Clark is the one they really want....

[sfecap]

Wesley Clark may be a nice guy, but he's a dismal candidate. His misstatements and history will make him an easy mark for the rethug machine should he win the Democratic nomination.

Starting with his videotaped praise ("we need them there"), of the very people that he now claims are not good for America, to his coyness about his political affiliation, he will be a disaster for the Party.

The rove/bush machine will make quick work of him.

They'll replay those videos of Clark at rethug fundraisers praising *. Then they'll ask, "do you trust this man?"

They'll roll out video of his appearances on various talk shows in which he is questioned about whether he is a Democrat, and he refuses to answer. That ought to go over well with the Democratic base. ("Do you trust this man?")

They'll roll out the quotes from Shelton, Schwartzkopf, and the rest of his peers who question his "integrity". ("Can you trust this man?")

Then there is the infamous "I would have been a republican..." quote. You'll hear that one over and over. ("Can you trust this man?")

Of course after that, he'll have to answer the question: Why did you get the axe after leading an (allegedly) successful campaign in Kosovo, under a Democratic administration? Why did you meet with a war criminal when you were told not to? Why were bombing results faked under your watch, Wes? Why did Bill Clinton allow it to happen?("Can you trust this man?")

Oh, and there's that little matter of being a paid lobbyist. Most Americans don't hold Washington lobbyists in very high regard. ("Can you trust this man?")

Fortunately for Wes, the media hasn't turned their harsh lens upon him. Yet. But make no mistake about it, they are digging as we speak. And when it's his turn, (if he continues to gain in the polls...), he will wilt like a dead flower.

Unfortunately, Wes is a one trick pony. "I wuz a General..." That won't stop the avalanche that he is about to experience. Wes has neither the political experience, nor the savvy to survive what may be coming his way.

Oh yes, Wes is the one. They are positively salivating at the thought. Nominate Wes...enjoy four more years of the bush cabal.

[BeyondGeography]

1. Does that mean

we can start getting money from the Republicans, too?

[liberalnurse]

22. Sure, it won't be the first time.

[wndycty]

23. Well you know Dean has his share of support from Republicans. . .

. . .however it is unclear as to whether to help him get the nomination so that Bush* has an easier time in the General Election or because they truly believe in him. If you are going to play the Republican support game with Clark remember it goes both ways.

[Scott Lee]

61. which will grab more votes for the Democrats

And remind me of why this is a bad thing, again?

[TLM]

50. Start? Clark's been getting support from repukes all over...

THe guy was a defense lobbyist... something tells me some of his support is obviously republican.

Isn;t that the big argument for supporting Clark, he brings republican support with him?

[NV1962]

2. Oh, OK

Thanks for clearing that up - so, should I root for B* now, instead?

[maddezmom]

3. thanks sfecap for bringing this up

AGAIN! :(

[maddezmom]

30. forgot to ask the first time

can you provide the links again, it's nice to be able to see it in context? thanks. :)

[Dookus]

4. lol...

I got halfway through the first sentence which mentioned Clark's misstatements. I read no further. It must be a joke.

[bowens43]

14. misstatements?

You're kidding right? The joke is that Democrats are so easily taken in by this opportunistic, power hungry, flip-flopping pseudo-democrat.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

33. Are you talking about Dean or Clark?

n/t

[Democrats unite]

24. Amen to that!

eom

[Forkboy]

5. Ah who gives a shit?

Why dont we focus on nominating who WE want and stop worrying about what the Repukes think or (supposedly) want?

I'm sick of people claiming they have any clue what the Right wants or doesn't want.It's great that you have an opinion but that's all it is.

[Killarney]

19. Seriously!

For the love of God people... this back and forth between Dean supporters and Clark supporters is so tiring.

Personally, I would be proud to have either of them as my President.

[Kayla]

6. If one sees

a candidate's name in the subject line and a different candidate's avatar for the poster, it's a sign...either that or I'm psychic!

[NV1962]

7. You and I are both psychic

For example, I see you're new here.

Welcome aboard! ;)

[Kayla]

9. How'd you see that?

You got one of them 2-way screens? You get that from Asscrash?


Thanks for your welcome! :pals:

[Forkboy]

8. It's always a good tipoff on what to expect

Welcome to DU Kayla!

