu Nov 20th, 2003 at 10:33:15 AM EST


Dear Mr Rather
Let me first thank you for a wonderful interview. I read the whole transcript - the 3 parts of it and it was fascinating.
    Now, I do understand that it was an extensive interview and you had limited time on the show, and Clark knew that not everything would be aired.
     I do think however that less editorializing about the "stumbling campaign" might have left more time for the actual interview (you do know that Clark is leading/tied for first in most national polls, has a movement and record fundraising, right?)
    Still the reason that compelled me to write is this:
Towards the end of the interview a magic moment happened. A moment so inspiring occured, I gasped. His words: "When you can do good you should" made it into my signature tag. Any seasoned  journalist (as you are) would have ended on that note.
     Yet you felt compelled to cheapen the moment by adding an unrebuttable comment: "humanitarian, but not for Iraqis"
    What happened to you, Mr Rather?
What happened to the young reporter who challenged Nixon in the Watergate era eliciting the retort: "Are you running for something, Dan? and  responded: "No, Mr President, are you?"
      Since when was the Iraq war about humanitarian reasons? Are we talking payback for what they did to Kurds 12 years ago? I thought Bush the Smarter did that already. What were the humanitarian reasons justifying shocking and awing Bagdad and killing thousands?
   What happened to you, Mr Rather?

Sunday, November 16, 2003

 

Who said what? NH canvassing quotes (Clark's call too)

By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog on Sun Nov 16th, 2003 at 10:52:57 PM EST


Who said what? NH canvassing quotes (Clark's call too) Firing up the supporters (before his coffee), Steve Boucher said (to the 150 students): Latter in life when you'll be running for office, you'll be listing this as credit: "In 2003 I helped in New Hampshire elect President Clark" Bill Cash - Manchester alderman (the first official to endorse Clinton in 92) "this is a mission to bring back democracy.
He told us he resigned after the appointed bush - to disgusted to have anything to do with public life. This changed when Clark declared - the first moment of hope - he is on board.
Heard while canvassing: Woman:"Honey, what candidate are we supporting? Honey: "Just leave us a brochure" Husband of registered Democrat: "Mia: Is your name French?" Man: "Yes." "No." " What?""Who?" I've been in service in 1040 - one year and Clark is a phony" Mia: "Why?" "He is a joke - all Democrats are - an insult to the White House. They are no Truman, FDR or Eisenhower. I only like Bush - he knows how to talk to people" Me - smiling sweetly: "True, especially his "Who cares what you think"
Saturday evening Clark called from the NBC Green Room. We were all listening on speaker phones. Clark: "Hi. I am waiting here to be grilled by Tim Russert" He then said he was so grateful for the work we were doing and wanted to know what they were feeding us (zitti with meat sauce). he wanted to know the details of the canvassing organization - how do we keep track so we don't visit the same people twice. he then asked for the best story.
Someone obliged: "we arrived to this house with a porch covered in Dean paraphernalia. We said: "We know you support Dean but..." "Nah, I am not that sure about that Dean anymore" So we talked to her, and by the time we finished, she tore down all her Dean stuff." Clark then wanted the worst story - so I volunteered my dialogue with the confused Bush supporter (I left out the "phony" remark)
Chris , the organizer of the canvassing then reported that we knocked on 8,525 doors. "OK, how many doors in new Hampshire? And Clark started one of his dead pan number crunching with Chris seriously saying: "yes sir! "We need to reach all voters by december - that means we need 100,000 people next weekend, unless we get families of 20" "yes sir" We were all laughing and I was thinking of Scotty: "She canna take it anymore" Kirk: "I need warp 9 NOW" "Aye aye, captain" Someone mentioned some students from the military academy were amongst us, including some who served in Iraq. "I love you and thank you" Clark said simply to them.
Yesterday and today we were telling people to watch MTP, so the last sound bite comes from Justin: "The last door we knocked on someone said: "Clark? I am voting for him! I just saw him on MTP and O decided that he is the one"
 
Who said what? NH canvassing quotes (Clark's call too) | 5 comments | Group threads together | Post A Comment | Edit Story
Re: Who said what? NH canvassing quotes (Clark's c (#5) (Rated 4.00/1)

by thatmia on 11/17/2003 11:41:54 AM EST

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply

Leah,
Glad to see you're so quick on the ball with your report! It was fun going door-to-door with you. Only thing is, you might want to post a correction: we went to about 170 houses total, not 75 (between the 1st and 2nd day). Makes it seem even more impressive. Keep up the good work!


