Clark taking the high road -- defers criticizing Dean.

[Bread and Circus]

Here's another example why I support Clark:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/12/national1537EST0681.DTL

Campaigning at a retirement home, Clark passed on an opportunity to criticize Democratic front-runner Howard Dean, who has come under attack from other rivals for his past statements about Medicare.

"I don't care whether 10 years ago Howard Dean supported one position or another on Medicare," Clark said. "Frankly, it's irrelevant, and I wish people wouldn't keep harping on it."

Clark, who said he will begin airing television ads next week, did try to distinguish himself from his rivals, arguing that he alone has displayed proven leadership.

"This is not about public policy pronouncements ... or writing policy papers. .. It's all about leadership with me. I'm not just someone who can talk the talk, I've walked the walk," Clark said.

[Jacobin]

1. I hope they'll end up on the same ticket

[FrenchieCat]

2. With Clark on top....

as he has the most class out of the 2.

[Jacobin]

13. Vice versa would be my preference, but whatever

[Bundbuster]

111. With Clark side by side - Photo members & Photoshoppers needed!!

The picture below is BEGGING to be Photoshop-stitched next to the AWOL chimp pretzel-scar pic (don't have it or Phtoshop). Would someone please create this, post it, and send me a message, OK?

There are about 100 great Wes Clark pics, political cartoons, posters, wallpapers, satire images, and links waiting for you
in my new Yahoo Group - more members needed! Click here to join now:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wesley_Clark_Photos/

[Maple]

3. Clarke and Dean

have been very nice to each other.

And they've been in discussions.

Sounds like a very good...and likely...ticket.

[Quahog]

4. I won't say "I told you so," BUT....

I posted somewhere back when Clark entered the race (here? BartCop? both?) that we could expect these two to have a soft touch with each other on the campaign trail. I figure at their meetings before Clark announced, they decided it would be too gimmicky for them to announce that they are running together this early in the game. So, let Clark go out and gain his support, give him a chance to make a showing in the early primaries, and as the others fall by the wayside and Clark and Dean emerge as the leaders, they become a natural choice as running mates. It's much easier to name as a running mate someone who you haven't been bashing on the stump for months.

I don't care all that much which one ends up in which slot. Between the two of them, they'll wipe the floor with chimpy and slick.

[Julien Sorel]

16. Let's just say Clark has been gracious to Dean.

Dean already walks on water, invented the use of the internet for campaigns, doesn't need extravagances like unique policy positions, is somehow a liberal centrist whom the corporations are terrified of, but who nevertheless gets their fawning adoration -- Dean gets enough bizarre and contradictory credit, no need to give him even more, especially when it clearly isn't due.

[bitchkitty]

28. Here we go again -

"fawning adoration"? Don't you get tired of spewing this crap? Don't you know how it looks? Do you care one tiny, single little bit?

[Julien Sorel]

36. Gee,

Tucker Carlson wears a Dean button. William Safire has said he wants Dean to win, because he knows the Repubs would have the best chance of pounding him. Bob Novak supports Dean. So does avowed Bushite Chris Matthews. William Saleton? Deano, all the way. I'm sure I'm leaving lots and lots of them out.

As for 'caring how it looks,' I actually think your post made you seem hysterical and foolish -- which I'm sure is a false impression -- but what do I know? :shrug:

[bitchkitty]

44. Go ahead and base your

choice for President on what a bunch of whores think. I'm voting for the winner. Fawning adoration, please.

[Julien Sorel]

46. All too easy, as usual for the Deanites.

So much for 'caring how it looks.'

[bitchkitty]

58. It's always easy to tell the truth -

try it, you'll like it.

[Julien Sorel]

64. I did.

You cried, and then backed down when called on it. Remember? Fawning media? :shrug:

[TLM]

37. Wow just change a few words and you're spewing the anti-gore crap.

"invented the use of the internet for campaigns"

[Julien Sorel]

40. Amazing, isn't it?

How's the research into CISC going, by the way?

[TLM]

63. That's CSIS...

And do you claim he wasn't an advisor for them?


Also a senior adviser at CSIS - (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Fax [phone] ]
2000 CSIS budget, $16 million,
CSIS Affiliates: The International Councillors, a group of international business leaders chaired by Henry Kissinger, meets semiannually to discuss the implications of the changing economic and strategic environment. The Advisory Board is composed of both public- and private-sector policymakers, including several members of Congress. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carla Hills cochair the board. The Washington Roundtable meets three to four times a year with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other Washington experts to discuss pressing policy issues of the day. The Houston and Dallas Roundtables bring together local business leaders and CSIS experts to discuss current international political and economic trends.
CSIS Board, Counselors, and Advisers Board of Trustees Chairman Sam Nunn Senior Partner, King and Spalding Vice Chairman David M. Abshire President, Center for the Study of the Presidency, and Cofounder of CSIS Chairman, Executive Committee Anne Armstrong* Former U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain Members George L. Argyros Carla A. Hills Betty Beene Ray L. Hunt Reginald K. Brack Henry A. Kissinger William E. Brock Donald B. Marron Harold Brown Felix G. Rohatyn Zbigniew Brzezinski Charles A. Sanders William S. Cohen James R. Schlesinger J. Michael Cook William A. Schreyer* Ralph Cossa Brent Scowcroft Douglas N. Daft Murray Weidenbaum Robert A. Day Dolores D. Wharton Richard Fairbanks Frederick B. Whittemore Michael P. Galvin* R. James Woolsey Joseph T. Gorman Amos A. Jordan, (Emeritus) John J. Hamre* Leonard H. Marks, (Emeritus) Robert S. Strauss, (Emeritus) *Member of the Executive Committee Counselors William E. Brock Henry A. Kissinger Harold Brown Sam Nunn Zbigniew Brzezinski James R. Schlesinger William S. Cohen Brent Scowcroft Richard Fairbanks Senior Advisers J. Carter Beese Amos A. Jordan Bradley D. Belt John Kornblum James M. Bodner Robert H. Kupperman Stanton H. Burnett Laurence Martin Richard R. Burt Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty Wesley K. Clark Walter Slocombe William K. Clark, Jr. Robert Tyrer Arnaud de Borchgrave Anthony Zinni Diana Lady Dougan Luis E. Giusti Fred C. Iklé (Distinguished Scholar in Residence)



He was also a registered lobbyist for acxiom...


http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031013&s=jones

Acxiom, one of the nation's largest data-mining companies, has actively sought federal contracts related to homeland security in the past two years. In December 2001 Acxiom hired Gen. Wesley Clark, now a Democratic presidential candidate, as a lobbyist and board member to help procure government contracts.




