the timing of the clark withdrawal...a move to hurt Edwards?

[bearfartinthewoods]

this has been bugging me. clark's son revealed that the clark campaign was hurting before VA and TN yet he stayed in, despite polling that showed no victory. am i the only one who would like to know the precise date kerry and clark first talked about the endorsement?

is it just coincidence that clark stayed in long enough to split the anti kerry vote, a big chunk of which might have gone to Edwards?

[ShaneGR]

1. I don't think it was to purposely hurt Edwards

But it did hurt us. If he had followed his instincts and dropped after Oklahoma this would be much closer at this point.

[BootinUp]

2. Clark was in the running in TN - He/We wanted to win

it wasn't no god damn conspiracy, excuse my french.

[susanna]

96. No kidding...

I've been on pins and needles for months watching everything transpire. I was hopeful of TN, not so hopeful in VA. Either way, Clark fought his final fight in those states.

As a matter of fact, during that week, he cancelled a fundraiser I was scheduled to attend in Michigan. He needed to be in TN/VA at the time and made the decision. I respected it, because I understand strategy. He was pushing to win TN/VA, I am absolutely sure of it. So the idea that he was playing with TN/VA? No way.

[mmonk]

3. No

The campaign was trying very hard to have a better showing in Tennessee before the next round of states. The momentum could have produced a close second in WI. TN ended up harder to crack.

[jpgpenn]

4. Your Kidding Right?!

You know it's funny how one person has a take on things and someone else has an entirely different perception. You try to paint a picture that Clark stayed in the race to hurt Edwards, as if Edwards had this overwhelming following and his past experiences in the area of domestic and world affairs were second to none.

I have this take, Edwards staying in the race while Clark was there derailed Clark's campaign. Clark was totally ingnored and blacked out from ALL news media. They wanted him out and at the same time PUMPED up a weak candidate like Edwards.

To sit back and play these fantasy games with yourself as if Edwards is some kind of once in a lifetime leader for our country is laughable to me. At best Edwards should be considered for Attorney General.

[BootinUp]

6. At some point we need to stop

bashing each other....

[jpgpenn]

8. Who is 'bashing"?

This is how I felt then and it's how I feel now. Edwards was the latest media puppet to take out Clark. It is my opinion it was to work something like this. From the beginning they did everything they could to smear Clarks name so he could gain no traction, then once he stared gaining traction in NH. they stepped everything up a notch. Dean first self imploded then they focused in on pumping up Edwards , a guy that was near bottom with no following for the sole purpose to derail Clark. With Clark outa the race they could now focus their bite onto the front runner, Kerry. All in an effort to steal another election from the American people.

This is how I saw it then and it is how I see it now!

[BootinUp]

10. no doubt

there are those journalists/reporters that cover politics that seemed to take a disliking to Clark, or perhaps they were worried he was a threat to dubya, and they smeared him or ignored him, no question.

These days with 24/7 cable news and the internet, once a meme/story gets going it can just get a life of its own. Thats the mo, everyone and their brother reports a story on every news outlet and there it goes.

I think we should give some credit to the campaigning skills of Edwards, and Kerry, they did what they needed to do. I will never be inspired by either like I was by Clark, but Clark didn't campaign in Iowa and we can't go back in time.

I don't really see a huge conspiracy, I see a lousy press covering our elections that encourages dirty politics. And the journalists play the game for their own gain as well.

[jpgpenn]

11. This is where you and I are totally in disagreement!

This was a conspiracy along the lines that took away our choice for President in 2000. They quickly tuned into what worked for them in the past!

I don't credit anyone for having great "campaigning skills". I looked at the heart of the person. So called "campaigning skills" should be the very least folks should look at when choosing a candidate. The entire process stinks to high hell!

[BootinUp]

13. yea it stinks

I guess maybe I don't want to see it. It's too depressing.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

60. Dean imploded?????

But Clark was victim of the media?

[jpgpenn]

63. yes

turning red in the face and yelling down folks at a rally, his famous rant on live tv after the Iowa defeat. Yes I say "imploded" and stick by it.

[ShaneGR]

15. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response

So I won't. Sick of the bashers.

[Tweed]

74. Wasn't that a response?

[bearfartinthewoods]

17. no. i'm not kidding

at the point when clark's son first talked about his father withdrawing from the race, Edwards had never hinted at anything but a long term campaign. that's the difference in my mind.

i'm a cynic by nature and if i were kerry, the instant i heard clark's son say he would withdraw, (and that was said), i'd be backchanneling my ass off to get the word to clark that it would be in his best future interest to stick it out until after TN and VA to dilute the support of dems looking for a southern candidate.

