Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gen. Clark says Obama started the MUDSLINGING!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:33 AM
Original message
Gen. Clark says Obama started the MUDSLINGING!
Gen. Clark says Obama started it all

By The Hill Staff

December 06, 2007

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a 2004 presidential candidate who is now a supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), said Clintons rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), is to blame for the recent volley of barbs between the candidates.

I was at the debate in Philadelphia, Clark said in a Wednesday conference call with reporters organized by the Clinton campaign. Thats where it really started, and I think it started with Barack advertising that he was going to go on the offensive and start attacking.

Clark said that October night in Philadelphia was when the tone of the campaign started to change.

I think it is clear who started the attacks and why, Clark said.

The four-star general was in Iowa campaigning for Clinton as the campaign rolled out a new ad featuring Clark speaking directly to the camera.

In the ad, Clark says: I see that Hillarys opponents have started attacking her. Thats politics. What this country needs is leadership.

Ive known Hillary Clinton for 24 years, Clark says. I know she has what it takes to end the war in Iraq, avert war with Iran, and restore our countrys standing in the world.

Clark also said on the phone that it was a mistake for him to not compete in the Iowa caucuses during his bid in 2004. He withdrew from the race in February 2004.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/2008-and-counting-g...

Wes Clark on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWUpWfBMslM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yawn. Clark backs someone who would hire Colin Powell. 'Nuff said. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. vs. someone who already has taken foreign policy advice from Powell. nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
48. lol nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
82. Exactly which is worse?
Listening to the guy or saying you'd let him represent this country and your administration? There's no question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #82
88. It's far worse to take his advice
Than to let him represent you to the world. A world which largely still has great respect for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #88
103. You can't be serious
You actually think it's worse to just listen to him than to give him a job representing you? Try to remove yourself from the politics of it and think about it for a second. That's just not logical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #103
105. Dead serious
Maybe not just listening, but I specifically said advising him. And one would assume that if he's asking for advice, he's at least considering taking it.

Or are you suggesting that he's just listening with no intention of taking Powell seriously? Think about what that means.

But sending Powell out to meet with foreign heads of state? What's wrong with that? The other nations like him. It's not like he'd have authority to do anything on his own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #105
109. You can listen and make judgements about its validity
Are you saying your candidate would only listen to people who agree with her? That sounds like Bush. Good leaders listen to varying points of view, weight the evidence, and come to their own conclusion. If Powell is peddling BS like at the UN, Obama can ignore it. If it's solid information based, Obama can then take it on board.

That's different from sending him out to the world to do damage. He would be representing this country, so he would be have the authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #109
142. On what would Obama base his judgment?
He doesn't have the information to know whether Powell is peddling BS or not. He either has to trust to Powell's integrity or not -- that's where the judgment comes in.

The fact is, Obama sought Powell's advice. That implies more than just listening to differing opinions. Either that, oR it was just dropping a name to impress voters, maybe fishing for an endorsement.

But you have no idea what authority Powell would be given (since as someone has pointed out, it hasn't happened). It makes perfect sense to take advantage of his connections and the good will he enjoys in many parts of the world, while keeping him on a short leash. Powell would actually be ideal for the part. He never really did anything bad on his own. His only failing was a willingness to go along with what he probably knew to be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #103
137. we're discussing something Obama has DONE vs. something Hillary has NOT done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. Third time you've stepped in it...since yesterday.. unusual..
a sabbatical may do you some good.. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
38. I haven't stepped in anything, my friend. We obviously have
differing opinions; I can't help it if you're being had. How's that wool feel over your eyes? :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. Only because he's black and in the military
Her feeble attempt to secure the black vote and look strong on defense just makes her look silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
21. No. In the video he says he's supports her because she's "the right choice for America"
Didn't you watch the video? Just click on the link in the OP in case you missed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #21
39. No, I missed the video. So sorry. But I don't have to watch it to
know I don't agree with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
58. I like Edwards..he's more my
style but I do not want that fookin' backstabbin', lyin', bush enablin' hillary to be our candidate..and for some reason Wesley Clark does.

Now they've got Clark out whining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #58
64. Clark whining?
Edwards wrote the book on that subject. Edwards isn't fit to tie Clark's combat boots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. Maybe he doesn't want to..
as long as you're bringing up "combat boots".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #66
90. Edwards would run away from combat boots to be sure
The draft was over when he hit 18, but not the war. He could have fought in Vietnam.

But Edwards doesn't mind sending other people to wear them. Sure, he's "apologized" for his IWR vote now, but he was just fine with it long after it became clear there were no WMD. And he's been plenty belligerent against Iran when he's talking to Israelis or AIPAC.

Edwards is no pacifist, that's for sure. More like a chickenhawk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guruoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #64
91. Sure got that right. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hayu_lol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
63. And Kucinch would have 'hired' Ron Paul...
oh well, we all know all candidates are politicians--don't we?

oh yeah, one more point: Colin Powell, as a GOOD-NEIGHBOR ambassador and not the ambassador to any other country, might do some good.

To clean his record a bit, Colin might really work to do a good job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. No disrespect, but Gen. Clark isn't a disinterested party in all of this. ....
A respectable guy, but very tied to HRC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. but, regardless, he is correct. How often does a candidate ADVERTISE hes's going to attack?
Obama did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. C'mon marmar... you know what his job will be if Hillary is the Nom..
Who would you trust more than Gen Clark getting our troops home safe and sound besides him ?..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
53. obviously
the OP links to an an featuring him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
3. Clark is endorsing Hillary's vote for the Iraq War Resolution by virtue of his support
The Clintons probably called General Clark and told him that it was time for him to submit his endorsement of the next Clinton.

emphasis on "submit"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. yeah, see post #11
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
89. Huh?
That's absurd.

I suppose he was endorsing Kerry's vote for the IWR as well?

It's really as simple as it sounds. Clark looked at the candidate(s) he thinks have a serious shot at the nomination and he's throwing his weight behind the one he thinks is most qualified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
4. Obama used the RNC talking points of the Clintons having a "20 year plan." nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
7. I'm glad he's "mudslinging." Enough of the "new politics" "bring us all together" bullshit.
Let our people fight it out. We're going to need a fighter to go up against the Republicans in the general election.

And I'm sure Hillary can give as good as she gets.

Let the games begin!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. Look who is standing behind Hillary..already
see any losers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #14
41. I'm not quite sure I understand your question. All Americans have been
losers since 2000. Two stolen presidential elections take their toll. And since nothing has been done to correct the electoral process, we may very well be headed for our third straight stolen election.

After all, as the corporate talking heads will point out, "America wasn't ready for a woman," "America wasn't ready for an African American," or whatever, blah, blah, blah. Those who count the votes rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
8. We'll always have the 2004 campaign, Wes...BYE!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Don't forget to ck out Gen Clark's video link..
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
10. Nah, Nah, na Nah, Nah. Obama started it.
Glad Clark is elevating the level of discourse. What a putz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. Any good warrior knows, you always know the facts before you fight back..
I commend him for having the good sense to make it clear "who" is doing the mud slinging!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #17
43. Oh come on
This is playground stuff. Both Hillary and Clark...what a disappointment.

If this is supposed to improve her support in Iowa it's clearly backfiring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #43
60. But Obama and Edwards are above all that, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #60
95. It is simple - men can sling mud but women may not - PERIOD n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
16. Philadelphia is where the current round started, that's true
I disagree with General Clark in that I believe the "naive" meme is what introduced the negativity between Clinton and Obama, or that's when I first noticed it. But Clark is campaigning for Clinton, so I don't begrudge him his point of view.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
18. Does he or she know what it takes to end a playground scuffle?
Peace in Iraq is no problem, though, right?

Maybe she got dragged into the mud pit, maybe they were both headed there anyways. Doesn't matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
19. General Clark knows what he is talking about..right on target!!!...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
20. Hey!
That's what I've been saying too. Yea Wes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. At the tail end of Gen Clark's video.. a surprise!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Wow, what a gracious speech Susan Lynch gave for Hill.
NH look out, lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #24
52. That was a very nice endorsement for Hillary
thanks for the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
22. Thank you for posting that link in your OP of the video showing Clark endorsing Hillary!
When Wes Clark talks, people listen. :smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #22
81. now he's
one toke over the line, sweet mtnsnake, one toke over the line...
standing downtown at the dlc station one toke over the line...

waiting for the train to DC and sweet hillary hopinthat the train is on time...
standing downtown at the railway station one toke over the lineeee!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
23. Good plan. Don't put Hillary in her TV ads. Use Wes Clark instead. He's more credible.
I guess if Hillary's campaign had a choice between running an ad with their candidate in it or running an ad with Wes Clark in it, then it's a no-brainer.

You never know, some folks might vote for Hillary in the hope that Wes Clark might get offered the VP slot or some other senior Cabinet post.

The only problem is that Hillary would first have to win the nomination, then the election.

Who knows - if she stays out of sight and hides behind the General - it might just work? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. Open your eyes. Hillary is right there in the video talking to Clark near the end of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. The fact of the matter is...Gen Clark wouldn't endorse her if he felt she wasn't the one!
And I guess, it's a no-brainer, if Wes Clark insisted on running an ad to set the record straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. Maybe it's personal loyalty going back to Arkansas days?
Maybe Wes has been secretly promised a key role in her administration - if she wins the Whitehouse?

Maybe Hillary called Wes and asked him if he would be kind enough to make this ad for her?

I think all the campaigns understand the importance of the Iowa caucuses.

I don't blame Hillary's campaign for giving it their best shot.

Clearly, Wes Clark is their best shot, in more ways than one! ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
94. And maybe he just thinks she'll be the best president?
Why do people refuse to entertain the idea that an endorsement is just what it is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #23
128. Welcome to America!
You are correct, I have no doubt that Hillary will choose Wes Clark for VP or a cabinet post! Also, I have no doubt she will win!

Hill and Bill, the "DYNAMIC DUO" because we need 2 president's to clean-up the Bush mess!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #128
130. Hey there
Good to see you back :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. Thanks......
but not for long.......it's the fricking holidays............I've got enough stress......and it's getting awful darn hot in here.....geez....oh well....it will all be over soon.............................
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
25. aww jeez.
This is the logic my nephew uses. He's six.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Baloney,
it's important to get the facts right about how this all started ----> John Edwards, Barack Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Was anyone claiming otherwise? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. So your six year old nephew
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 10:28 AM by seasonedblue
can come to a logical conclusion about who started a political mudfest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. You didnt answer my question.
And Im pretty sure you knew what I meant by my post. He justifies his actions with "but someone else started it". Isnt that what the Clinton camp is doing now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #37
44. Wes is setting the record straight,
Obama and Edwards did start it, and Clinton's fighting back. The primaries are always dirty, but when John Edwards puts on a sunshine face now, it's a little hypocritical and when Obama suddenly acts holier than thou, he's also hypocrtical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #44
55. You'll get no argument from me on those points.
I think all three of them have found some mud puddles along their respective high roads. As expected.
But all the petty finger-pointing lately is driving me nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #55
61. Same here,
I can't wait until this damned primary is finished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #61
70. It cant be over soon enough for me either blue.
It'll be so much nicer when Dems are all on the same side again. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. Yes it will
back at ya :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
32. "she has what it takes to end the war in Iraq, avert war with Iran,"
Ive known Hillary Clinton for 24 years, Clark says. I know she has what it takes to end the war in Iraq, avert war with Iran, and restore our countrys standing in the world.
Wes Clark - always the smartest guy in the room.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Wes Clark
ALWAYS the smartest guy in the room!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. agreed..
and way too smart to ever endorse the fraudulent duo Obama or Edwards..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juajen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. yep, the smartest guy in the room, and
Hillary is the smartest woman. Great combo! Lots of brains fighting for Hill, i.e., Wes, Bill, Hill, Madeline, and the list goes on and on. Our country will be safer in their hands than in anyone else's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #36
67. Ahh, Madeline, the woman that said killing half a million Iraqi children was "worth it".
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 11:49 AM by Pawel K
Great team you have there, congratulations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #32
129. Amen to that......hey where are all the Clarkies??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
40. I always respected Wes but lately that respect is fading
I dont understand how someone who has spend the last few years doing nothing but trying to aviod a war with Iran could support someone that pretty much shares the same position on Iran as Bush. It baffles me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #40
49. Your assumption is flawed
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 11:07 AM by Texas_Kat
"the same position on Iran as Bush".

All Democrats share the same position on Iran -- negotiation and talks. HC knows what it takes to actually accomplish something. I'd put Biden, Richardson and Dodd in a similar category. They actually have enough experience to know what a negotiation process requires.

Clark has negotiated peace before. I'll take his advice about valuing experience over rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #49
59. No, my assumption is correct.
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 11:35 AM by Pawel K
Not all democrats voted for kyl/Lieberman. Dodd and Biden certainly didn't vote for it.

So no, your assumption is flawed, they do not all share the same position. This is why I can't understand why Wes would support a candidate that was in favor of labeling the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization and that we should fight these terrorists at all costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #59
62. Obama and Edwards also label the IRG
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 11:48 AM by seasonedblue
as a terrorist organization. Dodd and Biden disagree?

On edit: Joe Wilson knows better than anyone how Bush distorts facts for his own benefit, and yet he put out this statement about the IRW and Clintons Kyl-Lieberman vote:

Last week, Hillary voted to support a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. As a former diplomat, I have had considerable experience in the use of such resolutions to bring pressure diplomatic pressure to bear on a regime to rein in rogue elements. And make no mistake about it, the Guards are not only in operational control of Iran's policy toward Iraq and Afghanistan, where Iranian supplied munitions are costing American lives; they are agents of reaction and repression inside Iran. While it is a fact that the Bush administration's duplicity should give all Americans pause, we cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that we have real enemies in the world, and that we must be prepared to exercise the appropriate levers of power in support of our interests.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26340


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #62
65. Can you point me to where they say that?
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 11:48 AM by Pawel K
It wouldn't surpise me that they would as these assholes have rolled over on virtually everything. They will take any position that they think will win them political points. But I would like to see for myself what they said. But regardless the fact remains that Clinton is the only one that voted for kyl/lieberman which pretty much took the position that the senate is okay with military action being taken against Iran's proxies, Biden and Dodd voted against it so they put themselves on record of where they stand (in stark conrast to Clinton). There is absolutely no excuse for giving that kind of justification to a president that is mentally fucked up, a president that has used justification like that already to launch an illegal war especially when you know there are neocon elements in this administration that are craving a war, Cheney and his staff in perticular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #65
71. Here ya go:
Edwards was the most hawkish of the three:

Since September, and as White House hints of military action against Iran intensify, the Edwards campaign has changed a key passage in its website's discussion of Iran.

As of September 7, the passage read:

Irans Revolutionary Guard will soon be deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S. As president, Edwards will ensure that such steps are not just more rhetoric, but actually lead to results.

The passage now reads:

Congress recently passed a bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. We saw in Iraq where such steps by Congress can lead President Bush. Edwards has announced his opposition to this bill.


NOTE: The Edwards campaign, reportedly alone among the presidential campaigns, blocks other websites from caching or archiving its data, which prevents observers from checking on whether details have been changed. The earlier version of the foreign policy platform, however, was also posted on the blog TalkLeft, which is what I link above.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/A_change_on...


EDWARDS AND IRAN....Here is John Edwards two weeks ago, speaking about Iran to the Herzliya Conference in Israel:

Edwards: Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran.....To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate ALL options must remain on the table....

Question: ....Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran?....Secondly, you as grassroots person, who has an understanding of the American people, is there understanding of this threat across US?

Edwards: ....As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table....As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.

Italics mine. And I'm left wondering: I don't think the American people have any real problem with economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure against Iran. So just what is it that Edwards thinks they need to be educated about? Military action.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20...

BTW, the article above goes on to show how he modified his speech for different audiences.

Obama sponsored legislation in April designating the IRG a terrorist organization. Ill find it and post if youd like.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. Thanks for the links.
Outside of Kucinich that still leaves Dodds and Biden that are on record as being against this. I'm curious as to where Richardson stands but to be honest I really dont care as I am not going to support him in the primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #75
96. Actually, Dodd co-sponsored Obama's Bill
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 03:02 PM by Texas_Kat
back in March to declare the IRG a terrorist organization due to their nuclear ambitions. That just leaves Biden.... and Kucinich.... and Gravel (don't know what he says).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #96
101. Sorry to ask you this again
do you have a link to that resolution? I tried to search for it but the only one I could find was Obama's and Dodd's resolution that said Bush needs congressional approval before attacking Iran but that resolution was in November. I'm curious as to what the resolution that you talk about says and which democrats voted for/against it. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #101
119. ah, Thomas is hard to link to.... I'll find the link again for you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #101
121. Here you go
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 07:41 PM by Texas_Kat
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00970 :

(there is a colon ":" at the end of the url that won't stay on here at DU. Add it into the address in your address bar.

The language that was left in the K/L amendment matched (S.970) co-sponsored by Senators Obama and Dodd in March of 2007 (Iran Counter Proliferation Act of 2007) and 66 other Senators:

Kyl Lieberman amendment (S.AMDT 3017):

"... the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224."


S.970 (Obama and Dodd's bill):

(8) The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).


Other than a difference in the use of capital letters and the fact that the Obama/Dodd language was more gramatically correct
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #121
124. Thank you, I appreciate it.
That bill does state the following which I think is very important and shows some judgement on their part:

(8) Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the President the authority to use military force against Iran.