Can you explain why you want to put a lobbyist for defense contracotrs in the white house?

[Julien Sorel]

71. I never claimed he wasn't an adviser for them.

Unlike you, I also never claimed he was a lobbyist for them, that he was a lobbyist 'working for Kissinger' who was 'Chairman of the Board' of this 'company' which is 'just like the Carlyle Group' and all the rest of the lying bullshit you spewed for weeks on this topic. When the lie was finally exposed, did you ever express regret, admit you were wrong -- do anything that demonstrated one iota of integrity? Nope. Like a good little Whack-a-mole, you just changed your story and came back at it.

[TLM]

78. That's what the advisor does at a K st lobbyist firm.

What do you think he did... advise them on what curtains to get for their offices? You can stick your head in the sand and deny it all you want but the facts remain clear.

CSIS does lobby congress, says so right on their website.

Clark was an advisor for CSIS, using his experience and position to facilitate their efforts.

Kissinger is the chair of the top tier of CSIS, called The International Councilors.

If you work for a lobbyist firm, and Kissinger is in a top leadership position at that firm, you work for Kissinger.

The very best defense you can make by splitting hairs is that he worked WITH Kissinger and not FOR Kissinger. But the fact remains he was an advisor to the lobbyist firm, in which Kissinger is chair of the top level of the organization.

And they are like the Carlyle Group, which also has people like Bush Sr. listed as "Advisors" or "Consultants." They work to shift policy and take advantage of polcy to make money for their business partners in Texas.

From CSIS's website...

"The Washington Roundtable meets three to four times a year with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other Washington experts to discuss pressing policy issues of the day. The Houston and Dallas Roundtables bring together local business leaders and CSIS experts to discuss current international political and economic trends. "




And I notice that again you ignore the fact Clark was a registered lobbyist for Acxiom and used his influence and position to get them homeland security contracts to use their consumer databases for the no-fly list.


And Clark was also an "advisor" to another defense contractor.


So why are you OK with that?

Is it that Clark can walk on water and do no wrong… or are you just blinded by those shiny stars?

[Julien Sorel]

84. CSIS is a non-profit think tank.

Think tanks are not businesses like the Carlyle Group is. They own nothing. You stated repeatedly, and are now trying to ply the lie again, that the non-profit think tank that is CSIS is similar to a multi-national holding company like Carlyle Group. In fact, and I'll go back to find your post if necessary, you said CSIS was a business 'almost exactly like Carlyle Group' or words to that effect.

Someone who advises a think tank about foreign policy is not a lobbyist for that think tank.

I don't care if Clark was a registered lobbyist, so I ignore it.

What stars? Are you so ashamed of spinning the same empty lies that you have to try to change the subject?

[TLM]

99. "I don't care if Clark was a registered lobbyist, so I ignore it."

That says it all right there.

"Think tanks are not businesses like the Carlyle Group is. They own nothing."

Oh my god... you'e not seriously this naive are you? The "think tank" is not holding the profits. They simply work to maneuver policy in order to benefit their business partners back in Texas... they hold the profits. I mean it says so right on their own damn website. They work to lobby for policy with one branch and meet with their Texas business pals to talk about current issues of importace with the other branch.

My comparisons to the Carlyle group were that both are set up to benefit their partners’ business interests through manipulation of US policy, international policy and defense policy in particular.

Then add to that the fact Clark worked as a registered lobbyist for aixcom, to secure contracts for Aixcom to sell private information on you and me to John Ashcroft for no fly lists.



"You stated repeatedly, and are now trying to ply the lie again, that the non-profit think tank that is CSIS is similar to a multi-national holding company like Carlyle Group."

Actually The Carlyle Group is an international merchant bank. And as I said above I wasn't saying this K st lobbyist firm was a merchant bank. Rather I was saying that they, like Carlyle, work to manipulate US policy to benefit certain parties. Also like the Carlyle Group, CSIS has "Advisors" and "consultants" who are high level government and military officials who use their experience and position to aid in the manipulation of that policy.

Now we're talking about putting a professional manipulator of policy for profit, in charge of.... making policy.

Believe me, I so wish that Clark was for real. I want to believe him... I really really do. I would love nothing more than to have a real honest democrat who was saying what he is saying. But then I read what he said just two years ago. I read what he did in Kosovo, how he excused targeting journalists. I see that he worked as a lobbyist for defense contractors and an advisor to lobbyist firm lead by Henry Kissinger.

So answer me this… Clark is an advisor to CSIS, a company that on their own website says they lobby congress with one arm and advise business in Texas with the other, yet Clark is also sitting on the board of aixcom and lobbying for homeland security contracts for that company… in short he advises one lobbyist firm that manipulates policy and he also works as a lobbyist himself for a company where he sits on the board, that's trying to profit from US defense prolicy?

And you see no problem with that?


"What stars? Are you so ashamed of spinning the same empty lies that you have to try to change the subject?"

Those four shiny ones you Clark folks are convinced are so important to wining the white house... the ones that seem to excuse the things Clark has said and done.

[Julien Sorel]

107. This whole post is paranoid nonsense.

But you know that already -- you're just trying to protect your ego.

Actually The Carlyle Group is an international merchant bank. And as I said above I wasn't saying this K st lobbyist firm was a merchant bank. Rather I was saying that they, like Carlyle, work to manipulate US policy to benefit certain parties. Also like the Carlyle Group, CSIS has "Advisors" and "consultants" who are high level government and military officials who use their experience and position to aid in the manipulation of that policy.

