Re: Clark - ABC's The Note:

[sfecap]

(snip)

Speaking of positions, the Miami Herald 's Wallsten and Bolstad interviewed Clark, with The General offering this on the death penalty:

"At one point in the interview, Clark endorsed a moratorium on the death penalty, saying there has been ''a lot of discrimination and a lot of injustice'' and saying cases should be reviewed with DNA evidence. Asked if he would back a halt to executions, Clark sat up straight."

"'Stop. Stop,' he said. 'I promised I wasn't going to take a strong position.'''

(snip)

Writes one Democrat with national political experience:

"I have read the accounts of the Clark interviews and my reaction is despair and anger. Why did my party's best operatives think it would be a good idea to subject their neophyte candidate to the country's savviest reporters for over an hour? Why have my party's elders rallied around a candidate who is so shockingly uninformed about core issues and his own positions? I am not a Dean supporter — but I am angry that our party's leaders have anointed an alternative to him who seems even more ignorant and unprepared — and that this supposed 'anti-war' candidate turns out to have been in favor of both the war resolution and Richard Nixon!! And let's not even talk about the Clintons. Today I am embarrassed to be a Democrat."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html

Hmmmmm...

[Brucey]

1. Over reactions seem epidemic!

I think Clark is new and untried. Who doesn't? He is not my cup of tea. I don't want military leaders in charge of a civilian government. He should be a military leader, not president. Because he has never run for political office he is inexperienced (not just in campaigning and being questioned, but also in figuring out where he stands on a myriad of issues). Finally, he seems like a slow learner to me. He has come to see the light on a few issues at age 60? I prefer a quick learner for prez. But on the other hand, the more voices against Bush, the better. The more people on our team, the better. "Embarrassed to be a Democrat" is just going way, way too far. The Democratic party is big and vast, has depth and breadth. Give us some breathing room, and we'll be fine.

[priller]

2. Not sure it's that much of an overreaction

It's becoming increasingly apparent to me that Clark is simply too much of a neophyte--in terms of politics--to run for the highest office. He has many good, attractive qualities, and I'm sure he is a fine person, but I don't think he has the experience or background to be President. He knows what he's talking about on foreign policy but seems to have thought little about domestic issues. That would make him a great choice for Sec. of State or National Security Advisor, but not President.

[ChompySnack]

4. Think Vice President

That is obviously where this strategy is leading us in my opinion.

[MasonJar]

3. Slow learner?

Let's see. The general not only graduated first in his class at West Point, but was also a Rhodes scholar. We should all be so slow. Please stop degrading our candidates. The enemy is Bush. Let the primary play itself out , and then we can all back the winner.

[renie408]

8. It isn't attacking him to note

his weaknesses. He is running for President of the United States. He obviously wants us to choose him over others. It is natural to examine his flaws as well as his strengths in making a decision. I am not sure about slow learner, but he has demonstrated that he is not particularly quick to make a decision and I am unsure how quick he is to see the implications of tactical decisions he does make. When he wanted to block that airfield in Kosovo to stop the Russians from being able to land reinforcements, it was a British officer who saw the rather far reaching implications, refused to follow orders and said, "Sir I will not help you start WWIII." I did not read anywhere where this officer was reprimanded for his actions and Clark was removed from command not long after the action settled. There is a REASON he was removed from command and its not because he was doing such a wonderful job.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. The whole airfield story

is based on the premise that the only way the Russians could have been stopped would have been to attack them, to shoot at them. But that seems to be a pretty big assumption.

Fact is, we just don't know what would have happened if Jackson had followed his orders. As far as I am concerned, him saying it would have started WWIII is nothing but hyperbole.

[carpetbagger]

14. The technical word is "Goreing". Yes, it is a vicious attack.

People keep bringing up one-sentence charges that need to be responded to in depth, and then ignore the responses. Wesley Clark has written an entire chapter of a book about this, and there is corroboration from others about his side of the story. I've summarized these in previous posts in long explanations, and I'm getting tired of it.

As to why Clark left early, I trust Sandy Berger a whole lot more than I trust Matt Drudge and Co.

But in the meantime, this is turning into the current flavor of "invented the internet", "no controlling legal authority" and all the other charges against Gore. It's a whole hell of a lot easier to attack with a one-liner than it is to hear the explanation.

[LizW]

5. Okay, this has GOT to be intentional

and the "Democrat with national experience" has not been let in on the plan. I simply cannot believe that a West Point valedictorian, Rhodes Scholar who has been considering a run for the Presidency for months does not yet have a handle on the issues, and couldn't anticipate the major questions he would be asked once he declared.

Clark's campaign has been depicted in the press and fledgling and unorganized, but they were savvy enough to step on Edwards' announcement.

I think he's sandbagging.

And I don't know what the heck's up with the Clintons.

[CWebster]

6. Why , he asks?

Because the party "leaders" are desperate and clueless. They present an artificial, superficial image they believe will sell based on polling. They are totally disconnected with reality and insult the intelligence of so many Democrats who are disgusted with their performance and Republican make-over.

[sfecap]

7. You win the prize!

I think you got it.

Clark is the "fear factor" candidate, courtesy of the DLC.

[Bread and Circus]

9. NO, Clark is the "real deal" candidate

courtesy of the Draft Clark movement. If he was
DLC and was a plant all along, he would have
every detail nailed by now.

He doesn't have the details yet, but here is
something for you to read....


http://www.msnbc.com/news/969441.asp


Policy details will be forthcoming, mark my words.
Bank on it.

[renie408]

12. Well, yeah

He IS running for President, I reckon it might help if he put forth some policy details.

It just feels wrong to me. Maybe I am too supportive of my candidate or something, but I just can't see what Clark has to offer or why he is in there. My support of Edwards aside, I don't think I would have gone for Clark and if I was leaning that way, the hedging I have heard in every single statement he has made on every single subject so far would have scared me off.

[LizW]

11. Well, I was trying to be optimistic

and here you come along making me face the ugly truth.:(

[polpilot]

13. There is no democratic leadership. It is absurd what these idiots have

done.

Dean '04...