Kurtz on Clark

[Khephra]

Four-Star Disappointment?

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 22, 2003; 8:27 AM


Wesley Clark's media honeymoon lasted less than a day.

It ended on a plane from Arkansas to Florida on Thursday, when four reporters chatted him up and the retired general backed off his opposition to the war in Iraq. A day later, however, Clark flipped on his position yet again, saying that he would have opposed the war. Despite these initial missteps, he is, incredibly enough, leading the Democratic pack at 14 percent in a Newsweek poll out today.

All this, of course, followed an 11-minute announcement speech that contained no specifics and even fewer rhetorical flourishes.

Now, the underlying journalistic question is, does he have the right stuff for a presidential campaign?

snip..............

" 'Mary, help!' he called to his press secretary, Mary Jacoby, at the front of the plane, as he faced questions about Iraq. 'Come back and listen to this.'

"At one point, Ms. Jacoby interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear."

more..................

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46203-2003Sep22.html

Ok, this is my first openly critical comment on Clark:

There's something worrisome to me that he needs a Press Secretary to explain his Iraq position. REALLY worrisome. That should be the one issue that he's able to articulate the clearest by this point. Unlike a lot of domestic issues, you can't give him a pass on needing help to express his postions on Iraq. Sorry. You can try. But on Iraq I won't buy it.

Mary's also not going to be up on stage with him during the upcoming debates.

[Cappurr]

1. Yiou know.....this is ridiculous

Clark has expounded for literally hours on CNN on Iraq. His position is pretty clear. I don't know what happened on that plane, but I know he doesn't need his press secretary to talk about because I've watched him for hours.

Unlike Bush who couldn't even find Iraq on a damned map before he was president. (Probably still can't)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

2. Wait and See

Most of us Clark supporters have conceded he didn't have a very good day, when this flap came out.

It's not a question of him "needing" his press secretary, I think he was just showing his inexperience, and caught for a moment by surprise on the press interactions. Given his history of success, I'm willing to bet it doesn't happen again. If it does, or if he sucks in the debates, I think the concern will be much more valid.

But I'm willing to wait and see, myself.

DTH

[Cush]

3. my take:

they are throwing stuff out there to see what sticks.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

4. Abso-Damn-Lutely

Novak and Drudge and Rush are practically frothing at the mouth, they're so desperate to attack Clark.

DTH

[kstewart33]

15. Novak on MTP Sunday went to special pains to attack Clark

I saw him straining to get some jabs in. It was so obvious that he was gunning for the guy. The other commentators did not join in.

Clark is these guys' worst nightmare and they know it.

[damnraddem]

55. That's something we all need to remember, including we Dean supporters:

this is the rightwing media reporting on this 'flap.' Let's wait and see how Clark does in debates and other campaign venues where we can see for ourselves, not through the eyes of Faux News.

[Bertrand]

5. exactly

theyve done it with all of the other main contenders (Kerrys hair? I mean, please), and now they're throwing out the image of clark not being a real democrat to try to split him from the base because they know of his potential in the general election.

[lindashaw]

19. It isn't easy having every word, and even every tone parsed...

I doubt that any of the candidates did too well on their first day out. And I fully expect that each one will have to back up and start over. Dean makes no apology about it, neither should Clark.

[liberalnurse]

6. That brings up some very legitimate concerns.

There is all this groupie like fawning over Clark because he is a General. My primary concern is that he has been voting republican up until now..... A convert this late in the game to be our democratic leader is a red flagg for me.

I wish folks would just chill and see how he falls on the issues. Arnold has the same groupie. His views, as limited as they are, fall under liberalism..... I see similarities.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

9. He Became a Democrat 11 or More Years Ago

I don't think we should really be holding positions from 11+ years ago against candidates, should we?

DTH

[liberalnurse]

11. I would appreciate a link to this

11 years ago voting as a republican. This really concerns me...Did he vote for GW?, Did he ever vote for Clinton?

I'd really like to know. He is running as a democratic candidate and I think this is significant.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

13. No, At Least 11 Years Ago

He definitely voted for Clinton in 1992. His vote in 1988 is unknown.

Are you sure you want to hold old positions like these against him? Because there are plenty of position changes of that age or even younger that will haunt many of the other candidates, if that's the criterion you're using.

DTH

[liberalnurse]

20. I'm sure I want to know if he is a sincere democrat.

I heard on CNN Sunday Talk Show, Capitol something....that he voted for both *bush and Reagan....

I want a sincere, true democrat in the White House. We have suffered enough by this administration. The one who accepts this position is going to face intense pressure from the right. If one is not a true democrat, it will be easy to falter.