Carlyle Group is an investment company. They buy other companies. Essentially, a holding company. Before you continue perpetrating the lie, here is what you originally said: CSIS is basicaly another Carlyle group using past government or international figures, like Clark, to push policy to benefit their business partners.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=611945#614694

What business partners? How can a non-profit think tank have 'business parters?' When you show me the business partners, you'll start looking a little bit less like a liar. But just a little bit.

So answer me this… Clark is an advisor to CSIS, a company that on their own website says they lobby congress with one arm and advise business in Texas with the other, yet Clark is also sitting on the board of aixcom and lobbying for homeland security contracts for that company… in short he advises one lobbyist firm that manipulates policy and he also works as a lobbyist himself for a company where he sits on the board, that's trying to profit from US defense prolicy?

You're back at it. Since when is a non-profit think tank a 'company?' The rest of this paragraph is spinning paranoid nonsense again. What 'lobbyist firm?'

Those four shiny ones you Clark folks are convinced are so important to wining the white house... the ones that seem to excuse the things Clark has said and done.

What things that Clark has 'said and done?' I think he finally stopped beating his wife a few years ago -- does that count?

[TLM]

109. Business partners... read their own website.

"Carlyle Group is an investment company. They buy other companies. Essentially, a holding company."

That's called an international merchant bank. A holding company simply holds resources... an international merchant bank buys, sells, and invests in privatly held companies.


"Before you continue perpetrating the lie, here is what you originally said: CSIS is basicaly another Carlyle group using past government or international figures, like Clark, to push policy to benefit their business partners."


Read this...


CSIS Affiliates: The International Councillors, a group of international business leaders chaired by Henry Kissinger, meets semiannually to discuss the implications of the changing economic and strategic environment. The Advisory Board is composed of both public- and private-sector policymakers, including several members of Congress. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carla Hills cochair the board. The Washington Roundtable meets three to four times a year with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other Washington experts to discuss pressing policy issues of the day. The Houston and Dallas Roundtables bring together local business leaders and CSIS experts to discuss current international political and economic trends.


One branch of CSIS lobbies congress and another branch advises their Texas business pals of "current international political and economic trends." In other words they lobby to manipulate policy, then tell their business leader pals in Dallas and Houston (where Carlyle and Enron were based if I'm not mistaken) how to take advantage of the current trends.


As for Clark’s other war profiteering for defense contractors...


Wall Street Journal, 9/18/03

IN ANNOUNCING his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become : chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business. .


That's EXACTLY what Cheney did for Halliburton.


more....

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications. One is Acxiom Corp., based in Gen. Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., where he formally launched his campaign yesterday. He joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information.

"He has made efforts at putting us in contact with the right people in Washington ... setting up meetings and participating in some himself," says Acxiom Chief Executive Charles Morgan. "Like all of us around 9/11, he had a lot of patriotic fervor about how we can save our country."


<snip>

While he was originally hired as a consultant by WaveCrest Laboratories LLC, Dulles, Va.,to help find military buyers for its promising new electric motor, Gen. Clark became the company's chairman in April, and has also focused on selling products in the commercial market. But Gen. Clark's knowledge of and ties with, the military and government markets have been a large part of his appeal to potential employers.

Stephens Inc., the large, politically connected Little Rock investment firm, hired him to boost its aerospace business shortly after he gave up his NATO command. He left Stephens last year and opened his own consultancy, Wesley K. Clark & Associates.
While Gen. Clark was at Stephens, the firm also marketed him to clients such as Silicon Energy-in which Stephens held a stake - "as a good person to help us understand the federal procurement process," says Mr. Woolard. The company was trying to enter the government market, and Gen. Clark explained the process "and contacted people at the Navy and Air Force and told them what we had," Mr. Woolard says. (Silicon Energy was acquired earlier this year by Itron Inc., and Gen. Clark no longer advises the firm).

Time Domain Corp., a Huntsville, Ala., advanced wireless-technology company, recruited Gen. Clark to become an adviser in February 2002 through one of its chief operating officers, who had been a colonel under his NATO command during the Bosnia campaign. Gen. Clark has counseled the company on how to answer Pentagon concerns that its low-power radar system might interfere with global positioning and communications systems, as well as to better craft that technology for military use. board of Entrust, at the request of CEO William Conner, who had served with him on a Pentagon advisory panel.
At Entrust, Gen. Clark has provided advice on how to sell to various NATO governments, says David Wagner, Entrust's chief financial officer. He has also helped emphasize the firm's product securing electronic networks for new homeland-security applications.
_________________________________________________________


Now you tell me how Clark using his military connections and position to get contracts for defense contractors that hire him, is any difference from Cheney using his position to secure contracts for Halliburton prior to being selected as VP?



"You're back at it. Since when is a non-profit think tank a 'company?' The rest of this paragraph is spinning paranoid nonsense again. What 'lobbyist firm?' "

Oh so you are going to try to hide in semantics about the terminology that CSIS uses. This own website says they lobby congress. You take issue with my calling them a company or a firm, yet you do not deny they lobby congress and advise business partners or associates or whatever you want to call them, on how to take advantage of the current policy.

"The Washington Roundtable meets three to four times a year with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other Washington experts to discuss pressing policy issues of the day."



"What things that Clark has 'said and done?'"


Well for starters he worked as a lobbyist for defense contractors and worked as an advisor telling tech companies and database companies how to get military contracts and contracts for homeland security.


On the subject of murdering journalists... he not only said it was OK, he did it... targeting journalists in Kosovo.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0923-08.htm

Given our collective recurring political amnesia, let's turn to an eye-opening August 1999 report from our British friends at The Guardian, concerning Clark's role as Supreme Allied Commander - a post viewed by Clark supporters as a major qualification to be our next president.

"NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. 'We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces,' U.S. General Wesley Clark explained - 'his,' of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians... The targeting of the studio was a war crime, perhaps the most indisputable of several war crimes committed by NATO in its war against Yugoslavia."