[AP]

24. Exactly.

And what did Clark do after deciding to stick around?

He criticized Edward's tax plan in a way that was hypocrtical.

It's like when CMB stuck around and then criticized Edwards in the debate.

Everyone sticks around after they're fiinished to take a hit at Edwards.

It's BS.

[Tweed]

76. It's not BS, its concern

None of the candidates that have dropped out have endorsed Edwards, because they know he isn't ready. They critize Edwards because have a legitmate concern that Edwards could beat Bush. Interesting that the only thing people could bring down Clark on was saying that he was a Republican when the only party he ever was registered in was the Democratic party. At least the critiques of Edwards invovled actual problems that Edwards has.

[jpgpenn]

66. What's really amazing about this Edwards guy is...

His beleif that there are hordes of folks just fainting to have him as Pres. This guy was given a major pumping up by the media for the SOLE purpose to take down Clark's numbers. All mind you while they TOTALLY ignored and blacked out Clark.

Edwards has ZERO, NOTHING, NADA experience in the area of Domestic or World Affairs.Many such as myself would be scared shitless if this guy had to go up against that slimeball "appointed" in our White House!

[surfermaw]

90. Entered the race the same day Edwards did to take the shine of Edwards

Sounds mighty suspicious to me....

[mikehiggins]

5. If Clark had beaten Edwards significantly we wouldn't be

having this discussion. The Clark campaign had committed to fighting it out in VA and TN and at that point what would be sense in just walking away?

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the "pros" involved in the Clark camp had discussed this with the Kerry people but there is no way you will convince me that Clark would have kept going just to screw Edwards. He may very well have believed, looking at the welcome he was getting all across both states, that he had a better chance than any of the polls suggested. I sure did.

I was very surprised at the voting in those two states, and very surprised that he didn't do much better in both. Go figure.

As to the remarks you refer to from his son, I really don't know what you are referring to. Do you have a link or anything?

[KittyWampus]

20. Virginia & Tenneessee Were Open Primaries. GOP Voted Edwards

to kill off Clark... the ones in tune with the "Mean Machine".

There is no doubt in my mind if it had been closed primaries, Clark would have either won or come in second.

[AP]

50. Do you have evidence of this? My understanding is that the Dem convention

does not sit delegates from states with open PRESIDENTIAL primaries. MI has an open primary. That's why, for the presidential election, they had to come up with a different way to vote. If they didn't, their delegates couldn't sit at the convention.

Moderate voters do like Edwards a lot. But I don't think Republicans are allowed to vote in ANY of the primaries for president.

[democratreformed]

51. Republicans aren't allowed to vote in primaries????

I KNOW that here in my state, each voter merely walks in and asks for the primary ballot they want to vote in. The very first time I voted (several years ago), they asked "Democrat or Republican?" This was the poll worker asking. They have never asked again b/c I live in a very small rural town and they know me and know what I am. IF I wanted to vote in the Republican primary, all I would have to do is ask for that ballot next time.

Many states are just like that - especially in the south. That is not secret.

[AP]

52. Not for presidential primaries. The Dems will not seat delegates from

open primary states.

MI has open primaries. That's why they had to come up with a different method for the presidential primary. That's why they were talking about internet voting.

[democratreformed]

75. So, in other words, my vote has never counted in a primary election?

Just like they don't count in VA and TN which were open primaries? I've often wondered about this - if we were just going through the motions and the delegates could do as they choose at convention.

[BootinUp]

77. that was a funny right? LOL

[democratreformed]

80. No, I've been thinking about this all day

I really think that's what AP is trying to tell me up there.

[AP]

86. I'm repeating what I was told by DU'ers

I don't live in an open primary state. However, I believe it's the case that Dems will not seat delegates from open states where REPUBLICANS can vote in the primary. Perhaps independants are OK. But I'm almost certain Republicans cannot.

Are you a Republican who voted in your primary?

[democratreformed]

91. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!

I have never been and never will be a Republican. I have not even voted yet. I don't vote until May 18. But, I do know that my state has an open primary. Also, TN and VA are listed as having open primaries.

All I was saying was that, if they don't seat delegates from states with open primaries (of which my state has always been one), then my vote does not count and never has b/c the delegates won't be seated - whatever that means. It seems to mean that they don't count.

It's just that this is the first I have ever heard of this. It is widely known that some states do, indeed, have open primaries.

My dad IS a Republican. In May, if he so chose, he could walk in and ask to vote in the Democratic primary. I know that for a fact. As far as how it goes elsewhere, I don't know but have heard others describe the same scenario.

