Sometimes the "logic" in General Discussion amazes me

[Island Blue]

While at work today, I had a few minutes so I popped over to the GD Board - quiet often a mistake, I know. Anyway some poster was waxing poetic about Wes Clark saying he was "a progressive's wet dream", etc. etc.

The first person to respond to him said (and I quote): "I was a Clark supporter at the outset of the last election. I still think he would have done better than Kerry although I did support Kerry ultimately. ABB!"

That quote just makes my head hurt. How does it make any sense at all? Wasn't Clark one of the first in the field of Democratic contenders to throw in the towel? How could he have possibly done better than Kerry, IF HE COULDN'T EVEN BEAT KERRY! I really wish the Democratic Party would issue straps with our thinking caps so they wouldn't fall off so easily!

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, and there are no real answers to my questions - I just needed to rant.:banghead: On edit: I have nothing against Wes Clark - just against twisted logic.

[karynnj]

1. What's weird is that they really think he would have been a

flawless candidate. They ignore that he has never run for office. Against a Rove campaign he would have been mincemeat. He was way less consistent on Iraq than his supporters now recall - having said he would probably have voted for the IWR. His appearing with Michael Moore would have been political dynamite (for Rove, not Clark) and the tapes of him praising Bush profusely would have appeared.

He is well spoken, but I don't think he has the wealth of knowledge and history that Kerry did. So, I don't think he would have been as awesome in the debates as Kerry. But, he would beat W. Having been a high military person for years, I think he had a tendency to not tolerate fools (or reporters he deemed to be such) well. (Very vague memory - could be wrong)

I think the Fox thing could be good for the Democrats - we get a voice - as long as he negotiated that he controls the microphone. It could also be good for him in terms of giving him name recognition and more practice responding to questions. The primaries themselves will test whether he has learned how to be a candidate.

I do find it weird that they take his progressive/liberal status at face value in spite of his admitting that he voted for Nixon and Reagan and is on tape praising W after the huge tax cut, but consider Kerry to be a DLC DINO. (I don't think Kerry voted for Nixon or for Reagan)

[Island Blue]

2. I agree with all of the above

especially that the fact that they ignore that he formally voted Republican (not holding that against him mind you, I've done it my self long, long ago in a place far, far away - but then I'm not running for POTUS). It's just another one of those things that makes you want to bang your head against the wall!

[ginnyinWI]

3. Clark jumped in so late, too

Didn't Kerry start in, like early 2003? These days it takes a while to get everything organized. I don't think Clark was a serious contender. More of a "keep them honest" kind of a candidate, or else a "what the hell" kind of candidate. Or even a "ask me to be veep" kind of a candidate. Take your pick.

[Island Blue]

4. The thing that really baffles me though

is the logic that says he could have beaten Bush when he couldn't even win the Democratic nomination. It's not Clark that I have a problem with, it's just the logic of the people who say he (or any other Democratic candidate) could have won the Presidency, even though our actual candidate apparently didn't.

As far as the choices you gave, I'd have say he was hoping to be a VP candidate. Either that or getting his name out in public for a more serious run in '08.

[karynnj]

6. it is possible for someone to loss the primary who has a better general

election chance. In fact, the old conventional wisdom was that the primaries favor the people towards the extreme (but not far extreme) for each party because that's where the people most likely to vote in the primaries are and the candidate closest to the center was most likely to win.

[whometense]

5. I was paying intense attention before the primaries,

and I remember some HUGE gaffes Clark made because he was so politically green. There was no way he could have done better than Kerry - he wouldn't have come close. I like Clark. I was hoping he'd be chosen as Kerry's running mate. But no way was he ready to run for president.

Here's one Clark whopper:

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position ? on balance, I probably would have voted for it."
. . .
The general's remarks in a free-rolling 90-minute airborne interview suggested the extent of the adjustment he faces in becoming a presidential candidate.

"Mary, help!" he called to his press secretary, Mary Jacoby, at the front of the plane, as he faced questions about Iraq. "Come back and listen to this."

At one point, Ms. Jacoby interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.

"I want to clarify ? we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

And here's another:

General Clark Talked Too Much

CJR Campaign Desk: Archives

Echo Chamber

Back in February, Matt Drudge wrote an undocumented story claiming that one of John Kerry's interns had fled the country at the candidate's request, just as Kerry was fighting off a "media probe of recent alleged infidelity." In the piece, Drudge claimed that Wesley Clark had told a group of reporters that "Kerry will implode over an intern issue" in an off-the-record conversation.

The Kerry intern story turned out to be bogus, as did the claim that Clark had spread the rumor. As Campaign Desk noted at the time (and has written about subsequently as well), The New Republic's Ryan Lizza and reporters we spoke to on background who were present for the comments all confirm that Clark never said anything about an intern during the conversation in question. The retired general did say he believed there was a story coming out that might damage Kerry, but, according to one reporter, he didn't seem to have any idea what it might be.
Thankfully, the rumor about Kerry's infidelity seems to have faded into the ether. But, maddeningly, the claim that Clark spread the rumor has endured. An alert reader emailed us today about a Boston Globe piece by Peter Canellos containing the following paragraph:

Then the last days of his campaign, Clark reportedly told a few reporters he was hanging on because he heard Kerry might be exposed as having had an affair with an intern. The affair never materialized, but Clark may have revealed a problem of his own, not being able to keep his mouth shut.

The irony here is that Clark did show, in the episode, that he sometimes says things he probably shouldn't. He just didn't say what Drudge, and subsequently Newsweek, the Associated Press, and, now, The Boston Globe, say he did. The rest of Canellos' story is excellent, and far from a hit piece: It concludes with the statement that "Kerry could do far worse" than selecting Clark as his running mate. It's just too bad he didn't bother to check up on the validity of a claim that's been debunked many times -- and that originated with a source who pegs his own accuracy rate (generously) at 80 percent.

[Dr Ron]

7. Their logic is simple

1) Kerry is always wrong to understand

2) If Kerry says something which they cannot disagree with, claim it is the firs time he has said anything like this and that Dean forced him to

3) Instant gratification is very important. There is no interest in the protracted efforts of a Senate investigation.

4) Complete success is required. If Kerry cannot actually change something bad, he is a failure

5) Comparisons to others are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if others have not spoken out on a topic or have not been able to solve a problem. Kerry's requirements exceed those of all other.

6) Anything Dean's campaign may have made up in their early efforts to differentiate Dean from Kerry in the primary battle is to be forever considered truth regardless of how much contrary evidence exists.