If you think the Guardian editors were being overly harsh in describing this as a "war crime," keep in mind that a panel of 16 judges from 11 countries who, at a people's tribunal meeting in New York before 500 witnesses, found U.S. and NATO leaders guilty of war crimes against Yugoslavia in the March 24 to June 10, 1999, "humanitarian" attack on that country.

As for Clark's reputation among the rank and file in our military establishment, the highly decorated and straight-talking Col. David Hackworth has written that Clark is "known by those who've served with him as the 'Ultimate Perfumed Prince.' (He) is far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die."

And we haven't even scratched the surface in discussing Clark's idealization of the Powell Doctrine, which led to NATO forces dropping tons of depleted uranium bombs on Kosovo, creating widespread civilian sickness as a result of contamination associated with DU.
___________________________________________________________



And on his tactics as commander of the air war in kosovo....


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Yet once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.
_________________________________________________




Then just two years ago at a republican fundraiser, Clark who would have us believe he was a dem for about a decade at this point said the following...


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."



"President George Bush (Sr) had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

[Julien Sorel]

110. You're lying and inventing again.

CSIS Affiliates: The International Councillors, a group of international business leaders chaired by Henry Kissinger, meets semiannually to discuss the implications of the changing economic and strategic environment. The Advisory Board is composed of both public- and private-sector policymakers, including several members of Congress. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carla Hills cochair the board. The Washington Roundtable meets three to four times a year with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other Washington experts to discuss pressing policy issues of the day. The Houston and Dallas Roundtables bring together local business leaders and CSIS experts to discuss current international political and economic trends.


One branch of CSIS lobbies congress and another branch advises their Texas business pals of "current international political and economic trends." In other words they lobby to manipulate policy, then tell their business leader pals in Dallas and Houston (where Carlyle and Enron were based if I'm not mistaken) how to take advantage of the current trends.

First, CSIS is a think tank -- of course they consult with Congress. But particularly shameless is the assertion -- totally unsupported -- that 'one branch lobbies Congress while the other branch advises their Texas business pals' of anything. What Texas business pals? YOu don't say. You throw in the names Enron and Carlyle to smear by association -- typical for your shameless dishonesty, but are completely unable to link them to CSIS.

The rest of your post is the typical garbage that has been debunked just about everywhere else, but like the good little whack-a-mole you are, you just repeat it endlessly anyway. Instead of dealing with it piecemeal -- you're such a disgusting and habitual teller of untruths I'm not going to waste the time -- I'm just going to quote a sample of your work as an example your mentality:

On the subject of murdering journalists... he not only said it was OK, he did it... targeting journalists in Kosovo.

Yes, Clark the journalist murderer. He thinks it's 'ok.' Of course, it's a war, and those TV stations were broadcasting Serb propaganda and probably military information and orders, and NATO had warned them they would be bombed and asked the journalists not to go in, but Clark thinks 'murdering' (you actually use the word 'murdering,') journalists is OK,' and claim Clark 'targeted journalists' without providing a shred of proof for the claim -- because there is none. It's just another one of your lies.

If you really believe this twisted kind of stuff, you need help; if you don't believe it but post it anyway, you're a gross liar. It's one of those rare times when there are no other alternatives.

[Andromeda]

90. Yeah, well life's a bitch ain't it?

GO DEAN!

[roguevalley]

113. Just a side note here.

In the interests of sanity, I skim past the feuds. I
read only the comments that don't involve dregging up
feuding points, name calling and the like. I don't do
this because I believe they don't have a place. I do
this because I believe they don't have a place in my
life.

Argue on boys. I am delighted you can. But I'm going
to slip past you because it solves nothing. Its the
same things over and over. Each has an entrenched
position. Bully. But you won't change each other's
mind. I personally will support Clark for many and
varied reasons. Deanies should support their guys,
etc. Then, when the dust settles, let's support the
ones left standing.

This process is hell. I wouldn't be a candidate for
all the tea in China. Gotta give them all props for
doing this, especially the issues candidate running
without a hope in hell of winning.

In the meantime, I want more than rehashed arguments
from guys defending their man. Defend away of course.
Just don't expect me (and I suspect a lot of others)
to keep reading it each time.

Hugs, honeys.

RV, digging democracy but decrying the decimals. ;0)

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[joshan361]

19. they have been talking

they were talking way back in summer. it will be a Clark/Dean ticket.

[Cha]

5. Clark is Cool for this and makes the "harp"ers

look even worse, if possible! Clark is right..it's totally "irrelevant".

[sfecap]

6. Something going on between these two?

See Aaron Brown's show tonight on CNN...

[Bread and Circus]

7. I gotta watch that...

someone on the Clark blog said they saw clips
showing Dean trotting out an attack on Clark's
approach to the Iraq War and the resolution leading up
to it.

Here's what I think:

Dean and Clark have no plan to choose the other as VP.
Dean might do it if he thinks he needs Clark to win the GE.
Clark might accept. I don't know what Clark would do if he
wins.

Ultimately, I do think Clark is avoiding the morass of heckling
other dems even though the others are doing it for 3 reasons:

1.) Clark really is a team player and understands what
"supporting the mission" really means.
2.) Clark can separate himself from the pack by being the
"class act" candidate
3.) Clark would like to be the VP if he can't be the Prez
because I think he would like to help out, have his
ideas heard, and shape policy.

[Skwmom]

11. I saw a promo but I thought it was for Blizter.

Dean in the promo attacking Clark for his "support for the war."

I wish someone would ask Dean to explain the following and to square it with the contention that he was always been squarley against the war.

He (Dean) gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

http://fordean.org/aa/issues/press_view.asp?ID=398

[TLM]

39. This is easily explained in the 3 paragraphs prior to what you quoted

That's why you bashers NEVER quote them.

Hence, today's phone calls. It's Thursday, Feb. 6, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations of evidence of Iraq's noncompliance with Resolution 1441. Edwards calls it "a powerful case." Kerry says it's "compelling." Lieberman, of course, is already in his fatigues.

Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says.

