DLC is pushing their choice for 08

[JNelson6563]

"Clark graduated from West Point in 1966, was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford
University, served in Vietnam, and received a number of military
decorations, including the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart.

That background is very important to Democrats, said Al From, founder and
chief executive officer of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group based
in Washington, D.C. The council, which was once led by Bill Clinton, calls
itself a "reform movement" within the Democratic Party.

"In my view, the Democrats lost the 2002 election on security. In a
sense, we lost the 2004 election on security," From said. "It is a first
priority of our party that we gain the confidence of the people on the
national security issue. Or it should be."

Few carry Clark’s reputation, From said. Although the party includes
several congressional leaders who have experience dealing with national
security policy, Clark’s background is "hard to beat," From said."It’s hard to have better credentials than supreme NATO commander," From
said. "There are others, but Wes has credentials that are hard to beat."

Political options still open for Clark
BY JAKE BLEED ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
http://www.ardemgaz.com/ShowIndex.asp

[ElectroPrincess]

1. If the DLC does promote Clark, just perhaps, they're seeing the light?/eom

[Warpy]

26. The DLC brought him into the fight in 2000 when it looked like

Dean might have enough backing to defeat Kerry. Clark was their backup guy.

The DLC isn't seeing much of anything but a threat to their power. No candidate with DLC backing, DLC handlers, spouting DLC talking points, and refusing to step outside their programming will be elected.

There's a reason the DLC lost all 3 branches of government. Since they are completely without insight, they need to go.

Kerry and Clark were both worthy candidates, both capable of doing the job. With the DLC albatross around their necks, neither would be able to generate the landslide of enthusiasm it would have taken to overcome the massive fraud and win.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Samantha]

68. That was another DLC than the one in power now

THAT DLC was one the formation of which From made with Al Gore standing by his side. The inception of the idea for the creation of the DLC was actually a joint venture designed to get the party more in touch with its base, and vice versa. That same DLC was joined subsequently by Clinton, who had already set his timetable for running for President. It was a coincidence he was a member at the time he chose to run, not a design.

Clinton chose as his running mate a man with whom he made a deal to award a co-presidency, Al Gore. Gore, it was thought could insure a Clinton win and offset some of the sleazy tint attached to the Clinton reputation. Gore did not particularly want to run with Clinton, he had bowed out of the 1992 race following the injury of his son in a car accident. He thought possibly some of Clinton's "stain" would rub off on him and inadvertently hinder his potential run in the future. He bit when the co-presidency offer was tendered.

Many Dems thought the order of the ticket should have been reversed, with Gore on top, and Clinton taking second. I for one agreed with that analysis.

That DLC that lucked out with one of its candidates successfully taking a two-term presidency is not the same DLC that turned around and bit Gore in the political posterior when he announced he would take another swipe at Bush in 2004. THAT'S the DLC we are discussing.

[1932]

110. What did Gore do with his co-presidency? Deregulated the telecoms.

He did a big favor for big telecoms company (and now runs a cable company!).

Another reason why the DLC is for the birds.

[Capn Sunshine]

166. Where did you hear that?

I'm a charter member of the DLC, and first and foremost , it has been about MONEY, and the (responsible)application of the power deriving therein.

There are lots of responsible financial professionals that are not power crazed fremarketeer neocons, and the idea that finance could be used to transcend the left<--->right debate and uphold humanist values that the Democratic ideal is all about really appealed to us.

However they have strayed from this somewhat populist notion under From.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

117. Are you for real?

"Extreme liberals" Well I guess according to the DLC dean is an "extreme liberal" (what a joke).

Hey go ahead and worship the DLC. When your DLC candidate is worse than bushco enjoy the situation you'll have created.

[Samantha]

I am sorry but I agree with Warpy

I have no desire to get into a spitting match, but the introduction of Clark into the process was openly an attempt for the Clintons to derail Dean. Those rumors were reported in The Washington Post, and it was such a pretty obvious political maneuver it really didn't need print support. We discussed that issue hot and heavy here at DU, as well as the fact several of the so-called party elite made statements saying they would overtly try to stop Dean. I am going to try to find a link on the subject and post it here.

The arrogance of the DLC is stunning. It believes it knows better than we what it will take to win, and that's all that is important. Anyone that thinks we the people control the nomination process with votes in primaries is deluding themselves. The DLC controls the machinery and hence the process. The dirty maneuvers which were pulled against Dean against his own party were unbelievable. And you are hearing this from someone who did not at that time actively support his getting the nomination. I supported another candidate ....

[Samantha]

54. Here's a link to one of the discussions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=129153

[wyldwolf]

57. uh... so?

It's just a link to more DU speculative conspiracy.

[Samantha]

Please actually read the discussion before you dismiss it

Post 62 (Article from Washington Post)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A43916-2003Dec7¬Found=true

From the article:

"Secondly, a large number of influential Democrats, many of them former high-level advisers to President Bill Clinton and state leaders, are growing increasingly concerned that Dean's antiwar, anti-tax-cut campaign could doom the party's chances of winning back the White House and Congress. If Dean can't quickly exhibit an ability and willingness to broaden his appeal, especially in the South, these Democrats may join together in a campaign to stop him, several said."

A subsequent article, the link to which I do not have, said several of the negative ads run against Dean in Iowa were actually sponsored by Dems which actively sought to stop him. These ads were so despicable it was thought the Republicans were behind them.

[wyldwolf]

72. I did

Many Dean supporters were always surprised to see politics in action. This is no different.

This is how politics works.

Now, the article... who are these unnamed "influential democrats?"

[Samantha]

76. One of them was Barney Frank

who unabashedly came out and made a public statement for Gore to step aside and get out of Kerry's way. Hoping Kerry would slide into the nomination, he was looking out for own best interests and thinking of playing Kerry's Senatorial spot, should Kerry succeed. Which, of course, since the election itself was fixed, would not happen.

[wyldwolf]

84. Barney Frank is an influential Democrat?

And he isn't allowed to endorse someone?

Didn't Al Gore himself endorse someone?

[Skwmom]

146. It's really sad when our county is in a CRISIS

that it has to be politics as usual. The Democrats could have won in 04. They handed Bush another four years because the Democratic Leadership for the most part is made up of a bunch of self-serving schmucks who will always put their own desire for power ahead of everything else.

Clinton is a master political strategist. Clark could have been the nominee but once again when push comes to shove Clinton only thinks about Clinton.

[Tom Rinaldo]

89. I suggest we stay in the present

The National Democratic Party is a bee hive of raging egos, pretty much like any National organization. It can not be boiled down simply to two sides. I am not saying that nobility can't coexist with raging egos, sometimes in the same people, but personal ambition and a strong belief that one has something unique to offer comes with the territory when anyone considers running for the Presidency.

Sure there were leading Democrats who thought Dean would lose in 2008 if given the nomination. And one of the reasons why Dean ran was because he believed many National Democrats were following a course that would lead to an election defeat, not victory, were one of them to be nominated. That's politics. I can put my finger on a dozen intra Party wounds from the 2004 race were I so motivated, and virtually no one comes out completely clean.

Clark ran for his own reasons, just like Dean did and just like Kerry and Edwards and Kucinich did. Clark thought he had unique strengths and experience that was relevant to the 2004 Election and defeating Bush. That too can be said about the other candidates. Clark received support form some DNC people who were opposed to Dean. In every power struggle, and politics is nothing if not a power struggle, allegiances will shift in changing alliances based on a host of reasons. Virtually all politicians accept virtually all support offered to them, if it doesn't compromise their own vision and integrity (some don't care that much about the integrity part).

I have said this before and I gotta wonder how often I'll say it again. Parts of the Democratic establishment certainly turned to Clark when they thought they had no other choice, and then they happily walked away from him when someone who they knew better, Kerry, seemed like he would be a winner. That's politics. They may have wanted to stop Dean, but Clark was running for President for his own reasons. So was Dean.

Now the Democrats will have been out of the White House for 8 years. Many things can be said about From, but being stupid isn't one of them. DLC Democrats are still Democrats. They do not do well when Republicans control the entire government. Clark does not come off to most Americans as a flaming Liberal, for many reasons that have long been discussed here. Democratic candidates running for Senator in Republican States loved having Clark stump for them in 2004. It wasn't because of his Liberal stand on issues, though his stands on issues were quite Liberal. It was because THEIR electorate perceived Clark as a moderate and patriotic man, someone who they could stand close to on a platform and not be Liberal baited.

[formernaderite]

160. Barely

DLC Democrats are still Democrats.

Barely....Sorry, the DLC democratic vision has enabled the repubs to push this country further right. Has no one noticed that a moderate of today, is much more conservative than a moderate of even ten years ago?

