Who Are The Republicans Most Afraid We'll Nominate?

[ruggerson]

They are rubbing their hands with glee over the thought of Hillary, salivating over a rematch with Gore and doing cartwheels over the thought of beating up John Kerry again.

The one person they are scared to death of?

John Edwards.

Edwards is smart, inspirational, good on his feet, incredibly telegenic and, most importantly, he doesn't have a long record they can attack.

He has a long history of fighting for the working man, his biography is rags to riches and his wife is a national treasure.

He's been a national candidate before and knows the ropes.

He's from the South and can appeal to rural America as well as moderates and liberals in urban areas.

Republicans know all this and are keeping their fingers crossed we don't nominate him.

Are we going to make Republicans happy once again?

[bullimiami]

1. they always telegraph their plays. they are scared to death of hillary.

thats why they attack her non-stop.

in 2004, early, they were most frightened of Dean, a wildcard, and they took care of him with help from some democrats.

Watch what the republicans do. They always spend the most time attacking their most feared enemy.

[dansolo]

52. They are not scared of Hillary

It's Bill that they are scared of. Hillary alone would be a GOP wet dream, but with Bill in the mix, with his overwhelming popularity, she may be able to overcome whatever they throw at her.

[Imagevision]

87. repukes would love Hillary, they would vVnce Foster her to death...!

[niceypoo]

95. Republicans tremble in fear at the mention of Hillarys name

Hense their obsession with her.

[benny05]

122. They are not afraid of her

They relish the idea of her being on the top of the ticket. The MSM is a willing partner with them.

[niceypoo]

96. Vince Foster might give republicans a boner

But the other 70% of americans could care less about republican obsessions from the 90s. Bill Clinton was at 68% when he left office. Let the republicans bring up all that crap, it didnt work then and it wont work now. Americans are tired of the republicans shallow crap.

[Dumak]

146. Feigned Outrage

It's just part of a much larger game of feigned outrage they always play to appeal to the big block of more naive people whom they hope to influence. No matter who the Dems pick, there will be a feigned outrage.

[William769]

2. He couldn't even win the Democratic primary.

He's not even in their sights.

[styersc]

77. Edwards is the only real populist in the race and the only

populist to run since Harkin made an attempt. I'm very hopeful for Edwards and will probably volunteer for him here in South Carolina, one of the earliest primary races.

[KittyWampus]

182. Edwards is NOT a populist. You obviously didn't read his actual platform

He was center RIGHT.

[aquart]

3. I don't give a damn what Republicans think.

And you can't sell me on Edwards with that as your argument. In fact, that's a good way to give me an aversion to him.

I want the candidate that DEMOCRATS want to vote for.

If you have to slither Edwards in as the man the Republicans don't want want us to run, instead of as the candidate WE want to run, HE AIN'T THE ONE.

[ruggerson]

6. He's both. For the reasons outlined above. n/t

[Catch22Dem]

4. No glee over Hillary, they're terrified of her

They PRETEND to want her to run so they can talk about how horribly she'd get beat, but it's just a facade.

[Alhena]

5. Scared of a guy who couldn't beat John Kerry?

I seriously doubt he scares them. Edwards is a good guy, he just lacks a certain gravitas. I think his trial lawyer former profession won't help with a lot of Americans, though I have no problem with it.

[babylonsister]

7. Gore, Kerry, Clinton-they are afraid of all of them.

I think the rethugs especially salivate over Hillary because she's a woman and related to the big dawg.
I think she's a smart woman, but her stance on this war will doom her.
Kerry I love, and he is a threat because he has integrity, something McCain lost.
Gore? Very smart, I hope he runs, the more the merrier.

[beaconess]

8. I think they're terrified of Obama . . .

Not because they are sure he will beat them in the general - it's not even clear that he could win the primaries, much less beat the Republican nominee. But if he gets into the primary race, that changes the whole dynamic of both parties' contests, in a way that really hurts Republicans.

Obama's message of hope and inclusion undercuts the Republicans efforts to divide and conquer. He can also force discussion of issues that they like to ignore - race (a real discussion, not the superficial kind we always seem to end up with), poverty, class. Yes, some of these are issues that other candidates, particularly Edwards, have been trying to get on the radar screen, but Obama brings a freshness and perspective that none of the others have been able to articulate. He also doesn't have much baggage - and it appears that the few pieces of baggage he does have, he's already laid on the table, so they can't play "gotcha with him." And I dare them to try convincing Black folks to cross over from Obama's party by staging another minstrel show convention, complete with happy house negroes singing the praises of their nominee and party because they let a couple of them onto the podium to say a few words.

In the movie "48 Hours," Eddie Murphy's character goes into an all-white bar and announces, "I'm your worst nightmare - a n-gg-r with a badge!"

Well, Obama is the Republicans' worst nightmare - he's an intelligent, savvy brother with no fear.

[RamboLiberal]

141. I completely agree with you about Obama

For all the reasons you stated - he's the one Repukes fear the most IMHO.

We have a bunch of potential good canditates, but Obama is the one they truly fear.

[Indiana_Dem]

9. One staunch Republican friend of mine said he liked Obama!

I was trying to be positive and feeling him out for how he felt about Giuliani because he has more liberal social views. I told him I didn't think Giuliani was too bad. Actually, I was trying to use some reverse psychology so that he would think Giuliani was a bad pick if a DEMOCRAT said they liked him! Well, he being cordial, said that he thinks Obama would be tuff to beat. Of course, he may have been trying to use some of the same reverse psychology on me. Who knows.

But I swear, I've talked with 2 Rush Limbaugh-type Republicans and they DESPISE Hillary and Kerry. Probably because they're brainwashed by Faux and Rush. It's the only thing I can think of as to why they think these things. This other Repub I work for (he's a NASCAR fan, National Guard Dr.-military gung ho guy, Rushfan)said that he has a one word answer for Hillary: Condi! ....like he was trying to scare me or something. I have to endure listening to Rush all day when I work in his office on occasion. Ugh!

I just don't understand their way of thinking. It's so polar to mine. It's hard to figure them out. I can't imagine hating John Kerry the way they do. Except for his voting for the war, I really really like him. And they keep painting Hillary like she's some hardcore liberal. To me, she's not as liberal as I'd like. She voted for the war, approved some SCOTUS candidates that I wouldn't have, and her husband Bill stood for NAFTA and GATT without fair trade and environmental practices. These things are very important to me and I feel Hillary is just not enough of a representation for the Democratic party as I would like to see.

[unkachuck]

10. Who Are The Republicans Most Afraid We'll Nominate?....

....if we move any further to the right, I'd say, jeb bush....

....I seen Edwards on Rose last week and he sounds ok....he just doesn't light a fire in me....I might be wrong, but I think he said he had to 'ask his wife' if it's ok if he runs for president....

....I remember needing a note from mother to return to class....

[ruggerson]

23. His wife had cancer

I would hope he would consult with her before running, wouldn't you?

[Captain Hilts]

11. No, Clark because he has the FP creds and Clinton because they fear getting beaten "by a girl." nt

[NMDemDist2]

12. Wes Clark would be my guess, he can go toe to toe with McCain

he'll clean Rudi's clock and Mitt will look like a wuss next to him

Edwards is a good man, a compassionate man but he doesn't offer the gavitas Clark does

PS I wasn't a Clark supporter in '04 but i might be one in '08

[BikeWriter]

38. Wes Clark told 'em like it was in Iraq PreWar! He has the record...

to kick ass!

[Dinger]

46. Clark Is The Repuke Silver Bullet

No way * would have beat Clark, no way. Clark could have done it with $1,000, if that. I still drool at the thought of a * vs. Clark debate. But that's history now. I really hope Clark runs this time, and if he doesn't, I will look closely for someone with Clark's credentials, gravitas, experience, intelligence, leadership, etc.


Good luck, that's be a tough one.

[Herman74]

49. Yes, The General would have beaten Dumbya...

...and he might not have even needed Florida or Ohio to do it. He could have succeeded, I suspect, with just the Kerry states plus Arkansas, Missouri, and New Mexico. I think he would have had a decent shot at Nevada and Iowa as well, but even more importantly, I think he would have won either Ohio or Florida, and perhaps even both.

Clark could beat McCain easy. A four-star general vs. a captured pilot. Giuliani poses an interesting problem because of the fear that Giuliani could take New York, but I think in the end Clark could win NY against Giuliani (especially if he gets Hillary to help out) and thereby beat Giuliani too.

John Edwards, sweet, kind, nice guy that he is, may just not be seen as too sharp on civilian-defense issues, especially running against McCain.

We need to nominate the General.

[Clark2008]

181. And, even if he didn't win in Tennessee and Virginia, he would

have forced the Bushies to spend money there they didn't forecast having to do.

It would have been MUCH closer in those two states - if not a win in one of them - than with Kerry. And I LIKE Kerry. I just also know my purple/red state mindset.

[jen4clark]

63. I think you're right re: Clark

Just pay attention to whom Corpress does not mention -- ever. Yet if you check his schedule for the past few years, he has not stopped, has never rested -- and still isn't stopping or resting. I have no doubt that if they were not threatened by General Clark, his name would be known by all. As it is, only those who frequent political blogs know about him.

[fuzzyball]

13. H I L L A R Y.......cuz

they are scared shitless of her!!!

Here is a woman they said would not win in NY state
the first time she ran for senate, and she proved them wrong.

This woman is married to the best living democratic politician
who is the only man elected TWICE as president since FDR.

This woman has the best delivery of stump speeches of any
living politician dem or repub.

This woman has been elected TWICE as a senator of one of
the most populous state in the country. She won the second time in a
landslide.

This woman has a law degree from the presitigious Ivy League school.

Here is a woman destined to become the FIRST WOMAN president of the US.

[SaveElmer]

43. Ditto...

They are scared shitless of anoth confrontation with the Clintons!

[El Fuego]

76. No, they sing her praises at every opportunity.

Even in her senate election debate, her republican senate opponent said she wasn't fit to be senator of NY, but "she would make a great president."

