Campaign 2004: Clark’s Charge ....I would have been a Republican

[demdave]

After Al Qaeda attacked America, retired Gen. Wes Clark thought the Bush administration would invite him to join its team. After all, he’d been NATO commander, he knew how to build military coalitions and the investment firm he now worked for had strong Bush ties. But when GOP friends inquired, they were told: forget it.



WORD WAS THAT Karl Rove, the president’s political mastermind, had blocked the idea. Clark was furious. Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. “I would have been a Republican,” Clark told them, “if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race—as a Democrat. Messaging NEWSWEEK by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a “humorous tweak.” The two others said it was anything but. “He went into detail about his grievances,” Holtzman said. “Clark wasn’t joking. We were really shocked.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp?0cv=KA01

[Khephra]

1. I've been one of the Pro-Clark Deanies

But I have to say the events and articles of the last few weeks have me reconsidering that.

This isn't just a slip of the tounge. Yes, he said it to Republicans, but if he doesn't address the quote asap then this is not going to play well at all...not at all.

[hippiechick]

34. So is he running as a Dem out of conviction, or spite ?

Clark's glow is tarnishing, REAL quicklike.


:hi: Kef !


:hippie:

[Khephra]

36. Too early for me to make a call...

But you're right about that glow.

:hi: Hip!

:loveya:

[salin]

38. I keep in mind two things:

the easiest wedge that either the right, or the media (or even a competitor) can cleave - is questions of "is he really a democrat"? Following any democratic message board demonstrates that the question is exploitable.

So any statement, anything will be thrown to push that wedge.

Keep in mind that higherups (aspiring officers) are supposed to be apolitical - as they must serve to the best of their ability, and with loyalty, their CIC regardless of party. THus I can understand coming from that setting for a career and feeling apolitical in terms of party affiliation.

That said - some of these stories - which are a bit unsettling - in context could be understood. And easily exploited.

BUT they can also be big ole red warning flags.

THUS I take the potential wedge (recognizing that all of it maybe someone's wedge strategy) with a big heaping tablespoon full of salt. But I take note. And I pay great attention to the policy positions. I look not only at their formulation/position, but at their internal consistency (within the specific policy), and their overall consistentcy (approaches across policies/issues). I listed in debates and interviews for both internal and overall consistency. I probably pay even more attention to this than I do to other candidates because there is no written or legislative history. In the end I either find a series of red flags that make me go back and replay the potential wedge issues. OR I find few red flags (lets face it - every politician will throw up a few... none of them view all issues consistently with our own) - and then put the earlier salt to bed - and view him at face value.

[Khephra]

43. Oh...agreed on all points

I'm actually more interested in seeing the Clark response to this than in finding out whether or not it's a true statement. In many ways, I think Gore made things much tougher than they should have been for him because of his response to press statements and mis-statements about his campaign and bio.

Every frontrunner had to deal with the press head-on. Clark's been getting a hell of a lot of positive press, so we're now onto the "now what shit can we stir up?" portion of show. It's just his turn.

BUT it is a big question to me about how he'll deal with this.

[Eloriel]

73. Kef

You need to look a lot more deeply at Clark than "just" how he responds to this or even if this is true, etc.

I've become so alarmed by what I've been learning about him that I don't want Dean to ever MENTION him again, and distance himself ever so subtley and gently from him in the meantime.

IMO, Clark is NOT good news for the Dem party. His military record is a bit of a mess, he worked for Jackson Stephens afterwards, he's been spouting DLC talking points, he's all over the place on his support or lack thereof or reasons for all of that re Iraq war, etc.

No, no. He can only harm Dean and NOT because of his apparent automatic rise in the polls to front runner nationally if not savior of the world.

Also, Code_Name_D had a great post too deconstructing his "100 Year Vision" which is, he said, about the only policy thing on his website (if you can call it that). In GD. Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=379541

Keep your mind open as long as you want or need to, but trust me enough to look further: Clark is bad news.

Eloriel

[Khephra]

79. Oh, don't worry

I'm a Dean supporter all the way. I just happen to like a lot of what I've seen out of Clark before. I really do hope that he's everything his supporters say he is....

...but I ain't jumping ship for anyone else at this point. Dean's been throughly reaserched at this point. Clark hasn't, and he was critical of the war, so I'm keeping an open mind both ways on Clark's honesty at this point.

[Mackay]

44. The article doesn't say he is running out of 'spite'.

That is the reading some of the DUers here made. It could be read that way...

My original reading of the article was that Clark was looking to be a player. He wasn't offered a position... and then he realized that he had a much better possibility open to him.

He is probably not used to being rejected and made an offhand comment about how they could have had his services. Anyone with his resume and connections who is rejected for a job is likely to have some grievances (especially when they thought they might be a shoe-in).

The offhand comment suggests that had he been offered the job, he would not have been looking for another possibility...

I can't see where it says that he is running to spite Karl Rove. That may be wishful thinking on the part of some supporters who want to discount any unflattering features of their candidate as propaganda.

[hippiechick]

46. Clark says 'Rove didn't return my calls' !!!

.. and shortly thereafter he began to consider a run for Prez as a Dem. If that isn't a 3rd grade 'Neener-neener' reaction to a rejection from KKKarl, I don't know what is !!!!

