Clark on CNN

[Nite Owl]

now.

[DeepModem Mom]

1. Report, anybody?

[Ducks In A Row]

2. basically

Clark showed how f#cked up moving the troops and their families are. Wolf displayed his vaulted ignorance telling Clark his business. Clark was awesome in the way he didn't tell Wolf what a lying sack of bull he is.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Thanks, Ducks! Clark, always the gentleman -- Wolf, always ignorant --

C'est la vie.

[JNelson6563]

4. Indeed DMM

Those two things are as sure as death and taxes.

:toast:

[wadestock]

5. It's too bad Moore almost single handedly did him in...

I found his message was the closest to "defusing" the neocon hate message and anti-liberal slant than any of the candidates....and he was the best in adlib.

If he had gone up against Bush in the debates....his message would have come through and it would be infinitely more digestible than Kerry's to the average person. Don't get me wrong...I'm a big Kerry fan, but he's a bit too brainy for the average person.

You not only felt truly proud to be a democrat...you knew other people might gain a sense of what was lost in terms of what politics could and should do.

Everytime Clark is on....you get the sense he really could be a true commander in chief.

He was on recently....can't remember the exact interview...but he was talking about the restructuring of troops and moving emphasis to the middle east. Rather than addressing any specific military comment about it....he elegantly explained in as concise language as you could ever imagine how this would be viewed as just making matters worse with any relations we should rebuild with Europe and feed into world hate against us.

The magic about Clark is his ability to speak to pure BS and knock it solidly down without looking as if he even gains 2 points in bloodpressure.

[truthspeaker]

8. Moore did him in? What the hell do you mean?

[Qutzupalotl]

10. The "deserter" comment

got a lot of airplay, and turned into a "gotcha" question for Clark at the debates.

[wadestock]

11. sorry....tongue in cheek really......but

The association with Moore's unbelievable support went negative and did (at least for me) seem to say....he was about to be perceived and exploited in terms of "flake factor". Moore went over the edge I believe with the "that's exactly what we want, the General against the draft dodger".

Keep in mind the choice of frontrunner seemed to indicate a strong slant towards "electabililty". The people didn't know Clark...they feared his "unknown factor"....and when he started chumming with Moore....it took that unknown factor and magnified it that much more....especially the way it was played on TV.

Of course you know the hardline liberal thing is forever worked...as with the case of Kerry now....so we can expect that in general....and note to what great lengths Kerry has gone to distance himself from Moore...even though he's been widely praised for his work in F/911.

Then of course the NY celebrity bash was another unpredictable thing which was intensely worked against Kerry...

I just think it was especially bad timing...during a critical time when everyone was looking for some icon to latch onto......but perhaps something he couldn't have completely avoided anyway.....at that precious time of "getting to know you".

[Jai4WKC08]

12. Nah... Moore's comments didn't make that big a difference

Oh, they hurt him politically, especially in SC, TN and VA, where Clark had hoped to do well. But ultimately, it was skipping Iowa (not that he had much choice) and Dean's fall that spelled the end.

I know this is ancient history, but bear with me a minute...

If Clark had competed in Iowa, if he'd had the money and time to do so, he might have cut Kerry's lead and slowed the momentum enough to make a difference.

Even without competing there, if Dean and Gephardt had emerged the leaders, in either order, as almost everybody expected until days before, Clark would have likely come in second or a VERY close third in NH, and blown 'em both away in the South. That was the plan. He didn't see Kerry coming. Heck, if he had, he probably wouldn't have run in the first place.

Back to Moore... MAYBE if Clark had been a more experienced politician, he would have somehow screened what Moore planned to say, or barring that, have worked out a different, less open-ended vehicle for the endorsement. I say MAYBE because it's just not the way Clark works. He believes so strongly in free speech, in unfettered discussion and debate, he is loathe to try and censor anyone. How naive--to actually think that Constitutional rights are what he's devoted his life to preserve. (/sarcasm)

I do think Clark's campaign staff sort of let him down by not engineering a better solution. But that said, some of the responsibiiity lies with his opponents and the media. If Clark hadn't been so vociferously attacked as "really a Republican" perhaps his staff wouldn't have been as desparate to validate his credentials as a liberal. Perhaps his actual policies and plans, the work he'd done to support liberal causes, all mostly overlooked, would have been enough.

But in the end, it really didn't matter after Iowa. Nothing did. So even tho I was never a big Moore fan, I don't think we can hang it on Michael, who really was trying to do what he thought was right. And bringing some media attention to Bush's (non)serivce record was the right thing to do, even if not at the time and the way he did it.

[FrenchieCat]

13. I agree with all of your points....

But believe that even after New Hampshire, Clark still had a chance. The media was biased (knowing that Clark would have beat Bush too badly--the media likes it close....more money in it for them in advertising, etc.......and it wouldn't have even been close) and never hung the "Electable" tag on Clark like it did on Kerry...although Clark had more military experience, no after vietnam protest to worry about, no senatorial votes to argue about, no IRW and 87 billion dollar votes, had led a winning war and was southern and charismatic.

Edwards got all of the overlap press from Kerry after Iowa until the end of the primaries...even if he came (oh so slightly) behind Clark in NH, which could have been a story....that the press chose not to cover. In fact most of the press kept reporting Edwards as having placed third, as though Clark had disappeared.

Clark got no credit for his oklahoma win either, and we all know that Edwards got more than enough press to have won Oklahoma, considering that Clark got absolutely none. In the last debates with all of the nominees, Clark was actually asked why he was still in the race.......

