Globe article on Clark giving Real Security plan

[karynnj]

Although It starts by highlighting Clark:

"It could have been the 2004 Democratic National Convention. American flags. Gold eagles sprawled across banners advertising REAL SECURITY. Uniformed personnel on stage. But instead of Senator John F. Kerry ''reporting for duty" at the microphone, a probable '08 rival was front and center: General Wesley K. Clark.

Last week's unveiling of the Democratic Party's ''Plan to Protect America" turned out to be a showcase for Clark -- and his diplomatic skills in helping get badly divided Democrats behind a single message."


After saying that Clinton and Kerry were in the back row:

"That Clark was the one presidential prospect allowed to speak owes much to his role alongside the Senate Democratic leader, Harry M. Reid of Nevada, and the House Democratic leader, Nancy P. Pelosi of California, in crafting the national security plank in which the party pledges to ''eliminate" Osama Bin Laden, better equip the US military, and ensure that 2006 ''is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty."

< so I guess Clark, Reid and Pelosi worked really hard - and basically came up with Kerry's 2004 plan (which his home town paper seems to have forgotten.) >

Then:

"Iraq was the most difficult point of agreement for party lawmakers. Over the past months, Clark spent hours on the phone and in meetings with lawmakers ranging from centrist to leftists. Last fall, he urged Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania not to make his famed call for immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. And while Clark calls the Iraq war a ''strategic blunder," he continues to disagree with such lawmakers as Kerry who propose specific reductions of troops."

Now this SHOULD trouble the Clark people, but somehow doesn't, who seem to ignore everything Clark says on Iraq going forward.




Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x8184

[JI7]

1. this has always been Clark's position , it's no surprise

it's likely the position of Reid and some others.

it would be best if Kerry just made his position known without feeling the need to get permission from Reid. Clark has been advising the Dems in Congress on this so i understand why he was there.

this is also why it doesn't do too much good to keep saying they are taking Kerry's plan because there are often differences. we can bring up the similarities.

but i think the best thing to do would be for Kerry himself to get out there and discuss this. he can do it without criticizing Reid or others. if media whores bring up how some other Dem said something else he can respond with how they agree on most of it.

[Mass]

4. I agree - Particularly when it comes to Iraq, Clark's position is

that troops should stay to stabilize the country (do it differently than Bush, but do not leave).

Kerry's position, though, is that the troops have overstayed their welcome and that it is time to find a solution to leave.

Actually, the platform on Iraq is voluntarily vague so that it can easily fit all sizes. It is a good thing for a platform for a party where there are disagreements on how to achieve our goal in Iraq, but we cannot say it is Kerry's plan.

IRAQ
To Honor the Sacrifice of Our Troops, we will:

Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.

Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.

Of course, Kerry's plan is compatible with this principles, but it is so vague that, except for the line concerning accountability, most Republicans would not have any problem having that in their program. No target date, no notion of timetable (fixed or flexible), ...

There are huge similarities, and there are even bigger similarities in other parts of the platform, particularly the military Bill of Rights and the energy security platform, and that should not surprise anybody because Kerry has been an important actor in crafting these aspects.

[ProSense]

6. The problem is,

every time Kerry makes an appearance he is asked about Iraq and makes his point clear, and he never criticize another Democrat in doing so. If I posted every interview Kerry has done since the Path Forward and Real security speeches, even as recent as the Air America and Ed Schultz interviews, he's made his position on Iraq known. He continues to reiterate the point and in the Salem News article when even further in calling for withdrawal.

So with all that, it is a big deal that he isn't given more credit by the Democrats, and the MSM is all to obliged to ignore him. Kerry toots his own horn and McCain toots his own horn. The MSM writes an article about McCain. This is not good. He is not an unknown candidate trying to get his voice heard. Tooting his own horn at this level is not going to garner the nation's attention without the national media giving it some play. This is a systematic slight. The DCCC survey was a good example of how this situation has gone awry. The idea that all Kerry has to do is be more vocal is not good enough, there has to be some calling attention to the slight. That basically is what the write in campaign was.