On edit: Now that I think about it, maybe these rules have been recently changed by the DNC. Maybe that is why Arkansas just started offering the choice to mark party affiliation on your registration. I believe that is why 90-something percent of the voters here are classified as independent. These are the ones that registered before they offered that choice. The only ones classified Repub. or Dem. are the younger ones who registered after that changed and those who faithfully went and changed theirs when the choice was given.

[HereSince1628]

7. Until the autobiography is written we'll never know...

The primary season has one end...the nominee.

Those candidates that won't get the laurel wreath will have to drop out a some point. Does the timing of the dropping out influence things? Sure it does.

However, seeing secret alliances behind every action is going to make voting for the Dem nominee harder, not easier.

I am pretty sure Clark will write an interesting book about his role in this primary campaign, but I am not looking for it to be on sale soon.

[MoonRiver]

9. Well, if Clark knew Kerry was the candidate he would endorse,

it makes political sense. I still believe that Kerry and Clark have already agreed to run together. They may have even strategically planned Clark's withdrawal to benefit THEIR ticket.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

12. What suprises me .............

Is the endorsement of Kerry within 24 hours after dropping out. I guess I am wondering how you can beat up Kerry's war record, slam his record in the senate then turn around the very next day and endores it all sayiny "he has what it takes to lead". I lost some respect on that one.

[BootinUp]

14. Clarks a pragmatist

he wants to beat those bush bastards. All of his supporters would have been drifting in limbo, there was no point in waiting to make the endorsement IMHO.

As to differences with Kerry positions or past votes, he doesn't deny that, just that it is important to move forward on item one, beating the shrubmeister.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

16. Maybe

But just can't get on board with "Beat them by becoming like them"

[bearfartinthewoods]

18. that quick turnaround is part of what started me thinking along these line

[Nashyra]

23. I don't think Clark stayed in the race to "split"

the vote, however I do think that he had all intentions of withdrawing after TN if he did not come in 2nd in at least one, I know we wanted 2nd in both. Having said that with Clark's dropping out so quick I was wondering why it did not become just a footnote like Gephart and Lieberman, they covered it more than they ever did his campaign and effectively took any bounce that Edwards might have gotten from beating him. Had he stayed in Edwards wiould have been on the news 24/7 instead it was Clark. CNN showed more of Clark speaking during the endorsement than Kerry. I wasn't happy that he dropped out but I trust Clark whole heartedly, I believe his goal is to get rid of * no matter what. If that meant jumping on the bandwagon to vault Kerry so be it, I personally was offended by the "press" picking the nominee I was going with Dean until Claek said he was endorsing Kerry. I trust him what can I say and I lost absolutely no respect, his goal has been from day one to get rid of the * it wasn't a personal quest or lifelong goal.

[LandOLincoln]

67. Look, it's clear Rove/Sludge had been sitting on the Kerry intern story

for at least a couple of weeks, dying to use it to step on the Dubya AWOL story but not daring to smear Kerry while Wes Clark--their worst nightmare--was still in the race and the obvious beneficiary of any Kerry takedown.

Therefore the timing of Drudge's attempted smear: exactly one day after Clark drops out. PLUS Drudge drags Clark into the smear by claiming Clark had spilled the intern beans to reporters "off the record." Trying to take them both out with one grenade, in other words.

So Clark the strategist (a) vehemently denies as "absolute rubbish" the claim that he'd smeared Kerry, and (b) immediately flies to Wisconsin to endorse and stand with him. One grenade lobbed right back into Karl's fat lap, in other words.

I'll go so far as to speculate that Kerry and Clark have had this contingency planned for some time. I think they may have set Rove up, as a matter of fact.

And the upshot is, Wes is right back in the picture, Kerry's numbers go up another 5-10 points, and KKKarl is spending heavily on Depends. What's not to like?

And it's only just begun. Buckle up, everybody. This is going to be one HELL of a ride!

[Kinkistyle]

33. How long would you like Clark to wait?

Hmmm? In the end its ABB. ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB. ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABBABB. ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB

ANYONE BUT F*CKIN BUSH.

Clark felt that he was the better candidate than Kerry, I did too. The Democratic voters didn't think so. Clark accepted that and decided to throw his support behind the next best person. Would you like him to wait a subscribed period of time before doing that, or would you rather that he get started early to help build up momentum?

[Crunchy Frog]

62. I think the timing of that endorsement

may have had something to do with preempting the Drudge smear that had just come up, and was IMHO falsely implicating Clark. Remember, the one that generated about 11 pages worth of threads on here? If it hadn't been for that, Clark might have held off a while longer on the endorsement.

From numerous things that Clark has said, I always believed that his endorsement of Kerry at some point, was inevitable.

