DU Approval Ratings: John Edwards

[Dave Sund]

The list of old polls is getting longer, I can't keep up with myself! ;)

Al Gore Approve: 84% Disapprove: 12% No Opinion: 5%
Wes Clark Approve: 74% Disapprove: 21% No Opinion: 5%
Barbara Boxer Approve: 92% Disapprove: 8%
John Kerry Approve: 79% Disapprove: 18% No Opinion: 3%
Hillary Clinton Approve: 43% Disapprove: 49% No Opinion: 8%
Howard Dean Approve: 84% Disapprove: 13% No Opinion: 3%
Harry Reid Approve: 87% Disapprove: 13%

[Clarkie1]

1. Approve or disapprove of what? What is it that you are asking?

These polls are meaningless and a waste of server space.

I approve of all of these people, and they are all good Democrats.

[Dave Sund]

2. It's hard to ask for people like Clark/Gore/Edwards

They don't have an official position, so it's a general approval rating. I'm doing these particular politicians because people requested them. If I asked: Do you approve or disapprove of GWB, or Joe Lieberman, I suspect all of you would say "disapprove." For a lot of these people, there are people who don't approve. I don't know why, but that's why I ask. I agree with you, I think they're all good Democrats. But a waste of server space? Come on...

[Catchawave]

69. Thanks for doing these polls Dave.....

You're exactly right, it's a way to measure how our Dem leaders are doing today, and whether they're making our party stronger.

I hope you continue these, I enjoy them very much!

[Clarkie1]

101. Uh, no.

"You're exactly right, it's a way to measure how our Dem leaders are doing today, and whether they're making our party stronger."

These polls measure whatever DU members interpret as "approve" or "disapprove," nothing else.

They idea that they "measure whether they're making our party stronger" is ludicrous.

It's basically a DU popularity contest.

[InvisibleTouch]

3. So vote "approve." :)

I think the polls are asking whether the person in question has done an overall good job in the past, and/or would do a good job in the future if given the chance. There's surely also an element of "do you find this person likeable?" as well.

I'm enjoying the polls, though I haven't caught all of them.

Regarding John Edwards, I think he's fantastic, and I hope we see more of him in the future. Definitely approve.

[davidinalameda]

4. didn't they cancel his show

he's a fraud!

crossing over my ass

[AmericanDream]

5. Lol... that's John Edward... the poll is asking about Edwards, the senator

[Dave Sund]

6. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the joke

[AmericanDream]

31. Well, didn't hit home with me then

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. There are currently no Senators named John Edwards

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

;)

[xchrom]

7. lol -- stop that!

i'm spending way too much time cleaning my keyboard 'cause o'you.

[davidinalameda]

34. hehe

:P

[sellitman]

8. I'm Sellitman and I "Approved " this poll.

:shrug:

[Dave Sund]

9. kick

[Mass]

10. These results are amazing

I can understand people sayin No Opinion as we dont know really what he is doing right now, but why is the number of disapprove so high?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

12. Stick to your day job and give the pop-psychology a rest

We are no more angry than Dean, Gephardt, Lieberman supporters, believe me.

[FrenchieCat]

15. I'm not angry....

more like was disgusted.

There has also been a generally deceptive quality to John Edwards's campaign. The populism is new. A man of considerable charm, and a persuasive speaker as well as being very clever, Edwards has managed to convince most of the political press that he has been running a "positive" campaign while in fact he's engaged in some rough attacks on his opponents. (His staff compiled a memorandum—from which he later dissociated himself— which among other things called Dean an "elitist from Park Avenue.") Perhaps it's the trial lawyer in him. Before he was first elected to the Senate in 1998, he specialized in personal-injury cases, winning verdicts for as much as $150 million, with as much as 30 percent going to the lawyers. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Hugh Shelton, who has publicly smeared General Wesley Clark as a man of questionable character, without ever saying why, is one of Edwards's advisers. Still, it was surprising that in November of last year Jennifer Palmieri, Edwards's press secretary, said of Clark, without citing a name or any evidence, "military leaders he has worked with, and who know him best, seem to have a lot of concern about his ability to lead."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16965

[DemDogs]

88. Edwards never said a single thing against Clark

Despite the fact that Clark "leaked" his announcement on the day of Edwards' formal announcement, Edwards never had anything but good things to say about him. HE NEVER "engaged in some rough tactics on his opponents." I don't know where Elizabeth Drew gets her information, but that paragraph is so loaded with mistakes that it is not worth even the newsprint on which the article was written. I have heard that she wanted to get on with some of the major campaigns and that it was only the minor campaigns and Dean that gave her the time of day, since she hasn't produced serious political analysis for some time.

[tishaLA]

16. I'd be willing to bet

That most Clark supporters like most Democrats. But thanks for the broad brush!

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

19. When one engineers the smear of another's character and integrity

that brings to question one's own character and integrity. So what Edwards did, he did it to himself. It's called living with the consequences of your actions.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. How did Edwards smear Clark's character?

He certainly fired a few shots at Dean, but what did he do to Clark?

[FrenchieCat]

21. repost of another one of my post in this thread,

for those who don't read the whole thread....

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Hugh Shelton, who has publicly smeared General Wesley Clark as a man of questionable character, without ever saying why, is one of Edwards's advisers. Still, it was surprising that in November of last year Jennifer Palmieri, Edwards's press secretary, said of Clark, without citing a name or any evidence, "military leaders he has worked with, and who know him best, seem to have a lot of concern about his ability to lead."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16965

[PurityOfEssence]

29. Hugh Shelton was an advisor for Edwards long before Clark entered the fray

Even the snippet from this article does nothing more than smear Edwards by association. The world does not revolve around Wesley Clark; Edwards sought out Shelton, someone who'd gone to his Alma Mater, when entering politics. Edwards knew that he needed more schooling on foreign policy, and this was a logical choice.

If you want to get upset at Jennifer Palmieri, then you should also be upset at Clark's advisors for their behavior on the day that Edwards formally announced his candidacy. Clark had been hinting at running and had scheduled a speech for Thursday, but deliberately leaked to the press his intent on Tuesday--the day of Edwards' announcement--to upstage him. Thanks, Mr. Fabiani. When confronted with this accusation, a spokesperson snidely dismissed Edwards as desperate due to his inability to get traction. Unlike Shelton's comments--made by himself, personally--this comment was made by someone specifically speaking for the Clark campaign.

When Edwards' camp publicly asked for Clark to retract his lie that Edwards and Kerry had voted for Bush's tax cuts (a lie that Dean had used and been called to account for earlier) the General's people not only didn't retract it, but countered with a broadside of distorted statistics pointing out that Edwards had "voted with Bush" 76% of the time. That was cowardly, brusque, demeaning and absolutely despicable of his campaign; the only Clark supporters who will even address this are ones who do so with extreme chagrin. There is simply no excuse for that; it was a deeply immoral act.

You may believe so thoroughly in your heart that Shelton was a proxy for Edwards, but there is no proof of this. There IS, however, proof of deliberate lying on the part of Wesley Clark in public in Tennessee, and it was about something that really mattered to John Edwards and Kerry(tax fairness) and something that Edwards had done out of deep convictions AND AT SIZEABLE POLITICAL RISK.

There is no proof that Shelton was acting as a skirmisher for Edwards, as I said before: Shelton had worked with Edwards long before Clark expressed political ambitions.

One thing that never seems to be aired in these discussions is that Clark is roundly disliked within the military. THAT MEANS SOMETHING. It also goes a long way toward putting Shelton's comments in context. People may dislike and/or dismiss the character of career Army types, but like all professions, there are may decent people there. Clark has grated against many, and this will continue to haunt him.

This thread was started to assess the appeal of John Edwards. Yes, you hate him; that's abundently clear. With all of the "gosh, isn't Clark the greatest" threads going around, can't you content yourself with posting on them instead of repeatedly, grossly misrepresenting your assumption as hard, undeniable fact? Do you not know the difference?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

30. Oh Please

The world doesn't revolve around Clark? Try the world doesn't revolve around Edwards.

If you want to get upset at Jennifer Palmieri, then you should also be upset at Clark's advisors for their behavior on the day that Edwards formally announced his candidacy. Clark had been hinting at running and had scheduled a speech for Thursday, but deliberately leaked to the press his intent on Tuesday--the day of Edwards' announcement--to upstage him.