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[stickdog]

66. Even more importantly, their centrist corporatism message comes across

as boring, mealy-mouthed wonkistry. It takes a politician with Bill Clinton's personal charisma to shine that kind of shit into any sort of winning message. Sorry DLC, but Wes Clark's stars & bars are not a substitute for a clear, strong, coherent and consistent populist message.

[LittleClarkie]

74. Michael Moore is secretly DLC.

Oh. My. God.

All of this is primary war era crapola we do NOT need at the moment. I don't care who From likes.

Clark knows how to be part of a team. He has not attacked Dean. He has in fact defended Dean. He doesn't deserve to be labelled falsely.

[1932]

112. In The Big One, Moore told working people not to vote (in '96 election).

He said there was no difference between the parties, and people would be better off staying at home.

He may not be DLC, but he was advocating behavior that was the only possible way pro-corporate Republicans could have won.

[wyldwolf]

85. one problem among several in your reply...

The DLC didn't lose all three branches of Government.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

114. 100% correct

Clark split the dean vote enough to take the primary away from dean and give it to kerry.

If it wasn't for that act of DLC treachery Dean would be in the whitehouse today. It's a pity those with rose glasses on can't see that.

[Nikki Stone 1]

120. Of course, there was always the anti-Dean Osama TV commercial

The party did not want Dean to win. It was very clear on several fronts. They criticized him on NPR as "secretly" fundraising on the internet (Neil Oxman), they tanked him in Iowa with the Osama commercial, and they allowed that "Dean Scream" to go unchallenged.

Not sure if Clark was involved or not, but it is possible some saw a way to use the him to syphon votes.

[Skwmom]

139. I don't think Clark was ever their back up guy because

if Clark had cinched the nomination, he would have won the general election.

On edit: A lot of people besides Clinton and the DLC gang were urging Clark to run. Clark understood that national security would be a MAJOR issue in the general election so he threw his hat into the ring because he couldn't stay on the sideline while this country was going down the tubes.

I think Clinton and the gang tried to insinuate that Clark was their horse in the race (for example by Clinton saying that Hillary and Clark were the two rising stars in the Democratic party) because it turned off a lot of potential voters to Clark and it helped ensure that the majority of Dean supporters would never back Clark after Dean was hopefully knocked out of the race. I think they may have viewed Clark as a potential VP for Hillary in 08 and considered an 04 run as good practice for Clark in 08.

[Nikki Stone 1]

142. I think they had pretty much decided on Kerry

The Osama video came from his camp

[Skwmom]

149. They wanted Kerry and Edwards

because they knew that the more you learned about the two the less you would like them.

[blm]

150. Wrong. From wanted Lieberman and his co-chair wanted Edwards. They both

thought Kerry was too liberal. It wasn't until late in the game when the DLC decided they had no choice but to back Kerry.

I don't know where you folks get your info, but, it's been widely known for years that From can't stand Kerry. Kerry managed to maintain a very storng liberal lifetime rating even while a member of the DLC. There WERE some DLC members who were there to pull from the left when the center started tilting too far right.

[Skwmom]

153. Let me clarify. The Clintons wanted Kerry/Edwards

and they got what they wanted because "Clinton is the master political strategist" (though I think it's more like he doesn't really have any competition).

I spoke with Democrats involved in politics for years and they all said from the get go that it would be a Kerry/Edwards ticket and they said this before Dean even started his fall.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. I will keep an open mind about Clark

Al From's endorsement should not deter us from that.

[KoKo]

7. It's just getting tiresome....along with the Hillary posts.

The "hard sell" starts to turn some off after awhile. It's 2006 we should be thinking about. Otherwise we are back in that trap we Dems have criticized ourself for of focusing on the "personality and the Presidential races" rather than taking care of all the business inbetween.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. I agree

It's way too early to talk about who to run for President in '08. We don't really know what the issues will be. The person who looks like a good candidate now might not look so good by then.

And there are candidates who may emerge whom most of us are not even thinking about now. For example, if the Democrats gain control of the House in the '06 elections and if Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed from office afterward, the President of the United States will most likely be Nancy Pelosi. That would probably end all speculation about who the Democrats would run in '08.

[MaineDem]

19. I agree with you

The '06 elections are vitally important not just for US House and Senate races but for State Legislative races.

Hell, we have two Governors races THIS year and there's not much emphasis being placed on them.

I am glad, however, to see that most state parties (with help from the DNC where required) are gearing up to put people in place NOW to jump start the campaign efforts.

But you're absolutely right that it's too early to start worrying about the unknown that's the 2008 Presidential race.

[Nikki Stone 1]

3. nothing like a lit match on dry kindling

Got your fire extinguisher?

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Misplaced

Sorry.

[realFedUp]

128. yeah, just putting DLC and Clark in the same sentence...

is a flame starter.

[KoKo]

4. Well...he seems to be DU's favorite....so I don't know what that means..

if he's also the DLC's fave. :D

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Carolab]

9. I don't like Clark for president. I wish it could be Dean.

But he already said he won't run. Of course, I suppose circumstances could change and he could run again?

[stray cat]

20. Only three types of people?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[WillyT]

46. Ah FrenchieCat... I DO Love Dat Baby Grahic, LOL !!!

:yourock:

[Carolab]

6. I thought Warner was getting the "nod".

I keep reading about him.

I hope not but that seems to be the general drift.

[FrenchieCat]

34. All it takes is one ALMOST positive article....

about Clark, and that's it!

Get a 10 to 20 about Warner...a few hundred about Hillary...and Clark becomes the DLC pick. Go figure!

[Sparkly]

35. Not to mention Evan Bayh , DLC chair. n/t

[bicentennial_baby]

8. Ugh...

:puke:

[AX10]

10. Wesley Clark is NO DLCer! He is very liberal on issues...

where Clinton played the middle.

Wes Clark 08'!

[Texas_Kat]

11. And here I thought you knew something about politics.

Bayh is the DLC's choice in 2008. U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh is chairman of the DLC.


Duh....

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

[AndyTiedye]

12. We Lost Those Elections on Security All Right -- INSECURE VOTING MACHINEZ!

Yes, we did lose those elections on security
-- or lack there of --
IN OUR VOTING SYSTEMS!



Then there is the question of the security of our general aviation,
particularly when Democratic senators are flying on it. :cry:

[Capn Sunshine]

167. AMEN BROTHER

True we had a terrible campaign, but we had that in 00 as well; the difference was the disenfranchisement strategy in Ohio and Florida together with those rigged machine programs everywhere else.

[elfin]

15. Clark is the only one who hasn't bad-mouthed Dean

I liked him before and I like him now. He needs to establish a solid national profile - along with money - to have a strong shot.

Right now, he is my favorite too.

[janx]

16. THe DLC has been irrelevant for a long time.

Their concept of reform is doing the same thing they did years and years ago, and they spend so much time reacting to things.

[Donna Zen]

17. Making a list checking it twice:

Who's who at the DLC?

Hillary--check

Bayh--check

Warner--?? Anybody know??

Clark--nope

Here's a hint: two straw polls have been held this week at Democratic functions. Vilsack has been included; but not Clark.

Clark came out against the war and the DLC don't like that.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

129. Clark came out against the war

when it was popular to do so.

Also - when you send an FBI mole in to the mafia do you tell the mafia you're an FBI mole?

Likewise - why would clark establish a DLC connection? It was reported in various papers clark was sent in to derail dean. That's obvious to anyone who hasn't had some of the kool-aid.

[CarolNYC]

134. hmmm....

So it was popular to be against the war in September 2002 when Clark testified against it? Hmmmm....I don't remember it that way.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

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

[Texas_Kat]

151. So it was popular to come out against the war in 2002?

or hadn't you heard. Clark tried to persuade the HASC to put an end to the war-talk in September 2002.

Clark is not DLC -- though there are several politicans (including our current party Chairman) who are or have been DLC members.

Clark was not recruited as a 'stop Dean" candidate. If he was, he wouldn't still be speaking out and defending him, now would he?

[wyldwolf]

18. Good!

So, your point is?

[KoKo]

28. Are the posts you link from an Anti-Clark Website?

I didn't get what you were saying. I like David Sirota and yet two of the links seem to be trashing him?

Could you explain your position? Are you pro-DLC? Is that why you are pissed? Or are you a Clark fan and so don't like anything said about him that could be interpreted as negative?

I try not to get into the Clark stuff posted here all the time. That's why I ask. :shrug: This post was interesting because of the DLC mention.

[wyldwolf]

38. so pissed?

No, I'm not pissed.

What I'm saying is the original poster is an active participant at another website that is obsessed with trashing Clark supporters, and regurlarly trashes other DUers.

My two links essentially debunk a piece David Sirota wrote.

