Clark needs to distance himself from the Clintons....

[truebrit71]

..as much as I love the Big Dog and the junior Senator from New York their name is political poison....

Gen Clark needs to make the reich-wing media whores at least work a little bit to find some reason to trash his candidacy...being linked to the Clinton's would do their job for them....Bad move IMO...

Thoughts??

[wtmusic]

1. Their name is political poison

except for anyone who enjoyed the prosperity of the 90's, who now has no job, or who didn't buy into the gross exaggeration of the seriousness of Clinton's affair.

[diplomats]

2. The media is making a big deal out of it, not Clark himself

once Clark's campaign starts he'll have his own identity. I don't think the Clintons are poison, because there's a growing appreciation for the good things that happened when he was president. But I agree Clark needs to be his own man, and I think he is.

[cprise]

3. I agree

But they will trash him anyway.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. Yep - Clark, how about saying that the Clintons were wrong about NAFTA?

and corporate trade agreements in general? That will certainly position you away from Clinton's neo-lib crowd, and generate a lot of stir from the corporate media. Imagine if you were to say Kucinich is right about bilateral trade agreements, that would really shake things up.

[robbedvoter]

28. He talked about Fair trade over Free Trade

but your fantasy of Dems kicking Clinton will have to wait.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

31. "Fair trade" is an empty worthless label that means nothing

Clark will have to do better than that - hell *everyone* even Dean is for "fair trade" - what is "fair trade" anyway and how is it different than "free trade"?

Kucinich has proposed the only realistic workable solution - bilateral trade agreements. Gephardt led the fight against NAFTA and Moseley-Braun voted against it. Everyone else is just blowing smoke at this point.

Clinton was a million times better than Bush, so no need to kick him. Clark shouldn't be afraid of disagreeing with them.

[soleft]

having Hillary on board may be only way to raise $ he needs

[soleft]

5. dupe

how'd that happen

[LEW]

6. I don't agree whole heartily

May need to not over use their support, but it is great support for democrats like me who continue to like the Clinton's. It is the hard core bushies who hate his guts, and they will not vote for Clark anyway. I think many of undecided still like the Clinton's.

B-)

[DemNoir]

7. Dont agree at all

Their name is poison only to those obsessed Clinton haters that will never vote Dem anyway. Gore's biggest mistake was not using Clinton to help campaign.

[RobertSeattle]

12. Exactly

Clinton Haters won't vote for any Democrat anyway.

[clar]

14. Wrong

Their name is poison to me, and I'm a liberal dem. I'll vote for whoever the nominee is. BUT, I really don't cotton to the idea of the Clinton crowd co-opting the process.

[CWebster]

17. Exactly

.

[diplomats]

23. Thet're not co-opting anything

They support Clark, and so do many others. Clark is not anyone's puppet.

[Lindacooks]

52. EXACTLY

I was so frustrated during the 2000 campaign because Gore didn't bring Clinton into the campaigning. If he had, I doubt the election would have been close enough for the Repukes to steal.

[knowledgeispower]

56. A LOT of Americans would gladly take a Clinton clone right now

Think about Joe Public here:

- He has had four years of the Bush economy and can tell it wasn't nearly as good as the Clinton years. He liked the tax cut, but realizes it might have been bad policy.

- He is concerned about national security, and Bush being a "military guy" (IE, not a democrat) helps to ease his conscious. He thinks that the democrats might not be as effective as "commander in chief."


SO...lets look at how Clark, Clinton connections well known, would look to Joe Public:


- The Clinton economy was certainly better than the Bush economy has been. This guy is linked with the Clintons, and he knows his economics.

- Well, I was concerned about a democrat being too weak in national security. But Clark here used to be a four star general! And don't I remember hearing something about Bush deserting the military....?


I think its ingenious. After four years of the Bush economy, only a madman would vote for Bush over Clark. And what it comes to national security issues, Bush would lose all credibility against the general.

[Terwilliger]

8. forget about it

I'm sure the media has its new wedge...CLARK TIES TO CLINTON'S DICK!

