Anyone still think Wes Clark is a republican.

[59millionmorons]

For someone who may be a republican as he has been accussed by many here, he sure is fighting hard for Kerry. Hell he didnt fight this hard for his own campaign.

[Leilani]

1. Gee, I'm Still not Sure?

But what about The School of the Americas?

[BootinUp]

6. LOL

I'm not worried about either of those questions. Its the mind control thing that scares the piss outa me

see?

You are getting sleepy

[Adelante]

8. Haitian Man Tits

He's gotta be a Republican. ;)

[Leilani]

15. Great pic of Wes putting us all under!

LOL!

Terrific!

[fearnobush]

2. He is on MSNBC right now, and he is speaking the truth!!

Clark and Clarke....let the truth be told.

[Catch22Dem]

4. He did a great job tonight

Wouldn't let the conversation stray to Clinton. Kept the focus on Bush.

[59millionmorons]

7. Remember when Clark said this

Remember when early in Clarks campaign he said that he got a phone call from someone saying that Bush wanted to blame 911 on Saddam? I wonder if that phone call came from Richard Clarke.

[LandOLincoln]

I wonder too...I also wonder why Wes hasn't mentioned his own

experiences with BushCo's post 9/11 Iraq obsession in the interviews he's done today.

[dogman]

25. Finally

touched on it with Judy Woodhead.

[LandOLincoln]

38. Yep, & I sure was glad to hear it, finally. He'll bring it up again, I

think, and just when it will do maximum damage too. I keep forgetting we're dealing with a strategic and tactical genius here.

I betcha he could beat Bobby Fischer at chess. :-)

[tameszu]

24. No, we know who that call came from

It came from the Director of the Begin-Sadat think tank in Montreal.

And the Director wasn't a whistle blower--he in fact was instead *encouraging* Wes to take the neocon line and *help* Bush blame 9/11 on Saddam.

[Crunchy Frog]

33. I don't think that's what he was referring to.

He basically said that he got a call from someone at a think tank linked to the Bush administration asking him to say that 9/11 was connected to Iraq.

He also said he heard alot of chatter by people in the Pentagon that Bush was going to go after Iraq in retaliation for 911.

I think that both Clark and Clarke were just aware of the same things and reached the same conclusions.

[Jai4WKC08]

39. no, not Clarke

Most of Wes Clark's sources were from within the Pentagon, and the call he received that day was from some guy who worked in a think-tank in Canada.

But really, don't we now have three different sources, from three different branches of the executive?

Wes Clark -- Dept of Defense
Paul O'Neill -- Dept of Treasury
Richard Clarke -- White House staff

Gee, I sense a pattern...

duh!

[MuseRider]

3. Not I!

He has convinced me. It took me a while but I have come to believe him. It helped to listen to him in person and to meet him.

[maddezmom]

5. glad to hear it

:) He really is working hard to get bush out of the WH.

[Daisey Mae]

9. GENERAL Wesley Clark

is a hard fighting DEMOCRAT and a true american hero.... He is working very hard for the next president of the United States-John Kerry
GO WES GO !!!

[Ilsa]

10. My hero!

He's doing his part to save our country from the Bush regime. He's fighting harder for Kerry than any other candidate as far as I can see.

[TomSeaverr]

11. What is the website

that has video of all of his apperances

[Donna Zen]

14. Media Clips

US4Clark

[dogman]

12. If B*** wants to talk National Security

Kerry's found the answer.

[maddezmom]

13. you got that right, dogman

Kerry has the best surrogate around in Wes, for taking bush* to task on lack of security.

[Donna Zen]

16. Clark: a plant or stalking horse?

No one has given me a satisfactory answer. How can Clark be a rep. plant and a Hillary stalking horse at the same time? Huh?

Oh sure_you answer the dreaded word...NED!!!!!! But I know stalking horse republican plants and Wesley Clark...you're no stalking horse republican plants.

[arewethereyet]

18. those two theories are not concurrent

its an either/or deal.

definately not a republican plant, possibly a stalking horse for the Clintons, definately loves media attention.

ideologically whatever serves his need for attention.

[dogman]

21. An expert when needed

He knows the difference between 9-11 and the Iraq War, unlike Lieberman and Edwards.

[Donna Zen]

27. Say anything

just as long as one can discredit Clark.

Yeah_I noticed how Clinton, the only person who could have spoken with authority against the smear by speaking out, protected the "stalking horse." Ooops Clinton didn't!

Media attention? Hmmmm...better write to Kerry's campaign. They are the ones doing the booking.