[HuskerDem]

19. No, Clark wanted to win the presidency - His strongest ground

or at least some of it was supposed to be the south. When we dropped out I looked for boogey men around every tree and then it hit me.

People voted for KERRY. That's why he's the front runner.

I don't choose to believe that the people who voted for Clark and Edwards were voting against Kerry, they were voting for Clark and Edwards. I'll bet if you endeavored to ask them they would tell you the same.

[HFishbine]

21. If "polling that showed no victory"

is some sort of criteria, one must wonder, is Edwards staying in the race to hurt Dean or vice versa?

[democratreformed]

25. Best answer

I still say that WE worked very hard for Wes in TN. I didn't go to VA but I'm sure people there worked very hard as well. When the voting showed that he did very well in those areas we concentrated on, but not in those we didn't, it was time to face facts: when you have to work that hard to get your message across, things are just NOT going well. It was time to admit it was NOT going to change. It WON'T change for any of the others either. Other candidates and their supporters will be forced to face the same grim reality in the coming weeks - Kerry has it locked up. The momentum cannot be overcome.

[AP]

22. Everything Clark has done has been aimed at hurting Edwards.

It's hard to identify an action by Clark that wasn't designed to hurt Edwards.

(Yet, I still said plenty of good things about him and defended him, especially when NPR lied about him, up to his last 2 days, when his comments about E's tax plan drove me over the edge.)

[BootinUp]

26. Ya mean - Clark wanted to win?

Look, I've already looked into the abyss that you're approaching, it ain't fun, but lashing out at CLark isn't going to help your candidate.

[democratreformed]

27. Speaking about Edwards and Kerry

was his last attempt to put some legs under his struggling campaign - one that never got that attention it deserved. His optimistic message was being ignored. The negative ones got some attention - but it was too late. I was sad that he had to resort to that - but he finally figured out that was how the game is played. I don't think he was comfortable with it - and, in the end - it didn't work either.

But, he had to try. He had to do everything he possibly could before admitting that nothing was working. He did his very best and the rest of America just did not agree with us. I am more let down by the voters than anything else - besides the media.

In the end, though, there is nothing we can do to stop what is going to happen with JK. It makes me feel better that Wes supported him. It makes me feel more comfortable with him. It makes me believe that he will still be doing everything he can to work for America.

[BootinUp]

28. thanks for that post

It's very much the way I saw it from the outside looking in.

[Kinkistyle]

34. Exactly. Aren't Dean and Kerry also "out to get Edwards" as well?

After all, their whole campaign was designed to defeat Edwards. Such idiocy within my party own is so lamentable. :eyes:

[AP]

39. Dean seems to be aiming at Kerry, not so much at Edwards.

Which is interesting, because the same things he uses to criticize Kerry could be said about Edwards.

Clark criticized Edwards but not Kerry for things that could have as easily been said about Kerry.

This isn't rocket science folks.

These candidates are telling you something.

[Kinkistyle]

41. What do mean? Clark's worst mudslinging was against Kerry.

His comment in response to Dole's badgering about his own rank compared to Kerry - which is regretable. He also remarked about Kerry ALONG with Edwards about the Iraq War vote.

No its NOT rocket science. Clark wanted to win. Thats it. You make it seem as if though Clark has some sort grudge against Edwards based on some hairbrained theory. NO. Clark's campaign is over. He is throwing is support behind a fellow soldier. If you really want Edwards to win, whining about what you think Clark did is certainly not going to win supporters to your cause.

[AP]

46. I think the comment about rank ended up helping Kerry, but I also

don't think it was calcluated.

His comment about Edwards and taxes was aimed to misrepresent one of Edwards's biggest strengths -- only 6% of NH voters thought that taxes were the most important issue, but almost all of them voted for Edwards (if memory serves). Also, the way the comment was phrased was designed to undermine Edwards's persona as looking after people who work for a living.

And that wasn't the only thing. At the Edwards blog, somebody said that they heard that people who ended up working for Clark leaked Edwards's ORIGINAL announcement that he'd run for president the day before Edwards was goingn to announce. Edwards had a big event planned at the mill his father worked in. Instead the media met Edwards in his driveway the morning before. So the pictures were of him going to work with his kids wrapped around his legs. That's all well and good, but he had a more powerful set of images he wanted to be in the minds of Americans, which Clark campers denied him. That's just a rumor, so give it whatever credence you chose.

More undeniable is the fact that Clark did anounce his intention to enter the race on the day Edwards had his official announcement, which, again, denied Edwards the full attenition of the media in a way that was supposed to send home a message about Edwards.