We already have a 'president' who runs on a policy of vengenance, payback and mean spirited-ness. We don't need Clark, thank you.


:hippie:

[Mackay]

48. Hey, I agree!

We don't need Clark...

read my other posts.

But the article doesn't say that he ran for president because his calls weren't returned. It implies that if he had been employed as one of the players, he probably wouldn't have thought about running for president.

That is logical. And doesn't necessarily imply some petty grudge that others here are reading into it.

[Pepperbelly]

50. And ...

Clark said it was a joke and I believe him. Perhaps you should as well. After all, the sources of this story ... Owens and Holtzman (sp?) ... are somewhat dubious. Owens wing nuttery is fairly well known and Holtzman (sp) was placed at the University as President and he has been very supportive of Horowitz's Cons in Academia (or whatever it's called) as well as a RR operative. No doubt it occurred but there is also the ability to spin it wildly FOR a Republican purpose. I do not know that these two have done that but it is something that should be considered before coming down on their side.

What a good way to sow dischord among the opposition.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[KC21304]

55. My, my, what did you do with the money

your mother gave you to take the Dale Carnagie course ?

[maggrwaggr]

2. he could have just been joking. I'll give him that.

I mean, I say all kinds of things when I'm pissed off.

This sounds like some Republicans just wanting to discredit him as a Democrat

[sfecap]

3. Combine this with his remarks to Jake Tapper in Salon...

He states that he considers Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith, et al "colleagues, and he'd be willing to "work with them again".

I am beginning to wonder about Wes Clark...

[carpetbagger]

24. We've gone over this. Another "Goreing"

A one liner that requires too much time for most people's attention to rebuke, just like "no controlling legal authority".

For those of you who are interested, some of the Axis of War Without End represented the Bosnian Muslims around the time of the Dayton accords. Proving that a broken moral compass shows the right direction once during each revolution of moral spin, some of those guys happened to stumble into trying to prevent an ongoing genocide.

As I said before, I'd work with Ann Coulter if it would prevent the slaughter of a people.

[sfecap]

40. I don't think it's another "Goreing" at all.

His remarks in Salon were 6 months ago. He has had a couple years to consider who his friends are. Moreover, these people are the very same ones who concocted PNAC, and eventually the Iraq War. As Clark maintains he was against the invasion, and purports that it was a bad plan, I find it more than a little strange that he would continue to call these people "colleagues".

You can spin it however it makes you comfortable, but his comments continue to cause me concern.

[OKNancy]

51. A colleague is an associate

in your profession. It doesn't mean you are best buddies.
I have colleagues in my profession that I don't agree with, but in a business or social situation I would introduce them as a collegue.

You are obviously not in the business world.

[sfecap]

57. Actually I am in the business world.

And when I call people colleagues, say that I "like them very much", and say that I'd work with them again, it implies both a working friendship and an approval of their past and present work.

His statements don't need much parsing. They speak for themselves, (unless of course, one is in deep denial.)

[Eloriel]

74. Ands another reason it's not Gore-ing

Is that these are his actual comments, not highly exaggerated to the point of lies as reported in the press comments.

Eloriel

[jody]

4. Now the corporatists have leading candidates in both major parties

:shrug:

[Mackay]

11. That's why he's getting so much media attention

the corporatists figure if he or Bush win, either way, they win.

FACT:

"the investment firm he now worked for had strong Bush ties."

When you know the context, it is very unlikely that he was joking.

This guy is not an independent thinker. I don't think he cares who he works for or what party he belongs to as long as he gets pushed up the ladder. No one gets promoted in the military by 'speaking truth to power'. I would say that one gets promoted by being a syncophant.

Also, since in 2004 we may be trying to heal the international rifts that have been created by Bushco, is it going to be helpful to have a leader that embodies the military. What kind of message does that send about the U.S. in the post-Iraq/afghanistan climate?

This guy is just plain scary. I had deep reservations and now I am definately anti-Clark! He is Bush-Lite and doing his best to hide it.

I know you Draft Clark supporters want to beat Bush and that is why you are throwing your weight behind this man. But it is like a childish crush... be honest, how much do you REALLY KNOW about the man? Where is his public record on these issues? Geez, don't be duped.

Any Dem can win against Bush in 2004... another 9/11 won't save him (it would even underline his failures). We need a candidate who is going to make a difference... and there are several good ones to choose from.

[mbartko]

17. Ding ding ding! Bingo!

Of course, you'll simply be demonized as a Clark-basher, but I think you hit it right on the head.

[jody]

20. Excellent summary. The "one-half per centers" that own 42% of

our financial wealth and growing rapidly, keep the voters distracted while they support a majority of bi-partisan votes to pass their bills.

But don't go to fast and scare the working masses, they might get pissed and revolt. Follow the receipt for boiling live frogs and very slowly heat the water. Frogs will die as they adjust to harsh changes and freedom can wither away just as surely.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

54. Corporatist?

That's what the Greens labeled Bush and Clinton. Nader said he was happy Bush won. You must be a Green....or a Socialist.

Yes I'll take Clark for several reasons. He's articulate, telegenic and can make his point without being insulting. Furthermore as one who's actually seen combat he would be less likely to get us involved in a war unlike the chickenhawks in the Bush administration.