Did anyone see a news article about Kerry giving the Dem address in Spanish?

[karynnj]

7. Rereading that it is possible that theyare talking mostly about Iraq

when they spoke of the plan. It's true that this is not Kerry's plan - even of October. For what it had to be, it couldn't be - because Kerry's was too specific and wouldn't be acceptable to the full range of the party.

I was thinking more the energy indendence, port security, nuclear proliferation, etc

[JohnKleeb]

8. nuclear proliferation in the former USSR he brought that up again

on Franken. Its not considered a big issue but I think its very important. It really is a shame that he is not president, he's very well informed on global issues I think better than any of the possible nominees, he understands domestic policy well too but he is down right brilliant when it comes to understanding foreign affairs. Of course the people who bash Kerry relentlessly flat out don't understand the world for its complex nature which is why even the most tyrannical of Bush's global critics get an atta boy from em.

[ProSense]

10. It's a comprehensive plan.

It's 123 pages. It's a platform plan. Since the plan focuses on issues such as energy, port security, nuclear non-proliferation and fighting terrorism, and even Iraq (as specific as his plan is, elements were drawn from it), how is it that there is no mention of Kerry even in those sections? Maybe he wants it that way.

http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/RealSecurity_web.pdf

[Mass]

2. Typical of the Boston Globe, unfortunately

In addition, Nina J. Easton is married to somebody in the GOP who worked in the Bush campaign digging dirt on Kerry.

However, interesting to see that confirmation that Clark was opposed to Murtha's plan, and good to see that even Easton recognizes that Kerry wants to withdraw troops (I guess for her it is a negative, though).

[JI7]

3. was Murtha at the press conference ?

[Mass]

5. Yes, in the background like Kerry.

Kerry was at the last row on the left. I cant remember where Murtha was.

[karynnj]

9. What a conflict of interest!

Amazing that with access to the Boston Globe, they really found nothing. They were left with flip flop, looks French, and the discredited SBVT.

It really is strange that Kerry's comments that really are saying there is nothing we can do are really not being reported. Isn't there another mid -April date for something in Iraq?

If Kerry and others become louder in calling for withdrawal, it will be interesting to see who follows and what the supporters of those who insist on staying will do.

[TayTay]

11. I saw this as the Dem 'leadership' muzzling the troops

so that they can get the message of 'unity' out there. Somebody is listening to the consultants and pollsters again.

"Dems must speak together and in one voice. BTW, the matching uniforms and baseball caps will be delivered to your offices next Tuesday. Please remember to wear at least the 'Team Dems' cap every day."

Sigh! This is not going to last. These are Democrats, not the robotic Rethug invaders.

[wisteria]

12. I am having trouble dealing with this development of Clark as

our parties spokesperson on our Democratic Plan. I don't question his military qualifications at all, I also think he comes off as a nice guy. I just can't figure out why Reid and Pellosi choose him to be out front on this. I realize my feelings have a lot to do with what I envision for Senator Kerry, but this can out of left field for me. Why Clark. Add to this the fact that the Clark supporters are dreaming with Presidential seals dancing in their head, it is just about all I can take.
Actually, it seems some of the media have ignored Clark, or at least not gone negative on him, and have gone after Kerry any way because he was in the background on this. Mocking how he has been reduced to just standing there while others promote what amounts to a great deal of his plan.
I just think this has all gone very badly except for the Clark people who aren't at all concerned about giving some credit where credit is due, and don't seem to care one bit about the plan. They just see this as party support for their guy and PR coverage.
The more I think about this the angrier I get at Reid and Paloisi. Did they set out to showcase Clark and ridicule Kerry? If I ever find out this is the case, I will never give another dime to any of them except for Kerry. That included Dean also, who seems to be silent on this too.
The only saving grace was that Senator Clinton wasn't out front either. Although, she hasn't been subjected to the same mocking Kerry has.