Clark's first comment about any other candidate was about Edwards. I can't remember what it was, but it was a snide comment about him.

Then Clark criticized Edwards for talking with Shelton, even though Edwards didn't say a damn thing about Clark that came from Shelton. In fact, he didn't say a think about Clark.

And then there was the tax thing too.

[roguevalley]

101. If Edwards was winning things, this conversation wouldn't be going on.

Edwards is losing because he's Edwards and when people
are voting, they put the check mark next to Dean, Kerry
or Clark. If Edwards tanks, its because of Edwards.

Frankly, I'm severely pissed. You guys get to vote and
ten F**King states took the chance to decide away from
the remaining 40 of us and F**Kiing American Samoa.

Cry in your beer. I don't get to do squat about what I
want. Edwards isn't first because people aren't voting
for him. And the remaining forty states? They won't
either.

[AP]

36. I'm not lashing.

I'm not being emotional about this. I'm stating what appears to be a fact.

[AP]

38. Clark wanted to win. Clark wants Kerry to win. Clark might not want

Edwards to win.

That's what I'm saying.

[MidwestMomma]

44. You are right that Clark does not want Edwards to win

I'm guessing that's why he endorsed Kerry. Why? People have said because if Clark can't be the nominee, then he wants the nominee that can run best against a war president and at this point, it looks like the majority believe that is Kerry.

I know a lot of people are big on Clark being the VP but I tend to think a more balanced ticket would be Kerry/Edwards. That way we would have Edwards to balance out Kerry on keeping the domestic side of the issues in the race. That's just my thoughts anyway.

Good luck to Edwards in WI this week.

[AP]

47. Maybe it's because Clark wants to run against Bush in 2008 rather than

against Edwards's successor in 2012? I don't really believe that. I believe it's about power, and getting on the good side of the guy who will be the senior democrat on the two most powerful senate committees from 2004-2008. However, Gert did introduce Clark as the next president of the USA in the last speech before Clark's concession.

[democratreformed]

45. Clark has accepted what will be

So have I.

[Tim_in_HK]

35. Wow, you must be a saint.

St. Peter's gonna welcome you with open arms for your standing up for Clark.

Edwards is a good guy . . . but he sure ain't someone who needed to be 'taken down' or some such ridiculousness.

[jpgpenn]

64. Like the way Edwards said he TIED with Clark in Ok.?

give it a rest!

[AP]

71. Clark almost quit after his OK performance because they basically tied

after Edwards barley campaigned there and Clark swung for the wall.

[BootinUp]

72. spin cycle on max?

Edwards spent far, far, far, more time in OK than Clark ever did. Clark also had to counter the big MO. He did just fine thank you.

[democratreformed]

73. I lack the enthusiasm to argue with these people anymore

If they insist on blaming Clark for every evil in this primary race, more power to them. It's not gonna get them any further than our hard work and effort got us. Hey, at least they won't have to combat the media blackout that we did..... maybe.

[OKNancy]

81. That is not true

and I have posted it over and over. Edwards campaigned in Oklahoma more than any other candidate. He spent more days here than anyone, he campaigned longer than anywone, and he got the most donations of any candidate. He ran commercials for 6 months before the primary.

DO not post this again. It is not true.

[AP]

85. Edwards in the last three days was down by a lot and, could be wrong, he

made one stop on Saturday. They put no resources, and few people there.

They had written it off.

[KittyWampus]

87. That Is A LIE! Edwards Spent MILLIONS AND MONTHS On Oklahoma

and yet even with his Momentum Clark beat him.

Nice try in perpertuating a myth. Can't let it go unchallenged.

Also, Edwards spent OVER THE LIMIT in NH and Clark beat him there.

More proof that Edwards is a weak candidate.

Clark bested Edwards in the majority of the races... with either no coverage or coverage that approached character assasination level.

[roguevalley]

102. BWAHAHA! This thing is making me salivate to see Edwards lose. Since

ten states have already decided, the remaining forty of
us get this side show. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[mmonk]

29. Wouldn't it hurt Edwards more

for Clark to have stayed in? At the time, he had more support than Edwards in WI. If he'd stayed in, that would be more votes not going to Edwards. I don't know, just don't think the campaign was geared to stop Edwards, but to win. Silly of me? :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Clark split military vote with Kerry

Don't be so sure that an earlier Clark withdrawal would have helped Edwards. Sure Clark and Edwards were touted as the Southern candidates splitting the southern vote, but Edwards was always more of a Southerner than Clark. Clark and Kerry were fighting for those patriotic veterans.