[disgruntella]

23. You could write him a letter and ask him.

General (ret.) Wesley K. Clark
Clark for President
P.O. Box 2959
Little Rock, AR 72203

[Clark Can WIN]

58. So it is your stance then that people should

never cast their vote at the end of a process of clear and independent thought but that they should always be a straight ticket partisan?

How does your candidate intend to win with that ideology?

I suspect you never had any intention to give Clark serious consideration to begin with and this point was mute for you from the start. At some point someone will ask him to explain those votes, I hope you will listen with an open mind to Clark on this point and others in the future.

[bearfartinthewoods]

59. cast their vote at the end of a process of clear and independent thought

that's exactly what i want people to do and i don't see how that is possible at this time. clark is "under construction". we don't know how he'll handle the gruel of campaigning and have never seen him debate.

given all that, i don't think it's out of hand to hold off till we know more. like i had a customer in here this AM who says he heard that Clark was a lobbiest for defense contractors. may i wait to find out if that's true before i jump on his bandwagon?

[Khephra]

14. here you go

The New York Times: "Moving to fill in the blanks of his candidacy a day after he announced for president, General Clark also said that he had been a Republican who had turned Democratic after listening to the early campaign appeals of a fellow Arkansan, Bill Clinton.

"Indeed, after caustically comparing the actions of the Bush administration to what he described as the abuses of Richard M. Nixon, he said that he voted for Mr. Nixon in 1972. He also said he had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html

[Cappurr]

16. From what I know....

Clark has said he voted Republican until Clinton in 92. He voted for Gore in 2000.

[SoFlaJets]

37. On Hardball last week

He said when asked who he voted for in 2000 he said Al Gore

[CWebster]

49. Clinton supposedly brought him over

But I don't know wheter that is a commentary on Clinton or Clark. In any event, he didn't officially declare himself as a Democrat until weeks before his announced candidacy.

The guy has absolutely no substance and real problems in his background. The Pristina incident and some of his previous positions and speeches on iraq as well as his Schwartzeneggerish grasp on the issues assure me that I will not be supporing this pop culture icon who thinks in the current climate being a (fired) general is enough.

[dfong63]

35. then why did he help raise funds for repubs only 2 years ago?

[slappypan]

43. 2002

In 2002, Clark campaigned for Max Cleland, Erskine Bowles, and other Democrats for Congress.

[Khephra]

7. BTW, for you people who don't read the whole articles

The quote that I meantion above is by the NYT's Adam Nagourney (whoever he is) and not Kurtz...just in case there was any confusion. I know where Kurtz stands, but I have no clue about Nagourney.

[robbedvoter]

27. For you people who don't listen to the speeches, but buy the spin

here's that vague 11 minutes speech:
http://www.clark04.com/speech_01.php

[jonnyblitz]

30. Political speechs aren't spin?!?! you arent that naive are you?

:shrug:

[gully]

8. Clark is coming in like a lion, and going out like a lamb...

:boring:

I wondered what all the hype was about when I saw him speak recently? I dont get the facination with him myself? :shrug:

But, I'll continue to watch with an open mind...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Is It Bashing

if I say that Howie could get a better haircut in a big city like Washington ....

It looks like something out of Boogie Nights...



on edit- all pols have gaffes....I'll leave out this team....

How about Carter talking about ethnic purity?

How about Ted Kennedy talking about fam farmilies in Iowa in 80 and not being able to give Roger Mudd a coherent answer on why he's running for pres....

How about the Big Dog's "I smoked but never inhaled" little gem?

How about Gerald Ford saying Eastern Europe wasn't under Soviet control?

[slappypan]

12. F#@* Howie Kurtz with a chainsaw

His job is to sneer at and belittle Dem candidates and spread right-wing GOP Team Leader memes. I don't care what he says about any Democrat.

[loudsue]

17. I think you're stating the obvious, Kheph...the man is a problem

walking on 2 legs. You're soooo correct in your statement that ...if he doesn't know where he stands on WAR (his OWN career/life "thing") in Iraq, he's showing that he's running for all the wrong reasons.

When you look at his position on Reagan, Nixon and what he has said about shrub, and the buddies he calls "colleagues" in the Pentegon (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, etc.), he is only too obvious to those of us who have seen too much of politicians in the past couple of years.

Couple that with a whole influx of bullying, name-calling, progressive-slamming, Clark-supporting newcomers to DU in the months preceding Clark's announcement....I'm sorry! This just ain't my first rodeo, and I see what's happening. One more military/industrial complex corporatist, being made into a poster boy of a guardian angel.

:shrug: The repukes/cheap-labor-conservatives think we haven't figured out their slick moves? Just another way to destroy a Democratic party, IMHO.

Thanks for the post!

:loveya:

Sue

[Julien Sorel]

21. But you're on to 'em!

You go, girl!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. "Couple That With A

whole influx of bullying, name calling, progressive-slamming, Clark-supporting newcomers to DU in the months preceding Clark's announcement...."

I thought personal attacks were a violation of DU rules but even worse illiberal....

Peace

Brian

[loudsue]

41. I'm not making personal attacks....

there hasn't been one person I've singled out...though I'd love to. I'm painting Clark supporters with a broad brush, because they're so easily pegged. Holy Joe supporters are often the same way...very military and/or conservative. And, yes, I paint all conservatives with a broad brush.

Kucinich, Kerry, Dean, Braun....I don't have any problem with their supporters, though their supporters have problems with one another at times.

I just hate people who call themselves "conservatives" who are trying to conserve the worst type of government militarist/corporatist sleaziness, and to conserve all tax dollars for non-people (corporations) to the detriment of real people....the citizens of this country.

:kick:

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[loudsue]

39. Snipingly catty???

That was a pretty 'snipingly catty' thing to say, no? I know you've got some sort of an "agenda" concerning me, Pepperbelly, and that's not my problem.

LOL :shrug: Clark supporters...ya gotta love 'em!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Again With The Ad Hominem Attacks

It is like, so illiberal.....

[Rose Siding]

26. Did we ever get to the bottom

of whether he spoke at that repub fund raiser in '01?

[liberalnurse]

32. I had not heard of this concern.

That would be disenchanting if true.

[Pepperbelly]

33. don't worry ...

someone will give at least one side of it shortly.

:eyes:

[dfong63]

42. it's true

``...
JUST WHEN -- AND WHY -- DID CLARK BECOME A DEMOCRAT, ANYWAY? Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, who today announced his candidacy for President, joined the field of contenders competing for the Democratic nomination. But as recently as two years ago, he was addressing Republican dinners in his home state of Arkansas amid speculation about a possible future Clark run for office -- as a Republican.

Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day.

Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark:" "Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list -- his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton."

Clark told CNN's Judy Woodruff earlier this month that he had decided to register as a Democrat. Left unsaid and unknown at this point is exactly when and why he decided to become a Democrat.
...''

[Cappurr]

38. Why don't you do a little reading?

Sidney Blumenthal's book "The Clinton Wars" for example talks a lot about Clark. How unpopular he was with the Pentagon brass. How he was considered his "own man". How he was forcibly retired because he refused to follow the Pentagon line that we didn't need troops on the ground in Kosovo. How he was right about that. And got fired because the brass was pissed off that he was right.

Unless you think Blumenthal is in on this conspiracy, and it began a year or so ago when his book was being written, then Blumenthal is either an idiot (and after reading his book, I'd say that is not true) or maybe Clark is what he appears to be. A guy who is going to say and do what he thinks is right regardless of the personal cost to him. :shrug:

[kstewart33]

18. I have an idea

Let's stop obsessing about what the media says and watch him ourselves when he debates this week. The involved public (those who vote in the primaries) will ultimately decide.

[liberalnurse]

28. I certainly plan on evaluating Clark at the debates.

He is a late comming into the race. I appreciate his limited views as we know them at this point and time and would like to know more. I was backing the concept of a Dean/Clark ticket.....I will hold out on that support until I hear more.

[Khephra]

29. This is as much of a part of the process as the debates

Even coming in late, Clark is still going to have to face the same trial-by-fire in the Press and by Democratic supporters that the rest of the candidates have gone through once they entered the field. No one waited on debates for the other candidates. Once you announce, everything you've said and done is fair game. Clark isn't going to get any special "hands off" treatment from anyone.

I hope Clark and his supporters are ready for that fact.

[robbedvoter]

45. Yeah, it's called "Gore"ing by the media

Robert Parry predicted it last year (but not the fact that Dems will join in):

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/010603a.html
A Future Guide

If the past is any guide, Democrats should expect
that:

-- The attacks will be personal, not issue-based.
Personality quirks or flaws will be used
to "define" the Democrats so these traits can be
easily transformed into laugh lines for
the pundit programs and the late-night comedy shows.

-- The attacks will be thematic, rather than
specific. For instance, the Democratic
challenger will be described as "Clintonian" -- or in
Edwards's case an "ambulance chasing
trial lawyer" -- rather than someone who supported or
opposed a specific policy initiative.

-- The attack machine will be relentless. Every
utterance by the eventual Democratic
nominee will be examined to see if it fits one of the
thematic patterns that have been
chosen as effective attack lines.

-- Statements or issues that fit a "theme" will be
repeated again and again in every
media venue, from Web sites to radio to TV pundit
shows to newspaper columns. Every
right-wing pundit ? and many mainstream commentators
? will use nearly identical
language until the "theme" becomes "conventional
wisdom."

-- The mainstream press will incorporate the attack
lines into regular news stories by
using the objective-sounding criticism that the
Democrat has failed to counter the
attack and committed the political sin of letting his
enemy define him.

-- Most importantly, it will not matter who the
Democratic nominee is. No one is immune.
The attack machine will find a thematic pattern for
each potential nominee and will pound
the Democratic candidate into the ground with it.


--

[robbedvoter]

22. Are you letting Kurtz dictate your opinion on candidates?

He is now giving a critique of the speech that was only on cable? Well, you may want to read it here
http://www.clark04.com/speech_01.php
and decide for yourself how "vague" it was... Damn, I thought DU-ers learned something from the 2000 debacle, reading MWO, The Daily Howler etc. But I guess if it serves one's candidate, anyone will do: Kurtz, Drudge, Safire...

[Khephra]

31. Ummmm, read the whole article please

Kurt uses full quotes from other articles. Kurtz is a jerk, but don't assume that people are reacting to things he's said and not other writers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. He Quotes Andrew Sullivan and John Ellis...

Isn't John Ellis Bush's cousin....


And, I ask again can't a man of Howie's money get a better hair cut....

He looks like a bad 1970's porn star...

[Khephra]

44. Not for the quotes and stories in question

Those writers are: BG's Joanna Weiss, NYT's Adam Nagourney, & WP's Jim VandeHei.

The writers that you mention are later on in the piece.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. He Had A Bad Day-No Doubt

but lets hear what he has to say from now on...

Let's give him his props...

He was first in his class at West Point and a Rhodes Scholar to boot....

[Khephra]

34. I'll stand by what I said earlier

A GENERAL who has trouble articulating his message on war is WORRISOME.

That would be like Dean having trouble talking about his heath care plan. I wonder if Dean would get a pass for something like that?

Nope.

And in my mind, Clark ain't getting a pass for needing a press secretary to "explain" to the press Clark's position on Iraq...which is an issue he's also talked about for hours and hours on tv live. Why would he have to have help if he has such a clear position?

[dfong63]

48. which is worse?

a general who has trouble getting his position on the war straight,

or a presidential candidate who has trouble remembering who he voted for?

:(

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. Hmmm

I did a poll a couple of days ago

Have you voted Republican?

Approxiamtely 51% of DUers who responded said yes....


I have never voted R since I could vote in 76....

Does that make me morally superior....

As I understand it, Howard Dean and Wes Clark had somewhat nuanced views on the invasion......unlike DK, AS, and CMB who flat out opposed it...

They both supported the invasion if it was done under the color of a United Nations resolution...

If I was a purist like DK, AS, and CSB I would ask how a unjust invasion automatically becomes just because the invaders are wearing U N helmets

[CWebster]

54. Even if some DUers voted for Reagan

chances are they decided where they stood on the political spectrum more than a couple of weeks ago---And they are not running to be the military-industrial nominee for the presidency to represent a party increasingly divided by the establishment's pull to the corporate right at odds with the base.

[Eloriel]

56. Oy! They're BOTH "worse"

That's a really tough choice -- one I can't make. But the picture it paints isn't pretty, is it?

Eloriel

[Khephra]

47. hmmm

Looks around sheepishly.

;-)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. I'll Debunk This One For You

because you're too nice a person be tainted by the right wing spin....

Wes Clark exchanged caps with a Serbian commander because he thought he had a deal to end the Bosnian conflict peacefully. The exchanging of caps was made as a conciliatory gesture like sharing a drink... The Serbs, of course, reneged, and stabbed the Americans in the back....

Then Wes Clark gets maligned for prosecuting the war on Milosevic...

He's criticized for opposing force... He's criticized for embracing force... He can't win....

[Khephra]

51. Cool

I've been busy working my ass off and dealing with repeated flooding, so I had missed that the first time through. I've seen other comments on the picture since I posted the above thread...hold a sec and I'll delete it.

[bicentennial_baby]

52. Khep, I love ya!

:loveya:

[Skittles]

57. KURTZ: FOUR -STAR WHORE?

YES INDEED.