Heard from a friend in Washington DC that Clark WAS who they feared most.

[Quixote1818]

I have a friend who I grew up with who is a Republican and works for Pete Domenici in Washington DC. We talk about once every year when he comes into town. He called me this morning and we talked about many things including the Election. I told him I was a Clark supporter and he came right out and told me that according to friends of Pete Dominici, Wesley Clark was by far the person they feared the most. He said it was a "No Brainier" because we were at War and here you have a very sharp, articulate, good looking war hero general with ALL KINDS of National Security experience running. He said Clark did very well in rural areas and with swing voters. He basically said Democrats were given a peasant and the perfect candidate for the time and we blew it!

He said they also feared Lieberman and Edwards but felt Kerry's voting record would be target practice and Dean was perceived as too liberal and too reluctant to use force. He said they were hoping for Dean. They also though Gephardt would have been tough because he was pretty solid and Bush was vulnerable because of the Iraq war.

Anyway, I JUST had to share! Anyone else get info like this from their Republican friends?

[tjdee]

1. DUH.

I'm so surprised!

/sarcasm

I think it's completely unreal that they would feel threatened by Lieberman. I think they throw that in for kicks. The man has very little personality, a whiny voice, and looks pasty.

Yeah, a real threat.

[Lefta Dissenter]

6. perhaps threatened by Lie

berman because they risked losing a lot of moderate Repub votes to him if he got the nomination. And the Dems would have voted for him... well, because he isn't bush!

[AP]

39. Lieberman makes me scratch my head.

The only explanation I can think of is that they thought he would have tapped into anger about 2000, and that Republicans look at Lieberman and see themselves and Republicans really believe that that's what people want.

[faithfulcitizen]

73. uh, i was one until Clark!

:)




on edit: I didn't mean to reply to "DUH" sorry

[Clark2008]

206. Double duh

in agreement from the red South. I know traditional conservatives who are fed up with Bush and his spending habits, but who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Kerry. They've all told me they would have voted for Clark in a heartbeat.

[robbedvoter]

2. GOP-er insider said it on a public Teevee station in Boston

Gloated about their manipulatioon of both primaries AND VP decision.

[Larry in KC]

133. Please fill me in on this one, Robbed

...because that's the very prediction I've been making since January 2004, and I'd love to see where it first played out.

[Leilani]

3. I always knew they were afraid of Clark

He was the 1 person who could challenge Republicans on their turf,foreign policy, terror, war, & neutalize them.

He could then go on to domestic issues, where the majority of Americans support Dems.

[Used and Abused]

105. We were afraid of him too though

Remember the clips of him cozying up to Bush at the fundraisers? Remember the fact that he was a registered Republican? How quickly we forget...

[Ice4Clark]

107. Wes Clark NEVER was a registered republican!

You can check out this LINK for the truth if you so desire.

[Maru Kitteh]

148. Clark was definitely our BEST CANDIDATE and we blew it

And he never, ever, ever was a republican. Period.

Way to repeat republican propaganda :eyes:

Also about the clips, you DO REALIZE those were out of context clips released by THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE......... Don't you? Hhhhmmmmmmmmm, what do you think their agenda could have been?

Clark is an extremely intelligent man, he knows you don't walk into a room full of ideologues and rail at them with storm and fury from word one if you are hoping for any chance that they will listen. You warm them up with words of praise, massage their egos and then BAM hit them with what their screwing up after they feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Of course, the RNC neglected to release those parts.

[Sparkly]

184. "How quickly we forget?"

Some people post the same damn lies on EVERY single thread that comes up with Clark's name on it, and even some that don't!!! We've seen it all, we're still seeing it all, and it'd be nice to stop repeating these lies.

[Lefta Dissenter]

4. Only from my Republican brother-in-law

who voted for Clark. Of course, I had dragged him to see Clark in person, and once you hear the man speak, you HAVE to vote for him! Simple as that! :shrug:

[Jai4WKC08]

32. I don't know any Repub "insiders" but...

I've had lots of run-of-the-mill Repubs tell me they were worried that Clark might take their state or county if he got the nomination. A few examples...

A Repub district attorney I know down in TX (a loyal party guy or he wouldn't have gotten elected there) told me he wasn't worried about his state, but he thought Clark had the best chance of beating Bush. Then he thought a minute and said, and "I wouldn't mind that much."

See, the thing is... the guy is what I guess they now call a paleo-con. He disagreed with Clark on almost every social issue, but he at least felt Clark would know how to handle Iraq and terrorism, and probably wouldn't get us involved in absurd overseas adventurism. I doubt he have voted for Clark, but he said he knew lots who would. And that was in small-town Texas.

I also have a Repub friend, a pig-farmer of all things, who was scared to death Clark could take his state of North Dakota. Thought it would be real close, but that small family farmers like himself weren't happy with Bush at all.

My Repub brother, a retired army officer like myself, who lives in Northern VA, wasn't worried tho. He said "libruls" would never let a military guy get the nomination. Argh! I hate it when my brother is right.

Sure hope we can surpise him in '08.

[eek]

129. True!

I went to a speech and Q&A here (even managed to ask one of the Q's).

Afterwards I spoke to him. His handshake, his sincerity his willingness to speak to me without scanning the room for bigger wigs than me...well he won me over.

A month or so later I dragged my Sig Other to a bigger rally.
SO is quite the skeptic and he was bowled over by The General.

Clark remains my candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Well I understand that it was a

"No Brainer" because we were at War and here you have a very sharp, articulate, good looking war hero general with ALL KINDS of National Security experience running. He said Clark did very well in rural areas and with swing voters.

But, but, but.... brains was not the issue during the primaries. It was about "Party Purity" and "electibility" and listening to OUR FRIENDS, the Presstitutes. We were told that a "40 years ago War Hero" OR a good looking populist Southerner was plenty good enough. They never told us that we needed all of that rolled into one and then some.

Guess that Dems got National Security Expertise and "Any" military experience confused during the primaries. Duh!

[cornermouse]

17. Uhh.

After almost 4 years of Bush at that time, brains was a VERY BIG issue for me.

[WI_DEM]

7. perhaps so

but I have a friend who is a democrat but works for Tommy Thompson in Washington (prominent job, not just a staffer at HHS) and she tells me that the one they feared most was Dean--primarily because he was so unpredictable and independent. Also because he was clear on the war. I guess it depends on who you hear from. But I'm sure Clark would also have been tough.

Of course then there were lots of indpendents and republicans who came to Dean Meetups too, but I know Clark got his share too.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Dean/Clark, Clark/Dean...brings back memories

It certainly would have made for a more entertaining election, in this Clarkie's opinion. As for the result, we'll never know. Makes politics kinda like baseball. Like, if Torre hadn't gone with Gordon in the 8th inning of Game 5, bringing in Rivera sooner...

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. I can see why they would be nervous about Dean

For the reasons you mention. Since Dean was the front runner for so long and was constantly being attacked by other Democratic candidates, the Republicans were able to sit back and let it happen. The media painted Dean as some kind of radical leftist and that is what the Republicans were planning to pick up on had they run against Dean I am sure.

AS to some other comments on this thread. Well yeah, sure, the Republicans planned a custom line of attack against each likely contender. They always do, that's just a given. Some Democrats still make better candidates than others. That is also a given.

On another matter raised on this thread by someone: You know, this isn't the time for "circular firing squad" remarks. Not yet anyway. We strongly united behind Kerry. I personally put a lot of time into his campaign and I know many Clarkies and Deanies who did the same. Trying to figure out what it will take to win is a productive use of time, at least as productive as anything else that gets written about on an Internet chat board.

[KittyWampus]

8. Yeah, Well... Clark Didn't Have A Competent Campaign Staff

and even though he caught on really fast on dealing with the Mediawhores... it wasn't fast enough.

Clark would have needed a strategy to counter the brutal press he got.

[stray cat]

9. The media really went after Clark early.

They never had a good thing to say about him. I wonder if the republicans manipulated the media on that one.

I was a Clarkie and still am - I think he would've been great. However, I don't know if his campaign could have held his own against the Rove machine. I doubt it.

[Fleshdancer]

16. my only complaint about Clark during the election was....

I seriously think he jumped into the ring too late. This past primary began so freakin' early that Clark didn't have nearly as much time as the others to gain serious momentum.

[Quixote1818]

18. Yes, he asked for his wifes permission to run and it took her a long time

to decide. What a complete gentleman thinking of his wife above everything!

[Fleshdancer]

20. I didn't know that. How sweet!

I imagine part of it had to also do with the draft Clark movement...took time for that whole proccess to evolve.

[digno dave]

123. FOX News put their foot on his throat and never let up

[Fleshdancer]

11. So what does Clark do now?

I like Clark and I would like to see more of him. Does anyone know what his future political plans are?

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Clark says he "rules nothing out" when asked about a 2008 run

He still has his political action committee which is undergoing reorganization. Many are eager to see how it will be retooled:
http://www.wespac2004.com/#home

Clark has stayed active as a political commentator also. Go here for a media archive: http://www.forclark.com/

Or just drop by the Clark Supporters Group here at DU to stay tuned in.

[Fleshdancer]

25. thanks for the sites! n/t

[RandomUser]

113. Here's a site with clips of his most recent appearances

http://www.u-wes-a.com/mediaclips-post.html

He's been speaking out against the Gonzales confirmation, amongst other things. I'm remind of his words at the end of his campaign (quoting from memory, so hope I have the wording right) -- "this old soldier will not fade away."

[Leilani]

23. Well, he campaigned all over the country for Kerry/Edwards

& other Dems.

He was at a conference in the Mideast recently...Bill Clinton was also there. Apparently, he is appreciated internationally.

And he has formed WesPac, which will enable him to continue speaking out & help other candidates.

[Fleshdancer]

24. I knew he campaigned for Kerry....

Since the election though I haven't seen him. I'm glad to hear he's still active on the foreign policy scene. I'd like to see him publish a book or some articles soon.

[corbett]

27. He's Very Active With His PAC

http://www.wespac2004.com

I would have had no problem voting for him. He's another true patriot. Too bad he imploded due to a late start and a bitter press which knew that his success was virtually assured if he cleared the primaries! Michael Moore endorsed him, too!

[ArkDem]

12. The Democrats were given a peasant..........

[FrenchieCat]

31. and chose

and aristocrat instead.....

[ArkDem]

112. lol

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Why does this surprise anyone?

They had to stop Clark among Democrats because once he became our nominee he would carry our base plus make deep inroads into theirs. And that is exactly what they set upon doing. They threw everything they had at Clark immediately. They held back against Kerry and Edwards until after our ticket was already chosen.

I have a customer, ex CEO of a Silicon Valley Firm, who sits on several major corporate Boards. He is very much a Republican but he was backing Clark out of respect for Clark's abilities and clear sightedness. HE still says it's too bad the Democrats didn't pick Clark.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

80. Clark would have taken every Gore 2000 state plue the Carolina's...

Ohio and Florida with a clear win, he would have swept the southwest too. Arkansas and Virginia too.

[ArkDem]

183. The dog would have caught the rabbit if it hadn't stopped to pee.

[southlandshari]

109. My beloved yet Republican father the same story

There is no doubt in my mind that he would have voted for Clark. As would have many, many folks in the Deep South who typically (or even ALWAYS) vote Republican. And not just because Clark is from the South. He was the only candidate who could offer the kind of foreign policy - and military - experience that was unimpeachable when held up next to the Bush administration's bungling.

[sandnsea]

14. Keep those Dems in the circular firing squad

He's no friend. Clark would have been made out to be a madman by the time they were through with him and we all would have been sitting around wondering how they got away with it when the real madman was in the White House.

Counter-productive bullshit and it continues to be amazing Democrats just lap it right up. I bet your "friend" is laughing with his real friends, "they're just so easy".

[Old and In the Way]

21. Exactly.

Anyone here truely think the RNC would not have custom tailored their smears to any eventual Democratic challenger?

Does anyone believe that the macro numbers would have been any different with any other candidate? I don't. Democrats chose Kerry. The system let us down, not Kerry. Until we can believe in our process and assure fair elections, we'll be second guessing our candidates....and that's just the way Republicans and the broadcast media want it.

[Skwmom]

69. You risk major backlash when you try to smear a man like Wes Clark.

Furthermore, they wouldn't have expended so much effort in bumping Clark out of the race if they felt that he could be so easily labeled and dismissed.

[sandnsea]

87. Dems keep deluding themselves

They smeared a man who fought in a war zone for chrissake. Who saved another man's life. Against a guy who went AWOL. You think they wouldn't have just as easily ruined Clark with that WWIII situation? There is no person on the planet saintly enough to get through an RNC election. Until Democrats realize that, we're just going to keep losing.