If you are inclined toward conspiracies, the one I would go with is this one: For the longest time Kerry as a war hero who fought in Viet Nam was NOT played up, because calling attention to that played into Clark's strength as a candidate. Clark was a hero in more than one war. Have you noticed how the emphasis of media coverage has shifted lately away from Domestic issues toward how Kerry can stand up to Bush on War and Peace? Clark is now safely out of the race.

I think Kerry would have gotten strong majorities in both Virginia and Tennessee if Clark had been out of the race before then, which would have looked even worse for Edwards, who still would have come in second with no excuses against a candidate, Kerry, who would have won well over 50% of the vote in Edward's neighboring states.

[MidwestMomma]

37. I agree with your analysis

I think Clark was siphoning off way more of Kerry's votes than Edwards. So with Clark out, Kerry will probably start winning by bigger percentages.

So if anything, Clark staying in for the VA and TN primaries kept Kerry from winning by an even bigger margin. That's just my take on it.

Edwards said after the TN and VA primaries that he was ready for a 2 man race with Kerry. As a Clark supporter, it pissed me off at the time. Now with Clark's endorsement of Kerry, I feel kind of sorry for Edwards and his supporters. Appears like they are about to get steamrolled too.

I have no idea what I'm going to do at this point. Fight the tide or go with it? But those that still have a candidate in this race, keep on keepin' on...Peace out.

[AP]

40. The military vote isn't that big. It's a small subset of the southern vote

for example.

[Kinkistyle]

42. Right. "War", "Terror", "National Security". These words are meaningless.

In our day and age where Republicans can win through the sheer repetition of the words "Terror", "Al Qaeda" and "Homeland Security", military experience is of miniscule importance.

[AP]

48. That's homefiled advantage for Republcians. Max Cleland couldn't win

in that environment. I doubt McCain could beat Bush in this environment.

Democrats win, even during war time, on their strengths, not on their weaknesses. Even FDR, during war, ran on Democratic strengths.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. By military vote I meant to include

All those who are concerned about national security as a priority issue, with military voters an obviously important sub set along with veterans and other voters who place a high emphasis on this. Dean and Edwards were not strong contenders for those votes, Kerry and Clark were. In general this plays as a more important issue in the South than elsewhere.

[AP]

49. The media will turn off the military vote imperative as soon as Kerry is

nominated.

You know how the media has ONLY talked about terror and Iraq for three years, ingoring the crappy economy.

Well, after Kerry is nominated, they're going to stop talking about Iraq and terror, and they're going to act like the bounce in manufacturing jobs/output delivered by a sinking dollar is a sign that the economy is getting better.

Kerry has no credibility on class issues or on trade (he's pro-Nafta). Without the "war" he'll be dead in the water.

That's what's going to happen.

[AP]

53. I was hoping someone would reply to this.

[democratreformed]

56. Maybe you forgot you were talking to Clark supporters in this thread

I, for one, am ready to accept Kerry since it seems inevitable. I am not ready to defend him. For one, I haven't studied about him or his issues - tried to go there yesterday but just couldn't stomach it yet. I don't know if I will ever be able to jump entirely on the bandwagon and will never be gung-ho probably. But, I am entirely on the Democrat bandwagon and will the core values of the Democratic party as talking points when it comes up. That's really all I can say right now.

Also, your posts play on my fears a little. Some of your fears (or at least those that you articulate) have and still are my fears. But you know what, I lost what I thought was my best hope. I can't get that back. For now, I have resigned myself to accepting what I can get. In the future, who knows?

[andym]

54. My prediction: Kerry will adopt a form of populism

My prediction: Kerry will adopt a form of populism.

My bet is that Kerry will soon be talking about two Americas.

[AP]

55. Leno's joke last night: Kerry's solution: find a rich country like Switz.

and marry it.

Kerry will have no credibility when it comes to populism. Just as Gore did not.

Do you understand how easy it will be for Bush to portray himself as POORER than Kerry, and closer to the average American? He'll really start using his ex-librarian midland wife to his advantage.

[roguevalley]

103. And Edwards down home stories about growing up poor don't wash

when the enemy brings out his big time lawyer background.
Populism knows no social distinctions. FDR was a populist.
So was Truman. Edwards has no lock on anything but losing
or winning. Its up to him. If he fails, its because people
didn't vote for him. No conspiracy there.

[BootinUp]

58. Some of us bleedin heart librals care about Nat Sec too!

n/t

[AP]

68. Than support a nominee who can beat Bush in Nov instead of one who'

is playing on Republican home field advantage -- someone who represents the strengths of the Dem party the best, and not one who patches its weaknesses.

[BootinUp]

69. You are a tireless advocate

Edwards would be proud.

