can someone tell me why the dnc didn't put up clark?

[homerthompson]

i'm sure this topic has been covered ad nauseum, either here or elsewhere on the internets... but my google-fu is not that strong, so be kind please!

anywayz here's my query: the republican reich always tries to portray dem's as weak on national security... so then clark would've been a great candidate for us to put up since he's a former general...

so why did he not get the nomination, and kerry did? and are those reasons 'official' somehow, like listed somewhere on the dnc site for instance, or is it the consensus of opinions (like how dean supposedly lost b/c of the filtered yell)

[Fiona]

1. because more people voted for Kerry

in the primaries.

The DNC doesn't "put up" anyone. Candidates run - party members vote.

[aeolian]

234. more *Iowans* voted for Kerry

...But that gets into the whole issue of the primary system.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

236. Yep, more democrats voted for Kerry in the primaries.

.

[purduejake]

2. Not enough political experience.

He started out as a weak candidate but seemed to learn fast. I think he has a place in a progressive administration, but just doesn't know the ropes yet, so to speak.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Because the Corporate Media told

the lemings that Clark was a weak candidate....and of course, they followed the lying media off the mountain. As usual.

The rope you refer to was used by the Democrats to hang themselves. It is due to lack of strategizing based on General election realities.

[David Ippolito]

49. Bill Moyers...

Mr. Moyers is right when he says, as he's asserted for years, that the greatest danger and threat to freedom and democracy in this nation is the corporate takeover of the news media.

Now more than ever.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Agree....bigtime!

Bill Moyers as well as many of us understand why the "Founding Fathers" included a "Free Press" in the FIRST Admendment (not the 2nd, or 3rd...) They understood the obvious, even before TeeVee.

What we now have is a "Bought" press. Very dangerous to our Democracy indeed......

We are seeing the results of the Corporate Presstitutes' handiwork, and it ain't pretty!

[against all enemies]

110. And HE just retired. We are screwed again. I'll miss his show.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Because there were too many damn fools who kept insisting

he was a closet Republican (only because many years ago he had voted for some) -- even though his clearly-stated positions on virtually all issues were more liberal than any candidate except Kucinich.

[Skittles]

4. pisses me off Kerry was a done deal befoe the voting even got to Texas

it SUCKED

[Guaranteed]

15. I think what pisses me off the most is they got it WRONG. nt

[bluestateguy]

5. He only became a Democrat in 2003

For the last 40 years he was a Republican leaning independent. There were many Democrats questioning his party loyalty. By 2008, that will not be much of an issue anymore, especially if he campaigns for Democratic candidates in 2006.

[sadiesworld]

7. He voted for Clinton 2x and for Gore.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily disprove your "republican-leaning" hypothesis. :)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. DAMMIT! How often does this have to be repeated??

Career military people avoid party affiliation; they have to. The ONLY reason he wasn't registered as a Democrat is that in Arkansas you don't have to register with a party. But he voted for Clinton twice and Gore once, which makes him pretty much of a solid, established Democrat in my book.

[bowens43]

12. says who ? Clark?

He praised the current administration more then once. The last thing we need is a product of 30 years of military indoctrination in the oval office. As we saw in the primaries , Clark was OVERWHELMINGLY defeated by the democratic base.

[Fiona]

13. as was every candidate besides Kerry

n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Well, Dean has praised Bush, Cheney and the current

administration on more than one occasion as well.

It's true that Kerry absolutely trounced his opposition in the primaries, but considering that, Clark did pretty well. As well as any of the others, and particularly well for how late he got into the race.

Nice to see you back at the Clark hating. I've kinda been missing you. Feeling a little threatened?

[Cheswick2.0]

41. not true

Dean has never praised the current administration except to say they didn't totally suck...being diplomatic and all that. It's an old tactic, first you kill them with faint praise before you desecrate them.
Clark on the other hand raised money for them and was effusive in his praise of Bush and his administration.

In fact Clark didn't do as well as all the others. He got less delegates than Edwards or Dean and perhaps DK.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. DK got his share of delegates by hanging in there until the end

The rules for most states require a candidate to reach a 15% threshold in order to win votes. Early in the race that was most difficult to achieve because the vote was being split so many ways. By the very end Kucinich was the only candidate running against Kerry, and for a long time it was him Kerry and Edwards. Kucinich was the last remaining protest vote, especially on the Iraq war. Give him his just credit, but the context of his totals does matter.

Clark withdrew fairly early and he specifically asked his supporters to vote for Kerry. That was not the case with Dean if I remember correctly. I know many Clark supporters who voted for Kerry after Clark withdrew though Clark's name remained on the ballot and he remained their first choice. They were honoring his wishes.

[Crunchy Frog]

57. You're very right about DK.

He ended up getting 30% in Colorado. I was one of the ones who voted for him, along with a good number of both Clark and Dean supporters, because he was the one non-Kerry choice that was left, and Kerry already had the nomination sown up.

I like DK, otherwise I wouldn't have voted for him in the caucus, and gone on to be a delagate up to the State Convention, but he got as many delegates as he did simply by hanging in till the end and being the only available alternative.

Of course, I'm only going to get more disdain directed at me now for admitting that I voted for DK.:)

[eridani]

243. Not from me you aren't!

You pushed the post-precinct caucus system hard, as we did in WA, and wound up with the most total DK delegates from any state, twice the number we attained here. (We went from none on Feb 2nd to 7 at the end of the CD caucuses.)

[eridani]

244. Not from me you aren't!

You pushed the post-precinct caucus system hard, as we did in WA, and wound up with the most total DK delegates from any state, twice the number we attained here. (We went from none on Feb 2nd to 7 at the end of the CD caucuses.)

[Crunchy Frog]

54. Ah, when Dean does it he's being "diplomatic"

but when Clark does it, he's being "effusive in his praise". That's the big difference, who said it, not what was actually said. Anyone who takes the time to look at the one speech given by Clark where he "praised Bush effusively" will see that he was warming the audience up with diplomatic language so that he could go on to pretty severely criticize Bush's foriegn policy direction. Dean's effusive praise did not come with the criticism that Clark's did. Sorry.

If you can document his actually raising money for the Bush administration, I would like to see it. No, it's much easier to make an unsubstantiated claim and expect that no one will refute it. For the record, he made one speech as a paid speaker, for one small local fundraiser, then followed that with a speech for a Democratic fundraiser.

I would like to see a comparison on paper of how much money he's raised for Republicans vs how much he's raised for Democrats over the course of his lifetime.

Clark didn't get as many delegates as the others simply because he was a realist. When he realized that there was no way he could get the nomination he gracefully bowed out. Certain other candidates were in the same position but stuck around, embarrassing themselves and continuing to suck millions of dollars off of their supporters while continuing to lose primaries. I'm frankly just as glad that Clark chose his way, it was alot more dignified IMO, and was kinder to his supporters. It showed an admirable lack of personal ego involvement.

While he was in the race, he was actually doing quite well relative to the non-Kerry candidates, considering the fact that Kerry was basically mopping the floor with all of them. He at least won a primary that was not his home or birth state. How many of those did Dean or Edwards win?

[Stinky The Clown]

19. "Clark was OVERWHELMINGLY defeated by the democratic base."

Uh ..... so were .... uh ...... Dean ...... Kucinich ....... Sharpton ........ Moseley-Braun ........ Edwards ........ Graham ...... JoeMentum.

Fact is, Clark did better than any one of these, including Edwards.

[Sparkly]

24. Who said he ever voted Republican?

That's right -- HE did. (It's amazing how honesty is rewarded!) Now you're insinuating he's a liar?!?

And his supposed "praise" for the administration was what, two sentences? That is a *plus* in a general election where we're trying to get the votes of former B*-voters, not a minus. And his criticisms of this administration have been loud, clear and consistent. He's been working tirelessly for our party. There's no question where he stands.

[Donna Zen]

157. Who voted for "team bush"

Kerry and Edwards are the among the yea votes for Rummy and Co.

I will not bore you with the arguments against what you are saying, since I'm sure you do not care. Anything to bash a Dem even Rove's talking points. It was Rove who dug out those few seconds of introduction from lame-ass tape. But just keep it up...we've got plenty of elections to lose.

To the best of my knowledge, I have never "pissed" in another candidate's threads. I think is just plain counter-productive. And mean spirited. Why I would have to want to be a republican to do a thing like that.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

232. Praised the Bush admin?

Yeah, when he thought they were right re going after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

How is that worse than actually voting with Bush on some of his most appalling legislation -- as the two guys you ran against Bush had done?

As for your military indoctrination swipe ... you obviously have ignored the fact that many high ranking types in the military didn't think he was indoctrinated enough. The fact he was a Rhodes scholar made him a little independent-minded and free-thinking for the muddy boots solja types you've obviously got him confused with.

seems to me someone anti the military industrial complex -- who knows how it works was a much more dangerous opponent for Bush and Cheney that a couple of tip-toeing Senators.

It amazes me that left-wingers, who are so against the stereo typing
of minorites can continue to impose an stereo-type on a guy who has obviously broken the mould in so many different ways.

The whole world lost out because American left-wingers decided they couldn't let go of their old anti-military stance even when a country at war was always going to look for a leader they trusted to deal with matters of war.

[Tom Rinaldo]

238. Not all American left wingers felt that way

but those of us who didn't often had a fight on our hands.

[cidliz2004]

241. You are really not too bright

"Military Indoctrination" is what we desperately need in the oval office.

The Primaries were fixed and done before the vast majority of votes from the vast majority of states (especially the big hitters) were cast. "OVERWHELMINGLY" only applies to your gross inaccuracy of the actual events of the primaries.

The Democratic Base defeated itself this last election because they didn't have the "FREEDOM" to put in the candidate that would have ENERGIZED the real DEMOCRATIC BASE AS WELL AS INDEPENDENTS AS WELL AS SOME OF THE REPUBLICANS.

People didn't get inspired by Kerry. Kerry may have "won", but not by enough and Kerry didn't have the gravitas to stay in the fight long enough to expose the Ohio shenanigans thereby giving the American People the right to have EVERY VOTE COUNTED AND HAVE EVERY VOTE COUNT.

[Cheswick2.0]

40. oh, so not true

They do not have to avoid party affiliation and most states don't have required party affiliation.

[Crunchy Frog]

62. Actually, I think what they were trying to say

is that people in the military are required to be non-partisan, at least they have been until recently. They have to serve whoever their Commander in Chief is, and they can't engage in openly partisan political activities.

On the other hand, Arkansas, where Clark was registered, didn't have registration by party affiliation at all until the late '90s, and even now, under 5% of the electorate there is registered by party. So the lack of party affiliation is actually pretty understandable in this case, by anyone other than an obsessive hater who will latch on to absolutely anything to justify that hate.

[melnjones]

78. Um, ok...

and waving a party flag works real well when you are a high-ranking military official and have to work under Democratic presidents, Republican presidents, and whatever else may come along the way. He COULD have picked a strong party affiliation, but the responsible way to effectively perform his job was to be non-partisan.

[Texas_Kat]

100. Maybe you've been missing the point about party registration in the South

In many states (including TEXAS) there is NO SUCH THING.

Even if you wanted to register for a party, there is no 'official' mechanism to do so.

That's right, Bush is not a registered Republican with the state of Texas (since you CAN'T register for a party with the state).

Some Southern states (including Arkansas) changed the rules in recent years and allow you to actually register with one party or the other.

The closest many come (including Texas) is to temporarily 'affiliate' with a party by voting in their primary. If that's the criteria, then Clark has been a 'registered' Democrat since 1992.

I, however, (being a lifelong 'Democrat ') became a temporary Republican when I voted in the 2000 Repub primary. (I wanted the opportunity to vote against Bush twice).

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Nonsense. You have a point but no need to stretch the truth

Clark revealed he voted twice for Clinton and for Gore. That has him voting Democratic on the presidential level at least since 1988. That is not someone who has been leaning Republican for 40 years. Clark has, at the very least, "leaned Democratic for the last 16 years. By the way Clark registered as a Democrat, after being a life long Independent, in 2002, not 2003. He made his first public announcement of his affiliation in 2003.

[sadiesworld]

6. He proposed a 5% tax increase on all income over $1M...

and did not support the IWR.

He was dead in the water.

[robbedvoter]

56. Whose waters are you swimming in? Enron's? These 2 things made

Clark a candidate with grassroots that are still standing by. Your concept of viability is bizzare to say the least.

[Crunchy Frog]

64. Hey robbed, it was meant as sarcasm.

This particular poster was a Clark supporter.

[janx]

69. When these flame threads get rolling, that happens all the time.

People's emotions get the better of their logic.

:shrug:

[sadiesworld]

168. Grassroots support? Absolutely.

Media, DLC, and DNC support? Not a chance.

[marcologico]

9. Because he is an inexperienced mediocre candidate who lost every primary

except Oklahoma. Does that help?

[FrenchieCat]

33. What Primaries did any other candidates win?

Oh yeah....

Dean won his HOME STATE OF Vermont
Edwards won his BIRTH STATE Of S. Carolina
let's see .....seems like apart from Kerry winning every other state, Clark won NOT HIS HOME STATE OF Oklahoma.

Good job Clark, considering the media stopped talking about you the day of the Iowa Vote....after attacking you for standing up to mediawhores trying to get you to back down and give them Michael Moore's head on a platter.

Thank you for having balls to stand up against these Presstitutes!

[marcologico]

37. How about all of them?

Except those three. Look I'm not saying Clark is a bad guy but he didn't run much of a campaign and he would have gotten demolished by Rove if he'd made it to the nomination anyway. It's a tough game.

[Sparkly]

38. Simply not true

At this time last year, Clark had raised more money than any of them but Dean. He was polling in 1st and 2nd in quite a few of the early primary states (including 2nd behind Dean in NH). He had a good organization and a great array of endorsements.

The simple fact is that Kerry's momentum coming out of Iowa was insurmountable. It rolled over everybody like a steamroller.

As for Rove -- of course he'd sling whatever mud he could come up with on ANY Democratic opponent. But what General Clark could do was take all Chimp's phony military posturing right off the table without even saying a word. The old stereotyped idea that Democrats are "weak on national security" still played hugely in this election. They couldn't have used that on Clark, and that would have made a big difference imho.

[Cheswick2.0]

43. I agree with you on this part of your post

At this time last year, Clark had raised more money than any of them but Dean. He was polling in 1st and 2nd in quite a few of the early primary states (including 2nd behind Dean in NH). He had a good organization and a great array of endorsements.

The simple fact is that Kerry's momentum coming out of Iowa was insurmountable. It rolled over everybody like a steamroller.

[FrenchieCat]

42. I thank you for your

hypothetical conclusion as to what would have happened to Clark via Rove. Can you give me a bit more meat on that? How would he had been demolished...and which Democrat would not have been, and why not?

Thanks.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. That is obviously a matter of opinion, but some facts refute yours

Clark's campaign ran rings around some very experienced Democratic politicians with long track records of success and real National standing and support. Specifically Lieberman, Gephardt and Graham. You do not have to like them, but none of those men were untested light weights. None of them came anywhere close to doing as well as Wesley Clark did. That is a fact.

Like I said elsewhere on this thread every other Democrat's campaign had one or more years lead time over Clark's in getting organized. That is a fact, and it would be foolish to underestimate the importance of lead time in waging a successful run for the Presidency.

Only two Democrats, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, created consistent grass roots excitement that translated into significant direct financial contributions from small doners. Clark outstripped Dean by the end of his active campaign in fundraising. Dean and Clark in that order had the smallest average dollar amount per contribution of any of the candidates. That is the sign of a successful campaign, the ability to generate contributions from tens of thousands of small doners.

Because of his late entry into the race Clark's advisers believed Clark did not have time tor organize credible campaigns in both Iowa and New Hampshire. As far as the media was concerned the few tens of thousands of Iowa caucus voters settled the whole election process right there among themselves. Kerry/Edwards, end of story (except for their endless amusement at rerunning Dean's scream of course). Well Clark did not compete in Iowa so the media in essence ruled him out of consideration before he ran a single race.

