Can Clark be a set up by the Repubicans ?

[midnitemoleman]

First let me say I like Clark, he seems to be the perfect candidate and
I cannot claim to have any thing bad on the guy. But I also know that sometimes all that glitters is not gold. I have been leaning towards Dean, and would like to vote for Clark, but ... It kind of seems to good to be true if you know what I mean. Do you think the Neo-Cons would be smart enough to place a "Perfect candidate" in the Democratic field, only to have him really be on the other (Repukes) side. I could just me over parinoid here, but I really don't trust the Bush team on bit. Hell they could be playing us and Bush at the same time for all I know. Does anyone else think this could be a set up? I really doubt that it is, but as they say you should always do your homework right!

[RichV]

1. Man

There aren't enough tinfoil hats to go around here lately.
:tinfoilhat:

[Clark Can WIN]

2. I like your hat dude

[Classical_Liberal]

3. His campaign team is what worries me

He says now that he is antiwar, but alot of his campaign staff were Hawks in the Iraq war. So yes, I am worried.

[MoonRiver]

10. Do you really think Clark would continue the crazed Pax Americana crap?

There are many people who stupidly voted for the war (not Clark of course), yet I doubt any of them, including the majority of Repukes, would have ever conceived of doing such a thing, were they president.

Plus, I've been listening to Clark give his opinion about Iraq since long before he declared his candidacy. He's been getting clearer and clearer that he didn't think an invasion was justified or necessary. I think this whole Iraq-Clark debate is a red herring. Why don't we ask the really important question: what would the candidates do to clean up this mess now? Now if Clark said keep the US troops there indefinitely and look into invading somewhere else, THAT would worry me.

[Classical_Liberal]

16. I don't know, he said in the Washington Post he would vote for the war

not to mention the fact that the PNAC plan once it got rolling created facts on the ground that justified carrying out the rest of the plan without any full endorcement of the Plan. That is why Pax Americana was so fucking scary.

[MoonRiver]

21. John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Dick Gephardt DID vote for the war.

Do you think they're secretly tied in with PNAC?

[quinnox]

22. Perhaps, but I would look

at the Bohemian Club first...

[Classical_Liberal]

23. Lieberman is

PNAC all the way. Kerry and Gephardt were at the very least playing with fire and displaying extremely bad judgement.

[Donna Zen]

35. We all need to read TPM

Marshall has made the case and examines Dean's and Clark's record on the war. Hey_the liars that sent people to kill and be killed are the problem. Clark: You can't win the hearts and minds of people your dropping bombs on.

Please read, please:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

But what about what Dean said on Face The Nation a couple weeks before the war resolution vote, when asked what the president would have to do to prove that there was an immediate threat justifying war ...

I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

[unfrigginreal]

33. Here's the point...

Those people that voted stupidly for the War...that would have never proposed it had they been President...could have gone a long way to stopping this war and insisting on a debate!

I'm not comfortable with Clark all of a sudden deciding that he wants to "appear" closer to the turncoats that sided with this war...that was never his position before and for it to become his position now suggest HEAVY HANDLING!

[quinnox]

4. lol

Good one.

[diplomats]

5. They're Machiavellian

but I don't think they're that brilliant. (BTW, Clark is not perfect. No candidate is!)

[Evanstondem]

6. He's Rorschach Test, not a Repug Setup

People often project their wishes onto potential candidates who don't have political experience. Look at Colin Powell in the 90s and Schwarzenegger this year. Clark looks good on paper, but he hasn't really been politically tested yet.

[uptohere]

7. he could be set up by my dog

take an honest objective look at his actions, his words and his responses throughout his career. He is not the Golden Child.

This is too importent to not pay attention to. The guy comes in apparantly neck and neck with Dean and there is nothing to back it up.

Do what you feel is right but at least get educated.

[midnitemoleman]

8. You can laugh if you want, but how many lies have you heard this year ?

I mean come on, who do you trust completly? Hell Clinton told us he did not get a BJ also, and he was on OUR side. I like Bill and think he can do as he please's, its not my choice to decide what he does. But the fact is he lied with no problem. For the record I think he was one of the best presidents in the last 100 years. But he lied, so am I just to think every Democrat is telling me the truth. Like the old saying goes: Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Nobody Believed Clinton's Denial Re Lewinsky

NT

[oasis]

11. What the hell has Bill's blow job to do with Clark being a covert Repug?

"you can laugh if you want" ha ha :eyes:

[Dr Fate]

13. "He lied about sex, so that means he would lie about anything, -right?"

