What happened to the Dean/Clark lovefest

[ModerateMiddle]

that was going on here prior to Gen Clark announcing his own run for the Presidency? Wasn't Dean/Clark the "Dream Ticket"?

Now suddenly Gen Clark is Satan himself?

[alexwcovington]

1. No

Clark isn't the devil. He's just not cooperative at this point in time.

I think he'll come around. Dean/Clark will rule!

[Renew Deal]

4. Not cooperative?

I am Howard Dean. You must assimilate. Resistance is futile. Cooperate with what?

[ModerateMiddle]

13. Cooperative?

You mean that he isn't willing to be Dean's VP?

[janekat]

33. I doubt it .....

Didn't you see that Meet the Press show where Dean slammed Clark? And then that awkward moment when the Dean campaign claimed that they had spoken to Clark about being their VP?

Howard's going to have to really do something DRASTIC to have THAT happen.

[Renew Deal]

2. It wasn't a two way lovefest.

That was the Deaniacs idea. Clark supporters wanted him to run for president not VP. It was created by the Dean supporters so they could keep people from jumping ship to Clark during the Draft. Their wishful thinking was that Clark was running for VP. They knew that Clark was the biggest threat to Dean. It has proved true. Clark is leading all the national polls against dems. He is beating bush in some polls and and he is winning several states. (California, NY, Wisconsin, possibly Arizona.)

[ModerateMiddle]

9. I kind of had the impression that

Dean people - including perhaps Gov Dean himself - recognized that he had to get more credibility on Foreign Policy and National Security, and Gen Clark had/has both in spades, but is short on Domestic Policy experience and campaigning. They were putting the two together to create this "Dream Ticket".

[cprise]

17. Now as we learn more about "one of our own" Clark

...the tables may be reversed.

The love affair only existed at all because Deanites gave Clark the benefit of the doubt. But now we know he doesn't deserve it, so its time to put this homeland security maven through the un-spindrier.

Set dial to 'Skepticism'.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

3. Dean Went Negative on Clark, That's What Happened

That is the main reason behind many Clark supporters being upset at Dean now.

Many Dean supporters have ALWAYS been upset at Clark, however. I've been defending the General for over a month now, from shrill, irrational and tinfoil-hat quality attacks from various people, quite a few of whom were Dean supporters fearful for their candidate's chances if Clark jumped in.

DTH

[Renew Deal]

5. Dean supporters feel that they are owed the nomination...

They feel that they are destined because of money and email addresses. I think many of them have forgotten that he hasn't won one primary yet. Dean needs to fight it out, just like everybody else.

[Gringo]

21. From a Dean Supporter:

Fair enough.

[Capn Sunshine]

47. Yeah. Fair enough.

Clark hasn't won one primary either. And trails badly in both money and polling in the locations of the first ones.

Is it going to be Howard Deans evil plan if General Clark doesn't win right out of the gate?

[Renew Deal]

55. OK

You take NH and Iowa. I'll take Cali and NY. It is early in the race. We all need a break.

[ModerateMiddle]

6. I remember when the CW was that Clark would

hurt Kerry the most if he jumped in. Most of the time I wait and see, but my heart at the time said that Clark was going to hurt Dean more - it was the fresh face v. the other fresh face.

The CW was that Clark would hurt Kerry because Kerry's claim to fame was his military experience. The rush to a relatively unknown on the issues Clark was evidence, IMHO, that the people really recognize that National Security is a huge issue for 2004.

I like Gen. Clark. Since I first saw him on CNN during the Afghanistan thing, he has made me feel safe. I still support John Kerry because I think he has the "whole package" - But I could easily support and be happy with a Clark candidacy.

[StopTheMorans]

7. tin-foin attacks?

please, your man didn't even state whether he was a democrat until a month ago. Please tell me what that accomplished? I'm not even bringing his candidacy announcement into the picture. Why the hell would someone wait until a few months before the primary to announce their party affiliation? Why didn't he do it months ago? Pray tell, what was he waiting for? And why didn't he announce his positions IN RELATION to the democratic party if he wanted to run as a democrat. IT wasn't that Dean supporters didn't want him to challenge Dean, it was (and is, in my opinion) because many do not feel that he is qualified to be president YET (read, YET). THe man has no political experience, I don't consider leading NATO the same thing as running a state/federal government, the issues simply are not the same. Clark simply is not qualified in the eyes of many who are not his supporters. Say what you may, to me, it's not the threat he poses to Dean as a candidate, but his lack of political experience that leads me to believe that he shouldn't be a top-tier candidate. Flame away, but that's just my opinion.

[ModerateMiddle]

10. I think that might be a very reasonable

argument, that he's not ready to be President just yet. But the fact that he's soared so fast in the polls is a very strong indicator that folks have National Security on their minds this cycle, don't you think?