[Kayla]

10. LOL

May I pet your scales?

:yourock:

[Forkboy]

11. If I had a nickel for every time I heard THAT!

I'd have 10 cents by now :evilgrin:

[Kayla]

12. Come here, nice Forkboy,

I'll give you a whole quarter! }(

[bowens43]

13. 'we need them there'

should have been enough to disqualify Clark in the minds of Democrats,liberals and progressives. It shows at worst, that he is now and has always been , at heart, a Republican. At best, it shows a monumental failure of judgment.

[NV1962]

15. That was a statement made before W managed to F up

...and as pointed out by others here, is actually a strong point in Clark's favor as a candidate willing to look past partisan affiliation, ready to give an honest opportunity with an open mind.

Most people who vote appreciate that.

More than a candidacy defined by anger and an essential "anti-W" agenda. (By all means, I do not mean Howard Dean, the candidate - but I do mean the image that pundits managed to plant of him.)

Look at it this way: many people who voted for W will have to be convinced to switch. Do you think "you voted wrong last time, you stupid @#$&*" is a message that'll appeal more than a pragmatic "yes-can-do" guy who beams solution all over?

Yeah, thought so too.

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. Bullshit.

He was not a republican. Get your facts straight if you're going to bash a candidate. He was a REGISTERED Independent who voted for Clinton TWICE and Gore in 2000. He could have lied and said he voted as a Democrat his entire life, but he didn't do that, did he? He's an HONEST MAN WHO HAS INTEGRITY and chose to tell the TRUTH. He was an Independent. Less than 5% of Arkansas citizen are affiliated with a party. The rest are Independents. Clark was a REGISTERED INDEPENDENT. Perhaps, the next time you post a Clark bash about how he voted 20 or 30 years ago, you can spin your rhetoric around the truth instead?

[R3dD0g]

76. Please people

for the last time (hopefully).

Arkansas has NO party registration. NONE. There is no place to physically state a party preference on the voter registration.

I was born here and spent most of my life here and I've been voting since '72 so I know whereof I speak.

[CWebster]

16. The questions are NEVER addressed

They are invariably dismissed as an avoidance tactic, but the questions persist.

[NV1962]

17. You seem senior enough around here

With 1000+ posts under your buckle I'm sure you have seen these questions drop by a few times, before.

Including the multiple (yes!) topics where those mythical "questions" (which are transparent attempts at defamation - as are connections with Mladic) have been thoroughly debunked - not avoided.

Now, I'm dismissing them and invite you to do the search yourself.

Neither you nor your friend "sfecap" have much reason for entitlement to be satisfied by others on demand. Certainly not when the insiduous"questions" have a tendency to waft around the same characters.

Dropping doo for the N+1th time, after cleaning it up N times, doesn't mean that the pile is N+1 high. (It might feel that way, but that's a different story...)

[CWebster]

20. Hey I am sorry -

but they are real issues, not just defamation efforts.

All his crap is on the public record--it isn't invented. You can dismiss it all you want but the record is still there--I don't have to search for anything.

Lol...My "entitled" friend and myself? Demands? Maybe you shouldv'e just stuck with falling asleep when those difficult questions get asked.

[NV1962]

21. I'm glad we agree:

you're sorry. ;)

[AP]

25. When Arnold missed a debate in CA, he was the top story on the news after

the debates anyway ("what did Arnold think of the debates?" was the top story).

Clark got no coverage yesterday.

If the media really wanted him, he would have been the top story last night and they would have had him doing commentary on the debate he missed.

[sfecap]

26. I'm not talking about the media.

I'm talking about the chimp reelect team. They'll eat Clark for lunch.

BTW, Edwards was excellent at the debate.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

48. How are they going to eat a 4 Star General, Rhodes Scholar for lunch?

compared to the rest of the candidates....

[arewethereyet]

81. the simplest way would be

to replay all the stuff from his own mouth showing that he would do exactly as they have been doing.

there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.

its basically the same plan as with Dr Dean. They have both been generous with annumition to have hurled back at then.

[AP]

79. If Bush could eat Clark for lunch, he'd be getting the Arnold treatment...

...from the media.

Like Edwards, Clark's on the pay-no-mind list.

