Clark will grace Newsweek's Cover in next issue

[VolcanoJen]

The Dean cover did wonders for bringing his name to the lips of American voters, and I'm sure the Clark folks are excited about the prospects of having him on the upcoming cover (on newsstands Tuesday).

Props to Newsweek for featuring two of the Democratic candidates on its cover in a matter of weeks!!



http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp?

The accompanying article is very "fair and balanced," offering both negative and positive aspects of Clark's candidacy.

[oasis]

1. Why'd they give him that one-eyed-jack look?

:tinfoilhat:

[VolcanoJen]

2. He's definitely looked better.

They surely could have found a more flattering photograph.

:tinfoilhat:

:-)

[Julien Sorel]

3. An 'artistic' touch. Highlights his status as an unknown

quantity by veiling part of his face in shadow.

The article itself is cautious; I think the media are intrigued by him, but wary of a meltdown as well. After reading that article, I believe what I only suspected before: if he can overcome media skepticism and cynicism, this primary is over. They are going to be the gatekeepers here; if his pool of reporters decides he's the guy, as they did with Clinton, this thing is a walkover. He's got about a month or so to convert them, is my best guess, time away from the spotlight while he incubates and learns to project and say the right things.

I gave up reporting because the pay sucked and I got bored with the bullshit, but I wish I could be a reporter covering Clark's campaign. It would almost be like being inside the chrysalis.

[oasis]

4. The Clinton's wouldn't back anyone but a winner. I'm a Kerry person

but I have a good feeling about your guy.

[Julien Sorel]

6. Kerry's my second choice.

But watching him campaign has been frustrating; it's as if his heart isn't in it or something. I've liked him for years, and I know he brings a lot more to the table than what he's shown in the campaign so far.

[JI7]

9. i'm a strong kerry supporter

i'm a big kerry supporter, but agree about clark. seems like a good guy, and i love bill clinton so if he likes clark, i see that as a positive for clark.

[bluestateguy]

5. What about Time and US News?

I'd love for him to pull off the weekly magazine triple play.

[Democat]

7. Clark and Dean will be even shortly

Then Clark will take the lead if he doesn't make some big screw up.

He is what Americans want right now, like it or not.

[Pepperbelly]

13. Clark is already in the lead ...

according to the latest Newsweek poll. Thus, a good explanation presents for the bashing by Deanites.

[madaboutharry]

8. It's up to him

I don't know about you, but after what will be four years of George Bush clearing brush on his ranch I am going to welcome a high strung, intense, brilliant, work all night type of president who actually runs the country. I agree, barring any major screw ups, Clark can win this. I also like the fact that he apparently is married to a woman with a big mouth who doesn't take any crap.

[jumptheshadow]

10. I am troubled by this

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp

>>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.”<<

[LizW]

11. Jebus

That's an unpleasant paragraph.

There are so many creepy implications there that I'm speechless.

First: Rove has veto over the hiring for the Bush* administration? Crap. That explains a lot.

Second: Does this explain why Clark went to work for Jackson Stephens? Was it to be a stepping stone into the Bush* administration?

Third: Why would Rove block Clark's hiring? Is it a big mistake on his part, or was there a plan there? Is it just a sign of how implacably partisan the Republicans are, that they wouldn't have Clark? Did they already have Clark pegged as not hawkish enough? Or (don protective tin foil, please) was Rove setting up a situation where Clark would run as a Democrat who is "acceptable" to the neo-cons, in the eventuality that Bush/Cheney crashes and burns?

And the biggie: Why the heck would Democrats vote for a guy who wanted to join the Bush* administration?

[Pepperbelly]

15. maybe you should ask another question as well ...

Would republican pols have any reason to plant or sow questions about the biggest threat to their leader?

[LizW]

16. That's a valid question

What do you think? Do you think this whole story is a lie?

If not, I'd be interested in hearing what you think about my other questions. Particularly, why would Rove nix Clark having a job in the administration? Wouldn't that have been great for Bush? Did Rove screw up?

For what it's worth, I do think the statement Clark allegedly made to the two Republicans was meant as a joke, and they're using it to try to screw him now that he's a candidate. But I believe the rest of the story is true, that Clark did see himself working for the Bush* administration during the war. And that is troubling.

[Pepperbelly]

18. I think he saw himself ...

serving his nation again after 9/11. Send me in, coach, I'm ready to play.

[DemVet]

19. It could be a lie, but....

.....Clark is still a pro-choice Republican, no matter what letter he has behind his name.

[oasis]

17. The Rove/Bush presidency was to succeed without any taint of Clintonism.

The Bushista's real idea of success in foreign policy is to muddle through somehow by not doing it "Clinton's way".

Clark would be perceived as an extension of the Clinton era so he was automatically a "no go".

[VolcanoJen]

20. This is a legitimate question for all Democrats.

Hey, I'm a little creeped-out that Clark would be anxious to join up with the White House immediately after 9/11. But then again, I still remember those days, and I was ready to join the Army again myself (horrors!!). Military-types want to fight, protect, and serve, and after the attacks, many among us were willing to put the uniform on again and do something. Outside of the military angle, we all kind of pulled together in those months following the attacks; we were wounded, united, and even the hardest-core among us stood behind Bush, the commander-in-chief, Dear Leader, waiting for him to impress us, or behave like a leader, or something, anything...

Two years later, it's clear that Bush's leadership skills never materialized, and, fortunately, neither did Clark's inner Republican.

[jonnyblitz]

14. creepy.

this is stuff we need to hear about in spite of the howlings of the Clarkbots. Stand by to get eviscerated by them and thanks for posting this eye opening article.

[tokenlib]

21. We need to hear Clark more on the issues.

Then we can judge the sincerity of his party affiliation. After reading about his 100 year vision on his website--I think he the potential is there that he is really a democrat at heart.

My hope is that as more information emerges we can all trust his sincerity. And regardless of who our favorite candidate is, this would be best for all of us.

[slappypan]

12. I despise Newsweek

Creepy, unflattering photo. They were the worst of the Clinton-hunters, too. Lucianne Goldberg probably still has all the editors on speed-dial.