It's all about General Wesley Clark in '08

[John Grevstad]

It may be a little premature to talk about the prez in 2008, but I get real concerned when I think about who our spineless senators and representatives could prop up in two years. They could support one of their own, not one who could inspire a nation.

The Dems need an authoritative and intelligent candidate, not the yes-man or yes-woman with the deepest pockets. It's all about being aggressive in the face of Right-wing dirty tricks.

If the dirtbag republicans tried to "swiftboat" Clark he'd tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine, have a good time doing it, and do it in a thoughtful and inspiring manner.

Screw the South and Florida. The Democrats need to get Ohio and Iowa back and take diversifying toss-up states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Clark could do it, Hillary Clinton and others... not so sure.

[AX10]

1. Wes Clark is our man!

[yurbud]

2. of the relative moderates, he's the best of the lot

[yurbud]

6. Clark-Conyers 08 (Foreign & Domestic)

establishment and grassroots...

[Jai4WKC08]

75. Please see the chart at my #52 below

Clark is not a moderate. Not on the issues, and not by how he defines himself. He was the very few candidates in 2004 to embrace the "liberal" label, and not run away from it.

But I'll give you this. A LOT of people assume he's a moderate, or even conservative, mostly because they assume anyone who wore a military uniform must be--a GOP lie that many of us retired military who are liberal Democrats disprove. Be that as it may, when you consider how many people vote based on their gut feelings and with very little knowledge about the facts or where the candidates actually stand, I think that's a plus for Clark.

[yurbud]

92. although not moderate myself, I meant it as a plus re. Clark

[AAARRRGGGHHH]

58. How is Clark at all a moderate?

Wesley Clark is a liberal, plain and simply put.

[wyldwolf]

80. I certainly consider him a moderate

He's more like Bill Clinton than he is like Ted Kennedy.

[obreaslan]

85. Liberal or Moderate, What does it matter....

as long as he can get enough of the vote that they can't steal it again. I'm all for Wes. :)

[radio4progressives]

86. Again: Liberals ARE "Moderates" /Liberals ARE Centrists.

"Liberals" have always been "Moderates"/"Centrists" , they have never been "leftists". It's amazing to me, that self proclaimed Liberals don't even understand this.

The Reich Wing has been so EFFECTIVE with their catapulting their propagandi, and their constant demonization of Liberals, with distortions, misrepresentations, and outright base LIES, they've managed to succeed in duping Liberals themselves.

My gosh folks, that is indeed sad state of affairs.

[radio4progressives]

87. Just to be clear, I don't self identify as a Liberal and I do have my

issues with Libruls, big time. but that's not news to frequent posters here.

[Jai4WKC08]

96. Liberal and moderate have never meant the same

It's not just GOP propaganda. Where the GOP has won is making "liberal" seem like a bad thing, when it used to be considered noble and smart. In my opinion, it's time we take the word "liberal" back, and not capitulate to the GOP big lie.

I'm over 50 years old and as long as I can remember, the political spectrum of left to right has been defined basically like this:

<-- communist -- liberal -- moderate -- conservative -- fascist -->

Now, I'll grant you, that's an extreme oversimplification, and I've left out the socialist/libertarian aspects. But I think if you asked most Americans, especially those over a certain age, that's the way they'd see it. There's something to be said for common usage and how it determines definitions and not the other way around--ask the people who write dictionaries.

More recently, new terms have been added: progressive, centrist, neo-conservative, neo-liberal, and so forth. A couple are just new names to run away from the old ones; a couple describe some odd combination of left and right to make a different animal all together.

[radio4progressives]

107. Ok... Can We Delineate between Liberal and Moderate, What is a Moderate?

Liberalism is much thought of as an elite center of thought for the so called "Moderate" among a number of progressive thinking.

[Jai4WKC08]

144. I'm talking common English usage

I realize that groups of people, either professional or interest-related, usually develop their own jargon and occassionally redefine words in ways that fit their needs. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't expect the average person to relate or understand. Even here at DU.

For most of us, I think, moderate is half way between liberal and conservative. Used to be called "middle-of-the-road" but that term has fallen into disfavor. Sometimes called "centrist" now.

It used to be that moderates existed in both parties and tended to hold the reins of power. Hasn't been true for the Repubs since Reagan took over. Nixon was a crook, but he was fairly moderate. Ford was very much a moderate, as was his VP Nelson Rockefeller.

More and more since 1980, moderate Repubs have been driven from the GOP. But unfortunately, they are more likely to be independents than Democrats, and they, as well as a lot of moderate Dems, will often vote for what they perceive as a moderate Repub (like McCain, altho he's really not moderate) than for what they perceive as a liberal Democrat. I think maybe all those years of fearing communism has led many Americans to fear the left just as much. They don't like the extreme right particularly, but they don't fear it as much, no matter that they should. Mostly thanks to GOP propaganda, of course.

For what it's worth, I looked up "liberal" at http://thesaurus.reference.com/ because I wanted to see what the anonym would be. In a political context, it is, as I expected, "conservative." I was a little surprised to see the definition in the same context given as "progressive." But only a little, because I've always thought that a lot of people who use "progressive" do so because they don't like what Repubs have done to the word "liberal." That may not be completely true among activists, but it certainly is among many Democratic office-holders, especially those who are worried about re-election.

[lukasahero]

257. Sssshhh - don't tell "them" that.

That's a big part of why I thought he could win. Dean was pretty moderate (as a governor) but totally branded a liberal (and the idiot bushbots bought it). Clark's proposed policies were much more liberal but everyone thinks he's a moderate.

I've long decided that it doesn't matter what someone "is", it matters what people "perceive" them to be. This perception of being a moderate is, in my opinion, a benefit.

[BOSSHOG]

3. I'd support General Clark in a heartbeat

I think he's angling very nicely right now. And this veteran would love to see a bunch of hate mongering ignorant "conservative" swiftboaters attempt to take him on. And they are just stupid enough to do it. I will vote for whomever the Dems nominate but as in 2004, General Clark is my first choice for 2008. Imagine the military record comparisons to bush.

[ChipsAhoy]

77. I love him too!

I'd like to see him out in the public eye a bit more - so everyone can remember him - or get to know him. Also, he gives a fine first impression to those who may just be mad enough to get involved in voting in 2008.

[BOSSHOG]

93. Hi ChipsAhoy and Welcome

to DU. Actually I'd rather he kept a relatively low profile until after the 2006 elections. He stays on the radar screen now but does not smother it and I think that's a pretty good strategy. I'm an incredibly patient old fart, and I am predicting a big General Clark presence come 2007. Lets hope!

[ChipsAhoy]

251. While you are being patient,

I am so anxious. (But, at least I'm bouncing back from the Alito fiasco.)

If the majority thinks Gen. Clark should keep a low profile, you could be on to something. Me - I'm in such a big hurry to get his face back out there. *sigh*

PS - thanks for the nice welcome. Where have you guys been all my life? LOL

[calimary]

252. Yeah, so would I. He was my second choice after Howard Dean.

Always liked him, thought he had great credibility, and sure would put the kibosh to anybody who still wants to claim by then that Democrats are soft on the military and national security issues. He'd be MORE THAN okay by me!

[One_of_8]

271. I would gladly support him too

I've signed up for his newsletters, and sadly I was not able to afford attending a reception for him in San Francisco recently. But I sent in a small donation, and I'll continue to do so as financially possible. Clark-Conyers sounds good to me.

[blm]

4. So, Clark tells them to stick it, but media ignores that he said it and

instead keeps giving airtime to the Two hundred Generals and Commanders Against Clark for the next two months.

Then what? Did he fight back, or did he not fight back?

I like Clark very much, and always have, but what newsroom editting rooms does he control?

The ONLY Dem who will win is the one who exposes the GOP control of the media and the voting machines. And that person will deserve that win.

[yurbud]

8. respond in commercials or write an op-ed and offer it to papers

and not just deny charges but make opponent look like an ass weasel on a comparable issue.

Kerry should have immediately said what Murtha did about Cheney--who is this mama's boy who wet himself and hid when he was young enough to fight to challenge MY service?

[blm]

14. I thought Murtha said that Cheney was his friend the first couple weeks

after he came out against the war.

And Kerry said plenty about the swiftliars and draft dodgers like Cheney and DeLay but few media outlets played those clips.

So, you think Murtha ISN'T being defined by the media right now? That everyone is crystal clear on the facts of his withdrawal plan? That his proposals and his rebuttals are being discussed by the media?

I could have sworn I heard Tweety say after the SOTU that Democrats were in trouble with their radical voices on the left, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and John Murtha as their spokespeople.

Don't you GET IUT BY NOW? It doesn't MATTER what any Dem says. It's how the media yakkers DISCUSS and define YOU and what you said AFTER they spin it into an unrecognizable position.

Please name ONE Democrat who was NOT defined by the media in the last ten years since the GOP asserted its control over broadcast media.

If you think that the only problem for the Dems is the person doing the speaking then fine, when Clark or anyone is the nominee, then we really don't need to change a thing about the media we have now, OK?

[yurbud]

26. opinion polls show public is gradually seeing through it--filtering or

tuning out.

Pretty soon, having media call you a radical out of the mainstream is going to be the opposite of Walter Cronkite's statement about Vietnam--people will not only not trust it, they will believe the opposite.

[blm]

38. Eventually.

.

[yurbud]

27. internet will eventually get under skin of network spokesmodels

they will notice that their vapid, factless support for Bushies is being mercilessly fact-checked and mocked.

Additionally, as people realize the TV news is devoid of news, they will read it online instead, and just watch TV News for the pretty pictures.

[blm]

36. Eventually isn't now or what we were dealing with in 2004. Perceptions

from that time are driving many of the posts still here at DU, even.

Does this list of facts resemble anything you saw in the media in 2004?


April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).


Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth



MH1 - This topic is to create a timeline of the response of the K/E04 campaign to the Swift Liars' smears. There is an RW-encouraged myth that K/E04 "didn't respond." As the timeline, once completed, will show, that is not true. Effectiveness of the response may be debated - that is subjective - the purpose of this thread is to collect the facts of the events.




On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...



Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc...



May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c....



Kerry campaign's quick response to Swift boat vets
By Marie Horrigan
UPI Deputy Americas Editor
Washington, DC, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts issued an exhaustively researched and extensively sourced 36-page refutation Thursday of allegations Kerry lied about events during his service in Vietnam, including how and why he received medals, and had fled the scene of a battle.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143...



Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
McClellan points out criticism by anti-Bush group
Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 2:37 PM EDT (1837 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.

"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.

"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attacka... /


http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/oldtricks.php




August 5, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE

Re: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Dear Station Manager:

We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively. It has been brought to our attention that a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has bought time, or may seek to buy time, on your station to air an advertisement that attacks Senator Kerry. The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the doctor who treated Senator Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and the man pretending to be his doctor was not. The entire advertisement, therefore is an inflammatory, outrageous lie.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" styles itself as a group of individuals who personally served with John Kerry in the United States Navy in the Vietnam War. In truth the group is a sham organization spearheaded by a Texas corporate media consultant. It has been financed largely with funds from a Houston homebuilder. See Slater, Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2004.

In this group's advertisement, twelve men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not a single one of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats (PCF 44 & PCF94).

Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Senator Kerry after the December 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts, Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Senator Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003. (National Review Online, May 4, 2004).

The statements made by the phony "crewmates" and "doctor" who appear in the advertisement are also totally, demonstrably and unequivocally false, and libelous. In parrticular, the advertisement charges that Senator Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." Just as falsely, it states that "he lied before the Senate." These are serious allegations of actual crimes -- specifically, of lying to the United States Government in the conduct of its official business. The events for which the Senator was awarded the Bronze Star have been documented repeatedly and in detail and are set out in the official citation signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Vietnam. And yet these reckless charges of criminal conduct are offered without support or authentication, by fake "witnesses" speaking on behalf of a phony organization.

Your station is not obligated to accept this advertisement for broadcast nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), You Can't Afford Dodd Committee, 81 FCC2d 579 (1980). The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" organization is not a federal candidate or candidate committee. Repeated efforts by organizations that are not candidate committees to obtain a private right of access have been consistently rejected by the FCC. See e.g., National Conservative Political Action Committee, 89 FCC2d 626 (1982).

Thus, your station my freely refuse this advertisement. Because your station has this freedom, and because it is not a "use" of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.

