Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wes Clark's Son Trashes John Edwards

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
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:40 PM
Original message
Wes Clark's Son Trashes John Edwards
Today, I put up a post about a Time article that is coming out tomorrow on the Daily Kos (it was about Hillary Making a Run for the Presidency). Someone who calls himself Wes Clark Jr, trashed Edwards, and called him a snake oil salesman. To quote out of the thread:

"I understand the appeal of the (your candidate here)/Clark ticket. It's meant to shore up the resumes of candidates with no foreign policy or military experience.

As for why an Edwards/Clark ticket won't happen? I think the man is a snake oil salesman who would ruin the country.

"Apes don't read philosophy." "Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!"

by WesClarkJr on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 02:12:01 PM PDT


When I asked him if he was Wes Clark's son, he claimed he was.

"Are you WC's Son?
Benny05 on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 03:29:45 PM PDT

yes
"Apes don't read philosophy." "Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!
"by WesClarkJr on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 04:03:26 PM PDT"

LINK

I found this interesting as most Clarkies as ardent supporters and often the first to trash JRE. Wonder if his dad has been overly critical of John Edwards in private and that's why the bashing keeps going?

I hope not.

I've never been critical of Clark. And I don't want to be either. While one can admire the candor of this young man, it is an unfortunate comment, in my view. Edwards has not been openly critical of any of his competitors, except W and Cheney.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Maybe it goes back to his (Edwards)
lnks with General Shelton in the 2004 primary when explaining his Iraq position at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. The Edwards' campaign via Shelton
Questioned General Clark's honor with a Swiftboating, although they were not specific. Later when the General testified at the Hague, Milosevic tried to use Shelton's smear in court. The judge had to call Clinton and Shelton. At that point Shelton told the judge the comment "was just political."

Even after the controversy died down, Edwards' spokesperson told the WaPo that where there's smoke there's fire.

It has been my impression that the Clarks took the attack on General Clark's honor very seriously.

They should. I've still hear that smear repeated by off-line vets. After devoting your life to your country for very little pay relative to what could have been earned in civilian life, and after having been shot 4 times while doing so, I'd be more than a little pissed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. please provide a citation for the statements in this post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Nope
The whole fucking thing pisses me off beyond anything you can imagine. More than anything. The citations exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #18
33. the citations exist, but you won't provide them, because it pisses you off
then, sorry, but one is not inclined to take your word for it, given your rather bizarre reaction to a legitimate request for validation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. You mistake me for someone who cares what you think about this
Look it up. If I was on a different computer, I might just hit you with the truth. But I'm telling you that the citation exist. I don't go around telling lies about people or citations.

Bizarre is Swiftboating another Democrat for political gain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. and you mistake me for someone who can be intimidated by your smug
and superior tone. sorry, it doesn't work on me.

"hit me with the truth"?? oh please, try that line on someone gullible. I made a simple and legitimate request.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Smug?
Smug is thinking that it is just wonderful to lie about a person's honor, and then walk away.

You've got google. Some of the story is in the record from the Hague. Oh...that was really nice. Stopping a trial for a Swiftboat smear.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #37
111. Donna, I remember the issue at the Hague
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 08:12 AM by karynnj
Even if Sheldon was involved in this, the question is whether JRE gave credence to this. This is a very serious charge. Edwards, as a Democrat, should have defended Clark, after the trial. Democrats have to avoid giving ANY credence to swiftboating charges on their peers for political gain.

I am not an Edwards fan, but I think we need to be certain on the truth, before condemning anyone - Clark based on these insidious lies or Edwards on the charge of facilitating the story on Clark. I wonder if that comment was in one of the gossipping political columns that may have an agenda. (Think of the media's report that implied Clark spoke to them to say that Kerry had an affair with an intern. Could this have been to insure Kerry would rule out Clark as VP?) It is unfair to repeat that JRE did this without very documentable evidence.

This is something all of us need to really think very hard about. I am sure that the RW and some media allies WILL try to use Democrats against each other. The primary will be tough and every piece of everyone's biography will be used by opponents - only if we, Democrats hold candidates accountable for pushing things that are not true - will this end. The candidates will then have reason (other than their own conscience) to instruct their team that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. Had Clark won the nomination, any support given those charges for political advantage would have made it easier for the Republlcans to push the lie as fact.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MontanaMaven Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #111
124. This is the way we should conduct ourselves
Let's get to the bottom of this. Then tell all our candidates that we won't tolerate Swiftboating. We can play rough, but not sink to lies like the Swiftboaters did to Kerry. But unlike Kerry, when the attempt is made we've got to come back hard and tough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #124
155. Kerry actually did fight back
This research forum link documents the many things he did while the press still gave coverage to proven liars. In an earlier election - the proof of the SBVT lies and the connections to Bush, would have backfired.

Link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

What happened in 2004 was completely unprecedented. Kerry's awards, as he pointed out, were unchallanged for 35 years. Nixon had them reviewed - if anything wrong could be found 2 years after they were earned, Nixon would have gleefully used it to discredit the person his administration feared as the anti-war movements most credible spokesperson. They found he was squeaky clean and a genuine war hero and then they proceded to harras him. In the 90s, a born again Colson appologied to Kerry for the dirty tricks played on him. (In 2004, Colson's religious experience didn't demand he defend the man he earlier smeared - so his apology obviosly meant nothing.)

The problem they had was that Kerry, in reality, was extremely clean for a politician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MontanaMaven Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #155
158. Could also be a bit too Patrician
I have patrician friends who just are appalled at my more Chicago South side style of talking and fighting. Democrats naturally are not as crappy as Republicans in their style. Look at John Dean's book Conservative Without Conscience". But you need to get down in the trenches a bit. Kerry also did not fight the Ohio count. Edwards wanted to fight on. I admire John Kerry. I think he is a great Senate leader. But Senators don't always make great Presidents. The Senate is a slow deliberative body . The Presidency needs a Road runner. And not what we have now, a bad bicyclist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #111
131. There's no doubt about Edwards' involvement
Edwards issued a statement thru his press secretary defending Shelton and saying that other generals (none further identified) also questioned Clark's abilities and integrity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #131
153. Thanks - I was trying to be fair
I will look for the press statement - because if it questioned Clark's integrity after the case was shown to be fake, that will impact my impression of Edwards.

My comments, which were essentially to be wary about press reported comments where competitors smeared each other, should be taken with a grain of salt - and a concern that this is a way the press can hit 2 candidates at the same time. From what you say - Edwards' press secretary issued a statement - that's pretty hard to dispute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #33
108. If you're in doubt you can do a Google search and in a few
minutes find the clarification you need. It ain't hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #33
110. Most posters who were here during the campaign ALREADY KNOW
what happened. You won't score any points trying to make DZ look like a conspiracy theorists. She has lots of backers on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #110
127. oh my, how utterly defensive. I wasn't trying to do anything except ask
for some information. she's the one who got all huffy, and quite frankly, her backers aren't impressing me either. WHY so defensive and snarky about a simple request for information? I didn't imply anything, but you and the others are sure reading something into it that isn't there--one wonders why.

but these posts have certainly told me a great deal that is worth knowing, although, perhaps, not quite in the way intended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #18
84. I did a Google check. The "citations" don't exist.
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 02:48 AM by brentspeak
There are articles citing Shelton's squabble with Clark; there's nothing that says Shelton is an agent of Edwards' campaign.

Nice try with the Democrat vs. Democrat phony rumor divisiveness strategy, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #84
88. Here's snip from the Village Voice link that I posted:
This week Edwards hauled out former Joint Chief of Staff chair Hugh Shelton to attack Clark. As everyone knows the military vote in the South is a big deal, and Shelton, along with a lot of other military people, don't like Clark. The way Edwards sees it, if he can just hang in there with a third or fourth in Iowa and New Hampshire, then he's got a decent chance of winning South Carolina.

In September Shelton said that Clark was relieved of his assignment as NATO commander because of "integrity and character issues." He never said what these were.

Then last week Matt Bennett, Clark's communications man, said he was "simply astonished" at Edwards's use of Shelton and "politics-as-usual mudslinging." "General Shelton . . . initiated what has become a smear campaign that the Republicans have gleefully taken up," said Bennett.

Edwards kept the tiff going with a snooty reply directly to Clark: "Whatever your personal views on General Shelton, I'm sure you agree that he is a respected military leader who served our country with distinction." Concluded Edwards: "I will continue to seek his advice,"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #88
93. I remember reading that Clark had
some issues with staff under his command. Perhaps this is where Shelton fits in. Worth investigating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #93
94. No..you read to read the links
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #10
30. Like another DU'er, Can You Enlighten Me about Shelton
Not certain who that person is and what the spark is about. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #30
47. Shelton
Shelton is a close friend and advisor to Edwards. Shelton himself is a good-old-boy who made mucho bucks off the war while working for "Red Cap." He was very pro-war, and very pro-republican. I would image that Shelton would be part of any Edwards administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. Who is Shelton, DZ?
Need some links to be informed as you are. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #48
75. Here's Shelton link:
Now I should tell you (although I've already mentioned it) the computer I'm on doesn't have any old bookmarks. Zip. So I've used Google.

Shelton Smears Clark

snip....

"While he's at it, Shelton ought to explain why, if sneaking around your boss to go to the media is a grave character issue, sneaking around your former subordinate to go to the media with an unfalsifiable insinuation about him isn't. Clark says Shelton never came to him directly: "I have never heard anything about these integrity and character issues." Clark also says he has "no idea" what they are. Until Shelton clarifies the charge, Clark can't rebut it. He's presumed guilty of something serious. That's why Gibson's complaint is upside-down. If somebody is covering up what Shelton is talking about, that somebody is Shelton. And the cover-up isn't helping Clark; it's hurting him."

From the Hague Great work by Shelton...handing a tool to a ethnic cleanser. snip...

"George Bush continued to push his non-partisan uniter/not divider agenda by ordering John Ashcroft to detain General Hugh Shelton as an enemy combatant. Shelton, in tacit cooperation with Slobodon Milosevic, had uttered a false statement to a forum in California which was later picked up by the New Yorker magazine. Milosevic then used Shelton's statement as evidence to exonerate himself in the international war crimes tribunal. Excerpts from the trial were reported on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, December 21, 2003:"

Edward08 unofficial website

Appartently, the Edwards' supporters are still using this trash.

The Village Voice

I'd forgotten the Edwards went after Dean too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pa28 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #75
98. And another.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4052506 /

"General Shelton, Clark's aides are quick to note, is now listed as an unpaid adviser to the John Edwards campaign." Newsweek.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #75
101. Thanks for the links. Edwards is a lightweight compared to Clark.
And sleezy on top of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #30
92. Shelton connected to Geo.W.Bush
interesting read about Shelton
http://www.trianglepr.com/chamber/1071.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #30
97. For Pete's sake look it up.
Why do you expect people to do the work for you? Do you need some lessons on how to use the net?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
28. Not a thing to do with the war
Why would it. Shelton and Edwards fully supported the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
54. Wes Clark Jr has provided an explanation.

Go to the posted link in the original message and scroll down.

"A couple things led me to believe this. First, I believe he is fundamentally dishonest. During the campaign when he questioned my father's integrity with the Hugh Shelton smear. His next smear was that my dad was somehow beholden to lobbyists and that lobbyists were destroying our political system (he neglected to tell his audience that his campaign manager was a HUGE lobbyist or that he raised enormous sums of money through the trial lawyer lobby. But what sealed the deal for me had nothing to do with politics.

A friend of mine hosts a movie show. Celebrities come in and talk about their favorite movies for the promos and interview sections. During the 2004 campaign season, Edwards was a guest. He asked him what his favorite classic movies were and Edwards drew a blank. He couldn't name one. He asked his aide what he thought. The aide recommended DR STRANGELOVE and then Edwards asked the aide what it was about. They restarted the interview and Edwards basically repeated what the aide just told him. Yeah, so the guy lies about movies he's seen, big deal. But what disturbed my friend was how Edwards put on such a convincing performance about not only seeing but loving the moving (which he'd hadn't). He put on such a great performance that Slate did a story about his movie choice and how it somehow told us so much about the depth and wisdom of the candidate that he picked Dr. Strangelove. Maybe you don't have a problem with a President who is a convincing and enthusiatic liar about the little things in life. But my experience here on Earth tells me that if people lie about the little things, they'll lie about the big things.