[Auntie Bush]

39. That's because the Corp/Media wanted Arnold to win

and had another excuse to give him MORE coverage.
They don't want or are scared to have
clark win so they refuse to discuss him. Isn't that obvious to everyone?

[AP]

80. That's exactly what I'm saying.

It's obvious to me.

[democratreformed]

27. Here's a quarter....

You know that old song, don't you?

[sfecap]

28. No, I don't...

...why don't you sing it for us?

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

29. I am fascinated

by sfecap's fixation on Wes.

Could this be saying something? :shrug:

Peace

[Phelan]

78. be careful

I got warned by pointing out this obessision.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

31. ROTFLMAO: His misstatements and history will make him an easy mark

YOU'RE saying that about Clark???

Let's see:
Number of misstatements by candidate

Dean: 1,296
Clark: 3

Disturbing items in their record:

Dean: 974
Clark: 3

[Hawkeye-X]

37. Provide proof please.

and back up those numbers...

Hawkeye-X

[kerry-is-my-prez]

45. Here are some examples. (The numbers are facetious, of course.)

Dean mired in explaining goofs
By Thomas Oliphant, 9/14/2003
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/14/dean_mired_in_explaining_goofs/
BALTIMORE

EVERY SERIOUS presidential candidate needs to live in fear of three simple words: "Smith later explained." They are now part of Howard Dean's life, and they have achieved some traction in the political world, even as his campaign continues to rake in dollars, grass roots workers, and Iowa and New Hampshire polling points.

Dean later explained his position on Israel.
Dean later explained his position on Social Security.

Dean later explained his position on the Cuban embargo and the tax cuts for moderate-income Americans he wants to junk. And in a head-scratching combination of inaccuracy and egomania, Dean later explained his weird assertion that he was the only white candidate willing to talk about race before white audiences.

When those words or their synonyms pop up in the press, the candidate is not only screwing up, he has been busted. He is explaining because he is having to wiggle out of a fix he put himself in.


http://www.topdog04.com/000381.html
"I'm the only white politician who ever talks about race in front of white audiences."




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62184-2003Dec13_2.html

In March 2000, Dean told a Canadian public affairs program that 98 percent of the public does not vote based on a candidate's foreign policy views, "unless they are really a wacko." Now, he says, because of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the Iraq war, national security is the most important issue in this election after the economy. "

-snip-

Questioned on foreign policy statements he made before he became a presidential candidate, Dean acknowledged a tendency to "say what I think" and that he may have "used undiplomatic language" in the past. But he said he realized that "as president you have to watch your words more carefully."

-snip-

During another 1998 appearance on the show, "The Editors," Dean said it was not worth trying to woo French support on foreign policy initiatives. "The French will always do exactly the opposite on what the United States wants regardless of what happens, so we're never going to have a consistent policy," he said.

Asked about the comment, Dean said he now thinks that because the French "have seen how bad things can get with the United States, they might respond to a new president who's willing to offer them respect again."


http://www.hermes-press.com/kerry_yes.htm
-snip-

As governor, he once accused lawmakers of "living in La-La Land" for proposing a budget he deemed too costly. In 1993, he derided welfare recipients, saying that if they "had any self-esteem, they'd be working." He later apologized for the remark.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

32. Can you please tell us who is salivating at the thought of Clark being

nominated? I'm having a hard time discerning who you might be talking about...

[arewethereyet]

82. I think its the right being referred to

unless I'm missing something.

[Rowdyboy]

34. Obviously, BFEE would much prefer to face a 4 star general....

with a record of courage and a background in diplomacy, than the governor of a New England powerhouse like Vermont! It only stands to reason!

Jebus, how gullible some people can be.

[rucky]

35. It's a good thing that "they" are not Democrats

Any nominee is facing a bumpy road ahead. Clark can transcend the attacks better than most. The intended audience for the attacks is that mushy 20% swing vote, who don't pay attention. They'll see the face, the uniform, the flags-a-wavin'. That image alone will make the GOP have to work twice as hard - PLUS is more likely to backfire when you attack a General.

If you want the one who's most GOP-attack-proof, Clark & Kucinich are your men.

They're on my list, but that's not the only thing I'm considering.

[jcgadfly]

36. If Kucinich is going to get anywhere

he's going to have to get past the question that many Americans ask when his name comes up - Dennis who?