Kerry and Dean both had long high profile careers in states directly neighboring New Hampshire. First place there was a contest for "favorite son" status. Clark beat out all the non New Englanders in the first actual Primary (non caucus) contest (plus he beat Lieberman also - New Englander that he to is). Clark defeated Edwards in the first actual Primary election either man ran in in 2004, but the media still pronounced Kerry and Edwards the front runners. The next week South Carolina was up, Edward's birth place and neighboring state, and that's the state Edwards won. The media ignored the fact that Clark was finishing second in the South West with Dean and Edwards off the map so to speak. Reporting continued to be all Kerry Edwards, and despite that, Clark still managed to come back and win in Oklahoma then finish a solid third in Tennessee by a few percentage points. Clark had been leading some polls in Wisconsin, despite all of the above, before he withdrew from the race.

I say the facts dispute that Clark didn't run much of a campaign. I think he did remarkably well as a new comer to politics. Overall better than Gore did the first time he ran for President.

What must be remembered is that the DNC stacked the process this time to lock in an early winner. The whole schedule was sharply front ended so that whoever got initial momentum would never have time to lose it short of some campaign ending blunder of monumental proportions. This is different than all prior Democratic Primary seasons. The public can be so easily programmed. They came to see Edwards as a very strong candidate despite him not having performed significantly better than Clark during the time while both men were running. That distortion was due to media coverage and Edward's dogged perseverance. He wouldn't drop out so he got all that exposure because the media still wanted to cover a horse race. Clark realized early that Kerry had it sown up and chose to close ranks behind him to begin the Fall campaign. That decision lowered Clark's public profile but it was a good one for the Party.

[melnjones]

80. Yup, accurate narration of how it all happened.

And a good reminder as well of the sheer frustration of the whole process.

[Crunchy Frog]

180. So you're basically saying that they were all

inexperienced, mediocre candidates, with the exception of Kerry, because not a single one of them won more than one primary and plenty of them didn't even manage that.

In fact, Clark was the only non-Kerry candidate to actually win a primary outside of either his home, or birth state. So relative to all the rest of the inexperienced, mediocre candidates, Clark actually did pretty well.

[cidliz2004]

239. How exactly long was the Primary Season that pulled the plug on

Clark and Dean?

Clark and Dean were taken out of the race by the DNC and/or anybody else interested in the system.

You would have to be brain dead to say that Dean and Clark "lost" and/or were weak candidates. The "Washington Insiders" decided on their best buddy, John Kerry. Kerry pulled out Iowa and the rest was "history", Clark and Dean were then decidedly "expendable" and probably somewhat of a nuisance, so they were pulled from the primaries. The rest of the candidates never had a chance anyway and I believe that Edwards being #2 on the ticket was a foregone conclusion. Edwards then was allowed to "spar" with Kerry, for media attention and to acquaint the rest of the country with Edwards.

We were all had. If any of us thought that our vote counted in the primaries, well the joke was on us. There were 30+ odd states that didn't really get a choice, including the heavy hitters (as far as electoral college votes). If any of us thought that our vote counted in November, well again, we were had. With lightening quick speed Kerry conceded and didn't even begin to examine and hold out for Ohio, which obviously was played with at will by the GOP.

How do we examine our voting process when the most powerful voice out there to lead us in the examination and questioning folds up and goes home. Oh, I forgot, Kerry is planning something big behind the scenes. He is being a smart lawyer and not showing his cards so that he will annihilate Bush and Bush won't get sworn in. Right? Isn't that the story?

Clark was the best answer to the problems that this country is facing today. He had the most knowledge of the situations that we are facing, he has the most integrity, the most intelligent, the most experienced in Foreign Policy and he was a Washington Outsider in that he didn't spend his life kissing corporate ass and becoming de-testified in Washington D.C.

He was a gift to the American People, but the gift was never delivered and the American people lost out.

Clark is still out there, but God only knows what the next four years will bring us.

I had the good fortune of meeting this brilliant National Treasure. I will never forget it.

[bowens43]

10. As we saw in the primaries

Democrats didn't want him. His glowing praise of the bush administration showed at best a severe lack of judgement.

[Fiona]

11. I didn't follow it closely

but what glowing praise did Clark give the Bush admin? I always thought he was decent, but I preferred Edwards.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Clark dared to encourage Bush's Foreign policy team

to keep working with European Allies....before 9/11 (may 2001 speech)

Democrats used this speech as the excuse given to them by Karl Rove to keep the man that could have beaten Bush from winning the sorry Democratic primaries.

Here's the speech..... Don't know if the link is still good, but found this in my arsenal...... Clark gave nearly the same speech at a Democratic fund raiser a week later.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065

here is the full paragraph of contention:
------------------
You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. 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.
----------------------
notice he says he is glad to have them in office for the challenges ahead in EUROPE. He was after all the Supreme Allied Commander of Nato...so US relations with Europe would be important to him. He is hoping for the best...considering....in a time pre 9/11 and pre Iraq war.

in the next two paragraphs he further defines the European challenges:
-------------------------
We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans where we've still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United Sates and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest.

Look, in politics they told me--I don't know anything about politics now, I want to make that clear. But they told me--I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you've always got to protect your base. Well, for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe. And that means we've got to take care of NATO, we've got to make sure the Europeans stay in it, and we've got to stay with the problem in the Balkans, even though we don't like it. We will get it resolved, and we'll help bring democracy and Westernization to those countries there.

two paragraphs up from the maligned "praise" we find this:
------------------------
But we're also extremely vulnerable. Our economy--we're using three times--we've got three times as much foreign investment as we're investing--capital flow--as we're putting out there. They're investing here because they believe in us. We're using energy like it's going out of style. We're using five to eight times as much energy per capita as people in the rest of the world, twice as much as even the Europeans. We're vulnerable to security threats--everything from terrorism to the developing missiles that are--we know rogue states are developing to aim at us.

(that statement above was made pre 9/11)
Clark continues ......
And so I think we have to have a new strategy, and we have to have a consensus on the strategy, and we have to have a bipartisan consensus, and politics has to stop in America at the water's edge. We've got to reach out, and we've got to find those people in the world and share our values and beliefs--and we've got to reinforce them. We've got to bring them here and let them experience the kind of life that we have. They've got to get an education here. They've got to be able to send their children here. They they've got to go home. And they've got to carry the burdens in their own lands, and to some extent we have to help them.
----------------------------
notice that in the first paragraph clark talks enviromentalism to a republican audience.
also note the warning about terrorism pre-9/11.
notice in the second paragraph he talks about bipartisanship, and reaching out to the world community. two traits that he shares spot on with his positions today.
-------------------------
Here, General Clark in talking to Tim Russert about the Freeper's "Videotape" that came from guess who???? Your friend.....Drudge!

GEN. CLARK: That’s politics, Tim. But, you know, I’m not a politician, but I am a fair person. I supported the president in Afghanistan. I think we should have gone in there and stayed in there and gotten Osama bin Laden. And I give the men and women in the armed forces, including our commander in chief, who is at the top of the chain of command, the credit for waging a very effective campaign, as far as it went in Afghanistan. And I think you have to give credit where credit’s due.

As far as the earlier speech is concerned, you know, I did not vote for George W. Bush. I had reservations about it. But I do know Colin Powell and Paul O’Neill and Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. I wished them well. I wish they could have led this country well. I don’t want to see America fail. I don’t want to see another American soldier killed in Iraq or another American here at home lose a job. And I think it’s the duty of every American to put country above party
--------------------------------------
If praising Bush makes Clark a Republican then Dean supporters are in for a shock: Gore is a Republican!!

"There are no divisions where our response to the war on terrorism is concerned," said Gore, who ran unsuccessfully for president against Bush in 2000 while winning the vote in Iowa. "George W. Bush is my commander in chief."

http://tinyurl.com/2jcxv
Dean is a Republican too:
From Nov 2001 Rutland Herald--

Gov. Howard Dean on Thursday said he was generally pleased with how the Bush administration had responded to protect the country against future terrorist plots.

“The way the administration has handled the situation in Afghanistan has been very, very good,”...
http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/38357

He's pleased with Bush.... he's very, very happy with the way he's handled things!

Oh My God! Dean must be a Republican! I don't trust him HE'S NOT A DEMOCRAT!

If I looked I could find Ted Kennedy praising Bush and take his comments out of context. Would that make him a Republican who loves Bush? No. This is such a stupid issue.

[cidliz2004]

240. His "glowing praise of the Bush Administration" was also a "glowing

praise of the troops in Iraq that fought a brilliant battle. So, if you want someone to TELL THE TRUTH then I guess Clark isn't your man.

Our troops did a brilliant job in the beginning stages in overthrowing and overtaking Iraq. NOBODY questions that, even Clark, acknowledges and has the INTEGRITY to give credit where credit is due.

The war was ill conceived and Clark also talked about that as well. But maybe you didn't hear that. Clark also talked about the reasons for going into Iraq and where they came from and when he first heard of them, maybe you didn't hear that either.

Clark also voted for some Republicans to, Damn him. Again, he used his own judgment at the time and used an independent voice. Damn him, let's just lynch him right now and while we are at it, don't convert any right wingers to be on our side, lynch them to! Damn it to hell, why be proud of a National Hero choosing us after being independent his whole life (hint hint, he voted for Clinton and Gore to), just trash his independence and like I said before lynch him!

Small narrow minded people like you usually are on the "right" side of the fence.

[Guaranteed]

14. Man, did you watch the campaign?

During the primaries, people picked Kerry exactly for that reason- he had a bunch of combat medals. He's a war hero. They were trying to play it safe, and they got burned because of it.

What the hell difference would it have made if it had been Clark? They would have just brought up a bunch of Bosnia stuff and blown it out of proportion. Or talked about the fact that he actually supported the Iraq war, before being against it. Same shit, different candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Sorry, but

Bosnia/Kosovo were recent and US Won. Vietnam, Kerry's claim to fame, was over 35 years ago.

The press would have been hardpressed to erase their own words from 4 years prior....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true

The Unappreciated General

By Patrick B. Pexton
Tuesday, May 2, 2000; Page A23
Nine years ago, Washington put on a lavish victory parade for the conquering troops of Desert Storm. The nation cheered the men and women who, in a six-week air campaign and 100-hour ground war, with only 148 combat deaths, defeated a ruthless dictator who had seized and pillaged a neighboring land. The generals who led an unwieldy multinational coalition to triumph were feted, toasted and mentioned as presidential material.

Not so for the general who won Kosovo, although he too ousted a murderous tyrant who burned and occupied a neighboring land. This general also led a cumbersome multinational coalition to victory in a short war--this time with zero combat deaths. But Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme allied commander Europe, will come home to no special welcome, no TV or book deals and no talk of the presidency. Clark's reward for victory is early retirement. Tomorrow, several months before his tour of duty would normally end, Clark will turn over the European command to an officer more to the liking of the ever-cautious White House and defense secretary.

Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them.

[Crunchy Frog]

68. I find it very amusing how so many people can't

see a significant difference between 4 months of combat experience nearly forty years ago and a 36 year long military career that includes being commander of forces in Europe, and successfully running and winning a war without any US casualties and by coordinating the militaries of 19 different countries.

Yes, the two things are exactly the same. Kerry had exactly the same type of military credentials that Clark had. Case closed.

It's also interesting that so many Democrats can't imagine that there might be special challenges to running against an incumbent Republican president during wartime, where genuine heavy duty national security credentials might actually be of utility.

Finally, what I find most interesting is the absolute fury with which so many Democrats greet the notion of a 4 Star General coming out and saying that the Republicans are wrong, the Democrats are right, and using his unique set of credentials to rip Republican foreign and military policy to shreds. How dare he!!!

Not only that, but he also committed the ghastly crime of actually holding Dear Leader accountable for the failure to prevent 9/11. He spoke out knowledgably and credibly about PNAC and what their agenda was. To add the worst insult to the worst injury, he defended the entire notion of dissent, and he defended Michael Moore's right to criticize Dear Leader. For this and other unspeakable crimes, such Republican lovers as Michael Moore and George McGovern gave him their endorsement.

With the way so much of our party loves to hate those who are on its side, sometimes I find myself feeling that we really deserved to lose this election, and that all of us Democrats probably deserve to live under four more years of Bush. When I read threads like this, I find myself not feeling quite so bad.

[Guaranteed]

76. You're still making the same mistake.

You're hiding behind military stuff instead of looking for consistency in his positions.

It doesn't work.

[Tom Rinaldo]

82. This post doesn't work for me

It has no substance behind its conclusion. I see no hiding going on. I see differences discussed regarding the relative strengths that Kerry and Clark each had for the 2004 election stemming from each man's respective service in the military. That is a focused area of debate. I also saw specific differing areas of political emphasis raised, such as Clark openly confronting PNAC and holding Bush accountable for being asleep at the wheel prior to 9/11.

I see nothing discussed at all in this post, aside from some vague concern about hiding behind the military. You can't talk intelligently about consistency in positions without mentioning a single position.

The posts you responded to were on specific topic. They were not an attempt to recreate Wesley Clark, John Kerry, Howard Dean, or anyone else's entire platform for review.

[Guaranteed]

84. Okay, using the numbers I crunched from the 2004 campaign

I've reached the conclusion that, on a scale of 1 to 100, the resultant added "strength" to a candidate from a history of military service is....beep boop boop boop....ch-ching: "0". It doesn't help. In fact, it becomes a distraction, and, in many cases, a CRUTCH with which to fill in other vacancies in character. So, often times it can actually be a detriment, when compared to those who do not have military credentials and have to get by on their actual positions and personality.

[Crunchy Frog]

92. You still don't seem to be responding

to anything that either I or Tom actually said in our posts. I was simply pointing out that there is a bit of a difference between having served 4 months in combat nearly 40 years previously, vs having served in the military for 36 years, risen to the level of 4 Star General, and commanded the European forces including during an actual war which was concluded successfully.

We simply have a difference of opinion on the degree of similarity or difference between the two. We also have a difference of opinion on the potential significance that has in relation to going up against an incumbent wartime Republican president. Again, it's just a difference of opinion. We're a big tent party, we can tolerate such things.

As far as other aspects of personality and positions goes, I'd be very curious to know whether you found the other things I mentioned objectionable. For example, do you think it was wrong of Clark to defend Michael Moore's free speech rights? Was it wrong of him to bring up PNAC. Do you think he was way out of line to hold Dear Leader accountable for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks? Maybe you feel it was wrong of him to go out and campaign for the Democratic ticket and for large numbers of Democratic congressional candidates. There certainly seems to be some anger there whose origin I just don't understand. Do you find it objectionable that Clark had, and still has alot of strong, grassroots supporters? I'm really trying hard to understand why there is so much vitriolic anger directed by Democrats towards someone who is on their side.

As far as your magic number cruncher goes, I'd very much like to see it. If it's for real, it might be a big help to the Democratic party leadership. I didn't know there was such a thing as a crystal ball in politics, but I guess maybe I'm wrong.

[Guaranteed]

96. Man, the RWers worked it so well that you're even using their talking

points against Kerry.

See how that works? They've even got you saying that he was only in Nam for 4 months (which isn't true). He had two tours- the SECOND tour was only 4 months. They'd do exactly the same thing to Clark, particularly with that going up against the Russians thing.

You were also talking about national SECURITY credentials- WTH? What are Clark's national security credentials? He was a general- he ran a war campaign, and it had nothing to do with national security. Richard Clarke has national security experience. Wesley Clark does not.

While I like Clark as a person, I think he would have had more credibility if he had spoken out before the war. He went along with it, just like everyone (or, almost everyone) else did. It also bothers me that he supports a flag burning amendment.

The crystal ball's great, by the way. :P

[Tom Rinaldo]

103. Since the crystal ball is working so well

maybe you could look into some reading glasses next. Check out Clark's biography and then explain how the positions he held were not relevant in regards to National Security credentials. Heading N.A.T.O. (our universally accepted top national security alliance) was not the only relevant position Clark held. Check it out when you get a chance.

