To Dean supporters: Clark has been very respectful of your candidate

[bluestateguy]

All of the sniping at bitching at Howard Dean has come from Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Sharpton, Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich. If you have paid any attention you'll see that Clark and his campaign have rarely uttered anything more than the most tepid of criticisms at Dean. On the whole he and his surrogates have treated Dean and his supporters with respect and acted with great restraint, even though Clark is probably the most likely candidate to emerge as the "anti-Dean" in this race. Yes, some Clark backers have gone after Dean here at DU, but I would hope that you would not hold the candidate responsible for that. Many Dean backers have gone after Clark here at DU, but I would never hold that against the candidate, who has also treated Clark with respect. I just hope we can remember this once a nominee is chosen, seeing as how it is highly likely one of these two men will be chosen as the party nominee.

[onebigbadwulf]

1. Dean/Clark 2004

[Droopy]

3. I think that's a winning combination

That or Clark/Dean. I'd really love to see Clark go after Bush in a debate. Clark "the real deal" vs. Bush "the wannabe".

[bain_sidhe]

38. No.

Clark and Dean represent radically different election strategies. Clark is the "reach out to disaffected moderates and Republicans" strategy. If he gets the nod, he should choose a moderate with Congressional experience. I expect to see him doing a lot of work with military and veterans, southerners, and campaigning in districts/areas represented by moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats.

Dean is the "fire up the base" strategy. If he gets the nomination, he should choose Kucinich or some other running mate with solid liberal credentials.

IMHO, either strategy has a chance to win against bush*, but ONLY if they commit to their strategy 100% To put them together is to straddle the fence, and that, (also in my (still humble) opinion) is unlikely to win. If you're gonna go for it, go all out, or fold up your tent and go home. Nothing less than an all out effort on your chosen strategy will win.

(Ok, full disclosure here... also, as a Clark supporter, I've been so disgusted with Dean supporters' attacks on Clark here that every time I see a "Dean/Clark" headline I want to scream "don't expect MY candidate to save YOUR @#$% candidate's butt on the foreign/military issue." But then, I'm pretty much generally in a "f*ck you" mode these days. It could just be hormones or something. But I really DO believe the candidate winning the nomination has to pick a strategy and go all out with it, so it's not ALL hormones.)

[mrgorth]

2. I love Clark

he's my number 2.

[imhotep]

4. Clarks supporters

are the least of his problems.

[Clark Can WIN]

5. "A republican until 25 days ago" is not respect

But I will vote for the nominee, that's a fact. Too many lives depend on it to stand on principle.

[Lisa0825]

6. I have noticed how Clark has stayed above the fray,

and I definitely appreciate it. I'd love nothing more than for Dean and Clark to be a force together in some combination. Over at the Dean blog, though we get the occasional Clark Troll (which I suspect is not a real Clark supporter), the majority of Clark cross-bloggers are very nice and respectful, and offer good input to our discussions.

[joefree1]

7. I like Clark too

Thanks for the reasonable post. Some of the flame baiting has been pretty bad. Honest debate between the Candidates is good. Sniping and back stabbing has been copyrighted by the rethuglicans.


Dean Rocks The House of Blues
7:00 pm ~ 10:00 pm
House of Blues
8430 Sunset Blvd.
West Hollywood, CA 90069
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=evite_la1215
If you're going check in here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=4536
(I'll post pics on Tuesday)

[Dagaz]

8. Clark moved to my #1

I was Kerry but he cowered to the me too Dean position and I can't stand spinelessness. Clark makes sense most of the time but I wish he wouldn't drift off into the crazyspere sometimes. General you were relieved of duty rightly or wrongly so just be up front about it.

What brought me around was his answer as to if there are WMDs. He said we know Saddam had them because he used them. Well DUH! why is this so hard for others to comprehend? Sure Bush hyped and oversold the WMD angle to sell the war but at least Clark has some common sense. Say that the WMDs are there but weren't a threat other than to Iraqis. Thet surely weren't a threat to us.

[Jai4WKC08]

14. Clark was NOT relieved

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the correct terminology. A commander is "relieved" for either malfeisance or incompetence. Gen Clark's release from command was accompanied by the highest words of praise from both SecDef Cohen and Gen Shelton. There is no smudge on his record there.

[Dagaz]

31. so he left early by choice?

Was he not asked to leave early? What is that called?

[mikehiggins]

48. What that is called, if I may be so bold as to make a comment,

is being blindsided. Having just managed to successfully conclude a major military campaign, and while at dinner with a senior European official in his official capacity as Supreme Commander of NATO, Clark received a phone call from Gen. Shelton informing him that he had to retire several months early. He subsequently received a phone call from the press on the subject that told Clark Shelton had released the news to the press at almost the same time he discussed it with Clark. It was plain to Clark, and to several columnists, that Defense Secretary Cohen and General Shelton had managed to put this whole deal into motion by claiming that General Ralston, who was to be Clark's successor, had to assume that post earlier or he would be forced, the way things work in the Armny, to retire himself, something that Cohen and Shelton alleged was not in the military's best interest.