As far as Clark, if he shows up in uniform, you know the GOP are going to accuse him of pandering. The sheeple, of course, will take it in hook, line and sinker.

[Capn Sunshine]

42. If you still think this is about swing votes

you haven't been paying attention to the Dean campaign

[kerry-is-my-prez]

49. People who have a poor record of voting are NOT the people to target

You target the people who always show up to vote.

[Scott Lee]

63. Better idea - how about "No Voter Left Behind"?

It would be a grave mistake for the Democrats to blow off ANY single vote they could get in the next general.

[dogman]

91. Just CF swing votes?

If I go get a new vote I have increased my vote by one. If I take the opponents vote I have gained by two-My plus and his minus. I think I could get there faster by taking his, don't you? There aren't enough CF votes to make up for all the POW/MIA votes you won't get.

[kang]

38. That's pretty weak

considering you're supporting Gov. Dean (who I respect). The GOP could practically run an ad against him by just stringing together Democrat statements against him. Fair or unfair, that doesn't exactly make the general election a cake walk for him either.

And I really don't think accusations of misstatements or trustworthiness should be something that Dems throw at each other. Gov. Dean has made more than enough mistakes (some admitted to and others hailed as "talking straight") that I find it odd one of his supporters would use this as a factor in their support. Why are his records sealed? I'm guessing for smart political reasons, but let's not paint our candidates as saints.

Read up on Clark and you'll see he's on the record for explaining or admitting to his mistakes in the past. For sure, he's made mistakes. None of the candidates are perfect. But he's not a politician (and yes, Gov. Dean is still a politician despite his railing against Washington) and he's shown himself to be an effective candidate.

As for trustworthiness, he's got nothing to hide. Schwartzkopf never even knew Clark in the Army and Clinton seemed to like Clark enough to give him the Medal of Freedom. So are you basing your doubts on empty remarks by one General Shelton (a man who didn't think stopping ethnic cleansing/genocide was something the US should be doing)?

Let's just discuss these issues with some measure of fairness.

[Jack_Dawson]

40. Weak Post

But hey it's a free country. "Clark has no savvy" LOL. C'mon son do your homework.

[BigBigBear]

41. Clark can

appeal to moderates and Republicans who feel this administration has lied to them or bait-and-switched them into a hard-right agenda.

He's said he got behind the administration early on - then they screwed up and he thinks they should be kicked out now. Seems to me, a lot of moderates who are otherwise disinterested in despising Bush may find that a compelling message.

I think Clark's appeal could extend well outside the Democratic Party - if only the Democrats would let it.

And..."a one trick pony"? The guy spent 36 years in the military, and rose to the top.

That sounds like perseverence, ambition and success to me.

[TexasSissy]

43. Clark IS the one I want. I'm voting for Clark. You're not going to chang

anyone's mind here on this topic. Wes is the best candidate for President.

All the candidates have backgrounds that will be fodder to the Repubs. ALL of them. Clark has less than most, however, and some huge pluses that far outweigh that (foreign policy experience, bravery, military experience, high IQ and advanced education).

[neuvocat]

44. Yeah well if Dean is so great then why draft Clark?

I mean, there are huge blocks of voters who not only brought him into the campaign but also by way of contributions helped him top the list of federal matching funds in less than four months.

Of course we all know how well you have everyone in your cold grip of reason so apparently facts don't matter to you.

[sfecap]

46. Clark was "drafted?"

Right. Rove rejected him, and he became a Democrat.

But thanks for the kick. This had almost slid off the page.

[funky_bug]

47. Ever heard of

www.draftwesleyclark.com? He was most certainly drafted.

This "new democrat" as he is often referred to by the opposition did in fact vote for Clinton (twice) and Gore. He was a registered Independant, not a republican... and that has also been covered numerous times on this board.

[sfecap]

51. Thanks for the kick...

Draft Clark was a front.

Wes would have gladly taken a position in the * administration had they asked. They didn't he got pissed, and decided his ego could be better served by becoming a Dmocrat.

He also voted for rethugs, heaped praise bush, cheney, rumsfeld and ricewhile helping to raise money for the republican party. Refers to Wolfowitz, Pearle, et al as colleagues, and indicated he'd like to work with them again...