From Washington come the barbs -- The New Republic calls it proof he's "not serious." ABC News' "The Note" wonders if he's backed himself into a corner. Dean has opposed the pending war because he didn't think President Bush had made his case. If he doesn't support military action now, the thinking goes, then he's just contradicting himself. Or, at the very least, he's been put in an untenable and -- for the moment, at least inside war-ready Washington, unpopular -- position.

[NashVegas]

75. To Say "Let's Bring the Troops Home NOW" Would be Frivolous

No matter whose mouth it comes out of.

Waving an 'I'm against the war' flag is hindsight (even if it was the correct position at the time), because it takes away from the fact that we are there now, and we can't just say "oops, sorry!" and pull out.

This is why I don't see a conflict in Dean's positions both before the war's start and now in the duration in his stance that we can't just pull out like nothing happened. We're there, we sent this country into complete instability, we have to help make it right. But we can't do that until an Iraqi leader emerges who can negotiate for the Iraqi people.

[JNelson6563]

117. here comes the clue bus

What we have here is an outsider and the establishment candidate. Cry all you want but let's be real (many high up the political food chain are agreed). The outsider has the successful camaign with the substitute estab. cand. picking up steam.

Now, let us think for a second.....how much support can an outsider expect from the Dem establishment if they fear being frozen out completely? None.

The only clear answer is a Dean/Clark ticket and that would be (among other reasons) to keep the estab happy and insure their support.

Pretty? No. Democratic. No. Political reality? Oh yes.

Lastly this info is from those who are on the inside, have no horse in this race and I take their input over any devoted follower from any camp. Figure in that it's pretty logical and Voila! There is your answer.


I would strongly recommend that Deanies and Clarkies put egos aside and deal with the realities of the situation.

Julie

[killbotfactory]

8. Sounds like he has integrity

And doesn't go for cheap shot non-issues unlike a few other campaigns.

[Bread and Circus]

9. He's got more integrity...

than some of his supporters.

wink wink

;-)

Because sometimes we can't resist trouble :evilgrin:

[Renew Deal]

27. Trouble, where

:evilgrin:

[_NorCal_D_]

108. I resent that!

:evilgrin:

[Scott Lee]

10. There's nothing wrong with sincere criticism

The problem with so many Deanophobes is their penchant for sleaze, lies, fantasies, dissemblence and spin.

If they knew how rightwing republican that behavior made them look I'm sure they wouldn't be doing it.

[bitchkitty]

32. Oops, never mind!

Sorry!

[TLM]

41. Look closer he said Deanophobes not Deanophiles...

I like the fact Dean will critize other dems... they need a swift kick in the ass. Dean has doen a masterful job of that, and pulled this entire group to the left and pushed them to attacking Bush like they wouldn't prior to Dean's rise.

Dean has attacked other dems, but his attacks have been current and honest and based on their current voting records. The attacks on Dean, for the most part, have been misleading spin on decade old quotes or a cheap gotcha attack on Dean saying soemthign that's not PC enough. Almost NOTHING has been about his record or even current for that matter.


Now as for Clark, would be OK by me if he hadn't said and done the things he's said and done prior to this election. However as far as attacking other candidates, Clark has not done anything out of line. If I believed Clark really was the man he is currently claiming to be, I'd have no problem with him. But the fact is I do not trust Clark... his story changed too much and he's not addresing the fact he used to be a lobbyist for military contractors and the fact he thinks it is OK to bomb civilians and journalists really bothers me.

[Andromeda]

93. I agree with most of what you say...

but I don't believe that Clark thinks it's OK to bomb civilians and journalists. That just doesn't sound right to me.

[TLM]

100. Read his own words....

http://www.fair.org/extra/9907/kosovo-crimes.html

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0923-08.htm


Given our collective recurring political amnesia, let's turn to an eye-opening August 1999 report from our British friends at The Guardian, concerning Clark's role as Supreme Allied Commander - a post viewed by Clark supporters as a major qualification to be our next president.

"NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. 'We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces,' U.S. General Wesley Clark explained - 'his,' of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians... The targeting of the studio was a war crime, perhaps the most indisputable of several war crimes committed by NATO in its war against Yugoslavia."

If you think the Guardian editors were being overly harsh in describing this as a "war crime," keep in mind that a panel of 16 judges from 11 countries who, at a people's tribunal meeting in New York before 500 witnesses, found U.S. and NATO leaders guilty of war crimes against Yugoslavia in the March 24 to June 10, 1999, "humanitarian" attack on that country.

As for Clark's reputation among the rank and file in our military establishment, the highly decorated and straight-talking Col. David Hackworth has written that Clark is "known by those who've served with him as the 'Ultimate Perfumed Prince.' (He) is far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die."

And we haven't even scratched the surface in discussing Clark's idealization of the Powell Doctrine, which led to NATO forces dropping tons of depleted uranium bombs on Kosovo, creating widespread civilian sickness as a result of contamination associated with DU.

[tnlefty]

12. I saw my first Clark '04 bumper sticker today

I've seen them at dem functions but this was the first one that I'd seen in my heavily repub area. I was excited and told my kids about it and they asked why I was so excited since it was a Clark sticker and not a Dean sticker. I responded that it was a sign that one more person in this repub-infested area has turned on Smirk* and that is a very good sign.

[Clark Can WIN]

52. Maybe it was me

:evilgrin: You should see smome of the really choice looks I've gotten scince I had the NERVE to put a Clark sticker on my car. This area positively reeks of Republicans. The damn things have even infested my own family.

[Lefta Dissenter]

14. Who do you want to see debating Bush???

It's obvious, Clark would kick Bush's @ss all the way back to his toy ranch in TX. I don't know what others think, but I don't think Dean is very impressive in debates. He looks uncomfortable and squirmy when someone is disagreeing with him.

The Deanies who like Clark, and somehow think that a vote for Dean will include Clark as VP might have a sad awakening next November. I'm not sure that Clark would take a VP spot with Dean.

So if you like Clark, and recognize that he's the one who will WIN in November, then you'd better vote for him in the primaries!

I hope Clark sticks to his guns - maintaining his path on the high road, focusing his sights on Bush, not on the other dems.

[TexasPatriot]

15. its not a toy

he has a cow.

[Julien Sorel]

21. It's a recreational cow.

The sheep was smart enough to figure out the game, and it ran away. Dubya was against abortion, you see, even though it was a clear case of forced sex.

[Clark Can WIN]

54. Akk.......... BIlly! Stop it!

I almost ruined my laptop! ****spews soda indiscriminately****

[TLM]

68. WHat would Clark do...

tell Bush a story about running for class president?


CLark has done very poorly at every debate so far and has not been able to answer any direct questions.

[TLM]

69. WHat would Clark do...

tell Bush a story about running for class president?


CLark has done very poorly at every debate so far and has not been able to answer any direct questions.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

17. Clark Is Class

Someone, please give him an "Amen!"

DTH

[FrenchieCat]

38. amen! (n/t)

[fishnfla]

18. this is the new "anti-mcgovern" strategy

pretty damn smart, if you ask me

[joshan361]

20. he is a genuine leader

leaders arent made with sound bites. when he says those words he means them.

[DemCam]

24. And how long has it been since

we could count on a candidate actually meaning what he says?

I may not remember it ever! Maybe doddering Reagan...but it seemed like a cartoon to me.

[sweetheart]

22. kucinich clark

Good democratic leadership... the 2 best eggs...

[Renew Deal]

25. wow

That is quite an endorsement. :toast:

[joshan361]

53. not in my book

dont see that happening

[Clark Can WIN]

55. Very nice of you :-) Thanks.

[ShaneGR]

23. If he doesn't get the nomination, he's LOCKED up the VP spot

We cannot ignore his military record, simply can't!

[joshan361]

29. this is correct

because he is the repubs worst nightmare!

[Bread and Circus]

59. I love Jack Black and Tenacious D

My wife knew him in high school!

[robsul82]

66. I always SAID...

...to use "Wonderboy" after they announce the Democratic ticket. The presidential pick can be Wonderboy, and the VP nominee can be Young Nasty Man! It'll be great! ;)

Later.

RJS

[TLM]

73. That would be the record of targeting civilians... journalists....

Cluster bombing a crowded marketplace in Nis... bombing trains, busses, bridges, TV stations, civilian factories, hospitals and power plants.

If a Palestinian blows up a bus full of civilians, he's a terrorist. If Clark does it, he's a hero? WTF?



Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

Clark's logic is exactly the same as that of the death squad commander who orders the assassination of a journalist or a publisher whose opposition newspaper supports the goals of a guerrilla movement. The targeting of the studio was a war crime, perhaps the most indisputable of several war crimes committed by NATO in its war against Yugoslavia.

[FrenchieCat]

81. According to the following articles, you are doing

Someone else's job.....

http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/031112_AComfortingMyth.htm
Right Wing media agenda for Wes Clark

http://www.arktimes.com/max/110703brantley.html
Right Wing manipulation on the candidacy of Wes Clark


Another story on who's running the show of electing the Democratic candidate for the Democratic party.
It's a one act play called: Dean for president: A Democratic tragedy in one act?
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?catid=1104&custid=67

"IT'S THE DEMOCRACY AND YOUR WAR, STUPID!"
A REAL MILITARY HERO TELLS A GENUINE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

[ShaneGR]

97. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

Right-wing spin straight out of freeperville.

I know three things:

#1: Milosevic in the Hague for war crimes

#2: Thousands of Albanians cheering in the streets a few months ago when Clinton visited.

#3: Zero US casualties

[TLM]

101. Don't forget #4 1500 dead civilains and #5 10,000 wounded civilians.

Here's #6

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html


A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Y et once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

Nato does not dispute the Serb claim that just 13 of its tanks were destroyed in Kosovo - a figure which gives an altogether different meaning to the concept of proportionality. Nato fought a military campaign from the air which failed to achieve its stated objectives.


Here's #7

http://www.fair.org/extra/9907/kosovo-crimes.html

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.



Here's #8

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0923-08.htm


Given our collective recurring political amnesia, let's turn to an eye-opening August 1999 report from our British friends at The Guardian, concerning Clark's role as Supreme Allied Commander - a post viewed by Clark supporters as a major qualification to be our next president.

"NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. 'We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces,' U.S. General Wesley Clark explained - 'his,' of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians... The targeting of the studio was a war crime, perhaps the most indisputable of several war crimes committed by NATO in its war against Yugoslavia."

If you think the Guardian editors were being overly harsh in describing this as a "war crime," keep in mind that a panel of 16 judges from 11 countries who, at a people's tribunal meeting in New York before 500 witnesses, found U.S. and NATO leaders guilty of war crimes against Yugoslavia in the March 24 to June 10, 1999, "humanitarian" attack on that country.

As for Clark's reputation among the rank and file in our military establishment, the highly decorated and straight-talking Col. David Hackworth has written that Clark is "known by those who've served with him as the 'Ultimate Perfumed Prince.' (He) is far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die."

And we haven't even scratched the surface in discussing Clark's idealization of the Powell Doctrine, which led to NATO forces dropping tons of depleted uranium bombs on Kosovo, creating widespread civilian sickness as a result of contamination associated with DU.

[roguevalley]

114. Since its not possible to talk about Clark without hearing how he's

a nazi in dem clothing, I am wondering about Dean now.
Since everyone has something to hide, what about him?

Frankly, I am getting as put off about Dean as it is
to get from the relentless cuts and pastes from Deanies
that ALWAYS crop up in every Clark conversation. It makes
it hard to separate Mr. Dean from the commentary.

Maybe Deanies believe it. I don't care. But it is poisoning
their candidate for me. How many others out there will
be standing in a voting booth some time and be conflicted
about this man? I want to know why I should vote for Dean,
not why I shouldn't vote for Clark.

Call me old fashioned. Even call me old. But the way
Clark has carried himself, his consummate good manners
and determination to be a gentleman speaks volumes about
his soul and what he feels for others. How long has it
been since someone in office actually demonstrated such
virtue?

Decades. Deanies, you are not helping your cause.