But I don't see that as an excuse, they are helping Bush get exactly what he wants. I am so frustrated with our democratic leaders at this point I am at a loss in what should be done about it. I know voting for these fuckers isn't the solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #124
133. Ah, but with a single 'signing statement' that sentence is ignored.
It's happened more times than we can count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #121
125. Thanks Kat,
I thought it was April, but it was March. I have to bookmark your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #59
93. No, it's a faulty assumption, based on falsehood
Voting for Kyl/Lieberman does NOT mean having the same position as Bush on Iran. If it did, Webb would not have voted for it. Or Levin. Or Durbin.

Fact is, elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard have been used for terrorism. But Kyl/Lieberman does NOT call for fighting them, "at all costs" or otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. Ok, I'll bite. Explain to me how Hillary's position is different from Bush's
seriously I'm all ears, and if I'm wrong I will admit it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. Ummm... Bush wants to attack Iran
Hillary doesn't. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. Not a very good explaination
Bush never said he wants to attack Iran. He is saying the same thing as Hillary, so why do you think he wants to attack Iran and she doesnt?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #100
104. Nonsense
Bush has had Iran in his sights since the beginning of his presidency. It was the last leg of the 5-year plan that fell apart when Iraq turned out not to be the "cake-walk" that was predicted. But he's still looking for an excuse.

Oh sure, Bush says he doesn't want to attack Iran, but do you believe it??? If so, I sure can't convince you otherwise.

Hillary Clinton is calling for a real diplomatic effort in the region with direct negotiations with Iran and Syria. Something Bush has refused to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. No, I dont believe Bush
just like I dont believe Clinton. Remember, she's the first lady to the president that started all this sanction bullshit in Iraq which lead to this war. Clinton has the blood of 500,000 Iraqi children on his hands, far more than Bush at this point. And when Clinton's administration was asked about those Iraqi children deaths they said it was worth it. So in my opinion Clinton has as little credibility on this matter as Bush. Why you believe Bush over Clinton when both have the exact same rethoric is beyond me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #106
143. Another falsehood
They don't use the "exact same rhetoric." Not even close. In fact, I would suggest you can't show me one time that Hillary Clinton has said anything that is the same as Bush vis a vis Iran. And she has certainly advocated talking to Iran, which Bush has refused to do.

It's the same thing about Kyl/Lieberman. You say it proposes using military force to combat the Revolutionary Guard, but it says nothing of the sort.

I'm not going to get into an argument about how many Iraqi children died as a result of UN sanctions (let me repeat that: UN sanctions... not US). But I do recall those sanctions were a result of Gulf WAr I, thy enforced compliance with provisions to which Saddam had agreed, and they were devised on Poppy Bush's watch, not Bill Clinton's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #93
113. Webb did not vote for Kyl-Lieberman
He called it a Cheney pipe dream.

It should always be remembered that it is not Wes Clark listed as Clinton's foreign policy advisor but Michael O'Hanlon and that creep of creeps, Lee Feingold.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #113
145. My bad on Webb
But the point still stands. Voting for Kyl/Lieberman is not evidence of having "the same position on Iran" as Bush.

About her advisors... I hadn't heard about O'Hanlon (who is a major jerk to be sure), and have to admit I don't know who Lee Feingold is. Nor can I find Feingold in Google or Wikipedia. I also checked her campaign website but found no list of advisors there. Here's what Wiki says -- not an authoritative source, so if you've got something better, I'd love to see it:

In terms of policy advisors, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is Clinton's "top informal advisor" on foreign policy matters and has campaigned for her.<24> Other big names in her camp include Richard Holbrooke, Sandy Berger, Wesley Clark, Former Congresswoman and VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro, Fmr. Governor and U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley, and William Perry.<25>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #145
157. WaPo had the complete lists
a few weeks ago. Feinstein has been with her for a while, and heads her senate team (formal adviser expected to become NSA). Gen. Jack Keane was listed as her "military adviser" with Gen. Clark shown as a "fundraiser."

Sorry Jai, it just ticks me off that people rush to judgment about Gen. Clark rationale for hanging with Hillary. Ya know, he likes her; they're friends. Lots and lots of people are sniffing around for jobs and they're at the head of the line.

I do not think the K-L is the same as bush's position; however, I agree with Gen. Clark pre-endorsement writings, when he wrote that Lieberman needed to turn down the rhetoric. I know that Wes has changed his opinion since then, but I still believe that calling people terrorists is not the best opening for constructive dialog. Once a dialog is opened...say after 2009, there are plenty of productive ways to show solidarity and leverage.

Feinstein link more preemption!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-09-07 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #157
162. Tjhanks for the info, but I'm not sure I trust your sources
I looked at the Feinstein link. It's a rather off-the-wall blog whose links on Feinstein are 1) a really old webpage from the Carnegie Endowment website, and 2) a more recent article from the Washington Daily News but which only quotes an old essay co-written by Feinstein in Foreign Affairs. Now don't get me wrong: Feinstein may be a neocon of the worst order. But otoh, lots of people are in a differently place vis a vis Iraq than they were before 2004. I'd really need to see something more recent to judge, and the fact that nothing turns up in google or wikipedia makes me wonder if the guy is still much of a factor.

I can't find anything in WaPo or anywhere else about who Hillary's foreign advisors are. Mostly the sources I did find all say Albright, Holbrooke and Clark. You know, I'm not sure I'd trust the WaPo to get it right anyway. But whatever. Please note that ONLY the blogger postulates that Feinstein is likely to be a Clinton National Security Advisor. And he really offers nothing at all to back up his prediction. The Daily News article calls Feinstein a "guru" but that's hardly much of an official designation, and corroborated by nada.

Fwiw, it ticks me off too that so many people assume Clark is fishing for a position in a Clinton administration. I mean, I'd be thrilled if he were to get one as you know. But I'm not holding my breath, and I'm sure he isn't either. Yes, they are friends. But that only goes so far in politics, ad Clark understands that as well as anyone.

No, I think Clark looked at the field of candidates and of the ones he thought had a chance at the nomination, he picked the one he thought would do the best job at the things he thinks are most important. He's made it pretty clear he thinks Obama is "old politics" as far as our party is concerned (domestic issues only), and of course Edwards is out of the question. But it occurs to me he may have felt Clinton was already "the only one who had a chance" and wanted to throw his weight behind her now because he knows how bad a fight it's gonna be against the Repubs. After all, that was essentially his rationale for endorsing Kerry so quickly -- get the intra-party squabbles over and done with, saving your resources to focus on the real enemy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sultana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
42. Yeah, but
Hillary's people toke it to a whole new low w/ the Muslim-phobia emails.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. That wasn't Hillary Clinton's fault,
publicly spouting Bob Novak's hit piece on Clinton, was Obama's choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CyberPieHole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
45. Didn't take long for the asshats to come out swinging against Wes Clark...
now did it? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. I was expecting it,
this isn't the first time, and it won't be the last.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #45
50. Or the faithful prostrating before him nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #50
56. Prostrating?
No, I agree with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
51. This man is an embarrassment
Although much of my ire over the years has been directed more at his supporters than him (although the full-frontal lies about Kerry's and Edwards' tax cut votes have certainly been a recurring riff for me) his toadying, hypocritical opportunism at the feet of the wondrous Clinton machine has been appalling. Who I truly feel sympathy for are the nice and idealistic supporters of the man who have seen his tactical rejection of previously held positions for what they are. Losing a hero is a very sad thing for people, and my heart goes out to them.

As for this man, he's shown himself to be not only an extreme opportunist, but ethically malleable and worse than any of all that for a politician, possessed of poor judgment.

People who support Hillary Clinton should read such posts as this with a bit of objectivity: although my rancor against her and her cadre of convenience-minded and calculating cronies surely annoys, this kind of disgust is real and widespread. So many people from so many camps have so many bones to pick with her and so much very real dislike that the simple question of electability literally choruses from the woodwork.

As for Clark, he's a fallen idol to many and should be to more. His very mention brings a blase distaste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. Wes Clark is respected by a lot of people
including myself.

This ad will be effective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #51
57. Lots of words, as usual
same old, same old. As usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hayu_lol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #57
69. It really is difficult, isn't it...
to put down a Rhodes Scholar. An individual who says, in complete sentences, what others take one or two words to say(ex: Chimpy Bush).

By the way, I really don't see Hillary hiding behind anyone. Sorry that you can't say that about some of the other wanna-be's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #51
68. You only hate him because he beat Edwards in five of the nine
races in which they both competed in 2004.

It's not the Clarkies who always start the Edwards bashing... the Edwardians bash A LOT on their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #68
78. Reposting: Edwards beat Clark in 8 of the 13 races they contested; he CONCLUSIVELY beat Clark in '04
Are you extremely ignorant or deliberately deceptive? I'm not counting the Iowa Caucuses, because the late-arriving savior decided to not contest this race. He had some good runs, but he got his ass kicked conclusively. I've posted this before, but no Clark supporter has EVER disputed these facts, which come from CNN. (As Daniel Patrick Moynihan so aptly put it, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.) For all the furore and bluster, Clark stumbled terribly. At the end, he resorted to lying about Edwards' and Kerry's votes on the Bush tax cuts to try to salvage his futile cause.

These are facts. Please contest them. Please. I'd love to hear any equivocation.

It went like this:

Since the messiah didn't contest Iowa, we won't talk about how Edwards took 32% there.

--Clark took 3rd in New Hampshire, besting Edwards' 4th by four tenths of a percent (27,254 v. 26,416) Oooh.

--Clark walked all over Edwards in Arizona taking 2nd with 27% against Edwards' 7% (60,109 v. 15,583)

--Edwards took 3rd to Lieberman in Delaware by a heartbreaking 26 votes, but still beat Clark. (Edwards: 3,657 or 11%; Clark: 3,145 or 10%)

--Edwards beat the living shit out of Clark in Missouri, taking 2nd with 25% of the vote (103,198) while Clark could only scrape up a 4th place showing with 4% of the vote (18,328)

--Clark then clobbered Edwards in New Mexico by taking 2nd with 21% of the vote (19,828) while Edwards gasped to 4th with a mere 11% (10,953)

--Clark also stomped Edwards in North Dakota by taking 2nd with 24% (a tiny little constituency of 2,502) while Edwards came in 4th with 10% (not much of a party with only 1,025)

--Clark actually won a primary (Oklahoma) but it was a mighty thin victory. Edwards was second and Kerry was third. The margin of this ONLY VICTORY FOR CLARK was anaemic to say the least: less than four tenths of a percent, a very similar margin to the triumphant trouncing in New Hampshire. (Clark: 90,526; Edwards 89,310) Let's stop here for a minute. The only victory Clark had in the primary season was so very very thin.

--Now we come to South Carolina. Edwards absolutely annihilated everyone. He took the state by 45%, while Clark could only cobble up 7%. This was one of the biggest blowouts of the whole campaign. Edwards: 131,174; Clark: 21,011.

--Michigan: Edwards took 3rd (13% and 21,919 votes) while Clark could only claw his way to 5th (4% and 10,986)

--On to Washington. Edwards got his ass kicked with a 4th place showing (7%, 1,571) but Clark floundered at 5th (3%, 768 votes) Let's revisit that: he couldn't even get a thousand votes.

--Maine continued the trend: Edwards was 4th with 8% (1,167), but Clark could only eke out a 5th with 4% (564 real live entire persons)

--Tennessee was where Clark staked his hopes, lying about Edwards and Kerry voting for the Bush tax cuts, but even there he could only manage 3rd (Edwards: 26%, 97,746; Clark: 23%, 85,182)

--The deathblow came the same day in Virginia. Once again, Kerry won, but Edwards was 2nd with 27% (104,813) while Clark spluttered in with 9% (36,474)

--Ill be fair and not count that Edwards WON the North Carolina Caucuses, because this was after hed dropped out.

***Final Tally: Even subtracting 2 bestings, its Edwards 8, Clark 5

I've heard this idiotic claim of Clark besting Edwards before, and I've posted these statistics many times. I defy anyone to deny these facts. Clark got his ass kicked by Edwards. The facts are irrefutable. Do any of the harassing Clark extremists have a scrap of decency or maturity to admit this? (Actually, one has on a previous posting of this)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #78
84. The simple fact is that after the first round of votes from multiple states
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 02:12 PM by FrenchieCat
on February 3, 2004, Clark had beaten Edwards in 5 out of 8 contests.....and yet Edwards got all the press nevertheless.

Here's proof. This article was written after Clark had beaten Edwards 5 out of 8 (New Hampshire, North Dakota, Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma are the 5 states where Clark beat Edwards; Edwards by Feb 4th had only beaten Clark in South Carolina, Missouri and Delaware), but before Edwards won any additional contests ......and yet, it is Edwards who is promoted as one of the two (Kerry being the other), not Wes Clark, who is barely mentioned in the article at all.

"AND THEN THERE WERE TWO"
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/04/prim...
Kerry breaks into the open field, with Edwards still in pursuit -- while the Dean meteor continues to burn out.

February 4, 2004 | After a month of surprise, confusion and tumult, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is, suddenly, much more clear: The nomination is John Kerry's to lose.

John Edwards won in South Carolina Tuesday, and he made a strong showing in an Oklahoma race that was too close to call even after all the votes were in. But Kerry, the liberal senator from Massachusetts, took the bellwether state of Missouri by a commanding margin over Edwards.
-------------------

By February 7th, when Edwards did win those additional contests over Clark (Maine, Michigan, Tennesse and Virginia), it would have been a wonder if he hadn't, as the media only talked about Kerry and Edwards, and Clark was totally not reported on.

In fact, Edward was projected and heralded by CNN constantly as the South Carolina Winner on February 3rd all during the time that Oklahoma voters were still voting! Here is one of those reports calling South Carolina for Edwards, and yet acknowledging that the other states had not yet finished voting.

WOODRUFF (voice-over): Aside from South Carolina's 45 delegates, polls will close at the top of the hour at 8:00 p.m. Eastern in four more states, putting another 143 delegates in play: Delaware, Missouri, North Dakota and Oklahoma.

Missouri, with 74 delegates at stake, is tonight's biggest prize. Delaware has 15 delegates up for grabs. North Dakota is holding caucuses for that state's 14 Democratic delegates.

Finally, at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, polls close in Oklahoma with 40 Democratic delegates. And then at 9:00 p.m. Eastern, polls close in two more states, Arizona and New Mexico. Arizona Democrats will hand over 55 delegates, and in the New Mexico caucuses, 26 delegates are at stake. All together tonight, 269 delegates at stake in seven states.
(END VIDEOTAPE) WOODRUFF: So Wolf, if my math is right, 45 down and only 224 to go by 9:00 tonight.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/03/se.07.ht...

In other words, the media went to work, and thats who beat Wes Clark in those last contests, not John Edwards so much.

Odd how some Edwards supporters constantly mention the media's ignoring Edwards as the primary factor as to why Edwards has been lagging in current polls ...but somehow Clark being ignored by the media after beating Edwards in actual overall contests (in where people voted) til February 7th is never cited as the primary reason Clark faltered in the 2004 primaries, even though that is exactly why it happened as it did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #84
112. Pure conjecture; you have absolutely no proof of that and you're dismissing historic facts
It goes like this: the "beat him in 5 out of 8 contests" line come up over and over and over again. It simply isn't true. Read my overlong summary and the timeline is absolutely specific and accurate. Once again, you blast forth with pronouncements that are unfounded, and do so in the face of a VERY SPECIFIC dare to all: refute these facts. Edwards beat him 8 out of 13; the poster who sparked this interchange made an absolutely incorrect statement, and you refute it without refuting it.

Flailing with accusations of favoritism and whatever else doesn't dismiss the facts whether you like it or not, and in your post, you somehow claim that it's true that Clark beat him. The 5 out of 8 claim is BULLSHIT; it's SPECIFICALLY saying that these were the ONLY races in which they competed. It's not true. Why is this hard to understand, and by what grant of privilege are people proclaiming themselves to remain unassailed by facts as they barf distortions in an open forum that has an underpinning of trust? Gullible or just unaware casual readers will read this oft-repeated bit of incorrectness and rethink the situation; that's an insult to society itself: the self-appointed right to distort.

The poster who prompted my re-posting is presumably unaware of reality and just parroted crap from other partisans; you have no excuse. What you post as a rejoinder claims to be proof of something, and it's nothing but opinion larded with enough facts and a timeline to sustain its distortion through partial information.

For you to offer the media coverage as "proof" of the media deliberately destroying Clark's campaign is just ludicrous. This is opinion, and it doesn't address other theories. Prejudiced and rigged though it is (and I don't think it was in favor of Edwards AT ALL in that campaign) the bottom line is this: in infotainment, the story wins. A good story is a good story, and journalists will go for it. Clark benefitted greatly from this when he strode in with considerable support. The fact that he fizzled never seems to come up in dialogue like this; he got a weak third in NH and got severly stomped in places like Missouri where he needed to prove his heartland credentials. His one victory was by less than half of a percent over the person who was the interesting story at that point: this Edwards guy who so many had written off. Edwards was the real positive surprise of the campaign, and that was a story. Dean and Clark were the downside surprises, and they got press accordingly. Dean and Clark were the downside surprises, and they got press accordingly.

There is no "proof" that the evil media voices were big meanies and deliberately sabotaged Clark. You offer one side of a story and it's simply not the whole story and certainly not "fact". Personally, I and many others saw him getting undue PR initially, and this supports my contention that the trajectory was due to a disappointment from some of the critical early showings.

Please stop the convenient selectivity; we owe it to our fellow readers to have some loyalty to the truth. A casual reader will look at your post and think "ah-ha", when all you give is partisan opinion presented as truth. The interpretations I'm offering are advertised as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #112
116. "There is no "proof" that the evil media voices were big meanies and deliberately" have sabotaged
any campaign....you say.

I guess you can ignore actual media coverage, and think that the media do what they do simply for a good Story. I am not that naive.

The media sabotages campaigns all of the time.....and they do this by omission, dismissal and sheer biased reporting; e.g. the Swiftboaters, etc.., Gore is a liar campaign of 2000.


Here's what Edwards Supporters have said about the media's work when it is in reference to your beautiful one:

18 Recs
asdjrocky (1000+ posts) Mon Dec-03-07 12:27 PM
Original message
Media's snub of John Edwards depriving America of hope
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
------
23 Recs
Quixote1818 (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-04-07 01:50 PM
Original message
Thom Hartman: " The corporate media is scared stiff of John Edwards

because he has been taking on the big boys all his life and he is an outsider. Thats why they won't give him any coverage."

Not his exact words but very close.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
---------

Edwards is a closer, and he will win Iowa.

The corporate media is trying to ignore him, but they can't stop him in Iowa.

Edwards must be the nominee in 2008.
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/t...
----------

Does the Media Hate John Edwards?
http://morpheusrevolutions.blogspot.com/2007/06/does-me...
-----------

Are Media Out to Get John Edwards?
by Jeff Cohen
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/31/1570 /
-----------

In other words, Edwards supporters are the one pushing the story that the media is a big meany when it applies to John Edwards....for others, the media is simply looking for the "best" story.

Fey! How even handed! :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progress And Change Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #84
136. nonsense
Clark ignored by the media? :rofl: Clark did not become the front-runner by accident...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #136
147. If there is a lesson to learn from past elections, it is that a front-runner in
September prior to a January vote does not a true Front-runner makes.

Wes Clark became a front runner as soon as he threw his hat into the ring solely due to his bonafide and what he brought to the table; war winning general who identified with the Democratic party and was critical Bush, the war president. He had a winning personal life story, and a strong grassroots movement.

In fact, while Clark was running, although he was second to Howard Dean for quite a while, the media reported only on Dean as the "inevitable" nominee....and didn't report on any other candidate much.

I remember this well, because for 45 days toward the end of October thru November and early December, CNN failed to mention Wes Clark in any of their political reports. When and if they did mention him, it was in the context of smears (Gen. Shelton), or asking whether he was a "real" Democrat.

The beauty of participating on a campaign is that you tend to remember what actually happened.

Certainly, Clark's greatest error was not contesting Iowa. That gave the media an excuse not to cover him, and so they didn't.

But no, from the day he announced, he was never the chosen media darling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progress And Change Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #147
149. He became the frontrunner without the aid of the media?
It just happened that way. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #149
151. When did he become a frontrunner and how long did it last?
Edited on Fri Dec-07-07 01:38 PM by FrenchieCat
If you have the F-A-C-T-S that you speak of that support your "claim", let's see them!

The :rofl: icon doesn't make anything you have stated F-A-C-T-S......but a link or two or three would certainly go a long way in keeping you from looking like a great big fool on the floor laughing at his own embarrasment of not being able to back his shit up. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progress And Change Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #151
153. you claim to have worked on his campaign but don't know this?
hint: he was the frontrunner when the media was pimping him while ignoring the likes of Kerry and Edwards...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #153
156. Like I said, Clark was touted as "front-runner" for about 1 minute, and that was
prior to getting into the race. Once he got into the race, the publicity he received were comprised of mostly smears (see Gen. Shelton).

Howard Dean was the only media favorite and called the "front runner" from August till December, although Clark was always close in percentage of support in the national polls (but that was seldom reported) from the moment he got in, it was never reported that way. 2004 primary reporting was that of a one man race...unlike the 2008 primaries.

The media pimped Dean, and then proceeded to start deconstructing him in very late December thru January first Iowa caucus and beyond (the scream was after Iowa). Kerry and Edwards were both reported on favorably when it counted the most, 2.5 weeks prior to Iowa's caucus. After Iowa, all of the reporting were good news on Kerry and Edwards, bad news on Dean, and ignores on Clark.

I was there. It is your claims that you can't back up. I done more than my share in demonstrating who has the best recollection in this debate; and it isn't you.

12/2003
With Howard Dean the front-runner in the polls as the Democratic Party prepares for next months Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire presidential primary, the drumbeat of attacks from both his Democratic rivals and significant sections of the media, portraying the former Vermont governor as irresponsible and even extremist, is intensifying.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/dean-d20.shtm...

Can anyone catch Dean?
From KAREN TUMULTY
Monday, November 17, 2003 Posted: 4:09 PM EST (2109 GMT)

Some are saying the doctor is already in. Here's why his rivals haven't caught on, what they're doing to stop him and why he may be his own worst enemy.
......
The candidate who has the first and maybe the best chance of tripping up Dean is Gephardt. Showing the skills that come with having run for President before, Gephardt has mounted the most steady, effective and coherent line of attack, blistering Dean over his earlier support for Newt Gingrich's Medicare-reform plan and for raising the retirement age for Social Security.

It's paying off in Iowa, which has one of the oldest populations in the country and which Gephardt won in 1988. But even in Iowa, where the latest polling shows Gephardt's lead widening, the Missouri Congressman is hearing footsteps. Two months before the Iowa voting starts, Dean already has as many paid campaign workers there as Gore did on the day he overwhelmingly won the caucuses in 2000, and Dean's AFSCME endorsement gives him an additional army on the ground there.

Even if Gephardt wins Iowa, Dean forces are questioning how far he can get after that. Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi was Gephardt's deputy manager in 1988. Winning Iowa then, he says, "got Gephardt nothing. He won Iowa and then went nowhere. Replaying the movie, I don't think you're going to get a different result this time."

A second-place finish in Iowa, though, may be little more than a speed bump to Dean as he heads for New Hampshire a week later.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/17/timep.dean.tm /




11/14/03

DAVID BROOKS: Though I do agree with your point that the press is way overselling that Howard Dean is inevitable. When I read the press sitting here in Washington, I think Dean is inevitable. And then you go out cover a campaign, and it's not true at all.

JIM LEHRER: But Dean's lack of inevitability doesn't make Kerry inevitable.

TOM OLIPHANT: And that's very important. The thing that I would add here is that I think John Kerry's campaign up to now shows the limit of campaigns based on biography and resume. That gets you in the door. It doesn't make the sale.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec0...


01/24/04
"Perhaps unfortunately for Dean hed profit the most from a multi-party open race Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman, who both decided to skip Iowa and concentrate on New Hampshire, arent picking up much, and the former is actually sinking, according to the polls linked to above. Maybe that appeal to the Michael Moore/Bush is a deserter bloc didnt work for Clark. John Edwards is gaining some, but hes still 10 points or so behind Dean. Hes not exactly skipping New Hampshire (to judge from his ad buys), but is trying to lie in wait to win in South Carolina and make it a Kerry-Edwards contest. Its a gamble; its not a certainty that he wins South Carolina."
http://vjmorton.wordpress.com/2004/01/26/kerry-kerry-qu... /









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snotcicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #78
111. Thats why his kid is always ragging on Edwards when he is on the Young Turks show.
I was wondering why. This explains it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #111
118. No, that's not why.........
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 06:34 PM by FrenchieCat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progress And Change Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #78
138. facts are stubborn things
I did not realize how badly Edwards crushed the much, much better financed (he had the Clinton camp behind him...) and far more hyped Clark until reading your post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #138
148. Your recollection and the assistance provided in that post
Edited on Fri Dec-07-07 01:31 PM by FrenchieCat
does not equal "facts", but rather statistics.

It is a documented fact that Edwards received much more media than Clark starting 2 1/2 weeks prior to Iowa and on forward.

Here, read the documented facts below, and IF you can find countering info that refutes the study, post it, and then you can start talking about "stubborn" things as opposed to stuff Progress and Change likes to believe just cause!


NETWORKS ANOINTED KERRY, EDWARDS BEFORE IOWA DID
Study: Iowa Caucus Victors Received 98 Percent Positive Coverage
WASHINGTON, DCPrior to their surprising Iowa caucus performances, 98 percent of the network evening news coverage of Democratic Presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards was positive, according to research conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also found Howard Dean received more critical coverage over the same time period, at 58 percent positive.


This is CMPAs second ElectionWatch report of Campaign 2004. ElectionWatch will provide regular updates of how the broadcast networks are covering the candidates, the issues and the campaign. This report examines the 91 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news from January 1st through January 18th, the night before the Iowa caucus.

OTHER MAJOR FINDINGS:

Golden Boys Get Midas Touch-
Not one person quoted by the networks had anything critical to say about North Carolina Senator John Edwards (100 percent favorable coverage) in the two and half weeks leading up to the Iowa caucus, while 96 percent of the evaluations of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry were positive.
http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerry...


Here's more of my documented facts....
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/wes_clar...
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/04/prim...
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9242.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/23/mgrind.day.fr...
&s_trackval=GooglePM" target="_blank">http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=...

Lemme know when you locate your countering stubborn F-A-C-T-S!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progress And Change Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #148
150. so you don't dispute that Edwards beat Clark most of the time?
"It is a documented fact that Edwards received much more media than Clark starting 2 1/2 weeks prior to Iowa and on forward."

What about from the point Clark entered the race and Iowa? ;) It is amazing how Clark blundered such a propitious start to a campaign and the support of the Clinton political "machine"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #150
155. I don't dispute that Edwards was chosen by the media to
become Kerry's opposition in a two way race.
I have already disputed your opinions and have posted evidence that backs my shit up. I'm just waiting for you to back your shit up.....cause your credibility is currently in decline.....

Thus far we are waiting for your documentation that Clark was covered as the front-runner by the media.

Neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton endorsed Clark, and the "political machine" support was difficult to locate, as Terry McAuliffe (Clinton toadie and former DNC Chair) touted Kerry's medals on Kerry's chest in an interview right prior to mini-Tuesday's votes, but failed to once mention Wes Clark or Clark's many medals although it was Clark supporter Michael Moore who opened up the entire "Bush is a deserter" statement.....a statement that ended up serving as an ambush on Clark during the New Hampshire Debates by Peter Jennings...but somehow led to a DNC Chair McAuliffe (who was supposed to be neutral) touting Kerry's service record.

In fact, once Clark got into the race, I don't remember Bill or Hillary ever making any public comment about Clark.......which certainly would have helped him if they had....as they were the love of most Democrats, activists and all back during the 2003-04 primaries.


February 3, 2004 (prior to mini Tuesday votes)

George W. Bush AWOL or a deserter? Michael Moore put the subject into play when, at a Wesley Clark rally, he previewed a Clark versus Bush race as pitting the General versus the Deserter. At the January 22 presidential debate Peter Jennings raised the incident with Clark, describing it as a reckless charge. On Friday nights Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, Moore lashed back: For Peter Jennings to say that it was 'a reckless charge,' it's reckless for Peter Jennings and ABC not to investigate this. Moores wish became ABCs command as both ABC on Sunday, following DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe on This Week maintaining that hes looking forward to a debate in which John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard, ....
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb200402...



ABCs Shipman Acknowledges How Kerry is Getting Great Press
Feb 4, 2004
ABCs Claire Shipman acknowledged on Wednesday morning that John Kerry is getting great press coverage, relaying on Good Morning America how a Kerry campaign operative told her that racking up wins each week just strengthens his candidacy, plus he added, 'you can't buy this sort of press.'"
.........
Exit polls showed again that voters like Kerry because they think he can beat Bush. Behind the scenes, the Kerry team can't hide its glee at a handful of polls out this week that show Kerry defeating the President in a one-on-one match up. Now, the next immediate focus this weekend, Washington state and Michigan, where they think they can win again
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb200402...


What is amazing is that one such as you could mention stubborn facts but fail to produce any. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #51
74. It appears that you are into the mudslinging mode yourself
as your post clearly demonstrates not only towards Wes Clark, but his supporters as well.... :eyes:

Ironic that one such as yourself would support John Edwards and yet have the gall to call out others with lines like....

"Extreme opportunist" -- cause it can be said that Edwards started running for Prez like in 2001 and called Senator Gone for most of his short senate career. Had to take public funding due to financial necessity (Didn't have enough faith in himself to spend his own millions) while claiming moral ground and pointing the finger at others who raised more than enough not to accept what he was forced to.

"ethically malleable" -- cause it will be said that one election cycle, Edwards' for it, and during the next election cycle, he's against it....

"possessed of poor judgment" -- Cause it is becoming known that Edwards' middle name is "poor judgment; I'm sorry"....for making this mistake and that mistake, and this one too, and so forth and so on!

In the opinion of many, your words describe your candidate just as well, if not better than they do General Clark.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #51
98. You continue to amaze me, POE
Seldom have I found anyone on the left who so totally demonizes anyone who disagrees with them the way you do. That's usually a tactic of the Rush Limbo and Sean Hannity crowd.

So is making shit up because you wish it were true. Clark is hardly "a fallen idol to many." Even those among us who support other candidates continue to respect the man and his opinions.

I think maybe you belong on the other side of the aisle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
73. 2003 redux
What began in 2003 is coming to fruition in 2007.

:think:

And war against someone somewhere is still on the front burner, so it all comes to pass.

Just as we said then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
76. Yeah right! Clark says he'll settle for the VP slot...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. That's all you've got huh?
I pray that she asks him to be VP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
79. Poo wittle hiwwahwwee waaaah!
Give it a rest, Wes. You strung your supporters along for years and now you're playing the Errand Boy...

:boring:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MalloyLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
80. stfu you neocon clark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #80
85. Clark exposed the neocons publicly before it was cool.......
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 01:38 PM by FrenchieCat
and before most even knew what a NeoCon and PNAC represented.

In other words, you are also slinging mud and name calling, but it will not stick!

Wish that others apart from Gen. Clark would have been so bold so early. But of course, there are only a few who had the guts to stand when everyone else was sitting!



10/02/03
General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a bizarre, crackpot attack on a small Washington policy organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War.

In a Tuesday interview with Joshua Micah Marshall posted yesterday on the Web site talkingpointsmemo.com, General Clark gave his evaluation of the Clinton presidency. He said that the Clinton administration,in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found itself chained to the Iraqi policy promoted by the Project for a New American Century much the same way that in the Carter administration some of the same people formed the Committee on the Present Danger which cut out from the Carter administration the ability to move forward on SALT II.
http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=Ol...



Wesley Clark's Conspiracy Theory
The general tells Wolf Blitzer about the neoconservative master plan.
by Matthew Continetti
12/01/2003 2:00:00 PM

Yesterday on CNN's "Late Edition," for example, Clark said--not for the first time--that the Bush administration's war plans extend far beyond Iraq.

"I do know this," Clark told Wolf Blitzer. "In the gossip circles in Washington, among the neoconservative press, and in some of the statements that Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz have made, there is an inclination to extend this into Syria and maybe Lebanon." What's more, Clark added, "the administration's never disavowed this intent."

Clark has made his charge a central plank of his presidential campaign. Clark writes in his book, "Winning Modern Wars," that in November 2001, during a visit to the Pentagon, he spoke with "a man with three stars who used to work for me," who told him a "five-year plan" existed for military action against not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark has embellished this story on the campaign trail, going so far as to say, "There's a list of countries."

Clark's proof? None. He never saw the list. But, the general recently told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "You only have to listen to the gossip around Washington and to hear what the neoconservatives are saying, and you will get the flavor of this."

You probably get the flavor of what Wesley Clark is saying, too. It tastes, as THE SCRAPBOOK pointed out three weeks ago, like baloney. And sometimes, as in the case of yesterday's interview with Blitzer, it tastes like three-week-old baloney.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/0...




Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to implement Iraq invasion plan
Clark told me how he learned of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece.
Shortly after 9/11, Clark visited the Pentagon, where a 3-star general confided that Rumsfeld's team planned to use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. Clark said, "Rather than searching for a solution to a problem, they had the solution, and their difficulty was to make it appear as though it were in response to the problem." Clark was told that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11, had devised a 5-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan.

Clark's central contention-that Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to attack Saddam-has been part of the public debate since well before the Iraq war. It is rooted in the advocacy of the Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank that had been openly arguing for regime change in Iraq since 1998.
Source: The New Yorker magazine, "Gen. Clark's Battles" Nov 17, 2003



Gen. Wes Clark layed out the PNAC mentality in a long article.

Here's some excerpts from Clark's article, "Broken Engagement"

During 2002 and early 2003, Bush administration officials put forth a shifting series of arguments for why we needed to invade Iraq. Nearly every one of these has been belied by subsequent events.
snip
Advocates of the invasion are now down to their last argument: that transforming Iraq from brutal tyranny to stable democracy will spark a wave of democratic reform throughout the Middle East, thereby alleviating the conditions that give rise to terrorism. This argument is still standing because not enough time has elapsed to test it definitively--though events in the year since Baghdad's fall do not inspire confidence.
snip
Just as they counseled President Bush to take on the tyrannies of the Middle East, so the neoconservatives in the 1980s and early 1990s advised Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to confront the Soviet Union and more aggressively deploy America's military might to challenge the enemy.....
snip
As has been well documented, even before September 11, going after Saddam had become a central issue for them. Their "Project for a New American Century" seemed intent on doing to President Clinton what the Committee on the Present Danger had done to President Carter: push the president to take a more aggressive stand against an enemy, while at the same time painting him as weak.
snip
September 11 gave the neoconservatives the opportunity to mobilize against Iraq, and to wrap the mobilization up in the same moral imperatives which they believed had achieved success against the Soviet Union. Many of them made the comparison direct, in speeches and essays explicitly and approvingly compared the Bush administration's stance towards terrorists and rogue regimes to the Reagan administration's posture towards the Soviet Union.