And it is a Rovian tactic to pull a tiny point out of context and hold it up as supposed proof that discredits an entire line of argument. The discussion was over the difference between a 40 year military career that ran unbroken from the Viet Nam War through Clinton's Presidency, and honorable service during part of the Viet Nam war only followed by high profile protesting of that war. That was the point of discussion. I honor Kerry for his protest days by the way. I am upset that he didn't own them more directly during the campaign. They are part of his public record, by not talking much about that part compared to his service in Viet Nam, it left it to his enemies to paint that part of Kerry's picture.

[Guaranteed]

122. I started this threadline.

I know what it's about. And my point is a much broader one- that hiding behind credentials doesn't cut it. You have to have the political positions. And the correct position for this campaign was not "we needed more allies."

It was "WRONG WAR. WRONG PLACE. WRONG TIME."

[Tom Rinaldo]

127. Nice position

I was cool with "massive strategic blunder" and "pulled a bait and switch on the American people" also.

[Guaranteed]

138. Yes, that's the expanded version. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

143. Those are Clark quotes. n/t

[Guaranteed]

150. Yes, I know.

And they're good ones. I'd be very surprised if he was saying that before the war, though.

[dogman]

106. Re-read the post.

Four months of combat. I'm quite skeptical of the idea the RW could make much of standing up to the Russians. He was Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, not just a General. I think that gives him a lot of National Security credentials. I too disagree about the flag burning ammendment but that is not a major item since the President only signs a bill and I understand someone having fought under that flag and burying good men with a flagdraped coffin might have a different perspective and i have enough sense to respect that.

[Crunchy Frog]

112. Actually, I'm well aware that Kerry served two tours.

It is my understanding that only one of them was actually in combat, in Vietnam. If I'm incorrect on that, I apologize, but the basic point I was trying to make remains the same. That Kerry served in the military, in combat, for a relatively brief period of time, nearly forty years ago, and that this service record, however honorable, differs substantially from that of Clark's.

As far as national security credentials go, we simply have a difference of opinion as to what characteristics and experiences are relevant in that area. Nothing the matter with differences of opinion. We are a big tent party after all.

As far as speaking out before the war goes, I think you may have missed it, but it did happen. As I point out in a separate post, he testified to Congress against the rush to war way back in September of 2002. Well before Howard Dean said anything about it that I'm aware of. This is what Richard Perle had to say about his testimony:

So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait.

Now maybe Richard Perle had it all wrong, I don't know, but Clark was definitely out there saying something that was ruffling a few feathers.

Maybe that crystal ball needs a little work so that it can show things that happened in the past as clearly as it shows what will happen in the future. ;-)

Oh, I disagreed with his flag burning position as well. What is your opinion of the other positions he took that I mentioned in my earlier post?

[FrenchieCat]

94. Oops.....

you forgot that National Security experience is Clark's calling card, not his service in Vietnam. Kerry's election "ouchie" was caused by his Vietnam protests.....not by his actual service. If he had not protested Vietnam, the Tidy Bowl Vets, like O'Neill would not have come out of the woodwork to slander John Kerry.

If I recall, National Security was Bush's winning issue. Bush didn't dwell on military backgrounds, Kerry did.

Military background, when going back nearly 40 years ago is not considered a National Security strength.

Let's not get Military experience and National Security expertise confused.....kinda of like War on Terror and the War in Iraq, hey?

[Guaranteed]

98. What, was he director of counter-terrorism?

I thought he was just a general.

[FrenchieCat]

105. You thought like Caesar....

of course General Clark was not "just a General". My goodness!

General Clark was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and in charge of the European Command.

Prior, he was in charge of the Southern Command.

General Clark is an renown world expert on National Security...didn't you know????

Capital Hotel
111 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR
Tues, Nov 16, 2004
430-730 pm
http://www.mysan.de/international/article3122.html
In September 2004 Wesley Clark and Rodney Slater joined
James Lee Witt Associates (JLWA) as Vice Chairmen and Senior
Advisors a welcome reception was held in Washington, D.C. last
month. They will serve James Lee Witt Associates in addition to
maintaining their current positions at Wesley K. Clark &
Associates and Patton Boggs, respectively. General Clark will focus advising JLWA on their domestic and international security practice and Secretary Slater will advise JLWA on issues regarding transportation and critical infrastructure work.
-----------------------
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who as the military's top European commander helped supervise NATO's efforts to respond to a 1999 earthquake in Turkey, said the United States has unique military capabilities in reconnaissance and logistics management that can be useful in the current crisis. He urged Bush to take a higher profile. “Natural disasters happen,” Clark said. “One of the things people look for is a strong response that illustrates America's humanitarian values.”
http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx?re=2C5CC620-...
-----------
Arab reform: a pair of very different faces
By Rami G. Khouri
Daily Star staff
Monday, December 13, 2004
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&c...
"Among the speakers are former U.S. President Bill Clinton, Dubai Crown Prince and U.A.E. Defense Minister General Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, Syrian Expatriates Minister Buthaina Shaaban, Hanan Ashrawi from Palestine, U.S. scholar Fouad Ajami, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammad ElBaradei, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark, former Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri, the foreign ministers of Iraq and Qatar, the prime ministers of Libya and Malaysia...?
----------
The rich but frustrating debate on Arab reform
By Rami G. Khouri
Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 16, 2004
http://tinyurl.com/66qz6

Analysis
DUBAI: The three-day Arab Strategy Forum that brought to Dubai dozens of the finest minds in the Arab world, the USA, Europe and Asia this week to help chart the Arab region's route to modernity and prosperity was extraordinary in every respect. It was extraordinarily rich in analyzing the difficult condition of the Arab world, and in identifying the required policy changes to move toward a better future. And it was also extraordinarily rich in frustration - because the obvious consensus on what this region needs to do to move to a stable and wealthy future for all its citizens was matched by a more formidable scratching of heads over why reform policies have not been significantly adopted in any Arab country.

snip>
The host, U.A.E. Defense Minister and Dubai Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, kicked off the event with the shortest but most striking list of the forum, the two options before Arab leaders: either the leaders change their policies and deal with their people more justly, or the leaders will be changed. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton then followed with his six-point list of what countries need to do to succeed - and the floodgates of list-making were opened.

*The Forum heard several lists of the many security threats plaguing the Arab world, from knowledgeable people such as former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark, Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, Syrian Expatriates Minister Buthaina Shaaban, and International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohammed al-Baradei. The threats included terrorism, corruption, stagnation, Israel, the U.S., Iran, global irrelevance......
article is long...

[janx]

99. The reason it didn't work was that in using chest puffery,

we were still operating within the Chimp administration's terms, within their frame of the debate.

We were essentially saying, "This war is WRONG, but look! We have a real military hero to run against Chimpy!"

All of the gung-ho television footage of the Iraq War were basically *bolstered* by this kind of an appeal, in my opinion.

It was reactionary and desperate.

[Guaranteed]

85. BTW, I mentioned the main issue of the campaign in the first post.

The Iraq War.

I SAW Wesley Clark with my VERY OWN EYES in the run-up to the Iraq War on Meet the Press with Madeleine Albright, and they were both playing dumb. SUPPORTING the war, but using the same old "I wish that we'd had more allies" bullshit.

[FrenchieCat]

89. Please provide a transcript.....cause your eyes are not

providing me with any "facts".....just your recollection....

Here's some EVIDENCE from Factcheck.org that Clark was AGAINST the IRAQ WAR going way back....
http://www.factcheck.org/article130.html

RNC's Gillespie Gets It Wrong on Clark and Iraq
He claims Clark's House testimony in 2002 shows he supported military action, but Richard Perle was there and he didn't think so.
Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie has been saying retired Gen. Wesley Clark was really for war in Iraq -- but the record doesn't bear that out.

“Wesley Clark claims to have always been against the war in Iraq. Y et, testimony he gave to the House Armed Services Committee two weeks before Congress passed the Iraq Congressional Resolution says otherwise,” Gillespie writes on the RNC website. Gillespie made similar remarks in a speech given Jan. 15, saying of Clark ’s testimony “There was no stronger case made” for going to war.

But Gillespie gives only selective excerpts of Clark ’s testimony to the House Armed Services Committee Sept. 26, 2002 . Actually, Clark repeatedly urged patience and diplomacy, criticized the Bush administration for undercutting "friends and allies" and said “I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq .”

Don't take our word for it: Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, a strong supporter of going to war, testified with Clark at the same hearing and said, “I think Gen. Clark doesn’t want to see us use military force . . . . The bottom line is he just doesn’t want to take action. He wants to wait.”

AND

The Rest of the Story
http://www.factcheck.org/article130.html
But Clark actually was making a case for waiting, and using strong diplomacy backed by a threat of force, not for going to war.

Here's some of what else Clark said (with emphasis added by FactCheck.org):

...Such congressional resolution need not, at this point, authorize the use of force.

. . . . In the near term, time is on our side and we should endeavor to use the United Nations if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections . . .

. . . . We have to work this problem in a way to gain worldwide legitimacy and understanding for the concerns that we rightly feel and for our leadership.

. . . .We should not be using force until the personnel, the organizations, the plans that will be required for post conflict Iraq are prepared and ready . . . . We need to be ready because if suddenly Saddam Hussein's government collapses and we don't have everything ready to go, we're going to have chaos in that region.

AND I LEAVE YOU WITH THIS FAMOUS CLARK QUOTE....
"You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences"
Wes Clark

[Guaranteed]

93. LOL he was NOT.

Not in the least. I saw him. And I'm not going around looking for some damned transcript. If you don't want to take my word for it, tough.

[FrenchieCat]

97. It must tough....

to get on a thread and attempt to use mere "recollection" and no evidence to inpune the stance of a Democrat.

And then to have those who disagree with your "recollection" supply articles quotes, links and facts put out by mediawatchdogs who police RW liars and their media Presstitutes.

Yes, that must be very tough.

I would not want to subject myself to that type of debate either.

Let's see.....your word or the word of a 35 year patriot and hero?

Not a hard decision in my book.

WES CLARK
"RED DOG" DEMOCRAT IN '08

Won't take any Sh*t, AND...will kick ass in Red States

[Guaranteed]

101. FINE. I WILL look for it, since you're gonna be a....

Gimme a few minutes.

[FrenchieCat]

111. Will be waiting....

but spare us the Right Wing mags and Drudge....ok?

Also try not to cut, dice and slice.....that's been tried adnauseum.

Thank you.

[Guaranteed]

114. It's supposed to be here:

http://msnbc.msn.com/news/873682.asp

From here:

http://www.afocr.org/current.htm

It's not, though.

You find it. 2/16/03. Post the whole thing.

[FrenchieCat]

116. Pluuuuuuuuuuueazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzze

WTF??? Please provide your evidence....or shut up about it.

Don't post some link and say, its supposed to be there.

find it, post it, and express yourself.

Or else, one will have to say, you've got no case.

[Guaranteed]

120. You've got the damned day he was there.

I told you I SAW it...and, whattaya know, he was really there right in the middle of the run-up to the war. Just like I said.

YOU find it.

[FrenchieCat]

121. Honey.....

this is not working for me.

I don't find other's points when debating.

I know that Freepers do this kinda stuff....but not Democrats.

When we have a point to make, we supply the evidence. We don't make others hunt down the point that we are making.

What are you scared of anyways?

[janx]

126. Frenchie, that's a cheap shot.

If the transcript isn't online, then it's just not online.

It doesn't bolster your argument to imply that it doesn't exist simply because it's unavailable.

[Guaranteed]

130. I'm STILL looking and it's NOT FREAKING THERE.

2/16/03. That was the date. But it's gone, god dammit.

[dogman]

137. What's wrong with stating a fact?

What was the context? I saw it also and was not bothered because it was one of many reasons. What this point showed was there was a reason our allies were not on board and required analyses as to why? He was one of the first to speak out and has admitted that he was lied to. He followed up with telling the truth and was pushed out of his job at CNN because of that fact. If you take the time to read and absorb what he has said and written I think you will find you are in agreement with his position.

[Guaranteed]

140. No, that was all he said.

As I recall, he said that he supported the war, but that it bothered him that we didn't have more allies. That's how I remember it.

On edit: Look, that was pretty much my first exposure to Clark. I had head about him online before that, and so I was hopeful that he could use his credentials to help us. But, in that one instance, he didn't, and it tainted him for me.

You know, Clark was actually my second choice, though, during the primaries. It came down to him and Dean, and I did read his stuff and was actually amazed when I was making my pick. He had me going for awhile.. But that Meet the Press kept coming up in my mind, and he just didn't seem to have the fire that Dean had.

I like Clark, but I lump him in with the rest because he let me down.

[DaedelusNemo]

210. I remember it a little different from you...

My memory is that he of course supported the military once the war started. it'd be hard to find any soldier who wouldn't do the same. But i also remember him arguing for very different approaches before the war. Hopefully you won't ask me for transcripts :P

[janx]

141. I know. It was a couple of years ago, almost.

I did the search too:

http://msnbc.msn.com/news/873682.asp

Page comes up blank.

But all of our arguments have to revolve around links, then we're in a sad state of affairs anyway...

[FrenchieCat]

154. I think that "talk" is cheap....

it is also "Cheap" to troll about how Wes Clark was for the Iraq War and only offer "memory" as proof....when most of us already know that this was not the case.

That's what I consider cheap......

Also "cheap" is to enter a thread....filled with negativity and nothing to back it up.

Let's just call a spade, a spade. Shall We? That's what we want from our Democrats....and that's what we should demand.

[Guaranteed]

216. What a fucking crock.

You didn't see it, then tough shit, man.

I just know the guy better than you do. Your fellow Clark supporters saw the same show I did.

[FrenchieCat]

218. I can't believe you said.....

I just know the guy better than you do

How arrogant and so totally full of shit!
(edited to put an "i? where the * used to be)

[Guaranteed]

219. What? You don't know what I'm talking about.

How UNFORTUNATE for you.

I'll believe my own eyes and ears before I believe what you haven't even shown me.

[FrenchieCat]

222. This is all getting

boring and desperate.

Believe in yourself BullGooseLoony.......cause you may be the only one that does....you and a few freepers.

WES CLARK
"RED DOG" DEMOCRAT IN '08

Won't take any Sh*t, AND...will kick ass in Red States

[Guaranteed]

224. You get treated like you act. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

117. Well I can't find a link anymore to a video interview with Clark

where he clearly opposes the Iraq war months before his Congressional testimony. Honest. But I'm satisfied with the record as already documented. I wouldn't even mention having seen it except it points out how useless a recollection is without some documentation, other than being one person's account of what they remember seeing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. You beat me to it Frenchie

There is a reason why there are cliches such as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". People acting in good faith misread events that they witness all of the time, for many possible reasons, and that is not even factoring in acting in BAD faith.

Someone with a security background like Clark would never say "we should never take military action" in a situation where an unknown degree of threat could possibly be present or later shown to exist at a high level beyond any reasonable doubt. Actually few if any responsible leaders would. Clark laid out several essential pre conditions for war that he felt were not present in regards to Iraq, pre conditions that conceivably would never be demonstrated to be sufficiently present to justify military action. It wasn't simply a matter of waiting to get enough allies on board, though Clark certainly was critical of the Bush Administration for not caring about the value of Alliances. When push came to shove, unlike many Democrats in Congress, Clark opposed entry of U.S. forces into Iraq and he said so. Had it subsequently been proved that Hussein was passing biological and nuclear materials directly over to Bin Ladin, of course Clark would have favored military action. But not as matters stood. Important decisions with sweeping life and death implications must be justified by facts, not ideology. Clark is an eloquent advocate of that sensible position.

[Crunchy Frog]

102. As a matter of fact

Wes Clark was testifying to Congress way back in September of 2002 against the rush to war with Iraq. This is what Richard Perle had to say about his testimony:

"So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

But what does Richard Perle know? Let's go to the real oracle, Howard Dean, and see what he had to say.