[Capn Sunshine]

180. That's not a fair characterization

I try to give you a lot of slack, but you can pick and choose posters at any website, DU included , to match your bias.

That the DLC is choosing to bypass 2006 is more of concern to me at this point.

[FrenchieCat]

21. as much fucking press as Hillary and Warner and Edwards and

Kerry and some others have gotten....you point to one Arkansas (his home state)newspaper article....and surmise that Clark is the DLC pick?

Wow, what leap!

Then I go to the link, and the article is not even there...unless I subscribe to the paper. But I got it from elsewhere....and you forgot to post this part of the article, where they do what they always do.....dismiss him at the end (cause just like many others, they are not about to start thinking out of the goddam conventional wisdom Insiderlosers box anytime soon).....

Now I know that you are not at all a great big fan of the General.....but this is pretty transparent, doncha think? What do you have to say for yourself on why you chose to highlight a part of the article that doesn't provide the entire gist of this particular discussion?

Another Clark run would also place the general in an already competitive group of Democratic contenders, Sabato and Cook said. That group includes Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who both men said would likely end up with the party's nomination. Clinton is married to former president Bill Clinton, who served as governor and attorney general of Arkansas before winning the White House.

"The Democratic Party has a rich variety of presidential candidates already," Sabato said. "My guess is that the '04 retreads are probably not going to do very well."

Other potential candidates include Kerry, Edwards, and Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Sabato said.

Asked about a potential Clinton campaign, Clark offered praise of the former first lady.

"I've known her for years," Clark said. "She's very, very gifted."

That's competition that Clark isn't likely to beat, say Cook and Sabato. Instead, he should hope for a cabinet appointment if the Democrats return to the White House.

Cook described this as a "double-option" campaign, seeking the party's nomination if possible, but looking for a lesser function if the nomination is not gained.

"If lightning strikes, then he's the nominee," Cook said. "If lightning doesn't strike, than maybe he's a running mate."

"He's a logical secretary of defense," Sabato said. "He's not a logical Democratic nominee for president."

The asshole doesn't even know that Clark still won't be eligible for SOD in 2008!

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[CarolNYC]

69. true, true....

Still, it's a pretty lame effort, if you ask me.

I guess all of the attention to Clark, a lot of it supportive, is getting to some...

[Samantha]

24. I believe the fix is in for 2008 and has been since at least 2003

The DLC is controlled by the Clintons. Because of the longstanding rivalry between Hillary and Gore, Gore was excised from the political process in 2004 because he was in Hillary's way.

Hillary will get the nod, and Clark will be her VP. The so-called party elite makes the decision as to who will get the nomination, and we, the manipulated, stand back and ask, "what happened" when our personal choice gets mysteriously zapped from the process.

The Republicans will also get out of her way, I believe, because the Clintons made a political deal with the Republican Devil. In exchange for Bush* getting his second term, the Clintons did not actively promote the success of any Democratic candidate in 2004 who could actually win and go on to achieve a second term (Hillary could not compete in the Democratic primaries in 2008 against a successful incumbent Democratic President; consequently, there would be none). Additionally, there would be no overt criticism against Bush*, his illegal war in Iraq, and all his other serious debacles from the Clinton side of the street. In exchange for the acquiescence of the Clintons with the illegal, immoral war in Iraq, the Bush* plan to siphon off Social Security surpluses, the dismantling of the ergonomics legislation, the torpedoing of the Kyoto Treaty, the tacit look-away from the corrupt energy policy, the no-comment on Plame affair, and so forth, a Hillary Clinton run in 2008 will be virtually unopposed by the Republican party. They will get out of her way since it will be payback time. The only real losers in this scenario will be us. Well, we already are losing, aren't we?

[wyldwolf]

25. so many assertions

but no evidence...

[FrenchieCat]

29. Psssst....

It's called speculative mandering. Used for the entertainment value that it provides. See: Washington Times...for more of this.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

49. politically naive ... right.

:eyes:

Why not go outside of DU for evidence.

Try Google.

Let us know when your post exits the realm of conspiracy tin foil hat theories.

[FrenchieCat]

53. Your statement "you are politically naive ..."

Has a problem with it...which is you don't get any "cookies" for speculating that the Clintons are the boogeymen who wanted Kerry to lose, and clear the way for a Hil run.

Your dismissal of the Iowa voters, and all of the others....is what is really pretty naive, IMO. Howard Dean came in 3rd place in Iowa, and was given positive media by the press up and until January '04. He had a fighting chance until the scream (which certainly was blown out of all porportion by the media) which, I'm sure he didn't do "on cue" of the DLC.

You say that "I have been making these comments since January 2003."

Since you have been at the same story for so long, why don't you write a book, or better yet, come up with another 'true' story as we head to the 2006 elections.

[Writer]

55. Also note that Dean's negatives were climbing before Iowa...

Because of his confederate flag comment, his begging the DNC to tell others to stop attacking him because they need to "make way for the leader," his refusal to apologize, or even acknowledge, that his comments caused an uproar during a debate, and his trade of attacks with Gephardt's campaign leading up to Iowa.

Dean's negatives were in the 40's before mid January of 2004. Dean did HIMSELF in. The scream was only icing on the cake.

Writer.

[stickdog]

80. Dean's "positive press" all came before Iowa heated up.

http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerryEdwards.htm

Study: Iowa Caucus Victors Received 98 Percent Positive Coverage

WASHINGTON, DC—Prior to their surprising Iowa caucus performances, 98 percent of the network evening news coverage of Democratic Presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards was positive, according to research conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also found Howard Dean received more critical coverage over the same time period, at 58 percent positive.

http://www.joplinindependent.com/display_article.php/c-jensen1075581263

Then in late 2003, the media, which had anointed Dean as the front runner, started to attack him. By the time of the Iowa caucuses, the polls showed him plummeting and the media's new darling, Senator John Kerry, soaring.

Kerry's remarkable overnight turnaround even surprised the candidate himself who gleefully declared he was the "Comeback Kerry."

Meanwhile, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization in Washington, D.C., which conducts scientific studies of the news media, was monitoring the nightly network news broadcasts that are the source of news and information for most Americans. The results of the CMPA study, released January 15, 2004, revealed that Gov. Dean received significantly more negative criticism on the network broadcasts while his Democratic presidential competitors received significantly more positive comments. The research examined 187 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news in 2003. Only 49 percent of all on-air evaluations of Gov. Dean in 2003 were positive while the other Democratic contenders received 78 percent favorable coverage.

In a follow-up study by CMPA, of the network coverage of the candidates from January 1 to January 18, the night before the Iowa caucuses, revealed that the networks selected Kerry and Senator John Edwards before the Iowa voters did. As you may recall, Kerry finished first with 38% of the vote; Edwards ranked second just below Kerry with 32%; and Dean managed only a poor third with 18% of the vote. During the two-and-a-half week period leading up to the Iowa caucuses, there had not been a single negative word uttered about Edwards by the three networks (100% favorable coverage) while nearly all, 96% of the comments about Kerry were positive. However, Gov. Dean's coverage during those first 18 days of January was significantly less glowing with 42% unfavorable on-air evaluations.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/13/dean_media/index_np.html

The media vs. Howard Dean

Democrats haven't voted yet, but reporters have got the story: The former Vermont governor is angry, gaffe-prone and unelectable. How do they know? Republicans, and anonymous Democrats, told them so.

Jan. 13, 2004 | When the Washington Post introduced readers to Howard Dean in a long Page 1 feature July 6, part of a series of "meet the Democrats" candidate profiles, the paper went for the jugular, literally, with a cartoonish, unflattering description to open the article: "Howard Dean was angry. Ropy veins popped out of his neck, blood rushed to his cheeks, and his eyes, normally blue-gray, flashed black, all dilated pupils."

Six months later, an extended version of that campaign narrative, polished by Republican talking-points memos and echoed day after day by the mainstream media, remains a constant of the campaign trail: Dean is a sarcastic smart aleck with foot-in-the mouth disease, a political ticking time bomb. The former Vermont governor remains the front-runner among Democratic voters, but he's gotten increasingly caustic treatment from the media, which has dwelled on three big themes -- that Dean's angry, gaffe-prone and probably not electable -- while giving comparatively far less ink to the doctor's policy and political prescriptions that have catapulted him ahead of the Democratic field. Newsweek's critical Jan. 12 cover story, "All the Rage: Dean's Shoot-From-the-Hip Style and Shifting Views Might Doom Him in November," achieved a nifty trifecta that covered anger, gaffes and electability, all three of the main media raps against Dean.