[Mackay]

59. sigh

"Don't you dare candidate bash Clark... and if you do, I'll call you a Green!"

Did I commit the fatal faux pas of using a favorite word from the green lexicon?

Once again, Clark supporters have the thinnest skin of all.

And your reasons for supporting clark are exhibit A as to why I find his candidature vapid.

Articulate? Strange, I have yet to see one Clark supporter able to spell out any future policies... and already he is "articulate".

Telegenic? Gag... is that really in the top three? I think that is really what all the fuss is truly about.

"LESS likely to get us involved" Well that says it all! Sorry, but I want someone who WOULDN'T have started an unjust war. Other candidates are pretty plain spoken about it. Unlike Clark.

Looks like we won't agree on Clark... otherwise, we can agree that this is a chickenhawk administration.

[IndianaGreen]

64. How about Clark's crass disregard for civilian casualties in Kosovo?

This is from Human Rights Watch, not some GOP Talking Point:

Pentagon Report Whitewashes Civilian Deaths in Yugoslavia

(Washington, February 8, 2000) -- The U.S. Defense Department review of the NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia shows that the alliance has failed to learn from its mistakes in killing civilians, Human Rights Watch charged today.

<snip>

Meanwhile, a 79-page Human Rights Watch report released yesterday documents that the number of incidents in which civilians were killed in the NATO air campaign in Yugoslavia is at least three times as high as what the Pentagon has claimed.

"Congress should insist that the Pentagon produce a franker and more critical self-assessment," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.

Roth noted that for every bomb dropped and missile launched, civilians were roughly twice as likely to die in Yugoslavia as they were during the 1991 allied bombing campaign in Iraq.

"The Pentagon failed to draw some important lessons about minimizing civilian casualties in the Gulf War," said Roth. "And it doesn't appear to have learned anything from the Yugoslav experience, either. Unfortunately, the lack of critical self-scrutiny in the Pentagon report means that the many needless deaths in Iraq and Yugoslavia may well be repeated in the next war."

http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/nato208.htm

One disturbing aspect of the matter of civilian deaths is how starkly the number of incidents and deaths contrasts with official U.S. and Yugoslav statements. U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, and Gen. Wesley Clark, have testified before Congress and stated publicly that there were only twenty to thirty incidents of "collateral damage" in the entire war. The number of incidents Human Rights Watch has been able to authenticate is three to four times this number. The seemingly cavalier U.S. statements regarding the civilian toll suggest a resistance to acknowledging the actual civilian effects and an indifference to evaluating their causes.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200.htm#P39_994

[Tanketra]

80. And of course ...

... anybody who leans towards a Green or Socialist platform should ditch the Democratic Party, and go vote for those guys, because we don't need their votes, don't want their votes, don't agree with most of their positions, and we sure as heck wouldn't blame them for costing us an election even if they did go vote for some other guy.

Wait ... I'm being told now, we did, in fact, blame them.

[Selwynn]

72. You are exactly right.

And that is why I cannot support Clark. What is even more sad is I'm almost positive he'll get the nomination.

[disgruntella]

82. Where does this quote come from?

FACT:
"the investment firm he now worked for had strong Bush ties."

I would like to know what the "strong Bush ties" are.

By the way, I support Clark (along with some of the other candidates) and I don't see your post as bashing. I just don't agree with many of your points. :) Except when you suggest that any Dem can win against Bush in 2004.

[Cronus Protagonist]

21. You're right. And that's the plan

These people play for keeps. There's no way they would have an election without it being fixed and there's no way they won't have a backup plan in case the fixin' doesn't work. General Clarke is obviously part of that scheme.

Kucinich is the one.

http://cronus.com/prayer



Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets!>

[Cappurr]

5. I believe that Clark offered his services after 9/ll

Actually, that is commendable since he was making a lot of money in the private sector. I also believe he made the comment about "I would have been a Republican". But the comment itself suggests a joke, not seriousness. Who is going to say that with a straight face?

The truth is Clark, as a military man, was apolitical by regulation. He had to be. And even as recently as three months ago (when he certainly was seriously considering running) he declined to say what his party affiliation is.

His policies will define him....not some joke made at a party recalled by a couple of Repulicans and reported by Howard Fineman.:eyes:

[Khephra]

8. One of the early tests of any candidate has involved how they

handle the truths and untruths offered up in the press (See: Al Gore).

If he can't deal with a quote by Fineman like this out of the box, then he won't last through any of the debates without looking foolish, let alone the rest of the press.

We were talking about idealism in another thread....this is the sort of quote that if not handled promptly and firmly will lead to a major loss in faith, especially on the heels of the "will vote/won't vote" situation of last week.

[Eloriel]

76. And there's a lot for him to look foolish about

Sad but true.

Eloriel

[Dhalgren]

68. I am not an "anti-Clark" person,

but the idea that military people are "apolitical" is bullshit. Plain and simple. They may not want to express an outspoken "Democratic" leaning while in the service in a power position, but that doesn't mean that privately they don't hold strong political beliefs. I was always troubled by Clark's unwillingness to declare himself a Democrat early on, I know that military brass and upper level businessmen are often "afraid" to be "outed" as a Democrat. But if you are going to run for President as a Democrat, you should lose that timidity or go back to private business.