[StopTheMorans]

14. I agree completely with your last sentence:)

n/t

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. Why Should My Candidate Lie, Just to Satisfy the Purists?

He has much more honor than that. The fact is, he WAS an Independent for many years, and only recently declared his affiliation as a Democrat (soon-to-be-resolved paperwork technicalities notwithstanding). See, until he had decided that there was a strong chance he would run, his party affiliation was nobody's business.

DTH

[StopTheMorans]

20. if he wanted to quash speculation that he wasn't a dem

and he was, indeed, a dem, he should have registered months ago. It just appears to some that he was leaving himself an out if he didn't decide to declare. I personally (and this is just me) am very put off by the fact that he couldn't really figure out his party affiliation until recently, and I don't like that he doesn't have any past political experience that I can extrapolate from. Those are simply my misgivings, and why I do not wish to see Clark at the top of the ticket in the next election cycle (which is why i have no problem with him as veep, let him prove his dem creds, and if he's what he claims to be, then we've got a lock on the white house next time around, just my opinion:)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

24. Clark Is a Deep Thinker; the Military Has a History of Being Non-Partisan

I'm sure he deeply regrets the fact that he didn't work to your timetable and jump through your hoops.

DTH

[StopTheMorans]

38. the military non-partisan thing doesn't bother me

but his voting record while in the military which is supposed to be "non-partisan" was republican. Heck, i'll even concede his voting record. His military experience doesn't bother me in the least; and you didn't really address what I was getting at: namely, that he doesn't have any political experience POST-military that I could extrapolate any solid, grounded views from that were evident in his policies; and, that he did not join a party soon after so that I could at least see that he had a history of being involved in the party and its goals. and by the "I'm sure he deeply regrets the fact that he didn't work to your timetable and jump through your hoops" you try and trivialize my views by making them seem absurd and that they are confined to myself. Many a dem in my personal life (i'm not talking DU here) are concerned with the General's lack of a political past, and the fact that he has given us nothing but words in the last few months to go on. Hate to throw out cleches, but it's true: actions speak louder than words. And I don't mind if independents vote for us; that's what we're all looking for, but I don't want someone who I'm not damn sure is a dem. to be leading the ticket.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

42. He Voted for Clinton, Clinton and Gore

How is that a Republican voting history??

Listen to him speak. Read what he writes. See his interviews. Don't trust me, SEE FOR YOURSELF, the resources are all out there.

This man is a Democrat. This cannot be faked, not when you see his sincerity and understand the honor and integrity that is present throughout his career. After all, this is a man who braved Serbian gunfire and mines to rappel 300 feet down a cliffside in an effort to rescue French soldiers in a burning APC, who then STAYED with the APC until the bodies were recovered.

DTH

[StopTheMorans]

45. I've read his stuff, read the "draftclark" views stuff

have seen him on TV numerous times, and yes, in the past few months, many of his views have fallen in line with dem views. But, like I said, I need a past history of action to go on, and I don't like the fact that he's never been in any form of state/federal government before. I'm not willing to concede the fact that since he was a great and brave soldier who stood by his men that this automatically translates to him being a great dem. My concerns about him are based on his lack of a solid political record, and any achievements as such. These are all things that I believe to be of the utmost importance in our nominee, which is again why I wouldn't mind him being a veep, but don't want him at the top of the ticket. If you don't feel that these are real concerns, then I guess we will have to agree to respectfully disagree:)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

51. If Your Concern Is Lack of Political Experience, I Understand

I personally would prefer a man with vast intellect and integrity as President, rather than an insider, but that's just me. I acknowledge reasonable people can disagree on this.

If you've really seen his stuff, though, and still aren't sure whether he's a liberal or a Thug in disguise...I honestly believe some of that concern borders on paranoia. He has long-standing views in favor of internationalism, affirmative action, the environment and education, even while in the military, for example. And I take him at his word, on the other stuff. He would be ABSOLUTELY CRUCIFIED if he got into the White House and suddenly adopted a Thug agenda. There is no way that would happen. Especially since he is a liberal.

Thanks for your post.

DTH

[TLM]

79. CLark is an insider!

"I personally would prefer a man with vast intellect and integrity as President, rather than an insider, but that's just me. "

What do you call a lobbyist working for KISSINGER, if not an insider?

Clark joined Little Rock-based Stephens Group Inc. <111 Center Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 [phone], www.stephens.com> as a corporate consultant to help develop emerging-technology companies.

Also a senior adviser at CSIS - (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Fax [phone] ]

2000 CSIS budget, $16 million,
CSIS Affiliates: The International Councillors, a group of international business leaders chaired by Henry Kissinger, meets semiannually to discuss the implications of the changing economic and strategic environment. The Advisory Board is composed of both public- and private-sector policymakers, including several members of Congress. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carla Hills cochair the board. The Washington Roundtable meets three to four times a year with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other Washington experts to discuss pressing policy issues of the day. The Houston and Dallas Roundtables bring together local business leaders and CSIS experts to discuss current international political and economic trends.
CSIS Board, Counselors, and Advisers Board of Trustees Chairman Sam Nunn Senior Partner, King and Spalding Vice Chairman David M. Abshire President, Center for the Study of the Presidency, and Cofounder of CSIS Chairman, Executive Committee Anne Armstrong* Former U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain Members George L. Argyros Carla A. Hills Betty Beene Ray L. Hunt Reginald K. Brack Henry A. Kissinger William E. Brock Donald B. Marron Harold Brown Felix G. Rohatyn Zbigniew Brzezinski Charles A. Sanders William S. Cohen James R. Schlesinger J. Michael Cook William A. Schreyer* Ralph Cossa Brent Scowcroft Douglas N. Daft Murray Weidenbaum Robert A. Day Dolores D. Wharton Richard Fairbanks Frederick B. Whittemore Michael P. Galvin* R. James Woolsey Joseph T. Gorman Amos A. Jordan, (Emeritus) John J. Hamre* Leonard H. Marks, (Emeritus) Robert S. Strauss, (Emeritus) *Member of the Executive Committee Counselors William E. Brock Henry A. Kissinger Harold Brown Sam Nunn Zbigniew Brzezinski James R. Schlesinger William S. Cohen Brent Scowcroft Richard Fairbanks Senior Advisers J. Carter Beese Amos A. Jordan Bradley D. Belt John Kornblum James M. Bodner Robert H. Kupperman Stanton H. Burnett Laurence Martin Richard R. Burt Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty Wesley K. Clark Walter Slocombe William K. Clark, Jr. Robert Tyrer Arnaud de Borchgrave Anthony Zinni Diana Lady Dougan Luis E. Giusti Fred C. Iklé (Distinguished Scholar in Residence)

[dfong63]

64. Clark also voted for Nixon and Reagan

He Voted for Clinton, Clinton and Gore How is that a Republican voting history??

Clark voted for Nixon and Reagan, and probably for Ford and Bush Sr. and after he voted for Gore, he turned around and raised money for the GOP.

This man is a Democrat. This cannot be faked, not when you see his sincerity and understand the honor and integrity that is present throughout his career.

presumably he was sincere when he said this, too:
``But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.'' link

After all, this is a man who braved Serbian gunfire and mines to rappel 300 feet down a cliffside in an effort to rescue French soldiers in a burning APC, who then STAYED with the APC until the bodies were recovered.

bravery is not the issue here. presumably Clark was a brave and honorable man before he became a dem, too. if Clark's bravery and honor were not incompatible with being a repub in the past, then are not be incompatible with him being a repub at some time in the future also. you can't use Clark's bravery and integrity to argue that Clark must be sincere as a dem now, unless you're willing to admit that he was either insincere or ignorant back then. we are being told that Clark's views have changed rapidly - so what assurance do we have that they won't change back just as rapidly?

[TLM]

78. LISTEN TO HIM SPEAK?

I have done just that and I heard...

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."

"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."


So it looks to me like Clark says what he thinks his audience wants to hear... his ideas of what makes a good leader and what is good leadership seems to do a 180 based on which party he is claiming to be a member of this week.

He's a two faced lying little power hungry fraud.

[dfong63]

84. not only that,

... but if you analyze the whole speech, it is rambling and unfocused. the numerous anecdotes seem pointless and do nothing to support Clark's thesis as stated in the title, that "Politics has to stop at the water's edge". i doubt this speech would win the "best speech" ribbon at a toastmasters meeting.

[Woodstock]

94. Pretty naive

Reagan didn't have a hand in ending the Cold War. He barely kept up with what was going on over here. He excelled in photo ops and illusion, so if that in some way encouraged the military, I guess that was a good thing. It's troubling to hear him have this simplistic view of the Reagan Administration. The remarks about Bush Sr. I can live with a little. But the ones about Bush Jr. are nauseating.

Clark seems to me to be very unseasoned at politics to the point of naivete. Is he just being the southern gentleman here and laying it on too thick? Or does he really think these guys are great leaders. I'd like to think more of the former than the latter.

I don't think he's a "two faced lying little power hungry fraud" - just a bit in over his head. Does that mean I wouldn't vote for him? NO, it doesn't. I'll even campaign for him if he's the nominee. Because I think he'll do a much better job than Bush, and I think he has a shot at winning. My #1 priority is getting rid of Bush because if we don't do that, the rest won't matter.

[dfong63]

52. the military also has a history of staying out of politics

[TLM]

69. Notice the spin from Clark's Crew...

Expecting a candidate to be in your party... that's just stupid paperwork.

Expecting a candidate to register BEFORE asking for your vote... well how DARE you miserable little shits presume to expect General Clark to lower himself to that level?

Have questions about why Clark hid his party affiliation... what the fuck makes you piss ants think that Clark has to answer to you?

Clark is more of the same crap... if you are not a power broker or insider or someone writing a fat check, you have no say, no right to question, and you'd just better sit down and shut the fuck up.


No thanks.

[SWPAdem]

34. I've got no problem with 99% of Dean supporters

Every one of us is entitled to support the candidate of our choice, and to express that support. We are also entitled to question the decisions, statements, or voting records of other candidates, hopefully in a mature and respectful debate.

What I have found to be the most offensive are the posts that challenge the integrity, intelligence, loyalty and ideology of Clark (or any candidate, for that matter) supporters. The wild ass conspiracy shit is another item that gets my blood boiling and my instincts for self defense raring to go. I know that I should act my age and not engage in this crap, but everyone has a limit. Everytime I add one of these jerks to my ignore list, another one pops up.

If Dean supporters want to spend valuable time worrying about Clark's voter registration, then I suggest they be willing to publicly swear not to accept any votes from registered independents. It may be a valid issue to you, it may show sloppy campaign management, but it ain't gonna play in the rest of America.

For the thousandth time, I am not a Repug-lite star-struck teenager,
or a sell out. I have spent months researching candidates and everyone of them has values and ideas that I endorse, but no one of them is perfect. Clark is the candidate that RESONATES with me. If you want your choice to be respected, then please respect mine.

All sides are guilty of flamebait posts and joining in the fray. Why don't we all try to rein in the agitators on our own camps and see what happens.

[TLM]

82. THis is the kind of stuff I'm talking about

when I talk about the spin from the Clark camp...

"If Dean supporters want to spend valuable time worrying about Clark's voter registration, then I suggest they be willing to publicly swear not to accept any votes from registered independents."

First, someone running for president should have a little bit higher standards than someone VOTING for president.

Second, the problem is not with independant voters. The problem is that Clark lied about being a democrat and his campaign lied about him being registered democrat.


"Clark is the candidate that RESONATES with me. If you want your choice to be respected, then please respect mine."

I respect your right to vote for a DC lobbyist who worked for Henry Kissinger, lied about his party affiliation, and could just as easily joined the republicans had they made him a better offer.

[SWPAdem]

95. And you are part of the1% that I consider obnoxious

Nothing that you say about Clark means jack shit to me. Got that? Looking at your profile, I see that you are male...although, it would not surprise me to find out that you are lying about that also. Your attempts to bully, intimidate and force your opinions on others are very telling....what kind of candidate would a bully like that support? Hmm...

[SWPAdem]

41. We need a lock on the White House THIS time

Is our goal to beat Bush, or what?

[StopTheMorans]

53. yes, our goal is to beat bush

and if you look at the last poll taken, within the margin of error, dean, kerry, and clark all were within the range of him more than a year ahead of the general elections without the benefit of name recognition that bush has. And, if Clark happens to win the primary, then yes, I will vote for him. But I will not vote for him in the primary simply b/c i feel that he may be (I don't even believe that he is the best one to beat *) the "best candidate to beat *". I would like to vote for a Dem., and his past record hasn't convinced me that he is such, which is, again, why I wouldn't mind him in the veep slot (then he could run for prez. the next cycle when he has PROVEN that he is interested and has taken part in dem. goals and policies). I don't like all the uncertainty that has come with him that he did little to dispel before he finally announced that he was a dem. a month ago, he could have taken care of many of these concerns (regarding party affiliation) many, many months ago if he were seriously considering a democratic party presidential nomination in the future, and the fact that he didn't leaves me extremely wary. Just my thoughts.

[SWPAdem]

83. Ah, reasonable debate

For me, voting records are tricky little devils, as bills sometimes have amendments or other riders that cause politicians to vote against something that they would normally support, or vice versa. There is a $hitload of glad-handing and back scratching that goes with any political position, local or national. Basically, we are all hoping that every one of them is truthful, the majority of the time.

I know that a lot of my comfort level with Clark comes from having been in the military and knowing that there are plenty of progressive and independent thinkers in that group of people. I am not interested in party labels or who someone voted for even two years ago. People change and grow. Clark's thought processes reveal a deep intellect that didn't just pop up in a debate or interview prep session. I have heard him talk about being inspired by JFK to serve his country with great feeling. I am a part of that generation and I know that our lives and hearts were forever changed by that Presidency and time in our history.

It's going to take a lot more than I have seen so far to change my convictions on Clark. If he's not on the top of the ticket when the dust settles, then I will be proud to vote for whoever is.

[RandomUser]

66. More than the White House

I want a candidate with enough coat-tails to sweep democrats into all the southern/plain/midwest states to take over Congress and state legislatures. You remember how during some elections the local candidates didn't even want their party's presidential nominee to help them campaign b/c they wre seen as too liberal? That won't happen with Clark. He's a liberal with an acceptable image. And we need to gain power, over the legislature too. I don't believe Clark is the only one who can win, but he's the only one who can deliver a LANDSLIDE.

The prize here is not just the WH, but the Legislature, and the Supreme Court. At least two Justices will be retiring during the next term. THAT is the prize. We can't let them put more pro-life judges into all the courts, especially the Supreme Court.

[dfong63]

50. that's the kind of argument that gives lawyers a bad name

Why Should My Candidate Lie, Just to Satisfy the Purists?

that's the kind of sleazy argument that gives lawyers a bad name. no one is suggesting that Clark should lie. what people are objecting to is not that Clark said he was an independent, but that Clark was and is not a registered democrat. what people are objecting to is not what Clark said, but what he did. of course lying about what Clark did won't satisfy "purists" either. no one wants Clark to lie. people want Clark to have done the right thing in the first place. but it's interesting that you seem to consider lying to be an option worthy of consideration for your candidate.

[TLM]

65. Oh please... he was waiting to see if the repukes made him a better offer.

The man is a two faced fraud... preaching how great Reagan and Bush's leadership was one day at a repuke fundraiser, then claiming to be a democrat who voted for clinton and gore the next.

The man is a liar and a fraud.... says he's a dem and turns out he's not even registed in the party, despite his campaign stating he was.

Again, if any other candidate pulled this crap, you folks would be having a fit... but you just ignore it and give Clark a pass.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ModerateMiddle]

11. Huh? (nt)

[StopTheMorans]

12. the pure unadulterated insight in your posts

amazes me :eyes:

[clar]

16. I'm really hoping

the powers that be here at DU will see their way to 'disappearing' you. Virtually all you have done is toss out vulgar insults. At the least, I hope that your recent posts will be reviewed. I am once again hitting alert on your post.

[LoneStarLiberal]

15. Realization of Competition

Until Clark was drafted, there was no direct competition between Dean and Clark.

Now that Clark is in the race, he is in direct competition with Dean. His early returns indicating a good bit of success insured that Clark and Dean are probably the two most direct competitors.

The overlapping base of support between Clark and Dean also plays a role in this. I know many people who were "I'm for Dean now but will shift to Clark if he declares" types. I think it's only natural that the Dean camp is pissed that they lost some support to Clark.

I still think some combination of the two would be a great ticket. The reality of the situation is that we still have to get through the primaries before this ticket-talk takes shape, though. And primaries mean you have to go for the throat, particularly in a crowded field like this where the numbers portray inconsistent support.

[RandomUser]

58. I think this is an apt analysis

You hit the nail right on the head.

[JVS]

18. The combination nauseated me.

[Gringo]

22. Funny reaction.

I wouldn't be nauseated by a Dean/Clark ticket, or even a Clark/Dean ticket. And yet we Deanies are the ones being branded as "bashers" and "haters"

The hatred of Dean seems to mostly be borne out of (media-induced) ignorance of what he's about and (illogical) fear of a MCgovern-style loss (such a fear might make sense if Dean were remotely similar to McGovern)

[JohnKleeb]

26. McGovern?

I know he got clobbered by Tricky Dick but I really think the man is and was a class act. You know why George doesnt like war? He told of half of the bomber crews that he served with in WWII never made it home. I opposed this war for human reasons not just legal ones. Just my point.

[Gringo]

27. That wasn't a slam against McGovern, except that he lost, big-time

Dean is different in that he is not a left-liberal, and he's not as passive as McGovern was. I continue to be an admirer of George McGovern. I'm just saying that the fear of a McGovern-style loss at the hands of Dean is totally irrational.

[JohnKleeb]

49. oh that of course

Of course thats bullshit, Dean wont be McGoverned, I know that.

[w4rma]

28. McGovern seems much more like Clark than Dean, to me

McGovern was military, so is Clark.
McGovern has a large following, Clark had a large grassroots following, although they seem to be dismantling it in favor of a traditional campaign.
McGovern ran an impoverished campaign. Clark's campaign is also underfunded.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w4rma]

37. Dennis Kucinich will have out fund raised Wesley Clark this Quarter

That's my understanding. This quarter Kucinich raised about $1.5 million (or about $2.5 million with federal matching funds, but that comes with a spending limit.)

Clark raised absolutely no meny for either Q2 or Q1.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

39. I Think You're Wrong About Kucinich

And I'm confident Clark will have plenty of money to get the job done.

I'll be sure to pass along your oh-so-poignant concerns about his failure to raise funds in Q2 and Q1 along, though.

DTH

[w4rma]

40. Fundraising Update: We Met Our Goal!!!

The goal was $1.5 million, which will be doubled to $3 million
...by matching funding. And the reality looks to be something like $1.75 million. The Peace Parties added something like $500K to the total. Adhering to public financing is working very well for Dennis. The coffers should swell even more in this quarter.

Dennis is doing very well.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=51762#51795

[DoveTurnedHawk]

43. Good for Kucinich, But Clark Will Have More

Bank on it. Come back to me in two weeks, we'll see who is the better armchair pundit. ;-)

DTH

[w4rma]

46. I hope you're right!

:)

[TLM]

85. Sure as soon as the insiders and fat cats write their checks...

Clark will have some money... still there is no way he can catch up to Dean or Bush.

[JohnKleeb]

89. Thanks for mentioning this

Then maybe people will put the unelectable issue aside.

[JohnKleeb]

87. huh

McGovern was a vet and wasnt refered to as Lt George McGovern, I think Mac was a pilot. A large following you guys got the biggest and I think thats good not bad. I havent read much on the '72 election so I dont know about Mac's fiances. McGovern wasnt known for hand as a vet, he was Senator. I am not sure whos most like Mac but Mac hes a good guy.

[JVS]

31. I'll explain

Dean is a rather Socially liberal economically conservative. I think a ticket involving Dean would be better balanced by someone like Gephardt or Kucinich, who both have strong labor and economically liberal records. Clark doesn't have this. In fact, any military credibility that Clark would lend to a ticket would be better lent by Kerry, who is liberal but unfortunately a VT MA ticket is very geographically unbalanced. I don't think playing soldier is a good strategy for this election either. If we let the Republicans set the tone on that, then they could easily pull another wag the dog war without being called on it.

[w4rma]

23. I just think that Gen. Clark's campaign is amateurish

and that he *is* a Washington insider, despite the mems portraying hims as an outsider. I also think he's the DLC's new anti-Dean candidate:

Clark Musters Out of Lobbyist Corps
The Democratic candidate also needs to register to vote as a Democrat in Arkansas.

WASHINGTON — Since his debut as a Democratic presidential candidate, Wesley Clark has drawn notice largely on the strength of his record as a war-winning, four-star general. But his resume includes another item with less political appeal: Washington lobbyist.

On Wednesday, two weeks after Clark formally joined the race for the White House, his campaign filed papers at the Capitol to withdraw his registration as a paid lobbyist for an information-services company based in Little Rock, Ark.
…
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-clark2oct02,1,1539898.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

[DoveTurnedHawk]

25. All of These "Issues" Will Be Ancient News in a Month

Much less by the time we get to January 2004.

These are just growing pains of a new campaign. I'm certainly not sweating it. Neither are the vast majority of mainstream Democrats.

DTH

[w4rma]

30. I didn't mention the biggest item that I don't like about Clark's campaign

He seems to have dismantled his grassroots organizing tools in favor of running a traditional centralized campaign.

Although this falls under the header "amateurish campaign".

Clark has the resume, but I seriously do not believe he can win against Bush with these tactics.

[Renew Deal]

68. Not true

That's actually not true. The campaign is reorganize itself. Clarks campaign will be doing things in the near future that will be pretty immpresive. Just wait and see. Yuo have to remember, we are two weeks in. You think he is going to build in 2 weeks what the other guys have been working on for months?

What nakes Clark special is his message. This is already resonating with people. He is going up in polls every week. Like DTH, this will be ancient history in a month. If all you have on Clark is not doing paperwork right away (and that's legal), I think he'll be fine.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

72. I'm Going To Be Ancient History in a Month?!?

:scared:

:evilgrin:

DTH

[dfong63]

80. Clark procrastinated for months, now uses late entry as an excuse

Clarks campaign will be doing things in the near future that will be pretty immpresive. Just wait and see. Yuo have to remember, we are two weeks in. You think he is going to build in 2 weeks what the other guys have been working on for months?

Clark should have been working during those months, too. the Draft Clark people said he was preparing for the run, but there's little to show for all that supposed "preparation" now.

[TLM]

92. Hard to prepare when you don't know which party you'll run in...

Clark couldn't do any real prep for his run because he did not know which party was going to give him the best offer...

I think he might have been holding out hope that Bush might tap him to replace Cheney... so he didn't want to say he was a democrat until he was sure that he wouldn't be passing up a better offer.

[TLM]

88. Notice no defense for Clark the lobbyist insider two faced liar...

just assurance that it will be old news... nothing to see here, move along and stop asking questions.

[janekat]

29. He's got some of the top pros in the business running his campaign...

However, there's been one or twomslip ups. I personally think that there's alot of people looking at things with a fine-toothed comb for ANY mistake they might make.

I worked on the Clinton and Gore campaigns and we used to "screw up" too. Just didn't get caught for most of it...

[w4rma]

32. They dismantled their grassroots organizing tools

And the seem to have no plans for replacing them.

Their fundraising is way behind. They've made some gaffes that should have been easily stopped.

When Bush brings out the $200+ million heavy artilary, can Clark fight that? Cleland's resume couldn't withstand the barrage in Georgia (although, there may have been vote fraud due to Georgia's DREs).

[DoveTurnedHawk]

36. You Are Ignorant on These Issues, w4rma

The grassroots have not been "dismantled" and the fundraising is not "way behind."

DTH

[w4rma]

44. Fan Friction

Hell hath no fury like a Draft Clark enthusiast spurned.
…
"They systematically dismantled the Draft Clark movement and they are running a traditional campaign, and you can already see that," says 25-year-old Matt Stoller, a blogger who helped run the United For Clark Web site and ClarkSphere.com, while also publishing the daily Clark Tribune newsletter about all things Clark.

Stirling Newberry, 36, who runs DraftClark.com, used his Web site last week to disseminate -- and decry -- reports of Clark's newfound "suckage."

"We signed on for Draft Clark, not Draft Mary," an unsigned post on DraftClark.com read Friday, referring to Clark's cry to his press aide Mary Jacoby of "Mary, help!" when asked his position on the Iraq War by The New York Times.

Two pro-Clark sites, ClarkRecruits.com and DigitalClark.com, have already been shut down, and a third, DraftWesleyClark.com, is slated to be disbanded within the month, according to its founder. ClarkRecruits.com had helped would-be volunteers link up with other Clark supporters in their areas; now volunteers have to fill out a form on the candidate's official site (Clark04.com) and wait for the main campaign to figure out what to do with them. And on Saturday, DigitalClark.com was shut down at the behest of the Clark campaign. "Our apologies -- this website, and its content, is no longer available. For information about General Clark and his presidential campaign, please visit www.clark04.com," read a message on the site. DigitalClark had provided visitors with downloadable video files of past Clark media appearances; that information is no longer available. According to Ellen Dana Nagler of Santa Barbara, Calif., who maintained the video archives, the campaign was concerned about the possibility that the site violated copyright laws and prevailed upon its managers to shut it down.

"They are destroying the parts of the draft movement that worked really well and they are transforming the draft movement into people who want to lick envelopes," says one worried member of the movement. "They are rebuilding the Kerry campaign with a better candidate."
…
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/09/franke-ruta-g-09-25.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=47507

[DoveTurnedHawk]

48. We've Been Over THIS Before, Too

Both Stoller and Hlinko have indicated they were taken out of context, and Hlinko in particular is fully-integrated as the head of Clark's Blog Team.

As for Newberry, I'm not going to accept the admitted speculation of one person apparently (based on this article, anyway) jealous and resentful that he wasn't put into a leadership position. Regardless, Newberry is still very pro-Clark, as evidenced by his Clark Sphere website, although IMO he maintains a rather sour tone about some of the internal campaign decisions.

DTH

[w4rma]

54. that was informative, thanks

Still, I see no reason that these sites should have been shut down. If they were working (as they seem to have done) then it seems to me that they should have been kept up until, at least, a viable alternative that provides a similar purpose was built and even then the sites should have been used to advertise the alternative, instead of being shut down.

I do think some mistakes have been made.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

57. I Don't Think Most Have Been Shut Down

Some of them redirect to the campaign website, that is true. DigitalClark (which I miss very much) was shut down for copyright reasons. Most of the rest are still active, I visit them often.

I agree some mistakes have been made. I think they're mostly minor, however, and representative of the inevitable growing pains of any new campaign.

Thanks for your post.

DTH

[RandomUser]

59. Is there a way to circumvent copyright?

Can they reconstitute DigitalClark by not hosting the copyrighted files, but rather deep linking to the legitimate copyright files like the ones on C-span?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

60. I Think Linking to C-Span Is Fine

But DC ported Clark TV appearances onto RM and Windows Media, which were not commonly available on the net (or released by the networks in question). We're talking the whole appearance, here, not just snippets that would fall under fair use.

Alas, poor DigitalClark. I will miss you. :-)

DTH

[RandomUser]

61. Yeah, me too

I wonder if the Clark campaign people are going to do something similar to DigitalClark but with C-span links or such. It was an invaluable resource.

[RandomUser]

56. Thanks for the info

I believe in him and really don't want to see him stumble. I'd hate for us to have the perfect candidate just so the campaign runners can mess it up for us.

[Renew Deal]

70. Newberry insisted that he didn't want a paid position in the campaign.

He said he would refuse on if it was offered. He is still participating.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

74. Maybe Not Paid

But my own impression was that he wanted some genuflection and prominence, paid or not, and was bitter that he didn't receive it.

Regardless, I thought his comments were very classless and inappropriate.

DTH

[dfong63]

top pros make mistakes like this?

``...
There is a web site, people are reportedly collecting money, and he says he's a candidate for president...
(Sept 30, 2003) Although General Clark announced September 17th that he is running for President, he as not yet officially filed a statement of candidacy, which is required to be filed within fifteen days of raising or spending $5,000. He also has not designated or authorized a principal campaign committee to raise or spend funds. Questions may remain about early fundraising and it's relation to the official campaign.
...''

[TLM]

62. I was thrilled about Clark... but when I looked past the hype...

I did not like what I saw.


THe image the Clark Corps painted of him was this great progressive liberal hope... but the facts are a lot different.

When I looked into this guy's past, all I saw was a republican war monger who is sloppy and arrogant. He's not even registed in our party, because he was waiting to see if he'd get a better offer from the repukes.

He worked as a lobbyist for kissinger!


Clark is a fraud. He won't get my vote.

[Renew Deal]

75. Don't BS people.

He was never getting your vote. You were thrilled about Clark until he didn't take Dean's VP offer (or whatever you want to call it.)

If anyone is a fraud it's Dean. Just read this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30685-2003Oct1.html

[TLM]

99. Personal attacks and attacks on Dean are all you have

because you can't defend Clark's two faced lies.


The attacks on Dean in that ariticle are all the same crap... an attacked based on a 10 year old answer to a hypothetical question, baseless attacks from lieberman on the israel thing because Dean used the wrong buzzword, and that crap about medicare.

Dean supported cutting medicare administration, and expanding coverage.

[stickdog]

63. Clark supporters are uniquely prone to posts consisting

entirely of logical fallacies.

This sets off alarms.

[robbedvoter]

67. Ha!Ha! It ended when Clark overtook Dean in polls...

Very astute observation! Or else: Clark wouldn't be assimilated so now he has to be confronted.

[w4rma]

71. Clark's benefiting from the Lieberman effect in polls (name-recognition)

His name is known but noone knows anything about him.

Also, Dean's leading Clark in most early primary state polls where heavy campaigning is taking place.

[Renew Deal]

76. You all claimed no one knows who he is 3 weeks ago.

Make up your minds.

[w4rma]

81. I don't really know who he is. Forgive me if I'm sceptical. (n/t)

[dfong63]

86. name recognition doesn't equate to knowing "who he is"

[TLM]

101. Knowing who Clark is... and knowing Clark's name are two differnt things

Clark has great name recognition, but as to who the real man is behind the hype and pandering, nobody really knows.

[stickdog]

73. No.

Dean supporters are ecstatic with Dean's poll numbers.

But when we ask legitimate questions about the rush to annoint a political cipher, we are shouted down by a bunch of bullies who argue like Republicans.

[Renew Deal]

77. More labeling by Dean and his supporters.

Dean and his supporters keep calling everyone republicans, Bush-lite, republican lite. But Dean cries like a girl when someone says he supported some of Gingriches policies. Is this labeling an organized campaign by the Dean mob? It seems that way. Where is the memo?

[stickdog]

91. Sorry. I'm playing the same "self-evident" game that Clarkies

play.

But I really don't have time right now to explain further.

Either the intellectual bankruptcy of Clark supporters' arguing techniques is self-evident to you or it isn't.

Take your choice.

[TLM]

102. If you do not want Clark being called a republican...

and note I say republican, not repub-lite, then he shouldn't be going to repuke fundraisers and heaping praise on Bush and Reagan for their amazing leadership.

If that is Clark's idea of great leadership, I don't want him anywhere near the white house.

And the fact CLark was a lobbyist for KISSINGER up until the day he declared also makes me think he's a repuke. This guy is a two faced fraud.

No amount of your Dean bashing will change Clark's words and actions.

[sangh0]

93. Be honest

You don't "ask legitimate questions". You make baseless accusations

[stickdog]

98. I'll be honest. I miss arguing with folks like you.

At least you gave me a run for my money. With Clarkies it's all bullying ad hominems and redirections.

[sangh0]

100. Still can't be honest?

With Clarkies it's all bullying ad hominems and redirections

"Clark supporters are uniquely prone to posts consisting entirely of logical fallacies." - stickdog posting an ad hom and a redirection, just like he accuses the "Clarkies" of doing.

I guess it's OK when the "Deanies" do it.

[stickdog]

103. See what I mean?

You're tough. And you usually make sense.

But, sangh0, at least I know when my argument is lame.

And I'm just being honest about what I think happened to the "lovefest" on the Dean side -- if you recall, I was all for Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean -- and I usually construct actual arguments.

[Woodstock]

90. I still think Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean would be a great ticket

I'm not prone to lovefests. I just want to beat Bush & I think these are the best choices to get the most votes.

[mkregel]

96. Not me...I'm hoping for some combination of the two

but thats just me

[Padraig18]

97. Thanks for reminding me why...

...I voted 'yes' on the new rules. I'm tired of flamebait bullshit posts like this one!