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert133.shtml

The Positive-Negative Network Spin

A decisive factor can be seen in the positive-negative media ratings gathered by MediaChannel/Media Tenor. While Kerry received far less coverage than Dean, in nearly 39 percent of this coverage the candidate was cast in a positive light; only four percent of network news coverage of Kerry had a negative tone to it. Coverage of Dean by percentage was nearly four times more negative: MediaChannel/Media Tenor found that 15.7 percent of the Dean coverage had a negative cast to it.

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/040201_TheScream.htm

By mid-December, the news divisions of the four major television networks were reporting as fact that Dean was unelectable. The print media echoed the theme; on December 17, the Washington Post printed a front-page story that posited Dean could not win the presidency. The Post quickly followed up with an onslaught of articles and editorials reasserting that claim. Before the month was over, Dean’s lack of electability had been highlighted in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, and every other major paper in the United States.

As 2004 began, Time and Newsweek simultaneously ran cover stories emphasizing that Dean was unelectable. In the weeks before the Iowa caucus, the ongoing topic of discussion on the political panel shows was that Dean was unelectable. National talk radio shows repeatedly stressed that Dean was unelectable. The corporate Internet declared that Dean was unelectable. And the mainstream media continued with the storyline that Dean was unelectable right up until Iowans attended their caucuses. Iowa Democrats could not watch a television or listen to a radio or read a newspaper or go online without learning that Howard Dean was unelectable.

It was the classic Big Lie. Through the power of repetition, the corporate media – which has been wrong about who would win the popular vote in two of the last three presidential elections – inculcated the public with the message that Dean could not win. Pollster John Zogby wrote, “Howard Dean was the man of the year, but that was 2003. In 2004, electability has become the issue and John Kerry has benefited.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0206-05.htm

How did the media do it? By telling scary stories, mostly about Howard's ugly temper, as decision time drew near. "ALL THE RAGE" read Newsweek's cover. It ran selected quotes from his own website: "Dammit, tell him to get his mouth under control!" etc. Time magazine had "Anger Management 101." The New York Times headlined: "As the Race Turns Hot, What About Dean's Collar?" on "the impression that he is a man with lots of anger, an attribute that repels many voters."

But as anger repels some, it attracts others. It can even be a relief, especially when conflict is being suppressed or denied. So why does it get suddenly invoked as an overriding negative? I mean, why not suddenly focus on George Bush's ease in approving 152 executions in his six years as Texas governor, often with a smirk or a joke? It rings a little of the race in 2000, when Senator John McCain's mental balance became an issue just as it seemed he might beat out then-governor Bush. "Electability" also vaulted suddenly into the coverage in the weeks before Iowa caucused, along with the question: Is Howard Dean "acceptable" to the U.S. mainstream? I do sometimes wish the media elites would allow the masses to define for themselves what they will accept.

Of course the population may decide to go with Howard Dean anyway. The media cannot impose their views; all they can do is try (unconsciously, of course, as Lord Hutton would say). So I'm not claiming a media conspiracy; just that they tend to be well-suited and professionally conditioned to spot incoming threats on the radar and react in a uniform, or copycat way.

The media's renowned critical powers mainly operate on those who violate rules inside the frame, or those like Howard Dean who breach it by saying the unspeakable. As for his famous scream in Iowa, it came long after he had been led out of the building by the media. For my money, he got on a roll, feeling the crowd, and reached his peak phrase ("The White House, in Washington, D.C.") regrettably early, with little to do but finish with a yelp. It could happen to any of us.

[Nikki Stone 1]

96. Thank you for the actual documentation of the party throwing Dean to

the wolves.

I remember hearing an interview on NPR on July 9, 2003 on Talk of the Nation. Neil Oxman was accusing Dean of "secret" fundraising because he raised money on the internet. Oxman actually used the word "secretly".

I knew then that the party chiefs were going to sink Dean, regardless of his popular support. I actually wrote an email to NPR and retained a copy (which is why I remember all the specific information.)

[reprehensor]

79. Clinton/Clark 2008

Made a similar prediction, myself.

Clinton/Clark 2008

If she wins, we owe us a beer.

[MasonJar]

30. I like their choice if it's Clark. He gives no quarter and is quite

brilliant. He is a true patriot and a soft-spoken, reasoning individual. He has had power, now I think he sincerely is worried about this country and wants to help it turn around.

[Sparkly]

31. From said positive things about Clark = DLC pushing a choice?!!?

Oooookey dokey. :eyes:

(And if they do, fine!)

[Capn Sunshine]

181. Clark is a strong candidate with the DLC remoras

They are casting about looking for a way to remain relevant.
Clark, the head and shoulders above the crowd guy as far as quality, is an obvious choice.

Wes Clark doesn't need the DLC. However, the DLC desperately needs a winner. So do the math.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

37. Well, let me shut the hell up then.....

But I will ask, and cross my fingers that you will be kind enough to answer this question?

Why does your title imply that Clark is the DLC pick for '08...when most of us know that the DLC is basically right there on the list with Lieberman and Zell Miller as issues that DUers are not so fond of?

Was that by design....or just your "open" mind at work again?

Just askin'?
Signed...
A 'Rabid' Clark Supporter, who is obviously not even worthy of being responded to on the subject of a thread meant to "pile on" Wes Clark.

[Donna Zen]

39. It interesting to learn

...that From has even heard Wes Clark.

The speculation about who the DLC is "pushing" has a flaw, Clark isn't a member of the DLC and Hillary and Bayh (see IWR vote) are. The DLC promotes its members, not their competition.

Aye...there's the rub.

[janx]

44. Well then, perhaps Mr. From is engaging in some kind of

weird, Rovian mind game. It's not out of the question. ;-)

[Donna Zen]

58. Rovian mind game? Sounds like fun

although having read the article, it really makes more sense to consider the source(s). An Arkansas reporter asks From about Clark, with From (a man with deep pockets filled with Dem. dollars, many of them leached from the netroots) mewing a few thoughts. Taken as a whole, the article poo-poos Clark as a "one trick pony--foreign policy and security matters only. To which I give a hearty f***you salute.

From is DLC, an organization that promotes its members--not Clark. Bayh now heads that organization and Hillary holds most of the cards.

There is no story here. There is no connection between From and Clark. There is no reason to speculate further.

[janx]

63. Al From is a sneaky character. If he advocates Clark

at least to this Arkansas reporter, there's probably a reason for it, and it may not be the reason that he'd like the reporter to portray. So yes, there is a story here. It may have nothing to do with Clark, but there's a story here. Wait and see.

[Donna Zen]

70. Confused in Maine

Maybe it's all this rainy bad weather, but I would suppose that From had other things to say that are not included in the story because the reporter was focusing on Clark.

I'll have to read the piece again once my feet warm up.

I just don't think that From who muttered a few kind words, was "advocating" Clark. And...and...the idea of Clark being on a ticket with Hillary Clinton makes no political sense--and we all know that Hillary is 100% politics 24/7.

[Texas_Kat]

43. If your intent was to see what Du'ers thought.

Why did you entitle the thread "DLC is pushing their choice for 08" No question mark, no "Do you think....?"

Since your thread title appears nowhere in the article and is NOT the conclusion of the article, it seems just a statement from directly from you.

Perhaps you should modify the thread title to suggest what you say you intended.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

163. Rabid Supporters? No, of course you're not starting FLAMEBAIT here.

People Never Change.

[Zhade]

33. What, a Koch Brothers ticket?

;)

[wyldwolf]

59. That would be Howard Dean and who else?

:)

[janx]

42. The unpleasant sniping in this thread aside,

we'll know soon enough about Mr. From's pick. He's been known to be fond of the memo...;-) We will also know the candidate he does not choose or likes least. You have to admit, though, he seems to be starting early.

[dansolo]

45. I'd take Clark over the rest of the field

Of all of the names that keep coming up as potential 2008 nominees, Clark is the only one that I will enthusiastically support.

[Carolab]

51. At this time, me too. But it's too soon to say who will advance.

Who the hell ever thought Howard Dean would come screaming out of nowhere the way he did?

Could be our preferred 2008 candidate isn't "out there" yet.

But, compared to Hillary, Kerry, Warner and Bayh, right now I'd prefer Clark.

[CarolNYC]

135. Carolab,

that little dancing dude of your cracks me up every time I see it. :)

[Writer]

48. Jeezus... okay, let me give it a try...

How about this? The DLC is about pushing an ideology, not pushing a candidate. $100 says they will voice support for 2 OR 3 centrist Democratic candidates for 2008, Hillary and Wes included, because, well, they like their centrist beliefs.

I know we love the idea that they script spokesmen, politically set-up a chess-like strategy to move "key players in place," and (snicker) pay individuals to get on DU to promote their agenda. :tinfoilhat:

But they're an ideological think tank. 'Tis all. They support some people and don't support others. Looks like Wes Clark has gotten their kudos.