[RamboLiberal]

6. I want a better source than Howard Fineman

He's a media whore who wants to stir up the waters.

I think the Repugs are in full attack mode.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Clark in the coming weeks.

Glad I don't have to vote yet for Dem for President.

[kaitykaity]

81. Amen to that!!

Add Katherine Seeyle, Ceci Connolly, and Dickie Berke
to that list of reporter-whores who were central in
the "Gore-ing" of Gore in 2000.

They are to be dismissed out of hand.

[JaySherman]

7. Did he invent the Internet too???

This sounds mysteriously like the same twisting of words tactics that the Bush fascists have used against Gore and others in the past.

I would be very wary of this before jumping to any conclusions. Something doesn't seem right here.

[Khephra]

9. See my above post

It really doesn't matter whether or not he said this--it matters how he responds to it more.

[Cappurr]

10. Agree

A hundred percent

[tlb]

77. It really DOES matter if he said it or not.

Not how skillfully he can doubletalk the issue afterward. We are already getting ample evidence of his spin skills on other issues.

Several months ago I noted in an earlier thread how I would never want Clark in any position of responsibility whatsoever, much less as president. I got flamed pretty good for that.

I think the board is slowly catching up.

[NNN0LHI]

12. The reason it sounds that way is because it is the same tactics

A few fall for it. The majority don't.

Don

[Khephra]

15. Repeat a lie enough...

Gore didn't handle the Internet quote, so he became Al "I invented the Internet" Gore.

If Clark doesn't handle this it's even worse--he'll be Wesley "I could have been a Republican" Clark.

Do you really think that one won't be pounded into the ground by Januarary if Clark doesn't respond in the right fashion? And unlike the "internet" quote, this one won't be ignored by the base.

There's now 9 other candidates who've added this quote to their memory. Not good, even if he was joking. I'm starting to think that Clark may have a worse time keeping his mouth shut at the right time than Dean.

[NNN0LHI]

18. Don't agree This is like asking "when did you quit beating your wife"?

Just the kind of question there is no right answer for. "I said it but I was just joshing around. Yuk, yuk." That sounds real presidential, don't it? If I were Clark I would ignore this crap. I will too if someone doesn't keep repeating it until it becomes truth.

Don

[Rebellious Republican]

13. I would have to agree....

I saw where Bob Novak was stirring up some trouble in the NY Post, about Clark. I think the Repubs are afraid of this man. He was not AWOL on his watch! I beleive they are going to use everything in the play book on this man. Remember White is Black, Night is Day, you get the picture. And if anyone is wondering, no I have not decided who I am voting for in the primary, I have three candidates that I like and have not made a decision. Probably won't until its time to vote, I want to see more debates, and study them all a little closer.

:kick:

[Mackay]

16. Of course they are in attack mode...

that's obvious.

However, this charge rings consistent with Clark's reluctance to show himself a Democrat. And as the article states, his working with close connections to the Bush administration.

My question is: If it were true would any of you pro Clark people change your mind about him? Is it a cult of personality... or do we want a true Democrat as president?

[Cappurr]

27. Well.....I'm not exactly pro-Clark

But I am interested in him. And If he is running for president to get even with Rove, of course it would make a difference. But that is a really silly senaro. No-one goes through a political campaign to get even with some sleazy political operative.

If, however, Clark worked closely with Republicans and offered his services after 9/11, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to me. We rely too much on labels. It doesn't help. What are his policies? What is is world view? Is he a progressive? Does he envision a better world with better lives for more people or is he interested in American hegemony and global corporate power?

That's what I want to know. As a military man, he couldn't be politically connected anyway. So now he can and he has joined the Democratic party. That is good enough for me. :shrug:

[Mackay]

29. I share your questions...

"What are his policies? What is is world view? Is he a progressive? Does he envision a better world with better lives for more people or is he interested in American hegemony and global corporate power?"

However, it is easy to say one thing and do another. I'd prefer to rely on someone's record.

[NNN0LHI]

32. You are right Cappur. The labels are meaningless

One thing is sure though. If these two wingnuts thought releasing this information would have helped Clark they never would have. It was obviously released to try and harm Clarks chances of winning the nomination. Unless some believe they told Fineman this story because they are both just good public servants maybe?

Don

[IndianaGreen]

62. What does Clark say about Bush and Blair? In his own words...

What does Clark say about Bush and Blair? In his own words, this is what "antiwar" candidate Clark has to say:

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced.

Published on Thursday, April 10, 2003 by the Times/UK
Anti-War Candidate?
What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by General Wesley Clark

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

[Rebellious Republican]

65. Honestly IG, It really does not say anything, sounds like a bunch

of political double talk.
As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.
All he is saying is that they pushed hard for something and achieved it.
And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe.
I think he is just stating the obvious.
Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced.
I guess he was on the money with that to. Are we still unconvinced, yes.

I believe all his statements to be true in general, no pun intended. It really does not say anything about being pro war. I guess it is what someone wants to read into it as to how you interpret it.

:kick:

[IndianaGreen]

66. Clark's silence about the legality of the war in Iraq is deafening!

This is Clark's moral and ethical failure! Just as Colin Powell tried to hush up the My Lai massacre when he was a young Army Major, we now see Wesley Clark's lips completely sealed when it comes to legality of the war in Iraq.