My own NH canvassing experience (#4) (No rating)

by mike from ri (mike-from-ri@forclark.com) on 11/17/2003 04:16:11 AM EST

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply

Dear Robbed (leah?): here is my post from the othetr Blog:
Leah, 17 & 20. I showed up late for canvassing at 10:30 Sun., driving up from RI. So I missed the conf call and the ziti. I did manage to get one-and-a-half routes done in a middle class section of Manchester.
Having taken part, but having missed Sat., I appreciated your report all the more.
I agree 100%. Virtually all were undecided (altho, after talking to me, a few inclined towards the General, I like to think.) Working class and middle class NH is still up for grabs.


Thank you, Leah... (#3) (No rating)

by Linda Grinaker (linda4140[at sign]yahoo.com) on 11/16/2003 11:38:39 PM EST

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply

Thank you, Leah, for sharing that with us.  It was terrific to read and feel like I was with you folks.
And to all who were a part of the efforts this week - THANK YOU!


Re: Who said what? NH canvassing quotes (Clark's c (#2) (No rating)

by Harry (no@email.com) on 11/16/2003 11:29:02 PM EST

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply

Hi Leah, have you heard anything about the Grenwich-Stuyvesent Democrats meeting? 


Re: Who said what? NH canvassing quotes (Clark's c (#1) (No rating)

by leonardr (leonardr at forclark dot com) on 11/16/2003 11:14:51 PM EST

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply

Could you clean this up a little so that it's easier to read? This is good stuff but difficult to read. I can do the editing for you, if you like.

Monday, November 10, 2003

More on Clark's blog:
50. Let me add one point to the already excellent response you already got.
The general's plan more than all others puts the emphasis on preventive care (that responsibility thingy she was talking about).
Is she trully a nurse? I hope I won't need her ministrations. I'm sorry, but when I hear Republicans talking about "responsibility" I always hear: "fend for yourself, you beggar! I got mine, scram".
In other words, did you notice they always mean OTHER PEOPLE's RESPONSIBILITY? Never their own.
Whenever something goes wrong in their life is "because affirmative action took my job" or "Clinton led me to believe that crime pays" or"France didn't let us have our war the way we wanted it, so now we'll rejoyce in them dying from the heat wave"
Why is CNN supporting Dean?

72. Miran
I was just about to post on that very fact. Note, CNN doesn't even say it's ,only one point - it leaves the difference to the reader imagination.
A bit of explanation on the reasons: remember yesterday I brough you this nugget of information:

CORPORATE MEDIA: According to Center for Responsive Politcs, the second biggest donor to Dean presidential campaign is AOL/Time Warner executives and employees.

least any of you wonder if Aol/Time Warner (owners of CNN) were suddenly seduced by Boo-Boo's cockroaches/CF rhetoric + civil unions state governor, there is this: the guy who heads AOL/Time Warner is called Steve Case. He is a right wing ideologue known by GLBT activists for his(wife's) donations to religious groups who try to "convert gays to straightness". So, why is Case giving to Boo-Boo?
When he acquired Time Warner Case had a scarinng Ashcroft-like speech. There was that code word there about his commitment to "changing the world"
So, why is Case giving to Boo-Boo? Why is CNN whitewashing Boo-Boo?
Posted on Clark's Blog:
63.I dunno what stup speech you are so tired of. How many did you hear exactly? I heard 2 in NYC - one on jobs, one on civil service, Others heard speeches on Iraq and on economy. What same stump speech are you talking about?
Should I remind you that out of all candidates (as of Graham's departing), Clark is the only one speaking about the responsibility for 9.11?? About Bushco having to provide documents for the commission?
I have a suggestion. Go visit the press room:
http://www.clark04.com/press/
See the many things Clark expressed his stands on.
I am getting tired of the criticisms of those who are not even informed of what's going on.
The other day, I was reading the Clark Tribune. In it, another know it all was tearing apart the campaign, concluding: "AND WHERE IS THE EXIT STRATEGY FROM IRAQ?"
Well, guys, if us supporters don't keep up, how do we expect others to? The media is marginalizing us - so navigate this site, get informed and then, as the general asked, GO SPREAD THE WORD!!!!
The only difference between Gore and Clark - as far as what they are cooking for them - is CLARK HAS US!!!!!
So, get crackin!!!!!!!!
As posted on a Salon blog re: Clark's War in NYT

Thank you for the reminder. It is timely, since the New Yorker seems to be digging into the morass of the past. And then it's this funny thing going on: Republicans like Bill Cohen, Hugh Shelton say they wouldn't vote for Clark. I am so very shocked! I mean, 50% of those polled would not vote for bush, but his Generals might - who'd have thunk it?
And Tommy Franks thinks (in the New Yorker story - blurbed by the NY Post): that Clark would be a lousy president. Of course, the last thing we heard from Franks before that was that he himself was a lousy general and please, Rummy, don't hit me, I'll never say the truth again - you are da man on Iraq planing!"