Clark's announcement change had zero to do with Edwards, who had been running (as everyone knew) for many months, with little traction to show for it at that time. Clark's announcement change had everything to do with a certain hurricane bearing down on the East Coast at the time.

I never saw Edwards disavow Shelton's comments, which counted as a minor negative in my book. Personally, however, I never really cared as much about that as some other Clark supporters did; I simply viewed it all as Just Politics. It's a dirty game, after all, and sometimes people might even get their feelings hurt.

The primaries were a big dogfight. People ought to get over it, especially when all of the primary participants seem to have done exactly that, and have moved on to speak out as loud supporters of the Democratic Party. I hope Edwards, Clark, Kerry, Dean and everyone else keep it up.

DTH

[AP]

43. The Shelton time line:

Shelton made that comment in response to a question, probably by a student at a small college in CA, and it's possible that he had no idea there was press there.

When it blew up later, he just said no comment.

If Edwards told him to say it, why wait around until some student at a tiny event asks a question?

Anyway, Shelton wasn't a paid advisor (and wasn't even endorsing Edwards) and he was speaking for himself.

Also notice the timeline here: Clark admits he and Shelton had professional disagreements that "became personal." Those disagreements were probably in 98 or 99 -- 15 or more years after Shelton and Edwards first met, but long before anyone knew that Edwards and Clark were ever going to run for president.

Isn't it conceiveable that Shelton said something nasty about Clark merely because the two of them don't like each other? How is this Edwards's fault? It just seems so silly that this gets turned into a blot on Edwards.

Here's the article that broke the story:

http://latc.com/2003/09/24/community/news01.html

It has all the halmarks of dirty politics. First you have the high profile event at the, uh, the Foothill College Celebrity Forum. Then you get the reporter with connections to the campaign -- in this case, well, Joan Garvin, the Town Crier Correspondent (it's only a weekly but the Los Altos Town Crier has a lot of power, I'm sure). She imediately reports the story so that the elves in the MSM can spin it into gold. In this case, that short time period was almost two weeks after the event.

Jeff Gannon, anyone?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

45. I'm Not Claiming Edwards Put Him Up To It

I've never claimed that, to the best of my knowledge. But when presented with the issue, my recollection is that he declined to disavow it. And like I said, that counted as a minor negative in my book, especially from someone who took pains to emphasize that he was running a positive campaign.

But this is all water under the bridge, to me. I like Edwards. And by the way, if you ever happen to wonder why Clark supporters defend him even on minutiae, I hope you will look back at this thread and realize that you do the exact same thing. Personally, I have no problem with you doing that. But Clark supporters often catch flak, unfairly IMO, for doing the same thing.

DTH

[AP]

48. I don't think it's the place of candidates to apologize for the

statements made by unpaid advisors.

Clark himself admits he had personal problems with Shelton that went back to 97-98. Why should Edwards apologize for Shelton commenting on that? Just because he knows Shelton?

It's amazing that Clark supporters have such a hard time with Shelton, yet NPR and all the other media stations gave those four other guys a ton of press coverage to repeat over and over again their problems with Clark and I doubt Clark supporters could name one of those other four generals.

I think it's very revealing that it's Shelton that sticks in peoples' craws. I think that says more about Clark supporters feelings about Edwards than it says about Edwards.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

50. Frankly, I Think This Exchange Reveals More of You, Than Clark Supporters

I repeat: I like Edwards, even though back in ancient history, I didn't like how he declined to disavow Shelton's comments when they were presented to him. And we obviously have a difference of opinion as to whether or not such a disavowing would have been appropriate.

Regardless, I'm tired of seeing generalized statements about Clark supporters. Such stereotyping speaks more about you, than about Clark supporters.

And again, I get that you will defend Edwards on every single point, no matter how minute. Just make sure you look in the mirror before you criticize Clark supporters for doing the same or related thing.

DTH

On Edit: And of course Shelton's comments get more play here and in the media than the few Republican generals who also came out against Clark after he declared for the Democratic nomination. He's the only one who advised a Democrat, after all.

[AP]

51. One thing it reveals about me: I notice things.

Shelton got no more press than the other generals until much later -- long after it mattered, and I remember exactly the source of the outrage.

Shelton didn't get press because he was advising a candidate. Shelton got press because he gave someone the opportunity to attack a fellow Democratic candidate.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

53. On That We're Agreed

I think that cannibalizing type of behavior is counter-productive, and I've spoken out against it pretty consistently. Even in your defense, as you may recall.

DTH

[AP]

54. If you review this thread...

...you'll see that that's what I'm talking about too.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

64. All Right, Let's DEFINITELY Review This Thread

Here are the posters who are arguably negative about Edwards within this thread. (Note to Mods: I believe this is not "calling out" in any way since all of these people have participated within the thread.)

We have FrenchieCat, a Clark supporter whose comments were in response to an anti-Clark poster so blatant that his/her post was deleted by the Mods. She also says she does not like Edwards because of Shelton, which appears to be a sincere position generated in good faith, regardless of whether or not you disagree with that position.

We have nevergiveup, who didn't like Edwards' debate performance. This poster has no obvious preference for any other candidate.

We have LittleClarkie, who believes Edwards needs more experience. Despite his screen name, LittleClarkie is a major Kerry supporter.

We have FieldOfDreams, a Clark supporter who is "neutral" on Edwards. He's not really "negative" on Edwards, but I include him here for the sake of completeness.

We have donjo, who believes Edwards has electability problems. This poster has no obvious preference for any other candidate.

We have trogdor, who wasn't happy with Edwards' decision not to run for NC Senate. This poster has no obvious preference for any other candidate.

And that's it. Of the six posters who are not ebullient about Edwards, we have one Clark supporter who is negative (but who was responding to anti-Clark BS), one Clark supporter who is neutral, one Kerry supporter who is slightly negative, and three people who are negative who have no obvious candidate affiliation.

Stop blaming everything on Clark supporters. Doing so is weak and ought to be beneath you, IMO.

DTH

[LittleClarkie]

65. For the record, though you stated my position correctly

Edwards still got an overall favorable vote from me. My comment was more along the lines of constructive criticism. He still seems to be sincerely concerned about people, which counts for something, I reckon.

(also, btw, I'm a girlie)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

66. Sorry About That

No offense intended. :-)

DTH

[AP]

72. I was talking about what I was doing and not what non-Clark supprorters

named "little clarkie" are doing.

[PurityOfEssence]

61. It's become a given among the extremists, and gets brought up repeatedly

Surely you've noticed that, right? The ABSOLUTE excuse for the most strident Clark supporters is this "fact" that shows Edwards as an absolute rotter. You have noticed this orthodoxy, haven't you?

As for flakcatching, the Clark supporters as a group have been the most vehement, strident and vocal of all the candidates' supporters. There are more threads started to extol him than any other potential candidate, and his rival, Edwards, has every supportive thread met with massive derision. The proportions are overwhelming. The level of rancor is unparalleled. It is tiresome at the least, and nauseating in its consistency.

Most of the endless pro-Clark threads are left alone by Edwards supporters, but virtually every one of the comparatively few pro-Edwards threads are instantly pounced upon by Clark partisans. Yeah, I'm paranoid, but this is so obvious that it makes one's head spin.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

62. You Have GOT To Be Kidding

Practically every Clark thread is pissed on by a small group of anti-Clark folks. Same for Kerry, with anti-Kerry folks. And for Edwards, with anti-Edwards folks.

I totally agree there are more pro-Clark people here than any other candidate. (My own personal opinion is that that's because regular Internet participants are significantly better informed than the average voter, but obviously YMMV.) ;-) So it follows naturally that the greatest number of positive threads here (in terms of specific candidates) will be for Clark, and it also follows naturally that the most vocal and visible group of candidate defenders will be for Clark.

The mistake you and AP both make, however, is assuming that just because a bare handful of Clark supporters might not like Edwards, there is some kind of conspiracy or generalized stereotype applicable to Clark supporters. As someone who does know you personally, and as someone who likes Edwards and has spoken in favor of him numerous times here, I took personal offense at your past allegations and stereotypes, which you had made here on multiple occasions, especially as you hadn't qualified or limited those allegations and stereotypes at all even as it pertained to me specifically. (The post I'm responding to is an improvement in that you're referencing "extremists". But every other candidate has his or her extremists as well.)