:)

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[funky_bug]

32. I'm going to lean towards "No" with some "Yes" thrown in.

There have only been two single things in the entire Clark campaign that have left me feeling disappointed. The first was his dismal NH debate performance. The second was his Edwards-lashing leading up to the TN vote. Look, I'm no dummy and I know politics can be a dirty game, succesful in part because the majority of voters don't take the time to learn about the candidates, and go blindly into that gentle night, voting along the lines of the latest commercial and flyer slander.

That being said, I don't think Clark tried to hurt Edward's run in favor of aiding Kerry's status. Do I think that maybe he and Kerry had a deal long before? Possibly, but I don't think that made any difference in how Clark played the game. I think he tried to play the politics game because he was hanging on by a thread and his campaign needed a TN win to stay alive. I believe that Clark is a realist. He knew when the game was over for him, and he didn't take any time folding his cards.

Look, I like Edwards (though some of his DU supporters are repugnant and rude.) But the fact of the matter is, he wasn't getting the votes. If it took Clark, Edwards, Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton to split the anti-Kerry vote, and Kerry still had a commanding lead in most states with ALL the other votes combined, then it's a moot point. Like I've said before, you need to learn to stand out in a crowd BEFORE it thins, if you want to be seen as a viable alternative.

[Adelante]

57. Kerry was always the only choice for Clark

No other candidate, except for Bob Graham who had dropped out, ever met the national security/foreign policy credential level that a Clark endorsement would require.

This is what Clark said to the Boston Globe after he entered the race:

"I like John Kerry. If John Kerry wins and he becomes president, I'll be happy. The problem is, and the reason I'm in this race, is because I don't think John Kerry's going to win. He just hasn't taken off. He's not connecting. My wife said early on: `I like that man. He's a senator. He talks well. He's really smart. Why do they keep coming to you? Why don't they go to John Kerry?'"

About the timing...

Like everybody else it's a puzzlement to some or other extent. Also like everybody else, who the hell really knows except Kerry and Clark? But I do have an instinctive conclusion, entirely supposition about the timing.

Clark lost on Tuesday. Clark called Kerry to let him know he would be withdrawing on Wednesday.

Wednesday - Clark withdrew. In his speech, his advice regarding the GOP mean machine: "So I've got one bit of advice for our nominee: give 'em hell and never retreat." Clark calls Kerry and lets him know he will be endorsing him.

Thursday - Drudge breaks "story" midday that media is looking into the possible scandal and cites Clark's supposed comment, "Kerry will implode over an intern issue" earlier in the week; AP reported Clark planning to endorse Kerry Thursday afternoon; according to CNN panel last night, Kerry's campaign was already in defense mode about the smear campaign on Thursday; Craig Crawford (The Congressional Quarterly) memo leaks pointing to Chris Lehane as the culprit, but Crawford retracts this and says, "Chris Lehane's rivals in other Democratic campaigns" tipped him to Lehane; Clark denies he made the statement as reported.

Friday - Kerry denies charge on Imus; Clark endorses Kerry and says about Kerry, "He will stand up to the Republican attack dogs and send them home licking their wounds." Clark says he himself will "do everything I can to help when the Republican Mean Machine cranks up their attacks." Kerry says Clark will "stand beside me and help walk point" in the battle against Bush.


The off the record conversation took place early in the week, say Monday or Tuesday. Clark may have heard more than he actually said. When he called Kerry to say he was withdrawing or saying he would endorse, he may have discussed what he had heard and given Kerry a heads up. The Kerry campaign has been prepared for this for a long time, but perhaps Clark thought he was giving an early warning that something was coming down. It wouldn't surprise me if Clark said then and there, "John, we'll kick their asses together," or words to that effect.

Clark has always been going to endorse John Kerry, even before he himself was in the race. He may not have planned the timing, but Kerry was always his first choice and at some point Clark would have endorsed anyway. It could be the Drudge smear is what moved the endorsement ahead. Clark has a no holds barred strategy with the GOP mean machine. Imminent danger to the party and to the frontrunner could have triggered Clark into action. Clark's endorsement, particularly when his own good name was involved, took the sting way out of the tail of the smear. And it showed the Democrats are not taking shit this election year.

The chemistry between Clark and Kerry on Friday in Wisconsin was unmistakable: They are allies in a fight for the Dems to win the White House back. Clark is a strategic thinker. If he saw this one coming, it would not surprise me if he came up with the perfect ball to lob back at the enemy, whoever that may turn out to be.

Again, this is supposition, not fact. I don't know any more than anybody else knows.