But that's all been covered.

[funky_bug]

53. A front?

Wow... thanks... I always love a good conspiracy theory. That does it. I'm definitely changing my vote.

Really... a front? Is that the best you've got?

[Clark4Prez]

54. Your Arrogance is showing

You insult many people who worked vary hard in the Draft Clark movement.

I could easily say:

"That Dean's "movement"" was just a Republican con job to get a guy nominated that can't make a statement without having to backtrack and explain why what he said isn't what he meant.

Yea I am sure that the GOP won't attack Dean with anything he's said, they are going to use EVERYTHING he's said.

Good luck to you, you're going to need it with a mouth like Dean."


But, I'm not going to, I won't lower myself to your level, your Clark bashing is winning over more people to Clark that I am, so thanks for the help.

Love ya,

C4P

[sfecap]

57. Here's what Clark had to say about it:

MTP 6/15/03

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you two Web sites that have been developed, and I’ll put them on the screen for you. There they are. DraftWesleyClark. And now in New Hampshire, there is this radio ad. Let’s listen: (Audiotape, radio ad):

GEN. CLARK: That’s amazing.

MR. RUSSERT: Do up want them to continue those advertisements?

GEN. CLARK: Well, you know, all I’ve—I don’t have anything to do with that group.


He musta been waiting for Rove to return the call.

[funky_bug]

58. Amazing

Do you also know where Bigfoot is?

BTW - you didn't bother to quote the radio add the general was responding to. Do I get to say, "Poop" now?

[sfecap]

59. I realize that you are new here...

...and I appreciate your conviction for your candidate, but...you may want to be careful. You are bordering on the personal attack mode.

And yes, I know where Bigfoot is.

[funky_bug]

62. Then I apologize

I am not exactly "new", but spent much of my time lurking. However, if I am bordering on personal attack, then I do apologize.

Thank you for clarifying the Bigfoot mystery, and for posting a full transcript of the audio clip the general was commenting on.

[tameszu]

85. Hey, thanks very much for calling me, and the hundreds of Du-ers

the draft movement energized and brought into the political process and the Democratic Party a "front." Very helpful for unity--maybe the good doctor and Al Gore should have Terry McAuliffe take notes on this.

And as for the "how will Clark handle those questions when Rove brings them up?"--um, they've all already been brought up by George Will, Safire, and so on, who have fed them to SCLM pillars like Chris Matthews and Russert. Clark has answered them pretty darned successfully, if his appearances on MTP and Hardball are any measure. A better measure is that Clark's numbers are starting to climb back to the levels they were when he first entered the race--and in some crucial early primary states like NH, they have even surpassed his original post-announcement 'bounce' numbers.

But nice try.

[SayitAintSo]

89. Balony .... Balony .... Balony

Speculation and conjecture ....

But that's all been covered.

[SEAburb]

52. is this the new talking points sent out from the Dean campaign

to attack Clark?

[Clark4Prez]

55. There's no need to

He's sunk because he didn't go on the Iowa debates last night, didn't you hear? It's all over now. ;-)

[SayitAintSo]

86. Nope... cant be ... they are old ... seen it dozens of times here...

There are several Dean supporters that recycle the same old stuff ... Yawn .......

[LoneStarLiberal]

56. Tautology Time Once More

I suppose the failure of those of us who have not sworn our fealty to Dr. Dean will mean that we will be sent to re-education camps as soon as Year Zero is proclaimed after Dr. Dean resoundingly defeats all other candidates in the primaries so that we can then chant "we want our country back" with the happy hipster masses as we route George Bush as one big happy yet angry family?

I like this flavor better:

<http://www.ex-deaniacsforclark.com/MainPage.htm>

[maha]

60. Dean, on the other hand,

will be treated with kid gloves?

I like Dean. You're making him look bad.

[sfecap]

64. Not hardly.

Dean has been getting the shit beat out of him.

It's going to come Wes' way soon, too. Just watch. The whole point of this is that Clark has his weak points, contrary to what his supporters think.

[Clark4Prez]

65. Not so

Most Clark supporters recognize that our candidate is a human being and has made mistakes and the Rove and co will try to use them, but more than that they will make things up (Remember Max Cleland? Rove said he was soft on terror!).