Further, Clark got no credit for coming in 2nd in more races than Edwards (interesting that these were the battleground states of NM, AR and ND). He got no credit for anything really....period. Had he gotten the type of press that he deserved, he would have lasted longer than Edwards (for whom the press built up myths about being this great orator and campaigner)and would have been the VP nominee if nothing else. Today, with Wes as VP, we would not be discussing the campaign issues that Kerry is currently having to fight.....the Democratic stance on National defense would not be questioned in the way that it is now. I also don't believe that Bush would be beating a Kerry/Clark ticket in National Security if Clark was VP.

It even seems bizzare that it is Clark that continues to defend Kerry and attack the Bush administration, not Edwards.....on issues that are really the key to this election.

Of course many Clarkies tried to make the case of what would happen during the general election....but most Duers were (and still are, I am sure) in love with Edwards. Sheeples were in love with Edwards too, cause the media told them it should be so.

I know that this has been said before.....but it needs to be said again.

Wes Clark should definitely be the Secretary of State....but of course, Holbrooke has got dibs on that (has he earned it? I don't think so).

Clark as Secretary of State would be wonderful.... but I don't believe that KErry will do that right thing....based on his track record to-date.

[Jai4WKC08]

15. You know I don't disagree, Frenchie :)

The media played it's part, for a variety of reasons. And that Edwards isn't doing all he should as running-mate. Probably can't and won't, but definitely isn't. And that Clark should be Secretary of State, but almost certainly won't.

But I do think if Clark had had the time to play Iowa, and maybe even if he'd just done it anyway, it would have been a different story and that Michael Moore was not the campaign killer some have claimed.

Ah well, hindsight 20-20 and all.

[Bread and Circus]

17. Here's how the primaries really went....

Here's how the primaries really went....

Dean kicked Kerry's ass for 9 months to a year.
No one believed in Kerry and his campaign financially folded.
Kerry dipped into his vast wealth and bought a lifeline.
King Idiot Bushboy found Saddam.
Due to Saddam's capture, Iowa Dems took a good hard look at Dean.
They decided it might be a good idea to get someone with some war medals on the ticket.
Clark wasn't in Iowa to challenge Kerry.
Kerry was the only one with enough war medals to pass that sniff test.
Kerry won Iowa.
Dean embarrassed himself with "the scream".
The vast "liberal" media hyped Kerry and Edwards whilst burying Dean (whom they boosted for months on end).
Like lemmings, sheep, or what-have-you NH voters rocketed Kerry from middlin' to the top...
Kerry and Edwards further hyped by the "vast liberal media"....
Kerry rides a crest of media-driven hype and wins a bunch of primaries.
Kerry wins the nomination.
The press further hypes Edwards.
The Kerry campaign takes some internal polls and find the dems like Edwards (big surprise)...
Kerry picks Edwards.

The end.

Sad, but it's about what happened.

[Jai4WKC08]

14. Transcript available at...

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/18/nfcnn.01.html

Blitzer was more irritating than usual. I swear he doesn't actually listen to the answers... because he asked the same questions, and kept returning to the same GOP talking points. And to insinuate he knows more about family life in the military? Ludicrous.

But Clark got his shots in.

One point he made that I think a lot people are missing was in his first line:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK, FMR. NATO SUPREME ALLIED CMDR.: Well, what's wrong with it is that the Cold War was over about 14, 15 years ago, and we adjusted our troop deployments in Europe. We adjusted that troop strength 10 years ago in the mid-1990s. We needed those forces in Germany as a reaction force.

I remember that. Part of the "Peace Dividend." The units in Germany were cut to the bone, even with the on-going problems in the Balkans, and the continuing mission in northern Iraq, and what led to the Rwanda massacre (part of European Command's area of operations)... All because both sides wanted the money for pet projects and every congress-critter was promising to bring the money to their district and state.

Speaking of which... a second good point by Clark:

CLARK: So, the fact is, as the national security spokesman there represented, this plan to pull these troops out of Germany is a long-standing plan. It was created by the Republicans when they were out of office as a way of gutting the United States Army, taking two army divisions away from the force structure and putting the money into high technology and national missile defense.

BLITZER: (trying to cut him off) But a lot of people wonder, General, why...

CLARK: Now, what's happened is they decided that they need those forces, and they're trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

Not only gut the Army, but undercut Clinton's Bosnia/Kosovo strategy. So much for politics stopping at the water's edge. Oh but wait... only Democrats are unpatriotic when they don't support the troops.

[IdaBriggs]

6. Clark for Sec of State? n/t

[cmd]

7. That's my choice

I would love to hear Kerry make that annoucement.

[stavka]

16. Somebody recently said he(Clark) could not be SECDEF

Anybody know why? - I've looked for law and couldn't find any - only guess was that he is still a reservist by law. - I think the poster didn't really know his/her stuff.

[Flubadubya]

9. Wolf (But, But) Blitzer strikes again...

Blitzie kept cutting him off and trying to tell him what the administration stance was and how it was superior and more "right-minded" than Clark's... like Wolfie knows a damned thing about it.

Wolf kept trying to press his prowess by saying, "Well, I have spent a lot of time with the troops and their families in foreign countries... blah, blah, blah."

Yeah right, Blitzass... wanna give dates and times? Bwahahaha... stupid Bush-shill!! Ack!