RV, wanting more for Dean than I'm seeing. <Still a firm
Clarkie>

[Myra]

26. An officer and a gentleman

eom

[sandnsea]

30. Heard Dean go after Clark just today

On Clark's 'phony' anti-war position. We'll see how long this high road lasts if Dean keeps that up.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

33. You Have Got To Be Kidding Me

Will Dean supporters step up to the plate and call on their guy to cut this shit out?

DTH

[Julien Sorel]

42. Did Stalin's worshippers step up to the

plate when Stalin started the purges? ;-)

[robsul82]

43. *steps up to the plate*

Howie! Stop it! Clark...GOOD. Bush...BAD.

And if the dude above me could not compare Dean to Stalin, that would be greaaaaaaat.

Later.

RJS

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[robsul82]

57. Ha ha ha...

...I still didn't appreciate the comparison, especially based on your record as an A-1 Dean basher. Sorry, bro.

Later.

RJS

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[Myra]

105. "And if the dude above me could not compare Dean to Stalin..."

Uh, yeah. Agreed RJS.

However, I must correct you on one point:
That dude is clearly beneath you, not above you.

[sandnsea]

49. That's the 'beauty' of the Dean Campaign

Bash Bush, Bash Democrats and whine about being bashed. He can't cut it out, he hasn't got anything else. Haven't you noticed?

[robsul82]

51. Um, I haven't heard Howard comparing Clark...

...to friggin' STALIN, haven't you noticed? That goes beyond bashing into pathological. And Dean's got plenty else from his actually being elected to something before, it's a nifty thing.

Later.

RJS

[sandnsea]

61. BillyBunter speaks for Clark????

What somebody says on a board is totally irrelevant. What Howard Dean says out of his mouth is. And it's usually beating up on a Democratic candidate or putting his foot in his mouth.

[robsul82]

67. I was referring...

...to BB's insults to Dean's followers. Hence the Stalin issue? Yeah. Sorry I used the NAMES to denote the followers, hehe.

Later.

RJS

[sandnsea]

74. No, you compared Howard & Clark

not their supporters. That's what YOU did. Just like lamblasting the other candidates is what Dean does, even though he denies it. Do you see a pattern here?

[Clark Can WIN]

76. And I haven't heard Wesley Clark comparing Dean to

anything at all, or attacking him for that matter - at all. There's a difference between some supporter on DU and an actual candidate in the REAL world, haven't you noticed?

Oh, BTW, I'll take Clarks leadership and service over Deans standing as the mayor of Vermont any day. The whole state has fewer humans in it then the Omaha Nebraska metro area. Sad.

[Scott Lee]

79. Vermont hater too, are you?

How pathetic.

I spent some of the best years of my teen life there. It's a beautiful state, with beautiful people. Very open minded, socially experimentive place. We used to get our produce from an ashram down the road. It was in Vermont I learned that people could live together in all sorts of circumstances as long as there was mutual respect.

Now if I weren't such a civilized individual, I'd tell you to take your Vermont hatred and lodge it in your.....never mind.

Sweet dreams.

[TLM]

102. Do you not find it odd that the VT hate

seems to go hand in hand with their love for the militaristic war hero image of Clark.

[Bertrand]

115. Where did Clark Can WIN say or implied that he hated Vermont

Pointing out the size on Vermont is hatred for it?

[Eloriel]

89. DTH -- you've just been conned

It wasn't an attack. Dean was very complimentary of Clark for the most part. He DID, however, say that he is going to need to clear up his pro-war /anti-war rhetoric at different times. That seems fair to me, esp. in context of (1) what else he said about Clark (again, positive) and (2) how he treated his other opponents (NOT positive).

Eloriel

[DoveTurnedHawk]

91. I'm Aware

See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=701300

DTH

[Andromeda]

98. It's not true, DTH...

I saw the interview and Dean never once used the word "phony." See post #96. This statement is a complete fabrication and doesn't even come close to anything Dean said.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

103. I'm Still Aware

:-)

See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=701300

I also take issue with the original poster's use of the term "phony" in that thread.

DTH

[JNelson6563]

118. sandnsea's been spreading this lie for days

more propaganda from a Deanophobe.

[andym]

35. re: "Heard Dean go after Clark just today" will backfire

He's going to Clark a chance to say that
not only was he against the war, but now is the
time to look forward, not backwards, and fix
the current situation.

[Bread and Circus]

62. I missed it....

but it makes Dean look bad if he goes after Clark...
is he just taking all our support for granted if he
wins the nomination?

Clark is a class act, and represents the Dems proud.

[RetroLounge]

85. Dean never said 'Phony' Those are your quotes

and are dishonest as the rest of your Dean Bashing.

What Clark said was great and I love the fact that he's taking the high road. But even when someone post a positive thread about Clark, you have to turn it into a Dean Bash. Pathological, really.

and pathetic.

You should read some of the other Clark Supporter's threads and get a clue on how some of the classy DU people post.

[sandnsea]

92. Thus typing it as 'phony'

That's not a quote, I'm sorry people don't know that you put quotes in quotation marks. Dean went after Clark, he said Clark didn't have an anti-war stance and recommended that the Congresswoman vote yes. He's making it an issue. Clark hasn't heard the end of this, I guarantee you. He can take any kind of road he wants, it's great, no problem. Dean will take the low road, he always does and that's why I don't like him and that's all I said.

[Myra]

86. Is Dean's logic that a military person can't be anti-war?

If so, then is his *logical* conclusion that
a military man (like Eisenhower) should never
be president? The two are mutually exclusive?
Just wondering out loud.

[Skwmom]

104. What Dean is trying to do is paint himself as the only

candidate that foresaw the quagmire of Iraq. There was a fluff article titled something along these lines. This is really a joke since he was just reiterating what Clark was saying for months.

[Andromeda]

96. You like to stir up trouble, don't you?

I saw that interview on CNN and Dean never used the word "phony." Stop parsing what Dean says and quit trying to pass off your opinions as fact.

Truth is apparently an inconvenience for you because it gets in the way of the story you like to tell.