Now WHERE have I heard THAT one before? Rush used to say that a lot too- forgetting to mention now that Bush lies about things that actually affect our LIVES, unlike Clinton's consensual sex.

I disagree with you- Clinton lied about consensual sex, not about policy that affects our lives like Bush...

...it's interesting that "the sex" was the only example you could come up with inorder to present Clinton as a "liar" who cannot be trusted...

No, just becuase Clinton lied about "the sex" does not mean he or any other DEMS would stoop to Bush's level and lie about the reason our troops are dying...

[Upfront]

14. I trust Dean.

Completly.

[diplomats]

15. Just let this play out

If Clark turns out to be a mediocre candidate he won't win the nomination, I guarantee it. We're not like the GOP; our primary voters will actually pick the guy they want. Notice, when Clark entered no one else dropped out. He's getting a lot of publicity now but he's just one of 10. I support him now but he has to earn the nomination.

[Eloriel]

12. You'e on the right track -- off just a little bit

My eyebrows went up when I heard the Clintons were "encouraging" him to enter the race, and then that there were a gob of former Clinton advisors on his campaign.

It all made sense when (1) I learned Clark used to work for Jackson Stephens and (2) heard some DLC talking points come out of his mouth.

He's a setup, all right, from those who are DLC connected who do NOT want to share power with The People, which is what the Dean campaign is generating (it's a revolution, actually, and no one other than the Dean campaign and The People can handle that.

The Repugs don't want it and the DNC/DLC don't want it. All the other DLC Golden Boys are limping along, not going anywhere. Like Howard Fineman said in one of his columns the other day -- gotta stop Dean. But it's NOT because he's unelectable, that's the last thing in the world they're worried about. Their worry is that he IS electable.

Is Clark in on the plan? I don't know and the answer to that isn't really all that important.

Eloriel

[Julien Sorel]

17. WOW

He's a setup, all right, from those who are DLC connected who do NOT want to share power with The People, which is what the Dean campaign is generating (it's a revolution, actually, and no one other than the Dean campaign and The People can handle that.

Jesus Christ. I'm not the most empathetic of people, but this one hit me.

[diplomats]

18. Of course the DNC doesn't want to win the 2004 election

How stupid of me to think they do. They're only the Democratic National Committee. BTW, since when did Howard Fineman's word become gospel? (I have no idea if Howard Dean can win. But to say Clark was encouraged to run to deprive an "electable" candidate from winning makes no sense to me.)

[Eloriel]

37. I didn't say anything about not wanting to win

As for Fineman, he's an idit. BUT he does have access to insider gossip, and is occasionally worth reading for that reason.

Eloriel

[quinnox]

19. Oh, Oh!

Now it all becomes clear! Except for the skull and bones and Clark connection, but I'm sure it's in there somewhere.

[KittyWampus]

31. "no one other than the Dean Campaign"

no one other than the Dean campaign and The People can handle that.

Eloriel, that is a really unbalanced statement.

Especially since you begin your post definatively saying Clark is a "setup" and end it questioning whether Clark really IS in on the plan.

One second you KNOW he's a DLC plant and the next you don't know and then say the answer isn't important...

Some of the commentary on DU lately seriously hints at paranioa & delusion and I am not being flip or trying to insult.

It might be a good idea for some DU'ers to turn the computer off and forget politics for a day or two.

[Eloriel]

36. You actually need to read my post again

if you care to, that is. No skin off my nose, but you've misuunderstood (or are purposely mischaracterizing???) everything I said.

Eloriel

[no name no slogan]

20. Not GOP. He's DLC.

He's coming in to relieve Liebermann, who has as much appeal to Democrats and America as warm kitten vomit.

Since the DLC attacked their former poster boy Dean, their last hope is Clark.


And no I'm NOT a conspiracy nut :tinfoilhat:

[Classical_Liberal]

24. It is this potential that worries me

. His supporters look alot like Lieberman supporters. It looks like they are cutting their losses on Clark, and I don't want to give them that opportunity.

[MoonRiver]

26. I favor Clark, but before Clark joined the race I was for Dean.

Over and over I read posts from people on DU saying the same thing. So how do you explain your statement that Clark's supporters are former Lieberman supporters? Unless you're privy to information the rest of us aren't that sounds bogus.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. The neocon publications are the ones pumping Clark

. Newsweek and the "New Republican" in particular. They supported the war, and told other Democrats to do so. His staff include many Clinton people which can be good or bad, depending on which ones, but generally speaking that is Washington Code of the DLC wing of the Clinton Administration. One unnamed staff called him a Southern Democrats dream which is more code for DLC, because the DLC thinks they own the South. I am worried.

[MoonRiver]

28. What are you worried about?

Clark just may be the best person to beat *. To me that's a good thing.

[Classical_Liberal]

29. I am worried he will hire all the dumb war hawks like the

people at the New Republican and in the DLC to be his advisors. I actually think they are dangerous, and I want to bring new people into the Foriegn Policy establishment. I think Washington lacks diversity in political opinions. There are Democratic PNACers. Look at Tom Friedman.

[KittyWampus]

32. Lieberman Supporters !!!

Yeah, like there were so many of those at DU before Clark entered the race...

Geez!

[WillyBrandt]

40. A BIG LIE: Clark supporters are Lieberman Supporters

I despise Joe Lieberman, and I support Clark partly because of my dislike of the senator from CT.

It's another mindless smear--how exactly do we "look like" Liberman supporters? I support Clark because I admire his character, intellect, his progressive instincts, and his potential for crushing Bush.

[shugah]

25. well, either you're right

he's a plant...or...he's the perfect candidate.

huh?

wes has been saying alot of the right things for quite some time. is he the perfect candidate? :shrug: who knows? that "general" thing sure seems to scare the repugs...

fwiw--i don't see "neocon, PNAC, plant" anywhere on clark. in fact, i see a guy who knows that the country is going in the wrong direction, and spent some time listening to people who want him to be president.

i am looking forward to hearing what he has to say.

[Code_Name_D]

30. No, not exactly.

Is Clark truly a right wing plant? No. He isn't. The GOP simply is not capable of that kind of subtly. But that is only half of the story. Others are rightly wondering about Clark's ties with the DLC. And as one post here wondered aloud, why would this be a bad thing, right? After all, the whole point is to run on the Democratic ticket.

To answer that question, you have to have a better understanding of the DLC and what makes it tick. There is some argument on whether Clinton made the DLC, or whether the DLC made Clinton. But such chicken before the egg questions are moot in hind sight. The fact is that the Dems at the time adopted a model of "centrist politics." At the time, Rush had usefully made liberal and progressive into a dirty word, so they worked real hard to disassociate themselves from these schools of thinking. To do that, they had to adopts a "moderated" version of the conservative agenda. The kind that appeals to the "Regan democrats." And thus was born the reality known to the American voter as "the lesser of two evils."

Its hard to motivate voters with such a lack luster campaign platform. So they had to "sell it" using advertising strategies using TV time that became more and more expensive over time. To get the money they needed, the DLC turned to large corporate donation. Ironically, the exact same donators that the Republicans were courting. They were able to do so because at the time, corporations were playing both sides of the fence.

But to keep these donations coming, the Democrats had to give a little back to the corporations first. If they dragged their feed a little too slowly in meaning corporate wises, than the money might not be their come the next campaign cycle. So they had to serve the corporate interest first, and thus were relegated only to campaign issues that the corporations didn't care about. Things like civil rights, education, tuff on crime... well, it's a short list.

Thus was born "retail politics," the art of meeting the wants of the corporations, then selling this to the voters. And lying about it wasn't above the pale. That is how Clinton came to sign the NAFTA GATT agreements.

Now this strategy did work. But only technically, and it became less effective each year as the voters were increasingly tuning out the Democratic message, and just staying home, requiring more and more money. Those that didn't were still forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, and voted for the Democrats only because they were voting against the Republicans. And as the differences between the two shrank, it became harder and harder to do even that.

But all of this change in 2000. The Republicans swept all branches of the federal government. The Democrats were no longer in a position to grant the corporations wishes, and so they quit donating. The DLC's subsequent attacking of Dean and the core Democratic supporters, was more of an effort to go chasing after the corporate donations.

But, the 2004 might change this for the DLC, IF they can get a candidate who is ready to play ball with the corporations. And the DLC is not about to permit any one onto the field who doesn't first hold a loyalty to the corporations. Clark's affiliation with the DLC, is a good indications of such a bargain with the devil.

The danger here isn't that Clark might lose to Bush. But that Clark might beat Bush, but still let the corporations run America, just as they have for the past 30 years. And nothing will change. The "war on terror" will continue, unabated.

[Eloriel]

38. Good post

Got a few details wrong, but the outline is certainly right on.

One that I'll mention is that "liberal" started becoming a dirty word with Reagan, accelerted with Bush1, and then even more so with Gingrich and his list of words to use to describe liberals (including such beauties as "degenerate").

Eloriel

[Code_Name_D]

39. I stand corected.

The "value" of librilsim was asulted long before Ragan as well.

[retyred]

34. Clark a republican plant?

CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
Retyred IN FLA.