Sunday, November 09, 2003

Quote of the Day

"In my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama bin Laden,"
Al Gore

Thursday, November 06, 2003

Dean in ME:

Ladies and Gentlemen
I have gathered you from both sides at this table to reach an agreement. It's time for peace and unity. It's time to get past religion, history, territory squables and private grudges. You all need to think of your children instead! So, let's move on, drink some whiskey and eat this great Virginia ham together and be friends"
Inspired by Drudge's headline: Dean to the South: "Don't vote based on Guns,Religion or the gay issue"
DU-er improvement:
"Let's do the Christian thing and make peace"

Wednesday, November 05, 2003

Sharpton:

That is why, I say, instead of chasing a few bigots with confederate flags we ought to be registering and galvanizing our natural base. That is where our victory lies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17480-2003Oct25.html


Funniest headline in today's papers from the NY Post Online - "DEAN STANDS BY 'POOR WHITE' VOTE"
Alan Brisbort:

. Former first lady Barbara Bush recently described the 9 Democratic candidates for president as a 'sorry group.' The Democratic lineup contains two decorated war veterans, a Rhodes Scholar, a top West Point grad, a longtime legislator, a successful mayor and governor, and numerous other public servants, none of whom warrant such an undignified characterization. Especially not from the matriarch of three substance-abusing grandchildren, a felonious whoremonger son (Neil), ethically challenged son (Marvin), HMO-fund-embezzler and election thief (Jeb), coke-sniffing AWOL Air Guard pilot son (W.), vehicularly homicidal daughter-in-law (Laura) and father- and grandfather-in-law who traded with Nazi Germany."
http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content.html?oid=oid:40617

Tuesday, November 04, 2003

Post debate analysis:
Ok on Clark v. Zahn great analysis here:

At the moment, on her "Post-Debate Wrap-Up," Paula Zahn is trying to trap a series of candidates into calling Howard Dean a racist. It's pretty annoying, actually. First she asks each of them, "What do you think about the fact that Governor Dean refused to apologize for comments about the confederate flag? Do you think he's a racist?" And then when they say, no, of course he's not a racist, but I disagree with him for this and that reason, she follows up with, "Wait a minute, let's be fair. He did say tonight that he thought the confederate flag was a racist symbol. Are you accusing him of trying to have things both ways?"

Clark, on the other hand, just answered her question on gays in the military pretty well, clarifying that if military investigators are trailing servicemen to gay bars and trying to out them, then clearly the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy isn't working terribly well. I'm also reminded again that his military background allows him to stand up for moral behavior without sounding like, well, like Joe Lieberman. When Zahn phrased a question to him as, "You did not admit to inhaling marijuana," he cut her down -- "There wasn't anything to admit, Paula, because I've never touched the stuff." She pressed on, pointing out that with this young crowd, marijuana use might be something that resonated. Clark's answer was classic and I hope Zahn cringed in response: "It really doesn't matter to me if that's something that appeals to them. In the United States Armed Forces, we don't respect drug use. It impairs people's ability to perform their duty. I've never used drugs and there's nothing wrong with that."

This is Amy Sullivan.
Why dean is stuck with the C-flag:
chimpymustgo  (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-02-03 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. No, it's a recognition of tone-deafness on Dean's part about race.
Geez Louise. If Dean supporters could put down the Kool-Ade just long enough to look at this objectively.
I don't think Dean is a racist. He just doesn't understand the issues, the language, the nuances of the debate.
My first exposure to Dean was last January - Martin Luther King's birthday. Dean was asked about the state of South Carolina flying the Confederate flag.
Dean hemmed. Dean hawed. Dean kicked the dirt with his shoe. Dean said it's a state's rights issue.
Okey dokey. I knew then and there what we are dealing with here. Now I've watched for months, as Dean says what he THINKS needs to be said it any given situation to get votes.
Please, let us as a party, be capable of doing better than this. 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=636191
Silver stars vs Silver Spoon

Sunday, November 02, 2003

Dean wants to be the racists' candidate:

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," the former Vermont governor said in a telephone interview quoted in Saturday's Des Moines Register. "We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=2&u=/ap/democrats_2004

Blog Archive