Is General Clark on Kerry's short list?

[senseandsensibility]

Clark fans, why isn't the General's name mentioned anymore when the talkingheads discuiss Kerry's running mate? What do you think his chances are? Do you think the demcratic establishment is trying to freeze him out?

[Florida_Geek]

1. IMHO, he is just like Chaney

picking * running mate. They had a whole list of people * was looking at and surprise surprise Dickie picked himself. But all the others got press until the name was pulled from the hat.

I hope Edwards or Clark will be picked.

[JI7]

2. Kerry doesn't talk to those whores about vp

but someone else told me the vp is John Edwards to lose. meaning it's all about whether Kerry can be convinced someone other than Edwards can do as good or better job in helping him get elected.

but this came from an Edwards supporter so take it as you will. especially since kerry himself will make the decision and he doesn't talk about it at all.

[Gloria]

3. Maybe now that he softened his talk about Chalabi yesterday

on NPR...which really disappointed me. Either he's been "Borged totally into the Kerry message or he's been told to lay off this topic, or he really was softer on this whole issue and we just found out about it.

He was alone out there talking about how the Admin. had to "get past" Chalabi so the Iraqis could begin to think the US just wasn't in there as an occupier and the resentment could begin to lessen.

But yesterday, he said that Chalabi need to be "given time" so he can
begin to "earn his place" and have the Iraqi people resent him less.

Now, what the hell is that all about????

Very disappointing.

[11cents]

4. You seem to have misunderstood him

Did you actually hear the NPR commentary? He said that Chalabi should get a leadership position in Iraq only if he appeals to the Iraqi people, and not because he appeals to the people in the Pentagon. He would have to "earn it" democratically. He didn't say he "needs to be given time" and he didn't say anything to suggest that he thinks Chalabi is owed such a position -- quite the opposite. And by the way, there's no reason I know of to think that Kerry is a Chalabi supporter.

[Gloria]

5. Yes, I heard,,,,through a phone call....got it to work via friend so I

listened via phone.


It still is not what he has been saying...previously, he indicted the Bush Admin. for putting Chalabi in a Council position, and pointed out that Chalabi was a major cause of resentment among Iraqis since he basically personifies the US as being an occupier, not interested in the Iraqi people. He said the Bush Admin. had to 'get past' Chalabi and that they appeared unwilling or unable to do so.

Chalabi DOES NOT appeal to the Iraqi people, now and never. He never seemed to think Chalabi should "earn" any position before. He softened his commentary for NPR. It doesn't sound like Wes Clark language to me.

[Qutzupalotl]

6. He knows Chalabi will not be able to earn trust or position

if left up to the Iraqi people. I think Clark was planting seeds, in hopes some neocon will take his advice. Let them vote on Chalabi, and he'll lose.

[11cents]

9. If he doesn't appeal to Iraqis, he won't "earn" a position

It seemed very clear-cut to me. He was saying that in order to have any legitimacy Chalabi would have to undergo the democratic process and not be shoe-horned into place by the neocons (i.e., "the Pentagon" -- he was talking Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the other civilians there, of course).

[Gloria]

13. #5 Updated...

ON EDIT:

Finally got the darned thing to work so I could hear clearly...the thing about "time" is off...but here is the entire relevevant quote:

(part of a list of suggestions, after slow down military ops on ground to permit political efforts to work...)

"Put a little distance between the United States and Ahmed Chalabi...let him earn his office by winning the trust of the Iraqi people not the trust of the Pentagon."

This is a very softened statement considering I heard him at least twice, maybe three times recently say that the Admin. doesn't or won't understand that they had to "GET PAST" Chalabi because his appointment was a prime cause of the resentment among Iraqis toward the US. (And "get past" are most definitely Clark's words.) In these discussions, it was clear that Clark felt the Admin. was "devoted" to Chalabi, no matter what.

"Putting a little distance" is not the same thing--it really doesn't say much at all. It's "squishy." And saying he should "earn" his office implies that he is going to be around awhile, which may be true...but Clark, again, doesn't really go as far as saying that the Administration has to basically get Chalabi out of the picture.

