In the last Dem debate, the first question was to Clark to explain why he became a Democrat. Well, he went on and on why he did. According to a thread last week, somebody checked after the debate and he still wasn't a Democrat !!!
I dislike candidates who mislead, those whose resumes and experiences don't make sense with their views, and those who don't have a track record of actually voting on these tough issues.
It's easy for Clark to say he would've opposed the war, yet his track record seems to be to come in shooting. He obviously has no passion for the views he espouses today.
The other one is Dean. He's disclaimed many of his previous views about pulling out of Iraq and Social Security age. He has no track record in voting for things that would apply to the whole country. He's delusional enough to think that supervising the state of tree-huggers, gentleman farmers, lunatics of all ilks (and not that many) somehow qualifies him to run the world. Nothing in his resume suggests he would feel the pain of those whom he pretends to represent.
They're both stealth candidates. We'd all be better off with someone who has a voting track record.
I've heard liberals say similar things:
"Clark may have voted for Reagan and Bush's dad."
"Look at Republicans for Dean, look at his fiscally conservative record as govenor."
Both of these guys apposed the war when it was popular, and now benifit from it being unpopular. And because they seem to be "out siders", liberals think the DLC has sold them out. Though Clark is charged as being a DLC steal
He has no track record in voting for things that would apply to the whole country.
How were the last two guys from Texas and Arkansas any different?