And the neoconservative goal was more ambitious than merely toppling dictators: By creating a democracy in Iraq, our success would, in the president's words, "send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran--that freedom can be the future of every nation," and Iraq's democracy would serve as a beacon that would ignite liberation movements and a "forward strategy of freedom" around the Middle East.

This rhetoric is undeniably inspiring. We should have pride in our history, confidence in our principles, and take security in the knowledge that we are at the epicenter of a 228-year revolution in the transformation of political systems. But recognizing the power of our values also means understanding their meaning. Freedom and dignity spring from within the human heart. They are not imposed. And inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated.

The neoconservative rhetoric glosses over this truth and much else. Even aside from the administration's obvious preference for confronting terrorism's alleged host states rather than the terrorists themselves, it was a huge leap to believe that establishing democracies by force of Western arms in old Soviet surrogate states like Syria and Iraq would really affect a terrorist movement drawing support from anti-Western sentiment in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.cla...



Apparently for the neoconservative civilians who are running the Iraq campaign, 9-11 was that catalyzing eventfor they are now operating at full speed toward multiple, simultaneous wars. The PNAC documents can be found online at newamericancentury.org.

his new book, Winning Modern Wars, retired general Wesley Clarkcandidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, offered a window into the Bush serial-war planning. He writes that serious planning for the Iraq war had already begun only two months after the 9-11 attack, and adds:

I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. . . . I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

A five-year military campaign. Seven countries. How far has the White House taken this plan? And how long can the president keep the nation in the dark, emerging from his White House cocoon only to speak to us in slogans and the sterile language of pep rallies?
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0342,schanberg,47830,1...


Was David Brooks careful not to say that Bush or neocon critics are anti-Semitic? David Brooks was careful, all right. You can see how careful he was in the passage which slimed Wesley Clark:

BROOKS: The full-mooners fixated on a think tank called the Project for the New American Century, which has a staff of five and issues memos on foreign policy. To hear these people describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles.
Wed sit around the magazine guffawing at the ludicrous stories that kept sprouting, but belief in shadowy neocon influence has now hardened into common knowledge. Wesley Clark, among others, cannot go a week without bringing it up.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010904.shtml



There are many legitimate reasons to criticize the foreign and defense policies of the Bush administration, but Winning Modern Wars would have us believe that the president dangerously derailed the nations security policy and diverted resources from the war on terrorism to the dead-end enterprise in Iraq. He blames Bush for everything he believes has gone wrong, and gives him no credit for anything that has gone right, including major steps toward transforming the US military from a Cold War force to one more suited to the current and likely future security environment.

In Clarks world, vulnerability to terrorism is all George Bushs fault. Of course, Bush had only been in office for eight months when Al Qaida struck on 9/11. The threat had been incubating during the Clinton years, but that administration had done little or nothing to address it. The most Clark can say about the Clinton administrations inattention to the emerging terrorist threat is that "in retrospect, it clear that he could have done more."

Clark is a member in good standing of the "Bush lied" school - an outlook based on the claim that the president and his advisers had intended to invade Iraq from the very beginning, and knowingly deceived Congress and the American people in order to drag them into this unnecessary war. As evidence for this, he cites a 1998 letter from an organization called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) calling on president Clinton to remove Saddam from power. Those who signed the letter included Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/04/clark.ht...



EXCERPTS FROM HARDBALL INTERVIEW 12/17/04

CLARK: ...I think, you know, a guy like Bill Kristol, what he sees is that Secretary Rumsfelds plan is not unfolding the way that the neocons thought it should unfold in the Middle East. This was supposed to be like a scaffold. You know, you just go in there and carve out Saddam Hussein, boom, the people are liberated. And theyre all democratic. And then the Syrians jump on board and say, hey, by golly, come and save us too. And then the Iranians and the Lebanese.

It hasnt worked that way, because what the neocons didnt understand is, that you dont get the kind of Democratic reform you want in the Middle East at the barrel of a gun. And theyre holding Rumsfeld responsible for that. But really, its a flawed conception.

MATTHEWS: Thats interesting. Youre the first person Ive heard say that, general. Because a lot of people look at it much more narrowly and they say the reason were getting criticism of the general is there arent enough troops there. He said he had enough troops, when really in reality, it was the conception that justified the low troop level. Is that your point? That you did not need a lot of troops, because you werent going to face much of an insurgency.

CLARK: .....One is the point of the neocons, which is not military at all. It is the point of the operation and the fact that you could sort of go in there and lance the boil of Saddam Hussein, get him out of there and everything would turn out OK. And it hasnt.
http://securingamerica.com/node/60






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #80
102. It must really frustrate you
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 03:21 PM by Jai4WKC08
That Mike Malloy respects Wes Clark so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MalloyLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #102
107. I don't have to agree with Malloy on everything
I don't even listen to him every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
83. The voters disagree
and Clark is just further losing respect in my eyes. I'm ok if he wants to support Hillary, but to be her attack dog like this is pitiful.

The voters think Hillary's campaign is the negative one and that was before she started this latest negative attack campaign against Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
86. Clark is factually correct in who attacked who........
but all in all, attacks never win, and usually it is the last attack folks tend to remember.

"John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. Unless I missed something, he said, Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.

Barack Obama added: I was confused Sen. Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.
<>
True, she was relentlessly attacked all night. But she cant claim that she was stabbed in the back. She was stabbed in the front.

Who is honest? Who is sincere? Who has integrity? Edwards asked and then provided the answer: Not Hillary.

She has not been truthful and clear, Obama said at one point.

Hillary Clinton will certainly live to fight another day. She still has a huge lead in the national polls, a good staff and a ton of money.

But, in the past, Clinton could always depend on her opponents to lose these debates. All she had to do was stay above the fray to win.

Those days seem to be over.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6634.html

I am currently disappointed in every single one one of the "top tier", and Clark stepping into the frey doesn't help matters, IMO. :(

I am back to being totally non committed as to whom to support in 2008! I like Barack, and I respect Clinton.....but these catfights are really not helping one way or the other....except for maybe assisting John Edwards, who I do not care for much at all as I consider him weak in his quality of instinctual judgment and flawed in his reasoning as to what makes him most electable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
87. Nice to see Hillary making good use of General Clark
I hope the eventual nominee will do the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
92. tell Veep-to-be Clark to take a look at the latest polls and then crawl back to from where he came
We're wise on your shilling, Wes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
108. Wow! Does anyone here at DU know how politcs works?
Me thinks there is a bit too much hero worship here for much clear vision in regard to politics. Of course when we've got mostly keyboard commandoes one would expect little more.

Politics is based on personal loyalties above all. Been that way for millenia. How sad that we have so many doe-eyed believers here.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
110. He did.
Working for him so far, isn't it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
114. Hey Clark stop the bull the Philly debate was about Hillary's flip fopping
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
115. Hillary attacked Obama first when she declared his foreign policy ideas "nave" and "irresponsible"
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 06:31 PM by ClarkUSA
That was before the Philly debate, I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
117. General Clark is wrong. I worked my ass off for Clark in 04', but I say GOBAMA!
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 06:32 PM by calteacherguy
And I say this with disappointment, as a long time Clark supporter. I've been banned from posting postive, pro-Obama blogs there...such as Obama's leadership in calling for more opportunities for national and international service. It's disappointing coming from such an one time advocate of "dissent."

GOBAMA!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #117
120. Good, I'm glad you're banned,
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 07:33 PM by seasonedblue
how insulting to post pro Obama -- anti-Clinton jabs on Wes's personal site. Go push your agenda where it's welcomed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #120
122. They were pro-Obama.
But not anti-Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #122
123. It doesn't matter,
show some respect for the man even if you disagree with his choice. I read on the other thread that you weren't banned, and a few Biden supporters said that they were treated graciously. Maybe you should tone your Obama cheerleading down when your posting on his site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #123
126. I've been prevented from posting new blogs.
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 08:11 PM by calteacherguy
I understand that. I expected it was likely to happen at some point.

And as they say, "All's fair in love, war, and politics" (although I'd draw the line before attacking a Kindertgarten essay). I respect Clark. It's his site and he can permit or not permit whatever he wants, obviously. It's his perogative. I don't believe I've shown any disrespect, I merely pushed the envelope.

Getting Obama the nomination is more important than any offense to Clark, although I respect him greatly.