Like the Germans that cheered when they say films of their troops marching into Paris, Clark is totally overcome with jinogistic pride and silent as to whether we should have invaded Iraq at all!

This entire article speaks volumes for what it does not say. Clark has no moral compass, and no core values, other than what is expedient. This may explain why Clark's opposition to Iraq is so nearly identical to Lieberman's position.

[NNN0LHI]

83. Who are all of the candidates who have brought up the legality IG?

Try not to leave anyone off of that long list either. And please add all of their quotes too if you would not mind doing that. Thanks in advance.

Don

[IndianaGreen]

86. The other candidates were not in command of NATO

Clark had command responsibility!

[NNN0LHI]

92. So the rest of the candidates...

...are immune from anyone knowing their position of the legality of the Iraq war while Clarks position is not because he was head of NATO until 1999? Is that what you are saying IG? You have got to be kidding me here. If any one of the Democratic candidates for president were to come out and say this war was illegal, and the rest of the candidates did not condemn him for doing so, that would be the end of the Democratic party. I think you are being disingenuous. If my son or nephew were in Iraq getting shot at right now and some Dem running for president were to imply that what he was doing was illegal, that might not make me very happy. Lets just say for the sake of arguement what you are suggesting would not play well in Peoria. And I think you know it too?

Don

[ablbodyed]

85. I think that Clark is....

Complimenting their political skills in implementing policy, NOT necessarily the policy itself. My view of Clark is mixed: I hope he the real deal, but is he too good to be true?

[Rebellious Republican]

33. I did not say that I was Pro Clark, MacKay, however I was once a

Republican myself, hence the handle RR! People can change their politcal affiliations, and whole heartedly! I have, you could even call me a yellowdawg Dem now. I have been posting for about a year here at DU, you can ask anyone that has read my posts. I hate republicans. Its kinda like, "I used to be hooked on drugs, but now I am hooked on the lord" if you are familar with Cheech and Chong that is. The Republican party used to have many good republicans like John McCain and Jim Jeffords. But the BFEE and PNAC have taken over the party and turned it into something very FASCIST. They tried to hijack the party with Nixon and Reagan, however they did not have the marketing machine that we have today. Politicians have always been able to be bought off, thats old hat. However, that still left John Q Public to deal with. They had to be able to control the minds of the John Q's in order to make the take over complete. Think BLADE RUNNER with a whole bunch of Richard Dawson's running every form of media and marketing. But I digress, if Jim Jeffords and myself can have an epiphany, is it not possible for Clark!

:kick:

ANYONE BUT BUSH IN "04"

[Mackay]

37. Perhaps...

Clark is not claiming to have had an epiphany. I would prefer a nominee who is farther to the left than anyone mentioned in your post as one of the better Republicans.

I'm glad that you count yourself a Democrat.

My goal is only to make sure we pick the best candidate for the job... not just the one who scares Karl Rove the most.

[Rebellious Republican]

47. Pick a better candidate or create a rift in Democrat unity?

I personally refuse to engage in candidate bashing, if some one believes their candidate is the better choice, that is their choice. It is a known Republican tactic to divide and conquer. That is why the Democratic party has lost control. It is now more important than ever to stand together. Do not give them the satisfaction. By the way, you can not get any further to the left and still be a republican, kinda like Jim Jeffords. Also, the last time I checked none of the names mentioned were Democrat candidates. So whats your point, mine was to give you an example of good republicans. There are good and bad politicians on both sides of the political spectrum. Take Trafficant, for instance is that what you would consider a good Dem.

:kick:

[Mackay]

56. Primaries are about finding the best candidate

I am extremely opposed to Lieberman and Clark and will bash them as much as I damn well please. If one of them survives to win the nomination, I'll have to hold my nose and vote for them.

Working towards having a great candidate involves being critical of those you do not think are up to par. We need to have a little more critical thinking around here regarding the candidates. It is not just about falling in love and then trying to out-fawn each other.

If you think my posts are candidate bashing, you have pretty thin skin. If you read them, basically I say that we really don't know anything about Clark... and what we have heard from his own mouth (and hearsay) is not that flattering.

Bashing... well that is more in the line of the people on other threads who have said that he was a war criminal, etc. But, if I thought that about him, I wouldn't hesitate to say it.

I'm further to the left than most Dems... and so no I don't find Trafficant to be a good Dem (among other Dems... ). There is not really a political spectrum in the U.S. : Dems are basically Center-Right. And Republicans are Right-Whacko. When we're lucky, a stray Dem may actually be left. In contrast, a stray Republican may actually have some morals.