I'm done ranting now, thanks for reading. I welcome all comments.

[karynnj]

13. I have mixed feeling on this

On one level, I can see that in reality this has gotten very little attention. The important thing about this observation is that it means the Democratic party got very little publicity out of this. I assume that other than people closely following the news, who likely also followed the election in 2004, even heard of this. This is a bigger problem than whether it was Kerry or Clark.

The WP article, that said the ideas were good, but the candidate but - ignores another alternative the ideas and the candidate were good, but the normal means of propagating a message were greatly restricted. Clark was given the position of being the offical point person on the over all message. But this weekend, I heard nothing on the TV or radio about Clark's presentation. Everyone, not just Clark, will be speaking about the plan as the year goes on.

We heard Kerry on Ed Schultz - I assume he will contiue to speak on those parts that he is comfortable with and will likely continue to point to the things he ran on. His wording was so similar - it should trigger the memories of at least a large percent of Democrats. The other thing is that on Iraq, where his position is not the mushy middle that is in the plan (his October plan was more towards handing over power and getting out than this is now), he likely would not want to be obligated to be on record backing this position. This either is Clark's position or he (again in the role of a good soldier) is willing to speak the party line. (Note that they didn't opt to use Hillary - which I assume reflects her desire to continue staying off record.)

To use Kerry, they would likely have had to split the issue with Kerry essentially having the national security piece and Clark (or someone else) having Iraq. This would likely draw the focus of commentators to the fact that Democrats really don't agree on Iraq. So, it's not clear whether the gain of having Kerry able to say these were positions he ran on would make up for this. I would expect though that Kerry will actively speak on the issues he is comfortable with.

The tough issue is Iraq - and in at least 2 recent opportunities, he has really moved towards withdrawal. I bet he wishes it were, say mid November. It will be interesting to see if he speaks out before the election. This is a life or death issue, so waiting for November is wrong - if his best judgement is to get out, but he will really be blasted by the "leaders" of the party if he does. (Although you can argue he has a legitimate reason to claim that he is a leader in his own right - he won a huge percent of the primary votes which show the Democrats were ok with him leading - Reid won Nevada and a brokered party vote for Senate Minority leader.)

As Kerry has no backing from that leadership, he has nothing to lose in angering them and possibly something to gain. The problem is the impact on 2006. I honestly believe that no one thinks either of the parties are homogeneous - Snowe would likely be more comfortable at a party with the Kerrys than with the Coburn. I do think it is good that the Democrats are putting together a platform of ideas most are happy with to differentiate themselves from the Republicans. But the individual Senators will reserve the right to disagree on some points.

So, while this is an opportunity for Clark - it's not that huge and it comes with a down side. It also dealing mostly with the area he already has excellent credentials on. In a way, the way he is positioned on Iraq may make him more a Hillary competitor than a Kerry competitor. His editorial on Iraq last year places him closer to Hillary and Biden (I think). The disconnect is that his followers really ignore things like the comment that he tried to talk Murtha out of his position. If Kerry did this, we would have threads on it for six months.

[ProSense]

15. A WaPo op-ed

twisting the goals of the plan. This is why Kerry's specific approach to each issue matters.

The Democrats do indeed attack the failures and promise an end to incompetence. But they also reveal a different world view, one that is far more cramped and inward-looking. While reassuring voters that they will keep "foreign interests" out of "our national security infrastructure" -- including "mass transit" -- the Democrats do not find space to mention democracy even once.

They promise to "destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda," but there is no discussion of a broader threat, of a "global war" or a long Cold War-like struggle. They devote more space to homeland security than to anything else. There is no mention of preemptive action.