[bowens43]

9. yeah, let's do that again.

Gore lost because he distanced himself from the Clintons.....

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. Bingo! n/t

.

[HERVEPA]

10. Totally Disagee

Worked real well for Gore. (Yeah, I know he really won, but not by near as nuch as he should have).

[uptohere]

11. But Wes is their new lab

it'll be kinda hard to do that

[diplomats]

15. Right

Of course he's not capable of deciding to run on his own. He must be a Clinton lapdog. Thanks for posting, Rush.

[Donna Zen]

37. Wes is their new lab?

Now there is an especially enlightened and extremely liberal statement.

Hmmmm?

I've noticed that all of the other candidates have openly cut ties with the Clintons. Dean, Kerry, Edwards have never mentioned his name for years. Why I think Clark should sell his house and move rather than kicking off a campaign in that devil's den of Little Rock.

[TahitiNut]

13. Just another Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas?

How passe. :eyes:

[Toucano]

16. The tide has turned

I don't think the Clintons are political poison any longer.

The Bush administration is proof of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

People were better off in the Clinton years. They remember that.

The only thing Clark has to do vis-a-vis the Clintons is not appear like a puppet. I think he has a strong enough personality to distinguish himself.

[CWebster]

18. Just so long as he doesn't appear

like a puppet...

[placton]

19. This approach (distancing)

worked GREAT for Al Gore - oops, no, he screwed the pooch. I agree Gore won, and was cheated by the Supreme Scum. BUT, he should have used Clinton much more than he did.

[zeemike]

20. Let’s see

Divide Clark from Clinton and then next I suppose it is Clark from Dean and-or Kerry That should give the media lots to talk about for the next few months while Bush gets his plan to work.
That should do it.

[John_H]

21. I disagree

I sense incredible nostalgia for "the way we were" in many groups--though you may be paying too much attention to the wingnut pundits who, like some posters who responded to you are scared shitless not only of Clark, but of the power TBD's involvement would bring to the effort.

Clinton will bring in huge numbers of votes for whoever gets the nod--from African American groups to business groups.

[Nashyra]

22. I think the Clinton/Gore fiscal success will help

If he can effectively link himself to the Big dogs fiscal success it will be a plus. I agree only rabid Clinton haters will hold it against him. Let him link the Clintons with the surplus and see what kind of ride it could be.

[diplomats]

25. Dem candidates are now citing Clinton's record with pride

I think that's smart.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. I think the Clintons are

the best thing to happen to the Dem party. I am thankful they have finally started getting involved. JMCPO The repukes just want everyone to believe the Clintons are hated. They aren't. At least, not by the Dems...the ones who matter.

[TacticalPeek]

27. "reason to trash"?

They don't need no steekin reason to trash. 'Reason' and 'trash' are somewhat mutually exclusive.

If you miss pics of Hillary, or hearing her being talked about, just watch a little faux news today.

Do not expect a unanimous popular vote for the dem. Cut loose that 40% crawling in the ditch.

I'll be happy with 58% of the popular, and if everything goes wrong for aWol and right for us, its possible. If Bill Clinton could run in '04, betting on bushco would be throwing your money in the sucker pile.

[robbedvoter]

29. Yeah! Let's play the Fux scenario - it worked grand in 2000!

Nice try! You'd be surprised, but some voters still like Clinton.

[Bandit]

30. Freeper talking point.

Has just as much credence coming from DU as it would from Freeperland. It is BS. The people that hate the Clintons would never vote Democratic anyway and the Democrats would like nothing more than to have Clinton involvement in any of our candidates. Clintons represent success which the Freepers hate. If there is Clinton involvement we know we did our best. Gore got a lot of criticism for not accepting help from the President. He probably would have won by a landslide if he hadn't shunned Clinton.

[NNN0LHI]

32. Disagree. Bill Clinton would be re-Elected next year if he could run again

There is no dout in my mind.

Don

[wes_clark_for_pres]

33. Either way

if he campaigns with the Clintons they (the Right)will trash him...if he stays away from the Clintons they'll trash him for doing so and then revel in the fact that the Clintons are "toxic." Face it, the Right still isn't over the Big Dog.

[truebrit71]

34. Most of you seem to have missed my point...

..I have no doubt that the media whores will fall all over themselves to trash his candidacy, hell they've already started!! My point was that starting out of the gate being affiliated with the Clinton's would give THE MEDIA their ready-made excuses to bash him morning, noon and night...

As anyone with a tv, radio or internet access knows THE MEDIA loves to hate Clinton, and anyone that is seen as being in their sphere of influence...I agree that those that hate Clinton wouldn't vote for Clark anyway, my point is that his message needs to get out to the moderates and the centrist's without the "He's a Clinton-Clone" moniker being applied...

TB

[in_cog_ni_to]

36. truebrit

I think the tide has turned and the people want to see the Clintons. Let the media do their schtick, we are smarter than that. We know they lie. The freepers are the ones who will enjoy the media demolition of Clark and the Clintons. The moderates/centrists like Clinton. I think Clark should hang onto Clinton and enjoy the ride! Clinton is a master campaigner. Clark can't go wrong. Trust me. :7

edited spelling

[zeemike]

50. My point is

That those that like Clinton will then distance themselves from Clark. And this sets up a conflict that the media can go on and on about alienating at least a subgroup of people.
Then the next step is to have Clark attack Dean and alienate yet more.
The repugs goal is to reduce the number of people going to the polls in 04, because that is how they will win. And the Dean supporters are vulnerable.

[chaumont58]

57. I think you have the same Clinton obsession that Tweety has

I like Clinton. I don't give a good god damn that Tweety and company don't. The idea that some association with Bill and Hillary will change the way that the whores react is foolish. The years '93 to 2001 were good to me. And they were good to the whores. The whores trash Clinton because Clinton dislikes them as a class of people. He should dislike them. They are worthy. The idea that Clark should pretend like the Clintons don't exist is ludicrous on its face. They are both from Arkansas, for christ's sake. Clinton appointed Clark to NATO. They have a history. The paid RNC and the unpaid RNC(the whores) will trash Clark.

[leetrisck]

35. The way Gore distanced himself

from Clinton because of Republicans. I think not.

[tjdee]

38. The Clintons are WINNERS.

If wingnuts want to bellyache about Clark's connections to the Clintons, let them.

Bill Clinton won the presidency twice,and would have won again if not for the term limits. Hillary Clinton won a senate seat, in spite of wingnuts across the country (and in NY state) wailing about her experience and her this and her that.

The majority of Americans *like* the Clintons. I really believe that. Wingnuts are mystified by it, and it scares them. If Clark can tap into that, more power to him. Unlike some people we know (cough cough BUSH cough cough), Clark is not an empty suit and if a connection to the Clintons is the worst they got, they got nothing.

[Carmerian]

39. How many nay-sayers here are from the South?

You can attack the messenger all you want, and insinuate that the original poster is a Freeper, but the fact remains that the Republican Lie Machine has thoroughly trashed the Clintons' name here in the South. That is repairable over time, but certainly not before the next election.

Given that one of the biggest reasons for wanting a Clark candidacy is his ability to win over the Red states, a perceived connection to the Clintons could potentially negate his advantage to some extent. You guys really need to accept that and help figure out a way we can work around it instead of denying the problem exists.

[Bandit]

42. Would you not vote for a Democrat if Clinton was involved?

I think most Americans are thinking people and know about the falsity of all charges made against the Clintons. I think it could only help any candidate we put forward whether from the south or anywhere unless of course you are saying Southerners are stupid.

[Carmerian]

45. What kind of baiting question is that?

Where did I imply that I wouldn't vote for the Democratic candidate? Of course I'm going to vote for the Dem candidate, just like I did last time.

"I think most Americans are thinking people and know about the falsity of all charges made against the Clintons."

Oh really? Where are they going to get the truth? Fox? NBC? CNN? Did you not read my post, or were you too busy typing up a good flame? The RLM has otherwise intelligent people down here believing all manner of crazy crap about the Clintons. Either come up with a way to counteract that, or admit that the damage has to be worked around.

[Bandit]

49. I don't know about your neighborhood but Clinton had over 60% approval

ratings when he left office. I think you are listening to the wrong people if you believe Clinton would harm any candidate's chances. You said yourself you would vote for a Democrat even if Clinton was to be in their corner. How many Democrats do you know that won't vote Democratic whether Clinton is involved or not? I doubt there are many who let the propaganda get to them.

[Carmerian]

51. Democrats aren't the problem

Swing voters are the problem, particularly here in the South, since Democrats are not the majority. The fact that he got 60% approval for the whole country is immaterial. Again, the issue is the SOUTH. How many Southern states did Gore win? Mr. Clinton is held in general esteem here about as well as Dan Quayle was in the rest of the country. If Mr. Clark wants to avoid having his numbers dragged down by the admittedly unfair attitudes about the Clintons, he's going to have to deal with it, and not bury his head in the sand like so many Dem party faithful seem to want to do.

[amazona]

43. I'm from the south

I'm just one person but no one has done more for the Clinton legacy and place in history than the disastrous Whistleass administration.

To win in the south, I think we need a southerner, and I think a southerner with close ties to Clinton and with Clark's strong level of achievement is just about ideal. I also think there is lots of voter fraud in the south, so we need to address that issue regardless of who the candidate is or who manages his campaign.

[Bread and Circus]

40. Franken, Conason, Begala, Press

and others have helped me see how good things
were with Clinton.

We should be proud of him. I am still a little
angry because his willy gave the Repubs ammunition.
But still, on balance, Clinton made things better.
Gore was also a good guy in my book.

After I read crashing the party by Nader, I was
a little leary but overall I think Nader ruined
things for everyone and we can see that now.

Anyway, I don't really want to see Hillary on the
ticket.

I think Clark is the man and the real deal with
the big message. Clinton's support will be moral
support but will give the go ahead for other big
names to bite.

[amazona]

41. strongly disagree

It would not have been such a close, steal-able race in 2000 if Gore had not made the error of choosing to distance himself from Clinton.

Clark should strongly link himself to his own successes of that era, such as the capture of Milosevic, and yes he should try to ride on the promise of a return to the prosperity of the CLinton era.

We older people can't tolerate much more screwing around. There is no safe investment vehicle to save for our retirements and medical care, yet the GOP is stealing Social Security/Medicare. As Clark has little domestic experience, I would like to see him link to the CLinton expertise, and I bet a lot of other people would do. Back in the Clinton era, we had this little thing called "jobs." Sure would be nice to have it back.

As I just said in another thread, everyone has baggage. If the worst you can say about someone is that they're a Clinton re-thread, keep in mind -- Clinton was elected. Twice.

[knowledgeispower]

58. First dem since FDR to be re-elected

...and after Mondale, McGovern, and Dukakis...you have to admit, Clinton was a pretty impressive politician.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

44. isn't that what gore did?

???

[DrGonzoLives]

46. You mean like Gore did?

Yeah, that worked out realllll well, didn't it?

[skewthat]

47. Bullshit.

Fuck what the RNC thinks

[ElsewheresDaughter]

48. NONSENSE!!!!...YOU HAVE JUST GIVEN MORE POWER TO THE DARKSIDE!!!

your post SUCKS!!!!!!!

[BiggJawn]

53. Didn't Gore make that mistake?

Going so far as to choose the "Anti-Clinton" for his running mate?

Funny, but I've heard that the Big Dawg is making folks fall in love all over again everywhere he's been this month.

What do you expect out of Karl's press? and as for the RW media ho's "working" for some dirt on Clark, they'll just make up some shit about his wife or kids.

[arwalden]

54. As Dr. Phil Says: "How's That Workin' Out For Ya, Al?"

[LightTheMatch]

55. He Should do BOTH.

He should both attach himself to Clinton's economy, his "southernness" and his ability to connect with ordinary people, while making clear his positions are separate on a few key issues --- issues key to both progressives and moderates.