As far as what kind of President he'd be? America right now is approaching the most dire geopolitical moment in its history (WOT, Iraq, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, peak oil and gloabal warming). I fail to see how a personal injury attorney with no executive experience and half a term in the Senate is going to guide us through it."



"Apes don't read philosophy." "Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!"

by WesClarkJr on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 10:03:16 PM PDT

< Parent >



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. Duly noted
Not for me to respond, other than JRE is more into reading than movies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Impashund Ubique Donating Member (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #55
91. From what I've read about him
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 03:20 AM by Impashund Ubique
he apparently is into both books and movies. What a change from the model of incuriosity inhabiting the WH currently ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #54
109. I read an interview where Edwards didn't know what model car he drove
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 07:59 AM by 1932
and he had to ask someone on his staff. He also had to ask the wife the title of the last book he read that he liked in another interview I read (the AWFUL DaVinci Code). I remember reading in that same interview that he said that Green Mile and Shawshank Redemption were his favorite movies, after having to be reminded the names of both titles by his wife. Shawshank Redemption is a dumb movie, if you ask me.

I just looked up the Slate article. Here's what it says:

Last night, Turner Classic Movies kicked off a monthlong series called "Party Politics and the Movies," in which senators are invited to choose and introduce their favorite films. John Edwards was the inaugural guest, and his selection was almost shockingly bold: Dr. Strangelove. This 1964 black comedy is best remembered for its closing image: Slim Pickens, playing a bellicose Texan Air Force pilot, yodels with glee as he rides a "nucular" missile to his death, initiating worldwide Armageddon. Essentially, Strangelove is the story of a few deluded powermongers who destroy the world because they can't admit they're wrong. Edwards was bashful about drawing parallels, but host Ben Mankiewicz finally baited the hook for him: "Is there any message you would like President Bush or Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to get from this movie?" Edwards' answer, delivered in his usual courtly drawl, was a quiet little knife in the president's ribs: "Human beings are fallible. They make mistakes ... That's why it's so important to have somebody at the top of the civilian government who understands what's happening and has good sound judgment."

http://www.slate.com/id/2107246 /

What a dumbass. Showing up to the TCM set to tape an introduction for a movie, and he decides at the last minute, after consulting a staff member, right in front of Jr's friend, what his favorite movie was. And it's not even his favorite movie. It's clearly a movie he picked in order to insult the bush administration.

And I can guess why Jr really didn't like this whole thing: Edwards says the movie shows how someone at the top of CIVILLIAN government should tell the army what to do. That's antithetical to Wes Clark's (pere) whole thesis in his two books: civilians get in the way of good military strategizing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Impashund Ubique Donating Member (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #109
145. Sarcasm, by any chance? :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #54
116. Well, that's an interesting post....
Thanks for adding that piece to the thread...

Are not any of you who are so freaked out by the fact that Clark admitted to voting for Reagan or that he spoke at a Republican fundraiser the same week he spoke at a Democratic one bothered at all by the fact that Edwards can lie so convincingly and has no qualms doing so...even if it's just about his favorite movie? But, then again, I have found that honesty is unfortunately not something that's REALLY valued in a politician, in this country at least, so what's a little lie here or there, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Impashund Ubique Donating Member (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #116
147. And as proven, Clark Jr. was BSing...
Check out the posts replying to his comment: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/8/20/15855/6576/1...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #147
149. Not necessarily.
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 10:18 AM by Sparkly
One person said they thought Edwards would have been prepared for the interview. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Who knows?

Another person said the candidates' choices had to be pre-arranged because they served as introductions to the films. But if the interviews were taped, they could have aired later with the selected films following. Again, who knows?

The larger point is that Wes Clark Jr. has a right to his opinion and a right to express it. If Edwards supporters are going to see him through another run, they ought to get enough "starch" to deal with people's opinions without getting their panties in a bunch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Impashund Ubique Donating Member (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #149
157. He doesn't have the right to his facts.
He said that the interview was about a discussion on classics and that the interviewer just asked Edwards about his favorite movie, and when Edwards couldn't think of anything, he turned to his aide for an answer. And the aide recommended Dr. Strangelove, so Edwards talked about it. Total Baloney.

Edwards was there to present a movie that he had chosen for this special Senators' series. Four senators were asked to present one of their favorate movies to be aired during the course of a month. Edwards chose Dr. Strangelove... and then he taped an introductory interview for it weeks later.

The only reason the movie was being aired is because Edwards picked it as the movie he wanted to show the viewers and talk about, so this is whole tale about an interview on classics etc. is crap.

This is the Press Release from TCM:

In this very political year, as we approach the November elections, TCM has invited four prominent U.S. Senators to appear in interviews with host Ben Mankiewicz to introduce significant films in their lives. On October 7, John Edwards, Democratic vice presidential candidate and U.S. Senator from North Carolina, will consider Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964). Edwards chose Stanley Kubrick's black comedy about nuclear war because of its message that "putting this kind of power into the hands of human beings - no matter who they are - is an extraordinary thing."

On October 14, John McCain, R-Arizona, will discuss Paths of Glory (1957), a drama of French soldiers on a suicide mission during World War I. McCain cites the film's stark examination of the scale in which people die during wartime, thereby emphasizing the gravity of holding public office.

On October 21, Joseph R. Biden, D-Delaware, will offer his thoughts on Dead Poets Society (1989), starring Robin Williams as a charismatic teacher at a prep school of the 1950s. Biden chose the movie because he admires its theme of balancing tradition with individualism, it was shot in his home state - and he's a huge Williams fan.

On October 28, Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, will discuss To Kill a Mockingbird (1962), selected because its story of an idealistic country lawyer (Gregory Peck) reverberates with memories of Hatch's own past as a struggling law student and a young lawyer who took on pro-bono cases in Pennsylvania and Utah before being elected to the Senate.



--- End of PR ---

http://www.tcm.com/thismonth/article/?cid=81889

Perhaps Clark supporters could do with some intellectual honesty, even if Junior lacks it. Go read the responses to Clark Jr.'s comments and then honestly tell me that you find his story to have any credibility. It is one thing to be of the opinion that John edwards is a "fundmentally dishonest" man, it is quite another to make up a story to somehow justify your opinion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philgobluemi Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
115. Wait, y'all are angry that an advisor says something
but the son of the candidate calls Edwards a "a snake oil salesman who would ruin the country" giving as evidence of this outlandish remark some incident he hear-sayed from an unnamed friend about a conversation that Edwards had on a movie show (which two DKos posters proved was an impossible claim) and you don't raise a peep? Come on.

I honestly don't know the reasons for Clark's dismisal from NATO command. I know Cohen did it and he was a nominal Republican, but he must have done so witht the OK of President Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #115
125. Cohen was pissed because Clark was correct, acted upon
his decision to get Slobodon out and won.

The problem with Gen. Clark was simple: It was that he was right. Although his public posture was meticulously unrevealing of his own feelings, it was known, and certainly appropriately so when many lives were at risk, that from the beginning he did warn both the Pentagon and the White House privately that, in order to win in Kosovo, more aggressive actions would need to be taken. He began planning for a ground invasion before anybody here would think of it. He warned them of the terrible consequences of failure, such as the destruction of a humiliated NATO.

As British writer Michael Ignatieff explains in the present New Yorker: "Clark had wanted a different approach from the outset. He and his air commanders ... had wanted to 'go downtown' on the first night, hitting power, telephone, command-and-control sites and Milosevic's bunkers."

The simple truth right now is that nobody says that Clark was wrong. In fact, the respected German Gen. Klaus Naumann, just-retired head of the NATO military committee, told a group of us here recently, in his review of the still-unresolved conflict, that "the reluctance to use overwhelming force allowed Slobodan Milosevic to calculate his risks. ... I would press harder for visible preparations and visible planning."


SNIP

I have interviewed Gen. Clark, both in Panama and at his office in Belgium soon after the war started, and I know how careful he has been in everything he has said. As we sat last April in his office in Mons, I kept trying to get him to say something even moderately revealing, but he wouldn't.

In fact, you need only to look at his brilliant testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on July l to see how modulated his words always were -- and how he had been able to explain how difficult this new type of "coalition warfare" was -- but also to accept the reality that it is almost surely the warfare of the future. Most analysts I know are filled with unvarnished admiration for his political skills in keeping the l9-member NATO coalition together.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was jealousy of Clark at the Pentagon. He is too smart, too decent, and above all too clear about what is -- and what isn't. He surely will have a brilliant future. I'm far more worried about us.

Everything points to the fact that, far from getting rid of Gen. Clark, what we really need is to get rid of this jealous bureacratic mentality at the top of our military establishment. For if what they are really saying with these acts is that there is no place for a Wesley Clark in the U.S. armed forces, then we're in deep trouble.


http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm#GEN.%20WESLEY%20... (there's an entire collection about the whole bru-ha-ha at this link)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philgobluemi Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #125
129. who wrote that
and are there other alternative explanations? I just find the jelousy hard to believe, given it had to be OKed by Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #115
130. Oh, It Was Definitely NOT With The O.K. Of Clinton:
From "The Clinton Wars," P. 651, 652:

". . . . At the Pentagon, a graceless note was struck in July, however, when General Clark was summarily retired early as SACEUR. This is a personal slap at him for having insisted on ground troops against the Pentagon's recommendation and for his sharpness in pursuing that strategy. And the White House had been snookered without realizing it when it had earlier agreed to what Berger and others thought was a routine replacement process at SACEUR. But it was held against Clark that he was a political general, it was a mistaken impression. Clark had in fact PUT HIS STRATEGIC CONCERNS ABOVE POLITICS AND ABOVE HIS CAREER.
Clark was called at night and informed of the Pentagon's decision without being given any recourse. He instantly received a call from a Washington Post reporter, who had been tipped off by the Secretary of Defense's office to confirm the story. ***When the President learned what had happeneed, he was furious - "I'd like to kill somebody," he told me - but there was nothing to be done. Clark's enforced early retirement from the European post was a fait accompli. Secretary Cohen and General Shelton had considered Clark insubordinate. Clinton awarded Clark The Presidential Medal Of Freedom, and the British gave him an honorary knighthood. But the Pentagon's treatment of Clark left a sour tast amid the triumph."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #130
139. Thanks Dinger...
I'm at work and meant to look for this piece, too, but got busy - you know... working.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #139
143. This Is My Last Week Of Summer Vacation, So I'm Having A Little Quality DU
time at home this morning. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. Your OP is misleading
Unless you can verify that this was Wes Clark's son, you have no business titling your OP the way you did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Completely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. It is Wes Clark Jr.
That's his sig line.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Anyone on the web
can sign a post WesClarkJr.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Wes Jr has been a member of Kos from the beginning
I'm telling you that it was him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #12
21. If it was
it was a supremely dumb thing to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #21
95. Hugh shelton is advisor to Edwards campaign
Read the goddamn article at this site and maybe you'll might understand Clark Jr's anger.

http://www.notgeniuses.com/archives/001390.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. .
:spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #5
38. and you know this for a fact, how??? once again, we are simply to take
your word for something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. Then don't
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. just love your attitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. Good
Because you have no idea...you couldn't possibly conceive of the degree to which this entire disgusting episode pisses me right the fuck off. None.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #46
58. the fact that this episode pisses you off is no excuse for your lack of
manners and your tone. I am not the one who created whatever this situation is, I was merely asking for information, which is my right. your angry behaviour is your right, of course, but don't expect people to be impressed or intimidated by it, nor can you expect us to note that you fail to provide any proof other than your anger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. Do you doubt my word?
The citations exist. Period. My tone is cannot compare to lying about another person's honor. Not for an instant. As Gert Clark said on CSpan, "He left the Army with nothing but his reputation and now they are trying to take that away."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #61
72. no, I simply don't care about your word, given your nasty attitude on this
thread. you invite doubt with every single one of your posts here tonight.

tell me something, were you this outraged about the swiftboating of john kerry? and if not, WHY not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #72
78. I did all I could for Kerry
Is this now of game of what did you do in 2004? As for the Swiftboating, yes...I was outraged. And I was outraged when Dole pulled shit. I wrote letters and called. And exactly what did you do? Should we compare financial contributions as well? Huh?

Now, I've taken the time to Google and post links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #72
100. It can get nasty when people get on here
and defy other posters who bother to post links that might enlighting you. Just flame away, don't bother to read anything. Just argue. Just defy people to answer inane questions, such as, "Tell me something, were you this outraged about the swiftboating of John Kerry/and if not, WHY not?"
Tell me, what has that to do with this discussion???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #100
106. since you claim to have read all the posts, you might have troubled to
notice that there was a simple request for a citation backing something up. this was a legitimate request, as is made countless times on these boards. your high-handed tone is no more in line than the poster's original responses were. "DEFY other posters"??? a request for information is DEFYING other psters? that is absolutely fascinationg, thank you for the information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #38
96. For Christ's sake while I have been
reading the posts here, I have taken the time to see how much truth there is to this discussion. Amazing what information the internet has to offer if you use your noodles and do a little bit of reading yourselves. Don't you people take time to investigate these issues or don't you know how to use the internet to find things out for yourselves?
I and others have posted a couple of sites to go to. Did you bother to read any of the information posted for your benefit? God, this is exasperating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #38
99. All this stuff is to be found on the net
that is if you really want to know what's going on. Do you know how to use the net or do you jave a problem with reading? You don't have to take anyone's word for anything, but if you are smart, you will take the time to do some investigating on your own and you might be wiser for it instead of slamming someone who is trying to convey the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkySue Donating Member (647 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #5
70. That's true
It is Wes Clark Jr. I spoke with him briefly at an event recently and I mentioned seeing his posts on DKos.

As for the other, Wes Clark Jr. is a grown man with a family and has every right to his opinions and free speech. He is not speaking for his dad, he is speaking for himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
104. Try the online phone directory for Wesley Clark
You get more than 100 entries and that's limited to listed numbers.

It is possible to be Wesley Clark, Jr. without being THE Wesley Clark, Jr.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. Why assume that the poster is really his son? n/t
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 11:52 PM by monarch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. hey, good advertising for Edwards!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
8. you are not allowed to call out other DU members which JR is
just to let you know.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:00 AM
Original message
Is he a DU Member?
Didn't know?

I posted proof that he says he who he is ON the Daily Kos.

I'm surprised more than anything else.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
15. Yes, he is a member here
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
16. he has posted similar things before, but he isn't a public figure
or anything. and i'm not sure he should be seen as someone who speaks for Clark. Chris Heinz posted on here at times also and i think he has said that his opinion was different from Kerry's on many things.

the same might be true of Wes Clark Jr. in any case i think he should be treated as someone who is representing himself and happens to be Clark's son rather than as official spokesperson for his dad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #16
44. Yes, Wes Jr. speaks for himself
He has also said that his father is a much nicer person than he is. His father is a firm believer in free speech, and I doubt if he would ever try to muzzle his son. Have you ever seen Wes Jr. on Young Turks? He totally rocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
19. Thanks, can you find a post of his here?
And I don't think I am breaking the rules here because he posted on a different blog, not here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #19
102. Thanks, can you find a post of his here?
Did it ever occur to you to do a little searching for youself? Grrrrrr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
26. That's not calling out
That's a comment based on something at another forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. i see, i just realized that now
i thought it was based on posts Wes Jr recently made here which i have seen in the past few days. i guess it's ok then but i'm still not sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. It was on a different blog and nothing here
But good to know he has a handle here...is it the same one as on the Daily Kos, do you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. can't say if it's exactly the same
but yeah, his handle is his name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #32
107. I don't remember the last time I saw him post here.
I don't think I've seen him since 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #107
117. He posted here just a week or so ago. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #26
118. From the rules....
Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #118
119. So then this thread is totally legit.
Thanks :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #119
120. On the contrary, and you know it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indy_Dem_Defender Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
11. I would like to reveal myself
to DU, My names is Evan Bayh Senator from Indiana, if you believe that I got real estate in florida I'd like to sell you. I wouldn't believe this guy for a second.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patricia92243 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #11
20. Well hi! I'm Howard Dean. Glad to meet you1 :)
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Very funny
I would like to meet Howard Dean. I think we would like each other. Have you met him personally?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. I always suspected you were Howard Dean
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. Me or Patricia?
Actually, I am a lot like Dean, just happen to agree with Edwards more often, but I think Dean is a great patriot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgxnk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #20
85. metro
i knew howard dean claimed to be a metrosexual...

but now he calls himself "Patricia?"

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
13. Wes Clark Sr. has never been overly critical of any other candidate.
You'll find that the reason most Clark SUPPORTERS are critical of Edwards is that we liken him to Bush in the experience category, particularly in foreign policy, diplomacy and national security - all areas in which the Democrats need to shine in, in order to beat any Republican put forward.

In short, we simply don't feel Edwards has much experience in those areas - not that he would be as bad as Bush, but he doesn't have any (or much) experience there. It's why we LIKE Clark and DON'T LIKE Edwards.

It has nothing to do with any statements made by Clark, himself, because there isn't any.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. You said your piece
Thanks. While I do not have cajones by birth, I don't have a need to criticize Wes Clark as he is a good patriot. We all know he has no domestic policy experience. But he's out there trying to help our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. Wes Clark is a leader
He has also run all domestic services for the equivalent of a small state.

But that is neither here nor there. General Clark stood beside Edwards on the campaign trail, and spoke very positively about him. The General helped with Edwards' lack of credentials on the stump, even though Wes Clark disagree with Edwards' position on the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #17
132. I Thought He Worked In The White House OMB, Not Sure When Though (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #17
137. Actually, yes he does have domestic policy experience.
He worked in the Office of Management and Budget during the 1970s.

He also managed the equivalent of a small country while he was NATO commander.

Therefore, that premise is incorrect.