The document does promise, almost as an aside and without elaboration, to "lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights" and to combat "the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive." But where Bush concluded from Sept. 11 that the acceptance of stable dictatorships in countries such as Egypt was ultimately self-defeating, Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democrats' leader in the Senate, told me that while "we of course acknowledge that democracy is our goal . . . we first have to have stability."

Certainly a respectable case can be made that there is no "global war" -- that the administration, whether from shock at the 2001 attacks or out of political cynicism, exaggerated the threat and distorted American priorities. There is an equally respectable argument that Bush's promise to end tyranny is dangerously romantic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040201184.html

[TayTay]

16. This guy is still a neo-con

He is mad because the Democrats won't commit to going around the world and stomping on nations they don't like just because they can. Ahm, I hope to hell the Dems don't want that, this pre-emptive action in Iraq will be felt for decades to come.

[ProSense]

17. The way he weave

the pre-emptive approach into his argument leaves the impression that it's something to brag about. Should e-mail him the Iraq report to show him the stupidity behind that kind of thinking.

[wisteria]

19. When you detail the Iraqi war portion of the plan, it does make more

sense for Clark to be speaking in that issue. I can understand Senator Kerry not wanting to associate to closely with this position. The other positions listed in the plan are things Kerry can and should have been able to speak of at the conference. Maybe it was his choice not to take center stage on this like Senator Clinton, but I just get the feeling this was more Reid's decision after consulting Clinton. I am sure if she had wanted front and center she would have gotten it.
Like you mentioned, it hasn't received much airplay. We can speculate why, but it is over and done and perhaps not being center stage for this will actually work to his advantage.
PS the most interesting thing for me coming out of this, is Clark's position on the war and his trying to talk Murtha out of his.

[karynnj]

20. In retrospect, if it really continues to get pretty low airplay,

it may almost be a godsend that Kerry was not front and center. It kind of blows the messenger not the message out of play. It's now April, the election is November. This and other issues will be floated over the next 6 months. Kerry has promised to campaign. He will intelligently choose his topics - and will likely hit some of these issues.

I agree with you that Clark's Iraq position - from the commemnts here, but more from the op-ed he wrote last year - really do not place him with Feingold/Kerry/Levin/Kennedy etc, but more likely with Clinton. The other problem he might have is that much of his money support last time was Clinton people. It's possible that he might have other backers or his netroots can raise money.

In 2004, when he had money and spent lots of time in NH when the others were in Iowa - he didn't win over a large percent of the population - coming in tied for third with Edwards (12% each) and way behind Dean(26%) and Kerry.(38%) I believe that Edwards did little here - concentrating on the southern/rural states that came next.

[ProSense]

14. The press event

should have been Kerry and Clark could have still done the radio address. It was a plan introduced by Congressional Democrats. Kerry could have given more teeth to the introduction of the entire plan, including non-proliferation, energy independence and alternative fuels, GI bill of rights and fighting terrorism.

To see these things highlighted in the press release about the radio address and Kerry in the background at the event made no sense to me.

[Mass]

18. The Boston Globe is an embarrassment for Massachusetts.

A few days ago, they had an article concerning the lobbying law without even a quote from Kerry.

Then, they ignore or mischaracterize Kerry's positions on the National Security Bill.

And today, they have an article on immigration where they barely quote Kennedy and ignore Kerry's Hispanic Democratic address.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/03/a_chasm_in_congress_deepens_over_immigration/

But Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in a statement yesterday that Frist had mischaracterized the Judiciary Committee measure.

Kennedy said the committee bill ''puts undocumented immigrants who want to earn American citizenship at the back of the line -- after they've paid a big penalty, paid their back taxes, learned English, and worked consistently for six years."

The chore of the article is on how Republicans are divided. The Democratic position is all but ignored.

[karynnj]

21. They ignored Kennedy on the Kennedy/McCain bill

that Kennedy and staff likely did most of. What's really unfair is that in the rest of the country, I think the assumption is that it is a very liberal paper read by MA liberals.