Yes, some Clark supporters dislike Edwards in large part because of Shelton. There are lots of Clark supporters who are passionate about Clark, after all, and they often take offense at slurs against the General's character.

But you and AP are NO DIFFERENT from those Clark supporters. You are both passionate about Edwards, and you defend him even on the minutiae...and I would certainly qualify defending him based on his advisor slamming an opposing candidate during the heat of the primaries (regardless of who might or might not have put the advisor up to it) as minutiae. And you both seem to have something against Clark, even to the point of starting negative new threads about him and/or slamming him based on broad-brush judgments about his supporters rather than (or in addition to) Clark himself.

You're the EXACT SAME as some of the Clark supporters you decry. The only difference is that there are, factually, less Edwards supporters here than Clark supporters, which accordingly makes it less visible.

Edwards takes a lot of shit here, often unfairly, but it's from supporters of all candidates. Hillary has it even worse. And Kerry had it worse right after the election. Clark had it worse during the primaries, and in some ways even now, IMO.

It's all stupid, though. We should all be working together, not starting negative threads about potential 2008 candidates. And, I will certainly agree, not making negative posts within positive threads about potential 2008 candidates.

DTH

[AP]

73. The last big pro-clark thread (Chris Heinz's apartment): not a single anti

Clark post in it, I bet.

The last purely pro-Edwards thread was the one where the SECOND post was by a clark supporter.

Any post about Edwards, the first or second post is by a Clark supporter.

I don't think anyone should be bothered by the anti-Edwards posters in threads like "Why should I support Edwards" or "Edwards stands up for something I don't believe in." Those are debate threads.

But the occassional "Hey, Edwards did something great" -- those are the ones where it's shocking how many Clark enthusiasts feel the need to post, "no he didn't."

I know that there are intensely debated Clark threads (and part of that reason is that there are just so many Clark threads). But I think you'll probably notice that all the Clark puffery threads are left to the pufferers, and I think the Chris Heinz is an excellent example. Yet the extremely rare Edwards-puffery thread NEVER gets the same courtesy, and this is a guy normal and informed people love (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html). Go figure.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

77. There Are a Couple

And once again, the vagaries of Internet timing aside, the fact that there are many more Clark supporters here (of diverse temperaments) than Edwards supporters -- and you can take from that fact whatever you want -- explains much if not all of your complaint.

And your perception of the "Clark puffery" threads is badly mistaken. I'll leave it at that.

DTH

[AP]

81. Relative numbers of supporters are not relevant. If I wanted to be the...

...second poster in every Clark thread, I could probably do it. The interesting issue -- revealed by the Houston speech thread -- is whay so many Clark supporters feel the need to post to an Edwards puffery thread. It's a phenomenon that is not reciprocated in Clark puffery threads like the Chris Heinz thread.

[AP]

74. Also, you mischaracterize what is annoying about this.

You say I'm just doing what the Clark supporters do: I defend Edwards against the minutest of criticisms.

No. That's not what's going on here.

What offends me is that I don't see the same courtesy and graciousness from Clark supporters that they're allowed in threads like CarolNYC's about Chris Heinz's event.

Also, I like to think that I have a little more rigorous standard for what constitutes a legitimate criticism of a fellow Democrat. Rehashing talking points worthy of Rush Limbaugh doesn't cut it with me. I wouldn't do that, and, again, I'm not impressed that this isn't reciprocated by some. But I'm not so worried about that. Know them by their arguments, I guess. It's really the first problem that bothers me -- that such offense is taken at any interference in one's own puffery thread, but interjecting in another democrat's puffery threads is considered one's right.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

78. I Call Bullshit

There is one Clark poster here who is arguably negative on Edwards, and that was provoked by an anti-Clark poster whose post was so bad it was deleted.

And that's IT.

Please stop feeling so oppressed, it ought to be beneath a solid poster like yourself.

DTH

[AP]

79. You've changed.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

83. News Flash Pal: So Have You (eom)

DTH

[AP]

87. Yeah. That Houston speech thread was an eye-opener.

[PurityOfEssence]

76. Pro-Clark threads are usually left alone; Pro-Edwards ones are ALWAYS hit

That should be abundently clear. I have not made any posts on the endless Clark threads extolling his virtue for a very long time until yesterday. A thread praising Edwards was started after his Houston speech, and was instantly pounced upon by numerous Clark supporters; I responded to that and was deleted. This thread is an up-or-down approval thread, and it was instantly attacked by numerous Clark supporters; when responding, I was again deleted.

I started a thread about vouchers which was critical of Clark and there were 35 responses within the hour. Angry at my effrontery for quoting him, another thread was started to refute mine, and the shrieking and screaming was such that I was told I had no right to even post on the thread. When I offered up another quote that unequivocally showed Clark's earlier support for vouchers it was ignored and then shouted down. I merely used quotes--in context--and sparked a rage that was tolitarian in its nature.

Sure, there are many Clark supporters not of this ilk, but there's a very established contingent who go out of their way to never let Edwards supporters have a moment of joy. What's worse is that these same posters spin endless new threads praising Clark, and they're generally left alone. Worse still, after injecting themselves into threads in praise of Edwards, if they're rebutted at all, they take it as a personal attack when they are the interlopers and spoilsports. Somehow, these people demand the right to attack and never be called into question. It smacks of privilige, it's anti-pluralist and it's tiresome.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

82. Again, I Call Bullshit. See My Post #64.

This thread is an up-or-down approval thread, and it was instantly attacked by numerous Clark supporters;

You have ZERO basis for making this statement, it is just your predetermined bias which is making you say this. There is one arguably negative Clark poster on this thread, and she was clearly provoked by someone who was deleted.

when responding, I was again deleted.

Was that your deleted post? Maybe that ought to tell you something. The Mods are fair. If you're getting deleted on a regular basis, perhaps you ought to moderate your posting style. Just a suggestion.

And if that was your deleted post that provoked Frenchie, then you certainly share responsibility for the scrum that followed.

I started a thread about vouchers which was critical of Clark

Yes you did, mere days after you decried the exact same behavior. Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

and there were 35 responses within the hour.

When you slime General Clark here, the fact that there are more Clark supporters here than anyone else ought to clue you in that you will face strong disagreement.

Angry at my effrontery for quoting him,

Actually, you quoted a hearsay report -- devoid even of that hearsay report's context -- whose exact 100% accuracy cannot be determined. Nuances are important, after all.

another thread was started to refute mine, and the shrieking and screaming was such that I was told I had no right to even post on the thread.

I don't agree with people who say that. I think it was one person. You always have the right to ignore that person. That person does not have a gun to your head. So please, stop feeling so oppressed.

When I offered up another quote that unequivocally showed Clark's earlier support for vouchers it was ignored and then shouted down. I merely used quotes--in context--and sparked a rage that was tolitarian in its nature.

This is utterly untrue. There is no "unequivocal" quote in support of vouchers. This is again your predetermined bias showing.

Sure, there are many Clark supporters not of this ilk, but there's a very established contingent who go out of their way to never let Edwards supporters have a moment of joy.

When you say "very established contingent" what you really mean is, at most, two or three posters IMO. And as a philosophical matter, I am generally opposed to all people who piss in positive threads, regardless of the candidate. I wish everyone would stop doing that.

What's worse is that these same posters spin endless new threads praising Clark, and they're generally left alone.

Again, that's just not true. There is a cadre of Clark-haters here. I don't blame all of them on Edwards supporters (although there is at least one or two), because that would be unfair.

Worse still, after injecting themselves into threads in praise of Edwards, if they're rebutted at all, they take it as a personal attack when they are the interlopers and spoilsports.

When Edwards supporters talk shit about Clark and/or Clark supporters in their supposedly "positive" Edwards threads (to the extent of having a deleted post), you shouldn't be at all surprised if Clark supporters take that badly.

Somehow, these people demand the right to attack and never be called into question. It smacks of privilige, it's anti-pluralist and it's tiresome.

I find melodrama to be tiresome.

The reality is we all have voices here. No one can enforce their will upon you unless they are a Moderator or Admin. So please stop with all the drama.

We would all be better off, IMO, if unnecessary slams -- whether in the form of negative posts within positive threads, or whether in the form of blatantly negative, inflammatory and inaccurate attack threads -- went unsaid. I feel like I've done my part. Maybe you could start doing yours.