Next...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MontanaMaven Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #13
133. This is a more productive discussion to have
I had no dog in the fight before June 2003. I studied speeches and then the actual ideas put forth by each of the candidates to implement their policies. I also evaluated the style and the ability to communicate their agenda. I was intrigued with General Clark. I didn't mind his having voted Republican. Jim Webb and other military guys have switched. I've heard vets say that it's just easier while you are in the military to be a Republican. But it's hard to stay that way when you see how vets are treated once they are out of the military. I was sick though of the whole Vietnam deal. I am a boomer. My first husband was a conscientious objector and served two years in a hospital. I didn't want to fight the Vietnam War all over again. I felt it would poison the atmosphere once again. So for that reason and for the emphasis on poverty and anti-NAFTA, and for the emphasis on kitchen table issues, I picked Edwards. Well, I was right. By picking Kerry pretty much ONLY because he was a Vietnam vet, we fought that war all over again. And we lost. I'm keeping General Clark on the list. He may be like Ike. Eisenhower contemplated running as a Democrat and actually governed more like a Democrat than Clinton.
Let's keep our options open. John Edwards is no "snake oil salesman". He's a sharp, tough, trial lawyer who knows how to win and knows how "to charm an owl out of a tree." Arthur Miller said after McGovern's defeat that "we like a little larceny in our leaders." If Clark, Edwards, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson all have a little "larceny", that's probably good. We don't need to run anymore "goody two shoes" candidates. They'll lose or make us cringe like Loser Joe Lieberman who sounds like a school marm most of the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
25. That sounds like Wes Jr.
Haven't heard from him in a while. There was some bad blood with Edwards when Clark announced 3 years ago. Edwards camp felt that he stepped on their announcement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MontanaMaven Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #25
136. He's a friend of Ben Mankowitz
And often co-hosts on "The Young Turks". I listen to them religiously. My favorite talk show host, by far, is Cenk Uygar. A brilliant commentator with incredible passion. My second favorite on the show is Jill Pike. She is an up and comer at only 27 years old. Intuitively right on. Ben Mankowitz, on the other hand, is a bit too old school for me, but I don't scream at the radio too often at him. Cenk alwasy speaks with real conviction. He has a philosophy. He has a law degree. He knows the constitution. Ben operates more as a dispassionate observor. He was a journalist. He's more of a "reporter" of events, not a deep thinker like Cenk. It's a good combo. But I'm not going to take him too seriously about any of the candidates. I'll wait to see what Cenk and Jill think once they do a face to face with Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MysteryToMyself Donating Member (302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
29. Give me a real Democrat like John Edwards.
Three things jump out at me.

One is the Clintons backed Clark, the last election primary. The DLC are actually republican and Hillary is in that club. I don't know if Clark is.

Clark used to be a republican. Hillary used to be a republican.

Clark also works for Fox News and draws a salary from them.

Add DLC+former republican+Fox News...I don't trust them.

I don't usually bash a Democrat, but these Dino's need a taste of their own medicine. They bash the real Democrats.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. What I Like about Edwards
Is that he is a true Democrat, unlike Joe Lieberman, in which his plight is about Joe, not the party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Schema Thing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. When you've given an 1/8th of the support to the democratic party that
Wes Clark has, you can call him a Dino. Until then, you know the drill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #29
42. Three lies don't make the truth
The Clintons had nothing to do with Wes Clark running. Jimmy Carter did.

Wes Clark was never for one second of his life a republican. Not one.

Edwards was DLC...Wes Clark was not.

Wes Clark kicks butt on Fox and he does it for Democrats, not the money. So much for the thanks he'll get from people who just want to bash Democrats. He has been there for you about the war, and he was there for Edwards.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. DZ...whoa about DLC
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 12:55 AM by benny05
Because Wes has never run for any public office until 2004, most members of the Senate and House were automatic members of DLC. So you are right, but General Clark has not tested himself otherwise. Never has. OK, but don't throw this up. JRE is no longer a part of their club, but keeps track of it.

Wes may have ambitions to be the president, but one cannot totally fault former club members.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #45
49. Most?
The DLC tried to add Obama to their list, and he made them take it off. There are plenty of good Democrats who stay out of that cess pool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:57 AM
Original message
Obama is part of that group
Sorry to deflate your view, but he is.

And he's my senator.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
52. If he is...then I got the story wrong
It was my understanding that he didn't join although they tried to get him. That's too bad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #52
122. I heard the same as you - and the DLC doesn'thave a posted list
It actually seems that the DLC, which only elected Democrats can belong to, is more of an alliance than a club with a members list and rules and regulations. Leaving appears to happen mostly by leaving office or simply not participating. Edwards did join - but he like all other Senators voted his beliefs. There were areas where he agreed and areas where he disagreed with the DLC leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #45
50. What about the rest?
There are two other lies you told. What about them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. I didn't talk about lies, you did...let's discuss
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 12:58 AM by benny05
Are you saying I am telling lies? Jeepers, I hope not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #50
59. 3 things
one: never a republican

two: asked by Carter and several other people...not a Clinton tool. Does Clinton know him...well, yes. Now he would.

three: not DLC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. And your point is...in order to continue a good discussion here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #42
53. clark's political stance
<<<<Wes Clark was never for one second of his life a republican. Not one>>>>

no, but he voted for republicans, and was an independent until he decided to run for the presidency

As an Independent throughout his military career, Wesley Clark affiliated himself with the Democratic Party in 2003. Clark stated that he voted for Republican candidates in the past, including Presidents Nixon and Reagan, as well as Democratic candidates, Clinton and Gore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. 1992 and beyond
I guess that's not enough for some people.

Eisenhower didn't even vote because he felt he would compromise his position.

We have no idea who Wes Clark voted with the exception of who he told us. He could have lied but he didn't. Who did Edwards vote for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. About what?
It is easy for Clark to say what he supported since he had NO voting record, and easy to attack Edwards, since he has a record. Can we agree on that principle?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #57
64. Who did Edwards vote for
I already know he voted against Veterans benefits, for the war, and helped write the Patriots Act.

What people did he vote for?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. I can debunk easily here...if you like eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #66
67. Debunk what?
The piece about the Patriots Act was on his website. I'm sure you can't debunk his vote for the war. And that leaves what? The veterans thing? He admitted that on ABC one Sunday morning with the camera rolling.

Who did he vote for? That was the question. You said that Clark voted for Reagan. True. When asked he said so, he didn't have to. So...tit for tat. Who did Edwards vote for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #67
71. Another time I can Debunk n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #64
105. Supporters like
you, do nothing for their candidate but turn people off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #56
73. who edwards voted for is NOT the point of your post. and what about
1992 and beyond? are we to assume that you mean that since clark indicated he voted for clinton and gore, that made him a democrat? then, by THAT standard, he WAS a republican when he voted for reagan and bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #73
81. Indy...he only retired in 2000
As an officer he remained independent. Although that is no longer the rule, it was at one time, and he held to it. Actually, a non-partisan military is a good idea.

BTW, you do realize that in Arkansas it is a fairly recent development that people register by party.

Since you are so very concerned about General Clark's past votes, I would think that you would know who Edwards voted for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #73
103. Just because someone votes for a
certain candidate doesn't mean they are either Dem or Repub; have you ever heard of an Independent? Many people who register as party members have and will vote for the opposing candidate. You assume a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #53
135. To My Eternal Shame, I Have
voted repug in the past (raygun - I was an idiot - I voted on name recognition only - It's a helluva lot different now, which is why I love Clark).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #135
141. MOST people who voted, voted for Reagan.
And Nixon.

Not all are honest enough to admit it, though. (Look at how honesty is rewarded!!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MysteryToMyself Donating Member (302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #42
74. I don't lie
Clark isn't for me in upholding the wars. I am anti-unjust wars.

I remember Hillary and Bill thought Wes Clark should be president.

I have seen Clark on Fox....totally for the war all the way.....just criticizes the way the Bushites are doing it.

Edwards leaving the DLC makes me like him more.

There is a chance of getting Clark in because he is military, then Bushites using his war scandal against him like they did Kerry.

Edwards will do well by our country. He can appoint who he needs to run the military.

We don't need military presidents for war. Bush is proof of that.

Clark's son is bashing Edwards and you writing about it is bashing another real democrat in a sneaky sort of way.

Are you standing behind Joe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #74
87. Heh?
Paul Wellstone quoted Clark when he voted against the war. Unfortunately, not all of the senators were listening to him. Some were listening to Shelton. Clark was against this war, and I don't know what you've watched on fox. I watched every clip on Clark on fox, and he never upholds this war. Quite the opposite. He is for a phased withdrawal which he said when he presented the Dem. plan.

What war scandal? Winning a war without losing one American troop? That one?

Bush was AWOL, and never actually served. He knows squat that is why he is so easily pushed around. Bush is proof that you need someone who actually understands foreign policy and the Pentagon. And leadership.

During the primary, Hillary and Bill never endorsed anyone including Wes Clark.

I believe in free speech. Wes Clark Jr. using the pronoun "I" answered a question. He told the questioner why he didn't like Edwards. If you want to call that bashing...well, I guess that's your choice. Maybe people shouldn't answer questions honestly. Personally, I think they should.

I don't know how sneaky I've been, since I'm answering questions on a public board. Weird use of the word "sneaky." Some people would say that using "charged" words like "sneaky" is a form of bashing in itself. Furthermore, I haven't said anything about Edwards that is not well known. He voted for the war, helped write the Patriots Act, and voted against Veterans Benefits. So? And if you bothered to read the links, he and Shelton told lies about Clark. Bashing? Well, I suppose if you wanted to pretend that those things never happened.

I'd answer the Joe smear, but frankly, it just makes no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philgobluemi Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #42
113. Three Replies
1. Evidence.
2. If it votes for Republicans and speaks at Republican fund-raiser, it's a Republican.
3. Really, when? I think he was a nominal member in 1998 when he was first elected but never played a prominent role in the group and seems to have ended his afiliation in 2000. Then again, better a DEMOCRATIC Leader, than a Republican one.'

Strange you're spending you're entire time here bashing Democrats that you get angry when others bring up critiques of "The General."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #113
152. One reply to you.
You watch too much corporate media and don't read nearly enough independent evidence.

If you had, you'd know that not a word you said is worth a damn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #29
62. man oh man....the same old shit just a different day
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 01:17 AM by windbreeze
I guess what you are trying to say, is the the DLC is the Republican arm of the Democratic party?????
Clark used to be a Republican....really now??? you got proof of that???
he WAS a registered independent, period!!...he was NEVER registered as a republican...by the way, I have been a registered Democrat all my life, and I voted for Reagan...
Clark works for FAUX news, in order to get our point out to those who watch ONLY FAUX news...yeah, he should get paid for having to put up with the crap he does to do so...(you know, kinda like entering the lion's den...exactly the right thing to do, and I didn't see anyone else step forward to do it)

By the way...Gen Clark happens to be the ONE Democrat who called for Democrats to stop bashing/attacking each other...and said that we would only be taken seriously when we quit doing so..but he also recognizes that dissent is necessary...

Wes Clark Jr...is a grown man...way past the age for good ole Dad to tell him how to think, act or to monitor what he says...and he IS outspoken..Gen.Shelton bad mouthed WesClark Sr., and I believe it was after this that he was hired by Edwards to work on his campaign...so I am sure Jr. has his own opinion about these things...we only know what we're told...he was part of it all...I venture to say, he knows more about it, than any of us do....

I don't see how anyone can hold the father responsible for what the grown son says...but then, that's me...I guess if people are looking for a reason to hold something against someone...they will...even if that person had nothing to do with whatever happened...guilt by association is what it's called...
wb

ps: adding on edit that I would like to think, that the thousands of letters he received from US, the people, asking him to run, and the money we donated to get him going, had just a little something to do with convincing him to run, and I believe there were others to who encouraged him...but he was NOT the Clinton's candidate....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #29
121. Edwards himself was DLC at that point
The Clintons - who I am not big fans of at this point - are not Republicans. Here you have carried guilt by association to the extreme.

DLC is evil and Republican = the Clintons were/are DLC + Bill "backed"* Clark in the 2004 primaries = therefore Clark is Republican.

In 2004, it was fair to ask about Clark's political party - there was no track record. But, Clark was one of the few very loyal excellent surrogates that Kerry/Edwards had. As an Edwards person, you should remember that.

* Bill Clinton DID NOT endorse anyone in 2004 - many Clinton people backed Clark and Clinton made a comment repeated in a gossipy New York Magazine article that Clark and Hillary were the only Democratic stars. This was NOT an endorsement - even if true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #29
123. Not even a good try to smear the General....
....but thanks for playing.... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #29
138. Clark Is A Real Democrat, AND Works Very Hard For Real Democrats, AND
I CAN"T STAND the DLC, but no, they aren't repuglican. Clark isn't DLC or repuglican. Yes, the Clinton's did back Clark. You are right about that.

I am GLAD Clark works for Faux - goddamn! - We need SOMEONE there, it sure as hell isn't colmes! Sheesh!