[Rebellious Republican]

60. Dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, you mean that kind of thing?

Working towards having a great candidate involves being critical of those you do not think are up to par. We need to have a little more critical thinking around here regarding the candidates.
How about just making your choice, and pointing out the positive attributes of your candidate. You know, focusing on your candidates policies, values, morals and beliefs. Is it necessary to go for the throat of another Dem candidate, that sounds kinda republican like. Is'nt that what republicans do? Just so you know, I do lean left in my thinking, Dean and Kuchinick top my list of candidates, Clark has peaked my interest though. I like Dean because he is a strong candidate and could very well draw the undecided to his side. I believe that he has enough appeal for the greens, since the last I heard they were not running a candidate. I really like Kuchinick, just because he is very articulate, intelligent, well spoken and really bash's the hell out of Dumbya. However I believe that he is bent to far to the left to draw the moderate vote. Clark has my interest peaked because I do hate Bush so much that I really just want someone to beat him in 04. Yes I do feel that anyone is better than Bush. I believe that he stands a very good chance to draw votes from the the military, retired military, military families, God and Country lovin rednecks, moderates, and those left of center. I am willing to give him a chance to get in the race and see what he has to offer. I will not just write him off because some right wing bozo's make unproven allegations. I am not going to bow to republican tactics so easily, and anyone who does really has not been around very long. Which brings me back to my original post, the point I was trying to make was, that the republicans are very capable of doing anything to bring down a candidate. I will not make judgements about candidates based on biased allegations regardless of which Dem it is, and will not have anypart of giving the repubs just what they want, Dem infighting, saves them effort and money. So, you still have not said who your candidate is.

[Mackay]

95. Going for the throat

Sorry to take so long to respond, it was 4:00 in the morning when I went to bed over here.

Once again, if you think that asking "Who is this man... REALLY?" is going for the jugular.... that is pretty sad. Please, if Clark is so wonderful, prove it. If you read my comments, you will see that my reservations are based on the fact that Clark's supporters are not behind him because of the issues... but because of some rather vapid notions about his looks, his ability to look more military than Bush or because they have some strange uniform fetish. I have yet to see one post from any supporter outlining any program, issues or record.

I have defied them to show us who Clark really is on other threads... they don't know... and the scary thing is they don't care. That is my point.

My preferred candidate is Dean... but there are others in the field who are interesting such as Graham and Kucinich. I will take any of them... but last on the list are Lieberman and Clark because they would be the least improvement over the current situation.

[Rebellious Republican]

96. You make valid points about your reservations on Clark....

Do you suppose we ought to let him get out of the gate and start running the race before we totally write him off. I am not big on Lieberman myself, but I will give Clark a chance to make clear his goals and objectives. He has not had much time to get his message out, he did just enter. I believe it is a little unfair to put him in the same class as someone who is a known, such as Lieberman. But I do admire your candor and passion for the Dem cause, lets hope we can drum up that kind of passion with the undecided and moderates out there.

:toast:

[Mackay]

101. Not writing Clark off

I have always said he would make a great VP for Dean. That would also give me sufficient time to trust him as a policy maker for a later stab at the presidency.

Together they would be unbeatable. Dean pulls in liberals. Clark pulls in independents. Both pull in moderates. This thing should be about coalition building and not just a competition of egos. I really don't understand why Clark wouldn't accept a VP slot. Considering Dean had already been dogging Bush and built up a considerable campaign apparatus, Clark's announcing felt more like he was interested in himself and not the party cause as a whole.

Anyway, thanks for the cyber-beers. Cheers!

[davidinalameda]

70. I want someone to define "true Democrat"

and I'll bet you money that a hella lot of people on here don't meet that definition

The Deanies are just as scared as the Bushies. Clark is the one candidate that can beat both of them.

The more crap is spread about him, the stronger my support becomes and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.

[dobak]

14. smear job

This sounds like a smear job by two of the more digusting Repugs (Owen and Holztman - both part of Horowirz's plan to make college campuses more consevative friendly)


1. Clark joins the Democratic race for nomination
2. Republicans are scared to death
3. Republicans start a rumor that Clark wanted to be a Republican
4. Democrats think Clark is running only to spite Rove
5. Clark does not win nomination


BTW: I am a Dean supporter, but think that this sniping of Clark is disgusting and harmful to both candidates chances

[topdog08]

71. This remark was a joke, taken out of context.

Clark's statements via draftwesleyclark.com seem to form a D to me. I can almost picture the conversation:

Clark: "I figured in this time of pulling together as a nation after 9/11, the Bush administration could make room for someone from the other side of the aisle, even if I was Bill Clinton's man. If anything, I think it would have showed we can put partisan bickering behind us, and pull together to form a united front against terror. Guess it would have made me - and Norman Mineta - the only outcasts in an all-Republican administration. But Rove never returned my calls. And I've never joined one part or the other, so I guess you could say that, for all practical purposes.... I could have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

By which he probably meant part of a Republican administration, and the part about being a Republican was the joke, not the part about his complaints that Rove dismissed him. This is why the rebuff that "He was serious about his grievances" does not mean it was not a joke. As someone with no official party status until last week, being part of the administration would have made him an Republican by default unless he went out of his way to declare otherwise, right?

[Democat]

19. Gore is a liar too!

Right wing smear job which will be amplified by those supporting other Democratic candidates.

[NNN0LHI]

22. Just like free poitical advertising. Can't beat that n/t

[Mackay]

26. BS

Some of us suspected this about Clark before this article appeared.

The "Al Gore Internet/Lying" was a transparent smear job. In this case, I'm not so sure.

I am voting for the Democratic nominee... even if it is Clark. But I'd rather not be holding my nose in 2004.

Is Clark so holy that we cannot question his candidature? It surely seems to be the case among his believers...