DTH

[ClarkUSA]

90. Wrong again

"I started a thread about vouchers which was critical of Clark and there were 35 responses within the hour. Angry at my effrontery for quoting him, another thread was started to refute mine, and the shrieking and screaming was such that I was told I had no right to even post on the thread."

Nice try but you are being disingenuous at best.

I told you that you were being disruptive on a thread that FrenchieCat started
that refuted your smear thread on Clark that deliberately and stubbornly quoted OUT-OF-CONTEXT a comment by Wes Clark that was about reframing the debate about school vouchers. You were kicking your own thread and decided to continue smearing Clark on another thread. That's against DU Rules.

General Clark asked Edwards point-blank during the primaries after a debate to ask Shelton to retract his statement and Edwards refused. The campaign also asked Edwards and the request was refused. Elizabeth Drew is an award-winning political investigative reporter; she actually did the RESEARCH and got her FACTS straight.

If General Clark's longtime advisor and spokesperson maligned Edwards with a serious character smear without any explanation (and then the longtime advisor admitted to the Hague that it was "just politics"), I 'll bet you'd be really understanding and forgiving about it, right?

:sarcasm:

[AP]

91. Do you have a cite for Shelton testifying in the Hague and for the...

..."just politics" quote.

I think if you review the facts, you'll see that Shelton did not testify in the Hague, and I still haven't seen an original source for the "just politics" quote.

However, I have seen Clark say that he had personal problems with Shelton around 97-98, and that seems to explain the whole deal short of getitng an explanation of exactly what their personal problems revovled around -- and neither of them seems to be forthcoming with those details.

[BootinUp]

93. I'll look for the

Shelton thing, its around. But also, can you find this quote of Clark's?

[AP]

94. I found it googling...

...when I was participating in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1679825#1680610

I'll look for the original post.

[AP]

96. Here's the quote:

Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in September that Clark was relieved of his assignment as NATO commander because of “integrity and character issues,” but he refused to elaborate.

Clark responded at the time that he and Shelton had professional disagreements that “became personal.”
http://www.news-record.com/election/edwards/clark111203.htm

Notice the date on this story: 11/12.

Notice the date when Shelton made the comment (http://latc.com/2003/09/24/community/news01.html): early September, and it wasn't reported for almost two weeks when it appeared in a weekly paper in Los Altos.

Clark waited about 7 weeks to criticze Edwards for something Shelton said, which Clark himself acknowledges was probably due to personal differences that occured almost 6 years earlier, before anyone knew Clark or Edwards woudl be running for president.

Which explaines this:

January 29, 2004

POLITICS: The Kerry Files

Yesterday, ABC's The Note re-posted a pair of hilarious memos from John Kerry's outgoing campaign heads to the incoming heads last November (one was from ousted campaign manager Jim Jordan to his incoming replacement, Mary Beth Cahill; the other was from departing communications spokesguy Robert Gibbs to the arriving Stephanie Cutter). These aren't smoking-gun stuff, since it's pretty common knowledge that campaign people talk like this, but they are deeply humorous reading and, since The Note doesn't have archives, I'll reprint them here in their entirety:

....

36. The next time The Candidate gets grumpy and masticates on the ineffectiveness of his staff, point to the Clark campaign's decision to attack Edwards over Hugh Shelton on Veterans Day as an example of how bad strategic decisions by staff (Lehane and Kym?) really can be. After that, you won't look that awful.

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2004/01/politics_the_ke.php

[BootinUp]

103. AP, I think when you take out professional it makes a world of diff

Don't you think?

The way I read it, Clark pointed to professional differences. There are many accounts written by Clark and others that go into Clark's disagreements with the Pentagon. Old news. Its also old news that Shelton told Clark to get his fucking face off of the television during the Kosovo campaign.

[AP]

108. It makes it more curious that Clark would blame Edwards.

Clark is admitting that he was a criticized by a guy with whom he had PROFESSIONAL and PERSONAL problems years before anyone had any idea he or Edwards were running for president, and he's saying Edwards has to apologize for this guy expressing his dislike for Clark.

Do you get why Kerry's ex-campaign manager cited this as a dumb thing to do?

[BootinUp]

110. Your're still changing the meaning

My quick read of your links indicate that Clark said it was a professional difference that became personal. He meant that it got personal for Shelton and thats why he sabotaged Clark. What do you think professional differences means?

I personally have never had professional deifferences with anyone in my career. /sarcasm

[AP]

112. Are U trying to back out of this by saying that I'm changing the meaning?

I provided the links. Where else would you have gotten the information?

The fact is Clark is admitting that he had problems with this guy when they were in Kosovo.

He's trying to argue that Edwards and Shelton somehow colluded to disparage his character unfairly, but then he says that this isn't totally out of the blue, that he and Shelton didn't get along 6 years earlier.

If the people with whom you have had professional differences later say they don't think you have good character when you, Jim, decide to run for President, are you going to say that the ONLY reason they're saying that is to help someone else win a presidential race? Maybe they really don't like you because of professional and personal differences and they really do believe that you don't have the character to be president?

Again, why do you think the Kerry ex-mgr said it was dumb for Clark's campaign to bring this up?

[BootinUp]

115. Ok, AP

I carefully worded my responses and I see you cannot understand them. So feel free to continue to twist the quote that you provided the link to.

[AP]

117. Yeah. It's me. That's called table-turning.

[BootinUp]

120. Thats not my intention.

Why not continue the discussion by PM then. I was only trying to clear up any misconceptions about both quotes you referenced/asked about. I think I've been fair about it. :shrug:

[AP]

123. Often, on the internet,

when people can't make the argument they set out to make, they turn the tables and start talking about how the other person is misleading by misquoting. The focus on the semantics.

Honestly, when I saw that quote (including professional as well as personal problems) I thought, damn, wish I rembered that because it's strengthens the argument.

You do see my bigger point: whether the problems were only personal, or were preceded by professional problems, it's sort of a "I'm shocked, shocked to see gambling..." moment when Clark says that Shelton was an Edwards operative inventing criticisms and then admits that something passed between them long before Edwards and Clark had any connection at all. "I'm shocked, shocked! that someone who doesn't like me would say something bad about me!"

At the same time Clark was saying that Shelton should speak up, yet Clark clearly had in mind some professional and personal problems they had. If he had told everyone what they were, we probably would have heard exactly what Shelton was basing his criticisms on.

So it's like, "I'm shocked -- shocked! -- that someone who doesn't like me would say something bad about me! And if he won't say why, then he's only doing it to help Edwards, but I know why he's doing it, and I'm not going to tell anyone either."

[BootinUp]

127. Is it ok if I give my interpretation?

Really its Clark's. You see he wrote a whole book about the Kosovo campaign, and much of it was focused on his difficulty with the politics going on back here in the states.

Clearly the professional differences he references in these quotes, is his pushing for intervention and the use of more agressive tactics in Kosovo while certain people including the Republican Sec of Def. Cohen, who Clark reported to as NATO Saceur, felt were too risky and could have political backlash. Cohen and Shelton were pushing for continued use of high altitude bombing with low risk of US casualties but higher collateral damage risk. Clark's focus was on preventing genocide in the most direct way possible.

Clark used the media to push his case and get public support for the campaign. This led to Shelton blasting Clark to get his f'in face off of the tv. Sure they had differences, does Clark regret them? I don't think so. He did what he could to stop the suffering. He admits it cost him professionally. Clark's leadership resulted in a very successful campaign as you know. And Shelton still has this gripe about it. BFD.

P.S. The book Waging Modern Wars was written before 9/11 and arguably before CLark had any serious Presidential ambitions.

[BootinUp]

129. Here's a better quote from Clark on this

---------------------------
Weeks later, Clark's voice rises as, for the umpteenth time, he is asked to respond to the remark.

"When I was told to leave command, no one ever said anything like that to me ... praised me for my work; I received two defense distinguished service medals. I never heard the word integrity."

Clark attributes the unusual outburst from his former colleague to lingering resentment ,over policy differences.

"Somewhere between all these competing notions of duty, they let it become personal," Clark said. "It was never personal to me."

http://www.post-gazette.com/election/20040111clark0111p2.asp
---------------------------

[LandOLincoln]

95. Shelton didn't testify at The Hague, and no one is

claiming he did. Clark, OTOH, did testify, and Milosevic--who was acting as his own counsel--wanted to use Shelton's statement against Clark.

Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte contacted Shelton, and it was she who reported that Shelton then dismissed his slander of Clark as "just politics."

[AP]

97. I have never seen an original source showing that Del Ponte contacted

Shelton.

I have seen a lot of people on CCN claim that that happened (but they call Del Ponte the judge). I'd like to see a legitimate cite for that claim.

What can be supported by media reports is this:

Milosevic mentioned Shelton's quote and tried to argue that Clark was removed for strategic errors.

Clark responded by citing all the commendations he received from his superiors. During a break in his testimony, he had Clinton fax a supporting letter which he then attempted to enter into evidence when he returned to court.

[AP]

98. In fewer words: have a link for that claim?

I presume you're looking for it and are having a tough time finding an original source.

I had the same problem when I looked for an original source.

[Texas_Kat]

132. Just for you, a firsthand account from Wes Jr's talk in CA, Jan 6 2004

http://ccobb.forclark.com/story/2004/1/6/11059/60174

The "Wes" he is referring to is "Wes, Jr." --just so we're clear

snip...
As for the crowd, I stopped counting at about 70 because Wes popped up for a Q&A session. In the end we may have had somewhere between 75 and 90. During the Q&A, a lot of basic questions were asked and answered (Shelton? Health Care? Tax reform?). But Wes also shared some interesting anecdotes that I thought you would like to hear too:

snip

During the General's testimony in The Hague, Milosevic used Shelton's quote smearing Clark's character and integrity to impugn the General's testimony. The judge Carla de la Ponte called Shelton to confirm and to evaluate whether he should come to testify on Milosevic's behalf. Shelton backpedaled, saying it was 'just politics.'

Whether you believe it or not, a journal account from the time in question is valid 'testimony'.

It's quite unlikely that you'll ever see anything as a direct attribution from the judge. If you remember, (well maybe you don't) Clark's testimony was 'censored' by the Bush administration and any private phone calls from Del Ponte to Shelton would have been 'off the record'.

According to the NT Times,

(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/17/international/europe/17TRIB.html?ex=1115438400&en=64c1be579bd3cc3d&ei=5070&hp=&pagewanted=all&position=)

Clinton "weighed in on General Clark's behalf in a letter to the court. The letter arrived after Mr. Milosevic, who is serving as his own lawyer, attacked General Clark's character by citing criticism of him by Gen. Hugh Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to officials in The Hague familiar with the testimony." and "Ms. Del Ponte declined to comment."

[DoveTurnedHawk]

135. I Was There

Wes Jr. did say that. General Clark also said that at a different venue.

This leaves three possibilities, as I see it:

1) Wes Jr. and General Clark were lying or mistaken;
2) Carla Del Ponte was lying or mistaken;
3) Shelton did indeed say that to Carla Del Ponte, but was unwilling to go "on the record" disavowing his comment, even if that failure to recant on the record helped Milosevic.

I firmly believe #3. I'm sure others will believe otherwise, though.

DTH

[AP]

99. Is it too soon to presume the answer is "no"?

[BootinUp]

100. Its very possible

the story has been archived and one would need to buy it. Whether it was the NY Times or some other, all I can say is I read it or heard it from a major news media source. There was no complete Shelton quote. It was something Carla del Ponte must have said in response to a question. I spend a wee bit more time looking for it. Probably the way back machine is the best bet at this point.

[AP]

102. I think you read it at CCN. And if you notice, every time it's mentioned..

...on CCN (or anywhere) it's without a link to an original source.

In addition to the numerous occurences (without citations) of this allegation, there's no shortage of original sources documenting everything else that happened the day Clark testified at the Hague.

Don't you think it's interesting that none of those original sources say that Del Ponte called Shelton? And don't you think that, even though there are a ton of original sources talking about Clark and Shelton, none say that Shelton said it was just politics?

[BootinUp]

105. I didn't read it there back in early 2004

But there aren't any other hits I have found at this point. My memory ain't that bad. When a story like that comes out, I always look for sources, and discount ones that can't be sourced. So I don't have a problem with you doing the same, doesn't change what I remember though.

[AP]

106. Look in the archives here. The people who say it don't cite a source...

...other than CCN posts, which, don't site a source either.

[BootinUp]

107. The only source I found so far

is a report from a meetup and it was attributed to WesJr by the poster. If thats the only source then I wouldn't give it a tremendous amount of weight. It might explain why I never made the claim before. But even taking that out, the whole affair still stinks IMHO.

[AP]

109. Link?

[BootinUp]

111. I'm sure you have seen it

If you googled. Its a meetup report on a user's blog at the CCN.

[AP]

114. You're serious? You're not going to give me the link?

The entire reason you're googling is because I asked for links to support this claim.

Granted, this link doesn't look like it supports the claim, I'd still think you'd be willing to provide the link.

Either you're trying to hide something else in the link, the link doesn't exist, or you're just trying to turn the tables.

[Adelante]

113. You're not going to get a link

The source is Wes Clark Jr at a meetup in LA in early January, 2004. It was verbal. It was not otherwise published, as far as I know. You can believe Wesley Clark's son or not, as you please, AP.

[AP]

116. Whatever. I think it's safe to assume that Shelton never said it was just

politics in response to a phone call from Del Ponte, whatever that's worth.

And it's definitely not the case that Shelton testified at the Hague.

But I suspect that those claims won't disappear from the Shelton-Clark-Edwards mythology.

[BootinUp]

119. I have never seen a Clark supporter say he (Shelton)

testified at the Hague.

Lets not create any more myths while we are having this nice discussion. My part of the deal is agreeing with you that the reported statement we looked for will not be spread by me. Deal?

[AP]

121. I think we can also agree that nobody can provide a legitimate link that

even remotely suggests a scenario in which the claim that Shelton told Del Ponte it was "just politics" could have occured, much less one that makes the claim that he said it.

(In other words, there isn't even a link out there that shows that Del Ponte contacted Shelton.)

Yet, this whole scenario is definitely part of the Shelton-Clark-Edwards mythology.

And I have seen several permutations of this story, including Shelton testifying and "Judge" Del Ponte contacting Shelton.

[Adelante]

122. Like I said

Believe Wes Clark Jr; don't believe him. It's your choice to make whatever assumption you wish. And nobody is saying that Shelton testified at the Hague. I do assume Del Ponte called Shelton and Shelton said it was "just politics" -- because I assume Wes Clark Jr heard it from his father. It's not as good as a published source to which we can link, I agree.

[AP]

124. Uhm, how can I believe that Jr even said it at a meetup if I can't see

a link to the hearsay evidence?

[Adelante]

128. We're both making assumptions that seem safe to us

You don't know Shelton didn't say it was "politics" and I don't know he did, not at first hand, so we're each assuming what we find believable or not believable. Another assumption I make is, if he said anything other than that, Shelton may have been called to testify at The Hague in person. They may not have been able to get him there, I tend to doubt he would go, but it's likely he would have been called to testify, since Milosevic was making Shelton's charges against Clark's character and integrity part of his defense.

I've seen two first-hand reports of that meetup over time and both said Wes Jr said what he said. It's not ideal evidence, but it works for me. Perhaps someone who was present at that meetup will at some point post to what they heard, or even Wes Jr may post what he said. We'll have to see. But then you would have to believe the ear-witness or believe Wes Jr.

I'm not sure you would do that, because it's the Internet, anyway.

Then again, maybe Del Ponte will write a book one day.

Until then, we are where we are.

[Adelante]

140. DU Ear-witness: DoveTurnedHawk

I'm done, AP. Spread whatever nonsense you want and we will always answer it. You won't ever like the answers, and honestly, so what?

DoveTurnedHawk Donating member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu May-05-05 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #132

135. I Was There



Wes Jr. did say that. General Clark also said that at a different venue.

This leaves three possibilities, as I see it:

1) Wes Jr. and General Clark were lying or mistaken;
2) Carla Del Ponte was lying or mistaken;
3) Shelton did indeed say that to Carla Del Ponte, but was unwilling to go "on the record" disavowing his comment, even if that failure to recant on the record helped Milosevic.

I firmly believe #3. I'm sure others will believe otherwise, though.