Every time I turn on the TV I'm hearing a right wing pundit talking about how great Hillary is. They want Hillary as the Democratic nominee. I agree that she is phenomenal and would be the best president, but she can't win in a general election, and they know it.

[fuzzyball]

79. Don't know how that myth got started...it was the same baloney when

Hillary ran for Senate the first time. I recall Limbaugh
was willing to bet money she would not run because she
would be afraid of defeat in the senate race.

The republicans I know are all without exception scared of Hillary
running for president. Even Shaun Hannity is now admitting she can
win. The November 2006 results seem to have injected some sense of
reality in their heads.

[El Fuego]

94. She'll never win Florida. And with Florida, goes the election.

Speaking as a native Floridian, I can tell you there's a significant number of Floridians who simply will not vote for a woman president. Look at the last Florida senate race: the male Democratic candidate (Nelson) beat Katharine Harris in a landslide. These voters are staunch red-staters who were willing to vote for a Democrat over a republican woman.

I can't speak for Ohio, but I suspect it would be a similar situation.

[fuzzyball]

159. May be not FL, but she can win many many mid-west & west red states

which went to Bush in 2004.

[amandabeech]

152. Just to pick a nit,

Clinton is the only Democratic president since FDR to have been elected twice.

Unfortunately Nixon and Reagan were elected twice. Eisenhower also won twice, but I don't put him on my list of truly evil Republicans.

[dave502d]

14. John Edwards would be our best pick. n/t

[benny05]

140. Agree n/t

[Little Star]

177. Yep!!! n/t

[Rowdyboy]

15. Based solely on the Freepers, the answer is Evan Bayh......

They were also very concerned about Mark Warner, but not so muh as Bayh.

[Indiana_Dem]

16. Yes, I did encounter silence when mentioning Bayh to the Repubs I know.

I might have even seen visible shaking/trembling! I think he appears to be one of them on the front but is in many respects not. He voted against the Military Commissions Act and has consistently voted in favor of pro-choice issues.

[Rowdyboy]

20. Bayh's clean reputation, experience as governor and "family-man" image

all work to his favor. As a centrist, he would be one of our more formidible potential nominees and I can see how Republicans would fear his nomination.

His father was one of my three political heros when I became aware of politics as a teenager in the 1960's. His mom was a class act too.

[fuzzyball]

21. Byah of INdiana is my FIRST choice going away but

I am afraid he won't get nominated. So, I am backing
Hillary who will win the nomination in a walk over the
7 dwarfs.

[cali]

36. Yeah, Evan Bayh worries them

but thread after thread in freepervilled focuses on Obama. Lots of fear and loathing there, mixed in with some good ol' fashioned freeper racism.

[Sparkly]

17. The General.

They and their media have been propping Edwards up since 2003 as "formidable." They'd LOVE to run against him.

[fuzzyball]

22. I admire the valiant effort by Clark supporters but its a LOST CAUSE

In 2004, Clark won all the polls here on DU hands down.
Yet he finished last in the nomination contest.

Clark has never held any kind of elected political office.
His chances of winning democratic nomination are no better
than my barber winning the 2007 Masters at Augusta against
the likes of Tiger and Lefty and Furyk and other greats.

[Sparkly]

24. "he finished last" -- !?!

Guess you weren't watching really closely.

[FrenchieCat]

31. The question is "Who do the Republicans fear" would win the nom.....not who

has the best chance of winning the Democratic Nomination.....

And here's your answer: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2983884&mesg_id=2984064

[Sparkly]

33. Important distinction...

Thanks, Frenchie! :hi:

[fuzzyball]

61. I have several republican friends since I belong

to a golf club. Republicans out number democrats 10:1
in this club. And they are all deathly afraid of Hillary.
They have never gotten over how badly Bill beat them up in
politics, and their heroes Dole & GHB.

[NMDemDist2]

111. excellent post on Clark Frenchie. and I agree wholeheartedly

he wasn't my first choice in '04 but he's topping the list so far in '08

he campaigned like crazy all over the county this year so he has lots of favors to call in at the local Dem Party level

do you know how he gets along with Dean? cuz I think he's built up a lot of chits to call in for '08

I like the man a lot

:hi:

[Herman74]

51. Clark won Oklahoma, and didn't fare all that badly in other states

I think he was about third overall in 2004, close behind Edwards.

And Wesley has become a more polished, relaxed, confident speaker since then.

[fuzzyball]

60. Alright so he did OK in his home state where there was no

serious contest. Please understand Gen Clark is a very
fine man, he just is not ready to be elected president.
The politics in todays world is far different than when
Gen Ike got elected. What helped him was he was allied
commander in WWII. And the media was much different then.

[CarolNYC]

65. What are you talking about?

You're talking about Clark's home state? Arkansas? By the time of the Arkansas primary, Wes was well out of the race and had long since endorsed Kerry and was campaigning with him.

What does the Arkansas primary have to do with Oklahoma or any of the other primaries Clark actually competed in?

[fuzzyball]

66. Which candidates campaigned heavily in Oklahoma?

I don't recall seeing hardly any news about
OK primary contest.

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. John Edwards made a strong late push in Oklahoma

And his campaign paid for a massive robo call campaign by Oklahoma's most revered College football coach in support of John Edwards during the week before the vote. In case you didn't know, people in Oklahoma are nuts over college football. Also in case you don't know, they actually elected a Black Republican Congressman from Oklahoma not long back - and Oklahoma is a very white and conservative State. You know why J.C. Watts got elected there? Because earlier he was a star quarterback for one of Oklahoma's college teams.

John Kerry didn't have to campaign hard there it seemed (but he campaigned) because he won virtually every contest he ran in, but he actually came in third in OK, the only state that he didn't come in first or second in.

Study up a little more on the 2004 Primaries before you jump to a conclusion the way you did. Clark came in second in Arizona and New Mexico and he was the top non New Englender to finish in New Hampshire. And of course Clark did not have the advantage of all the Iowa publicity since he didn't compete there due to lack of time. Clark was far from "finishing last" in 2004.

[benny05]

130. Clark did great in NH

I remember the first votes coming out..

But Clark also skipped Iowa and spent more time in NH.

[CarolNYC]

110. Well, Tom has...

pretty much answered your question but I still don't understand what Arkansas has to do with anything..

Look, it's pretty obvious that you don't really know much about what happened in the '04 primaries, especially as it relates to Clark. That's OK if you weren't really following them. Many weren't. But it kind of strains your credibility when you make pronouncements concerning them that have little to no relation to easily found facts or reality....Just sayin'...

[IA_Seth]

180. It is exactly these types of posts...

You don't even know what you are talking about. Finished last? Have you even taken the time to read here at DU, or anywhere else for that matter before spouting anti-anyone crap? Wikipedia? Anything?

Tell your barber good luck, and try doing some research.

[Auntie Bush]

18. They are also even more scared of Clark for the sane reasons plus

he has more military and foreign policy experience. He has shown he has leadership qualities and would make an excellent Commander in Chief.

[Sparkly]

19. Yup -- and "Commander in Chief" is critical right now. nt

[benny05]

138. MSM is afraid of Clark?

General Clark was a regular contributor on Fox News until recently. Is that the reason, in your mind?

[Clark2008]

185. No - you can always tell who they're most scared about when

there's an infinitely qualified and appealing candidate - and they don't talk about him. As in Clark's case.

They stopped talking about him - at all - when initial polling indicated he would beat Bush 49 to 47 or something like that.

His ability to go into the Lion's Den to let the sheeple who watch Faux News know that there are opinions other than their unrealistic leaders' rationale is an asset, but it's not the only thing.

[nealmhughes]

25. General Clark. Hands down, WES has them in their Depends!

[MrSlayer]

26. Wes Clark.

He'd wipe the floor with any of the Republican clowns if we nominated him. He has all of what you mentioned about Edwards and then some. Rhodes scholar, economics professor, 4-Star general, master diplomat, knows foreign policy inside out and knows most of the leaders in the international community personally. He is a great leader and he would make a tremendous President. However, as much as want him to be President, it's a real long shot. I think Edwards is a long shot too but not because of the negatives he has but because of his positives. His ability to speak to the "common" people about the real divide between the elite and themselves scares the piss out of the corporatists. The real powers that be wouldn't like to see either of them as president and they will do everything they can to make sure it doesn't happen. Guys like Clark and Edwards actually care about the people and the vision of America as it's supposed to be and the corporate fascist scum that have a death grip on our nation can't have that. It's sad that America is denied the leaders it wants and truly deserves.

Fight for who you want as I surely will but don't be shocked when we end up with a typical corporate whore as President on either side.

[election_2004]

27. Bayh or Edwards

Because they're the ones who could most easily campaign to "swing voters" as centrists.

And Elizabeth Edwards is PHENOMENAL on the campaign trail!

[wisteria]

28. I don't think so. n/t

[Eurobabe]

29. Edwards? Not. n/t

[NJCher]

59. wrong-O

Look at it from their shallow point of view. Edwards is charismatic, accomplished, and he has high name recognition from his vp run with Kerry.

Now is that what we need in a president? No. We probably need someone more like Kerry, who has had vast experience prosecuting corrupt republicans. But that's not the question: the question is who frightens them most and the answer is someone who is almost JFK-esque: John Edwards.




Cher

[FrenchieCat]

30. They Fear Clark, as in Wes Clark who knows what's up in the Pentagon....

Think of it! The pentagon has belonged to the Republicans since Vietnam. In fact, Prez. Clinton even had a Republican Sec. of Defense and Joint Chief of Staff to combat his "draftdodger" label. Where is most of our tax money spent? The fucking Pentagon, that's where. What would happen if someone that knew the inside outs of their fucking money making machine was calling the shots? ....don't even get me started! :)

He won't have to grandstand and try to appear like the big guy if Iran or North Korea attempts to confront him.

He ain't naive or about to be "Misled" and Wes Clark is a man who doesn't have to "Prove" he's tough. He doesn't have to run to a bunch of advisor on foreign policy in particular.

