Denver Post on Clark - with quotes from Dean & Kerry Campaigns

[disgruntella]

I promise I'll go to bed after this one ;)

Clark deals himself in; Dems ponder impact
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~64~1639055,00.html

Here's a taste of the commentary:

<snip>
"It's genuinely unclear how, or even if, Gen. Clark will affect the race," said Jim Jordan, the campaign manager for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. "He is obviously an interesting, attractive figure, but he has no campaign, no money and, by his own admission, no ... experience with the domestic issues that directly affect Americans' lives."
</snip>

<snip>
But Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, argued that there was more than enough room in the race for both Dean and Clark.
"The only way for the Democrats to win back the White House is to re-engage millions of Americans in the political process, and anything that widens that dialogue, including Gen. Clark's entrance, is beneficial to the cause of beating George W. Bush," Trippi said.
</snip>

Let me just say that this story has the most trite and cheesy opening paragraph ever (not reprinted in this post). Beyond that - enjoy!

[Egnever]

1. Trippi has his eye firmly on the prize!

"anything that widens that dialogue, including Gen. Clark's entrance, is beneficial to the cause of beating George W. Bush"

Damn straight!

I want my country back!

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Yes and we are taking it back

DAMN IT!

[dfong63]

2. gee, that doesn't sound like Dean particularly fears Clark, now does it?

[DannyRed]

3. Compare and contrast

Ladies and Gentlemen, compare and contrast.

Kerry's campaign gets snarky, attacks, and demeans -- tries to put down other in order to look better....

Dean's campaign welcomes newcomer, enjoys spirited debate, and keeps eye on prize -- confident and clear.

What more needs to be said.

(Of course, there could be all KINDS of behind-the-scenes backstabbing, cloak and dagger, infighting and whathaveyou...but the key is the public message and demeanor.)

Attractiveness, as I have always maintained has more to do with POISE, CARRIAGE, and DEMEANOR than with looks, clothes, or package.

This is a prime example of why Kerry, while he IS an excellent candidate, and an excellent man, and would make a great president, is losing ground in this campaign...no poise. Poor demeanor.

[Lindsey]

5. Dean's response

leaves the door open for my "dream ticket" - Dean/Clark 2004!

[renie408]

10. Gotta go with this

And have to point out that Edwards also had some nice things to say about Clark, and you would think that since he is struggling, he would be more likely to feel threatened by Clark.

Makes me wonder if Howard is leaving room for a Dean/Clark ticket. But if Clark was brought in by Clinton to water down Dean's support....god, it is all too convoluted for me!!

[DrFunkenstein]

12. At Least He Didn't Call Him Dean-lite

Or call him a second-tier candidate like he had with Graham. Not to mention that he kept referring to himself as the only major anti-war candidate (too bad Kucinich, Sharpton, and Moseley-Braun).

It wasn't very nice to leak the story about asking him to join the Dean campaign a few days before announcement, though.

[DrFunkenstein]

13. Oh Wait - Dean Said The Same Thing As Jordan!

I thought Jim Jordan's statement sounded familiar. Compare and contrast:

"Certainly he's going to have an impact in the race, and I think he would be a good candidate," presidential hopeful Howard Dean told The Associated Press in an interview Friday.

Dean was quick to point out, however, that Clark faces the challenge of catching up to candidates who have been campaigning for months, raising money and organizing, as well as attracting supporters through the Internet as Dean has.

"There will be some of that, but it will be incredibly hard to build what we have," the former Vermont governor said.

---

It's genuinely unclear how, or even if, Gen. Clark will affect the race," said Jim Jordan, the campaign manager for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. "He is obviously an interesting, attractive figure, but he has no campaign, no money and, by his own admission, no ... experience with the domestic issues that directly affect Americans' lives."

[DannyRed]

14. Dean did not say

that Clark had "no experience with the Domestic Issues."

[DrFunkenstein]

15. You're Right

Are you suggesting that Dean hasn't actively tried to undercut Clark's bid?

[DannyRed]

17. Yes.

And I think that the rumors that Dean leaked the VP discussions to the media are spin, misconstrued, false, and inaccurate to boot.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. What The AP Says

Dean welcomed Clark to the race, calling him a strong candidate, while a spokesman for Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said, "having another candidate with bona fide national security experience like John Kerry further highlights that the presidency is no place for on-the-job training."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=2&u=/ap/clark

Post-9/11 is no time for amateur hour.

