PLEASE READ: If you are gonna bash Clark, you had better take him out. . .

[wndycty]

. . .because he could win the nomination, and then what? This actually applies to all candidates (Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Graham, etc.) and it concerns me. I am behind Gen. Clark, but I am not going after other candidates (believe me I can), because I understand that the real enemy is Bush*!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with challenging Gen. Clark, there is nothing wrong with criticism of Gen. Clark, no one is obligated to support him and everyone is free to bash if they will. But take some time to look past your own personal agenda to understand that whatever attack is lodged towards any DEMOCRATIC candidate, by other DEMOCRATS (including DU'ers) will be used against that DEMOCRAT in the general election should he or she secure the nomination. So if you feel the need to bash any candidate please make sure you take that candidate out, because you are making it harder for whoever faces Bush in November of 2004!

Remember what Bill Clinton said about falling in love with a candidate as opposed to falling in line behind a candidate. Enough people fell in love with Ralph Nader as opposed to falling in line behind Al Gore and as a result we have George w.(histle ass) Bush. Fight hard in the primary, support your candidate, but don't do anything you will regret and cannot be undone in November of 2004. Unless of course you have the attitude that you would rather see Bush win a 2nd term than see another Democrat secure the nomination if your guy does not win.

[jumptheshadow]

1. A request

If you have any lines of communication to the Clark campaign, please ask them to sit down, do some research, and come up with a thoughtful, informative response to the Pristina spam.

[wndycty]

3. This is from a Clark Yahoo group

-snip-
Please read the General's book regarding the "Starting WWIII"
statement. This action, blocking the Pristina Airfield to keep
other incoming Russian troops from landing, after being deceived by
the Russians, came with the FULL BACKING OF THE OFFICE OF THE JCS
(Joe Ralston) Pg. 392 & the SECRETARY GENERAL (Solona) Pg. 394 & THE
CHAIRMAN of the JOINT CHIEFS (Shelton) though he backpeddled and
left Clark out there to hang Pg. 398.

So, please, when people bring this crap up, ask them what page they
got THEIR info from! This is one of the LAMEST criticisms of Clark
out there!

-snip-

Chapter 15, Pages 392 - 403

[jumptheshadow]

7. The book is sold out

It's sold out at my local bookstore, although I'll try another one today.

I will contend, however, that organized campaigns have to be met with an organized response.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

10. What does it matter who backed his plan?

I am not 100% conversant on this issue, so I have to ask: was it his plan that they were backing, or was he ordered to do this by superiors?

If the former, then who backed it is irrelevant, it was still a crazy plan that almost gauranteed that the Russian and NATO forces would end up fighting, and the outcome of such fighting could not be predicted.

If it was the latter, then Clark is not to blame for following orders, just as Jackson is not to blame for following Downing Street orders not to comply. They are both soldiers, and they both have to answer to their own superiors.

Either way, the plans both before and after the Russians occupied the airfield were crazy. One could have led to the breakdown of the peace process because of NATO's actions, and the other could have led to open fighting between NATO and Russia, not something any sane person wanted to see.

If Clark was the source of these plans, then he DOES have to answer some pretty hard questions as to why he thought that preventing Russian occupation of the airfield was worth risking either the peace process or war with Russia.

It seems to me from the evidence I have seen (articles describing how the plans came about, and what happened to Clark after this incident) lead me to believe that Clark was the source of these plans. What does Clark have to say about it? Who does he say came up with the plans?

[wndycty]

12. I am not sure if he has been asked yet. . .

. . .this is something that I am sure will be addressed when he is confronted by it. Just because some people want it to be an issue does not mean it will be an issue. At some point he will be confronted by it and I fully expect him to answer it. . .but he is not going to address it until he is confronted with it. Why is he going to bring up something that most people are not talking about. . .not good strategy.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

24. Actually, that tactic is only good if he does have something to hide...

You see, you can't let the opposition determine the talking points because it is a lot harder to convince people that nothing happened if you are only speaking about it because you have been accused of something.

If Clark really has nothing to hide, then he should come out now and tell us what happened, and why it should not affect voter's decisions. Call it a pre-emptive strike. He should take the wind out of the attack by making sure it is HIS version that is heard first and thus the GOP would be trying to change peoples minds (which is always harder) than telling them what to think in the first place.

Actually, thinking about it, even if he was wrong then, he should come out and tell us so, along with the reasons he made that decision then, and why he now thinks it is wrong.

The basic idea is that, as many people know, people often believe what they hear first, and once they believe something, no matter how wrong, it is very very difficult to change their minds. I bet a significant proportion of the American people STILL believe that Hussein was behind Sept 11, even though the Bush admin has now specifically denied any link.

If Clark is the first to raise this issue, he can control what people's first impressions are, and thus can better defend against the attack in the future when it is raised by the GOP. All he needs to do is point out that he has already told us what happened and why, and that any attacks are just attempts to "rewrite history".

[sugar_peas]

13. I don't think he needs to prepare

When he is asked about things he is famliar with, he always amazes me with how well he comes across and how quick on his feet he is. I don't think he would have any problem immediately settling that issue once he is asked directly by the press.

For those wanting to defend him, I agree with the read his book comment. I got it from my local library SIGNED a few months ago. I told them this week when I was there, to hang onto it and keep it safe.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi sugar_peas!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[newyawker99]

32. dupe

sorry

[trumad]

4. Agreed jumptheshadow

I just posted a thread regarding Clark's er lack of research... The dude needs to cram big time...

[jumptheshadow]

8. Always knew the logistics would be daunting

The plunge into a campaign and the blending of the draft movement volunteers with old politicos must be a complex maneuver. Here's hoping that Clark grabs the reins soon.

[wndycty]

9. One thing about Pristina response. . .

. . .while it is a very popular issue in the activist world, I am not sure if anyone in the press has confronted him on the issue yet. Given that this is controversial issue I am sure he has already prepared a response to it, as is evidenced by the passages from the book referenced in the Yahoo Groups post I shared. I don't think the General's campaign would address the issue until he is confronted with it in the press. At this point the majority of the people do not know about it, at this point by talking about it he would be drawing more attention to it.

I don't think its fair to say that he did not research or is prepared to answer questions about Pristina. People are talking about it, but not talking to him about it, I am sure it will be addressed when it needs to be. We here on DU and other activist sites are much more engaged than your average voter, so we pick up things before most people do, we have to keep that in mind.

[JLaw82]

2. Wise words

I'm new to the forum. I think that any of the ten democratic candidates would be a breath of fresh air compared to bush and his cronies. This corrupt administration must be voted out and it will take all our collective efforts to do it.

[Friar]

19. welcome

:toast:

We fight a lot here but on the whole we agree with you and each other. As True Americans™ (apologies to Landover) know, there's no greater purpose today than throwing out the corporate shills currently destroying this great country and restoring democracy to America.

<---A Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark Democrat (actually, I'm ABB)

[newyawker99]

23. Hi JLaw82!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mindfulNJ]

5. amen to that...

We must remember who the REAL enemy is...THE JUDEAN PEOPLES FRONT?! NO! THE ROMANS!...oh...yeah...;)

[PAMod]

6. Yes, let's keep our eyes on the prize

Whether it is Clark or anyone, we need to be ready to support the nominee.

Kinda hard to do when we are calling each candidate dirty names. I know the supporters of the struggling candidates are feeling a little desperate, but please don't lose sight of the goal.

Let Rove et al come up with their own slings and arrows.

[wndycty]

11. Yes . . .due to the DU. . .

Rove can probably cut his opposition research budget in half! And I am not just talking about Clark, I am talking about all of the candidates.

[Brian Sweat]

14. Clark is not ideologically pure. He must be purged.

Kucinich, Dean or Green.

[hippiechick]

15. NONE of them are ideologically pure ....

Don't be so naive !
They're politicians, dude !!

Purity isn't how to get your name in the big game !!!

They've all compromised their principles to some extent or they wouldn't be where they are.


:hippie:

[Seneca]

16. I think he was being sarcastic

I think. :-)

[ShaneGR]

25. lol

Hitler said the same thing about the Jews.... what's this purity garbage?

[disgruntella]

17. Much too practical of a suggestion for DU!

I like your suggestion a lot, it is a positive post. Unfortunately, I haven't yet had my morning coffee...

DU is not about winning elections. It's about slamming Democrats against the wall because they are not perfect. It's about criticizing every move a candidate makes from the safety of one's computer.

It's about... It's aboot (I sound like that Canadian ambassador in South Park)

[CWebster]

18. The general does not get a free ride.

Christ, even Schwartzenegger is learning that.

[Brian Sweat]

20. No one is asking for a free wide.

We're just tired of people trying to run him over.

[CWebster]

21. thems the breaks

baby

buck up

[wndycty]

26. A 9/21 kick!!!

:kick:

I am kicking this on 9/21 because I believe Clark is going to get hit hard (some of it deserved) over they next week, but if he does well on Thursday and his communications team is in place and on the job with message and responses to attacks, he will be in great shape. He is getting so much attention and awareness that more people are learning about him and off of name recognition alone he will be a front runner. Now its up to the advisors to communicate messge and spin controversies. Considering the number of Clinton people around him I think he is in good shape.

[jonnyblitz]

27. you tell em!!!!

I wanna hear it all. ANY thoughtful discussion other then fawning and gushing to some is "running him over."

[IndianaGreen]

28. Clark has to answer the questions now, or wait until next year

and be forced to answer them when the same questions are asked by the Republicans?

I am sure none of us want Clark to become a 2004 version of the Thomas Eagleton incident. Better to have Clark go through a vetting process now, than have him twist in the wind later.

[wndycty]

30. Vet the hell out of him . . .

. . .but be objective and remember that he may win the nomination and whatever sticks, will stick to him in the general election as well. The same applies to all of the other candidates. All of them need to be vetted but remember if we damage ANY of them in the primary that damage will stick with that individual in the general election should he or she secure in the nomination.

[Padraig18]

29. This deserves a 'bump'

I am not a Clark supporter, and were IL's primary held today, I would vote for Dean. That said...

The purpose of this whole exercise is to defeat the B.F.E.E. and their demon spawn, the Emperor of Crawford. While I might have *preferred* that Clark have been an openly lifelong Democrat, it would be foolish in the extreme to make this a pre-condition for Clark getting my vote in November '04. If he wins the nomination, or if Kucinich, Kerry, Graham, Gephart or WHOEVER wins it, it is my intention to support that candidate wholeheartedly and without reservation of any kind.

We need not do Karl Rove's bloody work for him, and I can think of no greater tragedy that could befall our party than for US to have delievered the quietus to our own nominee during the primaries, or before.

As my father so wisely (though not originally) puts it, "Think before you speak."

[wndycty]

31. A 9/22 Kick

:kick:

[WilliamPitt]

33. Excellent post