DTH

[FrenchieCat]

130. Here's what you are asking for....

Here's the blogger and his blogged the meet-up story....
http://ccobb.forclark.com/story/2004/1/6/11059/60174
Wes mentioned that Schwarzkopf tried to get the General kicked off the West Point debate team. Makes me assume that Schwartzy's current animus goes back to college frat boy stuff.

When the General was exploring whether or not he should run, he came to LA and met with a number of media people. Warren Beatty walked out of the meeting saying 'I don't think he's got it. He doesn't have a big enough ego.'

During the General's testimony in The Hague, Milosevic used Shelton's quote smearing Clark's character and integrity to impugn the General's testimony. The prosecutor Carla de la Ponte called Shelton to confirm and to evaluate whether he should come to testify on Milosevic's behalf. Shelton backpedaled, saying it was 'just politics.'

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60C16F834580C748DDDAB0994DB404482
Milosevic Trial Helps Clark Try To Gain Notice
By ELAINE SCIOLINO (NYT) 1341 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 1

ABSTRACT - Gen Wesley K Clark, former NATO supreme commander and candidate for Democratic presidential nomination, seeks to burnish own credentials as potential commander in chief as he testifies at former Yugoslav Pres Slobodan Milosevic's war crimes trial, Hague; has maximized media value of his court appearance and official break from campaigning; comments on having faced down and testified against dictator, interview; ex-Pres Bill Clinton reportedly sends letter to court lauding Clark's role in halting ethnic cleansing in Kosovo after Milosevic reportedly attacked Clark by citing former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen Hugh Shelton's stand that Clark was asked to resign early from NATO post because of 'integrity and character issues'
-----------
CNBC News Transcripts
SHOW: Capital Report (9:00 PM ET) - CNBC
December 16, 2003 Tuesday
LENGTH: 1184 words
HEADLINE: Capture of Saddam Hussein ends 12-year effort to stop his brutal regime once and for all
ANCHORS: GLORIA BORGER

BORGER: All right, General, I'm going to switch gears on you just for one last question, because we've been watching all of the Democrats react to the news of Saddam Hussein's capture. You made a little bit of news on our show on November 6th when you said of General Wesley Clark that he was not going to get your vote, that was for certain, because General Hugh Shelton had said that he was not a man of character and integrity. And you said, quote, "If that's the case, he's not the right man for president as far as I'm concerned." Have you changed your mind?

SCHWARZKOPF: Well, again, 'if that's the case' was a very, very important statement. You know, I don't know to this date--there's never been any attempt to explore with Hugh Shelton what he meant by that. You know, there's never been any explanation as to why he was removed from command three months prior to his retirement. And, you know, what I really meant to say--and I think I put it that way--is these are things that need to be--you know, we need to know the answers as to why they were said. And once you know that, then that gives you more information upon which to base your fundamental decision in the future.

I don't know what lack of character caused Hugh Shelton to say that, I don't know what lack of integrity caused Hugh Shelton to say that, and I'd like to hear more about it. And basically I just don't think that that's been addressed that much. And obviously to a lot of people that's not an issue at all.

BORGER: OK. General Norman Schwarzkopf, thanks so much for being with us tonight.

SCHWARZKOPF: You're welcome.
----------
Here's a website tracking the Milosovic/Clark Hague adventure...
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/milosevic_hague.htm#Milosevic%20attacks%20Clark%20by%20citing%20Shelton's%20words

[Texas_Kat]

125. Actually, Wes Jr. revealed it at a meeting of Democrats in CA.

Yes, the Clinton letter (which WAS entered into evidence) was specifically to do damage control for the political statement that Shelton made during the early primary days.

I guess we could call on Wes Jr. to set you straight.... I think he's done that before.

[AP]

131. Oh yeah, I remember that. When he told me Chavez was a fraud and that

it was cool to make a lot of money on Wall St if you want to be president.

That sure set me straight.

[Texas_Kat]

133. Link please?

[FrenchieCat]

134. And AP, that is why I find it hard to appreciate John Edwards....

and you've miss the point entirely. The issue is not whether Shelton later backed down on his smear against Wes Clark; the problem is that John Edwards could have said something about it....and you know what? he chose to say something nice about Gen. Shelton..... Even McCain defended Wes Clark!

Instead Edwards chose to affirm Gen. Shelton as the one with the integrity and character. The Republican Bush loving General Shelton who wouldn't even endorse the John Kerry and the John Edwards ticket was publicly admired and revered by John Edwards (as noted in John Edwards statement below).

So when it was crunch time, Edwards defended Gen. Shelton, a Republican asshole, instead of stating something positive about Wes Clark. He had a choice, and his choice was a Bush lover.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/11/national1838EST0673.DTL
Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in September that Clark was relieved of his assignment as NATO commander because of "integrity and character issues," but he refused to elaborate.

Clark responded at the time that he and Shelton had professional disagreements that "became personal."

Edwards wrote Clark in response Tuesday to defend Shelton and the candidate's relationship with the retired military leader.

"Whatever your personal views of Gen. Shelton, I'm sure you agree that he is a respected military leader who served our country with distinction," Edwards wrote. "Although Gen. Shelton has not endorsed me or any other candidate, I value his advice as one of our nation's top military leaders.
snip

Other former generals -- Norman Schwarzkopf and Tommy Franks -- have questioned Clark's candidacy recently. Schwarzkopf cited Shelton's comments about Clark's integrity as the main reason he doesn't think Clark would be well-suited to be president.

So it goes...the snowball effect; the smears echoed by two more Bushie Generals, who ended up actually endorsing Bush, jumped into the frey.

I found it disgusting that Edwards stood by and allowed a good man to be slimed.

Ironically, out of those four Generals involved in this story ....only Clark endorsed, stumped and acted as surrogate for the John Kerry/John Edwards ticket. How's that for integrity and Character?

The respected Journalist, Elizabeth Drew, of The New York Book Review wrote....
John McCain, who thinks well of Clark, says that Shelton, having made such a derogatory statement, should explain what he means. Charles Rangel, a strong supporter of Clark, has called Shelton's comment "character assassination."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

Too bad Edwards didn't say something like that. That would have been the right thing to do.

and that why when she wrote this about John Edwards, I personally understood that she was writing truth, not making excuses for Edwards...like you are AP.

...Edwards has managed to convince most of the political press that he has been running a "positive" campaign while in fact he's engaged in some rough attacks on his opponents.
snip
Former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Hugh Shelton, who has publicly smeared General Wesley Clark as a man of questionable character, without ever saying why, is one of Edwards's advisers. Still, it was surprising that in November of last year Jennifer Palmieri, Edwards's press secretary, said of Clark, without citing a name or any evidence, "military leaders he has worked with, and who know him best, seem to have a lot of concern about his ability to lead."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16965
----------
Sorry AP, I don't consider Edwards' action qualify as a demonstration of his character or his integrity. That's not the mark of a man ready to lead.

It's one thing to tell the ugly truth about your opponent, and I wouldn't even care if what was distorted was Clark's policies stance; but it's another to stand by and watch the big lie put out on someone's character and integrity, the things that should matter the most to just about any person, for that matter.....

The only person I would expect to do something like that is George Bush. In essence, it's exactly what Bush did to McCain. No, Bush didn't directly do it....others around him did. Ditto for John Edwards.

[CarolNYC]

139. God, I hate to jump in here...

...as I've been decrying all of the negativity going on here but this Shelton thing does bother me and, Frenchie, I agree so wholeheartedly with this post.

I don't believe that Edwards and Shelton cooked any of this up together. It makes no difference how long Edwards and Shelton had been associated. It makes no difference to me whether or not Shelton said it was "just politics".

The crux of the matter is that Shelton threw out a vague and unanswerable smear that he refused to elaborate on and Edwards chose to at least give the appearance of supporting him in that. I certainly didn't expect him to get rid of Shelton or anything like that but some comment other than one about what a great guy Shelton is wouldn't be too much to expect, I would think. Apparently, I would think wrong. :(

Of course, supposedly there are some who consider the smear on Clark's character and integrity a just return for Clark's supposed stepping on the toes of Edwards official announcement. I suppose character and integrity don't mean as much to folks like that as they do to General Clark.

In any event, it's water under the bridge now. Gen Clark seems to have put it behind him as he campaigned long and hard for both Johns last fall and appeared with Edwards on at least one occasion. He also said at the NDN thing the other night that he thought that John Kerry and John Edwards both would have made great leaders of this country.

Whether or not Edwards has gotten over the perceived stepping on the official announcement I have no idea....and I'm probably going to be kicking myself for even getting involved in the discussion.

[Adelante]

142. Link, AP? nt

[Texas_Kat]

57. I've heard from E's folks that somehow Clark "upstaged' him on purpose...

If you want to get upset at Jennifer Palmieri, then you should also be upset at Clark's advisors for their behavior on the day that Edwards formally announced his candidacy. Clark had been hinting at running and had scheduled a speech for Thursday, but deliberately leaked to the press his intent on Tuesday--the day of Edwards' announcement--to upstage him.

This little piece of history is just to clear up your memory. At the time, Edwards was polling in the low single digits. Of several concurrent polls, here's one as an example:

(Newsweek -- 9/18-19)
John Edwards 7%

(Newsweek --9/25-26 )
John Edwards 6%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

In other words, he and Carol Mosley Braun were in a dead heat for the middle of the pack.

I was deeply involved (but outside Little Rock) when Clark decided he would announce. There was never any discussion of holding the announcement on "Thursday"--it was planned for Wednesday, Sept 17. I don't think anyone in LR really paid that much attention to Edwards, we were all too busy trying to put together an event for several thousand people in about 48 hrs.

It really wasn't about John Edwards--no matter how much you think there was some vast conspiracy to deny him his "moment in the sun". I'm sorry that (at the time) JRE just wasn't on anyone's radar screen.

I also believe that there was a hurricane on the horizon. (Oops maybe I shouldn't mention that either for fear you'll think the Clark campaign planned that too in an effort to keep Edwards off TeeVee).

The rest of the garbage you've written is just about as "grossly misrepresentive".

[jen4clark]

27. stop that please

I'm a Clarkie and I don't dislike him. I like him. Voted approve. Please don't lump people into categories.
:hi:

[Clarkie1]

23. Again, what is the purpose of this poll? No opinion.

Does "approve" mean merely approving of what they are doing now, approving of them running for a particular political office in the future, approval of what they have done in the past, or approval as the best candidate for a particular political office in the future?

I voted "no opinion" because the poll-poster still has not made it clear what I am supposed to be voting on.

[Mass]

52. Same thing for me.

I am surprised of the disapprove because I am not sure what there is to approve or disapprove at this point.

[goodhue]

37. Yes

It is pretty shameful IMHO.

[Inspired]

59. We are our own worst enemy

that is why the disaprove numbers are so high.

[nevergiveup]

13. I was disappointed

with Edwards in his debate against Grumpy. To me he came across as a light-weight. Having said this, I still like the man and would support him against any Republican opponent.

[LittleClarkie]

17. I just think he needs to slow the hell down

and get some experience under his belt. This fast track he's on turns some folks off.

[FrenchieCat]

14. I was pretty disappointed in Edwards' involvement in the

smear of Clark's integrity and character smear by Shelton, advisor for Edwards. To me, when you knock another Democrat's character and integrity based on a flimsy nothings, coming from a Republican (Shelton did advise Edwards, but never did endorse John Kerry), that's about as low as one can go, even if it was indirectly. Desperation and ugly smears don't slide in my book...even coming from one as attractive as Edwards.

Plus his vote for the IWR is why he is now working for the center for Poverty. That vote is what allow the Iraq war to cost us funds in badly needed government programs for the poor. Ironic!

[PeaceProgProsp]

41. What was his involvement?

[DemDogs]

89. Couple of things

Edwards did not smear Clark. NEVER ONCE. NEVER. NEVER.
Some Clark supporters have been trying to explain their candidate's failure by some Edwards' attack. Find one word of Edwards that says anything negative about Clark.
As for Shelton, he is from NC and had long been advising Edwards on military matters. How was Edwards supposed to know that Shelton did not think highly of Clark? It is wrong to suggest that Shelton's attack was "indirectly" from Edwards.
"Desperation"? What are you talking about?
Do you honestly think that without the war, Bush would be funding anti-poverty programs?

[Field Of Dreams]

22. Neutral

While he gets a plus as a Democrat , I also associate him with Hugh Shelton from the primary campaign - a negative. He's strong on domestic policy although I'm not sure "Two Americas" is going to win an election. I don't think he's well-versed enough in foreign policy and his statement during the primary that foreign policy issues are on the back burner to other issues concerned me. I wish him luck with his current efforts in tackling poverty.

[donjo]

24. Uncool.

It may be uncool to disapprove of any Democrat, but IMNSHO, a one-term senator with little hope of being re-elected in his own state, did more to knock down Kerry than any other item - Swift-boaters included. It takes more than a nice smile and a slick coif to run a country. (Bush does it be letting Cheney/Rove do the work.) Allowing the media to pick his running mate also told me more than I wanted to know about Kerry. However, I still worked for the ticket and would support any of these people over anybody the Repuklicans can throw in the ring in 08.

[AmericanDream]

32. Did more to knock down Kerry?

Alright, he might not have carried any states (how would we even know if he did or not? ) but he surely didn't cost Kerry a single vote. Did Cheney's gay daughter cause the christian fundamentalists to not vote for the Bush-Cheney ticket? NO. I have said this before and let me repeate it... no one votes based on the VP choice, negatively or positively. However, I do know many who voted for the ticket more impressed with Edwards (he connected with the voters better) than Kerry.

I think he'll be a strong Pres. candidate with the experience he has gained on the trail and the progressive ideas he supports... and like you said, I too would support anyone over the Repubs.

[AP]

42. Yeah. And then he fought "tooth and nail" to keep Kerry from conceding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1439976

That John Edwards is really confused. Tearing a guy down one minute, and they wanting that guy to be president even more than the guy wants to be president the next minute.

[ChiciB1]

26. I'm All For Edwards... and Hope He Will Continue To Be

ACTIVE. I just finished writing WHY, but hit the wrong key and it disappeared.

Perhaps I can rethink my reasoning. If you have ever had the opportunity to see him in person you would understand his Charisma.

Of course, to us junkies I'm sure that seems petty, but I'd almost guarantee that a lot of red state women will be lining up to support him after they find out just what His Corruptness has done to our economy!

He's almost a political ELVIS! His message of two Americas will resonate, but he will have the appeal of Clinton! Probably more!

In today's America, it's what sells... sex and appeal! I think they took a poll and His Corruptness's sex appeal was hanging around 22%! I know this sounds so base, but then look at what MSM is covering these days. I don't care about the sex appeal, it's really disgusting, but too many Americans are relatively STUPID! But I do respect Edwards a lot, and I DO think he cares about America.

And before you ask me just what did he do for Kerry, well I have to say that I'm one of those who still believe that there was MASSIVE EEELLLLEC-SHUN Fraud!

[Digit]

28. I am a proud supporter of John Edwards

I trust him to do the right thing, more than I trust any other candidate.

[ngGale]

67. "Ditto" and another...

ditto on the election fraud.

MASSIVE EEELLLLEC-SHUN Fraud! I'm another true believer.

[ebayfool]

33. Definitely approve - I like the guy & his lovely (smart & savvy) wife!

Matter of fact, I like most of our candidates that have been DU polled ('cept Lieberman). Democrats are just generally a large cut above the average repub runner. I also don't see his legal background as a drawback - it's guys like him that help the little guy get a shot at a fair day in court. The fact that he was so successful at it means he also succeeded in giving alot of people a crack at getting a little justice. Not a bad thing at all! I would venture that he might have started in the last election as somewhat 'green' - but he & Elisabeth are so smart & quick that I don't think they missed any chances to learn everything they could @ the process of presidential campaigning. I wouldn't bet against them if they decided to go it again. That said, I really loved the combination of the Edwards & Kerry/Heinz. The dynamics between the 4 of them was, in my opinion, absolutely stunning.

[trogdor]

35. Mark me down as unimpressed.

He could still be the senior senator from North Carolina, but noooooooooooooooooo, he wanted a ticket in the presidential sweepstakes. Now he's just another Democratic has-been.

[goodhue]

36. Why all the hate?

I'm shocked by high levels of disapproval for John Edwards. One might think the proponents of other prominent contenders merely vote disapprove in hopes of keeping a good man down. What's up with that?