Thus, Clark was presented with a fait accompli. He wasn't removed, he wasn't relieved, he wasn't fired but he was gone. Clark could, of course, have fought the move but, as most people understand, it usually isn't a good idea to do something like that in a rigid hierachal structure.

Tellingly, Clinton alleged that he himself bought into the Cohen/Shelton explanation and approved the change of commander. He was reportedly furious that he had been played by the military in that manner but, again, there was little to be done about it without causing serious internal bickering in his administration. Whether or not you beleive Clinton's explanation is a matter of choice. Clark chose to beleive it.

This involved scenario was necessary because a senior officer is usually only relieved of duty for serious reasons. Douglas MacArthur, for example, was relieved of duty for openly challenging the policy of President Truman. The difficulty involved in lending credence to Shelton's off-hand comment about Clark deals with the official record of the medals awarded Clark for his service in NATO and the universal praise with which his foes lauded him when he stepped down.

The media knows all this, by the way, including Chris Matthews who was well aware of this before he asked Clark that question. The fact that they continue to raise the question even when they are in full possession of the facts and the official record is one of the reasons many of us feel "journalism" is not practiced anywhere on cable other than the Daily Show.

When you encounter the question on a newsgroup like DU the poster is either deliberately attacking Clark through ignorance or despite his or her knowledge of the facts. Usually, when you explain all of this the reply becomes "yeah, but, Clark commanded the troops at Waco" or "Clark is a war criminal for bombing CNN in Kosovo" and so on, or the perennial favorite of most candidates supporters except Al Sharpton's "he hasn't been a democrat long enough to earn the name."

Lets let the voters decide, shall we?

[proud patriot]

9. I just posted something to this effect in the positive Clark thread Friday

:hi:

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. I was proposing Clark as Dean's running mate long before he jumped in ....

....at least officially. I don't think there will be a problem with the candidates getting along at all. I wouldn't blame Clark for some of the bullshit that goes on here in his name. For all I know, some of them could be lurking Freepers. (a couple of them act enough like it)

[janx]

16. Yes, that is a more than reasonable assumption.

.

[Code_Name_D]

11. Than let us see Clark condem the attacks against Dean. nt

:|

[DFLforever]

12. I have noticed Gen Clark's behavior toward Dean

It's very smart imo...if he and not Dean should get the nomination, he'll be in a good position to enlist Dean's dedicated volunteers.

[unfrigginreal]

13. Respectful?

You mean like this?

Clark: Howard Dean can't win

But just 48 hours before before the capture of Saddam Hussein outside of Tikrit, Clark made his strongest statement to date about why a Dean-Clark ticket is a bad idea. Clark, who says that he's uniquely qualified to go "toe-to-toe" with President Bush on security issues in 2004, said that whether he's on the ticket or not, the Democrats can't win with Dean as their presidential candidate.

"I don't think the Democratic Party can win without carrying a heavy experience in national security affairs into the campaign," he told Salon in a phone interview last week. "And that experience can't be in a vice president."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/15/clark/

[madfloridian]

15. Yep, real respectful, that article.

That makes me sick.

[unfrigginreal]

19. Let's see how far he gets by parroting the same ignorant nonsense

that some of his supporters are.

[wndycty]

22. Is an honest assessment disrespectful???

:kick:

[bluestateguy]

26. Oy vey

If that's your definition of being disrespectful than you really won't be ready for what Karl Rove is going to throw at our nominee. Compare that to all others, including Sharpton and Kucinich who have hot Dean from the Left, and you'll find Clark to be extremely generous to your candidate.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[wndycty]

27. Well they tend to ignore

Dean's accusations of a Clark flip flop on the war and calling Clark a Republica 25 days ago. Any criticism is fair unless its against Dean.

[unfrigginreal]

50. So, you find the article respectful?

Or did you just reply to the wrong post?

[eileen_d]

52. The article is entirely respectful.

I think the headline is inflammatory ("Howard Dean can't win" is not a statement that Clark made directly - that would be a candidate bash) but Clark is simply discussing what makes him an excellent candidate. It's called running for president.

[unfrigginreal]

54. Claiming that Dean is unelectable is not respectful

of course given the actions of most Clarkettes I can see where the confusion comes in.

[dansolo]

25. And who exactly is calling the shots now?

Dick Cheney. Our foreign policy is being directed from the office of the Vice-President. Even Clark knows that.