Definitely a 'toned' down reference....why, is all I'm asking?

[Jai4WKC08]

14. No big mystery here

Because he's speaking for Kerry now. Isn't that obvious? He can't afford to say anything out of line with Kerry's position, or anything controversial that Kerry hasn't already signed onto. That's NOT selling out--it's being a loyal member of the team.

I just don't see the problem with that. Maybe it's not what you want to hear, but it's what being on Kerry's team requires. It would be the same if the roles were reversed. You think if Clark were the VP, or Sec of State, or anywhere in a Kerry administration, he could be voicing opinions different from Kerry's? How much more important it is that he tow the line during the election, when any misstatement could be used against both of them.

If Kerry wants to play this with moderation, that's his call. If he wants Clark especially to be moderate, to win over moderate Republicans, that's his call too.

Fwiw, tho, I think you're reading too much into the shift. He was still saying that the US should not be pushing Chalabi onto the Iraqi people. He just wasn't making as big a deal about it.

[Scoopie]

24. Toned down?

Or honest?

Look - you can't be a ballbuster all the time.

He was simply being honest. If the Iraqi's want him, fine, but he knows they don't, so put it up to a vote: boom. He's fired. Just like we hope to do to the Bush/Cheney Kabal in November.

[Donna Zen]

7. As I heard it:

Clark always mentions Chalabi which is a far cry from what the others do when they get on the talk shows.

Essentially Clark set up a parallel structure--it was clear he was reading from a pre-written statement--and made a sly point about Chalabi.

It went something like this:

If Chalabi wants to be part of the Iraqi government then let him earn the support of the people of Iraq; it is not enough to have earned a spot in an Iraqi government because of he earned the support of the Pentagon.

I liked how he tied the Chalabi to the Pentagon.

In answer to the thread topic: I've never thought that Clark was under consideration by Kerry. Actually, it made me sick when posters jumped up and down accusing Clark of being a suck-up when he endorsed Kerry.

Don't misunderstand, there is nothing I would like better than a Clark VP. Aside from Graham, all of the others have voiced support and belief in the occupation. Even worse, people names are being bounced around who have voted against women, for NCLB, for tax cuts for the rich, and favor the Patriots Act. I realize that the choice must have broad appeal, but it would be nice to see a few crumbs thrown to the activists.

[TacticalPeek]

10. True, true, true, true, true, annnnh, true.

All agreed, except Kerry is not dumb enough to unconsider anyone who could help him win, because there are not many players on that particular bench.

Clark will lay waste the cabal's puny pretense to natsec cred, and raise foreign policy hopes here and around the planet.

He will be VP. I can see it. It's clearer and clearer. I see it plainly. I see it like my hand before me. He will be VP.

(I would worry if the talking heads thought so.)

[Jai4WKC08]

11. I certainly agree with your last point

The media ALWAYS gets it wrong.

I'd say Wes Clark is still in the running. Big time. Kerry wouldn't be putting him on all the news shows if he didn't like what he has to say.

[Auntie Bush]

12. Ahhhhhhh! That is music to my ears. I hope you're psychic! n/t

[Scoopie]

25. Well, I am

And I could have told Condi a thing or two and Spain, too, but that's something I don't choose to talk about or nurture - it's just something...
In any case... I know Clark will be in White House... under what reasoning, I don't explore.

Not to be strange or odd... but I've never been wrong, so!

I'll leave it RIGHT THERE! :)

[britpopper]

26. I sure hope so...

I am salivating just imagining the VP debates between Clark and Cheney...

[Bombtrack]

8. Because he's shown a clear disinterest

that's my guess. He has come pretty close to ruling it out. He's a policy more than a political person, and I think he'd rather have a foriegn policy job than a political job, one in which he has to pretend he cares as much in life about domestic issues as he does foriegn policy issues.