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. Now THAT is a man

with integrity! Great article. Clark/Dean...an unstoppable ticket and the republicans know it.

[TLM]

34. Clark is smart... he can see there is no point to attacking Dean.

Kerry, Edwards, Lieberaman, and Sharpton have all taken hits in the press for their attacks on Dean. And they've already made the attacks and gotten the attacks out, so there's nothing more than Clark could do.

Clark has to see that attacking Dean at this point would make him look like just another one of the pack and accomplish nothing for his campaign. By taking the high road, he avoids wasting energy and he sets himself apart from the rest.

This will be a race between Dean and Clark.

[in_cog_ni_to]

45. And

it helps to be on good terms with your VP. :7

[Mz Pip]

47. Maybe awhile ago

I would have thought Clark picking Dean for VP was a good idea. Not anymore.

Dean is playing it like Bush did - misleading ads, meanspirited accusations. McCain supporters sat by and let it happen. Clark's supporters will be all over this like white on rice. I hope Dean enjoys his early retirement in Vermont. Hear the skiing there is fabulous.

MzPip
:dem:

[sandnsea]

48. Only if Dean shuts up in a hurry

If he thinks he's going to smear Clark like he's smeared the rest of the candidates and get away with it again, he's in for a big surprise. If he shuts up about Clark's anti-war view, he'll have a chance. If he doesn't, he'll bury himself because it will not wash with the rest of the candidates' supporters one more time. You might have noticed the DU poll yesterday where Dean lost to Clark. Dean's smear tactics is why.

[DrFunkenstein]

50. An Irrelevant Credibility Gap?

When a candidate reverses several major positions he has held for most of his political life, I'd say there is something of a credibility gap. He keeps saying that he's evolving, but what is he going to evolve into when he's in the Oval Office. I'm sure we'd get a small taste in the general elections. He knows his people wouldn't ditch him, so it would be safe to make a sharp swerve right. Not that it would save him from being called the next Abbie Hoffman...

[Bread and Circus]

60. Funk...I am not sure which candidate you are referring to..

I have kind of like your posts of late....I hope
you are not bashing Clark!

:hi:

[sandnsea]

65. Me too, Clark's a great candidate

I'd like to see Kerry and Clark compete for the final nomination like two gentleman warriors. It would be awesome and fascinating. I hope the Clark and Kerry camps can stay relatively civil, one or the other is our only chance.

[goforit]

70. Whooo hooo Clark!!!!!!........Now that's the United spirit America wants!!

I'll support you or Dean if it means defeating
you know who!!!!

:bounce:

Clark is a top class act!!!

[MODemocrat]

72. Wes Clark is a Class Act

The more I see and hear him, the prouder it make me. I wish all the candidates would do that; because they all have so much to offer, and, after all, they're supposed to be running against Bush, not each other. :toast: :hug:

[Clark Can WIN]

77. Come, come to the CLARK side................................

We have the best puns in the whole campaign. You'll love it.:pals:

[Field Of Dreams]

87. Not only puns ... but edibles like candy bars too!

Truth be told ... I actually prefer plain Hershey bars and Snickers. But the Clark bars are kind of growing on me.

[chaska]

80. Couple thoughts

Wouldn't it be great if we could find some way to form an alliance like on, that show I've never seen, Survivor. Weed out all the other candidates somehow, and then duke it out later.

Okay sure, it's a wacky idea. Wacky ideas often lead to real good ideas.

I'm not at all sure Clark or Dean would accept the veep nod. Think about how strong the pug congress is going to be. Think about the massive deficit, the problems with finances at the state level. The war, the economy, unemployment - the economy is projected to be major sucko in '05-'06. Think about the acrimony from the losing party ... no matter who wins. It is not going to be a great time to be in government.

[moz4prez]

82. didn't they already do that

on the Daily Kos? Good luck finding it, though, as it's always bustling w/ activity . . . just scour around . . . if I remember correctly (as I always do) either Clark or Edwards emerged the winner. Probably Clark.

[Donna Zen]

83. It is a great time

for a "public servant" and not a partisan politician. Suffering fools is a full time job on this campaign trail.

[Bucky]

88. Gep and Kerry already have tried the alliance thing

lot of good it'll do 'em

[Rowdyboy]

94. I believe Clark would accept a VP spot

mainly because he's a team player and has something to say.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

95. I Think Either Would Accept a VP Slot

Because they both know they'd be first in line after eight years under the other guy.

DTH

[Tom Rinaldo]

106. Dean does not return the favor

There was a clip shown on CNN today and Dean just took another shot at Clark about Clark needing to "clarify" his position about the U.S. going to war agaisnt Iraq. This one day after Clark came to Dean's strong defence about whether Dean needed to clarify his past comments about Medicare. Clark has more class than Dean. He is helping all of us by keeping his attacks focused on Bush. Anything any Democrat says against another Democrat will be used by the Republicans against the eventual nominee.

By the way, I for one think Clark's opposition to Bush jumping into Iraq without evidence of a compelling threat and without international support has been rock solid steady since very early 2002. But you know what? It is a very minor issue for me even if it were not. I don't support Kerry but I could live with his position regarding Iraq (Which in a nutshell is: Bush betrayed us by misusing the resolution that Congress passed which was meant to both give Bush leverage to move the U.N. towrds aggressive inspections and to threaten Hussein into compliance. Bush committed to gaining strong international backing, into gathering evidence of an immenent threat, and then invaded without it.) Kerry's position isn't mine, but I am much more concerned over what the next President of the United States will do once he is in office than over rehashing that piece of the past. Anyone who doesn't recognize that Clark was right all along about Iraq is either dumb or disingenuous. I don't think Dean is dumb.

[Bread and Circus]

120. I believe Clark does have more class than Dean.

IMO, Dean will say anything to get elected,
but that's ok, he's made of media teflon (for now).

[VermontDem2004]

112. Thank you Clark!!!!!!

"I don't care whether 10 years ago Howard Dean supported one position or another on Medicare," Clark said. "Frankly, it's irrelevant, and I wish people wouldn't keep harping on it."

He is definately in my top 3.