[diplomats]

23. Since Clark voted for Clinton twice and Gore in 2000

he doesn't sound like a Repuke to me. What we have here is the word of two Repubs against the word of Clark. I'm dubious, to say the least. As I've said many times, I want to see what positions he lays out in the debate.

[Khephra]

25. And that would be the best way to come back at this quote

Fineman won't let the quote die. It's too juicy. Other journalists and candidates will pick up on it too.

So he needs to come back with something exactly like the above statement...or he just lets them keep on repeating it without directly answering it, which sure as heck didn't work for Gore.

This is Clark's second big poltical test is a week. They're just going to keep on coming now with his strength showing in the polls.

As an observer, this is going to be very interesting to watch. Clark's got a great PR/Support team, but how good is his quick reponders?

[stlsaxman]

31. But Clark said on NPR that he voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41...

and Clinton/Gore...

Sounds to me like he'd vote for anyone who's boss at the time.

I like the guy, personally, but if "Rove not returning my phone calls"
kept him from putting an R after his name, well, how lame is that?

[Cappurr]

61. I voted for Ford...

But Nixon??? Ugh. It looks like he changed when Clinton ran. We shall see.

[Pastiche423]

35. By his own omission

clark voted repug until the age of 44.

He doesn't sound very much like a tried and true Democrat to me.

[Norton]

69. As his timetable of party affiliation goes...

sounds like he changed his views of the Republicans sometime during the first Gulf War. That war spawned a lot of New Democrats. Adds up for me!

[Piperay]

100. What age you started voting Democratic

doesn't determine how tried and true a Democrat you are. I hope that isn't what ones loyalty to the party is determined on because I voted repug till I was almost 30 and my parents were older than that but we are all as "yellow a dog Democratic" now as you will ever find.

[leetrisck]

28. We can't believe anything

these people say about any of the Democratic candidates. Unless we actually hear it coming out of the candidates mouth, it's hard to trust anything the media or Repukes say and even when we hear it with our own ears there isn't much telling what the media or Repukes will do with it. It becomes something it wasn't.

[tsipple]

30. I Think We Can Help Draft a Response...

And, by the way, I think this is a nonsense story. (I'm in a candidate-praising mood tonight, so it's time to help Clark with some ideas.)

Here's my try:

"Well, I read Howard Fineman's story. And I have a confession to make. It's absolutely true that I'm running for president because Karl Rove, President Bush's advisor, didn't return my phone call.

"But Howard missed the rest of the story. I'm also running for president because I'm the only one who didn't save money on my car insurance by switching to GEICO. And I'm running for president because 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' wasn't nominated for an Emmy... again!

"Seriously, I really think Howard owes it to his readers to report the whole truth. After all, there are important issues at stake, and that's why I'm running for president. I'm running to reverse the loss of jobs, to address the mounting casualties in Iraq, and to improve healthcare for all Americans. Firing Karl Rove is just icing on the cake and, as president, I won't be returning his phone calls."

How's that?

[southern democrat]

58. PDG

pretty damn good

[roguevalley]

39. of course, we know bushies and repugs never lie.

*

[KC21304]

41. I want to wait and see how Clark handles this.

I have been promoting a Kerry/Clark ticket for months and I haven't changed my mind on that yet.

Just want to reminds DU ers that many here in the past have said they would welcome John McCain gladly if he wanted to jump ship. So I think we should give Clark a chance to explain. Just my 2 cents.

[Cooley Hurd]

42. Howard-the-Whore Fineman? Pshaw!

This is bullshit...

[Khephra]

45. It doesn't matter who gets the quote out there in the media,

if it sticks.

Can you name the reporter that interviewed Gore during which he made his "internet comment"? What's important is that the "quote" stuck around and hardly anyone remembers the reporter's name--all they remember is the (false/misunderstood)quote.

(btw, it was Wolf Blitzer, according to Franken's new book)

[tsipple]

52. I Remember

I even remember wincing when Gore uttered the actual quote, not the made-up version. I'm not sure if it was a premonition or if I was simply repulsed by Wolf's mug. :-)

[Starpass]

53. I remember the night with Tweety when two things happened:

Bush polls really dropped and Tweety was telling Howard Fineman that it looked like Clark was coming into the race. Howard didn't say anything bad about Clark...he didn't have time....he went uncontrolled nutso in front of the camera. In essence he was saying "they aren't going to get by with this and Bush is going to be re-elected anyhow because there is no way to beat him"....that is in essence the fit he threw. He was red in the face and the fucking smirk was off his face and the real piece of shit he was came crawling through for all to see. Geeeee, did I think that if Wes announced that Howard would do anything LESS than this??? We will have news that Clark fucked his mother if that is what it takes for Howard to bury him (that is if his zillion other stories to come on Clark fail to do that). My god, this is like believing something one of those Fox pukes throw out night after night as the gospel truth. They do not want this guy. Watch very carefully who Howard tries to "push" a little....that should be the thing that sobers you up.

[goforit]

63. Running on a vengence?...........

We need a president that runs on conviction!!

[truthisfreedom]

67. i don't doubt they twisted his words from "i would have worked for the re-

pugs if karl rove had returned my calls." remember, these are GOP operatives who are "quoting" the good General Clark from "last january."

