Democracy Now today talks about Wesley Clark's war crimes in Serbia

it's pretty damning--they catch Clark and ask him about specific incidences they've compiled of fucked up shit he's done and he's kind of trapped.

it helps cement my idea that i'm bewildered by people who oppose Bush because of Iraq but support Clark who did essentially the same thing in Kosovo.
 
my roomate and i watched the debates last week and i think right now edwards or kerry impressed me the most out of the democrats. i mean clark had some decent points but i think the things alex brings up really just negates all of those.
 
it stinks because every single one of these people has either (a) done something messed up or (b) has the easy potential to do it (i mean, clinton was really pretty bad too about war crimes and terrorism in other countries).
 
Yes, they all have done terrible shit. I think Clark has done more terrible shit than Dean or Kerry, though. Because Clark's not yet the frontrunner, though, the media glosses over the evil shit he's done so most people think he's some kind of angel. He'll get his moment in the sun if he surges ahead, though.

Edwards is a fucking douchebag.
 
also alex i would like to know what you see as the big problems with edwards in detail because i don't know much about him and he seemed halfway decent but i would like to know what else he has done to earn such negative thoughts from you.
 
I would probably vote for Kucinich first, then Dean, then Kerry.

Greg, John Edwards is nakedly ambitious and nationalistic/regionalistic. He's willing to sacrifice his country and his own party in order for personal gain. An example of this was Dean's "I want people from both parties to vote for me, not just people from the Northeast. I want the guys with Confederate flag stickers on their bumpers to vote for me, too." comment in the debates.

This comment was a complete non-issue--there's nothing wrong with the sentiment Dean expressed. But Edwards seized the opportunity to attack him with an attitude of "We don't need Yankees comin' down here and tellin' us what to do!" and "We Southerners aren't all stupid, you know!" and other comments that inaccurately portrayed Dean as a South-hating, Yankee elitist. Edwards gained in the polls, and gained satisfaction from seeing his rival lose points, especially in Southern areas (where Edwards was poised to swoop up those voters).

The worst effect of Edwards' attacks are that they are EXACTLY the kind of attacks George Bush will be levelling against the Democratic candidate if they're not a Southerner. Meaningless attacks that nevertheless play to the people, riling them up to get mad over nothing. Edwards lent credibility to those (future) attacks, and in six months, when Kerry or whomever is the nominee and is getting fucked in the South, you can thank Edwards for a portion of that. All done in order to boost his own polls.
 
I think that's overstating the case. I think in 6 months when Bush is hammering Kerry (or whoever) Edwards will not enter the mind of any undecided voters. He will be totally forgotten. That doesn't make that provincial crap legitimate of course.

But agreed on the Conf. flag thing. It's truly a case where even the mention of racial/class issues by someone who hasn't been a victim of said issues is taboo. Which is bullshit.
 
I don't mean Southern voters are going to think, "Bush is so off-base...wait! Edwards said Dean hated Southerners! FUCK DEAN!". I mean he's contributed very substantially to that attitude, and his words WILL come into play, even if they're not associated with Edwards in the minds of the people.

It doesn't matter whether Edwards was a victim or not. Sharpton also assaulted Dean for that (obviously, for different reasons than Edwards cited), and I'm not sure who started it, but both were pretty bad. Sharpton is and always has been willing to exploit race for his own personal benefit to an extreme degree. I honestly had thought he had changed and become more rational and responsible, but his criticism of Dean--calling him racist, and saying he wanted the Klan to like him and whatnot--made me re-re-think and realise the old Sharpton isn't really gone after all. Fuck him, too.

Note that Carol Moseley-Braun, who is an intelligent person who is not a cheap, tawdry, race-baiter but IS black, would not attack Dean for the Confederate flag comment, so it's not like you can excuse Sharpton by saying, "Oh, he's black, he was in a RAGE thinking about the Confederate flag!!" or anything equally condescending.
 
No, Sharpton going after Dean on the flag thing was more of an eye-rolling experience for me. I just think with the Edwards thing, saying he sold out the party for his personal gain is making a mountain out of a molehill. Sharpton and Edwards throwing turds at Dean for that is predictable. In the end, nobody runs a clean positive campaign (who gets anywhere).
 
At this point, unfortunatly, I don't see any democrats other than Clark being able to beat Bush, although Dean and Kerry would make more decent president (whatever that means). Then again I might be fooling myself thinking anybody has a chance...