We are not worried about the things that Rove says, but the things that Dean is saying are causing outspoken concern by many Democrats about the US. Dean supporters are not recognizing that Dean's "gaffes" are not things that "Washington" has issues with, but the average voter. From not knowing if Bin Laden is guilty then two days later he deserves the death penalty, to not knowing that Job is in the Old Testament, after stating that he is knowledgeable about the Bible.

Dean supporters quickly dismiss this with a brush of their hand and a "no matter, no matter". Is that what you plan to tell the voter's in the General Election? "Fuggetaboutit" is one heck of a campaign slogan, one guaranteed to lose you the general election, even if you can limp to a nomination.

Dean's supporters need to let Dr. Dean know that he is undermining his own chances with this shoot from the lip mentality. As a doctor, he should realize that rash choices have often long term debilitating results.

I recognize that Dr. Dean may be the nominee, and I will have to go out there and support him, and he is making it more difficult to secure the non-committed voter everyday. (Yes, he will have my vote locked up as the nominee, but we need more that the 40% of Americans that are Democrats to win this thing.)

[sfecap]

67. Dean's success speaks for itself.

All of this BS about "shoot from the lip" notwithstanding, Dean is the frontrunner, and likely nominee.

Will some of his quotes get used? Certainly. And I have no doubt that that will backfire just as it always has.

[Clark4Prez]

70. He has no "success" outside Vermont as of yet

There is no "success" to speak from, he hasn't won a single election outside Vermont, he hasn't won over a majority of Democrats let alone, a majority of voters.

Your "speaking" is a deafening silence.

[tameszu]

88. Uh, then by that logic, wouldn't Clark's success speak for itself?

In his first 3.5 months as a candidate, Clark raised $14.5 million and is running 2nd or 1st in 6 of the 8 early primary states he's contesting.

In any case, by your own logic, a Clark win versus Dean in the primaries would "speark for itself" and prove that Clark could handle the media well enough to put up a solid fight versus Bush.

[maha]

66. It's going to come to whoever is getting momentum.

Yes, Dean's getting torn apart, and mostly unfairly, and if Clark's campaign moves up the guns will be turned on him. And grass is green, and fish swim, and birds fly. So?

[adamrsilva]

68. I agree. For all the talk about Dean, the Rove machine can do anything to

any Dem, they just haven't been since Dean's been in the lead. They will make a big deal out of what Clark said, or what Kerry or Gephardt or Lieberman or Edwards voted on. For people to think that Dean is easy pickings for the Rove machine and the others are not are just fooling themselves.

[chookie]

69. We could nominate Jesus Christ

...and the Rovian machine would crucify him. Therefore, I don't buy your argument.

I don't agree that Wes is a "one-trick pony," either. He's a pretty smart boy.

And despite his political inexperience, he has handled his campaign skillfully and has articulated forcefully.

Wes is answering the summons to duty -- like many of us, he has taken Eisenhower's warning about the take-over of the military industrial complex very seriously, and he may very well be the man to confront it.

Wes has guts. I think he is the man who will be able to go toe to toe with the Bush Crime Family in what is going to be the most vicious campaign in American history -- and if we lose, perhaps the last.

[JPJones]

71. Yeah, America hates a centerist

Wes said something nice about Bush? Oh no, that will never be acceptable to middle America, the vast majority of whom admire GWB.

Would you rather have a commercial with Dean saying how Bush knew about 9/11 in advance?

Kosovo - not popular at the time, but I think it is widely considered a success, especially compared to Iraq.

Paid lobbyist? Yawn.

Shelton's remarks? The only person who puts any stock in that comment is Slobodan Milosovic. Old news, military politics.

Here's a commercial - Howard Dean wants to raise taxes on working families. Call Howard Dean and tell him it's not fair.

Here's another - Howard Dean made fun of Vietnam draftees and now wants to be the Commander in Chief?

[wyldwolf]

72. Dean is the one they really want....

Howard Dean may be a nice guy, but he's a dismal candidate. His misstatements and history will make him an easy mark for the rethug machine should he win the Democratic nomination.

Starting with his quotes from several interviews ("Bush is doing a good job on terrorism" and "Cheney is a model VP... competent), where he praises the very people that he now claims are not good for America, to his vieled threat that if he doesn't win the nomination, he'll make sure his followers don't vote for the dem, he will be a disaster for the Party.