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. If this shocks you look at Hilary's numbers

Her disapproval is higher than her approvals. This board does not reflect the broad based Democratic voting general public, is is a specific subsection of activists. Edwards is much more popular here than Clinton, less popular than the other Democrats listed. Why aren't you defending Hilary Clinton if you want to second guess the voting? She's the only one with negative ratings here.

[goodhue]

39. I'm not shocked by Hilary's numbers

because many increasingly view her as a DINO a la Joementum, whereas Edwards has continued to tow a relatively populist line.

[tritsofme]

46. On the flipside as well

I doubt 20% of rank and file Democrats know who Barbara Boxer is, let alone approve of her.

Same thing goes for Clark.

And I doubt such a high number of Democrats are satisfied with Kerry.

I don't approve of John Edwards anymore than I do Lloyd Bentsen or Geraldine Ferraro.

[AP]

40. DU has a history of picking the wrong horse. I can't remember DU ever

getting behind a candidate early who went on to success.

Take Obama for example. I think I was one of the first people to mention Obama's name at DU in February 2004. He didn't get much traction. Briefly after the convention people liked him, but since November 2004, there have been more anti-Obama posts at DU than pro-Obama posts. And he got over 60% of the vote!

I'd say that early DU support is the kiss of death for a successful Democratic candidate.

[XemaSab]

58. DU hasn't been around

long enough to HAVE a history of picking the right/wrong candidate.

Also, people on DU are probably more informed than most of the sheeple.

[AP]

60. Carlos/Jiacinto single handedly created tremendous buzz for Bill McBride

and antipathy for Janet Reno.

Of course I can't prove that Reno would have had a better chance against Jeb, but I would have rather seen Reno running a smart campaign against Bush than watch the shambolic flounderings of Bill McBride, and I would have also felt that Reno actually wanted to win.

During the primaries, winning DU polls was the best predictor for a candidate dropping out, and Kerry was never a favorite here.

And like I said, Obama was very slow to pick up merely recognition from DU, and there have been as many anti-Obama posts as pro-Obama posts, it seems.

DU does not seem to be an incubator for coming up with helpful arguments for good liberal candidates with a chance to win, and it doesn't seem to be very effective at putting smart money places where it will make a big difference.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

63. Carlos Was Anathema Here

The significant majority of folks here were for Reno.

DTH

[AP]

71. Not true at all. Carlos set the tone. I supported Reno and hit a brick...

...wall when Carlos started promoting McBride. The mood at DU was anti-Reno/pro-McBride.

It was the first sign of collective DU candidate-selecting stupidity I remember seeing here, but not the last.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

84. Carlos Could Not Lead Starving People Into the Kitchen, Here

He was one of the most despised posters here, and I know that because I tried to stick up for him a few times.

Some people here did feel McBride was more electable than Reno, although I definitely remember more people in favor of Reno. The McBride contingent had nothing to do with Carlos' leadership, however.

DTH

[ultraist]

47. You are shocked by SOME Clarkies hatred for Edwards?

This has been going on since the primaries.

Sadly, those that lack self dignity fail to see that posting unsubstantiated gossip smears only embarrasses themselves.

[ultraist]

44. I approve!

I supported John Edwards during the primaries and if he runs again, I will support him again. Edwards is the voice of regular Americans: those in poverty, the lower and middle classes.

Edwards is now the Director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC-CH Law School. He is still speaking around the country at events. He was the Keynote Speaker at the Oklahoma Jefferson Dinner, he spoke at Patty Murray's Tennis Shoe Award ceremony and will be the keynote speaker at the Tennessee Jefferson Dinner on June 4.

http://oneamericacommittee.com/

I absolutely adore Elizabeth Edwards. If she ever ran for office, I'd be first in line to sign up to volunteer for her!

[Catchawave]

68. Strongly Approve Edwards !

Thanks utraist for posting the One American link, JRE is doing amazing things these days and everyone should update themselves.

[LimpingLib]

49. How many DUers want to knock out Bush in 2006? POLL IT!

We Democrats have a ballot measure in Florida that COULD turn control of the US House over to Democrats FAIR and SQUARE.

What many here at DU (looking at all the people who keep lecturing us on 2008)fail to notice is that the GOP has its eye on the ball. They know how to focus. They ram through redistricting plans every 10 years in staes like Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan , Ohio, etc. that gives them control of the US House.

When they dont get their way every 10 years, they even figured out how to shape things their way in off years...even to the point of creating near international incidents (certainly interstate). In just 1 odd year, Tom Delay knocked off 6 Democratic House incumbants.Georgia is about to see the same thing.

Now we Democrats have a ballot measure in Florida for 2006 that would require fair redistricting and would kick in by the 2008 election.Since Jeb Bush has drawn districts in a near 50-50 state to give the GOP a lopsided 18-7 congressional advantage , I can assure you he knows the score and where the action is.

The Bush's and Delays of the world know how to win.
The idiots in the Democratic party are clueless.(I would say how you can tell if you are an idiot , but it would get my post deleted)Anyway I hve only seen 1 post on this Florida subject.A thread I started lol.

Anyway, carry on people.

"So and So for 2008"

WOOO HOOOOO!

[WI_DEM]

55. It's amazing that he isn't rated higher here

He is one of the few democrats talking out about poverty and race. He is a good man. What is there to disapprove of? You may not want him to be president but he is an outstanding person.

[LimpingLib]

56. For the record I am boycotting all polls.

They would be fine just for a quick glance but all the discussing that comes with them is just plain sad.

There are some real issues and laws we need to be changing not to mention BIG elections in 2006.

I think all polls should be "vote only" with no discussion possible.

Heck,I think all 2008 discussion should be banned.Censorship is a bad idea whos time has come.Its gotten so bad that no REAL issues get discussed anymore.No REAL elections are getting discussed.

I bet people who want to help the progressive cause come in here for some direction and then get mislead into thinking there are no serious issues to fight for except stupid 2008 schemes and arguments.

[KoKo]

70. Agree with both your posts "Limping Lib." .....nothing else to add.

[Adelante]

86. KoKo, your friend there seems to be missing

RIP

[BornaDem]

75. You mean Edwards...

the guy with one speech that he gave over and over and over? He must have liked it, but he would have been better off if he had memorized more than one.

[VOX]

80. Strongly approve of John Edwards. And Elizabeth Edwards.

Went twice last year to hear him speak -- he is remarkable in person: charismatic, quick on the uptake, highly literate, genuinely compassionate. He would make a formidable candidate.

His wife, Elizabeth, is also gifted with the ability to connect with people across all strata of the political spectrum.

[Catchawave]

85. The Edwards' have cross-over appeal because

they're not professional politicians! MANY moderate Republicans and Independents supported them in the primaries, as there was definitely a unity of just wanting to feel good again after 4 years of smirking fear!

I'm sorry I don't know enough about Gen. Clark to have an opinion, but I honestly don't remember him from the primaries either



:shrug:

[DaveinMD]

92. I'm a Clarkie

but I love John Edwards as well. His message of economic populism is exactly what we need.

[snowbear]

104. These polls are getting looney..

What are we voting for on each of them? ((( :crazy: )))

For example.. When you ask for an approval rating for Hillary Clinton (or ANY of them) are you asking..

1) How is she doing in the senate?
2) How would you approve of her as a '08 candidate?
3) WHICH ONE IS IT ????

Please.. can you be specific when you ask future questions? :-(

Thanks! :toast:

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[Dave Sund]

126. I try to be as specific as possible

For the people who actually have a position. For people who don't, I have to ask it in a general sense.

[losdiablosgato]

136. We need a new and dynamic face not retreads

These are all goo Deomcrats, that is sure. But I think we need new leadership to retake the Whitehouse. I am personally very pleased with what I see from the Gov. of New Mexico. Bill Richardson. He is hispanic, can at least be seen as a moderate. He has a lot of pluses going for him. I know we have to win in 2008 and I don't think people who lost past elections and primaries ar the way to go.

[LandOLincoln]

137. I can understand why you're a big admirer of Gov. Bill Richards...

but what do you think of Bill Richardson?

[losdiablosgato]

138. My bad sorry.

[Adelante]

141. Welcome to DU, osdiablosgato!!

:hi:

[PurityOfEssence]

143. Funny how the longer this thread lasts, the better Edwards' numbers get

There is a hardcore faction that really dislikes the man, and they're quite effective, but it's counterproductive to their agendum to keep it alive so long that their organized ire can't skew the results.