[arewethereyet]

43. I think you're missing part of the picture

forget any perceived smear, look insted at the nature of the campaign. no planning, no fundraising, no platform and a half hearted personal effort. this campaign was never intended to produce a winner which begs the question of what its point ever was.

clearly he is a darling of the Clintons as you point out but it does not mean that they would not support him creating a fruitless distraction in the party.

the fact is that we'll never know the truth of it but there is no denying that there is something wrong about the whole deal.

[Jai4WKC08]

48. You really are ignorant of his campaign, aren't you?

Obviously not the only thing, by your sig-line.

By the last available figures, as of the end of Jan 04, Wes Clark had raised more money in less than 5 months than Edwards did in almost two years of campaigning. And that included some $800K Edwards transfered over from his Senate re-election fund.

For the 4th Qtr 03, Clark raised more money than any candidate except Dean, and in Jan 04, he raised more money than ANYbody, including Dean.

No, there wasn't a lot of planning. BECAUSE IT WAS A DRAFT! Before Sept 03, there WAS no campaign. It was November before he even had a campaign manager. Kind of hard to plan without a staff, esp if you've never done it before.

Even then, there was a plan, but it was based on a single scenario. When that scenario fell thru, there weren't many alternatives. That's what comes of no time and no staff.

And Clark's platform was as complete as any of them, and a HELL of a lot more realistic.

[arewethereyet]

50. when he entered his "campaign"

he had little money, and no platform. I recall the fanfare when he finally posted position papers on his site in the fall.

draft or no draft he would never have done it without actual political support ie the Clintons.

his eventual platform had zero chance of getting into Congress much less through it.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[ArkDem]

63. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

.

[Crunchy Frog]

55. He was both obviously.

This provides decisive proof that Hillery Clinton is really a Republican, just like John Kerry is.

[Rowdyboy]

17. I lost respect for more people here over that one slur than any other

in this election cycle. That damn-near unforgiveable. I'd sooner you call me a worthless, ignorant sonuvabich etc than call me a Republican. Too cheap, too easy, too Rovesque. And, simply, not true.

[Dookus]

36. Me, too, Rowdyboy

The ease with which people spread any and every lie about him was really disturbing.

Thankfully, a number of people have changed their minds and have said so. Most of the rest are at another forum now.

[Rowdyboy]

40. I really took it personally...

In general, I refused to bad-mouth any of the Democratic candidates. Maybe a few jabs at Lieberman and a poke or two at Sharpton, but I REALLY liked most all the candidates. I had also previously defended a couple of the candidates who would later called Wes a Republican and they really fell in my respect when they slimed him like that.

Fight hard? sure, just don't fight trashy. Calling Wes Clark a Republican was trashy.

[Piperay]

57. I took it personally too

because I started out as a repuke and to keep on accusing someone of still being one implies that you can never change or be trusted, it was very disheartening. :-(

[democratreformed]

61. Me too

Almost made me want to skip out on the Dem party as well.

[arewethereyet]

19. telling and quite true that he didn't work as hard for his campaign

but what does it actually tell us ?

[dogman]

22. The media gives him face time nationally now

He had to spend his whole campaign on mostly local media and spent the time attacking B*** not the other Dems. Don't worry, no one worked harder.

[arewethereyet]

45. the media also gave him much face time in the summer and fall

until his weaknesses began to surface and the handwritting was on the wall.

[Adelante]

34. You're the one calling it "telling"

What is it actually telling you?

[arewethereyet]

46. it was never his intention to be the nominee

but I remain unclear what his intention was.

[Crunchy Frog]

54. I think his intention must have been

to stop Edwards from getting the nomination by taking just enough votes from him in the South to keep him from getting the momentum he needed.

At least that's the theory that I've seen bandied around.:)

[Crunchy Frog]

37. I watched him throughout his campaign

and I saw a man who was working his ass off trying to get his message out. That's why he was constantly losing his voice.

His biggest problem was in getting media coverage. They were happy to cover him before he entered the race, and they are covering him now that he's left, but while he was running he had a hell of a time getting onto the national media.

I don't seem to recall Edwards ever losing his voice during the campaign. I do recall him getting massive positive media coverage that amounted to millions of dollars worth of free advertising, and he still couldn't win more that one state.

[arewethereyet]

44. Edwards knows how to speak publically

there are simple tricks for perserving one's voice. when its your bread and butter (the lawyerin biz) then you take the time to learn them.

[Crunchy Frog]

53. Alright, you've convinced me.

If Clark didn't know how to take care of his voice to keep from losing it, that must mean that he didn't work hard on his campaign.

Thank you so much for setting me straight.

[bowens43]

20. He hasn't convinced me otherwise....yet.

but he may.