[RevolutionStartsNow]

75. I can't wait for Lieberman

to accuse Clark of being a secret Republican. Now that will be hilarious.

[Eloriel]

78. Those of you trying to spin this

apparently didn't read the whole article.

There was another little spiteful temper tantrum revealed as well. That one, IMO, is equally if not more damning. Try to spin ThAT one, will ya?

Eloriel

[NNN0LHI]

84. You seem to have the spin machine going in high gear for Fineman...

...and his wingnut buddies already. Funny that you would do that too. Especially since you did not even vote for Gore last election. Real damn funny, knowing that Clark did. Carry on.

Don

[IndianaGreen]

87. At least Eloriel did not vote for Reagan twice, for Nixon once, for Bush

at least once (I wonder if Clark voted for Big Dog in 1992), and we have no clue if Clark voted for Dubya in 2000, but chances are he did too!

Some Democrat, that Clark! And to think of all the flaming people that voted for Nader in 2000 got for their one non-Democratic vote, and here are the DLC people falling all over themselves over the Generalissimo!

[disgruntella]

88. clark voted democrat since clinton

i.e., Clark voted for Democrats in 1992, 1996 and 2000.

"Generalissimo" - have a cup of herbal tea or something.

[OKNancy]

89. There is someone on DU who worked for Republicans

and Democrats alike until October 2002. This person also sold a novelty item that ridiculed President Clinton. This person also said they weren't going to vote for Gore until their website was hacked and they got ticked off..........

And yet this person is deeply respected here on DU, has worked their butt off on an issue that many on DU find extremely important.

At least keep an open mind.

[IndianaGreen]

90. That particular DUer is not running for President either!

Having Clark running for President as a Democrat is like having the Catholic Church elect as Pope a man that was a witch doctor until a few years ago, and was just ordained a priest last week!

[disgruntella]

91. Here's an idea: don't vote for him.

:think:

[OKNancy]

93. OK - don't keep an open mind

and for sure, don't vote for him if gets the nomination.
GWBushCo thank you very much.

[Rebellious Republican]

97. Save yourself some typing OKNancy....

You know those Greens, anything to keep republicans in office! You know like the last election. I think that they believe the worse shape the country gets the more electable their candidates become. So wheres their incentive to have a Dem in office, god forbid should we have prosperity again.

:kick:

ANYONE BUT BUSH IN "04"

[Stuckinthebush]

94. This could be a good thing

Stay with me here a moment.

First - Clark has positions that are very Democratic. His philosophy as stated by him and his campaign are very Democratic. He will appoint Democrats to serve with him. He will be beholden to the Democratic interests. Therefore, whether or not he flirted with the GOP at one time, he is a Democrat now. This being said, he will govern as a Democrat more likely than not.

Now, if the GOP spin him as a Republican in Democrat's clothing, then they can do more harm to them than us. If there are swing voters and traditional Republicans out there that are afraid of Bush, they may be more likely to vote for a Dem who they think has Republican leanings. So, the Dems get some votes from the GOP.

Sure, ideological purity is preferable, however, the bottom line is that (if Clark wins) he will govern as a Dem and have Dems around him. To do otherwise would damn him to one term.

Just some thoughts.

[w4rma]

98. With Gen. Clark's policy positions, I can't see any way that he could

have seriously considered being a Republican. I believe Clark: It was a joke.

Note, this is the type of thing that can happen to someone who isn't very experienced in politics, *especially* a Democrat right now when all the media outlets are ready and willing to trash anyone with a "D" after their name.

That said, I'm still hoping for a Vice President Clark. It still looks like a very good possibility. :)

Gen. Clark *will* learn. He is a genius. But, stuffing the decades of experience that Dean has (and Dean's campaign juggernaught) into four months is a bit too much to ask, IMHO.

[robbedvoter]

99. How about checking MWO's "unspinning" of Fineman's idiocy?

http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/
(Fineman - the Media whore of 2001, btw).
Or, if it serves your candidate, anyone will do: Drudge, Safire - whores aweigh!

"
Wingers Having Trouble Coordinating Anti-Clark Lies

MWO Whore of the Year 2001 Howard Fineman writes:


WORD WAS THAT Karl Rove, the president’s political mastermind, had blocked the idea. Clark was furious. Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. “I would have been a Republican,” Clark told them, “if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race—as a Democrat. Messaging NEWSWEEK by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a “humorous tweak.” The two others said it was anything but. “He went into detail about his grievances,” Holtzman said. “Clark wasn’t joking. We were really shocked.”

So was four-star General Clark humorously tweaking or not?

The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti unwittingly answers the question:


In the current issue of Newsweek, Howard Fineman reports Clark told Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and University of Denver president Mark Holtzman that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."


"Howard Fineman reports" should be one's first clue to disregard the information in the article.  That his sources were two Republicans should be one's second clue.


Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either.


Now, if General Clark's comment, which he did not deny making, were not "schtick," why would he make such a remark to two people if he never made calls to be returned, and thus would not be expecting "returned calls"?

It must be because Wesley Clark is a deeply disturbed and delusional man, just like Al Gore.

Poor Wingnuts. They're in a state of utter panic and it isn't becoming. Why can't they be a little more gracious in the face of impending defeat?