Perhaps I've opened some minds at the site with my positve threads. I hope so. It is after all about the politics of Hope.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. "Perhaps I've opened some minds at the site with my positve threads"
Yeah, you opened minds alright. Sure. That's why they banned your ass. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #127
134. He wasn't 'banned' -- just prevented from spamming CCN with Anti-HC posts
He still has 'commenting' privileges.

3 anti-Clinton blogs in 2 days -- way over the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #134
135. I see 2 HRC blog entries (one quoting news sources and the other R. Reich) on Dec. 4 only
Not 3 in 2 days. But who's counting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #117
140. Wow, that is so wrong on so many levels. I'm sorry you were banned.
I didn't post over at Clark's blog. They were way too involved with worshipping the man. It reminded me of the hero worship that took place on Kerry's forum in 2004. It was gawd awful trying to read that forum at times.

Considering that Clark himself is not running for office, it doesn't sound right for them to suppress you from expressing yourself amongst a community of people that you must have known pretty well by now.
That just sucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #140
141. Read above
He wasn't banned. He can still post to the blog, but he can't continue to abuse it. Which is what he was doing -- by his own words, "pushing the envelope" in his attempts to recruit people to Obama.

Um, and fwiw, I would hardly consider this guy a member of the CCN community. He was tolerated at best. It's pretty obvious why from what he posts here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #141
152. It was his posting anti-Clinton blogs on Clark's site that really pushed the envelope
On a different thread here he wrote "politics is politics" and that he was "hoping to change some minds" by posting blogs attacking Clinton on Clark's site. He was right about one thing; politics is politics" and I hardly find it shocking that Wes Clark's web site chose not to host blogs that attacked the person who Clark is out campaigning for.

And now after his "pushing the envelope" he is over here at DU complaining when that envelope got pushed back at him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-08-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #152
160. Silencing his critics is the last act of a desperate despot.
No one should have been banned for presenting a different point of view in view of the fact that General Clark is not seeking office himself.

The blogmaster of the Clark blog has very little veritas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-08-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #141
161. Toleration is a word that is oftentimes tossed around at DU.
Yet, seldom practiced.

Whether he was considered a member of the CNN community by you or not, was not my point.
I would be remiss if I were not to remind you that whether you are just tolerated here or considered a member of the DU community is just as irrelevant.

He is innocuous to the Clark community. Yet,I refuse to debate about whether someone is simply "tolerated" or not. I'm not interested in whether someone in the community is the most popular member or not, as well.

We all have favorites, and we all tolerate some of the people that get under our skin.
But, as long as they don't break the rulez, they shouldn't be banned.

Pushing the envelope is not hard to tolerate, by any standard.

It isn't like he is running around advocating a Republican for President, like some of the other DU members here have, who have advocated Ron Paul for President.
Yet, I don't call for them to be banned - I simply ignore them.

Being liberal isn't always easy, but this message board wouldn't be what it is without us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
132. IS this a campaign to see which side can act like the whiniest little baby on Earth?
"But they started it!" :eyes:

Jesus, most parents don't let their own kids say that past the age of five and we have this from the so called adults? :crazy:

It's a funny ole world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
139. No surprise - Clark's 5 month campaign in 2004 was promoted by the Clintons.
No backscratching going on here, huh?

LoL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
144. It is easier to view this closer to objectively
if the words "attack" and "mud slingling" are taken out of it. We all have instinctive negative responses to the words "attack" and "mud slinging". The latter especially is pretty damn subjective when you get down to it. I've been a partisan in too many campaigns by now not to conceed that there is a tendency to call an "attack" from an opponent "mudslinging", while all the while believing that the guy or gal who I support is not "attacking" anyone, just setting the record straight for voters to decide issues on their own.

It seems clear to me that Clark is making this comment now because there has been such a media fuss made over if how and why Hillary Clinton has gone "negative" at this stage in the campaign. That fuss has been relatively one sided, focusing on the story line of Hillary openly deciding to aggressively defend herself by "pointing out" what she claims are inconsistencies in how other candiates present themselves relative to how they criticize her. This is a good media hook for pundits now because it dovetails nicely with the polls that show the race for the Democratic presidential nomination tightening.

But this campaign season did not reinvent the political rule book, it has followed it to a "T". Hillray Clinton has always been the front runner, and front runners are always subject to early and consistent "attacks" by their opponents. That is a big part of how underdogs hope to become favorites, and it plays out like this every political season in memory. And the front runner always starts out his or her campaign by trying to remain above the fray of personal attacks, trying to project a sense that they are operating on a higher plane, or at least that they are already hard at work preparing to defeat the Republican who they will oppose in the General Election.

Hillary did not initiate going negative on her Democratic opponents this year. Both she and her opponents followed the political rule book same as always. They focused their fire on her before she focused her fire on them. Come on folks, we all know this about front runners, it happened to Dean also. The script used was very different but front runners always are the subject of early "negative" attention, and at some point if they fail to completely run away from the field they turn around and start firing back. We can of course disagree on the integrity behind various "attacks" and "counter attacks", but the pattern is classic. Clark is right, but I don't blame Obama, Edwards, or anyone else for going negative first. They are all playing the political hands handed them at the start.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laureloak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
146. Does Clark realize that he's sounds like a whiney cry baby?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
154. It's too bad that Obama never said he was going to go on the attack.
Obama NEVER said he was going to go on the attack. The media spun his words about engaging her more directly in pointing out distinctions between them as "going on the attack." If you forgot, in that debate when everyone EXPECTED him to "go on the attack" he said right away that he was NOT going to be attacking her but pointing out the differences. And as a matter of fact, it was EDWARDS who turned out to "go on the attack" in that debate and afterwards. It's sad to see Wes Clark being dragged into the Clintons' games.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #154
158. Obama did attack Hillary in the debate.......
and previously.

Clinton Counters "Vicious" Obama Attack, Defends Husband
February 21, 2007 10:26 AM

According to the New York Times, mega media mogul David Geffen, best known as the founder of Geffen Records and one-third of the Dreamworks trio including director Steven Speilberg and his-'Shrek'-ness David Katzenberg, blasted the Clinton camp, taking pointed shots at both Senator Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson responded sharply Wednesday morning, e-mailing a statement "demanding that Obama disavow personal attacks" and asserting, "While Senator Obama was denouncing slash and burn politics yesterday, his campaign's finance chair was viciously and personally attacking Senator Clinton and her husband."

Wolfson continued, "If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money," adding that there is "no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Senator Obama's principal fundraiser."

Under the header, "Obama's Big Screen Test," the New York Times Maureen Dowd wrote, "The Dreamworks co-chairman calls the former president "a reckless guy" who "gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country."

Geffen also said, "Obama is inspirational, and hes not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And Im tired of hearing James Carville on television."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/hollywo...
---------------

Barack Obama apologizes for attack on Clinton
June 18, 2007

Sen. Barack Obama is now scrambling to soothe hurt feelings among some of his strongest supporters in the wake of a controversial attack memo last week poking fun at Sen. Hillary Clinton, his chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, for her ties to India and Indian-Americans.

Obama was working the apology phones today and planning a formal apology, distancing himself from the memo, which was headlined, "HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL TIES TO INDIA," It was prepared by the campaign's opposition research department and distributed to reporters last week in exchange for a promise that reporters not reveal the source. So much for trusting the reporters.

The memo got out.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/06/bara...
----------------------

Edwards, Obama Attack Clinton on Lobbyists
08/06/07
Obama pointed that it is undoubtedly true that the reason why her health care plan of '93 was brutally flushed out was because of the massive blockade by pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists.

"You cannot say that the money did not make the difference. Those lobbyists are not just contributing to the public interest," said Obama.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/338851/edwards...
-----------------

Thursday, October 18, 2007
Obama sustains attack on Clinton without naming her
http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-nevada-politics/2007/10...
-----------------


Clinton's Foes Go on the Attack
10/30/07
Obama pursued Clinton most pointedly over her White House papers, most of which are still locked away in her husband's presidential library in Little Rock. She said that she had approved the release of the papers, a point that national archivists dispute.

"We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history, and not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem," Obama said. Clinton has built her candidacy on the assertion that she is the most experienced challenger in the race, in large part because of her time as first lady.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
---------

Although I support Obama over Hillary, I don't support those who care dogging out Wes Clark for the fact that he has something to say about this, even if I'd prefer that he didn't.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
twiceshy Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
159. Clark is a Clinton Surrogate - nuff said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-09-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #159
163. Yes, that is a relevent point
Virtually every candidate uses some, I think Obama is using one big time today in fact. Come July hopefully we all will be surragates for the same Democrat. But even so, Clark has a valid point, if you consider "attacks" to be questioning the positions and qualifications of an opponent. Politics hasn't changed in this way in decades. The front runner is always the person who comes under "attack" first, and usually frontrunners spend some time trying to seem like they are above it all before they finally start to "attack" back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 04:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC