Another couple reasons why I don't want Clark as Dean's VP

[Larkspur]

I read and thought about this post on DailyKos about why Dean won 2 big labor endorsements yesterday.

DailyKos: Why did AFSCME and SEIU decide on Dean?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/11/12/181638/14

Dean assidiously courted the SEIU and AFSCME locals, while none of the other candidates could be bothered. AFSCME was sold on Clark, until his organizational problems and abandonment of Iowa forced them to reconsider.

One new bit of information -- after AFSCME gave up on Clark, it seriously considered Gephardt. The courtship was so strong, indeed, that Gep assumed the endorsement was his.

The move stunned labor and political insiders and left some of Dean's rivals furious. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who has the support of 20 unions, believed he would get the AFSCME endorsement and was particularly upset. According to one person, he fumed that McEntee had just "turned over the country to the Republicans for four more years."

The AFSCME endorsement might've delivered the whole AFL-CIO to Gep, so the loss must've been particularly bitter.
If nothing else, this article shows the sheer competence of Dean's campaign team. While most of us would assume every candidate would spare no effort to win these unions' endorsements, reality was far different.

Last December, at one of their first meetings, Stern asked Dean if there was any way he could help him, thinking he could open some union doors to the little-known candidate. "He said, 'Well you can endorse me,' which I thought was a pretty bold, first opening comment," Stern said. "And I said, 'Well, we're a little far away from that,' and he said, 'Well, if you endorse me, I'm going to be president.' "

The SEIU offered all the candidates the same resources: a list of their local leadership and a warning that the route to the endorsement began not in Stern's fifth-floor office on L Street NW but through the rank and file. "Everybody got the same advice," an SEIU official said. "Howard Dean took it to heart." No other candidate came close to Dean's outreach. "Shockingly" not close, Stern said.

Dean's vision, work ethic, persistance, ingenuity, gutsy but pragmatic risktaking, empathy with commmon people, and assertiveness in a crowded field certainly have propelled him to the front. This is why my loyalty to Dean is steadfast. He's got the "Right Stuff" to be President and what we need in a President during this turbulent times.

In contrast to Dean's expert campaign style, Clark's campaign incompetence and inexperience are 2 good reasons that I don't want Clark on the ticket with Dean. Pulling out of Iowa killed his chances of getting AFSCME's endorsement. The fact that his campaign staff didn't know about McEntee's loyalty to Iowa shows that Clark, who is inexperienced himself, chose poor campaign staff leaders. He can be Sec of Defense, but his civilian political inexperience would be an albatross around Dean's neck.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

1. civilian political inexperience

beats civilian political ineptitude anyday. and that's what we have now in the white house. Quite frankly, in the foreign-policy situation we are in right now, we need a strong military man to garner some of those swing military votes. A year from now the Iraq situation will have become so tiresome that the Dems will have to fill a military niche.

[ACPS65]

2. I bet

Clark won't want Dean as his VP either.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. Filling Clark into the void is futile

People vote the top of the ticket and Clark cannot make up for Dean's military gap. If anything it would be an admission of the void and simply call more unwanted attention to it.

[dsc]

71. Then why didn't that happen with Gore?

He had foreign policy experience while Clinton didn't. Care to explain why that didn't hurt Clinton.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

83. It escaped any serious scrutiny back then

and the scrutiny Dean will be under will be wilting- but more importantly the Gore vs. Quayle debate was a pathetic mismatch- absolutely pathetic. Embarassingly so. I swear that debate was worth 2 or 3 percent for Clinton.

[Warpy]

5. I wouldn't mind Clark as VP, but

...I'd hate to see him in the top spot. He's a Pentagon insider, and I don't trust him to do the kind of housecleaning that building so obviously needs. I'd love to see him in Dean's cabinet,though.

I'd love to see Edwards given the #2 spot on the ticket. He lacks the practical experience for the #1 spot, but he'd balance the ticket geographically and ideologically, since he sounds more progressive on labor issues.

In any case, whether or not I designed the ticket and the campaign myself, I'll vote for whatever the DNC gives us. ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!

[mmonk]

19. so much of a pentagon insider

that they disagree over policy.

[IronLionZion]

25. He made some rash decisions in Kosovo

Like ordering a confrontation with Russian troops, and Ordering the bombers to fly so high that they miss their target and killed Albanians instead of Serb troops. You don't want a guy like that to make executive decisions as President. He also portrays himself as the hero of Kosovo, but Russia made the deal with the Serbs. Sure, he has rapport with Southerners and can mend relations with Europe, but he seems like he would royally piss off the Russians, the world's number 2 military power.

He's a popular guy and I like his platform, but this guy was made for a symbolic position like VP. He can't be Defense secretary either.

[Mattforclark]

32. Ackshually

see http://www.clarkmyths.com

The Russian truppen thing ain't true / is grossly misrepresented, and contrary to ordering the bombers to fly high, he wanted them to fly LOWER.

[TLM]

38. Even the Clark spin site says it happened... Clark gave that order.

They simply deny that the situation was as dangerous as the Brit general claimed.

Basicaly their spin is that it wouldn't have caused WWIII, like he said. But it would have really pissed off the Russians who were critical in ending the war in kosovo.

And the fact is that both the british and the US governments backed the british officer's refusal to follow Clark's order.

[Mattforclark]

50. Uhmmmmmm................................. No.

Independent 429 said:

"Like ordering a confrontation with Russian troops"

Do you agree with this wording?

If so, please explain to me how trying to trying to get NATO to occupy Pristina airbase before the Russians occupied it is 'ordering a confrontation with Russian troops.' The Russians would have had to attack the Nato forces at the airport, and then they would have innitiated the confrontation, non?

When that wasn't done, Clark wanted to move tanks onto unoccupied runways so that the Russians couldn't fly in reinforcements. How is that 'ordering a confrontation with Russian troops?'

Clark did not 'order a confrontation with Russian troops,' he wanted to put NATO in a position such that the RUSSIANS would have to innitiate any confrontation. That idea comes right out of the playbook of a John F. Kennedy. You gonna criticize him too? What would you have had Howard Dean do in that situation?

As to your 'And the fact is that both the british and the US governments backed the british officer's refusal to follow Clark's order.' , for crying out loud CLARK HIMSELF even backed his refusal.

[TLM]

54. Yeah that's a confrontation...

If you're walking to the door and I get up and order someone to stand in your way, that's ordering a confrontation.


"The Russians would have had to attack the Nato forces at the airport, and then they would have innitiated the confrontation, non?"


No, that would be escalating the confrontation... not initiating it. And the potential for exactly that kind of escalation was why the British general Jackson refused the order to take such blatantly provocative action towards the Russian forces. And both the US and The British government backed him up on that.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208123,00.html

Having helped Nato out of its predicament, Moscow was embroiled in arguments with Washington about the status of Russian troops in the K-For operation. For reasons to do with efficiency as much as power politics, the west insisted the Russian contingent must be "Nato-led". With or without Yeltsin's say-so, on June 12 a group of some 200 Russian troops drove out of Bosnia - where they were serving with the Nato-led S-For stabilisation force - and in full view of the world's television cameras made for Pristina airport where Jackson had planned to set up his K-For headquarters guarded by British paratroopers.

The Russians had made a political point, not a military one. It was apparently too much for Clark. According to the US magazine, Newsweek, General Clark ordered an airborne assault on the airfield by British and French paratroopers. General Jackson refused. Clark then asked Admiral James Ellis, the American commander of Nato's southern command, to order helicopters to occupy the airport to prevent Russian Ilyushin troop carriers from sending in reinforcements. Ellis replied that the British General Jackson would oppose such a move. In the end the Ilyushins were stopped when Washington persuaded Hungary, a new Nato member, to refuse to allow the Russian aircraft to fly over its territory.

[Mattforclark]

60. Right........

"If you're walking to the door and I get up and order someone to stand in your way, that's ordering a confrontation."

You're analogy doesn't make much sense primarily because it is not specific. What door? Where are we? Are we in a room? Is there another door?

"No, that would be escalating the confrontation... not initiating it. And the potential for exactly that kind of escalation was why the British general Jackson refused the order to take such blatantly provocative action towards the Russian forces. And both the US and The British government backed him up on that."

OK, so let me get this straight. NATO is sitting in an airfield. Then Russia comes by and says to NATO, get out of this airfield, I want to fly in troops. NATO says, "no thanks Russia, I'm just fine where I am now." At this point, Russia can either attack NATO or go away and mumble.

On to our hypothetical -

Then Russia decides to take its AK-74 off its shoulder and begin shooting bullets at NATO.

And you think Russia is not innitiating this confrontation, but only escalating it?

Guardian article - So if Russian troop planes had decided to fly through Hungary/Romania anyway, you think NATO shooting those planes down would be LESS risky?




What are you smoking and where can I get some? Ahhhhhhh, I see. I'll just take a trip to deanforamerica.com

[TLM]

76. Can't deny Clark gave the order... or that the US and Brit governments

backed up the decision to refuse the order... so split hairs about the definition of confrontation.


Real simple... Russian troops are moving to point X, and you order paratroops to drop in and occupy point X to block the russian advance... and you do not consider that ordering a confrontation?

Face facts... Clark gave a stupid order that was like driving a thumbtack with a sledge hammer. It was a bad order that could have escalated what was a minor disagreement regarding command structure into an actual shooting conflict. It was stupid and it is a damn good thing the order was refused.

[Donna Zen]

34. Nice try

however, what you just wrote illustrates a total lack of understanding of the situation including the command structure, and a willingness to either spread untruths or fail to gather facts based on the historical record.

Ordering the bombers to fly so high that they miss their target and killed Albanians instead of Serb troops.

All decisions and approval for the operation came from the Pentagon and WH with the input from the Joint Cheifs. That would include General Shelton who currently been retained by Senator Edwards.

He also portrays himself as the hero of Kosovo, but Russia made the deal with the Serbs.

I confess I have fought the battle of Pristina many times on these boards, but when this statement goes well beyond a resistance to facts. It is flat out a lie. If you are unwilling to fact check, so be it. But no one should permit tripe like this to go unchallenged.

I am in the middle of class, and must go now. Would someone please post the one thousand Pristina links.

That last post was an example of why America is going down the tubes.

[TLM]

41. So the SAC of NATO's command doesn't give any orders?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Y et once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

Nato does not dispute the Serb claim that just 13 of its tanks were destroyed in Kosovo - a figure which gives an altogether different meaning to the concept of proportionality. Nato fought a military campaign from the air which failed to achieve its stated objectives.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208123,00.html

Having helped Nato out of its predicament, Moscow was embroiled in arguments with Washington about the status of Russian troops in the K-For operation. For reasons to do with efficiency as much as power politics, the west insisted the Russian contingent must be "Nato-led". With or without Yeltsin's say-so, on June 12 a group of some 200 Russian troops drove out of Bosnia - where they were serving with the Nato-led S-For stabilisation force - and in full view of the world's television cameras made for Pristina airport where Jackson had planned to set up his K-For headquarters guarded by British paratroopers.

The Russians had made a political point, not a military one. It was apparently too much for Clark. According to the US magazine, Newsweek, General Clark ordered an airborne assault on the airfield by British and French paratroopers. General Jackson refused. Clark then asked Admiral James Ellis, the American commander of Nato's southern command, to order helicopters to occupy the airport to prevent Russian Ilyushin troop carriers from sending in reinforcements. Ellis replied that the British General Jackson would oppose such a move. In the end the Ilyushins were stopped when Washington persuaded Hungary, a new Nato member, to refuse to allow the Russian aircraft to fly over its territory.

Jackson got full support from the British government for his refusal to carry out the American general's orders. When Clark appealed to Washington, he was allegedly given the brush-off. The American is said to have complained to Jackson about the British general's refusal to accept the order to take over Pristina airfield, and Jackson's subsequent appeal to his political masters when Clark visited Kosovo on June 24.

The unsuccessful issuing of Clark's order has left a bitter taste, especially given the delay in US marines joining the K-For operation - a delay which Jackson had been prepared to indulge even though it held up the entry into Kosovo. Had the British general carried out Clark's instruction, all hope for a compromise with the Russians would have been shattered. In the end, Nato and Moscow reached a compromise and General Jackson willingly provided water and other supplies to stranded Russian paratroopers holed up at the airfield. He swallowed any hurt pride he might have had by insisting, not entirely convincingly, that control of the airfield was not important.

[Mattforclark]

53. Uhuh...............

"According to the US magazine, Newsweek, General Clark ordered an airborne assault on the airfield by British and French paratroopers."

And he wanted battelfield preparation with a tactical nuke too, huh?

Just like this, huh?: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

:eyes:

The Guardian is generally a wonderful newspaper, and I get a weekly subscription to it. But neither it, nor Newsweek, is infallible.

[TLM]

58. You have no refutation, other than hyperbole

nobody said anything about nukes... you're just trying to avoid the fact that CLark did give this order and it was a stupid order to give.

[Mattforclark]

61. Not quite...

"According to the US magazine, Newsweek, General Clark ordered an airborne assault on the airfield by British and French paratroopers"

Do you think that the Guardian/newsweek is correct in stating the Clark ordered an AIRBORNE ASSAULT on the airfield?

Do you think that Clark wanted the Paras to go in with guns blazing or do you use some strange definition of 'assault' that does not include attacking people?

[TLM]

77. The use of force to take ground is an assault

an AIRBORNE ASSAULT on the airfield means they would go in battle ready, and take the airfield. It does not mandate shooting. Such an action could be done without firing a shot.

The point is that it is a hostile act of seizing and holding ground. Which was way way more than was called for to deal with the situation, and luckily cooler heads prevailed.


"Do you think that Clark wanted the Paras to go in with guns blazing or do you use some strange definition of 'assault' that does not include attacking people?"

What Clark wanted was, as you mentioned before, a Cuban Missile Crisis type stand off with the Russians. Clark wanted to move troops in there and then dare the Russians to make a move. And that's exactly the problem, he was setting up a situation that could go really bad really fast. When all that was called for was some political wrangling.

Clark opted for military confrontation over political maneuvering... which is not a character trait I want in my president.

[DemCam]

73. Liked that word?

gooooood.

[TLM]

30. I think we need less militarism in the white house...

Why are dems trying so hard to out militarize the right wingers? Whose bright idea was it to try and beat a militaristic war profiteer with a militaristic war profiteer?

I do not buy the meme that we need a military man… we need someone who knows how to make peace, not someone who knows how to make war.

[Mattforclark]

33. Ya think Clark is more militaristic than Bush

Huh?

Clark, who has experienced war firsthand, understands that it should only be used as a last resort. Getting shot can do that to you, for some reason or other. I think it might be a life changing experience, or something like that.

Making peace - take a look at Kosovo & Bosnia. Dayton peace accords or something like that.

[TLM]

45. Clark did not bring peace to Kosovo...

"Clark, who has experienced war firsthand, understands that it should only be used as a last resort. Getting shot can do that to you, for some reason or other. "

Sure didn't stop him from showering civilian centers with DU rounds and cluster bombs.


"Making peace - take a look at Kosovo & Bosnia."


His campaign in Kosovo was a failure, killing 1500 civilians and wounding 10,000 by NATO's own numbers. The Russians were the ones who brought an end to the war in Kosovo... all Clark did was bomb marketplaces, schools, hospitals, power plants, journalists etc. Oh and they did hit 13 Serb tanks... and it only took 20,000 bombs.


Even Bush hasn't come out and said he thinks it is OK to bomb journalists, Clark has.

Bush is a war profiteer who is playing cowboy. Clark is a war profiteer who isn't playing... he's the real deal, a real militant who has spent most of his life in the military command structure.

[Mattforclark]

63. Lets see

"Sure didn't stop him from showering civilian centers with DU rounds and cluster bombs."

1) Once you are in a war it is sound strategy to use all means at your disposal to win. This is a different thing from the decision of whether or not to get involved in the first place. Clark is not a pacafist, and I bet you are aware that Dean isn't either. I would not be inclined to support a pacafist for President, and I bet lots of other rational people wouldn't either.

2) Can you show me some solid scientific evidence on DU? I haven't seen any and once again I certainly do read the Guardian.

3) In some cases it is a good idea to use cluster bombs. In some cases it is not. Please provide evidence that Clark ordered cluster bombs to be used in a case for which they were clearly not suited. Thanks.

"His campaign in Kosovo was a failure, killing 1500 civilians and wounding 10,000 by NATO's own numbers. The Russians were the ones who brought an end to the war in Kosovo... all Clark did was bomb marketplaces, schools, hospitals, power plants, journalists etc. Oh and they did hit 13 Serb tanks... and it only took 20,000 bombs."

The objective of Kosovo was to stop the Serbs from killing/ethnic cleansing the Kosovars/ans. This occured after 79 days (IIRC).

You seem to be judging success or failure by another criteria, civilian casualties. That's fine, but can you show that 1500 dead civilians is less than would have been killed b the Serbs if NATO had not intervened?

More importantly, can you show that there was good reason to believe that the consequences of intervening - civilian and military casualties - would outweigh the benefit of civilians saved from ethnic cleansing and the creation of a precedent for intervention against ethnic cleansing? In other words, can you show that Clark's judgement in supporting Kosovo was bad?

[TLM]

78. Ok here we go ... one by one...

1) Once you are in a war it is sound strategy to use all means at your disposal to win. This is a different thing from the decision of whether or not to get involved in the first place.

War is no excuse for war crimes, and it is a war crime to target civilians. The NATO air campaign lead by Clark specifically targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure to inflict economic damage on the Serbs.

Clark open admits to targeting journalists. That's a war crime no matter how you spin it.


"Clark is not a pacafist, and I bet you are aware that Dean isn't either. I would not be inclined to support a pacafist for President, and I bet lots of other rational people wouldn't either."


Again this is not about pacifism, it is about targeting civilians.



"2) Can you show me some solid scientific evidence on DU? I haven't seen any and once again I certainly do read the Guardian."


What do you mean... evidence that Clark used DU weapons or evidence that DU is harmful?

______________________________________________________
http://www.balkanpeace.org/monitor/yeco/yeco06.shtml

THE LONDON INDEPENDENT, Monday, November 22, 1999
US 'lost count of uranium shells fired in Kosovo'

By Robert Fisk in Pristina

American aircraft used so much depleted uranium ammunition during the Nato bombardment of Serbia that US officials are now claiming - to the disbelief of European bomb disposal officers - that they have no idea how many locations may be contaminated by the radioactive dust left behind by their weapons.

British and other ordnance officers ordered to defuse live ammunition in Kosovo have been fobbed off by the US military with "security" objections - and then with statements that no record was kept of depleted uranium (DU) munitions used in the Kosovo war.

A growing number of doctors and scientists suspect that an explosion of cancers in southern Iraq is caused by the US use of depleted uranium tank and aircraft munition warheads during the 1991 Gulf War. British and American doctors have suggested that it may also be a cause of the "Gulf War syndrome", which has caused the death of up to 400 veterans. Despite these fears, Nato this summer refused to assist a UN team investigating the use of depleted uranium munitions in Kosovo.

But information given to The Independent by European military sources in Kosovo demonstrates just why Nato should be so reluctant to tell the truth about the anti-armour ammunition - a waste product of the nuclear industry which burns on impact and releases toxic and radioactive material when it explodes. For it transpires that DU was used by A-10 "tankbuster" aircraft for more than a month in at least 40 locations in Kosovo, many of them "fake" military targets set up by the Serbs to lure pilots away from their tanks and artillery positions.

More tragically, A-10 aircraft used DU ammunition in two attacks against Kosovo Albanian refugees, the first on 14 April on the main road between Djakovica and Prizren. Hundreds of civilians were wounded in these attacks, carried out when Nato pilots - flying at more than 15,000 feet to avoid any injury to themselves - bombed refugee columns in the belief that they were military convoys.
____________________________________________________


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0923-08.htm

Given our collective recurring political amnesia, let's turn to an eye-opening August 1999 report from our British friends at The Guardian, concerning Clark's role as Supreme Allied Commander - a post viewed by Clark supporters as a major qualification to be our next president.

"NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. 'We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces,' U.S. General Wesley Clark explained - 'his,' of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians... The targeting of the studio was a war crime, perhaps the most indisputable of several war crimes committed by NATO in its war against Yugoslavia."

If you think the Guardian editors were being overly harsh in describing this as a "war crime," keep in mind that a panel of 16 judges from 11 countries who, at a people's tribunal meeting in New York before 500 witnesses, found U.S. and NATO leaders guilty of war crimes against Yugoslavia in the March 24 to June 10, 1999, "humanitarian" attack on that country.

As for Clark's reputation among the rank and file in our military establishment, the highly decorated and straight-talking Col. David Hackworth has written that Clark is "known by those who've served with him as the 'Ultimate Perfumed Prince.' (He) is far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die."

And we haven't even scratched the surface in discussing Clark's idealization of the Powell Doctrine, which led to NATO forces dropping tons of depleted uranium bombs on Kosovo, creating widespread civilian sickness as a result of contamination associated with DU.
___________________________________________________________



"3) In some cases it is a good idea to use cluster bombs. In some cases it is not. Please provide evidence that Clark ordered cluster bombs to be used in a case for which they were clearly not suited. Thanks."


How about cluster bombs on residential areas and a f-ing marketplace filled with civilians?

_____________________________________________________
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Yet once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.
_________________________________________________


"The objective of Kosovo was to stop the Serbs from killing/ethnic cleansing the Kosovars/ans. This occured after 79 days (IIRC)."

No, the bombing did nothing of the sort, as it was targeting CIVILIANS to do economic damage. Fully 80% of the people the serbs killed were killed after the bombing campaign started.

Prior to the bombing only 2000 people had been killed, and that was a genocide so horrific it demanded NATO action, and yet the bombing killed 1500 civilians. That's only 500 less than the genocidal mad man had killed. Murder 2000 and you are a genocidal villain... murder 1500 civilians and you're a hero.

How does that work?

:wtf:


"You seem to be judging success or failure by another criteria, civilian casualties. That's fine, but can you show that 1500 dead civilians is less than would have been killed b the Serbs if NATO had not intervened?"

False premise... what the question should be is: are 1500 dead civilians less than would have been killed if NATO had not TARGETED CIVILIANS.



"More importantly, can you show that there was good reason to believe that the consequences of intervening - civilian and military casualties - would outweigh the benefit of civilians saved from ethnic cleansing and the creation of a precedent for intervention against ethnic cleansing? In other words, can you show that Clark's judgement in supporting Kosovo was bad?"


It was not supporting "action" in Kosovo that was the problem... it was supporting the targeting of civilians to inflict economic damage. NATO was correct to take action in Kosovo... however they were very very wrong to target civilians and Clark was the guy in command of the air campaign.

And Clark openly admits to targeting journalists as the quote above shows.

[Clark Can WIN]

36. That's just uninformed............ at best

I was going to say stupid.......... but that would be wrong. Uninformed is a better choice.

Q. Who wants to cut the military budget?
a. Dean
b. Clark

CLARK

Militaristic war profiteer? Do you know ANYTHING about Clark or are you just one of those types that exibits an automatic knee jerk fatuous minded reflex at the sight of any uniform?

The best person to make peace and avoid war is someone who understands the true unimaginable HELL that war is. And it is unimaginable. War isn't something you can understand if you got a cushy spot in TX National Gaurd or you TOOK A SKI TRIP instead.

[TLM]

47. On the contrary, I'm very informed on Clark's war profiteering...

"Q. Who wants to cut the military budget?
a. Dean
b. Clark

CLARK"

Clarks says that, but he also says he thinks Reagan and BUsh were great leaders... and the fact is Dean wants to redirect defense spending to domestic defense needs like first responders.



"Militaristic war profiteer? Do you know ANYTHING about Clark or are you just one of those types that exibits an automatic knee jerk fatuous minded reflex at the sight of any uniform?"

Have a look at Clark's long list of war profiteering...

Wall Street Journal, 9/18/03

IN ANNOUNCING his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become : chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business. .


That's EXACTLY what Cheney did for Haliburton.


more....

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications. One is Acxiom Corp., based in Gen. Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., where he formally launched his campaign yesterday. He joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information.

"He has made efforts at putting us in contact with the right people in Washington ... setting up meetings and participating in some himself," says Acxiom Chief Executive Charles Morgan. "Like all of us around 9/11, he had a lot of patriotic fervor about how we can save our country."


<snip>

While he was originally hired as a consultant by WaveCrest Laboratories LLC, Dulles, Va., to help find military buyers for its promising new electric motor, Gen. Clark became the company's chairman in April, and has also focused on selling products in the commercial market. But Gen. Clark's knowledge of and ties with, the military and government markets have been a large part of his appeal to potential employers.

Stephens Inc., the large, politically connected Little Rock investment firm, hired him to boost its aerospace business shortly after he gave up his NATO command. He left Stephens last year and opened his own consultancy, Wesley K. Clark & Associates.
While Gen. Clark was at Stephens, the firm also marketed him to clients such as Silicon Energy-in which Stephens held a stake - "as a good person to help us understand the federal procurement process," says Mr. Woolard. The company was trying to enter the government market, and Gen. Clark explained the process "and contacted people at the Navy and Air Force and told them what we had," Mr. Woolard says. (Silicon Energy was acquired earlier this year by Itron Inc., and Gen. Clark no longer advises the firm).

Time Domain Corp., a Huntsville, Ala., advanced wireless-technology company, recruited Gen. Clark to become an adviser in February 2002 through one of its chief operating officers, who had been a colonel under his NATO command during the Bosnia campaign. Gen. Clark has counseled the company on how to answer Pentagon concerns that its low-power radar system might interfere with global positioning and communications systems, as well as to better craft that technology for military use. board of Entrust, at the request of CEO William Conner, who had served with him on a Pentagon advisory panel.
At Entrust, Gen. Clark has provided advice on how to sell to various NATO governments, says David Wagner, Entrust's chief financial officer. He has also helped emphasize the firm's product securing electronic networks for new homeland-security applications.
_________________________________________________________



"The best person to make peace and avoid war is someone who understands the true unimaginable HELL that war is. And it is unimaginable. War isn't something you can understand if you got a cushy spot in TX National Gaurd or you TOOK A SKI TRIP instead."



Yeah he sure was bothered by the hell of war when he was raining down cluster bombs on CIVILIANS and targeting journalists.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0923-08.htm

NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. 'We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces,' U.S. General Wesley Clark explained - 'his,' of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians... The targeting of the studio was a war crime, perhaps the most indisputable of several war crimes committed by NATO in its war against Yugoslavia."

If you think the Guardian editors were being overly harsh in describing this as a "war crime," keep in mind that a panel of 16 judges from 11 countries who, at a people's tribunal meeting in New York before 500 witnesses, found U.S. and NATO leaders guilty of war crimes against Yugoslavia in the March 24 to June 10, 1999, "humanitarian" attack on that country.

As for Clark's reputation among the rank and file in our military establishment, the highly decorated and straight-talking Col. David Hackworth has written that Clark is "known by those who've served with him as the 'Ultimate Perfumed Prince.' (He) is far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die."

And we haven't even scratched the surface in discussing Clark's idealization of the Powell Doctrine, which led to NATO forces dropping tons of depleted uranium bombs on Kosovo, creating widespread civilian sickness as a result of contamination associated with DU.

[Mattforclark]

3. That's unfair

So Dean, expert and experienced campaigner as he is, doesn't make gaffes? I don't really want to bring this up, I am not trying to be provocative, and I don't want to get into a flamewar about it, but the confederate flag?

Clark would hold Dean down?

I certainly hope that Clark, Dean, and all the other democratic candidates become gaffe-free, but your (or the article's) supreme confidence in Dean and supreme lack of confidence in Clark seems to be rather irrational to me.

[robsul82]

7. This is true...

...Clark wouldn't "hold" Dean down, and vice versa. Can't we all just giggle over Dick Gephardt saying AFSCME had "turned the country over to the Republicans," lol. MC Powder honestly thinks he can win, it's sweet.

Later.

RJS

[bicentennial_baby]

9. LOL!!

MC Powder! I assume this is in relation to his stunning lack of eyebrows? Brilliant!

[Larkspur]

11. Dean has made gaffes, but it hasn't stopped his rise

Whereas, Clark's gaffes early on tarnished his super-media-hyped entry into the Dem Prez race and his organizational and tactical mistakes gave a potent labor union endorsement to his leading rival.

Clark is an overestimated and overhyped candidate who was annointed the frontrunner because of his 4 stars, not due to any civilian political experience or expertise. In contrast, Dean was underestimated and earned his frontrunner status through his own merit at building a political base and coaltion that will win him the nomination and the general election.

Clark doesn't come anywhere close to Dean's political skill.

[incapsulated]

15. Huh-huh

You keep telling yourself that.

See you in the Southland...

Oh, Dean and Clark are still neck and neck in nationwide polls, btw.

Not bad for someone coming in so late with no money. Doesn't say much for Dean's depth of support, either.

[Spazito]

18. Not to mention that the press have an "embargo" on mentioning...

Clark's name. It is incredible to me that Clark is neck and neck in the national polls in spite of the media. I think that says something!

[arcos]

67. that's because he used all his 'quota' of free air time 3 months ago! n/t

[TLM]

49. I'm still waiting for some Clark supporter to explain why

they support a war profiteer who has spent the last 3 years doing the same thing for defense contractors like acxiom, that Cheneny did for haliburton... and that Bush Sr. does for Carlyle.

[DemCam]

74. Maybe 'cause there's no explainin'

Maybe 'cause you're one of the handful who apparently has fallen for labelling Clark a 'warprofiteer'...and maybe that's why no one can explain it.

'Cause it just ain't so...no matter how many times you post those same tired ol' links, boy.

Ain't so. Nothin' goin' on here.

[TLM]

80. The proof he is a war profiteer is right here...

Wall Street Journal, 9/18/03

IN ANNOUNCING his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become : chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business. .


That's EXACTLY what Cheney did for Haliburton.


more....

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications. One is Acxiom Corp., based in Gen. Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., where he formally launched his campaign yesterday. He joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information.

"He has made efforts at putting us in contact with the right people in Washington ... setting up meetings and participating in some himself," says Acxiom Chief Executive Charles Morgan. "Like all of us around 9/11, he had a lot of patriotic fervor about how we can save our country."


<snip>

While he was originally hired as a consultant by WaveCrest Laboratories LLC, Dulles, Va.,to help find military buyers for its promising new electric motor, Gen. Clark became the company's chairman in April, and has also focused on selling products in the commercial market. But Gen. Clark's knowledge of and ties with, the military and government markets have been a large part of his appeal to potential employers.

Stephens Inc., the large, politically connected Little Rock investment firm, hired him to boost its aerospace business shortly after he gave up his NATO command. He left Stephens last year and opened his own consultancy, Wesley K. Clark & Associates.
While Gen. Clark was at Stephens, the firm also marketed him to clients such as Silicon Energy-in which Stephens held a stake - "as a good person to help us understand the federal procurement process," says Mr. Woolard. The company was trying to enter the government market, and Gen. Clark explained the process "and contacted people at the Navy and Air Force and told them what we had," Mr. Woolard says. (Silicon Energy was acquired earlier this year by Itron Inc., and Gen. Clark no longer advises the firm).

Time Domain Corp., a Huntsville, Ala., advanced wireless-technology company, recruited Gen. Clark to become an adviser in February 2002 through one of its chief operating officers, who had been a colonel under his NATO command during the Bosnia campaign. Gen. Clark has counseled the company on how to answer Pentagon concerns that its low-power radar system might interfere with global positioning and communications systems, as well as to better craft that technology for military use. board of Entrust, at the request of CEO William Conner, who had served with him on a Pentagon advisory panel.
At Entrust, Gen. Clark has provided advice on how to sell to various NATO governments, says David Wagner, Entrust's chief financial officer. He has also helped emphasize the firm's product securing electronic networks for new homeland-security applications.
_________________________________________________________


Now you tell me how Clark using his military connections and position to get contracts for defense contractors that hire him, is any difference from Cheney using his position to secure contracts for Halliburton prior to being selected as VP?

[Larkspur]

66. Nationwide polls are "name recognition" polls right now

so I don't value them as much as I do polls in the leading primary states at this point.

Polls in the leading primary states are better barameters of a candidates viability because either the candidates have or have not campaigned well in those states.

[Mattforclark]

20. So Clark's gaffes have stopped his rise?

:crazy: :eyes:

That'd be why Clarkie is ~tied with dean in national polls despite having low name recognition? He's doing ~slightly better in SC as well.

Media annointed? When's the last time you saw a talking head go on and on about Clark for no apparent reason?

I remember reading and seeing a lot about Dean when he was at ~1-5 percent for some reason. Hummmmmmmm..........

[KittyWampus]

21. Funny Thing Is-Labor Preferred Clark

And would have gone with him except for Iowa. Which was impossible for Clark's ewly emerged campaign to muster.

Clark is still on top Nationally and moving foward rather than slipping and he hasn't even run any ads yet...

Remember what Kerry said in the Detroit Debate:

"We're electing a President and not a staff"

Dean is clearly only VP material... if that. No wonder Labor wanted Clark instead and had to settle for Dean.

[SEAburb]

28. BS, Dean dropped 3 points in Iowa from flag flap

and trails Gep by 7 now.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

43. Deaniacs have been well prepared for his rise

but I don't think they will take the fall too well.

[Forkboy]

72. You're right

if the Kerry supporters are any indication.

[OKNancy]

6. I agree

Clark should not be a VP....he is going to be the President and he's going to beat Bush and send him back to Crawford.

[incapsulated]

8. heh

Fine with me. I'm not planning for Clark to be vp for anybody.

We will give that guy Dean a look when we take the nomination though..

:smoke:

[Mattforclark]

10. Very true N/T

[DemExpat]

14. lol....that's the truth.....Clark for Pres!

:kick:
DemEx

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[incapsulated]

16. Oh, boy..

Imma scared!!

:scared:

[returnable]

17. "struggle to compete"?

If you weren't so myopic, you'd see Clark is at the top with Dean in the national polls.

And he's pounding Dean in South Carolina. Don't forget, the primaries do go on after New Hampshire.

For all the media hype Dean has been getting, he still hasn't pulled away from the pack.

No wonder you're nervous about Clark.

[Larkspur]

24. Clark is getting blown out in Iowa and New Hampshire

and he's losing to Dean in Arizona and New Mexico.

Dean hasn't campaigned yet in South Carolina. When he does, he'll give Clark a fight and possibly upset him there.

[Mattforclark]

29. Iowa -

Ya think that may have something to do with the obscure, crazy caucus system they run over there? Or the fact that he's not competing there? Even though he is not competing there, I think he has something like 4-5 percent. That's rather strange, no?

New Hampshire - Dean lives next door to New Hampshire. He has been campaigning there forever (also applies to Iowa, btw). He has name recognition in New Hampshire. Clark is just getting started.

[returnable]

31. And...?

"and he's losing to Dean in Arizona and New Mexico."

He hasn't even campaigned in either state yet.

As you say about Dean and South Carolina, once Clark starts campaigning there, it's all up for grabs. Dean's lead in those states is marginal. Your argument for Dean's chances in SC works both ways.

The point is, Clark isn't struggling to compete, as you said. The media is struggling to suppress his campaign.

[TLM]

52. Exactly... Clark is, and always was a hype candidate...

When you look past the hype, the man is a war profiteer, just like Bush and Co. Look past the hype from the Clark spinners and look at the facts about what the man did in Kosovo, and what he's been doing since he left the military.

When he wasn't lobbying for defense contractors, or speaking at republican fundraisers about what great leaders Reagan and Bush were, he was advising members of congress to vote for the IWR.


The Clark folks do not want to admit that the only place Clark is doing well, is where Dean isn't campaigning yet.

And so far not one Clark supporter has been able to rationalize Clark's war profiteering... instead they spew insults and plant their heads firmly in the sand.

One ad listing the military contractors that Clark worked for in the last three years, trying to help them profit off homeland security and war, and his campaign would be over.

[bicentennial_baby]

56. Bwahahaha!

Ya, every war profiteer I know drives a 92 Madza Miata, just like Clark!

:eyes:

[DemCam]

75. Let me join ya.....bwahahahah

[TLM]

82. That car he drives doesn;t change that he lobbyed for defense contrators..

Wall Street Journal, 9/18/03

IN ANNOUNCING his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become : chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business. .


That's EXACTLY what Cheney did for Haliburton.


more....

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications. One is Acxiom Corp., based in Gen. Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., where he formally launched his campaign yesterday. He joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information.

"He has made efforts at putting us in contact with the right people in Washington ... setting up meetings and participating in some himself," says Acxiom Chief Executive Charles Morgan. "Like all of us around 9/11, he had a lot of patriotic fervor about how we can save our country."


<snip>

While he was originally hired as a consultant by WaveCrest Laboratories LLC, Dulles, Va.,to help find military buyers for its promising new electric motor, Gen. Clark became the company's chairman in April, and has also focused on selling products in the commercial market. But Gen. Clark's knowledge of and ties with, the military and government markets have been a large part of his appeal to potential employers.

Stephens Inc., the large, politically connected Little Rock investment firm, hired him to boost its aerospace business shortly after he gave up his NATO command. He left Stephens last year and opened his own consultancy, Wesley K. Clark & Associates.
While Gen. Clark was at Stephens, the firm also marketed him to clients such as Silicon Energy-in which Stephens held a stake - "as a good person to help us understand the federal procurement process," says Mr. Woolard. The company was trying to enter the government market, and Gen. Clark explained the process "and contacted people at the Navy and Air Force and told them what we had," Mr. Woolard says. (Silicon Energy was acquired earlier this year by Itron Inc., and Gen. Clark no longer advises the firm).

Time Domain Corp., a Huntsville, Ala., advanced wireless-technology company, recruited Gen. Clark to become an adviser in February 2002 through one of its chief operating officers, who had been a colonel under his NATO command during the Bosnia campaign. Gen. Clark has counseled the company on how to answer Pentagon concerns that its low-power radar system might interfere with global positioning and communications systems, as well as to better craft that technology for military use. board of Entrust, at the request of CEO William Conner, who had served with him on a Pentagon advisory panel.
At Entrust, Gen. Clark has provided advice on how to sell to various NATO governments, says David Wagner, Entrust's chief financial officer. He has also helped emphasize the firm's product securing electronic networks for new homeland-security applications.
_________________________________________________________

[Clark Can WIN]

57. You mean like his efforts to reduce our dependendy on oil?

Positively EVIL. Yeah, one ad about that and it would all be over.............................

[TLM]

84. Notice, just as I said... not one refutation or explination...

just insults or evasions to avoid addressing the FACT that Clark was a war profiteer... he said Reagan and Bush Sr. were great leaders at a republican fundraiser in 2001... and he advised a yes vote on the IWR.



How many defense contractors did Clark try to help profit off 9-11 and Bush's war on terror (and our civil liberties)?



Wall Street Journal, 9/18/03

IN ANNOUNCING his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become : chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business. .


That's EXACTLY what Cheney did for Haliburton.


more....

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications. One is Acxiom Corp., based in Gen. Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., where he formally launched his campaign yesterday. He joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information.

"He has made efforts at putting us in contact with the right people in Washington ... setting up meetings and participating in some himself," says Acxiom Chief Executive Charles Morgan. "Like all of us around 9/11, he had a lot of patriotic fervor about how we can save our country."


<snip>

While he was originally hired as a consultant by WaveCrest Laboratories LLC, Dulles, Va.,to help find military buyers for its promising new electric motor, Gen. Clark became the company's chairman in April, and has also focused on selling products in the commercial market. But Gen. Clark's knowledge of and ties with, the military and government markets have been a large part of his appeal to potential employers.

Stephens Inc., the large, politically connected Little Rock investment firm, hired him to boost its aerospace business shortly after he gave up his NATO command. He left Stephens last year and opened his own consultancy, Wesley K. Clark & Associates.
While Gen. Clark was at Stephens, the firm also marketed him to clients such as Silicon Energy-in which Stephens held a stake - "as a good person to help us understand the federal procurement process," says Mr. Woolard. The company was trying to enter the government market, and Gen. Clark explained the process "and contacted people at the Navy and Air Force and told them what we had," Mr. Woolard says. (Silicon Energy was acquired earlier this year by Itron Inc., and Gen. Clark no longer advises the firm).

Time Domain Corp., a Huntsville, Ala., advanced wireless-technology company, recruited Gen. Clark to become an adviser in February 2002 through one of its chief operating officers, who had been a colonel under his NATO command during the Bosnia campaign. Gen. Clark has counseled the company on how to answer Pentagon concerns that its low-power radar system might interfere with global positioning and communications systems, as well as to better craft that technology for military use. board of Entrust, at the request of CEO William Conner, who had served with him on a Pentagon advisory panel.
At Entrust, Gen. Clark has provided advice on how to sell to various NATO governments, says David Wagner, Entrust's chief financial officer. He has also helped emphasize the firm's product securing electronic networks for new homeland-security applications.
_________________________________________________________

[xultar]

70. You ain't said nothing but a Word...

[Eloriel]

12. Something else which really impressed me

One of the unions sent some folks around to the various campaign HQs to take a look. They found Dean's going 24/7, with a lot of excitement and energy.

Obviously, not so the others.

Dean and his campaign staff are indefatiguable. Dean never stops -- probably should get a little more rest, actually. And most of the campaign keeps up pretty well.

Eloriel

[KittyWampus]

23. Clark Is Running On 2 Hours Sleep I Believe

And it's been amazing to watch his campaign grow exponentially in such a short amount of time...

[Mattforclark]

27. Why is that obvious?

Did I miss something? Did they say that all the other campaigns were not working 24/7 and that they were totally devoid of enthusiasm somewhere?

[sangh0]

44. It's not obvious. It's spin

which could be easily spun and turned around to show that "Dean's support is so weak his volunteers need to work around the clock to keep up"

[Renew Deal]

22. Not the DailyKos. It's the DailyDean

Kos became a joke a long time ago. I don't even bother with him anymore.

[Le Taz Hot]

26. I disagree

with both your premise and your Clark bashing.

Clark is new to the political arena and was also a late entry. We've got to allow him time to gain his footing. Dean's campaign stumbled as well, particularly in the first few months, but as he was still an asterisk*, not many noticed.

Although I was skeptical at first, I think a Dean/Clark ticket would be THE one to beat the Bush/Cheney corporate machine. Dean brings an outstanding record, great grassroots support, money and big pluses on the domestic side. Clark also brings great grassroots support, is highly intelligent, quite possibly brings a few southern states, brings extensive foreign policy experience and has an unassailable military record.

Dean/Clark 2004

[Ripley]

39. I agree with you LTH.

Clark will definitely bring in some southern states. The more states the merrier. I'm not sure why people have such animosity toward Clark as Dean's VP, yet look who Gore chose for his!!!!!

Sheesh is Lieberman better than Clark to some DUers?

[Larkspur]

46. Critiquing Clark's tactical errors is not bashing

True, I don't like Clark and most likely never will. It's the man himself that I don't trust, but stating reasons for my discomfort with Clark is not bashing. I backed it up with Clark's own actions.

[Pastiche423]

59. Trust

Dean has earned my trust. His ceaseless work pulling people together, his lightning fast responses to the issues each day, his examinable history of working for the Democratic Party and his infusion of hope, all, prove to me that he will be an excellent president. The type of president our country needs desparately now.

clark? I do not trust him. In fact, I fear him. He is my enemey, like the RW is my enemy. His chosen life's work, as well as his support of the republican party and whistle ass et al, his lobbyist work for the Big Brother, Acxiom, his speech at the School of Americas (terrorist school) graduation and his favoring an amendment to our extremely important 1st Amendment, has earned my mistrust.

I especially do not trust him to be Dean's vp. I do not want him anywhere near Dean. I don't want him to taint all that is good about Dean.

[mmonk]

62. The enemy to me

is still the party in power. But I'm beginning to have second thoughts on what I thought might good VP candidates for my candidate as well. One thing for sure, some don't think they'll need Clark supporters if their candidates win the nomination, evidently.

[mmonk]

35. In my opinion

if Dean wins the nomination, the right wing propaganda machine will defeat him in the general election. They will turn his roll back of the tax cuts as a 2 1/2 billion dollar tax increase. They will say Dean thinks Iraq was better off with Saddam than without him, etc., etc.. I'll still help to elect him, its just I don't see it happening (and no, I'm not a DLC thinker).

[Le Taz Hot]

37. And yet . . .

your talking points come straight out of the DLC handbook. :eyes:

[KittyWampus]

42. And Yet You Don't Counter These Facts

That IS what the GOP will do.

Plus leave us not forget the confederate flag incident... or the gods, guns gays commnet or the Gay Marriage thingy....

"We're electing a President not a staff"
John Kerry

[retyred]

40. No to worry

Clark won't be anyones VP, He'd have to lose to one of the others and that will not happen.



Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

[Egnever]

48. Sory but this doesnt make much sense

I am not a big clark fan but I dont think the argument you put forth here makes any sense at all.

Clark wouldnt be a good vp because he has a bad campaign staff seems to be what you are saying. But if he was tapped as VP he would come under Deans campaign staff.


Either way clark is an atractive vp candidate I think for a number of different reasons. His not recieving the endorsement while somewhat telling of his organization on the ground doesnt take away from the things that do make him an atractive vp.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

51. As a Clark supporter, I am offended!

Is there some "Pro-Dean" bias here at DU???

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Rowdyboy]

64. Since the mods seem a bit touchy

I'll just say "ya'll have a real nice day!"

Now, back to your conversation

[depakid]

65. Clark got into the race too late- yet

and he had no domestic experience runinng a campaign, had little money and no cohesive political organization out in front for him. He was walking into a minefield, and only his sterling credentials, his command presense and his high powered intellect have allowed him to remain perceived as a viable candidate.

That having been said (actually, I've said that many times before) Gen Clark is still a perfect fit for the ticket. He brings much need expertise and credibility on the natioanl security and economic flank. He's a fine orator and most of his his ideas (vague as many still are) dovetail nicely with Howard Dean's positions. Moreover, Cheney has now set the example of the powerful Vice president, and I think Clark would suit that role admirably.

The two compliment each other perfectly, they appear to like each other personally and there's nothing more patriotically paramount now than ridding the country of BushCo. and his disasterous, self destructive policies. In addition, if there's one thing Howard Dean has demonstrated over the course of his campaign it is that he listens to people, and takes their views into account when formulating policy. I have no doubt that he will actively listen Clark's views on a great many things- from national security, economic policy and other more esoteric subjects- and that those views will be well represented in the Dean administrations inner circles.

Dean and Clark are both hellbent on returning rationality to the executive branch- and I think that when next autumn plays out, their ticket and their message will prove powerful enough to generate the sort of coattails we neem to carry many other like democrats to power at both the national level and in the state legislatures.

I for one am hopeful at what I foresee.

[BigBadDaddy-O]

68. I like him.

:)

[joshan361]

69. in a short time you will be hopingClark picks Dean.

by Febuary Dean will be hoping for the VP nod from Clark ;).

[w4rma]

81. Dean / Clark for me. :-) (n/t)

[TLM]

88. I doubt that... after all Clark is afraid to even try to run in Iowa.

and that according to his own campaign guys. How big a threat can Clark really be if he so afraid of losing in Iowa that he's not even going to try, and as a result lost major support from unions??

http://www.msnbc.com/news/992384.asp?0cl=c3

Clark campaign spokesman Matt Bennett said that by the time the Iowa decision was made, campaign officials were well aware of the importance of Iowa to McEntee. But campaign officials decided that the costs of competing in Iowa and possibly finishing badly outweighed the costs of not getting AFSCME’s endorsement.

[eileen_d]

79. "Clark's campaign incompetence and inexperience" - whaaa?

The campaign made a single, strategic decision to drop Iowa, which makes sense in the light of Clark's entry into the race. You can't please all the people all of the time. Writing Clark off for this is just... whaaaa?

Luckily Dean's campaign has been entirely free of controversy!

[TLM]

87. HA!!! A "strategic decision to drop Iowa"???

A decision which cost him union support that is very very critical.

And why did they do it... because they were afraid of how bad they might look if they lost Iowa. Doesn't sound like quite the juggernaught campaign his Clark corps supporters try to make it out to be... if he's so araid of losing Iowa that he won;t even bother to try, even it it means the loss of union support.


http://www.msnbc.com/news/992384.asp?0cl=c3

The fatal blow for Clark came when his campaign team decided last month to pull out of Iowa. The night the news was breaking, Clark called McEntee to tell him. McEntee told him he was making a terrible “strategic mistake.” Last week, a Clark campaign official told another labor official that no one on the campaign had known how important Iowa was to AFSCME and McEntee — further proof to AFSCME leaders of the weaknesses inside Clark’s operation.

Clark campaign spokesman Matt Bennett said that by the time the Iowa decision was made, campaign officials were well aware of the importance of Iowa to McEntee. But campaign officials decided that the costs of competing in Iowa and possibly finishing badly outweighed the costs of not getting AFSCME’s endorsement.

[eileen_d]

89. No campaign is perfect.

Not even Howard Dean's. (Insert hysterical laughter at memories of Dean's antics here.) How do you know that it was not a strategic decision, as opposed to fear of "how bad they might look"? Even your excerpt uses the word "strategic" - coupled with "mistake", which is how some decisions turned out. Like, for example, the decision to invoke the Confederate flag in a speech to Democrats.

I'm not saying the Clark campaign made the right decision, because I don't have a crystal ball - I'm saying it's a single decision and nothing to write Clark off for. But go ahead, bash Clark - when it's a Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket, I'll be hysterically laughing at you.

[mot78]

85. I'll support a Dean/Clark (hopefully Clark/Dean) but

i'm afraid that * could run a commercial showing Dean barrowing Wellstone's "Democratic wing" comment, and then show Clark at the Arkansas fundraiser. Rove could say that Dean's waffling on convinctions. To them, it would be a Democratic version of, let's say, a Barry Golderwater/Wendell Wilkie ticket.

[Melinda]

86. I want Dean - I respect Clark & I'll be a happy girl if they join forces.

See...I'm a Democrat first. :grouphug: