Anyone who thinks Clark will be VP is nuts

[Dying Eagle]

We all like and respect the man. He is a great hero and would have made a good President as well. The simple fact is he is the new kid. He is not from the established core of the Democratic party. He may end up on the cabinet as SOD or SOS, but the "powers at the Top" will never allow Kerry to pick Clark as VP.

[Dookus]

1. I dunno...

This is Kerry's decision. Clark brings a lot to the table. He may not be selected, but I bet Kerry's seriously considering him.

[Dying Eagle]

3. I think.....

The Party has A LOT to say in who is picked as Kerry's VP. I doubt the choice is 100% Kerry's

[Dookus]

7. I disagree

as the presumptive nominee, Kerry is now the party leader. He can pick who he wants. Does he get advice from the insiders? sure. But what can they do? Refuse to support him if he picks someone they don't like?

Furthermore, I think the party insiders would very much like to have Clark.

[JI7]

8. right, there are insiders who want clark, edwards, and gep

many who want clark are those who deal with foreign policy issues. edwards supporters tend to be southerners who feel he can help in that area. and of course gephardt has many union leaders pushing for him. kerry will pick whoever he thinks will help him the most in terms of winning the election.

another thing is "party insiders" are just top democrats i assume. and they aren't like some group of people who agree on every single thing and control every thing that happens.

i found this post kind of funny because i remember when clark first announced he was running the attacks on him on here were mostly that he was the choice of the party insiders.

[Dookus]

11. lol...

good point. Yes, I remember the repeated argument that Clark was just the DLC stalking horse.

[incapsulated]

18. Exactly

And if you listen to the Party "leaders" they hardly seem to be unanimous in their opinions about who should be VP, or about a lot of other things...

[BootinUp]

20. I like your sig incap!

hint hint

Nice lapel pin design :pals:

[Rationality]

2. They can't be as nuts as those who think John McCain may be the vp ((n/t))

[Dying Eagle]

5. I hear that!!

McCain, that would be the final nail in the coffin of the Democrats. People would see that as the Dem's conceding power the the Repukes

[PeaceProgProsp]

10. I agree with that. If the Dem party can't be loyal to Dems, why

should any liberal Democrat be loyal?

I think many Democrats would vote Nader before they put a Republican a heart beat away from the presidency with their vote.

[LandOLincoln]

45. And what exactly do you think voting for Nader would do? nt

[SlavesandBulldozers]

4. is it nuts to hope he will be the VP

or just to think he will be the VP? Was Bill Clinton from the established core of the Democratic Party?

[Dying Eagle]

6. Bill Clinton wasn't the VP

The Presidential nominee was elected by the people. The people have no say in who he picks as his running mate.

[PeaceProgProsp]

9. It's not like Clark doesn't have connections in politics.

If Clark doesn't get picked, I don't think this will be the reason.

I think the only reason he wouldn't get picked is because there's someone out there who has more charisma, and can attract more voters, and reaffirm certain parts of Kerry's persona, and fill in other parts that need to be filled out.

But, no doubt, Clark definitely has to be in the top three or four according to those criteria. His chances of getting selected are much better than all but three or four other people in America.

[jpgray]

12. Anyone who generalizes about a candidate's supporters in GD2004 is nuts

The flames will never be far behind.

:D

[Dying Eagle]

13. its not a bash on his supporters

I am just giving MHO on why i think Clark wont be VP. I picked the term "nuts", so that people would click, read and respond to it.

[jpgray]

14. I know, just joking around. (nt)

[Dying Eagle]

15. ok cool

I just know thier are still some hurt feelings out there, just trying to watch my step.

[BlueEyedSon]

16. Anyone who thinks Kerry will be the nominee is nuts!

[BlueEyedSon]

17. Yeah... and anyone who thinks is nuts!

[Bombtrack]

19. Lemme get this in before this thread has 100 negative responses

I agree that he's not close to one of the best choices. I think that of the things Kerry needs most, Clark doesn't have, and the things Clark would bring most to a potential nominee, Kerry needs least.

He'd still be ok however.

I'm for Graham or Landrieu or Edwards and probably some other people over him.

[Dinger]

21. Let's Compare Clark and Edwards, Shall We?

I'm no expert, but as an average person, these are my thoughts:
(Not necessarily listed in order of signifigance)

Clark = Led a war where no American soldiers were lost
Edwards= He didn't
Adv.= Clark

Clark = Diplomatic experience (Dayton Peace Accords)
Edwards = He didn't (If he did, please correct me)
Adv.= Clark

Clark = Was instrumental in putting an international terrorist in the Hague
Edwards = He didn't
Adv.= Clark

Clark = Was responsible for thousands of military families (housing,
education, health care, etc., as NATO Supreme Aliied Commander)
This might be a stretch, but maybe this could be considered
a politically-related type of leadership experience.
Edwards = He didn't
Adv.= Clark

Edwards = Made corporations accountable for their actions as a lawyer
Clark = Clark is not a lawyer; he didn't
Adv.= Edwards

Clark= Saved the lives of1.5 million ethnic Albanians
Edwards= He didn't
Adv.= Clark!!!

Clark= His humble beginnings (His dad died when he was 4, his mom
worked as a secretary, they moved in with his grandparents, etc)
Edwards= Son of a millworker who worked hard and became a U.S.
senator
Adv.= Even

Edwards= Great stump speaker
Clark = He can be at times, and is a quick study
Adv.=Edwards *(This isn't a critical issue as a VP candidate in my opinion)

Clark= Decorated war hero (Did you ever hear the story of how he got
his Silver Star??) Too many commendations to list here
Edwards= He isn't (Not a cut)
Adv.= Clark

Clark= Rhodes Scholar, First in his class at West Point
Edwards= Very intelligent, yes, but . .
Adv.= Clark

Clark= International respect and honors
Edwards= He has this too
Adv.= Clearly, Clark

Clark- Experience in economic matters (Taught economics at the college
level, Worked in OMB, etc.
Edwards= I admit I'm not sure on this one, so . .
Adv. = Even

Clark= Southern appeal AND military ledership experience
Edwards= Southern appeal, yes, but why not kill 2 "birds" with one stone?
Adv.= Clark

Clark= Performance in the Democratic primaries ($ raised, states won, etc.)
Edwards= This one is close, so . .
Adv.= Even



Clark = 8
Edwards= 3
Even= 3


Go ahead, eat me alive if you want; this is just the way I see it, nothing more, nothing less. This was just my thoughts, with no notes, etc., near by. Off the cuff, if you will.

[democratreformed]

22. You are probably right.

That's why I have tried not to get too excited about the possibility.
He will likely not be chosen as VP for the same reasons he was rejected by many during the primaries.

[Padraig18]

23. I like Clark a lot, but I think you're right.

I think it'll be Edwards, in all honesty. My county chairman says the groundswell for Edwards is building in our state's delegation.

[ArkDem]

24. He is a political novice who made mistake after mistake

when he was running for president. That is why he won't be chosen.

[BootinUp]

25. Yea, he took in way to much money, lol

lots of mistakes.

Clark beat some pretty experienced politicians, you might want to review your history of the primaries.

[ArkDem]

28. He lost miserably.

.

[BootinUp]

29. opinions vary

you don't even bother to try and support that statement with facts I notice.

Clark's campaign was different than the others, it started very late and they didn't campaign in Iowa. They made a strategic decision that in hind sight hurt the campaign. And yet he beat Edwards in NH who had all the news coverage leading up to NH. He was in a strong second place only to Dean prior to Iowa. Go figure.

A fair analysis shows Clark had a tremendous impact on the primaries and on the Democratic Party strength on foreign policy issues. And many of his lines and positions have been adopted by Kerry, both on Domestic and Foreign issues.

Clark's grassroots fundraising strength defined as lowest average contribution was second only to Deans, and he raised more money than any candidate in January 2004.

[ArkDem]

30. Grassroots? He had Clinton's people lining up the donors.

.

[BootinUp]

34. Do you actually have any facts

or are you just going to make unsupported claims?

Of the top fundraisers (excluding Kucinich) Clark was second in percentage of donors below $200. This data includes numbers since Clark pulled out for Kerry and the others still in the race.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp


You must not remember the internet fundraising his campaign did. They did very well there raising numbers comparable to Dean in January as I said. if anyone had a high fatcat index it was Edwards.

I don't know if charts are available on-line from the period Clark was in the race, they seem to all be updated now. But from the link above and other places on that site it is clear Clark had strong support from middle America relative to the other democratic candidates.

see ya this is getting boring.

[atre]

85. Jim4wes

The reason that Wesley Clark flopped was because he had such a "poor" showing in N.H. It wasn't technically "poor" in that he did (I think) come in second. However, he was expecte to do much better since he spent far more time campaigning in N.H. than any other candidate (this was the Iowa-N.H. gamble of which you speak).

[kiahzero]

88. It was Kerry, Dean, Clark, Edwards

Somehow Edwards got vastly more media attention than Clark, which made no sense.

[atre]

99. Total up the media attention

and Wes Clark would have had far more attention than Edwards. The fact is that Clark and Dean received far more attention than any of the other candidates. The media buildup to Clark's announced candidacy was the most vast and favorable treatment than that any of the other candidates.

The reason that Edwards got "vastly more media attention" in the time during and immediately after the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary was twofold:

1) Clark voluntarily sacrificed a good deal of media attention by skipping debates and skipping the Iowa caucus.

2) In the game of "expectations," Edwards (like Kerry) was winning. If you know anything about media and politics, you would understand how this game operates.

The fact is there was no concerted conspiracy. Clark's failure was a product of his own efforts. I am sure that is what he would tell you.

By the way, are you noticing a trend here? Blaming the media; blaming stealth campaigns by Republicans? Notice that? It's called cognitive dissonance.

[kiahzero]

100. I know a great deal about politics, thank you

1) Clark voluntarily sacrificed a good deal of media attention by skipping debates and skipping the Iowa caucus.

I never complained about Clark not getting attention in Iowa. I still think that he made a good decision there, though; he got in far too late to do well there.

2) In the game of "expectations," Edwards (like Kerry) was winning. If you know anything about media and politics, you would understand how this game operates.

There's no logical reason why Edwards should have been winning in expectations. The guy who just had an upset second-place finish in Iowa is in a close fourth in New Hampshire... that's hardly a great showing.

[kiahzero]

87. Only in one sense

And that's the sense that everyone but Kerry lost miserably.

Kerry has lost three states in the primary - one to Clark, one to Dean, and one to Edwards.

[shimmergal]

69. Please list the mistakes, if you think he made so many.

I can only think of two--with his waiting so long to jump in a possible third:

Not trying to win in the Iowa caucuses (although this may have looked like a good decision at the time, given his late entry)

The comment about Kerry, "I was a general, and he was just a ..."
This was an
unfortunate incident of male oneupmanship coming out.) Hopefully
he's learned from it and will only use this type of comment in future against Repub. chickenhawks.

[Jai4WKC08]

74. Whoa! Let's remember the context

If there was any "male oneupmanship" involved, it was aimed at Bob Dole, who had just snidely remarked, on Larry King's coverage of the Iowa primary, that Kerry had turned Clark from a general into a colonel. Clark was no doubt pissed at Dole, but instead of punching him out (which I would have paid money to see), he smiled and rather lightly corrected him: "Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You've got to get your facts right."

Yeah, it was a mistake for Clark to say it. But he never meant it as a slam against Kerry--there's nothing wrong with being a lieutenant--Clark was the Army equivalent of a Navy lieutenant back then too. Clark called Kerry the next day and made amends, and I doubt there's any hard feelings there.

But of course, the whole story was not repeated in the media. Just the offending words. That's the way it usually works, but as with most negative info about Clark, this one got replayed repeatedly (altho not by Kerry... to my knowledge). I saw it on THREE different days in my local paper alone. And more than once, I saw Clark quoted as saying "ONLY a lieutenant," which of course he never said.

The good news is that Clark was and is always quite effective when he really does go on the attack. He's taken quite a few shots at Bush's military record, and they've all hit the target. That's what we need now, and from someone with the credibility to make it stick.

[blm]

26. I disagree. Clinton was very much behind both Kerry and Clark.

Clinton wields alot of weight at the "top" still.

[mmonk]

27. Without someone like Clark,

the war, no matter how bad it might go, will not be an issue in the campaign or debates. Maybe people will feel the economy is bad enough to change.

[Nashyra]

31. Clark is probably on the shortlist of 3

and anyone by now that does not know that Clark is ineligible to be the SOD or the reason he is not eligible to be SOD doesn't have any idea what the "simple facts" are. Clark has proven himself to be a dynamic fundraiser both for the party and for Kerry.

[Sparkly]

32. I trust the Kerry campaign

I think they'll make a good decision, and I wouldn't rule General Clark out. Kerry's smart enough to see the "War President" theme, the way the RNC plays on fear of "terra," and their zeal to paint Democrats as "weak on national security." Clark takes all of that off the table.

[Auntie Bush]

33. People who don't know yet that Clark can't be SOD

haven't been paying very good attention to Clark threads/blogs and isn't up to snuff on his attributes, so those people should restrain from making comments showing they don't know what they are talking about.

"Anyone who thinks Clark will be VP is nuts"
Many on this board feel anyone who thinks Edwards is best qualified to be VP is delusional." That doesn't mean he won't... but means Kerry got bamboozled by all the polls that the Republicans Freeped...(including the primaries) and the corp/media bias...as they want Bush to win. I can't believe Kerry would fall for that garbage/crap/disinformation and play right into Carl Roves plan.

I just don't see how anyone who is voting with their intelligence rather than there heart...could possible pick Edwards. We must vote for the person most qualified...not the one that we think is cute, charming, folksy, smiley and personable. (That's why Republicans picked Bush...and look what happened?) We NEED someone in the KNOW as Veep during these days of war and terrorism. WE IN AMERICA not only need Clark and his expertiece...but the WHOLE WORLD NEEDS him too.

Visualize this...Clark standing in front of the troops and saluting.
Visualize Edwards doing the same thing (that is if he knows how) and who do you think will get the most respect from the military.

Now visualize Edwards in a cabinet meeting disagreeing with the SOS or SOD etc. as to the best way to run our unending war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. He'd get no respect! Now visualize Clark!
I rest my case.

Oh! One more thing...although there are many. Visualize the difference between Clark and Edwards dealing in world problems and negotiations with world leaders. Clark already knows and is respected and trusted bymost of them and they have never even met
Edwards or know anything about him. Clark has been endorsed by 55
world ambassadors.



During a time of peace...Edwards would be great. But I don't see a peaceful world in the near future. I ONLY SEE WES CLARK!

[Nederland]

35. More Importantly

The Clark campaign was the origin of the "Kerry had an affair" rumors. There is absolutely no way Kerry would chose him after that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. An absolutely false rumor! Shame on Dems who spread it (knowingly)

That was something dredged up to hurt Clark by the Drudge report. All particiapants in that conversation deny that Clark said anything of the sort. Go to this thread to arm yourself with the facts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x526756

[KittyWampus]

37. You ARE Joking, Aren't You? Even Hardcore Rightwing Mediawhores Disavowed

this.

[Nederland]

39. Yeah

And Chris Lehane is a saint.

[Sparkly]

40. Huh?

Does that mean something?

[Nederland]

41. Yes

And if you knew anything about this issue you'd know what I was talking about. Obviously you don't.

I'll grant you that Clark himself probably had nothing to do with this. I'll even grant you that the Clark campaign might not have been the origin of the affair rumors. However, its clear that many members of the Kerry campaign continue to believe its true and that means that Clark's chances of getting the VP nod are nill.

[Sparkly]

42. You're referring to rumors about rumors?

Or do you have a quote from Lehane about Kerry having an affair?

How about a quote from one of the "many members of the Kerry campaign" saying Clark is out because of this quote from Lehane about Kerry having an affair?

This is ridiculous.

[Nederland]

43. The only thing that is ridiculous

is that you actually believe Drudge was the first one to break this story...

[robbedvoter]

58. So, you fed it to Drudge? I'll credit you. What's your name?

[LandOLincoln]

44. Why don't you tell us who the "many members

of the Kerry campaign" are that still believe this crap, and how you know what they believe?

Now, despite his denials, it's entirely possible that Lehane had something to do with it--I've been in close proximity to the man twice, and both times his very presence raised my hackles--but Clark certainly didn't (have anything to do with it) and he and Kerry pretty effectively lobbed that particular stinkbomb right back into Matt Sludge's fat lap when Clark flew to Milwaukee to endorse Kerry within 24 hours of the rumor breaking.

And last week, of course, Kerry and Clark campaigned together in Arkansas, had dinner together the first night, and the next day flew back to D.C. together on Kerry's plane--talking privately for 1 1/2 hours of the two hour flight--and then Clark was the Kerrys' guest in their Georgetown home.

Sounds like Kerry's really, really pissed at the General, doesn't it?

[Nederland]

46. The Thing Is

You folks keep saying that Drudge is the one who start this. It wasn't Drudge who "broke" the story. It actually was WatchBlog, a website started by Cameron Barrett, a known Clark staffer. You folks really aren't up on this, are you?

[LandOLincoln]

48. Apparently not. I've never heard of Cameron Barrett, a

"known Clark staffer."

Why don't you tell us all about it, Mr. Insider, including the position Barrett held with the campaign, his relationship with Lehane, and how it came about that the two decided to try to take down BOTH Kerry and Clark?

[Nederland]

53. Never heard of Cameron Barrett?

Are you a web newbie?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2003-12-09-clarkblog_x.htm


I've had enough of this. Arguing with ignorance is a waste of time.

[BootinUp]

49. You're going to prove that

it was connected to Clark based on a blog post? Shit, anyone could have posted it then I guess.

Give us a quote that can be checked or admit it is an unsubstantiated rumor that has been discredited by eyewitnesses:

"What happened was that reporters were dogging Clark with questions about when he was going to drop out of the race. He didn't quite snap, but Clark got a little frustrated and made some terse comments about why he was staying in. Then he told us that what he had just said was off the record. It's a close call as to whether any of us there have a responsibility to treat his comments as such, but I'm not breaking any rules by reporting that Clark did not spread any rumor about Kerry and a young woman. I've previously checked with other reporters who were there, and they have confirmed this. If I'm wrong, the videotape is out there somewhere. "

quote: Ryan Lyzza The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal?pid=1655




Did LandOLincolns post not give you some good info?

[Nederland]

52. Yes I Will

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2003-12-09-clarkblog_x.htm

<snip>

One of the original creators of Web logs, or "blogs," has pioneered a more democratic blogging format for former Gen. Wesley Clark, hoping for a competitive advantage against Internet-powered front-runner Howard Dean.

Cameron Barrett, one of the first handful of bloggers to popularize the highly personal, diary-style Web site in 1998, is coordinating the Clark Community Network at clark04.com

<snip>

That may be partly by design. Barrett was not a political blogger until he started Watchblog.com last year, and he leaves a lot of the editorial work for the Clark blog to others.

<snip>


This is obviously a waste of time...

[BootinUp]

56. You proved nothing related to your charge

that the Clark campaign or Clark himself started that rumor. If you would please dig up the EXACT post that you say started it we can try to determine if it is traceable. More than likely if the story you bring us is true then it was an anonymous or nicknamed poster and had absolutely no official connection to the Clark campaign. Just as you can come here and smear Clark, that does not make Skinner responsible in some way for smearing Clark, lol.

[LandOLincoln]

59. Awwwww, Cammy, did we hurt its widdle

feelings 'cause we didn't recognize its widdle name?

So tell me, how come you and Lehane decided to try and take down both Kerry and Clark?

I understand why Lehane would want to take Kerry out--especially if Lehane is in fact a Republican, as I've heard--but what's your angle? You a Pubbie black op too?

[robbedvoter]

60. Yeah, and what's your name? Obviously you want some credit for

stuff, nederland won't do

[LandOLincoln]

65. I think Nederland IS

Cameron Barrett. That's why I said what I did in the post you accidentally replied to. :evilgrin:

[Jai4WKC08]

84. Oh Land o' Abe...

You owe Cam an apology. ;)

[LandOLincoln]

95. Sure looks like it, doesn't it? I was just going by Ned's

extreme touchiness at my ignorance of the great Cameron Barrett. What I get for posting on the fly--I didn't have time to check out the links until much later.

[kiahzero]

90. You're a liar, and I can prove it.

The offending post is:
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/000780.html
Rumor has it that John Kerry (D) is going to be outed by Time Magazine next week for having an affair with a 20 year old woman who remains unknown. The affair supposedly took place intermittently right up to Kerry's Fall 2002 announcement of candidacy. At present, this is nothing more than a rumor; and after such sordid tactics as the "push polling" that took place in South Carolina in the 2000 elections, can such rumors be credible during campaign cycles?

So, by accusing Time magazine of scandal-mongering (comparing it to the push-polling in SC), the post in question was actually breaking the story?

Interesting.

But that's not even the most interesting part.

Let's look at the author, one SoL. He has a website. And look what we find on the website:
http://wakeupandsmelltherevolution.com/kerry_affair_disclaimer.php
What happened since then has been a whirlwind, and there is a lot of speculation, including one that could almost make sense: this was vetted by Clark in an attempt to smear Kerry (even though Clark has conceded and pledges support for Kerry, which would not make sense if he wanted to destroy his campaign); that Cameron Barrett, the owner of WatchBlog, posted this under a pseudonym. Of course, this is just not true, but I expect this rumor to keep circulating for a while because there's some people who will believe anything. Selah!

The reality is that I am not Cameron Barrett nor did I get my information from anyone at the Clark campaign, any rumors to this extent are simply inaccurate. Cameron Barret has not had anything to do with WatchBlog since October 2003, when he left to work for the Clark campaign, he was never a contributor to WB before October 2003 either, he was simply the owner and Editor-in-Chief who managed things. David Remer has been the Editor-in-Chief since then and has run WatchBlog (quite well). Here is Remer's rebuttal to these claims:

"Your conspiracy theories regarding WatchBlog have no basis in fact. Cameron Barrett turned the management of WatchBlog over to me back in October when he went to the Clark campaign. Cameron has had absolutely no role in WatchBlog operations since then, save for providing the server WatchBlog software runs on.
These are the facts and can be backed up by the editors and writers of WatchBlog who now number more than 40."

As for who I am, that shall remain a mystery for you. I wish to remain anonymous in order to publish the truth that is so evasive when "retribution" gets thrown around like a four-letter word. I know that the truth swings both ways and that both major parties are corrupt, so I can't lean on one or the other for support. I'm the messenger of a disenfranchised majority, a majority who will one day wake up (and smell the revolution).

While your statement technically evaluates to true (Cameron Barrett did in fact start WatchBlog, he did work for the Clark campaign, and under your twisted definition of "broke the story", it was in fact broken by a WatchBlog writer that mentioned the rumor), it still qualifies as a lie.

lie
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

A liar is one who tells a lie. You told a lie, therefore you are a liar.

QED.

[kiahzero]

89. ... that's one of the sillier arguments I've heard

I'll grant you that Clark himself probably had nothing to do with this. I'll even grant you that the Clark campaign might not have been the origin of the affair rumors.

How magnanimous, given that you have no evidence.

However, its clear that many members of the Kerry campaign continue to believe its true and that means that Clark's chances of getting the VP nod are nill.

Clear how, precisely?

[Sparkly]

38. I can't believe I read that

That RNC-Drudge smear was refuted immediately. AP's Nedra Pickler has revived it twice now, and it's been shot down time after time.

[LeinesRed]

54. NOT TRUE

and you just confirmed the damage that Drudge can do

[Nederland]

55. It wasn't Drudge

God, can any of you read?

[BootinUp]

57. Do you have a link or is this a baseless charge? -eom-

[Nederland]

61. Yes I do

Here is the Drudge post. Note the date: Feb 12th

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk1.htm

Here is the WatchBlog post. Note the date: Feb 6th

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/000780.html


So you see, Drudge didn't start this rumor, WatchBlog did. WatchBlog was started by Cameron Barret. Cameron Barret worked for the Clark campaign. Following all this? The Clarkies will tell you that Cameron Barret had nothing to do with the post and that the post was actually written by SonOfLiberty, a person who is rather curiously unable to be identified and conveniently claims that the Clark campaign was not the source. Regardless, one has to ask why WatchBlog would allow this trash to be posted and remain even today on its site?

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[BootinUp]

62. Here's the posters and Watchblog's answer for you

I think you need to retract your charge:

http://wakeupandsmelltherevolution.com/kerry_affair_disclaimer.php

[Nederland]

63. I already addressed this

Perhaps you didn't read my whole post? Here's the part you missed:

The Clarkies will tell you that Cameron Barret had nothing to do with the post and that the post was actually written by SonOfLiberty, a person who is rather curiously unable to be identified and conveniently claims that the Clark campaign was not the source. Regardless, one has to ask why WatchBlog would allow this trash to be posted and remain even today on its site?

[BootinUp]

66. What the hell

does watchblog's editorial decisions have to do with Clark? Barret wasn't even contributing to the site at the time. Who gives a crap what they left on their site as it has no relevance to the Clark campaign. Well only in your conspiracy theory.

[Nederland]

68. Whatever

You guys can believe whatever you want to. I've laid all the things I've collected on the table and it seems rather obvious that there was a connection to the Clark campaign. I should have known better than to argue this point with diehard Clark supporters.

If its any consolation to you I don't believe Wes had any personal involvement in this. However, I do think his decision to hire Chris Lehane was a bad one given that Lehane has a history of running smear campaigns. I remember what he did to Bill Bradley in 2000.

I'll just drop it. ABB. Cheers.

[BootinUp]

71. You did exactly what I predicted, an anonymous post on the

net is your so called proof. lol

[Jai4WKC08]

76. Cameron had NOTHING to do with it

Cameron started that blog, but he had left it many months before the rumor appeared there. In fact, he left it when he went to work for the Clark campaign, which was in October, I think. Jonah Goldberg is the one who tried to tie that post to the Clark campaign, and he did it based solely based on just seeing Cam's name at the bottom of the website, for software design. Goldberg didn't know jack about the blog or its regular posters--he (or someone on his research staff) just recognized the name.

I also seem to remember whoever it was who posted the rumor there coming back on and saying Goldberg was all wet, that he was NOT Cameron, and otherwise debunking the thing. I don't have any sources for that, and no time to try to look it up now, but it's how I remember it.

Cam is about the sweetest, most inoffensive, LEAST likely to practice campaign "dark arts" of anyone I can think of. He's just a very nice software geek. It's a shame that anyone has tried to try to tie his name to this ugly matter, and a bigger shame to see it resurrected now.

Look, I don't know what the Kerry "advisors" think about this rumor, and I suspect you don't either. Not the ones who have real influence. But it seems pretty obvious to me that Kerry puts no stock in it whatsoever. And that's all that counts.

[kiahzero]

92. It only seems obvious if you have an ax to bury

Your "evidence" is no evidence at all.

Then again, why let a little thing like logic get in the way of a good old fashioned candidate attack?

[robbedvoter]

64. Can we identify you? Are you Son of Liberty?

I remember freepers posting death threats on Bartcop forum and then reporting them to rightwingers - and they would be quoted in articles. It stopped once the board became moderated. Get my drift about your stink to high heaven? Or you think Bart is responsible for those posts?

[kiahzero]

91. You assume Drudge got the story from WatchBlog

If the rumor did not exist before SoL made his post, this would be the only logical explanation.

But the fact that Drudge ran the story chronologically after SoL made a post referencing the rumor does not mean that Drudge necessarily stole the story from WatchBlog. If, in fact, there was a rumor before the story ran on WatchBlog, Drudge could have heard the rumor from the same source. Therefore, the fact that the Drudge posted the rumor after WatchBlog posted it does not prove that the rumor started with WatchBlog.

WatchBlog was started by Cameron Barret. Cameron Barret worked for the Clark campaign. Following all this? The Clarkies will tell you that Cameron Barret had nothing to do with the post and that the post was actually written by SonOfLiberty, a person who is rather curiously unable to be identified and conveniently claims that the Clark campaign was not the source.

Barret did not write content for the website. And he left the website in October 2003.

As to why they would leave the post up, perhaps because they don't feel like deleting member contributions to appease conspiracy theorists?

[LandOLincoln]

67. I read just fine. The Rumor may have first seen print

on Barrett's blog, but it didn't really break until Drudge picked it up.

We clear now?

[robbedvoter]

70. Also, Cameron's blogs (including the official Clark04) have a no edit

flaw (perfect as they are otherwise). One cannot edit stupid posts. It's probably the problem of other blogs as well - I know it was with the old bartcop forum. So for you to accuse Clark based on a freeper's post in one of his people's blog is about as tenuous as the topic of this thread.
Clark will be VP - which will prove you and your friends liars. But Bushco will feed from yous sewer for some time, I am sure.

[Adelante]

72. Can you read?

"The Drudge item blaming Lehane quoted Craig Crawford, a former Democratic operative who now works as a consultant and columnist for MSNBC. Within 10 minutes after Drudge posted the Kerry intern item, Crawford sent a memo to his superiors that said the story was "something Chris Lehane (clark press secy) has shopped around for a long time." According to Crawford, someone at MSNBC promptly leaked his memo to Drudge. But when Lehane called Crawford with a loudly indignant denial, the MSNBC columnist quickly issued a public retraction. He said:

"The comments attributed to me are from a private email to television news associates based on conversations with Democratic campaign operatives. I did not consider any of it confirmed enough to report or publish. I can only verify that Chris Lehane's rivals in other Democratic campaigns made these claims and I have found no independent source to confirm it. Which is why we did not go with the story. But then someone sent my email to others, which is the only reason it got into the public domain." In other words, there is no proof that Lehane circulated the rumor, let alone that the rumor has any basis in reality."

Source: Joe Conason, Salon 2/13/04

It was Democrats who started this crap and collaborated with Drudge, Democrats opposing Gen. Clark. Take your pick of Democratic candidates who ran in the primaries and their ops - they all had their own "Chris Lehanes" working.

Or do we forget this happened in Iowa?

AMERICAN MORNING

New Hampshire Race

Aired January 22, 2004 - 07:03 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

~snip~

HEMMER: Bob, quickly on John Edwards, a leak came out last night. Apparently there was some packet that was distributed back in Iowa that did not necessarily reflect the positive image John Edwards is trying to project. What do you have for us on that?

FRANKEN: Well, what it was, was staff members coming up with different weak points in the competition. That used to be called oppo (ph) research. Edwards is saying that he takes responsibility for it, but he wasn't aware it was being prepared. In other words, he takes responsibility for it, but he doesn't take responsibility for it.

Source: CNN 1/22/04

[Jai4WKC08]

78. Take your pick of Democratic candidates who ran in the primaries

I bet I know.

Let's see... who's the MSNBC darlin'... Dean? Nope. Kerry? I don't think so, Kucinich or Sharpton? Hahahaha......

[Adelante]

83. Can You Read? Part II

Echo Chamber
The Drudge Report: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

Back in February, Matt Drudge wrote an undocumented story claiming that one of John Kerry's interns had fled the country at the candidate's request, just as Kerry was fighting off a "media probe of recent alleged infidelity." In the piece, Drudge claimed that Wesley Clark had told a group of reporters that "Kerry will implode over an intern issue" in an off-the-record conversation.

The Kerry intern story turned out to be bogus, as did the claim that Clark had spread the rumor. As Campaign Desk noted at the time (and has written about subsequently as well), The New Republic's Ryan Lizza and reporters we spoke to on background who were present for the comments all confirm that Clark never said anything about an intern during the conversation in question. The retired general did say he believed there was a story coming out that might damage Kerry, but, according to one reporter, he didn't seem to have any idea what it might be.

Thankfully, the rumor about Kerry's infidelity seems to have faded into the ether. But, maddeningly, the claim that Clark spread the rumor has endured. An alert reader emailed us today about a Boston Globe piece by Peter Canellos containing the following paragraph:

Then the last days of his campaign, Clark reportedly told a few reporters he was hanging on because he heard Kerry might be exposed as having had an affair with an intern. The affair never materialized, but Clark may have revealed a problem of his own, not being able to keep his mouth shut.

The irony here is that Clark did show, in the episode, that he sometimes says things he probably shouldn't. He just didn't say what Drudge, and subsequently Newsweek, the Associated Press, and, now, The Boston Globe, say he did. The rest of Canellos' story is excellent, and far from a hit piece: It concludes with the statement that "Kerry could do far worse" than selecting Clark as his running mate. It's just too bad he didn't bother to check up on the validity of a claim that's been debunked many times -- and that originated with a source who pegs his own accuracy rate (generously) at 80 percent.

--Brian Montopoli

Source: Columbia Journalism Review, Campaign Desk, May 18 2004

[robbedvoter]

103. But if Kerry does, you'll eat your words, right? It means you were wrong?

[robbedvoter]

47. All righty then, I am nutz. Cuz he IS the VP. So there.

[MessiahRp]

50. I'm not sure

The press sure has tried to blow Clark off as a serious candidate and MSGOP sure seemed to push Gephardt yesterday (and god would he be an awful choice).