[JI7]

16. well, i don't think this really matters

i personally don't think clark REALLY REALLY wants the vp job, but i don't think he is against it either. i think he only cares about a democrat winning in november. and if kerry asked him to be his vp i think he would accept. so what clark himself wants is not really an issue here. if kerry thinks only clark can help him win in november then clark would and should accept.

[Scoopie]

28. Hey...

No offense to you and yours, but I hope that's not the official Kerry shirt.
Gag!

I wouldn't wear it.

Seriously, it looks kind of... old. :shrug:

[JI7]

30. not offical Kerry logo , the shirt is sold as "vintage" and i like it

i'm thinking of buying it. i think it's cute.

they also sell shirts with the official kerry logo.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. compared to Kerry, they're all short

There's no huge conspiracy against Clark, and he's not the great second coming that so many people think he is. Sure, he's smart, but he's not a seasoned politician, doesn't have much factional support within the political community, and has a few strikes against him besides all that.

Please remember that he was given huge publicity when he entered the race, and his fizzling is more his own doing than the evil machinations of others. As a long-time Edwards partisan, I've been staying out of the endless "everybody's being mean to Clark" threads since Super Tuesday, and I've vented my share of derision before that, so I'll try to be nice here.

The calculations of what characteristics are best for a running mate get very complex--and idiotic and cowardly, too, lest we forget--so I'm sure he's in there somewhere, but I just don't think he merits some kind of heir-presumptive status.

Maybe one certified war hero is enough on the ticket. Maybe a Midwesterner is more important to the powers that be than a Southerner. Maybe they want someone who's more seasoned as a politician.

Be serious: his trajectory as a candidate was consistently downward. His polling was the highest as he entered, and he steadily declined. He could only eke out a third place in New Hampshire by 839 votes (.39 of a percent), and his victory in Oklahoma was by almost exactly the same margin. In each instance, he beat Edwards by less than a half a percent. Kerry hit hard early, and never lost momentum.

I'm not in support of anyone in particular for the second slot, and am disturbed by many of the ideas floating around (the McCain idea is idiotic enough to destroy the party forever). The theory that there's some huge conspiracy or lack of imagination working against Clark just doesn't hold water.

[Jai4WKC08]

17. I don't get your subject line--a joke?

So mine will have nothing to do with the my content either. But if your post was intended to "be nice"--that's a joke as well.

Wes Clark may not be "the second coming" but he's a man of brilliant intellect and unassailable character, and some of us think he would have been one of the truly great presidents in American history. And this may come as a shock, but we see his not being a "seasoned politician" as a positive attribute. Was Washington a seasoned politician? No, he was a leader who said what he believed and placed the good of the nation above any other partisan priority. In fact, he even warned about the danger of political parties. I rather doubt Washington could get elected today.

Of course, you are right that "seasoned politician" may be exactly what Kerry wants in a running-mate. He's not looking for a George Washington afterall. Just someone to help him get elected. And we all have different opinions on what qualities contribute most. It's not a matter of declaring Clark some sort of "heir presumptive" (not sure where you get that idea from) to point out that he has many of the very qualities that at least some people think are important.

In any case, we will continue to voice our opinions whenever we see fit. If you don't agree with them, well, that's your opinion and you have a right to it. I have no clue what people see in Edwards--he seems to me to be the exact opposite of what his supporters would have us believe. But that's just opinion too, and we'll never agree. What's the point of discussing it?

But you are way off the mark when you say Clark only went downward from the day he entered the race. He fell off dramatically in the polls initially--I doubt anyone, starting from scratch, could have lived up to the media expectations. But from there on out, it was a steady climb back. Until the Iowa primary and the momentum it generated, he was back to riding high. That's just a fact.

And while I will grant you he got a lot of media attention in the lead up to his announcing his candidacy, it's just ignoring reality not to admit what the media did to him afterwards. And still tries to do today. Maybe it's a conspiracy, maybe not. I'm not convinced one way or the other, could be a little of both, but I know what I saw, what I still see, and it really doesn't matter why it's happening so much as that it is.

Fwiw, I base almost all of my optimism about Clark as VP on precisely the fact that Kerry IS a seasoned politician, and has a solid understanding of what really went down during the primaries. His relationship with Clark, and how he is using him in his campaign, seems to indicate as much.

[Adelante]

18. Kick it, Jai

Don't be shy :7

[GiovanniC]

19. Conspiracy? -- Maybe Not

But the media attacked Clark in a way matched only by Dean and maybe Kucinich. You know how I can tell? The reactions of people who had previously only heard the pundits and talking heads when they finally heard Wesley Clark give an interview for the first time.

The cable news anchors constantly referred to Clark as "scary"... never really elaborating on what they meant by that, or what their basis was. If Clark made a perfectly innocent comment that could be twisted against him in any possible way, they did it, and more than the other candidates by far. Because that was the only time the media gave him any attention.

Most of the time, the media ignored Clark. When CNN and MSNBC commentators were talking about the "front runners", it was always Kerry, Edwards, and sometimes Dean, even when Clark was doing at least as well as both Edwards and Dean. Clark was consistently lumped in the same category as Sharpton and Kucinich when the media was talking about severe long-shot candidates.

When the New Hampshire results came in, MSNBC showed the winners. Clark won third place over Edwards... there is no margin of error in an actual vote. The vote is what it is. But Clark and Edwards were routinely said to be "tied for third" even AFTER all the votes had been tallied. On their on-screen graphic, MSNBC showed the top three winners of the New Hampshire primary... Kerry, Dean, and Edwards. Wait, Edwards!? That's right. They showed the guy who won fourth place, but not the guy who won third.

That was the beginning of the media BS-mobile aimed at Clark. The behavior kept up throughout the primary. When Clark won Oklahoma, very little was mentioned about it, but it was a major coup for Edwards to win the state he was born in.

The media went out of their way to shut Clark out, to ignore him, and to belittle him when they got the opportunities to. But when I would show one of his Meet the Press interviews to family and friends, they were instantly hooked. Most people, though, accept what they are told -- and most people were told that Clark was "scary" and that he was a "nobody".

To ignore that is to ignore the facts of the 2004 primary.

[Scoopie]

27. Yes it does

When he was giving great speeches and all that was covered was his driver's speeding ticket.

I could go on, but, well, that pretty much rests my case.

Meanwhile, your guy won ONE state and came in AFTER Clark in all the others and got massive media coverage.

Go figure that one out and then report back.

[Jai4WKC08]

20. Kerry staffers on MSNBC this morning...

Said there IS no "short list." Said that Kerry is playing this very close his chest, that no one knows where he's leaning but him and maybe a couple others. Some indication that the buzz was leaning to Gephardt, but it's just rumors. Edwards and Clinton were mentioned by the interviewer, but there was no positive reaction from the Kerry staff.

Sounds to me like Kerry has already decided, or his staff would have some clue as to who's being explored. There would be research being done, focus groups, polling. Word would leak out. Not that these guys would tell anyone on MSNBC or any other news agency--not if they want to keep their jobs. But still, some word would make it to the outside.

I have a lot more faith in Kerry's judgment than any recommendation a bunch of staffers, even under the guidance of a guy like Jim Johnson, might come up with.

[slinkerwink]

21. if it's Gephardt, then we're dead

:puke:

[LandOLincoln]

22. It's Clark, and has been all along. n/t

[Scoopie]

29. Since Tennessee

And I live here... but, you know, according to the DUer's I'm an idiot.
Oh well.
Bless you...
WATCH and then LISTEN...
LOOK and then LEARN...

[robbedvoter]

23. better be - I want to win! heroes vs zeroes will play well with ALL

even GOP-ers!

[TimMooring]

31. Wes Clark is the best choice for Kerry

If the objective is to win

Both Kerry and Clark are extremely bright, capable and honorable democrats

What a contrast they would make to the cheneybush

Kerry/Clark for 2004 !!!