[cosmokramer]

31. Puhleeze!

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. I note the shift

As long as you really tune in to what Clark is actually doing and saying rather than work off a presumption, as logical as it might appear to you to be, I think you will notice that Clark is absolutely deadly to the current Administration.

[BootinUp]

23. You weren't paying attention

Clark whipped experienced politicians while throwing a campaign together at a very rapid rate. As he said "We’re building the ship as we’re leaving the harbor..."

Saying Clark didn't work hard is really laughable. He is generally regarded as very very hardworking by those who have worked with him in the past.

[tameszu]

26. Part of it is that he now

has enough time to work *smarter*.

Wes did great in his maiden voyage, but he was a rookie, and made some rookie mistakes.

He's clearly a fast learner, and what we're seeing is Wes 2.1: more experienced and more relaxed not having to worry about "building that ship at sea" of a pickup campaign while trying to speak on a ton of issues that he's just learned. He can just take it to him on the stuff he knows. He is going to smack Bushco around hard...

[Jai4WKC08]

47. I think you mean well

But there were really NO issues he had "just learned." That was all the false media story-line.

I'm sorry you fell for it.

[tameszu]

52. I'm not getting this from the media--Clark himself admitted it

He even stuck this admission into one of his stock town hall answers: "When I came into this race, I started with what I call the 4 "no"s: no money, no staff, no position papers, no previous political campaign experience. I knew I was smart enough to read the position papers and even come up with a few ideas myself..." (Very close paraphrase--I can recite a lot of these, because I attended or helped work close to a dozen of these thingies)

The number of issues that people running for President have to learn are just staggering. Every candidates has weak spots: Dean had to take a ballpark guess at the size of the military; Edwards didn't know (or pretended he didn't know) what was in DOMA; etc.

Clark had probably the most gaps, clearly because he really was a Washington outsider with a non-traditional background. He didn't have any reason to spend a bunch of time studying national domestic issues.

Clark was a great candidate who was in a tough spot. If he had known he had so much support and that the country needed him so badly, he would've had a more much cleaner abortion answer; he would've done a bunch of other stuff.

But none of this takes away from the fact that I'm very proud to have worked for him, or that I'm really happy that he's using his considerable talents to help Kerry now. That's all that matters.

[Jai4WKC08]

60. Self-deprecating humor

Sorry, I'm not buying.

Clark's domestic positions were as well developed as any of the other candidates'. His economic policies were masterful. And they were all his own, regardless of what staffer actually put the words to paper (as happens in all the campaign staffs).

Was Clark as practiced in talking to domestic policy as he was to security/defense issues? For the most part, no. But that's more a function of how good he was at the latter, not any deficiency in the former.

We've been all over his abortion stance--his "answer," given many times, was good enough to get the NARAL support. It's just wrong to say he was unprepared for the issue based on a single interview, by a pro-life editor, asking a question he shouldn't have had to answer, and refused to, and had said he would refuse to. Who else was asked that question?

The media was gunning to trip him up. None of the candidates could have borne the sort of hostile scrutiny that Clark got. And their gaffs, which were numerous, were not played over and over.

I'm not attacking you, and I appreciate that you worked hard for him. I just think you're just not seeing the big picture.

[Crunchy Frog]

28. If he's fighting hard for Kerry,

that just proves that Kerry is a Republican too. I always knew it.

The whole thing is just one big diabolical conspiracy.

[Adelante]

32. Okay, you got me

You're too good, Crunch :evilgrin:

[Renew Deal]

29. BULLSHIT!!! Face the facts. He once talked about the Homestead Act!!!

And you can't deny it. Willy Brandt knows Clark is really a slave trade hold over.

[QC]

59. And he gave me "full female breasts"!!!

Damn him! Damn him to hell!!

[dogman]

30. Keep it up

you'll all be source for a Nader post.

[Jane Austin]

35. I thought he was phenomenal

on Newsnight with Judy Woof Woof.

She didn't get to spin him at all.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

42. Wes Clark is a great American. He is showing his fine colors now,

after his primary defeat. I'm proud of all our Dem candidates but I most hope that Wes winds up on the ticket. Maybe a little too much "star power" for JK but I don't really think so. He's an asset.

[robbedvoter]

49. Yes, but not GOP enough to be VP. We need McCain you see - so

if kerry cannot serve, the White House goes back to them. Other than that, Clark is not Democrat enough....

[elperromagico]

51. *Spreads paper towels to soak up the dripping sarcasm*

;)

[NV1962]

56. If Wes Clark is a repub then so am I, whatever to oust DNC candidate Bush!

And Nader is a wonderful Democrat too

War is peace

Ignorance is strength

[democratreformed]

62. WHY???????????????????????????

Why keep inviting the crap?