The rove/bush machine will make quick work of him.

They'll replay those videos of Dean saying America isn't safer with Saddam captured and bin Laden may not be guilty of 9/11. Then they'll ask, "do you trust this man?"

They'll roll out video of his appearances on various talk shows in which he contradicted himself over and over. That ought to go over well with the Democratic base. ("Do you trust this man?")

They'll roll out news headlines and quoted from various environmentalists about Dean wanting to ship nuclear waste to Sierra Blanca("Can you trust this man?")

Then there is the infamous A+ rating from the NRA ("Can you trust this man?")

Of course after that, he'll have to answer the question: Why did you cozy up to corporate interests like IBM, nazi sympathizers?("Can you trust this man?")

Oh, and there's that little matter of secret energy meetings and sealed records. Most Americans don't hold secretive politicians in very high regard. ("Can you trust this man?")

Unfortunately, Howard is a one trick pony. "I wuz a Governor of a state smaller than most major cities..." That won't stop the avalanche that he is about to experience.

Oh yes, Howard is the one. They are positively salivating at the thought. Nominate Howard...enjoy four more years of the bush cabal.

[GOPBasher]

73. I don't agree.

There's no way, I believe, that Republicans want us to nominate a 4-star general to face Smirky AWOL. All those quotes you wrote I think will be a positive, rather than a negative. To swing voters, Clark will not come off not as a pure partisan who has always disliked Republicans, but a moderate, middle-of-the-road guy who just happens to think Bush is horrible for the country. And I do think he'll solidify our base, because he's pretty liberal, despite his moderate image.

[wyldwolf]

74. All those quotes only offend a small monority of far left people...

...who are under the mistaken impression that they are the democratic party "base" (they are not) and that they will "take back the democratic party. (They never had it to begin with.)

[Leilani]

75. You Do Not Help Your Candidate

with this crap...

Dean supporters are hurting their candidate with this destructive behavior.

Your post is an editorial, based on your opinion, nothing else.

[mmonk]

77. Those were designed to damage here

not in a general election (though they may use the comments of military opponents of Clark some in the general election but not much ). By here, I mean Dems. Works, doesn't it?

[Turkw]

83. You have the power to say positive things instead of negative, you have

the power to promote your candidate of choice instead of trashing other people's candidates. Clark is a extraordinary leader and thinker and will make an extraordinary President.

[FrenchieCat]

84. Yea....Bush & Rove

Really, really, really, really, want to spend money all over the south defending against a Clark run....sure!

Yea Bush & Rove want a Southern 4 star general associated with Clinton who has all of the medals and won a war without causing a single American casualty to run against them.

A 4 times wounded vietnam veteran who kept on fighting after being wounded will just be so easy to beat.

A man with a masters from Oxford in Philosophy, Economics and politics and another Masters in Applied Sciences from the Officer's College.....who knows most foreign dignitaries and world leaders by first names.

A charistmatic articulate charmer West Point Graduate (1st in his class) master debater Who knows where all of the pentagon skeletons and wasted dollars are hidden.

I see them jumping up and down for just a chance of running against the author of 2 books and a multitute of articles and essays on how much their plans have stunk.

Yep, they are salivading for their want of another Arkansas Rhodes Scholar who's initials are WC to run against a Bush, after the Bush has served one term.

sure.....OK.... Whatever!

I AM SURE THIS IS WHO THEY DON'T WANT!

[dogman]

87. Do you really believe all that?

You should use the internet to do research. It's a handy tool. It can be used to find facts. Once you've mastered it you could spend time telling people the truth.

[robbedvoter]

90. Uh-uh! That's why the National review begs us:

[SeveneightyWhoa]

92. Yup, the fact that the Republican-biased media..

..is all over Dean's nuts and has already proclaimed him the winner, sure supports your theory that Clark is the one Republicans want to face.

What a silly, silly thread.

The thing you're missing is that they'll pull moronic attacks out of their ass for anybody they face, whether it be Sharpton or Dean or Clark. It's just that Clark has what it takes to dodge and escape those attacks. Sometimes people actually look at the candidate as a person, and as a candidate with policies, rather than what a factless RNC ad shoves in their face.