Wes Clark, someone that the media didn't make, and therefore, they can't break him.

A man who has served and almost died doing it, and still went on to continue serving his country. We are talking not about just any soldier or General...we are talking about the most decorated officer since Eisenhower!

A goddamn Rhodes Scholar from the South who's also an Internationalist!

A potential candidate who already knows most of the heads of state....and knows how to negotiate with a smile on his face.

Wes Clark, who's not a politician and therefore ain't gonna crack and push some dumb shit just because the powers-that-be said Boo!

Republicans understand that their trump card if Clark is the nominee at the helm is caput; DOA; dead as a doorknob! They won't have shit else to run on other than abortion and gay marriage. That ain't gonna get it. McCain and Giuliani and Hagel wouldn't be able to help them!

He'll know how to put humpty dumpty back together again.

With Wes Clark as the nominee, the GOP will know that the gig is up and over for years to come.

The Republicans are very afraid of Wes Clark (have been for some time) and so is the media...which is why the media works so hard to push those Democrats that the Republicans can handle....and that, my friends, ain't Wes Clark!

But hey...don't just take it from me! :shrug:

WESLEY CLARK SLAMS MEDIA CONSOLIDATION
By Ira Teinowitz ADAge.com

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (AdAge.com) – The consolidation of American media companies should stop and rules that safeguard local media company independence need to be reinstated, Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said.

Retired 4-star general and Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark stumped New Hampshire and thumped media conglomerates over the weekend.
snip

In his broader comments from the campaign stage, Mr. Clark attacked the Bush Administration for, among other things, its Iraq War policies, its failure to track down Osama bin Laden, the loss of U.S. jobs and inadequate health care measures.

Working the campaign trail casually dressed in a red mock turtleneck and brown corduroys, Mr. Clark told the audience in Portsmouth's South Church that "I don’t think it is in the American public interest to further consolidate the media."

Answering this reporter's question, the candidate said media consolidation "is damaging to putting out diverse opinions and fostering public dialogue... We need to distribute the ownership in media. We need to have the fairness in broadcasting rules put back in place."


SY HERSCH on CLARK

What makes it interesting, while doing reporting on it, I called Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander, who is sort of an interesting guy in this stuff, because early in the war, early in my reporting on the war, I had written critically about a Delta Force operation. Delta is the secret unit of the army. The commander unit. They had been ambushed. The Delta guys were enraged. I'm talking about the first month of the war because they had been sent on this stupid operation and they had gotten hurt very badly. And they don't like it. Delta guys, they like to crawl in little holes for a week and get to their target. They were ordered to do it in a different way.

Everybody denied the story like crazy. And Wes Clark, to his credit, told a bunch of newspapers, "Look, I know this is right." I had said 13 people were hurt and he said 12 was the number that he had. I saw in him somebody with a great streak of integrity, difficult he may be. In any case, I called him about this story while I was doing it. He encouraged me to write it. I didn't write it.

About a year-and-a-half later, he's running for president. I mention this in the book, and I bump into him, and he jumped all over me. He said, "Why didn't you do that story?" I said, "Well, I just thought, it just would have been -- I just didn't do it." He said, "You should have done it. That was your job." Pretty scary. You know, he was right.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/14/1351212

COL. DAVID HACKWORTH ON CLARK.....
For the record, I never served with Clark. But after spending three hours interviewing the man for Maxim's November issue, I'm impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the supersmart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.

Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn't get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.

Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army's most distinguished war heroes, says: "Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn't stop fighting. He stayed on the field 'til his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned 'em."

I asked Clark why he didn't turn in his bloody soldier suit for Armani and the big civvy dough that was definitely his for the asking.

His response: "I wanted to serve my country."

He says he now wants to lead America out of the darkness, shorten what promises to be the longest and nastiest war in our history and restore our eroding prestige around the world.

For sure, he'll be strong on defense. But with his high moral standards and because he knows where and how the game's played, there will probably be zero tolerance for either Pentagon porking or two-bit shenanigans.

No doubt he's made his share of enemies. He doesn't suffer fools easily and wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738

October 21, 2003
The one they're afraid of
Posted by Mark Kleiman
Nick Confessore at Tapped reports that the Republican strategists he talks to think that Wesley Clark would be the toughest candidate for Bush to handle. That helps explain the rough ride he's been getting in the media lately.
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2003/10/the_one_theyre_afraid_of.php

GENE LYONS ON WES CLARK
his command presence -- is very noticeable. When you meet him, even privately, one-on-one, or in small groups, his personal charisma, which is very real and also very different from Clinton's, is apparent.

It's also true that quality of command presence is partly theatrical. You get to be a general partly by acting like a general. You command respect by acting authoritatively. At the same time, he's affable and approachable.

Clark's intellectual brilliance may be more apparent than Clinton's, because Clark doesn't do the "aw-shucks Southern country boy" act the way Clinton can do it. So you're struck immediately with how intelligent he is. At the same time, he listens to people and pays attention to what they're saying, and responds like a human being.

I want to be careful how I say this, but he has an almost feline presence -- and by that I don't mean "catty," as in bitchy. I mean like a big cat. I once encountered a mountain lion in the Point Reyes National Seashore in California, on a rainy day in winter, when I was all by myself. We stood stock still staring at each other for a few seconds. And there was this moment of "Gee, that's a cougar, this is really cool." And then an instant later, came the feeling of "My God, that's a lion!" There's nothing between me and him, no fence. Clark has a little bit of that kind of presence. You sense a tremendous personal authority about him held in and contained by self-discipline. Not somebody to fuck with, is another way of putting it.
snip
Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep. He was right, too.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

A long time ago there was another outsider; his name was Ronald Reagan. Once upon a time Ronald Reagan was a Democrat; a few years after becoming a Republican he was elected Governor of California and as we all know went on to become president. It is possible that Wesley Clark is the Democrat's Reagan, a man that can lead them to the Promised Land. A general as president may be reassuring in a time of terrorism and war. General Clark could bring a lot of Republicans and independents over to the Democratic Party. Whether on the economy or war there are many that like Clark feels Bush has taken the country in the wrong direction. Clark's reason for becoming a Democrat might play well with the voters, that he as America was on "an incredible journey" after 9-11 and that Bush's "reckless" policies prompted his own Democratic epiphany. He could bring in some formerly Republican constituencies. I am sure many in the armed forces would rather have a military man as president. It is not just the economy, stupid. It is the war.

http://www.comedyzine.com/tirade341.html

Wesley Clark is
Karl Rove's
worst nightmare

by Lowell Feld
The idea of electing a general, or a military man in general, as President of the United States has had an enduring popular appeal. Including America's first president, General George Washington, the United States has had 12 generals (including two who served in state militias), five colonels, three majors, four lieutenant commanders, three captains, four lieutenants, and one private as president. That's a total of 32 military veterans (31 officers) out of 36 Presidents, or nearly 90 percent of the total. Strikingly, every single president elected during the Cold War, a time of war and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation, had previously been an officer in the U.S. military. And now, after a decade of peace and prosperity, we are, de facto, at war again.

Democrats have been widely perceived as far weaker than Republicans on national security matters. In times of peace and tranquility, this might not have mattered very much. Bill Clinton, for instance, was elected in 1992 (and reelected in 1996) shortly after the Cold War ended, despite having dodged the draft in Vietnam. In times of war like the present, it's a different story.

Being tough, smart, southern, mainstream, no-nonsense, distinguished-looking, and skilled on TV would be nice, too. Yeah, right, you say, good luck finding all that! Well, how about if we add that the person must have a vision for America, significant "real world" experience, and a heck of a lot more brain cells than George "Dubya" Bush?

Not surprisingly, then, Clark has criticized the Bush administration strongly for its bullheaded unilateralism and utter ineptitude in working with U.S. allies in Europe and elsewhere. In September 2002, for instance, Clark wrote in "Washington Monthly" that Bush's failure to work with our allies, NATO in particular, means that "we are fighting the war on terrorism with one hand tied behind our back."

On homeland security, Clark is certainly a patriot who believes in protecting our country, having taken a few bullets himself, but he also, unlike Bush, is wise enough to treasure the values upon which this country was founded. Clark is skeptical and suspicious, therefore, of shortsighted, Orwellian measures enacted in the name of national security, like the Patriot Act. Specifically Clark worries that we're "giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law."

So, there you have it: Wesley Clark is a political moderate, a war hero, a smart-as-hell, telegenic, electable Southerner with "General" for a first name and a vision for America. Another way of looking at Clark is that he's potentially Bill Clinton in all the good ways (smart, centrist, and charismatic), but without Clinton's problems (wine, women, and bad sax playing).
http://www.dailygusto.com/news/july/wesley-clark-072803.html

A military personage as president, one who is more in the mode of Dwight Eisenhower than of Ulysses Grant. In Wesley Clark, we have a four-star general and former NATO commander who is a diplomatic unifier, an authentic hero, wise and compassionate.... the time and the person have come together in Gen. Clark. There is potential greatness in him: Realism and hope intricately fuse in his character.
http://www.america-patriots.com/ByTheGeneral.html

[Sparkly]

32. It's incredible how The General has been out there from the start...

And yet the "talking heads" scratch their itchy scalps trying to think of "Who else opposed this war?"

And, "Gee, talk to Iran and Syria? Never heard of that!"

And, "Outside the beltway-- can't think of anyone."

And, "Commander in Chief -- Duhhhh...."

Fine -- let them ignore him at this point! I think his forces are ready -- at the grassroots, in Washington, and throughout the states. Once he gives the signal (and he will know when!), we'll be there in numbers the asshats can't ignore!!

(I just hope he and Gert are willing to go through it, do it, and take one more hill for us.)

[FrenchieCat]

34. And Wes Clark continues to do very "Serious" heavyduty work......

No big free media publicity book tours for him, I suppose! :(

Programme and speaker list unveiled for ASF 2006

The Organising Committee of the 4th Arab Strategy Forum (ASF), which will bring together over 600 global leaders to discuss key issues impacting the Arab world, today unveiled the programme and speaker list for this year's edition, which runs in Dubai from 4-6 December.

The impressive speaker list, which boasts a line up of 114 regional and international leaders from the government, business, political and media sectors, underpins the importance of the ASF as a holistic forum for the strategic development of the Arab world.

Nabil Al Yousuf, Vice-Chairman, ASF Organising Committee, said: 'We have assimilated top-tier decision makers, thought leaders and industry captains from the Arab world and beyond, to bring diverse perspectives to the table. The level of participants and speakers is a clear indication of how this event is viewed as an important forum for addressing some of the most challenging issues facing the Arab world today.'

Being led by seven Co-Chairs, which include personalities such as Dr. Eric Schmidt, Chairman of the Executive Committee and Chief Executive Officer of Google, and H.E. Dr. Youssef Boutros Ghali, Egyptian Minister of Finance, the speaker list is the largest to date.

Distinguished government leaders speaking at the event include Ahmed Nazaf, Prime Minister, Egypt; Sheikha Haya bint Rashid Al Khalifa, President, UN General Assembly, United Nations, New York; Lakhdar Brahimi, Former Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations, New York; Saad Hariri, Majority Leader in Lebanese Parliament and Head of Future Movement; and General Wesley Clark, Former NATO Commander.

More than 30 industry leaders from the global business community will also address the event...

http://www.ameinfo.com/102965.html

[Disturbed]

35. Wesley Clark.

I haven't heard or read any attacks on Hillary Clinton from the RW. Plenty from Dems though. What has any RWinger attacked Hillary on?

[benny05]

132. That's great for Clark

JRE and Bill Clinton did a gig at UAE a year ago on entrepreneurship.

[venable]

170. Wes Clark did NOT oppose the war when it counted

He was a talking head cheerleader in the run-up to the war.

I don't think this elminates him, as he is very smart, and has come on board against the disaster, but we should quit believing he was anti-war. He was hawkish like a General, even more hawkish than some who were serving at the time.

[Dinger]

54. Frenchie Does It Again!

Damn, you're the best!:patriot:

[Cameron27]

71. She's remarkable!

I've seen a few nay sayers get turned around just by her rational approach to them and if that ain't something on DU, I don't know what is.

[dmosh42]

37. Clark!

Right now I believe he's the man to beat, due to these 'war' times. He has a global view, and has done the planning and administration of an conflict in Bosnia. His attitude on domestic issues shows he has a good handle on the problems. He might be in the position Eisenhower was during the Korean conflict when the nation wanted some stability.

[FrenchieCat]

39. Ironic you said that, because this is the first election that is exactly

like the election in which Eisenhower was elected. Then as well, there were no incumbents or Vice Presidents running in either party, and we were involved in a war that was going nowhere. In fact, this is the first election like that since then.

The U.S. presidential election of 1952 took place after over two years of stalemate in the Korean War and a volatile economy. Incumbent President Harry S. Truman decided not to run, so the Democratic Party instead nominated Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. The Republican Party countered with war hero General Dwight D. Eisenhower and won in a landslide, ending twenty years of Democratic control of the White House.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1952

[dmosh42]

40. Yes, fits the times..

The only thing he needs is more exposure on the major networks. All the 'political shows' are continually showing polls of potentials, but neglect to include Clark. Maybe when he announces this will change. I sense he has more 'grassroots support' than anyone realizes.

[jen4clark]

64. But don't you get it dmosh42.

The very fact that Corpress does NOT mention Clark is a pretty good indication to me that they certainly don't want people to know about this man. It would be very much against their interest (MIC) to have General Clark in the WH.

Of course he will get some publicity if/when he announces, but watch after that. We saw it happen in '03-'04 and I have no doubt it will happen again.

The press in this country is beyond the point of giving us information we need to make informed decisions. They know Clark is a direct threat to the lopsided Corporate Power that controls everything. We really are on our own as far as informing people of this amazing treasure in our midst.

And Thank You Frenchie Cat, for your chock-full-o'-information posts! Speaking of treasures, you continue to amaze and inspire!

[Catchawave]

41. Love the Edwards Team !

[Auntie Bush]

45. I love them too. How can one not see a wonderful perfect

American family? However I want and we need a General to win this war and handle the world crises yet to come like dealing with Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Israel and yes, Darfor. We have too many foreign policy problems to deal with ar this point in history. Edwards is still Young and would be perfect in the future after we get some sort of settlement in world affairs. Clark has more experience dealing and negotiating with heads of state and their total respect. If he can't negotiate with them...no one can. We NEED CLARK NOW...we can appreciate Edwards later.

[Catchawave]

53. I've lived with military men all my life.....

my dependent's i.d. card has never expired.....and they do good when dealing and negotiating with other military men. I won't argue you that :)

[ChiciB1]

75. My Life Experience With the Military Is Exactly The Same As Yours!

Raised as an Army brat, but made a decision a long time ago that once I left the "nest" that I wanted nothing to do with extending that lifestyle.

I respect what our soldiers do to defend our country... just don't like a lot of the ways the DO IT, and all the secrecy and RULES that are set up when you are involved in it!!

[venable]

171. Edwards wife is devoted to military families

as she comes from one.

What does that count for? No idea, but I bet it matters some. And she puts her time where her mouth is, working with military families throughout the campaign, and since.

[Joey Liberal]

42. They are terrified of Hillary

They have no fear of Kerry. But they do fear Hillary.

[slackmaster]

44. I would support John Edwards, but not convinced GOP is afraid of him

They would LOVE to see us nominate Hillary.

[benny05]

57. I think they are afraid of him

The MSM is who wants Hillary. Lots of ad$ to put into their coffers for a bloodbath. Bill is an asset but a liability for her, which is why her negatives are the lowest. Edwards' negatives are the lowest of all of the candidates that are in the double digits.

[Catchawave]

78. I adore and admire Hillary

She would make a helluva Secy of State, as the world still loves her, Bill and Chelsea.

I'm still in my selfish mode too, I don't want any of our active Senators campaigning the next two years with so much work to be done in Congress during Georgie's lame duck years. Also, we can't afford to lose those seats !

[xkenx]

47. I wish we had someone with a resume that looks like this...

A southern, non-Senator, scripture-quoting, gun owner/hunter, war hero, 4-star general, who conducted the highest level diplomacy, won a war w/o the loss of a single American life, held numerous executive positions with the responsibility for education, healthcare, social services, training, security of his/her forces, who can flip any number of red states because he/she can appeal to Republicans and Independents, but who is
--pro-choice
--pro affirmative action
--pro labor
--pro environment
--pro universal healthcare
--pro alternative energy
--pro gay rights.

Wow, that's a tall order!! How could the democrats field that kind of a dream candidate? How could the Dems. find a candidate who is as progressive as they come, but looks like a moderate? How could the Dems. find a candidate who cannot be swift-boated on national security? How could the Dems. find a candidate who can inspire like no one since Bobby Kennedy? Wow, the Rethugs would really fear that kind of person! Boy, I wish we had a Wes Clark. OHMYGOD WE DO!!!

[MeanBone]

48. True, Edwards runs strongest against Republicans.

Edwards already is in a virtual tie against McCain: http://www.surveyusa.com

He also landslides every other Republican except for Giuliani, who won't win the Republican nomination (and even if by some miracle he did, just imagine Giuliani's nasty affairs/divorces against John, Elizabeth and their cute kids).

[benny05]

90. Hi Meanbone

Welcome to the DU! :hi:

[HootieMcBoob]

50. Wes Clark n/t

[Perky]

55. Hands down it Obama

Because the black vote in the south will come out in drove If he picks off a couple of stated or makes the defend their base they are history.


Secondly. He is young and articulate and a fresh face and he has school age kids. COming avross as a "dad" is a huge upside in the burbs.

Third. He is clean, ethical, smart, well meaning and intellignet. He put ways.
that he puts the GOP standard bearer to test in any number of different


Bottom line is that it is difficult for the GOP to grow beyond its base without going super negatoive and Obama is a nice intellignet guy.

[yellowcanine]

176. I agree. Because Obama has tons of crossover appeal plus he would

not just hold but energise the base. That is the definition of a winning candidate. It would be Reagan in reverse. Forget the lack of experience. He would have more national experience than Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II coming in. And he has solid legislative experience. It is time we had a President who can work hand in hand with the Senate and the House. That is the flaw in electing Governors as President. Lack of executive experience can be made up for with the right cabinet appointments. Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson proved that.

[MODemocrat]

56. It;s more as if they're rubbing their hands in despair

They don't want Hillary; she'll kick republican butt. She's had to listen to their crap too long.
It's payback time.:spank: Go Hillary~~~~~:thumbsup:

[KitSileya]

58. I don't think it's Edwards.

No disrespect, because I cheered his veep nomination, but the freeps don't fear him. I think we need to look at the person they carefully tiptoe around, and don't talk about, but keep a careful watch on, and that person is not Edwards, whom they simply do not pay any attention to at all, but Wesley Clark. Clark has a career behind him that plays into the repukes' biggest fear - a Dem candidate with recent military credentials, with foreign policy experience, who is not ensnared by the DLC and the rest of the stale Democratic political leadership. Someone that cannot be portrayed as an effete liberal, someone who isn't afraid to call a spade a spade, regardles of the consequences (but who is a good enough tactician and strategist to have guessed the consequences beforehand.)

[Catchawave]

83. When is Clark going to form his exploratory committe ?

No pressure here :) :hi:

[nickshepDEM]

62. Define: afraid

If by afraid you mean, candidate with the best chance of winning the general election. Than yes to Edwards (and Obama). Warner was by far #1 before he dropped out. Most of the right wing blogs and forums admitted this much.

If by afriad you mean, policy and issues, they are scared shitless of Hillary. Why? I have no idea. Her record in the Senate has been fairly centrist.

[Catchawave]

84. I wouldn't rule out Warner just yet :)

Mark's got a brilliant future ahead of him, too bad it doesn't include us :) It may not be for President at the moment, but at the very least, I hope it's Sen. John Warner's seat in '08. Virginia is on a roll :toast:

[nickshepDEM]

93. He'll run for Governor again in 2009 before he runs for senate.

[Catchawave]

149. Even if John Warner retires in 2008?

I think the Virginia blogs are buzzing about this right now :) I wouldn't rule out VP either, since that decision will be made mid-2008, and a governor needs to be on the ticket.

[nickshepDEM]

154. Warner's an executive. I doubt he'll run for Senate, but I could be wrong

I called it when he turned down the opportunity to run for Senate in 2006.

[ruggerson]

163. Yes, I mean who are they worried can win

And I think it's Edwards hands down, now that Warner has pulled the plug. Which, btw, I don't think means he wouldn't accept a draft VP nod from Edwards. I would be more than happy with a Edwards/Warner ticket.

[UrbScotty]

67. Wesley "Foreign Policy Wizard" Clark. (nt)

[wisteria]

68. John Kerry

They fear him. He has learned how to handle their smears and he won't allow them to push him around. They are afraid of him because they know he is his own man and will bring REAL CHANGE to Washinton.

The Republicans managed to win last time not because of the smears an lies they told about Kerry, but because they manipulated and frightened America. American's were living in fear of being attacked again.

[TankLV]

105. Hahaha hahahaha hahahaha! Thanks for the laugh!

Oh, you mean you were SERIOUS?!

[mtnsnake]

113. Kerry learned how to handle their smears?

When did this happen?

[Zorra]

69. John Edwards may be the candidate we could field that would

have the best chance at winning the 2008 Presidential election.

[MeanBone]

70. Correct, that's what the current data suggest.

Edwards runs strongest against almost every Republican: www.surveyusa.com

This is more useful comparing candidates with high name ID, obviously. But at the same time, name ID doesn't come for free, and the primaries could get pretty crowded (on both sides), putting an even higher premium on name recognition and well-established support.

[Catchawave]

85. Crossover appeal is high too

Edwards has less negatives at this point in the Pre-pre-primary season :) And another good sign, there's serious attempts at *swiftboating* him on the wingnut sites...:toast:

[DuaneBidoux]

72. Anyone with extensive military experience.

[venable]

168. like they were afraid of Kerry?

[Clark2008]

73. I was going to say NOT John Edwards - he's a light weight -

easily beaten on the national security/foreign policy end.

[Catchawave]

86. Of course NOT :)

You forget "fluffy stuffed suit". :hi:

[ChiciB1]

74. It's EDWARDS For Me... And It Has Been For Quite Some Time!

I have said it before here, but if Hillary happens to capture the nomination, she will have to do some SERIOUS changing for me to support her. I perish the thought of having to face the fact that I WON'T vote in an election, but at this point in time, at it is early.... I WILL NOT campaign or vote for Hillary.

And I know many will find that offensive, but it's one thing to KNOW that a Repuke has views you can't support, therefore you don't support of vote for them, quite ANOTHER thing to know that the person who is supposed to stand up for our views, but doesn't would be our nominee. So as long as we can maintain control in the House & Senate... I don't find any reason to support her. And there was a time when I was very enthusiastic about her.

I suppose my determination will depend on how the House & Senate look like in '08! But for now... sorry Hillary you can take a hike!

[Zynx]

81. Edwards is 50 lbs of fluff on 5 lbs of meat.

He was better than Kerry, but that ain't saying much.

[Catchawave]

89. You just managed to pith off Kerrys and Edwardians.

Good job :eyes:

[ldf]

82. gore

the 2nd time around he will take no prisoners.

and they know it.

[Imagevision]

88. Repukes don't want Obama to run, that would pose a problem for Rice...

[benny05]

91. That's not the reason

Condi Rice is "a miserable failure" at foreign policy as her boss is.

[CarbonDate]

92. Whomever my favorite candidate is.

That's the one they're most afraid of. :eyes:

[Bullet1987]

97. LOL @ CarbonDate...

:rofl: It seems that way...

Anyway, I really have to say the Repugs are most afraid of anyone that will expose them for how full of it they are. That's NOT Hillary Clinton. She likes to play politics too much, and there's some things that she'll never call the Republican Party out on. Same thing can be said about John Kerry. I think the GOP is afraid of the fresh faces. They're afraid of people like Edwards and Obama. People that can connect with an audience on an emotional level and not just pander by reading a script. Obama is drawing crowds wherever he goes, like a little cult following in the making (I must admit, I'm one of those cultists :lol: ). And Edwards may not be drawing the media attention, but he's definently a dark horse candidate, but I think he's going to need to have a strong running mate...because I still doubt his ability to win a general election by himself.

[NYCGirl]

102. Thank you. You're absolutely right. NT

[TayTay]

98. Who cares what they think

They were swamped in the last election, were decimated by the fake promises they brought before the nation and their inability to overcome their own arrogance and incompetence.

Why should I give a damn what those bastards think? I want to put my own house in order, support the people whom I think are best suited for public office and the Repubs can go screw themselves for all I care.

Why do people care about this? It's a false topic. Who Cares?

[Bullet1987]

99. The Art of Campaigning...

They were swamped in the last election, were decimated by the fake promises they brought before the nation and their inability to overcome their own arrogance and incompetence.

Why should I give a damn what those bastards think? I want to put my own house in order, support the people whom I think are best suited for public office and the Repubs can go screw themselves for all I care.

Why do people care about this? It's a false topic. Who Cares?

Have you ever read Sun Tzu? You should always know your enemies weaknesses, fears, and mistakes. This is, after all, what campaign analysts do.

[TayTay]

103. You should survey your own troops first

and try and build up your own army and your own sense of self and purpose.

How long are the Democrats going to base their actions on what the Republicans think of them? At what point do you take a position because it is the right thing to do, not because you are obsessed with what the Republicans think of it?

I am done with all that 'let's be afraid of the Republicans' crap. In case you haven't noticed, the Republicans are falling apart. Their coaltions of religious conservatives, libertarians, war-lovers and corporate suck-ups is not holding.

Can't the Democrats, just for now, actually think about what they stand for without quaking with fear over what the Rethugs think of them? Can't we stand strongly for something without being petrified that some Rethug is going to make fun of us or give us a hard time.

I am so sick of wimpy, over-planning Democrats who are afraid to take any action, lest if offend those who hate them. The REthugs hate all Democrats. They hate them equally and without hestiation. They will smear, slime, lie about and kick whomever the Dems nominate. It's what they do. It is idiotic to think they will stop or that a particular Dem candidate won't be lied about or slimed. They will. It's what Rethugs do.

Screw them and the horse they rode in on. Democrats should stand for something, unabashedly and proudly, and let the chips fall where they may. This attempt to overthink and over strategize every move we make for fear we will give the Rethugs the upper hand is a losers game from the get go.

We need to put our house in order and stand for our principles. The Rethugs can go screw themselves. They have enough of a mess to take care of in cleaning up after Bush.

How long do we have to be afraid of these bastards before we stand up and say, 'Enough!'

[nebula]

100. Wes Clark hands down

Because unlike the others, Clark has absolutely no substantial weaknesses that the Republicans can ruthlessly exploit and smear in a Presidential race!

[Catchawave]

109. Didn't he "waffle on the war" ?

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

[FrenchieCat]

134. Not actually. However, the press did want that to appear to be the case,

cause as we were saying, the Pugs and the Media were/are afraid that he might make headway.

Didn't Edwards "waffle" bigtime on the war.....except that it took him three years to have voted for it with gusto before he was against it cause he had been misled? Poor thang! :eyes:

[Catchawave]

147. But you've claimed Clark being against the war?

He was not, then he changed his position.

[Tom Rinaldo]

150. Clark always opposed the war with Iraq

Pay attention, this can get a little complicated. Clark never said that there were no circumstances possible under which he could support war with Iraq, no leading Democrat said that; not Gore, not Dean, not Kennedy, not Wellstone, not Kerry, not Edwards. Back in 2002 none of them knew as much about Hussein's possible intentions to expand his WMD programs as they wanted to. Virtually all experts world wide back then assumed Iraq had some WMD. Clark thought Iraq probably had some poison gas and maybe some anthrax and such stockpiled, but Clark still testified before Congress that he saw no serious imminent treat from Iraq to the United States, and without that, no war against Iraq could be justified.

In other words, Clark testified that the United States had plenty of time in which to work with the world community to come up with an internationally agreed upon program to determine what if any real threat Iraq posed to the world. During the same time span Clark also began to blow the whistle on PNAC's plans to remake the Middle East into democracies by force. In other words Clark was exposing the real reason why Bush was in such a rush to attack Iraq.

So yes, Clark believed that new United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq were needed, and that an effort was also needed to enforce the old ones, which as I'm sure you remember involved a program of United Nations weapons inspectors inside of Iraq, inspectors that Iraq had kicked out years before. Clark felt that the U.S. Congress had a legitimate role to play in providing leverage to those United Nations efforts. All leading Democrats were on the same page regarding this, including the men I list above. The debate centered on exactly what type of Resolution Congress should pass.

So, to cut to the chase then, regarding the question of whether or not Clark really opposed the Iraq war all along. Do you believe every word you see a New York Times reporter put in print, over the word of the Democrat being discussed? I think we can all name some New York Times Reporters, not to mention those working for other media outlets, who carried some water for the Bush Administration regarding Iraq back in 2003/2004. For example, does the name Judith Miller ring a bell? The NY Times Reporter in question for the original story that called Clark's IWR position into question, Adam Nagourney, is quite questionable himself, having written a number of distorted stories that always put leading Democrats in a bad light.

The real point of contention is this; Clark says that he said during the interview in question, that he would have supported "An" Iraq War Resolution, which instead got reported as "The" Iraq War Resolution. In the days leading up to the vote that approved "the" IWR, several more restrictive versions were under consideration in the U.S. Senate also, that would have made Bush come back to the Senate for a final go ahead vote to attack Iraq for example. Clark was in contact with Senator Levin and others prior to the final vote working together on a more restrictive IWR that Clark would have supported in order to increase leverage to get Hussein to cooperate with UN Resolutions. That is the IWR Clark meant. That is what Clark says he was talking about during the interview in question.

Those who don't like Clark are willing to call him a liar on that, and that is exactly what you have to conclude in order to believe that Clark supported the actual IWR that passed, that Clark is lying, despite all the evidence piled up below here, and much more, that shows that Wes Clark CONSISTENTLY argued against an attack on Iraq unless an imminent threat was shown to exist and all other options to deal with Iraq were thoroughly exhausted. At the very worse Clark get “caught” not being careful enough with his words during a casual interview with a reporter. It after all happened during Clark’s first week in politics. He chalks it up as a rookie gaffe. Clark’s learned a lot since then about how the media and political opponents operate.

In order to believe that Clark supported the IWR that passed the Senate, you would have to believe the same media sources that hyped the evidence of yellow cake uranium going to Iraq and all of the other pre-war hysteria hype over Clark's own word. Instead I ask you to consider all of this evidence below that supports Clark's position (compiled by CarolNYC):

Here is the text of Paul Wellstone's Senate floor speech regarding the IRW.
http://www.wellstone.org/archive/article_detail.aspx?itemID=5423&catID=3605

The quote about Wes from that speech is:

"We have succeeded in destroying some Al Qaida forces, but many of its operatives have scattered, their will to kill Americans still strong. The United States has relied heavily on alliances with nearly 100 countries in a coalition against terror for critical intelligence to protect Americans from possible future attacks. Acting with the support of allies, including hopefully Arab and Muslim allies, would limit possible damage to that coalition and our anti-terrorism efforts. But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."

Here's the text of Ted Kennedy's speech before the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies regarding the Iraq War in Sept 2002, in which he references Wes' testimony a few times.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/14195

Here are the passages about Gen Clark:

"A largely unilateral American war that is widely perceived in the Muslim world as untimely or unjust could worsen not lessen the threat of terrorism. War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support -- could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts. As General Clark told the Senate Armed Services Committee, it would "super-charge recruiting for Al Qaeda."

General Hoar advised the Committee on September 23 that America's first and primary effort should be to defeat Al Qaeda. In a September 10th article, General Clark wrote: "Unilateral U.S. action today would disrupt the war against Al Qaeda." We ignore such wisdom and advice from many of the best of our military at our own peril.
....................
General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, testified before the Armed Services Committee on September 23 that Iran has had closer ties to terrorism than Iraq. Iran has a nuclear weapons development program, and it already has a missile that can reach Israel.
........
In our September 23 hearing, General Clark told the Committee that we would need a large military force and a plan for urban warfare. General Hoar said that our military would have to be prepared to fight block by block in Baghdad, and that we could lose a battalion of soldiers a day in casualties. Urban fighting would, he said, look like the last brutal 15 minutes of the movie "Saving Private Ryan."

Here's the transcript of the Larry King show where Ted Kennedy had this to say:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

"KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story."

Or you can take it directly from the horse's mouth and read Clark's own testimony before Congress in September of 2002:
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

I also urge you to read these comments from Gene Lyons (Co-Author of "The Hunting of the President") where he describes warnings Wes Clark was giving against invading Iraq in the Summer of 2002:
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

"BUZZFLASH: You look at his background -- Rhodes scholar, decorated war hero, Supreme Commander of NATO. It gives him a unique position to criticize Bush on terrorism and the decision to invade and continue to occupy Iraq. It seems that his status allows him to make those criticisms without looking as political as the other candidates -- that Clark's basing his criticism on professional experience.

LYONS: I think that it's hard to depoliticize a candidacy. But I think one of his reasons for running is his very obvious personal ambition, and I think that's something he needs to be careful with. He's clearly a very ambitious person. He clearly thinks that he is among the best qualified people to be President of the United States in his generation. I happen to think he's probably right. But nevertheless, people don't always react well to that quality in people.

I do think his concerns are honest. I think his criticisms of Bush are exactly what he believes. One reason that I think that is I have had an opportunity to talk to him in a sort of a semi-private way.

Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.

He was right, too. How long ago was it that you were hearing all this sweeping rhetoric from the Project for a New American Century; that we were going to essentially conquer the south of Asia, contain China, and dominate the Middle East? And the United States was going to stand astride the world like a colossus. And all of a sudden, we invade a crummy, tin-pot, little third-rate dictatorship like Iraq, and we've already got more than we can handle. It's clear we're not going to dominate the world. And the question is, how in the world do we get out of there with our skins intact? And how do we then find a foreign policy that makes more sense?"

[MeanBone]

151. Yeah, if it takes a novel to explain Clark's positions....

...on Iraq then it's a problem. I've seen the quotes of Clark praising Bush and Blair after the invasion, so you really could have saved yourself the time. I know his supporters want for his positions to seem pure, but that's just not the reality.

[Tom Rinaldo]

160. So are you a fan of CNN's Headline News also?

Do you like all of your information in neat bite sized pre digested tid bits? No one has to follow all of the links I gave. Any single one of them is more than sufficient. And I've seen how Clark's critics love to twist what Clark says completely out of context to fit their own agenda against him. I could point you to posts that detail how that is done, including a discussion about what you are trying to refer to, but you seem to have too short an attention span for those..

[venable]

172. Clark did not oppose the war. Please explain the following

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting - 9/16/03

[Tom Rinaldo]

174. Easy. This just came up on another thread

I debunked the entire FAIR article in three parts. Your question is covered in my part three. Here you go:

First let me preface this by saying that I am generally very positive about FAIR. I have a personal friend who does work for them. FAIR founder Jeff Cohen comes up to my part of the woods with some regularity, I've been at several meetings with him and a I have a personally autographed copy from him of "Cable News Confidential", which is a great book. Having said that, no one gets it completely right all of the time, and they didn't with Clark this time.

The surest sign of an attempt to smear General Wesley Clark "from the left" is the painstakingly cut up and reassembled way in which some of his critics attempt to present the comments Wes Clark made in the London Times on April 10th 2003. The fact that every comment that Clark made in that Op-Ed that points out the problems with Bush's Iraq policy are surgically removed, often to the ludicrous extent of joining together phrases seperated by 13 paragraphs of text through the magic of three dots (such as... this) should be all the evidence needed to make anyone suspicious that the material being quoted from is being manipulated to fit someone's covert agenda. FAIR wasn't the source for the Frankenstein's monster version of Clark's Op-Ed, but they obviously ran with it here.

This comment is simply a flat out wrong assertion of an opinion:

"After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate"

And my above assertion is easily backed up simply by reading from the full source material that allegedly shows that Clark lost all qualms about the wisdom of the war. It is the absolutely most simple fact check one should always do if one is seeking Fairness and Accuracy In the Media, but F.A.I.R. didn't even bother to do that simplest of steps here.

First they extracted and commented on this from Clark:

"Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Let me point out for starters that Clark's qualms never included any doubt that the U.S. military could invade and depose Hussein, that was never in question for Clark. What was in question for him was the wisdom of doing so, not our ability to do so. That is a classic bait and switch against Clark, implying his praise of a military strategy somehow shows he wavored on his opinion of going to war in the first place. Whether or not Clark had earlier expressed doubt about a certain military tactic is not the point to FAIR's piece and they know it. The point of the artical was to question whether Clark opposed invading Iraq when we did, not to go over Clark's expressed opinions on how such an invasion would best be managed if launched.

But that is the least of FAIR's inaccuracy here. What follows is a horrible job of cut and paste editing to create a wildly distorted image. Let's look at what FAIR chose not to quote, shall we? Like the sentance immediately following "Already the scent of victory is in the air" which just so happens to be "Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph." What's that? Do I detect an unreported qualm? In fact FAIR chose to look right past the next two paragraphs (numbers two and three of Clark's Op-Ed, which go on to detail with amazing foresight the problems that lay ahead for Bush's occupation of Iraq:

"In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people."

How does FAIR square those concerns from Clark with the subjective bias of their reporting? How do those statements support their assertion that "After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate"? They simply don't, that's how. They obvioulsy assume that the reader doesn't have access to the full original piece. Maybe they never looked at the full original piece themselves, which really would be unforgivable from an organization like FAIR that prides itself on accuracy and fairness.

FAIR fast forwards through Clark's Op-Ed piece to next cite this quote from it:

"Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights."

OK, lets rewind their tape a bit. What did they skip right over that directly preceded that comment by Clark? Here it is in it's full original context:

"As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come — effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights."

How can anyone defend such clearly biased selective editing as "fair"? Remember all of these quotes from F.A.I.R were stitched together to support their bold assertion that Clark lost all qualms about the Iraq invasion. So of course they had to ignore the part of Clark's Op-Ed where he said the folowing, becauase they disprove the contention that they were making:

"The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns."

Clark's Op-Ed was full of dire warnings about what could easily go wrong, and Clark was saying this at at time when other leading Democrats inside the United States, like John Edwards, were still saying that the United States was right to invade Iraq, and were still viewing it as a total victory; Mission Accomplished.

And nothing could be more blatently intentionally misleading than F.A.I.R. making this claim:

"Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

It nicely helped F.A.I.R. make its intended point to say Clark closed his piece that way, the only problem though is that it isn't true. Here is how Clark actually closed his Op-Ed:

"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."

Clark closed his piece by saying "Mission Not Accomplished" after presenting a two page shopping list of qualms about the Bush invasion of Iraq. FAIR's piece was nothing more than a subjective opinion piece using the tools of progaganda. They should be embarassed by it.

[gulliver]

101. We want someone Rove fears but the GOP rank and file can respect.

Therefore, Clark.

The majority of the GOP is like the majority of the Democratic party. They would prefer not to have to think about politics at all. With Clark in office we would have a united United States again. Rovist, win-at-all-cost Republicans would be consigned to the slag heap. (Cheney would need to be frozen with fire extinguishers and flown to Antarctica.)

[TankLV]

104. Wes Clark

Or any Democrat from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party - not just another repuke-lite wannabe...

[Schema Thing]

106. Wes Clark first, but I suspect they'd be none too thrilled going against Obama

[venable]

107. A close friend of Rove's

told me after Kerry got the nomination that Rove had said to him (my acquaintance) that of all the democratic primary candidates, the only one he could not assure a victory over was Edwards.

It didn't make sense to me, as Edwards seemed to be vulnerable on national security, and the times are what they are.

After the election, it made sense: rove's MO is, as it always has been, demonization of the opponent.

Rove rightly recognized that he could not demonize Edwards.

They had tried to do so (trial lawyer, inexperienced) when he ran against Faircloth for the senate seat in 98...it failed miserably. Voters complained that they were being mean to a nice guy (Edwards).

Edwards is the best hope for 08

[Clarkie1]

114. Rove is irrrelevant. He is going to be unemployed soon, and unemployable. nt

[nebula]

108. Repubs are NOT afraid of Obama

Obama has a very serious weakness. His lack of experience on foreign policy and defense issues. Especially during a time of war, that would be a HUGE disadvantage for him.

Sorry, but I believe it would be a grave mistake to nominate Obama, or anyone lacking experience in that most critical of issues.

[ripple]

178. I think Obama recognizes the importance of the security/foreign policy vote

and I think he would choose his running mate accordingly. An Obama/Clark ticket would be ideal, in my view.

[Clarkie1]

112. Nothing against Edwards, but I find the opinion expressed in the OP laughable.

Give me one good reason why Republicans would be afraid of a one-term senator trial lawyer.

[nickshepDEM]

153. One-term... no-terms... one-term... no-terms.

[Clarkie1]

155. What are you trying to say, that Edwards has more experience than Clark?

Those four years as a freshman senator and being a trial lawyer is much better preparation for being the leader of the free world than actually working in several andministrations and being the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during a time of international crises.

And in any case, look at how Edwards helped carrry his home state in 04 with all those good looks and charisma!

[nickshepDEM]

156. I just want to know how many terms Clark has been elected to serve?

Simple question. No need to mention NATO, war, international crisis, etc. How many terms?

You used Edwards one-term in the Senate to attack him, but your guy has never been elected to anything, ever. So pardon me for calling you out on your hypocrisy.

Thanks for playing.

[Clarkie1]

158. Ha! Nice try. Seems you are the one being hypocritical.

While I applaud Edwards for his work raising the poverty issue, his overall life experience is limited to one-term in the senate and being a trial lawyer. That's not a lot of relevant experience for serving as leader of the free world in an increasingly complex and dangerous 21st century.

It's not relevant that Clark has never been elected political office. He's achieved a hell of a lot more than Edwards if we are discussing what is relevant to serving as an effective leader of the free world. For example, experience in the executive branch under several administrations, and more experience in internatioinal affairs. He's had higher, more relevant education than Edwards in economics, political science, and international affairs (first in his class, in fact). I'm not putting down Edwards achievements...he's achieved a lot more than most people, but we are talking about the highest office in the world post 9/11.

In addition to that, Clark has also been strong in his support of labor unions, a more equitable tax code, combating global warming as a national security issue, affirmative action, civil rights, and on and on. Additionally, he has been an invaluable, hard-working advocate for our candidates in places where Democrats have traditionally been at a disadvantage...Virginia, for example. Edwards just doesn't have that kind of gravitas to pull in the votes to put us over the top.

Edwards may be a nice guy with his heart in the right place, a good speaker, and good-looking, but the Democratic Party needs to offer more than that if we expect to win and to lead.

[Imagevision]

115. Repukes would love for Hillary to run -- but fear Obama!!

[NV1962]

116. Edwards has integrity and character issues.

Haven't seen a full-blown apologetic retraction of his puppydog Hugh Shelton's unsubstantiated and therefore corrupt smear.

Not a testament to Edward's integrity and character, in my book.

After 2004, I trust swiftboaters only as deeply as I can sink 'em...

I'm sure he'd make a decent senator for that place from whence he came.

[benny05]

117. This is the wrong article

And I don't think Edwards has smeared Clark, but I have seen one piece that suggested that Skelton supported Edwards.

You cannot impune Edwards' character on any level. He's squeaky, squeaky clean, and is showing moral leadership on the issue of getting rid of poverty in our country.

[NV1962]

118. No, you're wrong: it's THE article that set off the xxxx-storm

You're awfully cavalier with Hugh Shelton's swiftboat-tactic at the service of his lawyer-in-chief.

I'm simply holding the guy accountable for his minion's dirty work.

Isn't that the job that we're expecting from a President, and isn't that the crux of the current conundrum, anyway?

Edwards may be a good guy in person -- I'm sure he could be -- but he's a lousy "the buck stops here" type as a politician when a mini-black op blows in his face.

And that, simply put, is why I distrust him.

[benny05]

119. Here's what I'm what I'm questioning about this article

Where is Edwards mentioned?

Thanks.

[NV1962]

120. Here's what you're missing:

Who was Hugh Shelton campaigning for?

And why do you think that niggling fact is so conveniently omitted in that article?

You're welcome.

[benny05]

121. He's not in there

Try again later.

[NV1962]

123. What part of "hiding Edwards as his puppet master" don't you understand?

Come back with an honest answer - something that might even surpass a lawyer's character and integrity - and we'll see.

[benny05]

124. I am not a lawyer

But where's the evidence? It's not even implied in that article.

I would like to see something else from you to say why you think Edwards is not the right candidate and why you disagree with the initial post, instead of what you think is implied in this article when your argument lacks proof. At least I give plenty of reasons to support Edwards. The message I'm seeing here is one of sour grapes without evidence, and I'm sorry to see that attitude.

[NV1962]

126. Why not, let's do your homework for you...

From the Wikipedia article on -- guess who -- Hugh Shelton:

Shelton created a minor controversy for 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark, a subordinate to Shelton during the 1999 Kosovo military actions, when he stated: "I will tell you the reason came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. <…> I'll just say Wes won't get my vote," casting doubt upon the presidential contender's legitimacy.

Shelton also served as an advisor to Senator John Edwards' presidential campaign from 2003-2004.

Had enough already?

[benny05]

128. Thanks for the homework lesson

But the footnote to "advisor for Edwards" is from Clark's site. Not terribly objective, as I would teach to students about information literacy on the Internet.

[NV1962]

131. Wrong again (doh!)

The Clark04 link is misplaced: it is where that specific quote is taken from - inexplicably not from the article itself to which I already pointed you, which is the one that propelled Shelton's smear.

Having said that, dear advocate for a lawyer, I do observe that we're now arguing the color of the car: you're now grasping for denial that Hugh Shelton was Edward's campaign adviser, arguably mostly on an area that the lawyer is a wee bit weak in, both experience and character-wise: national security.

If you do the google on the internets a bit for yourself - instead of staffing it out to a paralegal - you'll quickly find other sources that highlight Shelton's role as a campaign adviser for Edwards. For one example.

But, let's not beat around the lawyer: how about a quote from the Edwards himself? Try this bit, taken from a letter Edwards wrote to Clark shortly after the Shelton affair exploded:

"Although Gen. Shelton has not endorsed me or any other candidate, I value his advice as one of our nation's top military leaders. He is a fellow North Carolinian and has been a friend and advisor for many years. I will continue to seek his advice. <...> When I talk to the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it's about the safety and security of our men and women in uniform, not about politics."

I'm sure that you can google together a source or two for this trivial but telling and very Edwardsian flim-flam.

Note how the weasel lawyer tries to suggest that his uni buddy and campaign adviser "has not endorsed" him, and expects to get away with his swiftboating?

Small wonder that the combo of a lawyer and another North Carolina State Uni buddy couldn't get on-message, resorting to knocking others on "character and integrity". Put out with the rest of the untrustworthy trash, both of 'em.

[MeanBone]

133. This argument is illogical and a waste of time

Shelton obviously had issues with Clark, the merits of which I don't know and, frankly, don't care. If those issues caused him to decide to advise or even to support another candidate for president, that does NOT mean that the other candidate told Shelton to smear Clark, as you're apparently assuming. That is an illogical leap. And as I said, this entire argument is a waste of time.

[NV1962]

135. The issue is that Edwards used Shelton to smear Clark - and never owned up to it

That is a character and integrity issue, pure and simple.

That's a waste of time only for the willingly blind - like the Republicans successfully tried to do with their deserter of choice in the White House, while stoking up international terrorism and anti-Americanism.

Little details like that may well get lost on you in wildly swirling Rovian/Edwardsian two-steps, but it doesn't mean I have to forget about it.

I don't, so you can. :-)

[MeanBone]

136. Again, that's just your assumption. It's an illogical leap.

When you're running for president, and you have people in your past who have problems with you (justified or not), there's a good chance they will end up associated in one way or another with one of your rivals. That doesn't mean their criticism of you is a "smear" by the rival candidate. That's an unsubstantiated assumption. In this case, Shelton's opinion was exactly that, HIS opinion. This really doesn't seem like it should be a difficult concept.

[NV1962]

142. You have a stubborn difficulty distinguishing swiftboating from issue-differences

Of course things can get heated during primaries. In a political sense, it's a life-or-death situation; that's why I'm not "surprised" by the remote-control smear.

The thing is, Shelton knew very well that he was using a red-hot poker when he placed Clark's character and integrity in quotes. Myself and many others in the Clark camp recognized the dirty move immediately for what it was; that's why it became an instant flash in the pan (of course it didn't help that Drudge did his best to fan it, but that's a side-story).

The thing is, after the nomination Shelton actually came close to somewhat of a explanatory pseudo-excuse, attributing it to the heat of the moment in the campaign, yada yada, without really retracting it, but at least shrugging it off publicly as a campaign moment of sorts.

Edwards, meanwhile, kept absolutely mum - except for squarely backing Shelton. Edwards didn't even express the usual mealy-mouthed lawyerese equivalent of "my bad" (something to the effect of, say: gosh, I really wish he hadn't said that in that unnecessarily incendiary way, no hard feelings, yada yada). Nothing.

When you're running a campaign, you know damn well when something has gone too far. Edwards knew that. His letter to Clark itself proves that. His square denial that Shelton had crossed the line, not even after the nomination - hell, to this very day! - is a monumental testament to Edwards' lack of character and integrity.

THAT is the whole point for me. I don't care much for Shelton's "apology"; I'm concerned with the prospect of a flim-flamming, gladhanding, slick but backstabbing lawyer looking out for #1 with an odious and treacherous smile etched on his face contending for the Democratic nomination.

I can, for example, live quite well with Kucinich (snowball's chance in hell he has, but... why not) or Dean, or heck Hillary, and might consider Kerry, and if Obama shapes up to put his "experience" credentials on the map I'll galdly support him... But Edwards?

Never. I'd rather campaign for the re-election of George W. Bush.

John Edwards, the man, is quite probably a decent guy in person; he is certainly an excellent lawyer - which he has proven several times, beyond any doubt - but as a politician aspiring national leadership he's a dangerous, treacherous and spineless creature to dispatch. Someone who reminds me too much of George W. Bush: can't accept fault when its inevitability practically biting him in the face.

So, I suppose it's well understood now that I absolutely, thoroughly dislike John Edwards as a candidate for the WH.

But my overarching point here is that the Shelton-smear incident has demonstrated - and continues to demonstrate to this day with Edwards' complicit silence - that John Edwards the presidential candidate has a character and integrity issue that isn't simply going away because you (and he himself) choose to ignore it. The very fact that he stubbornly refuses to see sufficient injury to a very injurious remark only adds to my impression conviction that he's absolutely unfit for any job above Congress - those people are typically used to posturing on the taxpayer's dime.

And that's the last I'm saying to clarify my opinion about that guy here: it's clear enough for the seeing.

[MeanBone]

145. Obviously for you, assumptions are as good as facts.

In any case, this quote tells me everything I needed to know:

"I'd rather campaign for the re-election of George W. Bush."

Thanks for clearing that up.

[benny05]

137. Isn't it Time for you to consider to " time out"

Your words went too far on this one, NV1962, in linking Rove to any Dem. I hope you are not acting out in desperation as they do at FP.com. It's not worth it.

[NV1962]

143. I think Edwards, like any other politician willing to skirt decency, lends from Rove's playbook

Edwards is in no way or shape above tactics à la Rove, or Atwater.

He's already demonstrated that. Whether you think that's "going too far" or "desperate" or whatnot else, is utterly irrelevant: he is a slick campaigner. Just like Rove is.

Come to think of it, maybe that's the deeper reason he's not my cup of tea.

[benny05]

144. No

And I believe your message is disappointing in going too far to link the two. I would have stronger words, but I tend to lean towards proof rather than just accusation or implied messages. You have sunk in low of lows in my book to assist Clark, but I'm one to say it's my book, not others' books. I've never criticized Clark anywhere, but you and other Clarkies are so defensive. So sad.

Thus, I challenge you to speak better of all Dems. Here's why: you tear down Edwards (and it's been noted Clarkies are among the first to attack Edwards), despite the fact he helped raise awareness about the min wage not being raised for nearly 8-10 yrs on the Fed level. In 6 states, all ballots won. Where was Clark on this one and helping local Dems in getting them elected on this and other domestic issues?

[NV1962]

162. Instead of "challenging" to defend indefensibe guys, focus on facts first

A guy who won't disown smear tactics is untrustworthy in my book. The fact that he's a Dem makes it worse, certainly not better. That's why - absent his rectification - I won't "speak better" of Edwards - period.

As to Wes Clark's campaign support efforts over the past two years: here's a list of national / state candidates he has worked damn hard for, by stumping, raising money and generating PR attention for the candidates; here's a list with state / local candidates. I really don't think there's much of a cue I can take from Edwards here.

I can't remember Edwards stumping for the Dems here in Nevada. For example.

But my point isn't to express simple dislike of Edwards. I'm pointing out that he has character and integrity issues that he flatly refuses to address. Don't call for "unity": if you really want to be constructive, you could call on Edwards to publicly make amends. That'd be a far more productive step to endorse him.

Until then, he's a no-no, for me and for many others who value character and integrity.

[benny05]

165. What's Interesting

Is that many of us who support Edwards do not have a problem with Beneral Clark as a potential candidate. It's his rapid dog supporters (excluding Tom R) who will not let go of some bones, and viciously attack Edwards at every turn. You are not helping General Clark; you are potentially hurting him.

Personally, I think it's really nice that he stumped for many TX Dems and for Jim Laesch in IL, who is a very fine person and former campaign manager for my candidate, David Gill, IL-15.

In terms of NV, JRE stumped there twice for Titus and Ross Miller, as well at least once for Tess Hafen, and Jack Carter--and twice for the Minimium Wage, which means the citizens of Nevada.

[NV1962]

167. "Interesting" is not an answer to a pointed question of character and integrity

For all attempts to brush one such clear-cut argument aside that I bring up here, namely the character and integrity issue of Edwards as demonstrated in the Shelton-affair, what I'm hearing in response is that that pointedly demonstrated case of swiftboating is somehow based on "assumptions" or, even more risible, a somewhat blindly "partisan" skewering (seemingly based on the implied charge that I can't see past one and only one preferred candidate).

I think that I've said enough times now that I can quite happily endorse and support most any Dem.

Except for two: Joe Lieberman, and John Edwards. For my objection against each of these two I have very clear-cut reasons.

The more I see non-responsive tributes like yours in reply to a clear and mystifyingly simple to address matter of character and integrity, the more I'm settled in my conviction that John Edwards is decidedly the wrong guy for national government.

A proven wrong track record on Iraq, a proven wrong track record on character and integrity.

Your appeal to his presumptive "support for the poor" doesn't cut it here; in fact it's another, sadly characteristic dodge.

[benny05]

175. Well, another day

About integrity and character issues...but not boding well for yourself. No clear-cut argument and I've yet to see what General Clark's vision is...in your words.

[Catchawave]

157. Comparing Edwards to Rove now?

"Have YOU no decency, sir?"

[NV1962]

161. My point exactly...

Both resorted to swiftboating proxy attacks; both proceeded to play the quasi innocent and suspiciously taciturn part in the wake of the xxxx-storm they nodded ahead.

Edwards has character and integrity issues by remaining silent and not denouncing it, or at the very least expressing some sort of half-assed "regret" over it. To this day.

No decency indeed.

[Texas_Kat]

186. Actually it was a 'smear by proxy" -- a favorite trial lawyers tactic

Like 'blaming the victim' of a rape.

It speaks directly to JE's character that first he would sanction such a statement then deny he sanctioned it.

The story coming out of the Milosovic trial verified that Shelton was 'playing politics'.

Milosovic (as a tactic) used Shelton's words from this article to attempt to impugn Clark's testimony at Milosovic's war crimes trial at the Hague. He demanded to call Shelton as a witness for the defense. The judge (prior to issuing a writ for Shelton to appear) called Shelton on the phone to ask what the statement meant -- since it could have a significant impact on the trial. Shelton told the presiding judge that it was 'just politics".

Unless sealed in the International Court, I expect we'll see a transcript from that phone call or statement from the judge (now that the trial is over and Milosovic is dead) when and if Clark has to face this crap again. In the end, Shelton would never speak of it again.

Edwards fails the test.

[benny05]

139. If the quote is misplaced

Suggest you and other Clarkies find correct information and link it properly. You will have to find other evidence since you are correct that Wikipedia information isn't stable, yet it was linked to your post. Hmm. I also teach that biases are built in to students regarding information literacy on the Net.

[Bullet1987]

125. D'OH

Obama has a very serious weakness. His lack of experience on foreign policy and defense issues. Especially during a time of war, that would be a HUGE disadvantage for him.

Sorry, but I believe it would be a grave mistake to nominate Obama, or anyone lacking experience in that most critical of issues.

HE SERVES ON THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE!!!!

Geez, how many times must I repeat myself. How can he be weak on foreign policy when that's all he's been doing since he's been there?

[Clarkie1]

127. And he's been there...how long?

Not to mention the most critical foreign policy experience does not come from serving on a committee in Washington.

[benny05]

129. Wrong link to my post

I didn't say that about Obama. Are you playing games here? Let's be a bit more honest in supporting your arguments.

[enough already]

148. They'll wave Playstation boxes at Edwards

No, they aren't afraid of him either. I suspect that deep down a Gore candidacy scares them. They aren't going to fear anyone in (or just recently in) the Senate.

[martymar64]

164. Dean

The Republicans and the media are deathly afraid of Howard Dean. Thus, the reason the innocent "Dean Scream" was played and played and played ad nauseum to portray him as some sort of crazy man. They know that he could easily wipe the floor with anyone the Rethugs throw his way. What happened in 04 was a concentrated effort to get him out of the running for President.
In the same vein, the media punditocracy (AKA the RNC propoganda wing) keeps trying to float the Hillary balloon to make her seem like a viable presidential candidate and run her against someone like McCain and thus guarantee Rethug victory. It's all psyops, don't believe the hype.

For the record, I like Edwards. He is much more populist than the others trying to run. Biden? Bayh? Vilsack? don't make me laugh! Clark? Gore? Obama? I feel I could get behind any of them. But when push comes to shove, I'd rather have Dean with Schweitzer for VP.

[OregonBlue]

166. Edwards/Obama ticket.

[Kelly Rupert]

169. Bayh.

They aren't attacking Hilly because they're afraid of her; they're attacking her because she's the most-likely candidate.

[citizen snips]

173. I agree

Edwards will do well in the south and he has a chance of winning NC.

[grizmaster]

179. Joe Biden is my call

[riskgamble]

183. Machiavelli in You

http://personality.selfip.com

This is a free personality test.
You can check out your personality types based on the following three personality theories.

1. Machiavellianism.
2. Authoritarian personality.
3. Risk Orientation.

Feel free to invite your friends to this test.
Thanks.

[blm]

184. I doubt they want to face Kerry again and have to create more lies. Besides, the

swifts are going to get more of a brushback from other vets writing a book of their own that outs the swifts completely.