[FrenchieCat]

102. What WWIII "situation"?....Oh, you mean that

occurence that when the story was told would have demonstrated how tough Clark was....the fact that he took no shit and knew which way was up? That story ? Doubtit would have made a dent if you were talking about national security, and Americans wanting a "take charge" type of leader....AND REMEMBER THAT THIS OCCURED 5 YEARS AGO...NOT 40 YEARS AGO, and it was ALL WELL DOCUMENTED.....NEWS STORIES IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA, ETC...

Gen. Sir Mike was the WHINER on this one. His nicknames are "Macho Jacko" or "Prince of Darkness"!

here's a few of views, and please pay close attention to what PUTIN ENDED UP DOING IN CHECHNYA BECAUSE OF IMBECILE GENERAL MICHAEL JACKSON DISOBEYING CLARK'S ORDERS........

Yes, a full discussion on this incident would have revealed that Clark was the smart take no shit General....and the British General was the screw-up who gave the Russians back their balls against NATO!

The first from an absolutely wonderful article by Elizabeth Drew:

"Much has been made of a single sentence in a long argument that Clark had with General Sir Michael Jackson, the British officer in command on the scene at Pristina airport, who said, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." Clark devoted an entire chapter to the airport incident in his first book, and his account has been confirmed by others. He explains that at first he had the support of the Clinton White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. But when the British refused to support him, largely in response to Jackson's objections, Washington backed down. Clark himself reported Jackson's now-famous hyperbolic line to Shelton as an example of what he saw as an emotional overreaction. Berger says, "To say that Wes was reckless is to misunderstand the context; it's an absurd notion."

Read the whole article here (It's good!):
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795


And here's another take on it:

Sending in Russian paratroopers was absolutely unnecessary and extremely provocative. The area was still very volatile and crawling with Serbian paramilitary units. It would have been very easy for the Russians to be mistaken for Serbs by NATO units, especially at night. The airport had no strategic value - Russian officials were making a purely political statement. By the same token, if the airport had no strategic value, why was Clark so concerned? Especially since the Russians were our quasi-allies in this complicated political conflict.

...back in 1999 Russian military officials admitted they were ill-equipped to fight even a limited engagement anywhere in the world. One general wrote in a contemporary Russian military journal that they would have been hard-pressed to field an army of 10,000 troops at the time. Almost assuredly they would have backed off if NATO had called their bluff. Did Clark understand this weakness better than anyone else, and did NATO miss a genuine opportunity to assert its dominance over the Russians? Isn't that the raison d'etre for NATO?

Think back to Berlin in 1945. General George S. Patton urged Eisenhower to let him drive the Russian army back east across the Russian border. He understood better than the naive Eisenhower and Churchill that Russia had become the biggest threat to the west and was not about to return conquered territory back to the allies or the original governments. He also understood that Russia's army, while victorious over the depleted German army, was in no shape to resist the allies. In a very real sense we missed an opportunity to avoid the cold war entirely. Republicans, conservatives, and hawks generally agree with this hindsight assessment. It highlights the irony of political partisanship that the same people condemn General Clark for essentially the same behavior. Clark very much resembles Patton: aggressive, hard-nosed, a brilliant commander, and despised by his peers and superiors - one would think Republicans would appreciate him for that.

It makes sense that Clark, being the highest ranking military commander in all of Europe and an expert on central Europe, knew better than any person on the planet what the capabilities and tendencies of the Russian army were - that was his job. Clark knew exactly what he was doing and what the risks were. He knew the Russian high command would never risk a humiliating and historical defeat at the hands of the Americans - which even the Russians admit would have been the outcome. Their military machine was on the verge of total collapse in 1999. One strong piece of evidence for that is how the Pristina issue was finally resolved. The 200 paratroopers could not be resupplied and the Americans eventually sent in food and water - essentially a humanitarian mission. That's how pitiful the Russians were. So all in all, I think the doomsday scenario can be discounted, and contemporaneous military observers agree that Gen. Jackson's "WWIII" comments were pure hyperbole.

http://www.epivox.com/wesleyclark-knoxvill..._editorials.cfm

Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them.
>snip
More presciently, Clark was right about the Russians. When fewer than 200 lightly armed Russian peacekeepers barnstormed from Bosnia to the Pristina airport in Kosovo to upstage the arrival of NATO peacekeepers, Clark was rightly outraged. Russians did not win the war, and he did not want them to win the peace.

Clark asked NATO helicopters and ground troops to seize the airport before the Russians could arrive. But a British general, absurdly saying he feared World War III (in truth the Russians had no cards to play), appealed to London and Washington to delay the order.

The result was a humiliation for NATO, a tonic for the Russian military and an important lesson for the then-obscure head of the Russian national security council, Vladimir Putin. As later Russian press reports showed, Putin knew far more about the Pristina operation than did the Russian defense or foreign ministers. It was no coincidence that a few weeks afterward, Russian bombers buzzed NATO member Iceland for the first time in a decade. A few weeks after that, with Putin as prime minister, Russian troops invaded Chechnya. Putin learned the value of boldness in the face of Western hesitation. Clark learned that he had no backup in Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic...

This is a good even handed article about Gen Clark that kind of covers both sides:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/special...ctionsprint-hed

Gen Jackson criticized by Kosovo report
http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19991018nato3.htm

Referring to Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the commander of Kfor, the report says: "ComKfor's intent was not always transmitted with sufficient detail and co-ordinating instructions. Even when detail was requested from Kfor it was not always forthcoming. This led to improvisation at brigade level and a consequently asymmetric effect within Kfor as different brigades made their own interpretations."

Confusions also occurred through unclear divisions of responsibility between each Nato country's own national headquarters and alliance headquarters in Brussels. "The division of responsibilities between national and Nato operational chains of command took some time to become clear," says the report.

Brig Freer was in charge of the Parachute Regiment and Gurkha soldiers who were the first, apart from special forces, to enter Kosovo, on June 12. The report, prepared for the Ministry of Defence's comprehensive "lessons learnt" exercise on the Kosovo war, and copied to Gen Jackson, is unusually strong criticism of the command structures in the operation. Because there was little or no Serb opposition to the arrival of the Nato peacekeepers, the failings identified were not fatal.
....
The report supports recent testimony to the United States Congress by Gen Wesley Clark, Nato's overall commander during the Kosovo campaign. In July, Gen Clark told congressmen that the Alliance was "hamstrung by competing political and military interests that may have prolonged the conflict".

Even last week, RAF chiefs admitted that they still had no idea exactly how much damage had been done. "We don't know how many tanks were destroyed and we will have no way of knowing," said Air Vice Marshal Jock Stirrup, the assistant chief of the air staff.

World: Europe
German to assume K-For command
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/444350.stm

German General Klaus Reinhardt is to replace Britain's General Sir Mike Jackson as commander of Nato's Kosovo peacekeeping force, K-For.

The appointment comes amid continuing controversy over the outgoing K-For commander's failure to prevent Russian forces from taking Pristina airport before the arrival of Nato troops in June.

a clash between him and Gen Clark after he was accused of disobeying an order to prevent Russian troops from taking the airport.

He refused to block the airport runway, saying he did not want to start World War III, and sought the intervention of Britain's top military commander to help get the order reversed.

Angered by the apparent insubordination, the chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee is now to hold hearings into the incident, believing it calls into question Nato's chain of command.

Macko Jacko Supported the War in Iraq
The can-do general for war and peace
(Filed: 26/05/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk /news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F26%2Fnjack26.xml
....
General Sir Mike Jackson's forehead is scarred, his cheeks are pitted, his nose sunburnt and the pouches under his eyes could carry his entire mess kit. His face could be a road map through the last 40 years of British military adventures: the Cold War, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Today, the new whisky-drinking, cheroot-smoking Chief of the General Staff is surrounded by men in suits and women in short skirts from the MoD press office. Gold braid drips from his mountainous shoulders as he stretches out on a leather sofa in the old War Office.

The peace rallies and the lack of United Nations support never alarmed him (you can't imagine much worrying this general). "No soldier who has seen active service wants to rush into a war, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils," he reflects. "I'm quite satisfied in myself that it was right."

Nor is he concerned that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. "I understand that not everyone saw the necessity of bringing Saddam Hussein to account, but it was the right thing to do and I'm proud that this nation swung behind the troops when their lives were on the line."

He was less impressed, just before the war began, when Donald Rumsfeld seemed to be suggesting that the British troops were tagging along for the ride. "I saw the comment about the British forces not being necessary. I don't think he had an idea how many British troops were committed, but the first days of the war straightened him out," says the general. "Our performance was outstanding in the south."

Gen Jackson is not renowned for his love of Americans. When commanding the Nato troops in Kosovo, he refused an order from Nato's supreme commander, Gen Wesley Clark. The American wanted him to assault Pristina airport, which had just been taken by some Russians. Gen Jackson evidently told him: "I'm not going to start World War Three for you."

He smiles at the story. "I might have said something like that," he admits.
==
His role in 'Bloody Sunday' controversial

Bloody Sunday Inquiry `Consider Recall for General Sir Mike'
By Kieran McDaid, PA News
<>"http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=6705183">http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=6705183

Britain's most senior soldier may be recalled to give further evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, it has emerged.

The three Saville Inquiry judges are considering whether to ask General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, to return to the witness box in London to discuss a controversial document alleged to be in his hand writing.

General Jackson, who was an adjutant in the Parachute Regiment on January 30, 1972, said he had no recollection of taking part in the compilation of a list of what soldiers fired at, when he gave his evidence to the inquiry two months' ago.

A contemporaneous handwritten note of the engagements, alleged to be in Gen Jackson's hand writing, was submitted to the inquiry last week by the Ministry of Defence.

Colonel Ted Loden, the major in command of the army unit which fired more than 100 shots on Bloody Sunday, had claimed he made a list of engagements, which was later typed up, after interviewing soldiers in his armoured vehicle.

As for the ridiculous post above, I think there's probably not a lot to be gained by trying to argue or converse with the author, but in case anyone else who isn't familiar with Clark is wondering, here's a couple of differing views.

[sandnsea]

127. See you don't get it

It doesn't matter how right or rational your arguments for Clark are, they'd have ripped him up. Starting WWIII, being fired by Clinton, who knows what other shit they would have dug up or made up. It's pointless to post an argument for Clark because all your points would never come out in a Presidential campaign. Their machine is louder and more organized, their side won't question a word of what comes out of their machine, and our side would panic and end up believing some piece of trite they spewed out and get lost with it.

[FrenchieCat]

130. It would really depend on what the General and his

colleagues would have to say about it. Problem with John Kerry is that he didn't make any statements to refute the "Tidy Bowl" accusations until it was really too late.

Again....What happened with Clark, even his "retirement" was brought up during the primaries, and he still managed to do quite well. The difference with Wes Clark is that all of his sides of any "controversies" have been well documented by mainstream media at the time that they were happening.

The only reason some smears may have stuck during the primaries was because he had an inadequate staff; was hit by the left and the right at the same time (this would not be the case during a General Election), and did not get the kind of coverage that he would get during a General election to always clear the air.

Please know that what did stick were issues that would be harmless in a General election....The "he's a Republican" would not have injured him then.....the "he's a lobbyist" would not have either against a Republican candidate. The "WWIII" would have highlighted that he really did win a war without Casualties. The "Waco" story was really not a story at all......and his "retirement" press was quite good at the time that the retirement occurred.

see:
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm
The following titled articles were written at the time that Clark was retired (and don't forget that he received the Congressional Medal of Freedom given to him by Clinton AFTER his retirement).
Outlook 8/9/99
-GEN. WESLEY CLARK WAS RIGHT -- AND SO HE MUST GO
-Levin Statement on Departure of General Wesley Clark
-Perspective on the Military: Why Wesley Clark Got the Ax at NATO
-U.S. Department of State, Daily Press Briefing Aug. 3, 1999
-Warrior's Rewards
-General Clark's Last Stand
-The Unappreciated General
-Clark's Exit Was Leaked Deliberately, Official Says
-President Clinton's "Distress"
-Washington's Long Knives
-Army Faces Reduced Leadership Role

You are talking about the most decorated General since Eisenhower....and I think that is something you forget. We are not talking about 40 years ago battle stories and 20 years worth of votes....we are talking about 4 time seriously wounded Rhodes Scholar 4 star general......you have to be an excellent officer and have gotten plenty of good written documented "words" about you in order to get where Wes Clark got. There are quotes from the likes of Colin Powell, Alexander Haig, and other prominent officers that negates anything that General Shelton (Edwards advisor) might have said (and later backtracked on).

The fact that Wes Clark won the only NATO war without any US Casualties cannot be "rewritten"....cause the recent facts are where all can see them. The fact that he did negotiate a succesful peace at Dayton for Bosnia cannot be seen as other than what it was.

Republicans, if they attempted to rewrite Clark history, would appear jealous and petty when Clark's campaign would compare Wes Clark's accomplishments in Defense next to what the Republicans have accomplished over the last few years.....the War we are currently fighting....which would be contrasted....if Kosovo would be raised as an issue.

So don't underestimate what a "good defense" could do and what an assertive offense could communicate. The fact that many of the alleged stories made up against Wes Clark are very recent (when compared to Kerry's) makes a "Tidy Bowl Vet" group with a differing account not likely.

The Republicans can do a "lot of things" against a candidate....the issue is how would it be handled? I just don't see Clark waiting around to see what would happen.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[sandnsea]

135. Actually, you prove my point

Your snide Tidy Bowl comments and attack on Kerry's campaign proves my point. As long as Democrats join in the attacks for whatever delusional reasons, Republicans win. There WOULD have been Democrats freaking out about something they said about Clark and it wouldn't have mattered what Clark did to counter it. So whatever it was, THAT would have been the controversy. Something you wouldn't even be able to see coming and something that would have created chaos in the Democratic Party as well. Democrats appear to be constitutionally incapable of staying on the same page, Republicans know it and play on it. So go ahead and stick to your story. One person, even Wes Clark, cannot change the nature of the chronic malcontents in this party.

[FrenchieCat]

149. My goodness.....

"Your snide Tidy Bowl comments and attack on Kerry's campaign"
I think that you are twisting my words. I don't believe that I was "snide" the least. I just called it like it happened.

Please point out the "Snideness" in the comment I made about the Kerry campaign. Please let me see the error of my way......

Further....hypothetical situations are just that...you can speculate, but it doesn't make it so.....

And of course, that goes both ways....so although I have rationally attempted to explain WHY I don't believe that Clark would have been torn down in reference to his experiences as a General (so I did use whole sentences and reasoning as to why I feel that way...didn't just make a statement and said There!)....it certainly wouldn't have to happen the way that I described it.

However, What happened to John Kerry's campaign, i.e., their reaction and ineffectiveness in handling the issue....did happen. There is no hypotheticals about it.

[sandnsea]

153. Yes of course

I have my own views of the SBVT, but I suspect it wouldn't have mattered what the campaign did. There were people ready to pounce on anything in order to justify some left-over lust with their own candidate. I don't care how much they did, half-hearted support with a secret desire to say "told ya' so", doesn't cut it. That DID HAPPEN, no hypotheticals about it. And it's still happening. Bush won by a smaller percentage than any 2nd term candidate in nearly 100 years. The biggest thing wrong with this campaign was the impression that Democrats didn't really want the guy, so why should anybody else. That came from the left and was played on by the right, so don't blame the campaign for it. If I could change one thing in this campaign, it wouldn't be the SBVT, it would be the Democrats who repeated right wing bullshit to the point casual voters didn't know what to think anymore. I can deal with the right, any of us can. But if we give their garbage credibility by discussing it, debating it, answering it, or show any fracturing because of it; we'll lose. You can think it wouldn't have happened to Clark if you want, but you're just wrong. Nobody, if they're honest with themselves, would have thought they'd attack Kerry's actual war service. They did, just like they did McCain and Cleland. You think Clark is so special he'd have avoided it? Nope. But the slander can't work without help from Democrats, that's what you still don't get. They'd have been there, they always are. Just like you're still here slamming Kerry now.

[FrenchieCat]

157. Touchy....but for no good reason....

Last post, I asked that you provide me with my "Snide" comment on Kerry...since you said I made one. So far, you haven't.

.....and now I am being accused of "like you're still here slamming Kerry now".

Please provide that too.

I understand you being upset for Kerry's loss, in particular on this ignoreguration day....but I think you are slinging your arrows off target, and it appears that I need to duck before another one hits me in the middle of my eye.

Thanks.

(Hate to be accused "just coz" you feel like it)

[sandnsea]

182. Hmmmm

Why should inauguration day be more upsetting to me than to you? I thought everybody was rooting for Kerry just as much as the next person. I thought everybody knew how important it was to change direction for the sake of the country and the world.

Again, your attitude proves my point. You can pretend it's not there if you want, but it isn't like I just fell into this site yesterday Frenchie.

[roguevalley]

141. given this argument, sandnsea, we can't run anyone ever and win.

we have to take the best man, in my opinion Clark, and kick their ass. Kerry didn't kick their ass. Look what happened.

[sandnsea]

152. The opposite

We can run damned near anybody and win, easier with some than others. IF we recognize that there's no magic bullet and that we have to truly work together. Which didn't happen this time. It was inch deep support and people smelled it miles away. It would have been the same with Clark because the left will always be the left and would have freaked out over the military background. There would have been the exact same factions and Rove would have figured out a way to play it. If we don't get that, than we don't get anything about this election.

[roguevalley]

139. If Kerry had rebutted stuff instead of sitting on it because a committee

of dimwits told him to, he might be president now. He let the pugs frame him and then waited too long and did too little to correct the view. That is what defeated Kerry.

[Skwmom]

180. Yes certain Dems do "keep deluding themselves."

The Kerry supporters still refuse to admit that some facts (yes facts) surrounding Kerry's war record (coupled with other candidate traits) made Kerry one heck of a lousy candidate.

Comparing Kerry's war record to Clark's WWIII situation (as you refer to it) is comparing apples to oranges and comparing Kerry to Clark is REALLY comparing apples to oranges.

Again, why in the heck do you thing the Republicans work so hard to manipulate our primary process? Just for the fun of it (because according to you they could easily defeat any Democratic candidate)?

[truebrit71]

15. Doesn't surprise me...

..and judging by the way the MSM started attacking him right out of the gate it seemed to be more than obvious that the lapdog media were doing their master's bidding with a vengance.

Clark '08

[bliss_eternal]

26. I believe it

I'm not surprised by this either.

I LOVED Wesley Clark, too. I was sad when he didn't make it after primaries...:(

Does anyone know if he is planning on running again in 2008?

[lookinforward]

28. Clark voted for Reagan, Michael Moore endorsed him

During the primaries the weaknesses that were easily found were:

Kerry: Swift Boat info was on the net well before SBVFT became public. Long Senate record was liability (Bad communicator)
Clark: Strong Clinton Ties (would mobilize anti-clinton repug base), Branch Davidian episode, Bosnia/Sarajevo (Bad communicator)
Dean: Anti war, Civil Unions for Gays (Great communicator)

Clark was the person that I thought had the best chance, in retrospect I think that Dean had the best chance and would have one. Actually I now think that either Dean or Clark would have won with practically any campaign manager other than Shrum. Kerry probably could have one too with a different campaign manager.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Sorry, but the attacks against Clark would not have stuck during the GE...

as they were all tried during the primaries....don't you remember?

Here's the Waco/Branch Davidian story which landed with a thud...for starters:
Clark had no role at Waco, ex-commander says
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-clark29.ht...

Commanding officer says Clark had no direct role in Waco siege
Washington-AP -- Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark is facing a flurry of questions over his role in the deadly 1993 siege in Waco, Texas.

His former commanding officer says the now-retired general had "no direct role" in the government's standoff with Branch Davidians -- and that the military didn't help plan it.
>snip
Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege.

Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's," Taylor said this week.

"Clark's totally innocent in this regardless of what anybody thinks about him," says Taylor, Clark's former commander. "He played no direct role in this activity nor did any of us."
http://www.detnews.com/2003/politics/0312/01/politics-3...


Wesley Clark and Waco Rumors are re-surfacing that Ret. General Wesley Clark played a direct or indirect role in the Waco disaster because his army division supplied some military equipment to the siege effort and his deputy attended a high-level meeting five days prior to the fiery end. Response has been swift that the allegations of his playing a role are not true: bq. Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege. Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's,"
>snip
Many are calling on Clark now to make a formal statement about the extent of his knowledge of the Government's plan and any authorization he made for equipment being sent from the First Cavalry. We have no problem with that--we'd like to know too. But we're predicting the answers will be a let-down for the far right
http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/004501.html

Glenn Reynolds on Clark and Waco: Nothing there
Glenn Reynolds isn't impressed with the attempt of some wing-nuts to implicate Wesley Clark in the Waco affair.
I seem to recall having criticized Glenn once or twice in the pastm, and my astrologer predicts I may do so again someday. But even though he and I often don't see things the same way, Glenn always calls 'em as he sees 'em. That's a virtue less common than it ought to be.
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/wesley_clark_/200...

For the past couple of months, I have followed several internet discussions about Wesley Clark's "involvement" in the Branch Davidian Standoff at Waco, but I have not seen it mentioned so prominently in a mainstream website until it appeared today in InstaPundit. I have not responded to the various conspiracy theories about General Clark's role because most seem to be generated by people with little or no contact with reality.
snip<
At the direction of the division's Chief of Staff, I later briefed the division's tank crews before they departed for Waco. My guidance to the crews was they could provide the FBI equipment (10 U.S.C. § 372), they could train the FBI on its use (10 U.S.C. § 373), and they could maintain the equipment (10 U.S.C. § 374). I told the crews, however, that under no circumstances could they operate the equipment in support of the FBI's Waco operation (10 U.S.C. § 375).

Incidentally, my office's written legal opinion and the slides used to brief the tank crews were turned over to Congress during its Waco investigations, to the Danforth Commission, and to the United States District Court that heard the Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuits arising out of Waco.

I would be happy to provide additional information, but I believe too much ink has already been spilled over what is truly a "non-issue." Of course, the normal disclaimer applies: nothing in this e-mail should be construed as an endorsement on behalf of or against General Clark.

Richard D. Rosen
Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired
Associate Dean for Administration & External Affairs
Texas Tech University School of Law
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012794.php

[lookinforward]

90. thanks for the great response

Appretiate the response:

I voted for Clark in the primaries. I believed (and still believe given a non Strum manager) that he would have won against Bush.

However, although the facts would have pointed against Waco involvement I believe Rove would have "spun" it the same way he did against Kerry (SBVFT) with the same kind of third party unaccountable attacks.

First two links not working, second two very informative.

Great comment on your part.

thanks.

[FrenchieCat]

103. You are welcome....

But I will add that AP had already discredited the story during the primaries. Once mainstream media has debunked a story like this, they can't just bring it back a few months later.

Sure with Kerry they brought up his service, but that had been 40 years ago....and unlike WACO, Kerry's story had never been questioned during the primaries. So I don't believe that Rove's spin would have made more than an hour's worth of TeeVee talk....unlike the 3 weeks afforded to the Tidy Bowl Vets that went after Kerry.

[BlueInRed]

29. I always thought Clark would have been a strong nominee

and I was rooting for him along with a couple of others

[The Gigmeister]

30. I believe that. And I believe Kerry was about tied with him.

I have no doubt that Clark and Kerry were the top two...Edwards a close second. Gephardt behind Edwards by quite a bit. All the rest, were disasters waiting to happen. Specifically Dean since he was the only one with a real shot at winning the primaries. And God help us if he had...It would have been a loss of Mondale proportions. But hey...All the Dem hating Greens and many on DU would have been happy!!

But of course they wanted Dean. Anyone with any sense knows that. Well, anyone who didn't drink the "The Repukes were afraid of him, so the media took Dean down" koolaid, that is.

[w4rma]

33. If he is still interested he can run in 2008. His support will still be

available for him to tap into.

[dolstein]

34. I suspect that was before he actually got into the race

Obviously, only an idiot or perhaps an incredibly deluded DU'er, would fail to recognize the potential threat post by a retired four star general from a Southern state, particularly in an election centered around national security issues.

But frankly, I suspect that the wave of panic passed pretty quickly once Wes Clark got into the race and, for reasons that still escape me, decided to associate himself with left-wingers like George McGovern and Michael Moore.

But sure, there's no question that they'd be more worried about Clark than they would about John Kerry, with his history as a war protestor, his lengthy senate voting record and his dreadful speaking style.

Aside from Clark, I suspect the only other person the Bush people were worred about was John Edwards.

[Cheswick2.0]

35. I have a friend who is related to a guy who works for Karl Rove

he said so many Karl said that they had no idea how to run against Dean. I think Karl Rove trumps your associate of Domenici.

[Clarkie1]

38. That's Rove at his best....it's called DISINFORMATION

Rove knew exactly how he'd run against Dean.

He'd label him as a pacifist, unstable, hot-tempered, naive man who did not take the war on terrorism seriously, or "misunderstood" it, or "had a faulty understanding of the nature of the threat," or who was "dangerous in his naiviety of the threats to America," or "too liberal for mainstream America" (because that's how he was perceived, and perception is everything in politics).

[lookinforward]

94. despite the limited report on Rove's comment on Dean before Iowa..

It now makes sense that Rove would have lost against Dean.

1) not a pacifist. (Unlike Kerry with phony Dove hunt, Dean has great NRA credentials) Dean supported war initially but become vocally anit-war later. While Kerry was a wishy washy kind of anti war later.

2) Questions about his temperment and how naive he was are demonstrably irrelevant next to strong and measured positions on issues.

3) The concept of Dean being to liberal for the mainstream were pushed by the Club for Growth and Grove Normquist and given the record and the public forum there is no doubt that Dean would have easily refuted this.

Check out the documentation here... http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0405,barrett,50745,1.html

check out here for my comentary... http://lookinforward.blogspot.com/2005/01/progressive-movement-and-democratic.html#comments

[Clarkie1]

95. Perception in politics is everthing n/t

[dolstein]

40. That's a load of bull

NT

[Cheswick2.0]

161. No it's not n/t

[Clark2008]

207. And my step-cousin's aunt former neighbor-in-law told ME

that this just sounds like a bunch of "he saids" to get to a point.

[AP]

36. That's about the way I see it too.

The viciousness of the attacks on Clark by the media in the first week after he announced pretty much prove they didn't want him. Had Clark been able to recover better and had he decided to contest Iowa, he might still have had a chance. But the media really took him down and, unfortunately, he didn't have the goods to come back. I think within 4 weeks of annoucing, the Republicans must have known that risk was gone.

Having said that, I should add that I still think Clark would have had the problem of working too much within the Republican cognitive framework -- he's a Democratic strict father who sees the world according to a Republican order of priorities, while differing with conservatives on some social and economic (tax) issues, which he doesn't priortize. (ie, he says national security is the most important thing, and I'm for gay rights too, but that's about tenth on my list of important issues).

I think it's really hard to argue how a Clark strategy would play out. Personally, I would rather run a Democrat who works within the Democratic cognitive framework and priortizes Democratic values. But I think that would be an excellent thing to settle at the primary level: do you want a strict father Democrat with liberal, lower-priority values, or do you want a nurturant father with the standard priority of Democratic values (which is what Clinton was)?

I also think that a lot of the problems that need to be solved require that the next president of the US be a president with a definite liberal order of priorities who works within the Democratic cognitive framework -- with the proper skepticism about the role of the corporation in American society, and who doesn't see American capitalism abroad as not being the equivalent of imperialism so long as it is not done behind the barrel of a rifle. I really want another FDR, I guess is what I'm saying, and not the Democratic equivalent of Eisenhower.

Incidentally, the Republicans OBVIOUSLY wanted Dean. I still can't believe Democrats aren't willing to accept that.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Come on AP....now,

you know you need to provide the examples when you are talking where Clarkies might hear....

Please provide examples for this statement of yours.....Clark would have had the problem of working too much within the Republican cognitive framework -- he's a Democratic strict father who sees the world according to a Republican order of priorities

Thank you.

[FrenchieCat]

42. oops...self delete

dupe response to AP post. Waiting for examples.....

Thank you again.

[AP]

45. The examples are in that Frame the Debate post...

...to which you replied to a while back. IIRC, I think I even cite the page numbers in Lakoffs book where he describes archetypal strict father and nurturant father characteristics.

I know Clark is liberal. But there's nothing more "strict father" than the military and Clark does argue that foreign policy and national security are the most important issues. And Lakoff does describe how it is not unusual for strict father politicians to also have nurturant father qualities (like Clark's positions on affirmative action, taxes, gay rights, etc.) but the key issue is prioritization.

And I don't think I need any more proof that Clark works within the strict father/national security is everything framework than simply pointing to posts by Clark supporters here. Just about every post in support of Clark argues that he was the best candidate because we're at war, and by the way, he's a liberal on the social issues.

I really think this is beyond debating and the only argument worth having is whether a democratic strict father (who is liberal on the secondary and tertiary issues) is the best candidate for 2008.

As you know (because I've said it over and over again) I am open to the possiblity that it is. I just want to have the debate over it before I decide.

So please think twice before you take this oportunity to say nasty shit to me.

Just try to persuade me with good arguments.

[Sparkly]

49. I've read Lakoff, and you've got a strange interpretation of it

Recognizing the importance of national security/foreign policy is NOT what the "strict father model" is, according to Lakoff. As with domestic policy, it's an extension of human relations (something Biden of all people just said today in fact) which can be of either model Lakoff describes -- not automatically one or the other.

Furthermore, I take issue with your assertion that "Just about every post in support of Clark argues that he was the best candidate because we're at war, and by the way, he's a liberal on the social issues." I think it's probably something said to *you* very often by Clark supporters because it's a contrast with your preferred candidate; but we express a range of reasons why we believe Clark is both a great candidate and a great human being.

[AP]

52. Almost a direct quote from that book

is that there is no institution which emphasizes and affirms a strict father value system more than the military, even though the military is very socialized.

Lakoff has about three pages explaining why. Did you miss that part? Also, as I said, in the frame the debate board there's a brief discussion on this. Frenchie can point the way to it.

As for your last paragraph, obviously I appreciate that there is a diverstiy of opinion on what Clark stands for. But seriously, it's GOOD that you can reduce the argument for a candidate down to a paragraph or sentence which captures the essence of what that candidate argues about the way the world works and about why that candidate is the best one for America. No candidate who has ever won an election cannot be reduced to that simple paragraph.

if you're saying there are just too many different ways to define clark, then, to me, you're arguing that Clark doesn't have a defined character and persona.

That's not true. Clark has a very defined persona. It's that sentence or paragraph defining his persona that people will take to the voting booth and contrast with other candidates, and it is why people will vote for or against him.

And I think it's just a fact that Clark's persona is the following: "Republicans have conducted foreign policy poorly. We need a better general who understands the proper role of the military. And incidentally, I'm a democrat on all the identity politics issues."

Read his book. Read his speach in DC a few weeks ago. This is the argument Clark makes about himself. It's how he organizes his speeches. I think if you're unwilling to acknowledge this they you're resisting the persona that Clark is trying to create for himself.

[Sparkly]

55. Huge leap of logic there

Even if Lakoff said the military is structured like a meatloaf, that doesn't make Clark a meatloaf. General Clark is not "The Military." He is NOT a "strict-father a la Republicans" and it's really a leap of logic to claim he is based on his career in the military.

And I disagree that there's a weakness in not being limited to ONE one-paragraph persona. That's exactly one of the beauties of Clark as a candidate -- he's like the proverbial elephant, where many different people can find real substance in whatever area they seek.

People who want someone who puts the country above any one party; people who want someone who's strong on national security; people who want someone who's liberal on social issues; people who want someone who's from humble roots and made his own way; people who want someone who's both worked with and stood up to the White House and the Pentagon; people who want someone who's an intellectual; people who want someone who can quote the Bible and speak of "faith, family, patriotism, and values;" people who want someone whose personal view on religion is complex and non-dogmatic; people who want someone who's a veteran... It's really amazing to have his combination of traits and experiences in one person and that IS his strength, imho...

As for his books and interviews: Yes, his career makes foreign policy his primary area of expertise, and there's nothing wrong with that, either. Other candidates aren't interviewed specifically as experts on other issues at all -- it's not a problem that they aren't, nor would it be a detraction if they were.

[AP]

56. It's definitely a debatable point.

Which I don't have time for at this precise moment. But I do think that people find him appealing because he comes from the military, and I think that that is even significant because Republicans have been quite successful convincing people that militarism is at the core of every issue important in politics today.

[FrenchieCat]

51. I wouldn't say "Nasty Shit" to you......AP.....

but I will say that this approach---------->I really think this is beyond debating does nothing for me.


Just about every post in support of Clark argues that he was the best candidate because we're at war, and by the way, he's a liberal on the social issues.
Which to me makes a lot of sense....
Out of all of the candidates, Clark is strong on National Security AND is a liberal on Social AND Economic issues....and we are at wartime. Why want a candidate that can only offer some and not all in order to win?

Clinton won during peacetime.....so using him as an example is not really appropo.

I ask, do you really think that the Rethuglicans are going to give up their "we can keep you safe" political Card anytime soon? They know what they have....and it will be hell on earth before you can dislodge that one from their talons. How will we do that...and if so, when?

[AP]

54. That we are at war is a cognitive framework that benefits Republicans...

...immensely.

I know that Bush I ended the Gulf War too soon to benefit from it. Nonetheless, Bush I did try to use Libya, and Hussein and the middle east to scare people (he probably wanted to strangle Reagan for setting the stage for the end of the cold war in 89/90).

This is why Clinton wrote "it's the economy stupid" on the wall in Little Rock.

Clinton isnsited on a different framework, which was very nurturant parent (I have to say that I find that term lame as hell, and I'm embarrased to use it, but it's Lakoff's so I feel compelled).

I don't think the Republicans will ever stop trying to use fear to win elections. But I also think that Democrats can do more good up and down the ticket and long into the future by trying to get people to think that Democratic values are more important.

That's what FDR did, and his successes lasted until about '72, and then took another 30 years to almost fully destroy.

[FrenchieCat]

59. I understand....but....

When Clinton was doing HIS thing....there was almost "Peace on Earth"....that is no longer remotely the case.....so saying this....

"This is why Clinton wrote "it's the economy stupid" on the wall in Little Rock.

Clinton insisted on a different framework,"

Does not really mean much anymore....We are no longer dealing with the world of 1992-2000.

[Sparkly]

60. You are applying the same decades-old stereotypes the GOP uses

to promote the very notion you're describing here: Republicans are strong when there's a war going on because they're strong on national security and defense, whereas Democrats are weaker when there's a war going on because they're all about domestic issues, loathe the military, and are peacenik hippies who placate the enemy or attempt to have sharing sessions with tyrants when force is required.

Those are stereotypes left over from the 1960's, and it's really long time to retire them. The reality is today's Republicans are NOT warriors, nor are they peacemakers; they are so incompetent with the real work of foreign policy that they misuse the military in an attempt to compensate for it, with disastrous results. Clinton's foreign policy was effective; his use of the military, whatever many may think of it, was far more measured and precise than this crowd; and today's Democrats who are veterans of Vietnam -- we have quite a few now -- know exactly what the stakes are. They are the warriors who will work for peace, and that's what we need to convince even 5% of voters to understand, rather than perpetuating the old stereotypes promoted by the GOP for thirty years.

[AP]

71. What I'm arguing is that Democrats win when voters believe

that the world works the way Democrats describe it.

And Republicans win when people think the world works the way they describe it.

I'm not saying that Democrats need to accept the Republicans' definition of what Democrats stand for. The opposite is true. Democrats need to say that they are not what the Republicans say they are. That's how Clark helps. Clark says Democrats are not weak on security.

However, I do think Democrats need to do a better job telling voters that the way Democrats see the world is right. The measure of America is not how we wage war. Our measure is how we express and pursue our core values about spreading wealth and opportunity down to the people and give everyone an opportunity to succeed, and about how we fight the tyranny of fascism (which includes the fact that we're vigilant of the tyranny of fascism brought by a multinational corporation, regardless of whether it is accompanied by a gun).

[Sparkly]

74. Which takes nothing away from the General

He doesn't believe "the measure of America is how we wage war," if that's what you're implying. Nor is this a man who's lived his life at the altar of the Almighty Dollar. He turned down opportunities to make money in the private sector for many, many years.

He espouses and embodies the Democratic vision of shared responsibility, mutual cooperation and empowerment, and equal opportunity. He not only says Democrats "are not weak on national security," he says security and strength are first and foremost about diplomacy -- dialogue, give and take, listening and understanding, persuading and pressuring, negotiating, investing, uplifting -- and that military force is a last resort when all diplomacy FAILS. That's hardly a "strict father" mentality. Quite the contrary.

So I guess you don't have any problem with him afterall.

[AP]

85. This debate is certainly contained entirely within the left half of...

...the political spectrum.

The problem is that when I think of what's going on in the world, I don't think the primary problem with America right now is that we need to protect ourselves from enemies outside the country.

I'm not saying this isn't a critical issue. It's just not the issue within which I frame all the problems in America. In fact, if pushed, I might say that America really had to go to extreme lengths NOT to defend itself from enemies abroad. But that's a different tin-foil-hat discussion.

I think the umbrella issue has to do with which direction wealth and power is flowing. Under Democrats it flows down to the people and outwards. Under Republicans it flows up to the top. Democrats' frame is practically defined 100% by the desire to see power flow down to the people. Republicans, on the other hand, use the fear of external threats as the excuse for not letting power and wealth flow down to the people.

Once you define the flow of power as the frame -- as FDR did -- then you have the antidote to fear, and you set the public on the course for a stronger democracy that isn't so easy for the RW'ers to topple.

I'm not so sure what will happen if the democrats run on the idea that, indeed, fear of external threats is the defining political issue. Where do you go from there? I just don't think people can develop the sort of Rooseveltian revolutionary consciousness that you need to withstand red scares and political assassinations and still keep America on a Democratic course for 50-70 years before it starts to weaken again.

(Can you tell that I want FDR to come back from the dead and save America?)

[AP]

89. Lakoff, p. 35:

"Strict Father morality assigns highest priorities to such things as moral strength (the self-control and self-discipline to stand up to external and internal evils), respect for and obedience to authority, the setting and following of strict guidelines and behavioral norms, and so on. Moral self-interest says that if everyone is free to pursue their self-interest, the overall self-interest of all will be maximized. In conservativism, the pursuit of self-interest is seen as a way of using self-discipline to achieve self-reliance."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=252x1013#1018

[Sparkly]

122. Yeah, and?

:shrug:

[MontecitoDem]

164. Disagree with your Lakoff conclusions

Lakoff says that in order to win elections we need to activate BOTH the strict father and the nurturant mother models in voters, and that is exactly what a candidate like Wesley Clark can (and did) do.

So I think you are wrong in arguing against Clark because of your conclusion that he fits the strict father archetype.

Finally, while I think Lakoff's ideas are interesting and helpful, they are not the be-all and end-all for progressives. "Re-framing" is one step, but by no means the answer, imo.

[AP]

177. Where does he say that?

That's not my impression of his argument.

My understanding is that Lakoff feels that people divide into categories: people who find the strict father appealing and people who find the nuturant father appealing. The Republicans are successful because they are able to make a very coherent argument about their vision of the world and of the policies they support by fitting into the strict father cognitive framework.

The Democrats however -- as I understand it -- are more appealing to people who find the nurturant father model as a better explanation of how the world workds, yet they don't spend time explaining to people the framework they believe in and neither do they try explain how the policies they support fit into the framework.

At the end of Moral Politics Lakoff actuall says that he believes the strict father framework is bunk -- that it doesn't work. He goes into research that proves that, for example, 'tough love' produces less well adjusted children. IIRC, he goes through 2 or 3 of the strict father policy positions and shows how wrong-headed they are. He also argues that survival of the fittest is a lie about how the world works.

There's a whole chapter on debunking strict father values.

He comes down pretty hard on the strict father value system, so I find it hard to believe that he argues somewhere else that the democrats need to embrace it (and that would also contradict what I thought he was arguing about how the Democrats need to do a better job of explaining the nurturing parent value system).

So, do you have a cite for that claim?

Anyway, I don't think Lakoff is the last word in Democratic strategy, but I do think he's come up with an interesting explanation for why Republicans believe what they believe and why Democrats believe what they believe, and why seeming contradications within the right and within the left aren't really contradictions,

[MontecitoDem]

179. You're right, I should have been more exact!

I should not have said he advocates using the strict-father frame! What I was referring to is where he talks about winning swing voters by co-opting the language of the other side's model. See page 21. (Also, in the dvd.)

He praises Clinton for it.

"You do that by talking to people using frames based on your worldview.

However, in doing that, you do not want to offend the people in the middle who have up to this point made the opposite choice. Since they also have and use both models in some part of their lives, they might still be persuaded to activate the opposite model of politics.

Clinton figured out how to handle this problem. He stole the other side's language. ... He did what he wanted to do, only he took their language and used their words to describe it. ... Very smart technique."

Then he goes on to talk about how the Repubs have done the same thing. ("healthy skies" etc.)

My ultimate point was that I believe Clark appealed to both swing voters and (some) liberals because he saw things in the nurturant parent model, but his outward persona and language still made sense to people in the middle. That was the pro. The con was that some liberals didn't see past that outward persona so they couldn't accept him as a "democrat."

Sorry I did such a poor job with my first post there!! Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

[AP]

187. p. 21 of Moral Politics is about John Rawls and theoretical liberalism

Do you have another citation?

My general impression is not that Lakoff does not care what people think. What he cares about is how people articulate their policies and their world view, and what he thinks is that Republicans win because they're able to superimpose their policies and their views on a cognitive framework that a lot of people are predisposed to believe (strict father value system), while the Democrats don't do the same thing with the the value system they believe in (nurutrant parent value system).

I don't see how Democrats do better when they argue that the world works the way Republicans say it works.

Lakoff gives examples of Clinton fitting his policies within the nurturant parent framework (and he gives examples of Gore NOT doing that during the campaign).

If there is some place where you think Lakoff says that Democrats just need to think like nurturant parents but make their policies sound like RW policies (by using the language of the right) I'd love to read it, because this is a point I have a lot of questions about myself.

[MontecitoDem]

199. I'm quoting Lakoff from pg 21 of "Don't Think Like an Elephant"

[AP]

205. It's still not clear to me...

...how that supports your argument, and I suspect what's in the ellipses in the third paragraph of your quote might help me understand.

I think there's a huge difference between using the other side's frame, and using the other side's Orwellian language back on them.

What were the terms that Clinton borrowed from the right to describe what he was doing? I can't imagine them rising to the level where Clinton was actually using a strict father moral value system as his organzing principle.

By the way, every time I write this, I feel like I have to add that maybe it is true that the only way to fight fear is to pick someone to run who says, OK, I'm your ideal leader in a fearful situation, but I'm a Democrat.

Maybe that's the best strategy. But right now I feel that the best strategy for democray is to find someone who almost totally embraces HOPE and OPTIMISM, and then convince people that that mood is much more productive for America and actually makes us stronger and safer. This was essentially the argument FDR made that took us through a very serious battle against fascism and brought us out of it with a great foundation for safety and prosperity.

Or maybe there's a better average of HOPE and dealing with FEAR -- someone with military experience, but who doesn't prioritize military service, and who is an incredibly strong symbol of standing up for the working man and woman.

I think that's what Kerry was supposed to be, but it didn't work out because it was hard to convince people that he understood the plight of the working man, and because the debate was too much about whether military service was the measure of a man (which, I suspect, didn't enter the debate when other Dems with military experience ran, like Kennedy and Carter and McGovern).

But Kerry did get pretty close. So, who knows?

[AP]

188. Maybe this is what you're thinking of:

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/orwellian/view

This is an argument about how the right uses Orwellian terminology when they know that a majority of the population doesn't agree with them and that the facts are strongly against them. It uses environmental policy as its example.

The article doesn't say that the Democrats have equivalent weaknesses that they need to cloak in their own Orwellian terminology.

It says this:

Progressives can use the Right’s Orwellian weaknesses to our advantage. We can focus the public’s attention on it by highlighting the discrepancies between what the radical Right says and what it does. Do not hesitate to rename their Orwellian legislation. For example:

* Do not call it the “Clear Skies initiative.” Call it the “Dirty Skies initiative.”
* Do not call it “Healthy Forests.” Call it “No Tree Left Behind.”
* Do not call it “Compassionate Conservatism.” Call it “Callous Conservatism".

I admit that Democrats are perceived by fewer Americans as strong on defense, but I think the solution is to argue why Democratic principles make Americans safer, and the solution it is to keep the focus on Democratic prioritization of values. This is basically what FDR did in his 4 elections. I'm not sure the solution is to concede that the Republican priorities are correct.

Here's more of what they say over at the Rockridge Institute about appealing to swing voters:

Our goal is to activate the progressive model in the non-aligned voters. Activation is done through language—by using a consistent language that reflects and activates progressive values. ....

Conservatives have already figured this out. What they have learned about winning elections is that they have to activate the Strict Father model in more than half of the electorate. Fear is a good way to trigger the strict father model, making it active in our minds, because fear reinforces the basic ideas that the world is a dangerous place and that strict discipline is therefore needed for safety.

...


Hope is the opposite of fear. Speaking of hope, optimism and a positive vision for the future triggers the Nurturant Parent model in our minds. This works because optimism and hope reinforce the idea that the world is basically good, and can be made better. Hope is therefore an essential theme for progressives.

There is one exception to this discussion, and that is the use of Orwellian language. ...

Fallacy: Progressives can gain more voters by moving to the Right.

There is a myth that voters are lined up in a left-to-right line, and that to gain the support of swing voters, you must move to the center. When progressives move to the right, they lose in two ways, setting up a self-defeating double-whammy:

1) Moving to the right alienates your progressive base.

2) It actually helps conservatives because it activates their model in swing voters.

Notice that conservatives do not gain more voters by moving to the Left. What they do is stick to their strict ideology to activate their model in swing voters by being clear and consistent in policies and messages framed in terms of conservative values.

Moral: Voters are not on a left-to-right line. Stick with your ideals, frame what you believe effectively, and say what you believe. Say it well, strongly, and with moral conviction.

Essentially, the argument is to stick to a progressive value system and articulate everything within that value system -- ie, convince people that your value system and priorities are the right values and priorities. So, my anxiety about Clark is that he tellls swing voters that the Republicans' model of the world (it's a frightening place and we need a good military strategist to run it) is the right model.

I see two problems with this: (1) even if it worked for the presidential race, it would certainly result in the defeat of scores of Democrats down ticket who aren't like Clark, and (2) I'm not convinced that it would even work at the top of the ticket.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/swingvoters/view

[MontecitoDem]

200. Hi AP. Here's another stab at this with you,

I quoted you word for word from Lakoff. pg 21 of "Don't Think like an Elephant." He talks about activating the swing voters, and how masterful Clinton was at that, while maintaining the nurturant ideas. I believe most of Lakoff's theory is about ideas - not just language.

I think the confusion is that you have decided Clark is a strict father type, which I disagree with. What I said is that he has the outward persona that appeals to folks with the strict father type, but that the policies he articulates fall within the nurturant model. He talks about protection and responsibility. He talks about the 2 most important things being our responsibility to protect the Constitution and the environment for our great-grandchildren and the future - that is clearly the nurturant model. He never sent the message of "be afraid" or that the world is a frightening place. He talked about the primacy of diplomacy in world relations and international cooperation. He talked about education, protecting the social safety net, supporting veterans, children, the disabled, etc.

I don't believe we should move to the right. I don't believe Clark IS a move to the right. I think your view of Clark is where we are disagreeing, and how you see Lakoff's theories applying to his candidacy.

[AP]

203. I think Frenchie is one of the best spokespeople for Clark.

I believe that if everyone thought like Frenchie, Clark would win the Democratic primaries. What Frenchie says over and over again is that the world is a dangerous place, that it isn't 92-00 anymore, and that we need someone like Clark to lead us in a world this dangerous.

Furthermore, if you look at Clark's speech in DC recently or take a look at his book, "Waging Modern War," Clark clearly sees the world in those terms (or, he clearly wants people to understand that this is his framework for understanding the world) -- he frames all his speeches, his books according to a set of priorities that puts defending America from external threats first.

I do not dispute for one second that Clark is progressive on a very very broad range of issues (and clearly to the left of Dean on many of the issues I find important -- like taxes, and Keynsian economics). However, I still think that the point made in those Rockridge Inst quotes I have above is worth considering: when you concede that the world is a frightening place, you are telling swing voters that the way the Republicans see the world is the right framework for understanding reality.

I think it is the pure 100% appeal to hope over fear (which guided FDR to 4 victories at a point in American history when there was a serious threat that fascists inside and outside of America could have destroyed democracy) is the path to victory. And winning that way isn't a pyrrhic victory -- it's not just hanging on by your fingernails in a world dominated by conservatives. Winning 100% on hope and optimism will win races up and down the ticket, and will change the mood in America so that people stop thinking the way they're thinking today (which is basically, who cares if the middle class is disappearing so long as we're alive).

I could totally be wrong about this, but I really feel that it's true.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

202. true

[Clarkie1]

44. first question: How did you become an expert on Clark's parenting style?

"You know, it's not really about me; it's about all of you."

-Wes Clark

[AP]

46. See the last two sentences of post 45.

[Clarkie1]

47. I see you know nothing about Clark's position on liberal issues

Michael Moore said Clark was more liberal than Dean. The evidence supports that statement.

Please give specific examples of where a candidate for gay rights, against the confederate flag and all it stands for (and stood up IN THE SOUTH ON MLK DAY AND SAID IT), pro-affirmative action (he actual wrote court brief in support), has a plan to make the first two years of college free for most students, believes in science and the reality of global warming, and with a more liberal progressive tax plan than Kerry's is liberal "only on secondary and tertiary issues."

Also, define Democratic strict father, a congnitive structure you seem to have invented within the cognitive structure of your own mind.

"The two most important things we will leave our children are the intergrity of our natural environment and our constitutional environment" - Wes Clark (That's CLARK'S cognitive structure!)

[AP]

50. I agree. Clark is more liberal than Dean.

Dean didn't believe in deficit spending in times of trouble and didn't think the middle class was overburdned by a tax code that shifted wealth off of the wealthy and on to people who worked for a lving.

Furthemore, Dean had an argument about race that made my head hurt.

If you read my post, I said that Clark was very liberal, but what Clark did was say that the world was indeed a very scarry place and the solution is a better general. That's how conservatives thinks of the world, for the most part. It may win a Democrat an electioin (which I'm not convinced of just yet, notwithtanding the OP here), but even if it did, I'm not sure it would be conducive to winning democrats up and down the ticket their races, and I'm not sure it would be helpful long term to get people to stop thinking in terms of the Republican cognitive framework.

And if you want to understand what I mean by "strict father," read Lakoff's moral politics. I didn't invent the term. It's Lakoff's. His book is about 800 pages long, so I'm not going to repeat it. But it's mostly very self-explanatory. In fact, if you thought about the term for five minutes, you'd probably get about 75% of what you would if you read the book.

[Texas_Kat]

65. What Clark REALLY said was...

the world was indeed a very scary place and the solution is a better STRATEGY.

Not all generals are strategists (neither are all politicians).

Clark has an abiding and fearless ability to speak truth to power. He used that ability to champion causes within the Pentagon that were not 'popular' . If he is at all 'strict' anything, it is a strict committment to his principles.

If you've done any personality profiling, I think you'll find that Clark is an ENTJ

http://www.personalitypage.com/ENTJ.html

[AP]

72. I think that's almost exactly the point I was trying to make.

[Texas_Kat]

97. Your response sort of illustrates the problem with your argument..

You can't project your own pre and mis-conceptions about persons in 'the military' based on some pop psychology and a book you read once.

I also think Wes Jr. would beg to differ with you about your assessment of his Dad.

Oh, wait.... I think he's responded to you in the past... hasn't he....

BTW......

ENTJs ..." are wonderful parental figures. They are remembered fondly and valued by their children for challenging them at every turn, and thus promoting growth and development. This type of knowledge seeking usually becomes a life-long habit for their children, who turn into responsible and independent adults. "

[AP]

108. Hmm.

Lakoff's Moral Politics is about cognitive science. Your ENTJ reference sounds more like pop-psychology.

And it's actually Wes Clark Jr's posts -- directed at me, incidentally -- that really made me think of Clark Sr as a strict father.

Lakoff says, "Moral self-interest says that if everyone is free to pursue their self-interest, the overall self-interest of all will be maximized."

In my exchange with Jr, this was basically his argument about his father's post-military activities.

Lakoff also writes, "Strict Father morality assigns highest priorities to such things as moral strength (the self-control and self-discipline to stand up to external and internal evils)." That reminds me a little of the way supporters like Clark Jr argue about his father. Often, there is anger at a reporter or another politician for doing some action which is considered defamatory of WC's character, and the argument is that WC is of very high moral character while the detractor is of very low moral character.

I know this might sound like, "yeah?" and "so what?" like it's the obvious framework for what happens in relation to Clark -- ie, supporters think, "but he IS more moral, and he has more character!" Meanwhile, people who don't get Clark think, "I don't care about moral strenght against external threats, I just care about whether this guy understands what's going on to me in my life."

I think these differences are significant and I think they explain why some Democrats just don't get Clark.

Read the copious postings from Dean supporters who don't get Clark and I think you'll see that their anxieties relate to the fact that they don't look at the world the same way people who like Clark look at the world. And the two sides just don't understand each other.

If you don't see the world as a dangerous place where America is beset on all sides by external threats and if you don't see that America is in need of a strong, moral leader whose number one task is to defend us from those threats, then you might not see what Clark supporters find so compelling about Clark.

And if you're a Clark supporter who doesn't see the world as a place where fewer and fewer increasingly wealthy and powerful people (many of whom are Americans) are doing everything they can to get more and more powerful, regardless of the instabilities it creates, and regardless of the cost to democracy, and regardless of the destruction it causes to the middle class, then you might not understand why others don't find Clark so compelling.

[Texas_Kat]

120. Actually, I see both perspectives...

the world is more dangerous because the 'people in power' only see the world in terms of 'what's in it for them', not what's in it for the good of the nation and the American people. This includes the many current Democrats 'pros' who are more interested in their careers and their next gig than they are in believing that they are doing good for the country.

Perhaps Clark supporters are more idealistic than others. For the most part, Clark people see the need for a real leader that's up to the challenge to truly lead reform the 'hearts and minds' of America.

Don't get me wrong, Clark supporters are some of the most talented, hard-headed, 'prove-it-to-me' people around. The journey to become a Clark supporter was never easy nor automatic. If you think that the Draft was something concocted by mysterious others or that he didn't really get into the race as a call to 'duty, honor and country' then you've missed the whole basis of his character and the character of the Clark people.

In conversations in the past, it seems that your focus is on financial inequalities in America. There's nothing wrong with that, but Clark people see it in broader terms. NOT ONLY are there financial inequalities that need to be resolved, but there are inequalities of opportunity, education, race, etc. Financial inequalities are a only symptom of the problem.

Above all, there exists in this country a void where altrusim should be. (Call it selfishness, call it a lack of patriotism, call it whatever term appeals to you). The 'Me and Mine First' attitude that has 'greed is good' as it's first commandment has no place in a Clark supporter's heart.

Clark speaks to the idealism in us, but in a '"take no prisoners, beat the "Clark-word" out of them kind of way.

Clark people are not content with 'doing things the way they've always been done'. Those of us from the Draft movement looked at the field of candidates and decided to choose 'none of the above'. So we went and recruited somebody who matched our ideals.

If you think that was easy, try it. Find someone whose philosophy and character matches your ideal, create an organization with several hundred thousand members and then talk someone who's area of expertise is NOT politics into giving up their lives to run for office. Go ahead, try it.

My best advice to you would be to increase your expectations and broaden your perspective. Don't settle for the narrow "wealthy people are doing everything they can to get more and more powerful" argument.

That's only one small part of what needs fixing. Expect more. We did. We haven't been disappointed.

Wes Clark has met and exceed our expectations at every turn.

"Courage, Character, Leadership"

[AP]

126. "You don't see the bigger picture."

Hmmm. I'll think about it. But I really don't think that really explains the diffferences.

[Jai4WKC08]

128. Interesting discussion, but a few points

First off, I haven't read Lakoff's book yet, but I plan to. I've been hearing a lot about it lately, and not just on DU. Hot topic in several of the Clark groups, and mostly favorable comments.

Secondly...

AP writes, "And if you're a Clark supporter who doesn't see the world as a place where fewer and fewer increasingly wealthy and powerful people (many of whom are Americans) are doing everything they can to get more and more powerful, regardless of the instabilities it creates, and regardless of the cost to democracy, and regardless of the destruction it causes to the middle class, then you might not understand why others don't find Clark so compelling.

Ironically, Clark himself has said that he sees the world this way. His comments along these lines don't get much play in a media that thinks he's a one-trick pony. And you can blame it on how he prioritized his campaign, but I would submit that was more because 1) he perceived that the voters are more concerned with external threats and that ultimately that's what the general election would be about (altho I think he recognized the "morals" issues before anyone else did too, but that's another argument), and 2) it was the one issue that most starkly separated him from the other candidates.

Frenchie probably has more than a few choice quotes as her fingertips, but I know I've heard Clark say, on numerous occassions, that more than the mistakes in Iraq, more than Bush's failure to fight terrorism effectively and over the long term, and even more than the abuse of the soldiers he loves so well, he really got into the race because he fears the destruction of the American Dream, our system of democracy, and opportunity for the middle class and working poor.

And finally...

Like I said, I haven't read Lakoff, so I don't know where he comes from as far as the military goes, but I spent 21 years there and many many hours in leadership training, on both the receiving and giving ends. And while the stereotype of the military leader might fit the "strict father" construct Lakoff proposes, I can assure you that real military leaders do not all fit that model. And none of the good ones do completely or all the time. In fact, the military itself tries to teach that there are different leadership methods, for different leaders and different situations. Some are more authoritarian, some are more collaborative, most fall somewhere in between, and the best can adapt their "style" as the need arises.

But in any case, I can assure you that Wes Clark was never the stereotypical military leader. He's a guy who listens to people, who realizes that real strength comes from the bottom up, and that if you don't take care of the people all along the way, you don't get the mission done. As a more senior commander, when he tended to be more authoritarian it was with immediate subordinates who were not paying attention to what was going on further down the chain. For that he has been labelled a micro-manager by some, but from what I've seen it was more that he stayed attuned to the lives and concerns of all the people under his command, both operationally and personally.

And fwiw, from what I've seen of the relationship between Wes Jr and his dad, you couldn't be more wrong about that "strict father" business. Aside from the specific stories I've heard and the instances of their interaction I've seen that belie that idea, the guy grew up to be a writer for gosh sakes. If I can resort to a different stereotype, most creative people I've known were not raised by authoritarian parents.

[BlueInRed]

48. I'm inclined to disagree

on both the Clark and Dean issues. My reason is based on the evolution of the MSM coverage, which the Republicans pretty much control.

Mainly, we all know the Republicans can get out virtually any message they want to in the MSM. And I feel Rove and the Republicans always work their MSM message very strategicaly. Strategically, they take out the people they are most afraid of by giving them horrible coverage in the Democratic primaries. Once the primaries are pretty much over, they then viciously attack the apparent nominee.

If the Republicans really wanted Dean, IMO they would have laid off him till he nailed down the primaries and THEN attacked him mercilessly. If they wanted Dean, we wouldn't have seen the Dean scream played over and over until AFTER the primaries were settled.

But, that seems to be more what they did with Kerry. Kerry was initially getting reasonably positive coverage in the primaries, then the second he seemed to have it locked up, the MSM coverage of him took on a new tone. So, based on the way the MSM coverage evolved, I think the Republicans really wanted Kerry to run against.

[Clarkie1]

53. You may be right n/t

[RafterMan]

81. I think you overestimate your ability to choose

"cognitive frameworks". 9/11 really did set off an international crisis, Bush's actions really did deepen it. Changing frameworks doesn't mean you can just miracle away real problems.

The "strict father" stuff is inane psychobabble.

[AP]

86. Have you read Moral Politics?

I thought a lot of it was pretty obvious.

But it was still interesting.

[sybil]

121. "Democratic cognitive framework " ?

:shrug:

[Skittles]

43. gee YA THINK???????????

it still irks me that Kerry was a done deal WAY before the voting even headed my way

[Laura PourMeADrink]

57. I did and do agree totally. Too bad he missed Iowa...

[Donna Zen]

58. Something strange:

True, I never saw Dean as a liberal which is why I took a long look at him. Reading his talking points, I figured "okay" a moderate Dem. might be the key. Then I listened to what the MSM was saying: liberal--radical--on and on. Of course I knew it wasn't true, but I also know that once the meme is sown it takes a great deal of effort to remove the dirt from the minds of the general public.

The strange thing is that Clark is/was more liberal than Dean. But to this very day, the MSM refers to him as a "moderate" Democrat. Weird isn't it? And that is the story line and that is as far as it goes. I love it! A stealth liberal.

Bad press: For Clark is was either bad press or no press. I don't think that this was all Rove's doing, some of that shit happened because of the "stars" within the DNC.

Would he have won? Well, a couple of stories: A born-again absolute wingnut told me she would vote for Clark. I said, "I should tell you that he is pro-choice." She said, "Oh, I've crossed the street before and I don't like this war." She refused to vote for Kerry. Also, my gun-nut friends would vote for Clark--not Kerry. Why I asked and explained that Clark had the same position on guns as Kerry. Yeah, they responded, but a General would never take our guns away. One more. Friends from Alabama visiting this summer--very, very, born-again, would have voted for Clark. Why? Because he is only one that makes sense.

I think what I have discovered is that while we who post on these forums may actually pay close attention to policy issues, the voting public for the most part, votes by perseptions. We only need a majority, we don't need 100% of the vote. When I would study the electoral maps, I could see combinations of how various candidates could win, what I couldn't see was how bush could beat Clark. It would have been an uphill battle for the republicans.

Too rosy a scenario? Maybe since I knew that they would try to hit him hard, but there is something about the way the General mixes that "down home" speak with those Rhodes Scholar credentials that makes the message easy to understand and smile about. And there is something in his persona that is both filled with humility and steel. He is ultimately very likable, very secure in who he is, and he is not a politician. Yes, he was Karl Rove's worst nightmare.

[FrenchieCat]

63. Yes.....the Rethug's worst nightmare is right.....

Wes was called that many times......

http://www.baywindows.com/news/2004/01/15/Opinion/Guest.Opinionthis.Loser.Has.Had.Enough-581377.shtml
The candidate who has the best chance of beating George Bush and of mitigating a potential electoral disaster is General Wesley Clark. A Rhodes scholar, first in his class at West Point, an economist and successful military administrator - not one American or NATO soldier was killed during the Kosovo campaign - Clark appeals to the broadest base of support drawing votes from Independents and Republicans and from men equally well as from women, from Southerners as well as Northerners and Westerners. In every head-to-head poll, Clark fares best against Bush. In the most recent CNN poll, Bush beats Dean by 20 points! The same poll shows only a six point spread between Bush and Clark.

Clark neutralizes critical issues where Democrats have often been vulnerable - but not culpable - such as defense and national security. Since Vietnam the Democratic party has often been deeply ambivalent about the military. We must restore credibility on this issue to be competitive. The Republicans have been very successful impugning the patriotism of Democratic candidates. Think McGovern, Dukakis and the bearded Bill Clinton. But even the machiavellian Mr. Rove will have a very hard time turning a four-times wounded winner of the Silver Star into a weenie. As one who has seen real combat, unlike George Bush, General Clark believes that force should only be used as a last resort. A real-life hero and intellect, Wesley Clark is Karl Rove's worst nightmare.

http://www.easttennessean.com/news/2004/02/09/News/Clark.Touts.Nato.Experience.Status.As.washington.Outsider-600837.shtml

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/12/10_clark.html
Why Wesley Clark?
December 10, 2003
By Mickey Isikoff

http://www.dailygusto.com/news/july/wesley-clark-072803.html
Wesley Clark is
Karl Rove's
worst nightmare

http://www.comedyzine.com/tirade341.html
George W. Bush's worst nightmare is General Wesley Clark as the Democratic presidential nominee. He knows it, the Republican Party knows it, the Democratic Party knows it and Bob Dole knows it.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003782.html
Hope is a powerful force.
Clark is Karl Rove's worst nightmare.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8904
But most Democrats will, no doubt, quickly realize that he has one thing going for him that none of the other candidates have -- he's George Bush's worst nightmare.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

83. kick

[roguevalley]

144. Clark appealed across the spectrum. Even people with their

delusions felt he was for them even when his statements didn't make it. This man was a general and appealed to all that sort, even the nuts because he gave strength. And he appealed to liberals because of his positions and others because of his education. I don't know ANYONE I talked to on all sides of the spectrum that didn't find him compelling and would have taken a hard look if they hadn't already decided he was the one.

[deadparrot]

61. I'm excited about Clark. If he decides to run in '08, I'll gladly

be the first in line to work for him.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

201. So will I!

[KoKo]

62. I didn't support Clark....but I think what your friend said was true...

There were few ways they could go after Clark's record like they did Kerry's. But they would have found it...But, I had other differences with Clark.

In the end, there was NO DEM CANDIDATE we could have "Run" that would have defeated Bush, though. They are "Authoritarianists" and the "Lie."

Given that, and corrupted voting machines...there was no one we Dems could have run who could have won. It's sad... but I think it's true.

They would have trashed and undermined and programmed the voting machines to thwart any Dem Candidate. And the "Main Stream Media" was cheerleading them 24/7.

We didn't have the "fire power," to do it...we have to find it..and be like them..."taking NO PRISONERS." sadly. :-(

[Skwmom]

70. If that was the case, they wouldn't have worked overtime

manipulating the primary process.

[dansolo]

64. Anyone who claims that they feared Lieberman

Is completely full of shit. I wouldn't believe a thing this person says.

[Quixote1818]

99. They feared Lieberman because he was strong on National Defense

and a lot of people in the middle who were leaning against Bush might have voted for Lieberman but not someone like Kerry. Lieberman came across as strong on National Defense but did not have the baggage Bush had. He seems like a strange little guy but he was in a pretty good position to win in a National Election. Just listen to Right Wing Radio. Lieberman is the only Democrat they like. He is kind of like the John McCain of the left.

Lieberman's problem would have been getting the base out but I think they were energized enough to get Bush out. Lieberman would have been a strong National candidate even though we all don't care for him. Would I have voted for him over Bush? HELL YES! Think about it.

[dansolo]

140. Lieberman would have been an embarrassment

The Reason that the Right Wing liked Lieberman was because they knew that he was absolutely no threat to them. Lieberman was even worse than Kerry in basically approving everything Bush has done. And do you really think that the "security moms" would look to Joe Lieberman as the person who could protect them from the nasty terrorists? You are deluding yourself.

[Quixote1818]

158. If security Mom's feel protected by a cheerleader then yes,

I think Lieberman would have been fine with them mostly because he was talking tough from the start. All you have to do is talk tough, you don't have to look tough.

[Donna Zen]

66. Note: This bill was introduced by a republican

Committee votes to move up Arkansas presidential primary elections

1/19/05

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- A bill designed to give Arkansas more pull in presidential politics cleared a House committee on Wednesday. The bill by Rep. Jeremy Hutchinson, R-Little Rock, would require parties to hold primaries or caucuses in February at their own expense.

Proponents say the measure would give the state more say in selecting presidential nominees. Backers point out that the state missed out on voting for Arkansan Wesley Clark last year because the Arkansas primary was in May, after Clark dropped out.

House committee hearing on the bill on Wednesday became heated when Democratic Party Chairman Ron Oliver said he opposed the bill and preferred to have state-funded primaries in February rather than a complex caucus system. Democratic committee members faulted Oliver for not informing them earlier of his opposition to the bill and not doing more to inform members of his own party about his stance.

http://www.ky3.com/newsdetailed.asp?id=7413

Good for Arkansas!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Both parties courted Clark knowing his liberal politics. Why did the republicans court Arnold and Powell? Because in the end, people vote on perceptions. And don't give the "Mean Machine" absolute power; they can be defeated.

[MrSlayer]

67. Clark would have won, I have no doubt.

He's the only one who knows how to talk to the "Red" voters. My father, who is a die-hard Republican, would have voted for him in a second. It didn't even take much to convince him, I just had him watch a few speeches. He even would have voted for Kerry if Clark was the VP. Once he picked Edwards it was over. Clark would be a tremendous President.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

82. Clark is a gifted intellect and a speaker to the common man.

He would have crushed the GOP!

[NYCGirl]

68. Wasn't Dean the only one the Repubs ran an ad against

while still in the primaries? Remember the "Club for Growth" ad?

[JPJones]

76. And didn't those ads work? n/t

[NYCGirl]

77. Not by themselves. But they helped.

And if Dean weren't a threat, the GOP wouldn't have paid good money to run those ads.

[JPJones]

75. I figured as much when both O'Reilly and Hannity

before the Iowa cock-us, said, "Kerry is your man. The last person you want is Clark."

[Schema Thing]

78. Funny, this was my first time ever being involved in politics

... and I pretty much knew this.

Democrats simply did not do their research until it was time to vote, and then they went with, not research deep into the character of the men and women on the ballot, but rather, with their gut. Said gut having been informed by news puff pieces and republican shills. Democrats are alot like Republicans in that respect.

[FrenchieCat]

131. Yes....

That is a big problem that Democrats hate to admit...that no matter how "us" activists know which way is up, most Democrats are almost as much of Sheeples as are the Rethuglicans.

[Quixote1818]

189. Same here!

I got on board with Clark after being a Dean supporter because it was clear Clark was the right combo to beat Bush. Then the more I got to know Clark the more I realized how much he exceeded my expectations.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

79. LOOK AT MY AVATAR!!! I knew this all along!!!

Wesley Clark 2008!!!

Clark will CRUSH anyone the GOP throws at him!

[leesa]

84. Nah! Dean was the one they feared. That's why they got rid of him via

their trained media.

Clark would do a war for oil and that's all that really counts.

[fujiyama]

88. WTF?

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Clark would "do a war for oil"?

[MrSlayer]

93. Really? What gives you that idea?

I'd love to hear your reasons for this statement.

[ClarkUSA]

98. What baloney, leesa

You said: "Clark would do a war for oil and that's all that really counts."

RICHARD PERLE said:

"<Clark> seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies... ÊSo I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

~ Richard Perle, Iraq war-mongerer, before congress Sept. 26, 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------
Read this before you spout off again:

"My Enron experience has brought home to me just how important the tone at the top is. <Clark has> integrity, he's not going to mislead the American people and he has a longterm vision. I think Wes Clark is just the person to help rebuild and restore the damage that has been done by the way we bullied our way into the war."

~ Sherron Watkins, Enron whistle-blower, Time Person Of The Year 2002

[robbedvoter]

110. Richard Perle disagrees with ya. After Clark's congress testimony

he said:

"So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPrepared...
Maybe you'd trust Wellstone more


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."
Paul Wellstone- antiwar speech in senate 2002
www.wellstoneaction.org

[Califooyah Operative]

91. clark is going to give kerry a run for his money in the primaries......

and clinton and whoever else ends up being in this, thing, he's not my top pick, but i know his potential, and i respect him.

[progressiveright]

92. Clark

It may be just a personal impression, but I've seen freepers bash Clark on the point of being a republican who went democratic for political reasons, it did scare left wing some, but it also set Clark up to attract independent and moderates if he was the candidate, even though he held many liberal positions, because in politics perception is everything.

He did strike me as inexperienced in politics, I am talking about stuff like confirming his own positions on war with his advisors while giving interview on the airplane.

[Quixote1818]

100. Yes he was green but Kerry made the same kind of mistakes later on

If Kerry could come so close to beating Bush making those kinds of mistakes Clark very well might have won. Rural voters loved him and conservative Democrats who voted for Bush by a 8 to 1 margin in parts of Florida probably would have been attracted to Clark.

[progressiveright]

101. i think kerry was getting too old

same thing that makes many old drivers the worst.
You get tired easily, don't have the same inspiration and energy, can't make decisions fast enough, make mistakes you should not be making. Same thing that's happening with Bush basically on much worse scale, except that he is surrounded by incredible PR team that made him live the Truman Life. If Clark was green than Kerry was overexperienced.

[Jai4WKC08]

114. What do you mean?

Which is a polite way of saying WTF?!!

No, really, I do want to know what you mean.

"...confirming his own positions on war with his advisors while giving interview on the airplane."

His position was always that invading Iraq was a mistake. Even on that airplane interview, he only said he understood why Kerry and Gephardt voted the way they did, with the information they were given, that if he'd been IN THEIR POSITION he "probably" would have done the same. He then went on to say, in the same interview, and before his "advisors" interceded, that they were wrong. Nagourney is the one who wrote it up to sound like he was changing his position, but he never did and if you read the article, it's quite clear.

I'll grant that Clark was inexperienced, but only in not recognizing who would be out to get him and how they would go about it. And he had to learn to talk in soundbites, which is hard for a guy who thinks and speaks in complex sentences, and who knows that complex problems require complex solutions.

Of course, more "experienced" (and less honest) politicians wouldn't have spoken as openly to the media at all, but Clark has this idea that democratic government and its leaders should be transparent. Fortunately, he still believes that, even if he's a little more wary of how some will use it against him.

[progressiveright]

181. i don't remember the exact story

except that i read it in some newspaper articles, about clark giving interview about his war positions on the airplane, and then having to yell for his consultants to figure out the right answers to some specific questions. May be I got something wrong or they got something wrong, but i do remember the story. Things like that do great political damage.

[Jai4WKC08]

194. Yep, that was it

An article by Adam Nagourney in the NYT. No friend to any Democrat. And you're right, it did great political damage, mostly because Lieberman tore into the story big-time, and the rest of the media played and replayed it. And because relatively few read the original. Like you, they just heard the fall-out.

That's not a slam on you--none of us can read everything that's printed. We do well to follow the people or issues that really matter to us. But it gives enormous power to a corporate media that consolidates and regurgiates and makes the call on what is news and what isn't. So we all succumb to their manipulation to some extent. And we ALL live with the consequences.

But in this particular case, it was sound-bite journalism with a political agenda. One remark taken out of context and turned into the headline. If you read the whole article, it was pretty clear where Clark stood and that he was talking about how Kerry and Gephardt voted on the IWR. Nagourney even wrote the conversation out of sequence to leave precisely the impression he wanted. And like you said, it didn't help that when Clark realized he was in trouble, THEN he called for his press secretary and not before. But he had specifically said "Dean was right" about opposing the IWR, and that was before Mary Jacobs interceded.

A more experienced pol might not have made the mistake of responding to what was essentially a hypothetical situation (altho they all seem to get caught on that at some point--it must be pretty hard to avoid) and I doubt any of them would have put themselves in the position of that sort of interview in the first place. Jacobs has taken some hits for letting it happen, bur from what I hear, Clark is the one who had insisted on a completely open relationship with the media, because he believes in that sort of transparency.

Still, it's a damn shame that our candidates, and elected officials, can't afford to be caught alone with a reporter or to speak frankly with them without every word screened by a professional public relations specialist. If there were a different standard of behavior, maybe we wouldn't end up with a pResident who can get away with being totally shielded from any real interaction with the media.

[Dr Fate]

96. Clark 2008 n/t

n/t

[Used and Abused]

104. Feared Lieberman?

Umm... no thanks. I think your friend was leading you on or something.