I can't stand the DLC, and I'm glad Clark is on Faux, and to my eternal SHAME (as I've said before in this thread) , I've votedfor repugs. Am I not trustworthy?


This is an interesting thread, thanks for posting it. Good discourse here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #138
150. He's been working his ASS off for Democrats!!!
And not just the ones who make spashy headlines and photo ops, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
63. Here was my post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zonkers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
65. This vid. of Wes Clark Jr. no holes barred interview on Young Turks is a
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #65
68. Thanks
Wes Jr. is great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. And I invited discourse
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 01:28 AM by benny05
DZ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #69
76. You'll have to be a little less enigmatic
I've now provided links. You've seen (or have the opportunity to see) a video of Wes Jr. who is very out spoken.

You say that you will debunk 3 things, but don't seem to have the time. Patriots Act, Vote for War, and Veteran's Benefits. All very well documented.

The Shelton-Edwards connection is also documented and I bothered to Google the links for you.

Wes Jr. doesn't think highly of Edwards. General Clark helped Edwards and has never said anything bad about him. That is after knowing where the Shelton smear came from.

I've asked you who Edwards voted for in the past since who General Clark voted for seems to be such a big deal.

And what...you type DZ. Is that discourse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #68
128. You were IMRESSED by this?
I thought he acted like an adolescent. Truly. My own teenage kids could hold a more mature dialogue than what I saw here. While candor is great I thought the manner in which Jr spoke represented much of what is wrong with political discourse these days.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #68
134. Is There A Transcript Of This? I Have Dial Up : ( (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgxnk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #65
90. lol
i like him

politically incorrect as hell

i can respect that

the part about appealing to abortions rights groups by acting like a "pussy"

lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MysteryToMyself Donating Member (302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
77. Democrats don't go to Republican Fundraisers
Some call Clark opportunist. They say that since it'd be virtually impossible to beat Bush for the Republican nomination, Clark simply morphed into a Democrat the last election. Clark often voted Republican including for Ronald Reagan and he attended a GOP fundraiser where he praised George W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. Edwards voted for that team that Clark praised.
You do know that Clark's father was an elected Dem. who was a delegate to the convention in Chicago that nominated FDR? That's some powerful morphing.

Clark also did a fundraiser two weeks later for a Democrat.

Besides, you'll have to read the entire speech to "get it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Impashund Ubique Donating Member (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #79
80. Edwards voted for George W.? Now, that's news.
Sorry, I'm not following. What "team" did Edwards vote for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #80
83. Team
Rummy, Ashcroft, Powell etc. Anyone the senate approved. Team.

The speech goes on to outline a foreign policy that is exactly the opposite of bush's. You would know that after reading it.

A high school friend of Clark's asked him to give the speech. He said that couldn't since he would be out of town. The friend then had the date changed so that Clark would speak. General Clark then gave a speech for the Democrats. He also stumped for Cleland and some other Dems that summer. NO republicans.

Shelton is a republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Impashund Ubique Donating Member (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #83
89. Edwards did not vote
for Ashcroft. I'm not sure about Rummy or Powell.

Plus, I wouldn't even bring Wes Clark into this. His son is entitled to his own views, however ill-considered they might seem to some of us.

I am not one of those who think of Clark as a republican, and I don't care if he once praised Bush. Heck, many democrats have done that - almost all of them after 9/11.

I just wanted to know what "team" you were talking about... thanks for making it clear * shrugs *
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #77
112. In a perfect world they wouldn't, but the real world isn't quite so
black and white.

There is a lot more of Democrats going to Republican fundraisers and vice versa than you know about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #77
140. I Don't Think He's An Opportunist. He's Damn Near The Only Hope We Have
to heal this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Impashund Ubique Donating Member (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
82. Edwards will ruin the country?
"Ruin the country." Those are some strong words. I am not a fan of Clark, but I don't think that any democrat planning to run in 08 is going to "ruin" the country.

Thanks for putting this up benny05.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #82
142. I Don't Think He'd Ruin The Country Either. It's Just That . . .
I like Clark a lot better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #142
144. The country's already ruined in many ways.
I don't think Edwards has what it takes to repair the damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #144
146. Clark Does Though, That's For Damn Sure!
Dman, it's hell waiting for him to declare!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Impashund Ubique Donating Member (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #142
148. That's a much more respectable stance
I completely disagree, but I can still respect ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:00 AM
Response to Original message
86. Gen. Clark is a class guy. He'd hit the ceiling if he got wind of this.
Assuming it's true, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
114. Wes Clark Jr. has a right to his opinions.
"I think the man is a snake oil salesman who would ruin the country."

It's not like he took out a full-page ad. That one comment might have stayed where it was posted if you hadn't broadcast it here. Just sayin'.

Speculation on what General Clark says in private is akin to speculation about what Edwards or anybody else says in private -- who knows??

The fact that Edwards hasn't been "openly critical" is neither here nor there. Wes Clark Jr. isn't General Wes Clark.

I don't see the big deal. :shrug:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
126. Well it is consistent with what I've seen/heard
I caught him on some interview (Young Turks?) someone posted here and he was so politically inept. Reminded me of Bush the way he did mocking imitations of those he disagreed with. It was mostly other Dems he was talking about too.

Yeah, real grown-up team player. :rolleyes: If Clark runs again the first thing he might want to do is get that kid educated on how to be frank while not stooping down to school-yard-bully behavior.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #126
154. And your opinions of all things "Clark" are suspect, Julie.
Besides, don't you have something to go do in the, ahem, "real world."

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
151. John Edwards a "snake oil salesman"?
And a fairly transparent one at that.

John Edwards "ruin the country"?

No, but he ain't the one to fix it either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
156. I've seen this WesClarkJr posting on DU before.....
...and always with a subliminal message against Edwards. I find that very sad. :cry:

I'm used to "trolls" posting here and choose to ignore them, but the one post I'm thinking of was definitely supported by the DU Clark Supporters community. As in: That's really Wes's son !!??

Um'o'kay, does Wes's son have anything to say about Bush*co's war on terrorism ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
159. Locking
Continuation of previous flame-wat, calling out a forum member, and flame-bait.
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 Apr 18th 2014, 09:33 PM
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