"It is a good thing for us to have Wes Clark. I have four people beating up on me for being against the war. Now, I have a four-star general saying the same thing I've been saying."

Uh oh! Does that mean that Howard Dean supported the war as well? Sure is a good thing you were against him too.

[Guaranteed]

108. WOW- Wesley Clark was against the war AFTER he entered

the race.

I don't think anyone was contending that.

And Richard Perle? "So I think..."- sounds like Perle knows that Clark was giving the wussy "We need more allies" excuse and was pushing Clark around.

[FrenchieCat]

115. Bingo...you lose!

Clark testified BEFORE THE WAR against it....those quotes from his testimony are dated September 2002...before the IWR vote.
Duh....

Good to know that Perle is your guy...and you stand with him.

[Guaranteed]

118. WHAT quotes from Clark?

I see a quote from Dean, and one from Perle. And NO link.

And anyone can see what Perle was trying to do there- trying to FORCE Clark into an anti-war position, when he was merely saying we needed more allies.

[FrenchieCat]

123. Why don't you just hang it up.....

cuz it's not working. K?

WES CLARK
"RED DOG" DEMOCRAT IN '08

Won't take any Sh*t, AND...will kick ass in Red States

[Guaranteed]

133. "We need more allies" was Wesley Clark's position

in the run-up to the war. YOU KNOW THIS. THAT IS A ***FACT***.

He changed his rhetoric AFTER he saw how badly things were going in the war and AFTER he entered the race. Just like the rest of them.

He's no better than Kerry or Gephardt or Edwards.

That man LET ME DOWN on 2/16/03. That was one of the hardest times in my life, and I remember HOPING so badly when I turned on that show that he was going to tell everyone how wrong this war really was. He didn't. Both he and Albright acted like cowards.

That's something I will never forget.

[FrenchieCat]

162. my, my, my.....

"YOU KNOW THIS. THAT IS A ***FACT***."

You know more about what I know than I do, eh?

Don't think so.

If I have to choose between your word or mine.....you are on the losing end of that stickuation......

[Guaranteed]

215. Well THERE'S a surprise.

You should have been paying attention before the war. Coulda figured out who had the cobbles and who didn't.

[FrenchieCat]

220. before the war, I was marching......and writing my congresswomen....

and you?

Again...patronizing and arrogance. Now where have I experienced that before? Mmmmmmmm......

[Guaranteed]

221. I'm sorry, do you have a link to back up that assertion?

What, I'm supposed to just TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT??

[FrenchieCat]

225. I have Barbara Lee to back up my assertion.....

and you?

[Guaranteed]

226. Yeah-

Call Tim Russert. :)

[FrenchieCat]

227. That no-nothing media whore....

Presstitute pundit? That's who you got vouching for you? Now, I do think that's a problem! Bwhaaaaaaa!!!!

[dogman]

128. The quote from Perle indicates that Clark thought it was the Wrong

War, the Wrong Place, the Wrong Time.

[Guaranteed]

135. But it's not what he was saying.

That's what the quote indicates. Perle is saying that while Clark is feigning support for the war, he knew it was wrong.

[dogman]

144. Where does Perle say Clark is feigning support for the war?

He said Clark wants to wait. That says wrong war, wrong place, wrong time to me. On top of that i am aware of Clark's stand and I know it has been consistent tyhat we should have finished Afghanistan and worked with our allies and Iraq's neighbors to contain him and let the inspectors do there job. It's obvious and I don't understand your problem with that.

[Guaranteed]

217. You can tell in the quote that Perle is saying that

while Clark is saying that this war is the right thing to do, he's making up so many excuses (i.e. not enough allies) that it's pretty clear that in reality he knows it's the wrong thing to do (at the time).

That's what the quote means.

Therefore, Clark wasn't arguing against the war as forcefully as he should have been.

[janx]

155. Since when does anyone listen to the opinion of Richard Perle

to ascertain what anyone else--especially a democrat--is thinking?

[dogman]

160. When it puts something in context.

It makes it evident that Clark was not in synch with PNAC as many have accused. If someone has earned Perle's disdain it solidifies them in my view.

[janx]

173. It does no such thing. Who hasn't earned Perle's disdain?

And to include the quote in cut-and-paste archives is a mistake, in my opinion. People are left to complete conjecture about what Perle said versus what he really thinks, etc. Maybe all of us have just gotten used to sloppy media and thinking.

If Clarkies really want to continue this primary war, I strongly suggest they take any reference to Perle's opinion out of their cut-and-paste archives.

It does General Clark no favors, no matter how you spin it.

Quantity does not equal quality in debate--especially in this case.

[Tom Rinaldo]

177. I am not trying to continue any Primary War janx

I don't think I have said anything directly negative about any of our candidates for example. "We" didn't start this thread either, and many of the early responders said some fairly snide things about Clark. Bottom line is Kerry ran a very good campaign when all was said and done, though he really needed his finishing kick to pull it off. I think Edwards and Dean ran strong campaigns also, all things considered. From what I hear Weld ran a good campaign against Kerry last time Kerry ran for reelection to the Senate also. He still lost. Running a relatively good campaign does not guarantee victory.

I happen to disagree with you about the significance of Perle's comments by the way. In my opinion Perle was pushing an agenda and recognized Clark as an obstacle to that agenda. I think that is relevant, but I have heard other quotes from Clark about his opposition to the Iraq war. If anyone is replaying the Primary Wars it is anyone who even now still dredges up a discussion of whether Clark opposed that war. Same can be said I suppose about anyone who dredges up the question of whether Edwards or Kerry opposed that war. Clarkies did not initiate that discussion here. We have been in defense mode to an old charge that a case can be made is irrelevant given Clark's public record on that war for the last 15 months. Is anyone dredging up old Kerry or Edwards or Dean interviews to use against them on this thread? I haven't seen it. It has only been directed at General Clark.

[janx]

183. "Defense mode" is often an excuse for a boxing match.

And often the people Clarkies--AND OTHERS-- end up beating up on are often either not opposed to Clark or the ones who *started* the criticism.

Every point of criticism is called "attack." Every difference of opinion is considered "insult." It's ridiculous.

Just wait for one Deaniac or Edwardian to enter the fray, and away we go, eh? Thank God AP hasn't joined in.

Sometimes freepers come in here and start these flame wars, and without thinking, people start bashing each other--it's no longer about candidates of principles at all, but about bashing people on an internet board. It becomes a kind of twisted sport.

Nobody's dredging up old interviews about other candidates, but they sure are flinging the insults and the old talking points from the primaries.

It's not debate. It's garbage.

[FrenchieCat]

186. Sorry....

But I don't consider what I am doing "beating up" on anyone.

I wish more Democrats would take NO Shit....which is what this talk of Clark supporting the Iraq War is, and nothing less.

Had I been running the Kerry campaign......some Tidy Bowl asses would have been kicked on day one.

I am a WarriorChick....and yeah, I am willing and able to do what needs to be done.

NEXT.....

[Tom Rinaldo]

191. We usually can find common ground

you and I, but you are being so sweeping in your statements it makes that more difficult now. You are concerned about revisiting Primary wars but you are the first here to accuse someone of pursuing that now, and that is about the strongest generic fighting words available on DU right now. Can you see that?

I worked things through to my satisfaction at least with Padraig18 as soon as I realized that s/he (unclear on gender - sorry) viewed Dean's campaign as "crappy" also. Most people who say that about Clark's campaign do not feel that way about other Democratic candidates, other than Kerry of course. It has a whole other meaning. It is dismissive of him his efforts and us. I know when that intentional type energy comes at Dean or his supporters at DU it will bring a reply here. It should especially if you honestly think facts are being distorted in the process.

Lots of statements have been made by Clark supporters that were meant to deescalate tensions on this thread. There were acknowledgments that people can have a different reading of an event they witnessed. There were obvious statements confirming that Clark honestly lost the Primary elections. There was agreement that Clark was an imperfect candidate. But why have you not commented then on the Clark was a Republican leaning Independent for 40 years comments that have been made on this thread? There have been several comments linking Clark to Republicans. Where did they come from? Isn't that reigniting Primary Wars? Clark just spent the last 6 months doing everything in his power to elect the Democratic Ticket and this stuff is still being dredged up? Talking about Clark praising Bush? Isn't that Primary War materials.

Clarkies don't take that stuff calmly, I will agree with you about that. Deanies wouldn't take being called Kool Aiders now calmly either were someone stupid or ugly enough to trot that shit out now either. Nor would they relax if someone now claimed that Dean was only an opportunist who was manipulating grass roots activists to gain personal power. Linking Clark to Republicans, claiming that he really wasn't against the Iraq War, calling him a feeble candidate who Karl Rove Republicans would eat up, these aren't statements that get left unanswered janx. Kerry made the mistake of not responding quickly to Swift Boat accusations.

I agree that Clark supporters need to be thoughtful in responding to statements like the above in order to be most effective. We try, and for the most part I think we tried hard here. You know how with this last election one of the best arguments for some degree of fraud having taken place is that all of the errors swung toward Bush? Well one of the best ways for seeing that Clark supporters are not engaged in any Primary Wars here is that all of the negative comments made about a candidate have been made about Clark. Show me one swipe at Dean for example on this entire thread, I don't remember any.

[dogman]

179. Cut and paste archives are better than expired ones that can't prove

anything. I don't feel slandering Clark with a perception from years old tv appearance adds to the debate but since some feel free to flame others respond as they see fit. I haven't attacked any other candidate, I've only responded as have others with facts that show one old memory is far outweighed by archived facts. Would it do Clark a favor to let an unsubstantiated accusation stand? i have seen many posters accuse Clark of being PNAC when he is one of the few who has had the courage to call them out by name and expose their philosophy.

[Crunchy Frog]

189. Janx, I'm not continuing the primary wars,

however, I am still a Clark supporter, even as I know that you are still a Dean supporter. Therefore, I will continue to defend Clark against baseless attacks, slanders, and out and out falsehoods whenever I come accross them.

Since I don't usually go into Dean related threads, I have no idea how you, or other Dean supporters respond to the same sorts of things when they are directed at Dean.

This thread started out as a simple and innocent question and it was quickly descended on by people who seem to live to jump into Clark threads and attack him. These are the people who are truly continuing the primary wars IMO. I myself never go into a thread on another candidate or former candidate for purposes of attacking him, with the sole exception of Joe Lieberman. I think that is a very crass and juvenile behavior that continues to fan the negativity left over from the primaries and sow divisiveness.

The only point that I make with the Perle quote is that in pretty much demonstrates that Clark was not in line with the PNAC agenda, as he is so often accused of being. Richard Perle certainly did not go out of his way to attack people who supported his agenda, or who spoke in favor of going to war against Iraq. I've heard him speak well of Lieberman in fact.

Perhaps you could help me out by giving me some pointers about what you do when a bunch of people leap into a Dean thread to attack him, and make baseless accusations against him. Do you simply ignore it, or do you respond in some way? I am genuinely curious about this.

[janx]

197. Well, since the primaries are over and nobody is running for

president for 2008 yet, I don't consider myself a Dean supporter, really. My focus is more on DFA and the upcoming DLC chair decision, the latter being something that will impact all of us, especially those who want more power coming from the electorate and less coming from D.C. The decision about that should tell the story to anybody who cares about democracy.

Since I paid attention during the primaries, it was obvious to me that Clark was really the only other serious contender that had serious outside support, but I still believe that his campaign was co-opted by some beltway types. I've talked to you about this a little before since you are a friend and I know you personally, but I found a transcript (must be purchased--isn't online) in which Clark basically admitted this and said that although he wasn't anti-anyone, he felt that some D.C. types jumped onto the Clark campaign in an effort to stop Dean.

So Clark continues to garner a lot of respect from me, and I can't really jump into the Clark/Dean contentious threads with much gusto, except to try and shame people from time to time. It appears that a lot of us are being used by freepers, by Republicans, and even by people in our own party. I do privately get upset by the fact that some of the people who supported Clark in the primaries relish this kind of thing, but that's because I think that due to all that happened, in fact they should be doing the opposite.

Of the two real grassroots campaigns, Dean and Clark, some beltway Dems sabotaged the former and used the latter (among other tactics) to do so. It's to be expected. You know, we're all just some kind of west-of-the-beltway bumpkins who don't know our asses from our elbows and who don't really know what's going on...;-)

I don't pay too much attention when people take jabs at Dean. I jump in from time to time, but it happened so much during the primaries that the water rolls off the duck's back, so to speak. That's history. I try to go to DFA meetups and be positive about that, because DFA support has little to do with whether or not somebody supported Dean during the primaries.

These stupid, navel-gazing arguments are nothing. I've met you, I know you, and just imagine if we had actually met the people with whom we are going over these arguments!

[Crunchy Frog]

165. When Richard Perle was pushing very strongly

for an invasion of Iraq and was arguing against people who were taking a different position, with a background, and in a forum where people might take them seriously. Richard Perle certainly could tell the difference between those who were in line with his agenda on the war, and those who were not. This quote is merely being used to show that Perle knew that Clark was not on line with his agenda; something that I do believe he was effective in ascertaining.

You have to look at the context of the statement. Richard Perle did not know at the time that Clark was a Democrat, or that he would be running for president. He only knew that Clark was presenting credible arguements for not rushing to war in Iraq, and was therefore a threat to his agenda. His statement was a pretty clear indication of that. Otherwise, there was really no need for him to say anything at all.

Generally, among liberal, anti Iraq war Democrats, who oppose the neocon agenda, being attacked by Richard Perle is regarded as a badge of honor rather than a negative. I have heard Perle say good things about Joe Lieberman, something that has discredited him in my eyes.

Maybe Richard Perle had that crystal ball though, and was just trying to set people up to believe that Clark opposed invading Iraq. That explanation gets a little bit convoluted though.

[Crunchy Frog]

134. What, you mean Wes Clark entered the race

before September 2002? Wow, I hadn't realized that. Here I had been thinking all along that he entered in September 2003. That crystal ball of yours certainly is impressive.

My impression of Richard Perle's statement, since I had believed (incorrectly according to your crystal ball) that at the time Clark was not a presidential candidate, was that he felt that Clark was definitely arguing against rushing to military action, and that he was put out by that, since Clark had real credibility. If he had just thought that Clark was "giving a wussy excuse" I doubt that he would have even bothered to comment. I think he saw Clark's statements as a genuine threat to his agenda. Of course, finding out that Clark was already a declared candidate back in 2002 before he had even declared his party affiliation, puts a whole different spin on things.

Now that you've successfully deconstructed Richard Perle's statement, what do you have to say about the statement by Howard Dean which I also quoted in that post?

Also, I'm curious, since it seems that Clark was actually a declared candidate for a full year than I had thought, do you have any theories as to why he felt he didn't have enough time to contest Iowa? I thought maybe that crystal ball might have some answers.

[Guaranteed]

136. Gimme some links and I'll deconstruct

it, for sure.

I mean, you since guys won't take seriously MY contention that Clark was on Meet the Press acting like a coward on 2/16/03.

[Tom Rinaldo]

142. Really, how could we?

Taking this out of the realm of personal for a moment, people often see things differently, they jump to conclusions from something that catches their ear or eye and then they fail to tune in to the follow up comment that correctly places an earlier comment into the correct context. Things like that happen all the time. It really isn't enough to take someones impression as truth, even if they are completely sincere in their recollection. Especially when contrary evidence exists.

[janx]

156. He probably wasn't acting like a coward. He was probably

acting like a pundit. None of those generals in the mainstream media is really hired to express his or her opinion.

Some of them, like McCaffery, are a little bolder than others, but they're really just on there to lend to the "credibility" factor.

[Crunchy Frog]

158. You also seem to be contending

that Clark was already in the race in September 2002 when he didn't enter until September of 2003.

I didn't see that Meet the Press program on 2/16/03. In fact, I didn't even know who Clark was at that time, so I can't speak to what you saw there. Obviously it had an effect on you and I can respect that.

I do know for a fact that Clark was testifying before Congress in September of 2002, in fact, a full year before entering the race, against rushing to war in Iraq. His position was not just that we should have all of our allies on board, but that we should in fact only go to war as a last resort, and after exhausting all diplomatic efforts.

There are statements that Howard Dean made as well that are less than pure, in fact that are more hawkish sounding than those you claim were made by Clark.

Then of course, there's the quote of Dean's concerning what he believed Clark's position was on the war that you have not yet addressed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

163. Clark also advocated waiting for hard evidence

something Bush's team was never able to present because it did not exist. Clark opposed military action without it, allies or no allies. I'm sure you can find statements by Clark stressing that going into Iraq without first assembling a broad based coalition preferably with United Nations backing, would be a serious strategic error in and of itself. That's because it was true. Had Bush been willing and able to build such international support the fundamental blunder/willful ideologically driven disaster he initiated would not have subsequently compounded so dramatically further with as deadly a result for both Iraqi and American citizens as it ultimately did.

[Guaranteed]

213. I'm not contending anything like that.

Is that what Dean was saying? Maybe you can figure out that quote for me.

[FrenchieCat]

181. Funny BullGooseLoony.....

you want links....yet you provide expired links and demand that we search out any back up for your comments.

Wow!

Your name fits you very well.....and that's a compliment!:crazy:

[janx]

185. Do you know where the name comes from?

?

[FrenchieCat]

188. No, I don't ......I just know that it fits....

call me unsophisticated if you must.

I call myself not giving a fudge.

But please, do tell!

[janx]

190. No--I'm not calling you anything--that's not the point at all.

It has to do with an interest of mine that far overrides politics.

Bull Goose Loony comes from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, a wonderful and famous novel by Ken Kesey. Nobody has to be sophisticated to read it. It's not long, and it's great. Please check it out! If I had your address I would find a used copy on Amazon and send it.

Come to think of it (and Clarkies of all people should appreciate this), there's a character named CHESWICK in Cuckoo's Nest!

Our DU Cheswick didn't choose her name for that reason, but when I'm involved in discussions with the two of them, I can't help but think of the book.

[Tom Rinaldo]

192. Cuckoo's Nest, Ha!

I've read it 3 or 4 times though not recently. Seen the movie only twice but I've seen the play also. I am a huge Kesey fan and highly honor that book. Geeeze, I completely forget a character named Cheswick. Which one was that?

[janx]

202. C'mon, you forgot Cheswick?

He wasn't McMurphy (Bull Goose Loony), for sure; he was kind of unassuming--but how could you forget him?

He was a little guy. He may have had glasses in the film. But he was a firm presence, make no mistake!

But maybe the Mother Goose nursery rhyme that the book's title came from can give us all a lesson. It's a little like taking the "road less traveled":

Vintery, mintery, cutery, corn,
Apple seed and apple thorn;
Wire, briar, limber lock,
Three geese in a flock.
One flew east,
And one flew west,
And one flew over the cuckoo's nest.

________________________________________

It's time to fly over the cuckoo's nest.

[Tom Rinaldo]

207. Ah, it begins to return

I've assimilated that book into my DNA but so many of the details are completely faded now. Course I never forgot the Chief, Mac or Big Nurse.

[janx]

209. Yeah, the film was good, but it wasn't as good as the book

(as usual), because it wasn't from Chief's point of view. Still, the film was very good, probably because Kesey himself wrote the very first screenplay.

After that, the screenplay was rewritten by some other people. The book is a classic though. It's one of those books that you read before you go to sleep and find around your pillow or on the floor in the morning.

[Guaranteed]

212. Thanks, janx.

:)

Yeah, Cheswick kind of became McMurphy's sidekick. McMurphy started getting "cagey," though, and Cheswick killed himself by clinging to the grate at the bottom of the pool out of despair.

He was always really vocal, but backed down without support.

[Crunchy Frog]

229. Wow, I haven't read that book since I was in highschool.

I do still have the copy that I stole from the highschool library though.;-)

It's so long ago that I don't really remember much in the way of details, certainly not the names of individual characters. I really should read it again, there are just too damn many books that I want to read, and I spend way to much time hanging out on this board.

[Cheswick2.0]

44. yup........ the military candidate thing would not have worked for Clark

either.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. Our opinions differ

I acknowledge this is all conjecture, however Kerry's anti war protest days were used to neutralize much of the possible advantage that his war hero status might have brought him. That was not in play against Clark. Plus all of that swift boat nonsense about whether or not Kerry earned his medals, whether or not he really got wounded enough to earn his purple hearts, that wouldn't have been in play against Clark either. Clark was carried away from battle on a stretcher and had to rehabilitate himself for nearly a year.

One thing I love about both Dean and Clark, they do not shy away from a direct fight against Republican lies. It is not only the difference in Kerry and Clark's record that would have mattered, it is their relative attitude. Clark would not have put up with a lot of the shit that Kerry took for too long. Clark never tried to take an above the fray approach when it came to Bush's Administration and its hit men. Like Dean, Clark would not have pussy footed about going directly at Bush regarding Iraq (or 9/11 either). Kerry failing to take the offensive hurt him.

[MNBiker]

17. Because Clark was a Republican and or supported Republicans

He was a White Al Sharpton.To sum it up in two words. "Political Opportunist"

[FrenchieCat]

34. Political opportunist MY ASS!

Please, do we really need Al Sharpton and Wes Clark denigrated at the same time in one post?

Political ignorance appears to be reigning supreme....right here, right now!

Slap that Donkey, now.....please.

[MNBiker]

87. Deep in your heart. What did you think.

Did you want a war hero to beat Bush? Did you want any candidate to beat Bush? Would you have supported McCain just to beat Bush? To me Clark seemed to think he could walk in and take over the party without having the any to agree thth the party's ideas. This is all from my gut, to aggue will make you feel better. It won't change my mind. If the only candidates that can beat Republicans are Republicans, the party is in trouble.

[FrenchieCat]

109. Key word in your entire paragraph was....

"to me".

Agree with what party ideals? Which did he disagree with? Can you please flesh your statement out? It's hard to debate a "barely there" point....which is what you are making.

We are in real deep shit if you are going to be Representin'. The extent of your articulation when debating another Democrat is sorely lacking.

Thanks in advance for the additional debate points you will be providing....and the facts, links and evidence that you will provide to back up your view.

[Crunchy Frog]

171. I wanted not only a candidate to beat Bush

but a true progressive who would be able to reverse the rightward drift of this country and stand up strongly for core Democratic values. I wanted the true progressive that George McGovern said that he saw in Clark when he endorsed him. I trust and admire McGovern and took him very seriously when he said that he believed Wes to be a true progressive.

I also wanted someone who would really stand up to the Republicans and their radical agenda, call them out on it and not back down.

That's what I wanted in a candidate. Why, what did you want?

And no, I would not have supported McCain. I would not have even supported Lieberman.

[montana500]

18. it doesn't matter if Clark would of run.

He would of been labeled a "traitor" by the 4000+ radio stations and tv channels controlled by the GOP.

[deminflorida]

20. Two reasons.....

1. Democrats wanted an experienced Senator to go into the ring against G.W. Bush and Karl Rove. Gephardt was considered an old labor guy and too boring.

2. More of the liberal (left of center) Democrats saw George W. Bush as an easy target because of his polarizing stance and support of Neo-Conservative issues. They also anticipated a backlash because of the 2000 Florida election. Therefore they attempted to reach too far to the left with a candidate such as John Kerry who hails from New England, totally ignoring history when it comes to running these types of candidates against an ultra-conservative (Nixon/Reagan) type candidate such as Bush.

The lesson has repeated itself so look for someone who is CONSIDERED more moderate such as Clark or Warner in 2008. It certainly WON'T be a Senator. Actually if you study the issues, his point papers and public statements, DOMESTICALLY Wes Clark is more progressive than John Kerry or Howard Dean.

SHHHHHH - Wouldn't won't to say that TOO LOUD, however. Rove maybe listening.

[Dob Bole]

21. Because the northern primaries chose the northern military candidate nt

[mattclearing]

22. Because the progressive vote was already taken by Dean.

Clark announced too late, I think. If he had been there from the get-go, he probably would have given Dean a run for his money.

[LandOLincoln]

51. Excuse me?

He most certainly did give Dean a run for his money, on my planet anyway. Your reality may differ. :evilgrin:

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. Yes he did overall

But had Clark entered earlier he might have had an easier time picking up broader progressive support. A lot of anti war allegiance locked in early. Kucinich and Dean, each in their own ways, made very good and honorable candidates. It would not be easy to turn your back on either man after having personally committed to his cause.

[cyn2]

23. He didn't compete in Iowa, also only candidate to beat Kerry

in a state that wasn't his home state (Oklahoma).

He'll be back.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. There's a lot of revisionist negative history about Clark's campaign

There are three main sources for it. Mainstream media, Did hard Clark opponents, and some Edwards supporters who were seeking to favorably contrast their man's primary season with Clark's at a time when the Vice Presidential pick was still uncertain.

There is also controversy over the extent that Clark was initially backed by Centrist Democratic leaders as a foil to prevent a Dean victory.

First you should look at some cold hard facts. Wesley Clark started his campaign for President at least a full year after all of his major rivals were already up and running, and in some cases he was two years or more behind in organizing. That simple fact doesn't sufficiently capture the handicap Clark faced however, you have to factor in that there was essentially zero time left for Clark to "catch up". The string of Democratic Candidate debates had already started without him by the time Clark entered the race.

Clark's national name recognition was quite low prior to his entry into the race. This was no "Hillary Clinton" type scenario available for Clark. That is to say, he was no one's 600 pound gorilla at that stage in his early political career, he had no mass reservoir of grass roots support in the party or public to tap into. Typically a candidate entering the Presidential race late needs that type of instant support huge base to have any chance of winning.

All career politicians over the course of their career develop a core group of political aids and consultants who they have walked through the fires with, aids who know the candidates thoughts almost like their own, aids who have developed radiating webs of political contacts to harvest on behalf of their candidate. Career politicians also have a wealth of essentially pre packaged position papers and policy priorities worked up by themselves and their aids in the course of running for and holding prior political offices. They don't all have to be prepared from scratch. Wesley Clark did not have a political inner circle of seasoned pros who had worked with him before to organize his campaign around. He had to build his campaign late, pulling together people he often hardly knew, who were left from a pool of talent that largely had been drained from people having made prior early commitments to other candidates.

Remember even a seasoned professional politician like John Kerry had to totally shake up his own campaign team three times. Campaigns, and the teams that run them, rarely naturally jell the instant they are assembled and launched. They shake down over time, and the best time for any of them to to shake down this time were the relatively sleepy months of late 2002 and early 2003 when the national media wasn't leaning over their shoulders waiting to pounce on any hint of weakness. Clark wasn't allowed that opportunity due to his late entry.

Then of course there is the true fact that Clark was inexperienced at running a political campaign. Not inexperienced at politics, or leadership, but at public electoral campaigns. It took Clark about 4 months to master the language of sound bites, his natural tendency was to attempt to give full answers to the questions asked of him. By the time Kerry was running against Bush however Clark was already one of the Kerry Campaigns key media spokespersons, so once again Wesley Clark has shown how incredibly fast a learner he is.

As to the negative spin given Clark's campaign, let's start with the media. While the general public may not understand i,t most here at DU believe that corporate media is no friend to the Democratic Party. Clark supporters believe that Wesley Clark represented the greatest single threat to George Bush being reelected. Specifically as a candidate to oppose bush, but beyond that as an expert voice who could shred the bogus national security rational that Bush/Cheney were pushing to both cover their failures and to posture as war time leaders. There was a seemingly coordinated effort made to discredit and marginalize Clark by the media, especially electronic media. Some Clark supporters have documented patterns of media coverage that support this thesis. At one point there was a running tally of how many days Judy Woodruff would go on "Inside Politics" without mentioning Clark's name. This was before the NH Primary. I think she may have hit 20 days, does anyone remember exactly? There was also the famous Fox News ambush of Clark at the debate they hosted immediately before the NH vote. Clark was asked twice why he had been supportive of republicans in the past and also why he would not denounce Michael Moore for pointing to Bush's record of non service in the Texas National Guard. Then they ended the debate early, cutting away from the continuing proceedings, and went to right wing talking heads who each took turns tearing into Clark.

AS to the die hard opponents of Clark, you can find some of their attack lines above this in this thread. They have a routine tendency to gloss over any facts that do not fit into their hatchet jobs on him.

Edwards supporters that I noted above were engaged in a partisan political battle to buff up their man as the best VP candidate possible to compliment Kerry. I don't doubt their sincerity in that, and they saw Clark as a possible VP rival. One of the key arguments being used for Edwards was that he was the "people's choice" for VP based in large part on his performance in the primaries. The Edwards strategy, as expressed by Edwards first while running for President during the early primaries, was to cut out the rest of the field and make it come down to a two man race between Edwards and Kerry. Clark was a big complicating factor to that strategy because while he was still in the race Clark came in first or second in as many primaries as Edwards did (as well as edging out Edwards for third in New Hampshire which was dominated by New England favorite sons). Clark made a very different call than Edwards did after it became apparent to him that he would not win the nomination. Clark closed ranks behind Kerry. Edwards prolonged the campaign by another month and numerous other primaries, getting great personal exposure but no more victories under his belt. But by so doing he cemented a public perception that he and Kerry were the Democrats strongest two candidates. I don't take away form Edward's performance, however I object to what I saw as an effort made by others to minimize Clark's performance.

As to the controversy about Clark being a centrist ploy to defeat Dean, some centrists initially backed Clark for exactly that reason. One could say they feared Dean because they honestly believed he would make a poor candidate, or one can say they feared Dean because he threatened and challenged their power base within the Party. Or both. Clark definitely had real grass roots support as evidenced by the Draft Clark movement and Clark's continuing active core of activists, but some established centrist backing was probably essential to Clark having any chance of overcoming the late entry related handicaps I outlined above. I've written more extensively on this elsewhere, but in short my position is Clark never entered the race because he wanted to stop Dean, he entered the race because he wanted to defeat Bush, and Clark was concerned that Dean could not do so due to his, in Clark's view, insufficient national security credentials for the coming election as Clark foresaw it. Clark got some establishment Democratic backing but they never "loved" or trusted him as one of their own. Soon as Kerry regained some footing they deserted Clark for Kerry in a relative heart beat.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. By the way my post #28 wasn't a specific reply to yours

I forgot that I had my screen opened to your post wehn I hit reply. Was meant as a reply to the original poster.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Here is something I posted in March

Titled "We came so far and we came so close but it is still business as usual." (Link to archived thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=414037 ) Some of this I think is relevent to your question:

"Well, as many of you know I am a fairly fervent Clark supporter, and have been fairly quiet around here of late. What I am referring to in the title of this thread, however, is not just about Wesley Clark and his failed candidacy. It's about changing the way important decisions are made in this country. It's been an amazing year, hasn't it?

I see no point in speaking ill about the two leading Democratic contenders left fighting for the nomination. Neither of them excites or inspires me, and neither man fundamentally challenges the way disagreements between powerful interests in this country are resolved. Kerry and Edwards differ somewhat from each other, and they both differ more significantly from Bush/Cheney. All these differences have degrees of meaning. The difference between a Kerry or Edwards Presidency and four more years of Bush is sufficiently important to motivate me to organize for the Democratic Party in the General Election. I know I will be thrilled if either of these men defeat Bush in November. But I am left sorrowful over how we fell short of something potentially historic. The way I see it, there were three candidates of real interest fighting for the Democratic Party nomination: Dean, Clark, and Kucinich. This is my take on what could have been and why it isn't. Obviously I will skip over tons of details and make opinionated leaps of faith while doing so.

For the longest time, in a knee jerk kind of way, I held the opinion that Kucinich couldn't win the nomination, let alone the Fall Election. I believed he would never win enough backing, or raise enough money, to become viable as a major candidate in the crowded field he was running in. Very recently I revised my thinking regarding Dennis. I remembered how what it looked like well over a year ago, when both Dean and Kucinich were relatively little know opponents of the gathering Iraq war. Dean emerged from that near oblivion to become a major candidate. I now suppose that Kucinich might possibly have made that difficult leap also. However Dean succeeded in making that leap by tapping into a huge Army of volunteers, who were able to help him raise tens of millions of dollars. How Dean pulled that off is an amazing story that books will be certainly be written on. My revised thinking on Kucinich is as follows. Both men were marginalized with an uphill battle to be taken seriously. The odds against either man pulling that off were quite long. When Dean managed to gather significant forward momentum he did so by tapping into most of the grass roots energy then available to fuel a powerful insurgency candidacy.

Why Dean and not Kucinich? A good question that I won't address. My point is simply that Dean won the race for that available slot. It might have been different for Kucinich had Dean not run the campaign that he did. When Dean took off Dennis wasn't left with a big enough grass roots base to draw from to overcome the traditional advantages that mainstream candidates routinely start out with. So there is one what if. What if Dean hadn't moved left and thrown in his lot with grass roots activists? Would Kucinich have been significantly stronger? Premise Number One; Dean significantly hurt Kucinich.

I think Dean came extremely close to locking up the nomination early, and as ambivalent as I am about saying this, I think it was Wesley Clark who kept that from happening. By December it seemed that every campaign other than Dean's and Clark's was dead in the water. Kerry was falling toward single digits nationally and was slipping further behind in New Hampshire. Edwards was plain stuck in low single digits. Lieberman was a dud. Gerhardt never really interested anyone beyond his hard core Union base, and there was no reason to think that would change. He was struggling against Dean in Iowa. Dean kept piling up money and everyone else was struggling to raise it. Except for Wesley Clark. Despite having been written off for dead by the media weeks before, Clark actually started rising in polls again. He got onto a lot of media interview shows and actually did well on them. He started connecting with people in New Hampshire. Most important though, Clark showed that he could raise big money, the kind needed to wage a long hard fought campaign against Dean. Clark dampened the sense of inevitability about a Dean victory just enough to slow down Dean's bandwagon when it was poised to achieve break away momentum. More politicians like New Jersey's Governor would likely have thrown in with Dean after Gores endorsement, had none of the other candidates shown any ability at that critical moment to compete effectively with Dean. Clark did, which kept some players on the fence, and the race still open, which gave Dean's opponents and the media additional time to tear into his vulnerabilities. Premise Number Two: Clark significantly hurt Dean.

The conventional wisdom was that Clark's campaign was organized around the premise that Dean was his primary opponent for the nomination, and that it fizzled when Dean began his collapse and Kerry became the front runner. I think that is only partially true. Obviously Clark positioned himself to compete with Dean as his primary opponent, all the candidates to varying degrees did that while Dean was on top, but I don't think Dean's quick "collapse" doomed Clark. I think Gephardt's total collapse doomed Clark, and I don't hear anyone talk about this. Gephardt was supposed to finish first or second in Iowa, but he came in a distant fourth, well behind Dean. Very few Gephardt voters switched to Dean, they switched to Kerry and Edwards. It was the combination of the Dean collapse AND the even larger Gephardt collapse that allowed Kerry and Edwards to roll up such impressive numbers in Iowa which established their much talked about momentum.

Kerry would have emerged strong in either case, simply by coming in first, but Edwards needed his very strong showing to feed his media backed surge. As it was, Clark still came in third AHEAD of Edwards in New Hampshire. Had Clark come in a more convincing third, Clark would have left New Hampshire with momentum rather than technically remaining barely still in the race, which is the way the media played those NH results. If Gephardt had not totally collapsed in Iowa, had he finished with even 15 to 20 percent of the vote there, which is still far less than anyone was predicting, it would have dulled Edwards surge by robbing him of votes, and to a lesser extent Kerry's win would not have been as impressive Clark's strategy was essentially sound, he could have weathered Dean alone hemorrhaging votes to Kerry and Edwards in Iowa, or Gephardt alone imploding, but it is always hard to prepare for the perfect storm.

Still Clark had one other chance, and here is where Dean hurt Clark. Dean's strategy once his campaign caught fire, despite public statements to the contrary, was to score a decisive and quick knock out. Coming in a distant third in Iowa was a disaster for Dean, even before "I have a scream" was relentlessly spun against him. Followed by a mediocre at best second place finish in New Hampshire, Dean's campaign was unravelling fast, with no prospects for a respectable showing the following week either. The money was gone. Had Dean done something similar to what Clark did after coming in third in Tennessee, had Dean conceded that the race had slipped away from him and withdrawn at that point, Clark could have cornered enough of the Anti War vote to perhaps win Tennessee or come in closer at the least. Clark would have picked up many Dean voters in Wisconsin and might have won that State, where Clark was always much stronger than Edwards. We could have had a real outsider running against Kerry in the finals. Premise Number Three: Dean prolonging his campaign those extra two or three weeks significantly hurt Clark.

I for one don't believe that Dean ran to hurt Kucinich, or that Clark ran to hurt Dean, or that Dean tried to hurt Clark by not leaving the race earlier than he did. Each of those men, and their supporters, believed they were the best man for the job. I suppose many Dean supporters liked Kucinich but backed Dean partially because they thought Dean's record as Governor of Vermont made him more electable in the General Election. I suppose many Clark supporters liked Dean but backed Clark partially because they thought Clark's military record made him more electable than Dean in the General Election. And I suppose many Kerry voters chose him over all of our guys partially because they thought his record as a seasoned politician with military experience made him more electable than anyone else in the General Election.

Anyway, those are a few of the thoughts I've been mulling over. There are many more, including some about the present and future, but this is enough for one night's work. "

[ShaneGR]

27. The DNC does not pick candidates, Iowa and New Hampshire voters do...

And Clark, who is a good man with a fine record, honestly didn't run a very good campaign (Which is understandable considering he had no political experience.)

[Nashyra]

31. The DNC

supports the candidate it wants and sends it's talking heads out to show their support of said candidate. They closed ranks around Kerry and that was the end of the story.

[FrenchieCat]

45. The Presstitutes first picked....

Dean, until it looked like it would end up a Dean/Clark race. Rovey did not want that.

So once Kerry and Edwards came out of Iowa as #1 and #2....they got the non stop press coverage from that point.....on. Nothing mattered much after that as it was like a snowflake at the top of the mountain that became an avalanche as it headed to the bottom. Once the nomination was secured....and the VP was selected (again, by the presstitutes and their push polls)....then it was then all downhill from there.

[knight_of_the_star]

90. If it was a Dean/Clark race

Then no matter who came out on top Rove would have been running scared, since both men would have been emphasizing BOTH their positions and going after Bush to win votes and it would not have been a nice, clean lockup. With Kerry and Edwards being the center of the race, it turned into that which made Rove's job easier. If Kerry and Edwards were knocked out early on by Dean or Clark, then I am willing to bet that those two would have been in a long slugfest up to Super Tuesday, and that would have been something Rove would not have wanted as it would not make for a clear target for him.

[theboss]

30. Because he got a lot less votes than Kerry

Funny how that works out.

[FrenchieCat]

39. But there are reasons for that......

Clark didn't compete in Iowa. He was written off in November by the Presstitutes "no nothing" pundit paps.

see winning Oklahoma wasn't easy in the face of 24/7 media attention being focused on Edwards and Kerry....While Clark virtually was disappeared from sight and from mind due to the presstitutes' collusion. Coming in second in Arizona, New Mexico, and North Dakota...prior to him endorsing Kerry.

Corporate media didn't want a contender that would have beaten Bush despite Voting Machine fixes. Wes Clark, with the right media management team (and a little bit of DNC backing...as they were in on the collusion) would have kicked George Bush's ass overwhelmingly beyond the less than 5% margin required to fix the votes plausibly.

I repeat....Wes Clark was smeared and ignored by the media hoes who set the agenda or let the RNC set it, during both the primary and the general election.....

Here's a few examples of mediawatchdogs doing their work and busting the media on the reporting on Wes Clark. There are many more.....We won't even mention the endless manipulative polls used by the media to influence elections....

http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerry ...
Networks Anointed Kerry, Edwards Before Iowa Did

http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000032.asp
"Oops -- There ARE More Than Two Candidates"

http://campaigndesk.org /
In a moment of flashback, Mickey Kaus writing on Slate remembers that there's still, technically, a nomination fight going on, and acidly points out what a lot of our readers have been arguing: Wes Clark is getting an increasingly raw deal. :

Media to Voters: We're trying to eliminate General Clark tomorrow, OK? Please cooperate this time. .... 10:50 P.M.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095238 /
Friday, February 6 2004

THE STORY COUNT: If the amount of media devoted to candidates is any indication, then the Dem nomination is already a two man race between Edwards and Kerry.

Take a look at our Election 2004 page this morning. I couldn't find a single story about Wes Clark in any of the major papers except for one - an AP piece in USA Today about Clark's bungling of the abortion issue.
-------------------------
NBC's Today Show Saturday morning, this is the coverage score for candidates:

Discussing the So Carolina Debate this was how many times Tim Russert mentioned candidates names:

Kerry 7 times
Dean 7 times
Edwards 1 time
Clark 0 times

This even even though one of the topics disc in this segment was national defense and other was the economy.
Pictured:

Kerry 2 times
Dean 2 times
Clark 0 times

This on backdrop of the fact that Dean is on a 'downslide' also so if Clark is dismissed for this reason, so would Dean. Also Dean is not running first or second place in any state in upcoming primaries Tuesday Feb 3rd.

In following segment on 'looking ahead to Tuesday', Tim Russert mentioned these candidates:

Kerry 6 times
Dean 0 times
Edwards 4 times
Sharpton 4 times
Clark 3 times

Sharpton is not running in first or second place anywhere and Clark is running in first place in OK and second place AZ.
------------------------------
ABC coverage report on 2/2/04- ABC's coverage the morning of the race for the primary on their Good Morning America Show. Tomorrow is primary day in 7 states.

The coverage was a two part theme.

Main theme was that Kerry was a Patriot fan and Edwards was from Panther territory, so all the coverage was on them and pictures of them campaigning and also watching the Super Bowl game.

No of Time Candidates Mentioned:
(in order of frequency)
Kerry 4 times
Dean 2 times
Edwards 2 times

Clark 0
Kucinich 0
Liebermann 0
Sharpton 0

No. of Time Candidates Pictured:
Kerry 6 times
Dean 5 times
Edwards 4 times

Clark 0
Kucinich 0
Liebermann 0
Sharpton 0

Second part of coverage was on the 'race in general'. It started out, "Well, that was in So Carolina, but there are other states in the race for Tuesday election: Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona (he named them all).
(The report "Amazingly there are NO negative ads running in these states against Senator John Kerry, the presumed front runner." (That was the report friends for the primary race friends on ABC.)

Candidates mentioned news segment two:
Kerry 1 time

Candidates pictures in news segment two:
Kerry 1 time

Candidates not mentioned or pictured in entire coverage:
Clark 0
Kucinich 0
Liebermann 0
Sharpton 0

If you were trying to pick a 'winner' for a race against Bush, who would you vote for in Tuesday's primary?
--------------------
ABC coverage report BarbW on 2/4/04- After Clark's Oklahoma win:
The below is a link to ABC New's Home Page. It looks like a Kerry/Edwards ad, not a cover story. Do you think that they are trying to tell us that Kerry and Edwards are winners. I think so. No sign of Wes on his win here. Clark is invisible.

Then even more amazing, check out their coverage of 'results by state'. I thought for sure I would find Clark's win here - NOT. Not even under Oklahoma!!
www.abcnews.com

Okay this is just online. I'm am coming with their television coverage this morning, which is the same. They don't even admit he won Oklahoma. They say he is leading in OK, like the counting is still going on at 7 am this morning. (Kerry won, Edwards won and Clark is leading in OK, tight race...they won't use the 'win' word with him, as in 'winner')
------------------
02/05/2004
The media continue their not so subtle BIAS.

The following page shows the Campaign Schedules for the runners.

* NOTE * - Clark's and Deans schedules do not include the address of where his rallies are while Kerry's and Edwards have detailed addresses.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/17/politics/main...

This is clear discrimination, I used to like CBS News, I will never forget how they have shaped and dictated this nomination.
------------------
CBS coverage report BarbW on 2/6/04- CBS portrays Clark as a loser again.
CBS Evening News last night, Friday, Feb 6th.

transcript used, but transcribed to notes taken by hand so inexact:

"Next Tuesdays primary proves to be a do or die test for John Edwards and Wesley Clark. They are both native sons to the South. If one of these guys manages to pull off both states, the other one is gone.

Edwards says he is the one because he could carry the south (lots more words and picture of Edwards in cheering thongs).

The AR born Clark, *running low on money, cannot sustain his candidacy on just his slim win in OK (showing picture of a tired looking Clark speaking to practically an empty room.)

(Incidentally, the day before ABC showed pictures of Clark supporters silent and sitting in the grass with signs of support laying on the ground as backdrop for their report. Only one supporter was still standing and she was looking down, like she was discouraged. Gist of story there was also, campaign just barely hanging on.)

Coverage goes on to say that if Edwards and Clark split the South Tuesday then race is over and Kerry wins, and then race is between Edwards and Clark for VP spot. (of course looking at the pictures of Edwards cheering crowds, anyone would assume that the winner of VP spot will be Edwards, especially if this coverage continues. Although it IS better than nothing but barely.
----------------------
I could go on and on and on......as we were tracking and documenting what the media did. I'll tell you this, it ain't going to happen again.

[robbedvoter]

60. Kerry was the only candidate polled against W (and showed winning)

on teevee - every news cycle. Only one poll did that for all candidates - Clark did best - and it was the last time such numbers were ever shown, talked about. "Electability" was manufactured by the RNC media - and sheep bought it. Just as most bought the reversal on election day.
I don't know what do decry more - the robbing or the fooling of the masses. Anyway, it amounts to lack of democracy - and the more you refuse to see, the farther you are from a change.

[homerthompson]

53. i heard somewhere that clark has a bad temper...

was this true? did this have something to do with his not getting the nod?

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. No

Clark does reportedly have a temper, but only his enemies call it "bad". Most extremely competent people do display a temper when they encounter intransigence or worse in a matter of high importance, and in the military lives were always at stake. But "fly off the handle" types do not rise to the type of positions that Wesley Clark achieved.

In a roundabout way ego duels in the Pentagon, which sometimes did involve raised voices, came back to haunt Clark during the campaign because some people involved in a few of them were sources for some unfavorable comments made about Clark later. But Clark stands behind his role in those conflicts. He believes he was right to speak up when and how he did, and from all I know, I agree.

[homerthompson]

195. so he did have a temper, but it wasn't enough to cite it as a

reason to not vote for him?

[Tom Rinaldo]

198. Not having a temper would have been a reason not to vote for him

Clark was angry at Bush for what he was doing to the nation he served all of his life trying to protect. He was angry at how our soldiers were being used as fodder for ideology. It gave Clark a fixed constant determination to hold Bush personally accountable. Clark would not get scared off that message.

I never bought the crap against Dean having too strong of a temper to run for President either. Nor the argument that McCain had too strong a temper to run for President. It was used against him also. It is a classic Republican smear.

[robbedvoter]

59. It's what RWers will say about you if you fight back. Joementum

is extremely sweet tempered - at least the liberal media would have you believe it.

[FrenchieCat]

63. No.....

That's just a myth. Wes Clark takes no shit, which is different from having a bad temper.

As stated so eloquently by Gene Lyons as he aptly described Wes Clark here......
"....he has an almost feline presence -- and by that I don't mean "catty," as in bitchy. I mean like a big cat. I once encountered a mountain lion in the Point Reyes National Seashore in California, on a rainy day in winter, when I was all by myself. We stood stock still staring at each other for a few seconds. And there was this moment of "Gee, that's a cougar, this is really cool." And then an instant later, came the feeling of "My God, that's a lion!" There's nothing between me and him, no fence. Clark has a little bit of that kind of presence. You sense a tremendous personal authority about him held in and contained by self-discipline. Not somebody to fuck with, is another way of putting it."
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

or by Mario Cuomo....
"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn." Mario Cuomo

Or here in this article....
Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true


"I asked a whole lot of my friends who were generals and colonels and majors, who served over General Clark and under General Clark and every last one of them said to me that this is a good man, and if he were leading our nation they would be proud. son of the South capable of making a dangerous world a safer place for everybody. A man we are going to make the next president of the United States." Andrew Young

"My Enron experience has brought home to me just how important the tone at the top is. integrity, he's not going to mislead the American people and he has a longterm vision. I think Wes Clark is just the person to help rebuild and restore the damage that has been done by the way we bullied our way into the war." Sherron Watkins, Enron whistle-blower

"You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences"
Wes Clark

[homerthompson]

196. do you mean myth as in

clark does not have a bad temper, but people said he did,
-or-
he had a normal temper, but people hyperbolized it to be 'bad'?

[FrenchieCat]

204. Myth....like in big fat lie....

Wes Clark takes not shit.....but doesn't get bent out of shape while he's kicking bootey. Those are just the facts.

Looks like he is in control of his emotions here to me....just the way I would want my President to handle things.....Calmly and decisively ....

[cally]

58. He entered the race too late

to much media acclaim. Most Presidential candidates have years to learn to be good candidates. They spend hours off the beaten track honing their campaign skills. Clark was learning fast, but his blunders were highlighted late in the campaign.

Clark chose to not compete in Iowa. Most years, that would have been fine. This year, Dems were desperate for an early candidate so they could go after Bush. Kerry won Iowa and rode that win to a victory. I was in NH when the Kerry won Iowa. The Clark folks were very glum. Clark had good poll numbers in NH. Most felt he could beat Dean in NH. His campaign was based on being strong on national defense. When Kerry with his military background and Iowa win rolled into NH with much good press, the poll numbers changed rapidly. Clark tried to reframe his message but with the compressed primary schedule, it was too late.

I think if Dean had won Iowa, Clark may very well have ended up our candidate.

[marcologico]

61. The Clintons backed Clark and Gore backed Dean.

So they both had all the "DNC" backing anybody could want. It wasn't enough.

[robbedvoter]

65. The Clintons did NOT back Clark - a freeper myth popular here

Also, Gore was far from being DNC.
When Peter Jennings confronted Clark in the New Hampshire debate about allowing Michael Moore to talk about W's AWOL at his rally, Clark stood up for Moore. The media jumped on Clark, DNC was mute until at some point they started defending....Kerry for it. I remember mcAuliffe on This Weak saying : "I can't wait to see Kerry with his medals debating W on it" Mind you, that was before ANY VOTE WAS CAST.
There's a little story of a media caucus in Al Franken's house about the same time that sealed that deal. I am sure some of you remember it. Kerry pretended he was sorry for his IWR vote and they all kissed his ring. At that point, all the other candidates were as good as finished.

[FrenchieCat]

67. You mean.....

this little gathering?


http://campaigndesk.org / Hidden Angle - pressure on journalists by Kerry/DNC to change coverage to Kerry v. Bush...in essense shutting down primary process

"There are but a few weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Time has grown short. In an effort to galvanize the message Kerry wants to deliver in the time remaining, he convened a powerful roster of journalists and columnists in the New York City apartment of Al Franken last Thursday. The gathering could not properly be called a meeting or a luncheon. It was a trial. The journalists served as prosecuting attorneys, jury and judge. The crowd I joined in Franken's living room was comprised of:
Al Franken and his wife Franni;
Rick Hertzberg, senior editor for the New Yorker;
David Remnick, editor for the New Yorker;
Jim Kelly, managing editor for Time Magazine;
Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent for Newsweek;
Jeff Greenfield, senior correspondent and analyst for CNN;
Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times;
Eric Alterman, author and columnist for MSNBC and the Nation;
Art Spiegelman, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist/author of `Maus';
Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post;
Fred Kaplan, columnist for Slate;
Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and author;
Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist for Newsweek;
Philip Gourevitch, columnist for the New Yorker;
Calvin Trillin, freelance writer and author;
Edward Jay Epstein, investigative reporter and author;
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who needs no introduction

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml
Media chiefs back Kerry campaign
Owen Gibson
Tuesday February 10, 2004
Kerry: media chiefs have pledged to raise between $50,000 and $100,000
http://media.guardian.co.uk/city/story/0,7497,1144464,0...
or
http://tinyurl.com/yrn2v

[marcologico]

70. It was widely reported on CNN and many other places.

for example:

Wesley Clark's campaign manager quits
Former Clinton aides taking charge

From Jonathan Karl
CNN Washington Bureau
Wednesday, October 8, 2003 Posted: 6:05 AM EDT (1005 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With former Clinton operatives taking over day-to-day control of the campaign, Donnie Fowler resigned Tuesday night as campaign manager for Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark.

article:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/elec04.prez.clark.manager/

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. Oh Clinton gave some important support to Clark sure

But it was far less support than a slam dunk endorsement would have given. He pulled some strings but didn't call in all of his chips for Clark. Had he done so I suspect Clark would have prevailed. Plus, if you look around, you would find a smattering of Clinton people in other campaigns as well. Political operatives usually don't want to sit out a whole Presidential Election cycle, and though sometimes Clinton is given god or demon like status by some, he doesn't physically own everyone who once worked for him. Free will still exists to a degree in politics and individuals can exercise their own judgment. I was told by someone in Clark's campaign that there was also a bit of Arkansas favorite son pride at play in the decision by some who had been in Clinton's mafia to work for Clark.

I am not trying to discredit your point by the way. Clinton knows Clark and respects him and sort of owed him one after allowing Cohen to ease Clark out of his NATO post.

[FrenchieCat]

74. There is no there, there.....

Clinton's operatives were in quite a few campaigns....why should they not be, as Clinton was the last Democratic President.....

Clark got the bottom of the barrel, if you ask me. He came in so late until those that came to work for him did because they were not working on other campaigns.

Also note that Donnie Fowler did not have a fall out with Wes Clark personally. He continued to support him, even after he quit the campaign. He appeared with Clark at many Clark fundraisers....after he was no longer employed by the campaign.

It is said that Fowler quit because he was wanted the campaign to be ran from the ground up.....which would have given grassroots more power and visibility. The team that came in late October had a different idea.

I believe that Fowler was right.

[marcologico]

72. p.s. the freeper myth was that "Clark is a stalking horse for Hillary"

Or at least that was the unofficial GOP talking point, and you can guess where Rove would have gone with that one.

[FrenchieCat]

79. Where would Rove have gone with it?

To the Democratic party and then Rove would have asked them to believe it....and you know what? That was done....and many Democrats repeated Rove's words verbatim.

Funny how divide and conquer still works so well, after all of this time. Funny how Republicans know this well, and many Democrats still don't have a clue.

Must be the memory hole phenomenon rearing its ugly head....again.

[marcologico]

81. He would have played up the Clinton connection and it would be blue dress

time all over again. Don't forget that Clinton never got a majority so his coattails wouldn't have been an advantage.

[FrenchieCat]

83. Don't think that this would have been affective during

the General election. I noticed Clinton out there campaigning for John Kerry....and I don't think it hurt Kerry (Kerry may have hurt Kerry).

So that's weak....what you are saying.

[marcologico]

86. you got me there!

:toast:

[FrenchieCat]

66. To some extent, you are correct.....

One needed to have the Presstitutes on one's side, and a voting public that didn't allow push polls and "no nothing" pundits to manipulate them.

[Crunchy Frog]

71. Funny, I can recall quite vividly when Gore formally endorsed

Dean and urged all Democrats to unite behind as the front runner before even a single vote had been cast. I don't have a similar reccolection of Clinton doing that with Clark.

I know that Clinton said some nice things about Clark, but he said nice things about a number of different candidates including Dean.

Funny how that memory business works isn't it?

[FrenchieCat]

75. Memory holes....

are more and more common. Many lemings and sheeples have great big ones, and the Bush admin is very thankful of this phenomenon.

It takes a lot of willpower and commanding strength to hold on to accurate memories, these days.

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. Yes that really angered me at the time

I've gotten over it mostly, except for some lingering resentment at the overt call to rally behind a candidate immediately, before a single vote was cast. In hind sight I have less trouble with the literal endorsement part but I think it hypocritical for anyone to attack Clark for receiving some support from Clinton while not caring at all about Gore's role for Dean. Unless of course you dislike Clinton and like Gore I suppose. Then you could be mad at Clinton for not having better politics and judgment I suppose, if that's how you see it. I know personally from inside sources that Gore applied some muscle with Democrats aligned with him in New Jersey to fall in behind Dean.

[janx]

124. It angered a LOT of people. That's when the "stop Dean"

effort really gained its steam.

But people forget that all of us who were disappointed that Gore wasn't going to run again took him at his word when he promised to support one of the primary candidates.

Gore said he'd do it, and he did it. It was nothing unexpected.

It sure flipped out the beltway though. ;-)

[Tom Rinaldo]

131. Yes I see all that now

Like I said, the only part that still gets to me some in hind sight was Gore's sweeping call to unify behind Dean for the good of the party before a single primary vote was cast. I saw that as a step or two beyond merely endorsing Dean as the best man for the job. The fact that Gore had been our guy the last time around made that feel heavy handed to me. An act of anointing so to speak. If Gore had just said I am giving my support to Howard Dean, I think he is the best man for the job for this and that reason, it would have weathered with me better.

[janx]

148. Endorsements involve support, not just words.

And sorry, it wasn't an act of annointing.

Gore was simply fulfilling his promise. He gave his reasons, and they were very good reasons. Some here--and much more importantly, in D.C.-- just didn't like his choice since it wasn't theirs. :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

153. I was using emotional language janx

I know in reality it wasn't and I know in reality Gore wouldn't think it his right to anoint anyone. Since I am describing a subjective reaction I don't know what else to say about it. Of course support should go with an endorsement if the endorser has any integrity (sometimes they don't and it is only for show and they continue pulling strings for someone else). Again something about how Gore presented his endorsement got to me, calling it a time for the Democratic Party to close ranks before any of us who had been working so hard in preparation of open elections had gotten a chance to vote. All there had been were some media polls and pols endorsing.

[janx]

178. The normal time for endorsements is before people start voting,

Tom. And Gore's may have seemed early to you, but in the context of the Dean campaign it was not. Dean had been campaigning for a very long time before he even officially announced his candidacy. What Gore admired about Dean was US, the people who had formed an enormous and revolutionary populist political movement. He said so. He was willing to stick his neck out for democracy, and he had to have guessed full well what would happen after his endorsement and that there would indeed be a full frontal assault on us.

And I must add that after Wes entered the race, after all of the delegate swapping in Iowa, after all of the attack ads by Republicans and especially Democrats, it was Gore who remained in touch with Dean and reminded him of the larger picture when Dean reached real crisis. Here's what Dean has to say about Gore:

Gore and I got to know each other over the phone, talking every month, then every few weeks, then spending time together on the campaign plane after his endorsement. Getting to know Al Gore turned out to be one of the most wonderful things that happened to me during the campaign. I realized that he was a lot of fun. A true friend. And even more obsessed than I was with the ins and outs of policy issues like global warming.

That night on the phone, he was extraordinary. Compassionate, not didactic--everything that his public image isn't. I hadn't yet won a primary. I knew Al wanted me to get out of the race (just like Tom Harkin and many of my other politically savvy supporters), and he knew I didn't want to go. After all, we had a good organization in Wisconsin. The people there had raised $1.5 million for us in small donations, and I'd promised them I was going to make my last stand in their state. I didn't want to quit. *We were so close.* We'd been leading in the polls until one week before the Iowa caucuses! I knew that if we won Iowa, we would win the whole thing, as John Kerry ultimately did. I wanted to try to at least come in second in Wisconsin. I felt I couldn't quite before trying.

So Gore didn't tell me to quit. He stayed up with me late that night and patiently, empathetically listened. When he spoke, he was right on target.

*"Think long-term," he said. "Keep your eye on where you really want to end up. This isn't about whether or not Howard Dean ends up being president of the United States. It's about the future of the country."*

No one else could have reached me then. No one else knew what it felt like to have things come crashing down around you when you were so close to winning. Only Al Gore could have known what it felt like to have been the leading candidate and be dethroned in the final hour. Al Gore had had the presidency in his grasp.

He was the one person in America who had the right to tell me whatever he damn well wanted. And only he could have been so right.

Howard Dean, You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America, pp. 26-27.

[Tom Rinaldo]

182. I respect Gore a lot

And the passage you quote increases that respect for him further. I dunno Janx, it feels like I struck a real nerve with you regarding this. I think my posts say that I have fully accepted Gore's decision to endorse Dean. You know, in all fairness that should not be taken completely for granted. Some take the reasoned position that former Democratic Presidents should not take what would be seen as a divisive move by endorsing a candidate for the primaries. Many viewed Gore as our legitimate President but for name only. I did. And at the same time that I was faced with Gore throwing his weight against the man I believed in, I was dealing with daily crap that said Clark was Clinton's puppet, blasting Clark for his association with the Clintons, but I knew Clinton would never give Clark a public endorsement. And whatever help Clinton may have given Clark, a public endorsement would have far dwarfed that help in scope. Yet that possibility was denied us. I knew that wasn't possible

So it was an emotional time. You know the single thing that I respect Al Gore for the most? Probably in his whole career only maybe equaled by gratitude for his unwavering commitment to preserving the environment? Embracing Dean's grass roots movement. AS much as I hated the implications of that I saw the courage in it also. And I loved the basic message Gore was trying to give, much as you do really, because I am a grass roots activist challenging the status quo in our Party also. But to someone sitting in Clark's camp, Gore wasn't celebrating our contributions. He wasn't praising our efforts, it felt like he was telling us the time had come to put them aside. I had stood in 8 degree weather for 5 days of back to back weekends gathering petition signatures so Clark could have his own delegates seated in New York State's Primary. Now my Party's leader was telling me that election wasn't needed to determine who should lead our party in November? It hurt Janx. It hurt because we had all put aside our differences 4 years earlier to work our butt off for Al Gore. All of us, regardless of whether Gore was our favorite Democrat then or not.

That is only true of the Democrats who recently run as the Democrats nominee for President. It puts their endorsements in a somewhat different light than Mario Cuomo's endorsement or even a Jessie Jackson who never won the nomination, let alone ran on our national ticket three times and should have been the sitting President. So it struck a painful chord for the grass roots activists that were left out of Gore's sunshine Janx.

But I am 95% over it. Don't let my expression of the last 5% out weigh the feelings I have in the other 95%. Gore was right in my opinion to see that the future strength of our Party was dependent on the type of coalition of energized citizens that Howard Dean was able to mobilize. Bless him for that, and bless him for sticking with his man when the going got tough. You know that I am consistent in expressing things like this Janx, it isn't just here now in this thread that I would say it. You may notice that I have even spent some time hear defending Dean's campaign for President from those who found it lacking. You all accomplished a wonderful thing, and it continues.

[janx]

187. I understand your points, and I appreciate them.

But as I said, Al Gore sees the larger picture. I think he was hoping that if people rallied together at that time, they might be able to survive the onslaught that was surely to occur after his endorsement.

And what if they had?

We might be looking forward to an inauguration fueled by real democracy, and a completely different administration. That's off for now, but we have to continue to let our friends and neighbors know about the hope of it.

One other thing--and please, this is not criticism of Wesley Clark, let alone an "attack."

When the beltway Dems took over the grassroots "Draft Clark" effort, things changed. You are the one person who seems to be able to see that in hindsight, other than Clark himself (from what I've read). In hindsight, Clark knew it. He probably thought he could use that to help the people who drafted him in the first place. But the results were terrible.

Some of the D.C. Dems used Clark's grassroots and Clark.

[Tom Rinaldo]

193. The Beltway and Clark

Yes I have been writing about that and do not deny that for a time some beltway Dems jump[ed onto Clark out of desperation. I don't blame Clark for that, you've read what I have written. I think their influence was most important through about November 2003, which was a critical period of course, but Clark's grass roots base consolidated further also as the campaign moved toward New Hampshire away from the Washington centered games playing. It was reflected in Clark's ever increasing grass roots fund raising as him campaign continued, for example. So I would not describe Clark's campaign as pre and post Beltway with the roots totally shut out after the Beltway showed up. Clark meshed very well with his supporters on the actual stump. It wouldn't surprise me if that continuing development contributed to Clark losing Beltway support as time went on. We never went away janx.

[janx]

208. I don't think they were totally shut out, Tom, but I do think

that they were used. Yech.

[madfloridian]

199. Then tell what Clinton did, Tom. You are the fair one, usually.

I am staying out of this thread because I think it was meant to be flamebait. Clinton did his share as well. Why ok for him, not ok for Gore?

[Tom Rinaldo]

205. I've said somewhere on this thread that Clinton gave some support

to Clark. From simple things like dropping Clark's name as one of two Democratic Party rising Stars (the other his Dear wife) to suggesting to some former aids that they consider becoming Clark advisers (economic policy comes to mind). I gather from some things I've read on Dean related threads that there are reports of Clinton leaning on some people to endorse Clark (with use of gay rights as club against Dean - do I have that right?). I don't know about that personally but I am perfectly willing to accept that as possible. Maybe Clinton dropped a good word for Clark with some Democratic fund raisers close to him. I'm not sure if I actually heard that one or if it just seems plausible. Just having the recent ex two term President of the United States constantly saying good things about you when your name invariably comes up is a very helpful thing to a candidate.

All of those things and more can be extremely valuable to a candidate like Clark who had no real inside connections and had not had over a year in the field to build his own campaign slowly. I will say that I put Clinton's support for Clark in a somewhat different category than other more opportunistic Beltway insiders. Clark actually served under Clinton in some very sensitive missions and performed admirably while successfully doing them. As you may recall Clinton was not initially a popular President with Pentagon Brass, so Clinton had personal reasons to appreciate and support Clark. I gather Gore had a personal connection that developed with Dean also.

I'm not saying it was not OK for Gore to support Dean. Actually my initial comment was the inverse, that it would be hypocritical to blast Clark for accepting support form Clinton while seeing no harm whatsoever in Dean taking it from Gore. I know personally know Gore did favors for Dean in New Jersey. I don't see that as a problem. I was personally hurt by Gore's public call for the Party to close ranks behind Dean for reasons I tried to honestly describe above to janx. Clinton never made such a call and I know many would have been hurt by that had he done so.

Honestly, I'm not attacking Gore for anything he said or did. I shared a moment of emotional honesty on this board and perhaps it would have been better had I not done so, it was a free association comment off of another point, admitting that I was angered at the time. I am not holding onto that anger. I had some very positive things to say about Gore above. I do get peeved when people blame Clark for Clinton liking him, as if that were some type of sin. I suppose Dean supporters might have a similar reaction regarding Gore being close to Dean.

Thanks for keeping a respectful distnace during the heat here madfloridian. Your question is an honest one which I do not mind in the least responding to.

[madfloridian]

201. Clinton was calling Dean supporters before Iowa to back Clark.

He was calling Dean unelectable because of the civil unions. He made the mistake of calling a gay person who resented it. BUT..Clark was for civil unions, wasn't he?

So why was it wrong for Gore to back Dean, and not wrong for Clinton to back Clark....and he most surely did.

[Padraig18]

88. Because very few Democrats voted for him in the primaries. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

91. We acknowledge that fact....

without quite the relished "very few" you utilized. The point, however, we were discussing is why that was.

[Padraig18]

129. Because they liked the other candidates better.

I wouldn't over-analyze it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

132. Which candidates?

Gephardt, Lieberman, Graham, Sharpton? Kerry yes, by and large. Not Dean in Arizona. Not Edwards in New Mexico. Not Kucinich in Tennessee. You keep "rounding down" the degree of support Clark actually received.

[Padraig18]

145. Look at the delegate count.

Pretty self-explanatory which ones: those who had more delegates than Clark did.

[Tom Rinaldo]

Self deleted, duplicate posting by error. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

149. No it is not self explanatory.

Have you read the whole thread or did you just jump in? I do the latter often myself, but this was discussed above. Clark chose to withdraw after Tennessee even though he had good organizations in place in upcoming states. It creates a situation of Apples and Oranges. Clark e felt it would be more helpful to the party and our cause if he closed ranks around Kerry who he (correctly) felt could not be stopped. Edwards and Kucinich carried on much longer for example. Clark asked his supporters to vote for Kerry. Edwards, in my and many other people's opinion stayed in the race well beyond the point where he had any reason to think he could actually win, so as to gain exposure and position himself to be the likely VP nominee. You may not agree with that, but the fact is he ran an active campaign much longer than Clark which is a relevant factor in determining how many delegates one might win, if the goal is total delegates, as opposed to having a realistic chance of winning. Toward the end Kucinich was picking up votes as the final protest candidate after everyone else withdrew, that was enough to get him over the 15% threshold in a number of states. Earlier he had trouble touching that threshold in a crowded field.

[Padraig18]

152. I read the thread, Tom.

I return to my original point: the other folks got more votes. You guys ARE over-analyzing this. It's like asking why the Commissioner of MLB didn't get behind the Cardinals. It's an inane question.

[Tom Rinaldo]

146. Hard to defend "over analyzing" anything of course

But it is also hard to defend not analyzing something. That is how lessons are learned. Lots of people failed to win their party's nomination the first time they ran, but did so on a second try.

[Crunchy Frog]

147. They liked Kerry better period.

None of the other candidates did appreciably better than Clark, although they did get more delegates than him, simply because they stuck around in the race longer than he did.

Clark simply had a more realistic idea of his chances earlier on, or else he had less ego investment, or a greater committment to the ultimate goal of getting rid of Bush. Therefore he dropped out as soon as it became clear to him that he didn't have a shot at the nomination, and threw his support to the remaining candidate whom he thought had the best chance of beating Bush.

Dean, Edwards and Kucinich all had some other agendas in place that led them to continue in the races for a longer time after it became clear that they were not going to get the nomination. That does not mean that they were liked better.

[madfloridian]

203. 37 states did not get to vote for either Clark or Dean.

Would you explain how that is fair? Please, pretty please.

37 damn states, including the 3 largest of FL, NY, and CA never got to vote after they dropped out in Feb.

How do you know people did not prefer them?

[eridani]

246. Do people actually vote for candidates they like the best?

Some do, but plenty vote for candidates they think other people will like best.

[marcologico]

104. Do I have to explain what Rove would have done with his Advocate photo?

Not the best political judgement, or advice, or both.

[Tom Rinaldo]

107. Did you see Clark discuss the issue of Gay rights during the Rock the Vote

debate? He was truly masterful. Maybe there is still a video link to it somewhere. I hope so. He drained the politics out of it and made it a simple human issue that virtually any parent could relate to. See, it isn't that Rove would not have found stuff to throw at Clark. When he can't he makes it up anyway. Thing about Clark is he faces it head on everytime. In other word he skillfully advocates for his position rather than back peddling under attack. A hell of a lot of voters (unfortunately) claim they voted for Bush because he was clear about what he believed, as opposed to their perception of an over nuanced Kerry being driven by focus group polling. I don't totally accept that description of Kerry, but there was a frequently stark difference in how each man presented his positions.

[marcologico]

113. Sure but Rove would have spent 10 million wrapping it around his neck

Of course, his position on the issue is great, but Rove would have turned him into Osama bin Buttf*ck in about ten minutes!

[FrenchieCat]

119. So your point is?????

we should just hang it up and just elect Republicans?

Are we not supposed to stand for something? For anything?

Do you think Clark would have backed away and been buried because his 4 star General face appeared on the cover of a magazine?

My goodness! Some of us are more fearful of Republicans than should be allowed.

Guess we better run a DINO......in fear of what the RW might do and Say!

This one takes the cake.

Scardy Cat....come out where-ever you are!

[Tom Rinaldo]

125. Sure but nothing

You didn't address any of my points other than to say that Clark had the right position but repeat it is one that Rove likes to run against.

It comes down to more than someone being vulnerable on this or that position. Bush was hugely vulnerable on a host of positions. It comes down to how you frame your own issues, how willing you are to defend yourself, and how effectively you go right back at your opponent on each and every front. It comes down to whether the public trusts you and relates to you. If so you are given some points for being up front about where you stand, even when you are disagreed with. That and touch screen voting is how Bush got reelected.

[LandOLincoln]

200. Do we have to explain that

Wes Clark says what he believes and believes what he says, and would have shoved that magazine, cover and all, up Rove's fat fundament with great glee (figuratively speaking, of course)?

BTW, Dean also posed for the cover of The Advocate, and before Clark did, IIRC.

Have a look:

[faithfulcitizen]

139. b/c they weren't sure if Clark would "tow the line"

[w4rma]

151. The DNC didn't have the final say. The VOTERS chose someone else (nt)

[Padraig18]

159. As a Dean supporter, I agree with you 100%.

No one denied Clark, Dean or anyone else the nomination--- except the voters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

166. I don't think the Primary votes were rigged

which I won't say about the General Election. Voters made their decisions and we got Kerry as our nominee. That is the bottom line and I don't see anyone arguing against that basic baseline reality.

This is afterall a discussion board so talk about factors that influenced voters one way or another at a given moment is appropriate if anyone is interested in engaging in it.

What I will argue about are certain assertions of opinion sometimes presented as fact which I strongly disagree with. I do not accept assertions that Clark favored the war prior to becoming a candidate. I do not accept the assertion that Clark ran a poor campaign/ or overall was a poor campaigner. Clark ran an ultimately losing campaign that was far from perfect. I have no trouble accepting that. But I think the General Election should be a sufficient eye opener to any who somehow were not previously paying attention, that the media has an unhealthy and growing influence on how political debate is presented in this country and how opinions are molded. For that reason I am particularly sensitive when I see what I think is a media retread MEME about Democratics being accepted as fact without question on this board. I know that I just made a subjective statement, but it may explain where I am coming from.

[FrenchieCat]

161. and Bush won fair and square....

and nothing had anything to do with anything.

K.

What-e-ver....

[Padraig18]

164. Clark ran a crappy campaign.

Don't even try and morph that into the BBV/Blackwell thing.

:eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

167. We know you like Howard Dean....

and he ran a stellar campaign, I am sure. But since I try not to speak ill of others....I won't start, just cause you couldn't resists.

so thank you for your opinion......(we all have one....as you know).

[Padraig18]

170. Who I like doesn't change a fact.

He ran a crappy campaign, and so did Dean. The results speak for themselves.

[Tom Rinaldo]

172. OK, we are both consistent

Actually I think Dean ran a relatively good campaign also. It took him from near anonymity to almost winning the nomination. Kerry almost self destructed under the stress. Certainly a strong case can be made that Kerry ran the best campaign, and I don't only base my opinions on the final outcome, though obviously that is relevant. An underfunded underdog can lose running a better campaign than the eventual winner for example. Dean made errors also, but so did Kerry at some key points in his campaign.

[FrenchieCat]

176. Glad you have "strong" opinions....

and I obviously give outside forces (such as the Corporate media and their endless push polls) much more credence than you do.

Guess we can also easily say that we went to war in Iraq because I was a "crappy" protestor.

Clark's campaign was not perfect. I cannot and will not call it crappy, although you should if that is how you feel. Ironic though, considering that you were not a Clark supporter, that you should know so much about how the campaign was ran to now being able to analyze it in one word.

I don't think that Dean's campaign was crappy.....although I guess that's what you think....and since that's who you supported, I will take your word about that.

But instead, I believe both Clark and Dean were sabotaged and ambushed. One was pushed relentlessly by the media prior to any votes being cast and ended up being derided by the media as strongly as they had once promoted him. The other got a lot of media fanfare prior to announcing his run and then was smeared and ignored once he announced.

You see, I look beyond the surface of simplistic statements that really, in the end, leaves us right back where we started....but I am surprised to find that your opinion could be the same as those simplistic "no-nothing" pundits who said the exact same thing.

Crappy is just not going to give me any insight as to what happened during the primaries. Sorry.

[Crunchy Frog]

194. We obviously went to war in Iraq

because Bush made an excellent case for it to the American people. Those who were opposed to the war made a very poor case for their position with the result that the majority of Americans rejected it.

There, everything about it was fair and square and completely on the up and up. Let's not look any more deeply than that into why the American people took the position that they did. It's all perfectly straightforward.

<In case anyone doesn't realize it, this post is intended as sarcasm.>

[Tom Rinaldo]

169. We strongly disagree on this.

I didn't see this post while I was writing my last one but it is a good case in point of what I am responding to. And many thoughtful posts have already been written on this thread that take issue with your opinion, explaining in detail why we take issue with your opinion. This isn't about Black Box voting and no one that I know says that it is. Much of this is subjective but not all of it, and I pointed out some relevant facts that dispute your opinion above. Since you say you read the whole thread I will leave it as a profound difference of opinion.

[Crunchy Frog]

175. According to your criteria, as nearly as I can tell,

everyone except Kerry ran a crappy campaign in the primaries and Kerry went on to run a crappy campaign in the general election.

Just because someone stuck around with a losing campaign for a longer period of time does not make them a better campaigner. Just less realistic, more ego invested, and more willing to continue taking advantage of their supporter's financial generosity.

[Freddie Stubbs]

174. Because Kerry got more votes, which gave him more delegates

That is the official reason.

[kodi]

184. i'll tell since nobody else has. its because the dlc couldn't control him

all this flippity flap about how clark did not get the primary votes is obtuse nonsense. the dlc was looking for a fellow traveler like lieberman. clark was too independent and liberal for the dlc.

his campaign started a ways to late to secure primary support from local and state party leaders, who btw just happen to determine in large part their primary elections.

in hindsight, clark would have at least carried the fight to bush and would never had put up with anything like the swift boat ads before calling bush privately to tell him to call off the dogs or face a very public ass whipping.

clark is an intellectual, a leader, and the sharpest pencil in the box. if al gore decides not to run, my initial choice would be wes clark.

[LandOLincoln]

206. Thank you. Very well said, and I agree with one caveat:

I love Al Gore, having seen him here in Albuquerque during the midterms in 1998. He was loose, he was fiery, he was funny--in short, like Wes, he was much better campaigning for other people than he was campaigning later for himself.

But even if he decides to run again, I'm sticking with Wes.

[cyn2]

214. me too n/t

[Leilani]

211. Best post on this entire board!

You've captured it completely.

[theboss]

223. Last time I checked, the DLC didn't pick the nominee

This is another myth that needs to die.

[faithfulcitizen]

231. hey, i did say that! (above)... :)

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

235. I haven't been here long

... but you've just become one of my fave DU'ers kodi.

:toast:

(no offence to other Clark supporters here who I think I mostly know already!)

[Clarkie1]

237. I agree with your post. I was a big Gore supporter from the beginning

and I'm a strong Clark supporter now. One thing Gore and Clark have in common is they are both the sharpest pencils in the box, but I do think Clark communicates his message more effectively than Gore and has a better public persona. I think some very good people like Gore sometimes just don't come across the best on a public stage for whatever unfair reasons.

[Still_Loves_John]

228. Because the DNC doesn't pick candidates

Primary voters do.

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

233. Try this....

Who else is as strong as this man on defense and national security and is a progressive Democrat who knows how to "smackdown" the RW presstitutes?

WES CLARK
"RED DOG" DEMOCRAT IN '08

Won't take any Sh*t, AND...will kick ass in Red States

[Clarkie1]

242. Hey, I really that pic and caption!

[FrenchieCat]

245. Thanks...

The caption is mine....
the face is his...