[Quixote1818]

116. Lieberman was actually a good general election candidate.

It makes sense if you think about it. I don't care for him but a lot of people in the middle who were leaning against Bush might have voted for Lieberman but not someone like Kerry. Lieberman came across as strong on National Defense but did not have the baggage Bush had. He seems like a strange little guy but he was in a pretty good position to win in a National Election. Just listen to Right Wing Radio. Lieberman is the only Democrat they like. He is kind of like the John McCain of the left.

Lieberman's problem would have been getting the base out but I think they were energized enough to get Bush out. Lieberman would have been a strong National candidate even though we all don't care for him. Would I have voted for him over Bush? HELL YES! Think about it.

[Carolab]

106. Because Dean spoke out against the war but wasn't military, he was dissed.

Since a lot of people in this stupid country bought the terror and Hussein lies, they would have still been looking for a "military type". Most people in this country are too stupid to have appreciated that what Dean said about the war, Hussein and the fake terror alerts was all true from the start. They needed a "daddy" because of the trumped-up war. And Wes comes across as a nice guy--articulate too.

[Quixote1818]

117. Dean going skiing during Nam would have killed him

Rove would have ran with that and Painted Dean out to be a weak, wimpy liberal snob. Clark was the ONLY candidate who was against the war from the beginning who would not have to deal with an image of being wimpy and anti Military.

[Larkspur]

111. Iraq War was the most immoral war since Vietname, Repukes feared

Howard Dean because he made the Iraq War a moral issue. Even Karl Rove admitted to Bob Woodward that Bush's Achilles heel was the Iraq war and Dean turned it into a moral issue that would have been tough for Bush to overcome.

Clark is an inexpierence civilian politician. Dean had experience battling Repukes during his last reelection bid as Gov. of VT. Rove would have run rings all over Clark, just like he did Kerry.

[Jai4WKC08]

118. That's an ironic statement

"Clark is an inexpierence civilian politician. Dean had experience battling Repukes during his last reelection bid as Gov. of VT. Rove would have run rings all over Clark, just like he did Kerry."

Let me get this straight... Unlike with Dean, because of his experience, Rove would have run all over Clark, because of his inexperience... just like he did with Kerry? Who had how many years of experience? And pretty damn tough Repub competition in his last reelection.

How absurd.

Rove would have gone after Dean or Clark, just like he did Kerry. There's nothing anyone can do to stop that.

But Dean and Clark are fighters. Neither one would have taken it, not for a minute. I'm not a Dean fan, but even I can see that. Kerry was too cautious, too deliberative, and hired senior advisors who wouldn't go on the offense until it was too late. Experience has nothing to do with it.

[Eurobabe]

115. Many crossovers

Alot of Repub leaning people I knew were psyched about Clark.

Clark '08 baby!

[ThorsHammer]

119. I would have liked a Clark/Kerry ticket

IMO, Clark/Richardson would have worked well too. I agree that Clark got pushed out way too early. Personally (no offense to Edwards), I think Clark would have added a lot more to the ticket than Edwards. He had much more national security experience, and is also older (many people thought Edwards was too young).

[NewYorkerfromMass]

125. Indeed, the Kerry Cheney debate would have been worth it alone

at which time, Cheney would have to say: "Thank you for the kind words about my daughter Mary"

[digno dave]

124. Dems in New Hampshire were fools not to vote for him

[jswordy]

132. Yeah, and PIGS CAN FLY, too

"sharp, articulate, good looking war hero general"

That ALL is in the eye of the beholder, believe me.

The awful truth...

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

And Donnie Fowler said bye-bye after 3 just weeks!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-10-07-clark_x.htm

[digno dave]

134. old, refuted news

I'd rather have an "arrogant" genius than an arrogant twit running the country.
If you think anyone who runs for President isn't arrogant you're nuts.

[jswordy]

136. Right...foil hats, just believe what you want to believe, it's cool.

But he'll never make it to the Oval Office. I suppose you'd refute all the news stories, from Donnie Fowler to the rest, that can be found if one simply Googles Wesley Clark and reads about his campaign and who he is?

Jam that foil hat down tight, now! LOL

[jswordy]

137. How can you endorse a man who said...

"I would have been a Republican, if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

(Source: NEWSWEEK)

[jswordy]

138. When will Wesley Clark stop telling tall tales?

Clark Never Called Karl (but he said he did!) This is too good, right here.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/152tuawi.asp

I know, I know, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!!!"

Heheheheheh.

[roguevalley]

146. Good grief. ANd I suppose we can believe anything Rove says

or puts out there. Clark 2008. Period.

[FrenchieCat]

154. Child, calm down.....

Whenever one must pull out a Weekly Standard article to make a point of attack against a Democrat.....might as well just throw in the towel.

Whiff? What's that smell? desperation?

[Texas_Kat]

160. Maybe some of these people don't know the difference..

between right wing rags and other publications.

I'm not being sarcastic, maybe they just don't have a clue.

We could make a list for them:

Quoting These Periodicals Will Get You Laughed At

Washington Times
Weekly Standard

....

ecetera, ecetera and so forth

Edited for clarity

[killbotfactory]

142. I heard it was Lieberman

They were worried his invincible charisma.

[Sopianae]

143. LOL!

I needed this laugh. Thanks!

[jswordy]

145. No according to Wes Clark, as told...

...to two reporters at a social gathering held right after he withdrew, he was asked to run by Bill Clinton and the DLC in order to blunt Dean's anti-war momentum. Both reporters confirmed that, though Clark later claimed the quote was made under conditions of being off the record. Others have corroberated a close link with Clark and the DLC, including Terry McAuliffe.

Both reporters said no off the record request was made, nor was such a promise made.

Geez, folks need to read more widely.

It is these kinds of "loose lips" things, along with his ambiguity as far as political alignment, that give me pause about Clark. Then add in a certain roughness and unpolishedness that is almost an intangible, along with a famously thin skin (even his supporters and friends say that) and you have the makings of defeat of landslide proportions.

You know, the next race will indeed be wide open, and that could benefit the Democrats. But it also opens the possibility of a landslide defeat of the Democratic prez candidate. That is something the party needs to contemplate, as well. Protect the downside.

Could I live with Clark as a VP? Yes, that would be fine. In fact, I thought the best veep match had Dean been the nom would have been Wes Clark.

Now the reactionaries will lurch to their next stop -- Oh, he's a Dean supporter. Yes, I am, but I realistically do not think Dr. Dean will get the '08 nod. So my man is out of the race in my mind.

To be truthful, I think the '08 nom will be someone who is totally off the radar scope now, a dark horse except for maybe some party operatives who see a rising talent.

[Leilani]

147. No need to identify yourself as a Dean Supporter

I could tell by your style.

And since you're new here, you're not bringing us any crap we haven't had shoved at us since the primaries.

Try something new & original.

[Adelante]

150. Some of these aren't even new

Never mind original. They've crept back, maybe. I think so. They've crawled out of the cave they've been hiding in since Skinner banned them, because they miss smearing Wes Clark. Isn't it the cutest thing, Leilani?

[Leilani]

151. Yeah, adorable, WesDem

Crawled out of the cave?

Reminds me more of roaches scurrying out of the cracks.

Eeeek! Turn on the lights!

[madfloridian]

156. Ah, in your own words.....thanks.

QUOTE:Never mind original. They've crept back, maybe. I think so. They've crawled out of the cave they've been hiding in since Skinner banned them, because they miss smearing Wes Clark. Isn't it the cutest thing, Leilani? "

Your words, not mine.

[Adelante]

159. My words, you are welcome

:)

[FrenchieCat]

155. My goodness!!!!

All according to....what? no links?

I would like to see the link from this s-t-o-r-y.

Thanks!

[Leilani]

162. Links, Frenchie?

They don't want discussion, & back & forth debate.

They just want to spew hatred & vitriol.

Almost every disproven smear against Wes Clark has been posted in these 2 threads, & they love it.

[Adelante]

165. And how easy it would be

To break out our old primary files and smear Dean, but do we? No. Yet how tempting it becomes with each thread. So many of us are backing Dean for DNC chair, but as times goes on, we may become too angry. Is this what they want? Is it what is behind all the hatred and vitriol from those with this pitiful Clark obsession? It makes no sense to me whatsoever. I don't get it at all. It's self-defeating to insult and offend allies. Well, we'll see what tonight brings.

[FrenchieCat]

167. Naw.....

some are just plain ol' Jell-Ous!

[Adelante]

169. Well, that, yeah

But why do they want to fight the primaries all over again, especially at a time when Clarkies are so supportive? It's very odd.

[digno dave]

204. He was unpolished, and that was the only thing that gave me pause

about him running as our nominee. He was, however, no more unpolished than Body Bag was when he ran in 2000. Of course it helps if you have the $$$ of a major political party and the news media behind you. If he had entered earlier in the race he would have had more time to get the kinks out.
And friends of mine are personal friends of a lady who held a high position in the Clark campaign(she also rights for an online mag) so i know i little bit about how his campaign was run, warts and all.

[Cheswick2.0]

163. I have a great aunt Ethel who is friends with Arlen Spectors

2nd Brother in law once removed. She told me that Dean was the one republicans really feared.

[FrenchieCat]

166. You mean Auntie Ethel?

Sh*t, that's my aunt too. Damn, could this mean we are related...by like 3 or 4 degrees of separation?

Funny, she told me the exact opposite. Somebody needs to tell her to keep her stories straight.

[Cheswick2.0]

168. nah...she told me she always goofs on you

because you are such an easy target and she gets a big lick out of getting you going.

[FrenchieCat]

171. Well, I 'm just going to have to call her on this.....

cause she told me the same thing about you. She said that she loves to tell you tall tales cause you have a tendency to believe them without the need for any evidence.

Maybe I'll get her going by telling her that you told me that she needed to shave her mustache.

You are going to be in deep doo-doo...

No need to thank me though! It will be my pleasure! LOL!

[Leilani]

170. Frenchie, No!

I have it on good advice that you could not possibly come from the same gene pool.

Trust me!

[FrenchieCat]

172. It's ok Leilani,

it's a relation by marriage only...and I think that the marriage ended shortly after the honeymoon....plus no kids.

Sometimes people just make bad choices. Guess that's why the Fundies aren't going to try and outlaw divorce, at least. Thank God!

[Larkspur]

197. Wow! What a small world this is!

Gee, I have an aunt Ethel too! Or is that aunt Ethanol? Names sound the same.

Well, she heard that the 2008 ticket will be Gore/Dean 2008!!!!

[0007]

173. I agree!

[ChiciB1]

174. Not Really Buying This Much....

I still feel the election was a FRAUD, and that Kerry didn't lose!

Add the fact is that the REPUKES would have done what they always do to any candidate, pick an issue and beat it to death. After all, Clark was REALLY close with the Clinton's! Use your imagination!

[FrenchieCat]

175. But Clinton didn't endorse Clark....

nor did Hillary....and they both campaigned for Kerry...so I don't know what imagination I should use to get to your point. Can you help me with this please?

[Sparkly]

185. "Use your imagination"

I guess that's better than dealing in facts, huh? :eyes:

[lancdem]

176. Makes sense to me

It was no secret they would go after Kerry's voting record. That's why senators have trouble getting elected. If they haven't been in that long, like Edwards, it's not as big a deal. Clark came in as a candidate so late and had no experience running for office, he was a longshot from day one. He should be much more competitive in 2008 if he chooses to run.

[sabra]

186. I agree! n/t

Look out for Clark in 08...

[Quixote1818]

191. Especially since Iowa is the first state because he does really well

with rural voters and if he had competed in Iowa the first time we might currently have a President Wesley Clark. He would have come out of Iowa with momentum like Kerry did only I think they would have gone for Clark no Kerry. Think about it, they chose Kerry because of his National Security and military experience. Had they had Clark to chose from I think it would have been a differnet story. Look how well Clark did in Oklahoma which is not far from Iowa.

[Sparkly]

192. Also, Arkansas is working toward moving their primary to early February

which would be great for Clark if he decides to run again!

[fryguy]

178. Kerry/Clark ticket and we'd celebrating now.....

hands down.....talk about missed opportunity

[Quixote1818]

190. Yes, even putting Clark as VP would have made a difference.

Did the Democrats forget we were and are at war? Talk about the time to put a General on the ticket. Edwards was likable but didn't add anything the ticket needed especially after the swift boat crap. Clark could have gone after the swifties hard and people would have believed him.

[Az_lefty]

193. Yep, I've been thinking the same thing.

[Cheswick2.0]

195. My Uncle Herby's right testicle always aches when

republicans are talking about the political opposition candidate they really fear. Every time republicans mention Howard Dean my poor uncle Herby is in agony for days.

[janx]

196. Now THAT means something!

;-)

[Cheswick2.0]

198. I think it does

:hi: