Democratic Hopefuls Taunt Clark in Debate

[newyawker99]

Washington insiders seeking the presidency gave Wesley Clark a rough welcome to the Democratic race, dismissing the insurgent outsider's 11th-hour allegiance to the party and assailing his indecisiveness on the Iraq war.

The insiders - six congressional veterans with 75 years of combined experience - scored a few hits in a debate Thursday night in Phoenix. But some Democratic strategists wondered if they did so at their own peril, coming on the heels of Californians' recall of career politician Gov. Gray Davis and their decision to replace him with Hollywood action hero Arnold Schwarzenegger, a political novice.

"The outsiders still have juice because they're fresh and new and on the cutting edge of what has voters so angry," said Donna Brazile, a Democratic consultant who helped run Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign.

MORE...

http://www.optonline.net/Article/Feeds?CID=channel%3D32%26article%3D9282815

[vi5]

1. I wonder if any Dean or Kerry supporters will say....

That their candidates are attacking Clark because hey are desparate and afraid of him. Wasn't that the logic we were all told when anyone attacked their candidates? So now that Dean and Kerry are attacking Clark is it safe to assume that it is because they are desparate and afraid of Clark?

I'm not a Clark supporter and still have my suspiscions about him. But the desparate flailing on the part of the other top tier candidates in reaction to him have been dissapointing and hypocritical.

[CMT]

2. attacks are to be expected

Dean has endured several debates (including last night) where he was attacked from other candidates. It is how a candidate stands up to these attacks which will ultimately seal his fate.

[vi5]

5. I completely 100% agree......

It's just amusing to see all these candidates whose slavishly devoted supporters decried any and all attacks on their candidates as acts of desparation and fear, now doing the exact same thing within a week of the new guys entrance into the race.

I'd just like to see one honest supporter of the other candidates at least admit that their candidate is scared sh*tless of Clark and the attacks are at least somewhat desparate.

I think the attacks are fair game and will serve to strengthen our candidates.

[Scoopie]

32. Gallop poll proves it!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031010.asp

And... to all the Dean supporters who railed on me in other threads, saying the South was holding the U.S. "hostage" and that I couldn't "possibly know how other Southerners, including those in Florida" would vote: take a gander at the South poll. Clark - 25 percent; Dean - 8 percent.

Clark leads in nearly every extracted poll, the only two exceptions being those making more than $75,000 a year and among very liberal Democrats (but he isn't behind Dean by more than a few points on those two).

My point to the Dean fans has always been this: I don't hate your candidate, but I don't feel he has much to offer Southerners, who will control MANY of your battleground states in the general election against the true enemy, Bush.
If you want to get Bush out of office, you're going to NEED, yes, NEED the South. And Dean is not going to get that for you. Heck, did he even show up at the NAACP event in South Carolina today? My C-Span is showing Laura Bush, so I don't know (*rolls eyes*), but, if he didn't, that whopping 8 percent will continue to fall.

My free advice to Clark would be to press on some women's issues, too. He's ahead in the women's poll, but he can do better than that. (Plus, keeping up that 1,000-watt grinner of a smile won't hurt.)

[coralrf]

11. I am sure the GOP agrees with you...

at least in so far as a Democratic debate is concerned. In no way do they encourage the self inflicted trauma that the Democrats are suffering and as a result.. Arnold won.

We may not like the GOP but it is a fool that does not learn from those that beat him. The wingers stand behind their candidates and each other. When AS entered that farce in California he was quickly supported by most of the GOP machine. They want a Republican in office and they know how to get the job done. There was none of the rank incivility seen in the current Democratic efforts . The GOP entered a candidate 2 months before a gubernatorial election in the nation’s most populous state. The guy had zero qualifications and was running in a state dominated by members of the opposition party. BUT!!!, the machine did not beat him up. The Republicans do not see themselves as "enlightened' or "broadminded" when attacking their own. They see that as fucking stupid.

And they keep on winning.

I would ask that the DU'ers take a trip though the many anti-Democratic threads on this site and look for a pattern. Do the same provocateurs show up time and time again? They might change their Logins but their style gives them up. Can one see a hint of organization in these threads? Is there a central theme, like creating discord anytime a Democrat gets a good light on him?

Yes there is and just how fucking stupid are we?

[JI7]

4. sure

not sure about dean, but i will say my candidate kerry knows clark is a threat as seen in the polls. so he goes after clark , although clark did a pretty good job of defending himself.

[vi5]

6. Thank you.......I comend your honesty....

It's very refreshing on these here pages.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Kerry Wasn't As Harsh As Lieberman In Attacking The General...

NT


I thought Lieberman was positively Nixonian last night....

[davidinalameda]

19. wonder if Lieberman sees the writing on the walls

he is the next to go because of Clark

[Larkspur]

17. Attacking Clark's claim to be a Dem when he has no verifiable history as

a Dem is a legitamate attack. This is not the general election. It is a Democratic primary and the Dem Prez nominee is the Party's standard bearer.

Clark has no credibility as a Democrat but he has lots of credibility as a Repuke sympathizer or Independent.

[davidinalameda]

20. blah blah blah

get a new song Larkspur

I think with Clark's position on the issues, he fits in very well with the Democratic Party.

[Pastiche423]

31. Larkspur was commenting

on clark's lack of Democratic credibility, not on his issues, whatever those maybe.

It was a fair comment, since he was no Democratic track record.

[Scoopie]

33. Democratic credibility

Hmmm.... last time I checked, the Democrats said they are a large tent and welcome newcomers.
And, if the best the Dems have to offer scores an 8 percent in the South... then, well, Bush wins (maybe this time for real).
This is the problem with the characters that get nominated from the Democratic Party: they're too wishy, washy (Michael Moore just said the very same thing on Crossfire, bless his heart!). Dean may not BE wishy-washy, but the Republicans can easily characterize him this way and it WILL play in a lot of regions outside the Northeast.
That's pretty hard to do with a four-star general, wounded in Vietnam with Silver and Bronze starts and a purple heart.
Go Clark! Thanks for bringing many of us Democrats-turned-Independents-as-a-result-of-years-of-limp-candidates back home.

[Pastiche423]

37. An Independent is NOT the best

the Democratic Party has to offer.

Did you realize this is a Democratic primary?

[dfong63]

26. no, but you can count on the clarkettes to say it

[coralrf]

3. A minor point...

to all you opinion dictators out there. That debate was broadcast for all to see and WE WILL FORM OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS!

The drivel posted above is not an opinion, it is an attempt to steer yours. Ignore this winger crap and be free.

What a ludicrous non-point..."75 years combined experience" and in itself an indicator of the authors desperation. If the "experienced" veterans came to "score hits" they might bone up on their decorum as that is not the point of a debate. Clark made a big point refusing to conduct himself like the rest of that 'show'.

[Vis Numar]

7. Title

"Washington insiders seeking the presidency gave Wesley Clark..."

If Clark's not a Washington Insider, I don't know who is!

[coralrf]

13. No you dont....

You have been TOLD who is. As is the case here.

[seventhson]

8. I'M REALLY CONFUSED (I'M SURE YOU AGREE)

I am having second thoughts about this whole election.

Lieberman actually sounded decent.

I think I could actually vote for Sharpton (I am from NYC area and remember tawana brawly fiasco)

I agree with Kucinich more than ever. He IS the peace candidate.

Kerry and Gephardt looked like vinsictive self adulating middle schoolers running for class president.

Dean floundered under the right wing media assault coming from the ludicrously awful moderator (and I am PISSED that no one called aolcnntimewarner the PIMP channel for multinationals)

Clark actually said the right things and sounded smart and defended himself well -- but looked like he'd just as soon cut down his enemies on the stage with a machine gun.

Dean's clenched jaw and tight as a wound spring coiled look is getting old and his bottom teeth looked whitened causing his open mouthed glare and pent-upness look cartoonish - almost like scooby doo.

Braun sounded like a feminist conservative who would compromise like a corporate female executive to prove she was as badass as the men.

I sure as hell wish Gore would just come back and either win or lose fair and square and quit being a chickenshit (although I like his media planning)

I think Edwards is actually viable now but he is too damn pretty to look smart. Like a male Barbie-Ken doll Politician with a smooth syrupy drawl.

Dean pissed me off saying the soldiers have to stay there now that we're there (the bad Vietnamn argument).

Kucinich's Iraq plan is better than Dean's and Clark's was just like Bush's.


Oy Gevalt

[Democrats unite]

10. Very good points of view

thanks for sharing.

[DemCam]

12. How is Clark's plan like Bush's no plan?

[seventhson]

14. Keeping US troops there under US military command

and trying to get the UN do do everything else.

It's bullshit.

Bush cannot get either military OR other help because he told the world to suck his ass when he went in.

We are sitting ducks -= our troops are dying because we are the target.

US OUT NOW. UN In

Braun is talking about withdrawal with HONOR (bullshit - there is very little honor in this war for oil). Dean is talking about staying the course. THIS IS VIETNAM -- all we are doing is getting our troops killed so that BIG OIL and CHENEY'S BOYS HALLIBURTON can get filthier rich and consolidate their global fascist grip.

[Kahuna]

16. For once we agree on something...

>>Clark actually said the right things and sounded smart and defended himself well -- but looked like he'd just as soon cut down his enemies on the stage with a machine gun.>> :evilgrin:

The next debate should be interesting. }(

[Kahuna]

15. Edwards: "I NEVER wished the president well!"..

:wtf: Are you saying John Edwards, that five months into the new administration, you were against the president and hoping for him to fail? Are you saying John Edwards that you wanted America to fail? Because John Edwards, if the president fails, America fails too? Are you sure you want to say, John Edwards that you NEVER! wished the president well? :crazy:

I bet in retrospect, John Edwards wishes he had never made that statement. And Kerry is dangerously close to sounding as if he never supported bush as president <sic> of our country. Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public don't want to hear stuff like that.

[dfong63]

28. "bush failure" is not the same as "america failure"

[Mz Pip]

30. That is so true.

As much as I despise Bush, I do not think a campaign based on "I hate Bush more than you do!" or "I hated Bush before you did!" is particularly wise.

That will not play well with most Americans who either voted for Bush or were not so partisan as to give Bush at least a bit of a honeymoon. That in your face "I told you so" is just annoying and divisive.

MzPip
:dem:

[eileen_d]

18. This headline pissed me off!

I didn't see the debate and have been out of the DU loop for a few days. But just to see the word "taunt" in a headline about the Democratic candidates made me roll my eyes. I am sure there were put-downs by some candidates, but I bet there were also fresh ideas about how to run the U.S. a million times better than Shrub-- but of course that doesn't make headline news, just the infighting.

And that Lieberman quote - I wonder who the hell he thinks is going to vote for him??? He's got the "elderly curmudgeon" vote sealed, at any rate :eyes:

[fjc]

21. Another view of the debate...

It was, to me, a bit grating. I don't think Judy Woodrich was attacking Dean or anyone else. I thought she did her level best to get what I regarded as good and direct questions answered by each of the candidates. But they each seemed so lazer locked on their sound-bite campaign messages that they all seemed a bit panicked. I found myself yearning for one of them to relax and be themselves. Rev. Sharpton is the best at that, but even he was not on his hip game last night. Kerry had the only funny line of the whole night when he said there were only two ways to lower the cost of drugs, to hire Limbaughs housekeeper or elect him president. But the questions were fair and I found myself wanting someone to step up to the plate and answer one, directly, sincerely, but no one did. That made them all look bad, but the worst for me is Lieberman. He'd doing the most to undermine the candidacy of both Dean and Clark and last night, he wouldn't shut up and kept taking way more time then he was entitled to. I can't stand the man.

I don't think Edwards is presidential material by along shot.

I'm grateful to Dean for having raised the issue of what it means to be a Democrat. I like his criticism of the party and particularly of those who voted to give GWya all that rope on the war, rope that it now appears he may even hang himself on.

I think Kerry appears most qualified to be President, though I've been supporting Dean because of the way he has taken the democratic party to task, something that really needed and still needs to be done.

I agree that Gephardt is the best debater among them, and I like that he's defending the Clinton economic policies. If Al Gore had done that, he would be president today.

I disagree with others here that said Clark defended himself well, with one caveat. He replied to those attacks by refusing to return it in kind. That was a good move. But I still think he's vulnerable on what appears to be flip-flop on the war.

I think Kucinich is among the most articulate of any of them, and certainly clearer about where he stands on many issues than all of them, but he certainly cannot win and besides, I tend to reluctantly agree with the notion that we cannot just cut and run in Iraq.

I appreciate Braun because she's demonstrating that there is no question she belongs on that stage with all those priveledge white guys.

And I really wish one of those guys would take a cue from Sharpton and start speaking from the hip a bit, lighten up, and find their sense of humor.

[catforclark2004]

22. In reference to Clark's "Flip/Flop"

on the Iraq war, please note his statement to the House Arm Service Committee from September 26, 2002. It sounds pretty consistent with what he has been saying all along. Too bad that most don't want to understand nuance.

One excerpt:
, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”

and another...
The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations.

and another....
Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam’s regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq.

http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

[catforclark2004]

23. Wtf....when I posted some got left out????

One excerpt read like this....., unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”

should have read......Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”

[fjc]

24. That's nice but...

that same document also says this:

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

Don't misunderstand me. I think that on balance he has advocated multi-lateralism over unilateralism on this issue, but I think this is somewhat difficult for him to convey, particularly in light of his recent statements that appear to contradict themselves.

[catforclark2004]

25. You can take that quote out of the context of all that was said

if it helps your view.... My point was that this is still the stance that Clark is taking now.

[fjc]

27. And my point is

in the ebb and flow of sound-bite politics and in the heat of a debate format that allows only one minute answers, that appears as a flip-flop, which puts him on the defensive and that is always a disadvantage.

[davhill]

29. I sure missed Graham

He would have had some straightforward answers to some of those questions.

[demdave]

34. Does anyone have a link to the transcript of the debate.

I missed it and would really like to read the entire thing. If I wewre to believe the news reports, the entire debate was a Clark bashfest. Thanks.

[JaneQPublic]

35. Here's the transcript

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/09/se.03.html

Also, I believe CNN will re-air the debate at 9:30 a.m. Sunday Eastern.

[demdave]

36. Thank you so much

especially for the heads-up about the rebroadcast. I think demeanor and inflection don't really come across in a transcript. Especially when the subject is about piling on a candidate. Thanks again.