See Clark is IMO the best choice. He's got military experience in the time of military crisis. He's very educated on social issues and does well speaking on them. The man is terrific. He may be new to politics but he'd help the country feel safer at a time when mismanagement at the top has made us all ashamed of our military.

Gephardt offers us one state, if that, and turns a lot of the liberal Dems that we struggle to court anyways away. And that's helpful only if you truly believe that there will only be a one state swing either way from the 2000 election. I don't believe that in the least. So to me Gephardt as a surrogate may be useful in Missouri but we don't need a Republican-lite on our ticket.

Edwards is nice if you want a good speaker to a small audience or want the votes of naive women whom will vote based on appearance over issues (and yes there are actually some of those out there).

To me Clark offers the most. He doesn't hand Arkansas to us, but he certainly helps in that area, and the rest of the country, especially the South which seems to care more about military might over their own self interests, will feel stronger and safer with a General accompanying a Navy Lieutenant into the White House.

I think it might be a struggle because it seems that the top Dems are pushing for other people, but to me Clark is the only choice if we want to win back people with more liberal values as well as those who believe in the idea of military leadership at this crucial stage in American politics. Remember Clark was backed by Michael Moore, Madonna, etc. in the primaries. He can win over the liberal vote. Gephardt... can't.

Rp

[robbedvoter]

51. The press engineered the primary nomination. This one is up to Kerry

And kerry knows better than to listen to the media - his memory is not THAT short. So,

or rather:


because

[Padraig18]

77. The press 'engineered' nothing.

Clark lost it all on his own, just like my guy did.:eyes:

[MessiahRp]

79. I agree

I worked pretty damn hard for a guy who apparently won it in the Press... although seems to me the press had sold him out early in the process when they had Dean and Clark as the darlings of the race.

Kerry won the primaries on his own.

I love Wes Clark but it's a cheap shot to say Kerry did nothing to get those votes. I was there at the Iowa JJ dinner when we started to turn it around. We were even in turnout with the Dean supporters who had a ton more money at the time, and we were as loud and boisterous.

Kerry's speech was energized and from that day on through the end of the primaries his message got across.

It may take awhile to turn that into the same type of energy for the National Election, but it will happen and Kerry's a great closer.

It wasn't the Press who won, Kerry did... and in the National Election it will be the same way.

Rp

[Adelante]

82. Kerry absolutely won Iowa on his own

He had the organization on the ground who knew how to GOTV. And his national security credentials were bolstered by the vets and the firemen. You're also right that Kerry got no good press until he won Iowa. Last but not least, by Iowa, Kerry was ready to win. That's what it took.

[robbedvoter]

101. Yes, and after that, before each primary they polled Kerry vs W

Noone else. Just Kerry. Shown on TV the night before elections. He was winning then - before EACH primary. After super Tuesday - they did another one - where W was ahead.

[FrenchieCat]

73. Call me

Almond for short! Always did like Almonds!
Yes....I am a nut...

Not only do I have faith that John Kerry is his own man and will show his leadership abilities by selecting Clark as his VP....

But I know that Wes Clark would make the most qualified and most popular VP choice.

Just got to get the Nutjob press to lay off....

Now those are the real nuts!

[MoonRiver]

75. WHY?

A Clark/Kerry ticket would win in a landslide. Is there something wrong with winning and carrying a mandate into office? :shrug:

[Padraig18]

80. There's no proof of that whatsoever.

At this point, it's pure speculation about who would add the most to the ticket.:shrug:

[MoonRiver]

81. Yes, all of this, whether pro Edwards, Clark etc. is pure speculation.

Kerry will just have to sort it out as best he can. God speed, Senator Kerry! O8)

[shivaji]

86. Recent Repug, Never elected, superior to Lieutenants, happy to

see Clark bite the dust.....finally.

[kiahzero]

93. Bullshit, and?, bullshit

Wes Clark was never a Republican. He voted for Bush I in 88, and has voted for and supported Democrats ever since. He didn't have to tell the truth - he chose to.

Clark got in trouble for pointing out that Kerry was a lieutenant when Bob Dole suggested that Kerry was a general. He got in trouble for accurately applying the term "junior officer."

What do we notice in both of these cases - his scandals are caused by him being too honest.

:wow: The horror! The horror! He told the truth!

:eyes:

Explain exactly how the fact that he hasn't held elective office previously should preclude him from holding elective office?

[in_cog_ni_to]

96. Get your facts straight.

He was NEVER a repug and biting the dust??? Hahahahaha! Funny.

[robbedvoter]

102. Don't hold your breath though. It would be a shame to lose you

For someone. I think.

[R3dD0g]

94. How are we supposed to take seriously the

proclamations of someone who doesn't even know that the SecDef must be out of the military for 10 yrs before he can be nominated?

[in_cog_ni_to]

97. I'm nuts.

:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

Go Wes!

[Darth_Kitten]

98. I don't think it will either Clark or Edwards.......

just a feeling. It'll be somebody nobody expects. :D