[KittyWampus]

33. So You'd Want A Repeat? A Prez With Weak Foreign Policy Credentials

is captive to his advisors... like Junior.

And since advisors ALWAYS have differences and power struggles... we NEED someone who has EXPERIENCE.

Clark already has the experience necessary to Commander in Chief and Head of State

If anything, Dean is suited to be President of the Senate.

His gaffes of calling Russia the Soviet Union FOUR times in one interview and being UNABLE to explain why or even IF Osama should be tried in the Hague PROVE Dean is out of his League.

At this point, the most Dean can do is cram information and reguritate it during debates and speeches.

His campaign skimped on Foreign Policy advisors til now and it shows. He is poorly prepared and there is NO TIME FOR HIM TO PLAY CATCH UP.

[webkev]

35. he never said that

the reporter said that..
the original quote didn't even say Dean..

Clark doesn't bash other democrats

[mikehiggins]

51. You know, I was going to post a really neat comment here but

I decided not to waste the time.

All of this will be history eight or nine weeks from now.

Let's let the voters decide, shall we?

[Cascadian]

17. I noticed and thank you!

I would not rule him out as a running mate for Dean or even a spot as Secretary of Defense.

John

[KaraokeKarlton]

18. I've always liked Clark just fine

Some of his supporters on here, well, I can't say the same thing about.

Joe Lieberman is the anti-Dean candidate now. He gets that by default since so many here claim that opposition to the war is political death. I don't agree with them, of course, but IF they are right then the ONLY candidate who has supported the war 100% from the beginning is Joe Lieberman.

With that being said, and a reminder that I DO like Clark, I don't want him to be the nominee. I have specific reasons for that and it has nothing to do with his supporters, or anything he has said or done in his life. I think Clark is a brilliant man, has wonderful military and foreign policy experience and is an all around stand up guy. However, he has no executive or domestic policy experience. He's never won any kind of election and if he were to be the nominee the entire focus of the election would be exactly what Bush wants to make it...the war on terror, defense and foreign policy. The biggest mistake to make running against an incumbent president is to allow the focus to be about the perceived biggest strength of the competition. Instead, we need to focus on his weakness (domestic issues) and hammer away relentlessly, keeping him on the defensive rather than letting him campaign on what's he's most comfortable with..being a war-mongering asshole.

I think Howard Dean is the best one to make the election about what we need to make it about in order to win. He's got the experience, a great record, and he's tested...he won against a hate campaign in 2000 just 6 months after signing Civil Unions. He's already won the kind of race this will be.

Clark would best serve this country as Secretary of Defense. I believe he can fix the mess in Iraq and I have faith in his ability to do that. I can't say the same about his ability to fix the domestic mess.

Would I support Clark being the VP? Sure. He'd have a chance to learn and gain experience in the areas he doesn't have experience for 8 years, and then I could support him for president with confidence and excitement.

I am not saying this to offend or upset Clark supporters. I am saying it because it's what I believe with all my heart.

[madfloridian]

20. Check out the Salon article.

Today, by Clark, posted just above.

[KaraokeKarlton]

34. Already saw it

Clark would accept the role of VP if Dean offered it. I think Dean is probably leaning towards Graham, though. We all know it ain't gonna be Kerry.

[Eloriel]

21. But Clark supporters at DU have not

And yes, actually it does affect my view of the candidate.

But it's really Clark's own resume, ad his connections, that have me solidly against him, as nominee but esp. on a Dean ticket. He'd be a tremendous liability.

[wndycty]

24. If you choice is between Clark or Bush. . .

. . .who do you vote for?

[wndycty]

37. Why no answer?

:kick:

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Eloriel]

46. Because

I don't freakin' sit here waiting for someone to ask me a stupid question. Sometimes I don't go back to marginally interesting threads at all.

But I'll anser your stupid question.

There's no way, barring a gun to my head, that I'd vote for Bush. But it's NOT an either/or question. There are two other options: No vote and Write-in. In my state --Georgia, with statewide Diebold voting systems -- neither of those are likely to hurt the Dem nominee. So I can't imagine voting for Clark either. However, we'll see when and most of all IF that choice will be the choice we will be given.

And I'll also say two things: I will NOT take a loyalty oath (or the DU equivalent) and I'm not going to vote for just anybody, so I'm not ABB and won't be brow beaten into it.

[KittyWampus]

29. Funny, Dean Is The One Who Called Russia The Soviet Union FOUR Times

In an interview... and also couldn't figure out why it matters that Osama be tried in the Hague.

But then Eloriel just ignores the fact the Koch Brothers helped get Dean's Presidential Campaign started.

[Rose Siding]

28. Right up until he said Dean can't win

I'd say that's pretty disrespectful

Clark: Howard Dean can't win
Wesley Clark says Dean lacks national security credibility -- and throws cold water on the idea of a Dean-Clark dream ticket. But after Saddam Hussein's capture, will his own war-critic stance work against him?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/15/clark/index_np.html

[wndycty]

30. So its ok for Dean to call Clark a Republican??

Oh I forgot its only disrespect when you are critical of Dean otherwise its fair game.

[Rose Siding]

32. I didn't posit the theory that started this thread

[KittyWampus]

36. Please Find Clark's Quote Where He Says "Dean Can't Win"

of course you can't because Clark did not say "Dean Can't Win".

[Rose Siding]

39. If he didn't say this:

snip>
Whether he's on the ticket or not, he says, the Democrats can't win in 2004 with Dean as the presidential candidate.
end snip>

...maybe he should talk to Salon about misrepresenting him.

[Spazito]

41. Unless it is in quotation marks, it is the writer's interpretation of what

he says Clark was saying. The only time you can believe that someone said something in an article is if it is in enclosed quotes.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[eileen_d]

53. Funny how those words were written by Salon

and never uttered by Clark.

In my humble opinion, some people who can't take criticism of Dean need to toughen up a little. If you don't agree with the article's assessment, why don't you tell us why it's wrong, instead of going after Clark for expressing his own opinions.

[Bombtrack]

40. Edwards hasn't instigated anything with Dean

I'd appreciate it if you would correct that. Edwards and Clark are the only major candidates to run overall positive campaigns

Edwards has braught up when Dean lies about him and corrected him, but that's all.

[neverforget]

43. another positive thread hijacked by the usual suspects and turned

into a flame fest....

[milkyway]

44. Considering they are the top two guys, they've hardly said anything...

about each other. It's been extremely mild. Usually the top two guys in a political race are going after each other's throats. Even with tonight's Salon article, Dean has probably said a little more about Clark than the other way around. In any case, these two will have no problems working together and supporting each other when the time comes. There have been no bridges burned.

[Bucky]

47. I'm not sure Clark's one of the "top two"

(Disclosure: I'm a Clarkie)

The latest polls show that it's Dean out front just a bit, about 10-12 points, and Gep, Lieberman, & Clark bunched up in the second tier. But those are national polls. Clark would be the anti Dean if there were a single national primary, followed by a run-off. But despite tying Lieberman for 2nd place, Clark is positioned very poorly to survive into February.

If he doesn't break out in New Hampshire, he's gonna fade. Right now my gut is telling me the odds are against him. I really don't want to see Dr. Dean's thesis for winning the election put to the test, because the high school kids I teach are gonna be the ones drafted when Bush gets to start up the war of his choice in 2005.

[milkyway]

49. That may have been my own personal preferences showing through...

but who else is there? I know Lieberman's numbers are about the same as Clark's, but he is absolutely despised by half the party. He has a better chance of winning the Republican nomination than he does the Dem nomination.

I guess Kerry still has a very slight longshot chance, but he's run one of the worst campaigns in American political history, and has shown no signs of recovery. Check out dailykos.com from a couple of days ago. A guy that had created a Kerry for President website just closed it down because he received an email from the Kerry campaign whining for the millionth time about Dean. Kerry still hasn't learned that in 2003, nobody really gives a crap about what happened in Vermont in 1993. Kerry is alone in his obsession.

I guess that leaves Gephardt, but he's the same old kind of tired Dem we've had too much of already. I don't think he inspires anyone outside of his own family.

You're right about Clark, he's going backwards instead of forwards in polls, which I haven't figured out. To me, Dean will be the nominee. Clark has a slight outside shot, and Kerry and Gephardt a one-in-a-thousand kind of chance.

[wiley]

55. Dean vs.Dean

I do street outreach and petitioning. Every person who supports Dean and every Dean campaigner has been very friendly to me. I actually have private conversations with Dean supporters online. It just seems that the Dean supporters on this list aren't the same people. It just makes me question whether the Dean supporters on DU are really Dean supporters or people just trying to pick fights amongst us.

[jmaier]

56. Do you think we could actually be bothered to

actually READ the articles that are cited here before making ridiculous FINAL and conclusive decisions about what was allegedly said. IGNORE the headlines posted here and generally regard any summaries as suspect until you check things out for yourself.

Much of the flaming that occurs here is because 1) everyone is RIDICULOUSLY thin-skinned about their candidate, 2) too damn lazy to check into the details for themselves and/or 3) completely disinterested in the facts and simply ready to bash the opponent in a completely freeperish fashion.

Here's a surprise: reporters and pundits SPIN to incite controversy and you know what, it works because we're wound too tight to actually stop and think -- it's react, reACT, REACT. That's what causes 90% of these stupid candidate bashing threads. If your children were acting like this, you'd give them a time out.