[hope42mro]

79. Well said Jersey n/t

[OKNancy]

82. Thanks for the Boston Globe quote

I hadn't read that. Funny. That was my thinking too...that Kerry just wasn't connecting and there had to be a better choice.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

59. Whatever

:eyes:

DTH

[Crunchy Frog]

61. Yes, everything revolves around Edwards

and Clark only entered the race to destroy his chance at the nomination. In fact everything about the Clark campaign has been specifically engineered with that outcome in mind.

Oh wait, I remember now, he got into the race specifically to destroy Howard Dean, yeah that's it, destroying Edwards was just a side benefit.:silly:

[arewethereyet]

70. NO, Kerry needed to wrap things up, Clark knew it was over

Edwards was the last impediment. Give the Kerry camp their due for plotting their course.

[democratreformed]

78. How come other ppl. STILL can't figure out it's over?

If it makes you feel better to blame Wes Clark and his supporters, go ahead. It makes me feel better to blame someone else too. But, in the end, it is what it is and I have to work with it.

[arewethereyet]

88. where did I blame Clark ? I credited Kerry.

And there is still a chance for Edwards albiet not a great one.

[democratreformed]

93. Point taken. Thanks for the clarification. n/t

[arewethereyet]

65. remember Clark almost quit after he barely won OK

I think its clear that this has been going on for a while.

[Adelante]

83. Problem is

It was the Dem pros who were advocating he quit. It was his wife and son who talked him into going on. Sorry to disappoint.

[arewethereyet]

89. so the papers say...

and do you suppose that Kerry was working through Mrs Clark or the General personally ?

Look at the actions insted of the words and try and come up with any other scenario.

[Adelante]

92. It's what people around the campaign say

Volunteers who were around the Clarks say it, staff members have said it. I don't think Kerry was working through anybody. Clark was running against Kerry. Clark lost, he withdrew, he endorsed Kerry. He was endorsing Kerry even before he (Clark) was ever drafted into the race. If Kerry had been winning last year, Clark would never have run. His first concern is the commander in chief be qualified in foreign policy and national security. So, I repeat, he would have endorsed Kerry anyway. I think the endorsement came as quickly as it did to defuse the Drudge smear, quite possibly, but it was coming in any case. No Kerry-Clark conspiracy. While Clark was in the race, they were opponents, but only for the duration of the race. Once Clark withdrew, they were friends again. Grownup stuff.

[w4rma]

84. I don't think so. Dean didn't stay in to hurt Clark and isn't staying in

to hurt Edwards, either.

Campaigns are in the primary to win. Of course the primary system isn't perfect it's a bit of a free for all.

[John_H]

94. Nah. It was the last nail in Dean's coffin.

Everybody knows Edwards is running for VP.

Not that Clark would be dumb enough to do it, but a Clark endorsement was Howard Deans last hope of a remote shot, his last chance at being taken seriously by anyone.

[susanna]

95. Let me vent here...

Believe it or not, Wesley Clark had good, honest, die-hard supporters (myself included). Put yourself in his shoes; drop out after you've come off a win in OK (a win; not a tie, for the record, as per JE's web site). His supporters are hyped, life is good for them; let them down, or push on for one last shot? I think he did the admirable thing, personally. I thank him for it.

Regardless of internal polls, Clark had every right to stay in and see what transpired. If Clark were running his campaign to see what would hurt John Edwards, well, that would be just plain stupid. And Wes Clark is not plain stupid.

IMHO, Clark was in it for real. This entire supposition that he just hung out to hurt Edwards is ridiculous. IMHO.

[Leilani]

99. And let me add something

Clark raised over $700,000 on line in the last week of his campaign.
Does that seem like Clark was in the race to thwart Edwards? Ha!

Edwards keeps flying to LA to raise money from the money people. If Edwards is such a popular guy, why don't his fans support him financially?

Edwards supporters cannot see that the planet does not revolve around this guy. The Dean people are just as passionate, the Clark people are just as in love, ditto for Kerry, Kucinich supporters.

[tishaLA]

97. It never ends

he's a Rove plant, a Republican shill.

He's unstable. He unfairly attacks Kerry. He unfairly attacks Edwards.

He's secretly pro-war. He even said so on CNN.

He's your own personal tabula rasa. Do with him as you please.

But please leave him around for those of us who want him when you are finished denigrating him.

[Kool Kitty]

98. And, don't forget the good ole

"he's just a stalking horse for Hillary" chestnut. :eyes: People bitched when he got into the race, people are bitching now that he's left the race. He didn't get into the race to hurt anyone, he got into the race because he wanted to be the President.

[Leilani]

100. What a Concept

Wes Clark wanted to be President? Could that really be true?