[Egnever]

7. ROFL!

Yes clark entering the race just proves kerry is the guy for the job!

He should get huge results from this argument.


I give you an A+ for spin factor!

[DannyRed]

8. Yo Doc...

"Post-9/11 is no time for amateur hour."

Look, I hate to get snarky with you here, but just what would you define as "amateur"?

I would define "amateur" as trusting an administration with a proven track record of blatant lies, spin, misleading, and double-dealing, giving that same administration a veritable ticket to ride in a resolution that is poorly and vaguely worded, that allows that same administration to adhere to the "letter" of the resolution without honoring or addressing the "spirit"....giving that administration the legal wiggle room and congressional grant of powers to go to war based on what, AT THE TIME, were known to be dodgy, specious, inaccurate, dishonest and unfounded claims about Iraq.

I will give Kerry the benefit of the doubt as to intentions when he voted for the IWR - he felt, like many, that without the clear threat of force, Iraq would not accede to the demands for inspections and intervention by the UN...and he probably felt that the IWR would put meaningful weight behind the push to get Iraq to comply, conform, and accede to the UNMOVIC process.

Fine. Good on Kerry.

But does it take a genius to read the wording, to take one look at that administration, its major players, and its track record, and figure out what was going to happen?

NO. EVERYONE with a brain took one look at that resolution, one look at this administration, one look at the "evidence" they presented and the way they presented it...and KNEW that the IWR was an open door.

THAT, my friend, is amateur hour, no two ways about it.

At best.

At worst, it was craven, election driven, fear based, pandering and caving.

I will NOT say that Kerry is guilty of the second, worst case...I like Kerry. I think he is a good man, with a good record, and good abilities...but he got blindsided.

Amateur hour indeed.

[Prodemsouth]

9. Congrads, DannyRed, very forceful, yet civil reply. Everyone lets keep

it this way. I welcome Trippi's remarks, as someone who is leaning towards Clark, but not yet on the bus.

[DrFunkenstein]

11. No Point In Going Toe to Toe Again

No one's mind will be changed. But if you looked at Kerry's floor statement, at the very least you would recognize that this is guy that knows EXACTLY what needed to be done and how to do it.

I'll only say that Kerry cannot be called for expediency, because he was saying the same thing since 1997, echoing the statement of Clinton in 1998:

"The credible threat to use force and, when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program."

Everyone of us must weigh the IWR vote against what each candidate would do in Bush's shoes, would do in the future, and in the end pass judgement. I've made my peace with the issue.

That said, I believe that international relations, especially concerning stateless terrorism, represents a global chessboard that requires a real chessmaster. I believe that Kerry understands the game better than any other candidate, including Clark.

[molly]

16. Kerry is consistent - no waffling!

[Egnever]

18. You mean the floor statement this was taken from?

(Videotape, October 9, 2002):
SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.
In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.
According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.
In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?
(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Unmanned aerial vehicles...
SEN. KERRY: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...a nuclear threat. Those are exactly the things that you suggested in New Hampshire President Bush had lied to you about.
SEN. KERRY: That’s precisely the point. That is exactly the point I’m making. We were given this information by our intelligence community. Now, either it was stretched politically in the many visits of Dick Cheney to the CIA and the way in which they created a client relationship, but the information we were given, built on top of the seven and a half years of what we knew he was doing, completely justified the notion that you had to respond to give the president the right to put inspectors in. The president said
when he put them in “War is not inevitable.” Colin Powell said to us, “The only rationale for going to war was weapons of mass destruction,” and it was legitimate to hold Saddam Hussein accountable to get the inspectors in. I’m saying to you that I don’t believe this president did the job of exhausting the remedies available to make us as strong as we should have been in doing that and certainly didn’t do the planning to be able to win the peace in the way that we need to. And I still think we can do it, Tim, but we’ve got to
get about the business of doing it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: ...which said the CIA had a low confidence in Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction or transferring the terrorists. And the State Department, which is included in the national intelligence estimate, said there was not a compelling case, that he reconstituted his nuclear program.
SEN. KERRY: I didn’t base it on the nuclear, but the most important and compelling rationale were the lack of inspections and the non-compliance of Saddam Hussein. Even Hans Blix at the United Nations said he is not in compliance.
MR. RUSSERT: Were you misled by the intelligence agencies? Were you duped?
SEN. KERRY: No, we weren’t