But - I know, I know - conspiracy theories are so much more fun!!!

[napi21]

52. Well, I'm still hoping for someone else!

Clark is an OK guy, but I just don't see him as POTUS! I also don't think he has enough experience IN POLITICS ti fight back the way a presidential candidate has to. Lots of dirty politics involved in that, and although it's a sad thing to have to say, he's too damn honest to get in that gutter and come out the winner.

[ksclematis]

165. Don't hope too long.......

Clark's the only one that can get the US out of the damn big mess GW and gang piled high and deep on us.

He's been in politics for two years now, with three more years to go, has a Masters Degree from Oxford as a Rhodes scholar in Politics, Economics and Philosophy. And, I think he's gonna sharpen up on his political savvy with his stint on FOX net.

There isn't another person who would have total experience in absolutely everything.....that's part of the Cabinet members' jobs....provide some expertise which would help the POTUS.

General Clark is a strategist and has fought many battles and a couple/3 wars - most decorated army officer since Eisenhower - besides playing his cards right and working his a** off to climb the army ladder to 4****. He's a quick learner!! Don't sell him short....

[IndianaGreen]

56. From is still selling the myth of a military hero

Any military hero will have his record under close scrutiny. I assure you that were Clark to run with the support of the DLC that his conduct of the Balkan War will come into question from both the Left and the Right. If you are prepared to waste several months of distraction in which Clark's military record is the focus of the national debate rather than the criminal record of the GOP, then don't say you weren't warned about this way before hand.

Hillary Clinton is a different story altogether! She did not order the Air Force to bomb Yugoslavia. She did not perform oral sex in the White House with an intern. She was cleared of the Whitewater matter by none other than Ken Starr. She has not military record of any sort!

Hillary did vote for IWR, but so did many others that today are questioning Bush's sincerity on the lead up to the war.

Then there are others whose thinking on national security and on the war in Iraq was correct all along, people like Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold to mention only two being mentioned as potential presidential candidates.

Clark supporters are likely to point out, and rightly so, that Clark opposed Bush's rush to war. Unfortunately, their preferred candidate's resume does not include elected office of any sort, so we have no way of knowing anything about what Clark would do to get us out of Iraq other than by watching him perform as a commentator on Rupert Murdoch's Faux News.

The "war hero" meme did not win us the White House in 2004, and I doubt that it will win anything for us in 2008, particularly with a candidate whose political record, unlike John Kerry's, is exclusively based on his work as a TV personality on CNN and Faux.

[FrenchieCat]

64. I have to disagree with your projections....

as I am sure that you are not surprised!

I don't believe that War Hero Kerry and War Hero Clark are the same thing at all...beyond the superficial comparison in that they both fought in Vietnam....and that is really where any similarities end.

Clark's National security status does not eminate from his experiences in Vietnam and then sitting in some chambers debating the debatable....as does John Kerry's and John McCain (for that matter).

Now, in reference to the Kosovo War, I am sorry, but I don't see how the Republicans (who have pushed and supported this Iraq Invasion) are gonna somehow "bad-mouth" someone who achieved a military objective in a short time, without any US military casualties and with minimal civilian deaths (I believe that Ammesty International and other humanitarian groups put the number of civilian deaths at approx 500). In addition, Clark was actually sacked BECAUSE he felt that putting "Boots on the ground" was a better strategy than bombing from high altitutes.....and he was correct in his assessement....but was "retired early" nevertheless.

The only ones that will come after Wes Clark on Kosovo will be the extreme left. Amy Goodman and her gang will certainly never support a General considering that she is a pacifist. But then, the last time I looked, Goodman and Kucinich supporters are just not the folks that decide National elections......that is certainly a fact.

To continue...Hillary Clinton will not end up with the nomination. That's my intuition. Like you said, she has no experience with a lot of things...and it will become apparent as soon as the press decides that she's not the one. (I have more on Hillary, but will keep it short at this time).

Your mention of Clark's lack of elective office is certainly a hurdle that Clark will have to jump....and he may not clear his mark...that is certainly very possible. Still, it makes me laugh that Hillary can go to New York, get elected...and all of the suddenm, she's a winner. Maybe if Clark would have gone to New York, he could have won as well. My point is that many don't like many of the politicians that have, in their own way, put us into the mess that we are in....and yet, those same folks are unwilling to even consider a particular someone only BECAUSE he/she is exactly the opposite of what they claim to abhor...a politician who talks a good game, yet most times accomplishes very little considering their initial claims.

All of the Democratic politicians will walk around talking about all of the programs that they will institute and propose, without even understanding that THERE WILL BE NO MONEY in the treasury for any of those programs. Why? Because the f*cking money is over at the Pentagon. Then the question becomes; will those same smooth talking and promising politicians have the intestinal fortitude and Know-how to go to the pentagon and get some of our money (like the BIG PORK), or will they be cowed and have to PROVE that they are not SOFT ON NATIONAL DEFENSE?

Keep in mind a very important point, IndianaGreen....Only Nixon could go to China....and I do believe that apart from McCain and Hagel (and I don't think that they will be very interested)....no other candidate will have the gravitas and the honesty to even propose cutting shit over at the pentagon.

So maybe some think that Clark has no issue to run on....but I seriously disagree.

Clark listens very closely to the grassroots.....and so he knows what will need to be done.

You're selling him short....and giving Hillary an awful lot of benefit of doubt.

[Skwmom]

152. The war hero meme didn't help the Democrats win the White House

in 2004 because the more people learned about the so called "war hero" the less the majority of people liked him. It's easy to attack a self-serving politician like Kerry, it's quite another thing to attack a man like Clark because the attackers risk a major backlash.

[Eloriel]

60. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Excellent documentation. BOOKMARKED! Nominating too....

:hi:

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Skwmom]

157. The 04 primary was the first primary that

I ever followed closely. That experience alone taught me that there is a heck of a lot of manipulation that goes on in politics and to be very careful about taking anything at face value. I felt that I (along with many others) were really played in 04. (I try to adhere to the old "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.")

Did you ever think maybe the DLC says something favorable about Clark because they don't want his support among the anti-DLC wing of the Democratic party to become to significant? Just curious.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

65. Clark is entirely to liberal for the DLC

and if they're pushing anyone, it's going to be Hillary.

How are they pushing him, I ask. And why isn't his name on the New Dem list if he's a DLCer.

He's not being pushed hardly at all really. His Fox stint will be his most visibility to date.

[1932]

124. Only elected Dems are on the New Dem list.

So, not being on the list if you're not an elected representative doesn't tell you anything.

[LittleClarkie]

67. I like Dean. I like Clark.

Clark sent out a thank you to the bloggosphere I'm told partially for those who defended him in his Fox decision. And also partially for the defense and support of the party chairman.

Clark is not against Dean. Why should his supporters be at each others throats. It's childish. It's divisive. It's non-productive. Dean and Clark are both working for the good of the party. Dean in his grassroots efforts and by stirring up discussion, and Clark in getting the message out and in support of the troops and with his credibility in foreign policy.

We need both these men out there fighting for us. To knock one of them down because of some long-past primary war is not helping anyone. I think they understand that. I wish their supporters did.

[CarolNYC]

82. Amen to that, LittleClarkie n/t

[AAARRRGGGHHH]

71. I'm in.

I'll go along with this.

[hippywife]

73. The only thing I have to say

other than I agree with Samantha is this...what I always think of when his name comes up:

Genl. Wesley "I love the smell of napalm in the morning!" Clark

He condemned himself in his own words of praise for Bush and Blair.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

That and the SOA:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0120-03.htm

He never has and never will get serious consideration from me at all. I had a hard enough time voting for Kerry. Clark makes Kerry look like he deserved the Peacenik of the Year award even though he muddled his stance on the war so badly.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

75. Defense of the SOA is my only maor issue with Clark

but it's enough to be a MAJOR turnoff..he may as well have defended GITMO..same difference

[jonnyblitz]

83. that is the big thing with me , also. SOA nt

[tishaLA]

185. It's my belief that he didn't "defend" SOA

but I may be wrong. I think he should condemn it, too, but we should expect that of all national-profile Democrats, not just Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

81. Well, you've got a right to hold your prejudice against Wes.....

No doubt about it.

Clark is the only reason that SOA still exists :sarcasm: ....I don't believe that calling him "Genl. Wesley "I love the smell of napalm in the morning!" Clark is really based on much of anything other than a pacifist smear. I will tell you that it is my opinionn that it will not be the Extreme Isolationist Pacifist of all and every war who will be deciding the 2008 election....just like they didn't the 2004 election....

SOA is always only used against Wes Clark, but the institution has been around Since 1963. Who was President then?

Not to defend this Red Herring against "only Clark" which would have absolutely no impact on our general Election, I believe that the attrocities discussed so frequently when SOA is brought up date back to the '80 and before.

"if you find anything that teaches human rights abuses . . . I'll close the SOA."--Wes Clark
http://www.birddogger.org/news.php?id=150

Context is important and something Democrats always accuse the GOP of lacking when making statements against our own.

First of all, Clark's main "support" for the School came in 1996, when he was the CinC of Southern Command for 1 year and at that time the school fell under his leadership.

Second, by the middle of the Clinton Administration, the U.S. had started to clean up its act significantly, with even State Department officials admitting that "they had done a lot of bad stuff in South America" in the '50s-'80s. The School now has a mandatory democratic education and civil rights component. It is a military training center that helps train officers from South American countries:

NewsFuckingFlash--by the 1990s, most of the countries in South America had become developing democracies, as opposed to the authoritarian regimes the U.S. had supported in the '50s-'80s. The SoA also went through further reform, with an external independent oversight board. It's supported by countries like Canada--OK, not ALWAYS the paragon of virtue, but hardly an enthusiastic supporter of imperialism in the contemporary era.

Here are the facts on the School (conveniently dating back to around the time Clark was CinC of Southern Command), now renamed the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation, from a non-partisan and progressive research institute's project on South America.

People who protest that institution aren't up to date--they have a right to demand restitution for past injustices, but as far as having real impact, they should turn their attention to the secret detentions and support for anti-terrorism in Asia and so on.

It is true that I don't know what's happening there now...and neither does Clark really.....but I will say that to make the guilt by association leap to condem Clark is just a propaganda technique to keep him out of the running.

Clark has been portrayed by the extreme Left as a War Criminal...and the extreme right as a crazed imbalanced man. For those who have seen for themselves and have researched Clark (like I have).....both of those images are far from the truth. SOA has become a rallying cry and symbol to many who are too lazy to go beyond the stereotypical label that they need in order to link the military...as opposed to the civilian lawmakers and policy shapers to account. But, hey, we can agree to disagree...right? :shrug:
-------------------
A Tom Rinaldo's Response that I am taking the liberty of posting. (Hope you don't mind Tom)

If that were all it was

I don't think it would still exist, and it wouldn't have operated openly for at least the last 15 to 20 years after some of those major abuses started coming to light, if that was the sole or even major mission of that institution. Many tens of thousands have received training of all sorts there. In one instance or another, to varying degrees, everything you said though is absolutely true. And I will go further and say that under the likes of Kissenger, and Reagan's Poindexter and Ollie North crowd, covert efforts to do exactly what you said were hatched by some within its confines.

However I am just not enough of a conspiritalist, or a radical I suppose, to buy that that school existed during the Carter and Clinton years with that as it's main intent, and that both of those Democratic Presidents fully supported everything you note went on there and maintained that school for those expressed purpose. I am more likely to accept that Presidents like Nixon, who set up his own "plumbers squad", and Reagan, who gave a green light to Ollie North's covert operations, allowed those shady operatives to use the cover of working inside those institution to further their covert ends, the same way that illegal and immoral operations are conducted through every established Government institution whenever honor and decency is suspended, including the FBI, the IRS, the INS and so forth.

In short I would say that Clark backed that School when he did because he felts that there was still an appropriate mission for it to play. Reforms were already underway when he spoke. A number of people who were trained there have done some terrible things. More didn't. Clark believes that positive lessons and models for multinational military cooperation have been developed in South America for fighting Drug Lords that can be applied to our international struggle against terrorists, operating in places like Pakistan and Yeman.

I would certainly ask of Clark both now, and should he become President, that he ensure that strong curbs be placed on either that institution, or any other that replaces it and attempts to pick up whatever legitimate functions it pursued, to absolutely minimize the potential for human rights violations flowing from training done at that School. It is my limited understanding that much of the reform efforts that were undertaken focused on that problem, which was most acute in the 1980's during Reagan's anti Sandanista days.

I would go further and say that all abuses should be completely eliminated, and guarenteed never to occur again, but I am too realistic to ask for that about anything. The U.S. will never have full control over the actions of agents from other countries that train with our military.
====
Hey, let's tar Max Cleland with the same brush as well as so many others......

Having said that, in my opinion we should and must continue such efforts as military education for our allies through the Marshall Center in Europe, the School of the Americas, and similar programs. It has always been my belief that those who understand war, including the true costs of war, understand peace and all of its blessings. Today, we train our military in the strategy of war and the art of peace. U.S. military personnel are well schooled as students of (Karl von) Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, (Alfred Thayer) Mahan, and the best known writers of conflict and engagement. At the same time, they also receive thorough and effective training in such fundamental American principles as subordination of the military to civilian control and respect for human rights. While our foreign military education efforts have not always succeeded in instilling such values, I believe that recent reforms will eliminate any such shortcomings in the future.
KEEPING OUR PRIORITIES WHILE KEEPING THE PEACE - Senator Max Cleland

[hippywife]

86. Training in the art of peace??

Give me a break. How's that human rights thing working out for Max in Iraq these days? I think Max has had a vested interest in keeping it open so his views are not really convincing.

I stand by my characterization of Clark as a war cheerleader based on his very own words in that Times/Uk article. He told me everything I need to know about his character.

[FrenchieCat]

91. like I said.....

we can agree to disagree. And since you really didn't comment on much of the substance of what I posted....I will assume, that although you apparently have such a strong 'passion' for "What's right", that passion doesn't include consideration of anytype of debate.

Maybe one day, I'll ask you about Darfur. I'm sure that this issue would be more pressing to one like you, who's so concerned about lives and all.....than what happened back in the 50s through the '80s.

As a Black individuals...I understand about the "Liberals" that would be so concerned about things they can't do shit about...but discuss the wrongs of it ad-nauseum....rather than to have some real concrete passion about things they can do something about.

What about Rwanda....does Clark advocating that we do something there get him any brownie points?...or is the fact that the mention of the dreaded SOA just takes discussion, consideration, context, meaning and reasonability and anything else off the table?

Actually, without knowing you, I think that you have provided enough insight within your two posts....so that I do feel that I understand where you are coming from! Truly, I do.

[hippywife]

94. Thanks for assuming

but I do believe something should have been done in Rwanda and should be in Darfur. That doesn't mean it has to be as extreme as all out war.

As for my passions, I just don't talk about them. I am very involved in the peace movement and even assisted in organizing and working a benefit for Darfur. I put my passions out on the street and am up to my elbows in trying to promote peace in one of the reddest of red states--Oklahoma.

I have no reservations in believing that this country created the so-called "war on terrorism" by our greed around the world. I sincerely believe that we've always created wars for our own uses and opportunities. We go into any country strictly for the rape of their resources, we are the terrorists. That is the only reason I believe no one interfered in Rwanda or Darfur...they don't have anything we want or need. That is the sad truth of it.

[FrenchieCat]

105. I agree with your statements....

But I also believe that you have described the reality....and I, for one, believe in working with what is realistic to work with towards the end that would be the opposite of the sad truth that you describe.

Again, in the end, I will agree to disagree that Clark is a bad man not worthy of support due to his views on SOA. I believe that if anyone will listen AND be able to do something to change the culture of our warmongering habits, I believe that he is the reasonable person to actually get something done. I witnessed the way that he is changing for the better the more he listens to his grassroots (and yes, he does listen).

I am willing and will continue to work on him in reference to a lot of issues that are important to many....such as DU, the SOA and NAFTA/CAFTA, Voting machines, etc...

I believe that the rest of the politicians that could actually come into the type of power that would really make a difference are never going to take a risk, because they almost can't afford it when we get into these kind of issues. The GOP will be right there to cry "Weak on National Defense" if they do.

I hope that you can respect that these are my views on that issue...and I certainly (as I said when I first addressed you ) hope that you understand that I know where you are coming from.

[hippywife]

109. We can amicably agree

on most things. Clark, however, will never be one of them.

Peace! ;-)

[FrenchieCat]

111. Your closing word is Ironic!

Peace to you too!

I hope that we get that....one day ASAP! :hi:

[ksclematis]

169. Oh, yes.....

as you mention Oklahoma, and as I recall in the '04 election primaries, our esteemed General Clark came out on the TOP side of the heap of candidates. Yes, he did win the Okie primaty!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

95. It's not just the 50's through 80's ..it's going on in Columbia today

[Tom Rinaldo]

101. This will go on one place or another as long as Republicans rule.

That is the bottom line. This is what they do. They took down Salvador Allende. They propped up the Contras. They will do it with Congressional consent when they can and without it when they can't. They will do it openly or they will do it covertly. They will do it "legally" or illegally. They will do it at the SOA or they will do it somewhere else. I favor shutting down son of SOA, but I am not so naive as to think that the sons of plumbers and heirs of Ollie North will shut down what they do along with it. Not so long as a Dick Cheney is running the White House.

Clark has said positive things about the stated mission of the SOA. I can say positive things about the stated mission also, you probably could if you really tried. Most of South America was ruled by Military Junta's for a hundred years. The military wasn't viewed as a tool of the ruling class, it was the ruling class. No human rights progress could/would happen in much of South America without challenging that mind set. The military has the guns. We tend not to think of that all of the time in the United States where there is NOT a firmly established tradition of military coups, but that was not the case in South America. Even if the SOA was a spotless program designed by Dennis Kucinich, some graduates of it would still go home and do horrible things, I have no doubt about that.

And since Bush is in the White House, I have no doubt that Son of SOA is now being used for immoral purposes. Why should that Institution be any different than any of the others that the Bush Regime controls? The Justice Department is being used to subvert Democracy under Bush for Christ's sake.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[hippywife]

97. Exactly!

Well put! My sentiments, as well.

[FrenchieCat]

99. on OT....So what about Darfur.....

What are your 'sentiments' on that situation?

[hippywife]

103. I already answered that in post 94. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

106. saw after the fact....

and replied.

[FrenchieCat]

98. I don't think that I took anyone's right away from them by making

my point, or did I?

I think that I made myself clear.....that I agreed to disagree.

The question is, I am afforded that right?

I say what I think.....and so, it appears, that you have that pleasure to as well.

[PATRICK]

77. Lord knows, but here is my take

Unless Clark waxes very exuberant about this KOD(Kiss of Death) endorsement i would assume- whether ideologically friendly to the DLC agenda or not- that this bumbling counter productive bunch(which is worse than their ideological errors) wants a strong front man. One who will take the flack
while the DLC regroups. Independent and charismatic like Clinton, he is not their IDEAL candidate. That would be a meek loser, 100% on target, even controllable, like a good little GOP front man.

If the media takes Clark down fine. If not, they'll have him to hide behind as they slink back onto the scene. Obama already quickly rebuffed their overtures in the bud when they wanted to put him on their successful DLCer list. Unless Wes courted this questionable endorsement which is of little value now it looks to me like the DLC is fishing for relevance trying to give a neophyte an offer he can't refuse- and he probably won't publicly shoot himself in the foot by warring with these dweebs.

I am wondering how the general is learning about politics. Most generals never really bothered to try and make the transition to master politician. They relied on delegation and their image. Clark would be well advised, being the smartest general ever to enter the fray, NOT to rely on the track record of traditional pros and get his own grasp on the mess. Sure he can fall flat, but can playing the loser games of many Dem strategists be any better?

I notice that this is a one way street endorsement for now as Clark is not even officially running and is one of those dedicated Americans(I wish I could trust the DLC committee was) who put the cause above personal ambition. It is those non entity, non politician, GOP lite bureaucrats that make the words Democratic Leadership at the very least a cruel oxymoron. You can suspect their agenda or their loyalty and it is perfectly consistent with their deleterious effect upon democracy and the party.

[AntiCoup2K4]

87. Nobody with Al From's endorsement will get my vote.

If the General knows what's good for him, he will distance himself as far from those treasonous fascists as possible. And sad to say, he's not doing that by going on FAUX News, where only DLC "Democrats" were ever allowed to speak previously, with rare exceptions.

[ClarkUSA]

92. Dean was a member of the DLC for a long time

Was he a "treasonous fascist" during that time?

I think not.

And Al From stating the obvious isn't an endorsement for President in 2008.

Wes Clark going on Fox News Live will help the Democrats get out the truth in time to help us in 2006. Have you seen this write-up of his first appearance there (all of three minutes total, btw):

"Wes Clark Surprises Hannity"
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/17/wesley_clark_surprises_hannity.php

Wes Clark has always told us he doesn't believe in preaching to the choir.

I'd like to think Al From is finally appreciating a proud liberal Democrat like Wes Clark who is also the strongest card in the DNC national security deck.

Thanks for the warning, though.

[Skwmom]

137. Maybe that's the intention of the endorsement.

After Clinton made the statement about Clark and Hillary being the rising stars of the Democratic party, a lot of people were turned off by Clark.

[ClarkUSA]

88. It sounds as if Al From likes a liberal Democrat who is strong on NS

Hey, General Clark really can draw crossover votes from even within the same party!

Wes Clark is a self-admitted proud liberal Democrat (there's footage of it on The Bill Maher Show - check it out sometime) who even draws praise for his obvious strong points from Al From.

Thanks for pointing this great ability on Wes Clark's part to gain respect from across the Democratic Party spectrum. It's the same ability he has to draw respect from moderate independents and Republicans and as well as proud liberals like himself.

Don't you wish more Democratic leaders could do that? Maybe if Wes Clark keeps this up, he'll be able to bring back Reagan Democrats back to the Party in time for 2006 - y'know, the ones who have confederate flags on the backs of their cars.

With neverending Bush wars on the horizon that might last until 2008, we'll need all the crossover appeal we can get to beat the Diebold margin of error.



:patriot:

[AntiCoup2K4]

90. There's only one problem with your statement.

Al From doesn't praise DEMOCRATS. He hates Democrats and everything this party stands for, which why he's made it his life mission to destroy the Democratic party from within.

That's why he called the 1994 theft of congress a "liberation".

That's why his buddy Will Marshall appeared on C-SPAN last night with PNAC shills from the AEI and the Hudson Institute and had the goddamned gall to call it a "progressive policy" discussion about celebrating the PNAC takeover of the Middle East.

That's why these fucking treasonous pieces of shit have celebrated every Democratic party loss of the last 20 years, while ALWAYS blaming it on the REAL Democrats and Progressives in this country.

Michael Moore endorsed the General. Clark refused to bash Moore when the media whores told him to. Al From the traitor bashes Moore openly, yet is now praising Clark?

Something doesn't compute here, and you better hope Clark calls these worthless motherfuckers out on it.

[snowbear]

100. Hey now...

...."Michael Moore endorsed the General"

So what... :shrug:

Bush endorses Mary Carey!! (and likewise I'm sure)

;)

Go for it General Clark ~~~~ "All Patriot, No Act!" :patriot:

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[Orangepeel]

102. Eh, From is a bastard, but he probably likes chocolate ice cream

just because Al From thinks something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea. Even a blind pig is right twice a day ;-)

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[1932]

108. DLC cares most about one issue: Globalization.

So long as big Ameircan corporations can make a lot of money off of cheap labor and resources abroad, the DLC is happy.

[ClarkUSA]

113. Al From likes Obama, Warner, Richardson...and many more people

Oh did I say that Al From thinks Barack Obama is the future of the Party?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1866195

That's it. I used to like Barack Obama, but forget it now.

:sarcasm:

[1932]

118. Obama hates DLC. He told them to stop lying & saying he was a member.

They had his name listed as a DLC'er and he demanded, very publicly, that they take his name off their material.

So Obama doesn't consider himself to be on board with the DLC agenda.

[ClarkUSA]

161. Source where he says he "hates" them. Clark is not a DLC member either.

Strange how that works.

Remember, Al From thinks Barack Obama is the Future of The Party.

There must be a good reason, huh?

[1932]

186. Clark couldn't be member even if he wanted to. You have to be elected to

office to be in DLC.

If Obama likes DLC, why was he so angry at DLC for claiming he was a member?

[Cocoa]

115. no surprise at all

Clark seems DLC all the way, imo.

But the best way to handle the DLC and any intra-party conflict is the way we handled Lieberman in the 2004 primaries: don't vote for their candidates.

There are going to be some excellent non-DLC candidates in 2008 for sure, among them Russ Feingold I hope.

(and by the way there was a great DLC candidate in 2004, Bob Graham, who was probably the first person to call for Bush's impeachment).

[ClarkUSA]

119. Really? How? Oh, you mean the way he defended Dean and Durbin?

Because you know how many DNC members did that, right?

<crickets chirping>

Or how he was endorsed by Michael Moore and George McGovern and the founder of Earth Day?

Or how he said he was proud to be a LIBERAL on the Bill Maher Show when most Democrats are afraid to utter the word these days?

Oh right, gotta remember that now we're PROGRESSIVES.

[1932]

122. The DLC aren't Repub's. They're pro-globalization, pro-free market Dems.

They don't care what you do about civil rights, the environment, workers' rights, etc., so long as when it comes down to a choice between free trade/market liberalization/globalization and those other progressive issues, you side with the big business (thus, Joe Lieberman and Al Gore are their poster boys).

[ClarkUSA]

125. Well, that's definitely not Wes Clark, if you want to read up on him here

In addition to Micahel Moore and George McGovern, he was endorsed by the Head of the Civil Rights Commission and the Founder of Earth Day and many labor leaders had him as their first choice until he failed to go to Iowa (his biggest mistake, as he will tell you plainly).

Here's more on who endorsed him (Native American tribes including the Abenaki tribe from VERMONT, of all places!): http://www.clark04.com/issues/

[1932]

130. Endorsements don't tell whole story. Clark's book, Winning Modern War

is very pro-US economic imperialism.

Furthermore, I don't remember him saying much during the campaign that would give anyone the impression that he wasn't for spreading American economic hegemony (through exploiting foreign labor and resources).

In fact, he is a member of N.E.D., which is the front organization for doing just that sort of thing.

Also, he's drawing paychecks from a couple different organizations all of whom are in just that sort of global capital business.

If From likes Clark, it might be because he know the globalization agenda won't be off the table if Clark were president.

[ClarkUSA]

158. Please provide source links to back up your allegations

And please read up on the issues. It's clear you haven't bothered to check where Wes Clark really stands on the issues, despite my giving YOU a source.

[1932]

187. Chapter 6. Winning Modern Wars.

And are you claiming he isn't a member of the N.E.D.?

As for quotes from Clark's campaign that suggest he changed his mind after writing Chapter 6 of Winning Modern Wars, I'll leave to people who want to claim that Clark isn't for a more powerful American empire.

Clark thinks virtual American empire is A.O.K. -- that the US doesn't need to use massive force because the softer power of persuasion can achieve the same ends. He should read Stiglitz's Globalization and its Disconsents and perhaps rethink the morality of, for example, the IMF's soft powers of persuasion.

[Sparkly]

159. Sources? Links?

What in his book shows "economic imperialism?"

What did he say during the campaign to indicate he's "for spreading American economic hegemony?"

Where did you get that take on the N.E.D.?

Which organizations are "just that sort of global capital business?"

[1932]

189. Chapter 6. Winning Modern Wars.

I don't think he said anything in the campaign that contradicts what he says in that chapter.

I also think the attitudes he expresses in that chapter are also consistent with his N.E.D. membership and with his current profession.

[ksclematis]

177. And, just where....

do you get all of your intelligent information?????

[Cocoa]

123. I like Clark

in fact I like him a lot, and think he could potentially be a great president.

You probably didn't understand what I wrote, since nothing you mention is relevant to it as far as I can see.

[ksclematis]

184. Lots of us like Clark, too....

it's just that we're trying to get more people to like him, and know him for the warm, friendly, intelligent, compassionate, brave, patriotic, experienced (need I go on?) person that we know he is.

So, if someone is ignoring your post, I'm sure we (at least I) apologize. We, too, think he would make a fantastic POTUS.....

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[Nikki Stone 1]

126. So is this a grudge from 2004?

?

[Texas_Kat]

127. Apparently,.....

Some People Never Change

[Nikki Stone 1]

131. Gotta go hunt through all this....#46.....

:party:

[Nikki Stone 1]

132. Ok, I don't get it

:dunce:

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[DaveinMD]

133. anyone people don't like

is a dlc'er. They are the boogeyman here

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

143. Hi Julie!!! Thanks for another lovely thread!!

Please do continue highlighting Wes Clark's ability to draw respect from all types of characters. Al From also thinks Barack Obama is the future of the Party, didja know that? Maybe you can post about Barack Obama being the DLC candidate for 2012 soon, since you're on a roll?

Oh, I know Wes Clark will keep defending Dean and other Democrats wherever he goes.

Isn't that admirable?

Thanks again, Julie, for bringing up Wes Clark's GREATEST quality - the ability to be a REAL liberal while being perceived as a moderate, as opposed some other Dems we know.

Guess he's got old Al From fooled, huh?

:hi:

[Crunchy Frog]

144. I know you're talking to Julie and not me.

But I just wanted to say that I wouldn't have even seen this thread if I hadn't found a link to it in one of your posts. So thanks!:D

[ClarkUSA]

154. Definitely.

And my pleasure. It's good to see you here.

I really did love that photo. :rofl:

People Never Change do they?

[Sparkly]

155. Sounds like I missed something good...

:(

[NMDemDist2]

156. You didn't miss anything at all. Nothing to see here, move along.....

:evilgrin:

[NMDemDist2]

148. interesting point ClarkUSA and I think it's great he's getting press

in his home state.

[bvar22]

179. OBAMA despises the DLC,

and has repremanded them for trying to latch onto his coat tails. The DLC featured OBAMA as a New Rising Star in the DLC.

OBAMA responded with several letters and public statements to the effect that He is not now, nor has he ever been a member of the DLC , and strongly insisted that the DLC REMOVE his name from their literature and the DLC Website!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/8/102/32777

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[BamaLefty]

145. Maybe The DLC Is Coming To Thier Senses...

Bout damn time. I still say shut them up though.

[ksclematis]

162. Web link doesn't provide article n/t

[LibertyorDeath]

164. Damn that's good

[ClarkUSA]

168. How thoughtful! You kicked this thread & you & OP have the SAME logo

How special.

Yes, it's downright touching how both of you and the OP share the same opinion and logo. You both must truly admire the fact that Wes Clark excites respect from all quarters to make sure people know about it this way.

Why, any man who thinks Barack Obama is the Future of the Party can't be all bad,
right? And if the DLC is so bad, why was the present chairman of the Democratic Party a member for so very long, right? Dean turned out great. Gore too was a member at one time and he turned out fine, didn't he?

I don't believe in using boogeymen to scare up negativity and doubt, do you?

No, I thought you wouldn't.

Let's hear it for good Democrats who appeal to alot of different kinds of folks!

:toast:

[LibertyorDeath]

175. What we have here is a failure to communicate

I do not share the same logo as the op it's the first time I've seen it
& I found it pretty funny.

My opinion re Clark & Dean is they are both highly intelligent & honorable men who want whats best for the American public.

In the primaries I wanted Clark for President & Dean for VP

They would have eaten bush & cheney Alive IMO

What we have here is a failure to communicate :)

Cheers

Clark & Dean in 08

[The Jacobin]

170. 06 is much more important

Without control of the House or Senate we are frozen out of the real power in this country. Get those seats first, then worry who will be the nest prez.

P.S. You do remember that Clark has run for election exactly once and did so poorly that he couldn't even make it out of the primary? I prefer supporting proven winners.

[high density]

171. Proven winners like John Kerry?

??????? What type of comment is that?

[The Jacobin]

174. This.

A governor like Bill Richardson who demolished his repug opponent in an state that went for Shrub.

Besides, you should have done your reading (blackboxvoting.org) and listening (Randi Rhodes) to know who won the 2004 election.

[high density]

178. Well it seems Bush won because he's in the White House right now

But please let me know if I'm in stuck in some sort of horrific alternative reality here that I can get out of.

As for Richardson, if he received the nomination for president, I'd support him. But he probably wouldn't be my first choice during the primary season.

[Hippo_Tron]

172. Great, if you don't like it, then support somebody else

[high density]

173. So the DLC likes a real liberal?

Sounds great to me. What's the freaking problem?

[FightinNewDem]

176. Reality Check

Hate to break this to some of you, but most of the prospective 2008 candidates are more-or-less New Dems.

Edwards? He counts DLC president Bruce Reed as a top policy advisor.

Hillary? Her husband chaired the DLC.

Bayh? He chairs it now, and is a key member of the New Democrat Caucus.

Richardson? A frequent speaker at DLC events and an unabashed New Democrat.

Vilsack? Ditto.

Warner? He participated in a symposium on charter schools sponsored by the DLC's think tank earlier this month. He also appointed DLC education wonk Andy Rotherham to the Virginia State Board of Education.

Biden? He was the recipient of the PPI's Harry Truman Award for his work on foreign policy.

Basically, with the exception of Feingold and Boxer, the field is thoroughly compatible with the DLC worldview. Maybe it's the DLC-bashers who are out of step with the real Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

[Capn Sunshine]

182. wow.

I wonder how this will play in 2007. Until then it's all just BS.
If they truly care about the party, they will give '06 their best shot, all of them.

[tishaLA]

183. I'm glad we feel free to attack Democrats today

When Pelosi, Frank, Obama (his chutzpah as an uppity FRESHMAN senator, indeed!) et al did it not too long ago, everyone thought it incredibly disrespectful. Today, though, we have fixed our sights on another target and so.....fire away.

It's a duplicity I have found consistent, at any rate, so I suppose it's not even duplicity any more. It's just the same old shit.

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

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

[Moderator]

190. Locking

this small article from Little Rock has become a flamefest.