Moreover, as a licensee, you have an overriding duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.D.2d 623 (1961). Your station normally must take "reasonable steps" to satisfy itself "as to the reliability and reputation of every prospective advertiser." In re Complaint by Consumers Assocation of District of Columbia, 32 F.C.C.2d 400, 405 (1971).

Under these circumstances, your station may not responsibly air this advertisement. We request that your station act immmediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny andy future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false, and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should exercise that authority in the public interest.


Please contact us promptly at either of the phone numbers below to advise us regarding the status of this advertisement.

Sincerely yours,
Marc Elias
Perkins Coie
607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005


General Counsel
Kerry-Edwards 2004 Joseph Sandler
Sandler, Reiff & Young
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003


General Counsel
Democratic National Committee


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/dem080504ltrswift...




From the transcript of the Aug. 5, 2004 White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan:

Q Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity. We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not -- and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I think that this is another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on. The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And, you know, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups.

* * *

In the days after the release of the ad a host of major newspapers published editorials condemning it including the Arizona Republic ("Campaign Non-Starter," August 6), Los Angeles Times ("It's Not All Fair Game," August 6), Plain Dealer ("Ad Says Kerry Lied; Record Says Otherwise," August 8), St. Petersburg Times ("An Ugly Attack," August 9), Las Vegas Sun ("Ad's Smear Should Be Condemned," August 9), Oregonian ("Now It Gets Nasty," August 11), and Washington Post ("Swift Boat Smears," August 12).

* * *

On Aug. 10, 2004 Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections.

* * *

From the transcript of Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance on CNN'S Larry King Live:


KING: In view of that, do you think that it's fair, for the record, John Kerry's service record, to be an issue at all? I know that Senator McCain...
G. BUSH: You know, I think it is an issue, because he views it as honorable service, and so do I. I mean...
KING: Oh, so it is. But, I mean, Senator McCain has asked to be condemned, the attack on his service. What do you say to that?
G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of
those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.
KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...
G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view...

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton's response to Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance:
"Tonight President Bush called Kerry's service in Vietnam 'noble.' But in the same breath refused to heed Senator McCain's call to condemn the dirty work being done by the 'Swift Boat Vets for Bush.' Once again, the President side-stepped responsibility and refused to do the right thing. His credibility is running out as fast as his time in the White House."

* * *

On Aug. 17, 2004 the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges.

* * *

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on Aug. 18, 2004:

"By saying nothing at all George W. Bush is a complicit contributor to the slanderous, lie-filled attack ads that have been launched on John Kerry on Bush's behalf. Instead of stepping up and taking the high road, George Bush's response has been evasion, avoidance, everything but disavowal.

"Larry King asked George Bush to 'condemn' it. He refused. Reporters asked the President's Press Secretary if he'd 'repudiate' it. He ducked. They can try to blame it on the rules or whoever else they want, but the blame belongs squarely on the Republicans. They wrote it. They produced it. They placed it. They paid for it. And now it is time for George W. Bush to stand up and say, 'enough.'

"This is not debate, Mr. President, and this unfounded attack on Senator Kerry has crossed the line of decency. I call on you today to condemn this ad, the men who put their lies behind it, and the donors who paid for it. It's time."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.h...




Please use this information as a guideline for 2006 and 2008 campaigns. What the media edits out of our campaigns is CRUCIAL to public perception.

[yurbud]

90. that's worth a thread of it's own and post on wikipedia

this is tough to work around.

One way people have started to tackle this here in LA is to protest DIRECTLY outside the TV stations, so even if they ignore it, they can't say they didn't know, and increases their own sense that they are ignoring real news.

[blm]

102. It's in the research forum - Sad that so many on DU spread media lies here

because the media duped EVEN THEM.

If they are so duped from 2004, then they just believe they only need to change the candidate.

The candidate becomes whatever the editting rooms show the people. They know that no candidate can spend money for ads in EVERY MARKET to put up their side of the story. And the storyline adopted by the corporate media is the one most often discussed.

That's where the battle needs to be for us. Wasting time battling WHO should be the candidate now while the GOP control of the media maintains its grip, is just plain stupid.

Imagine if all that energy went into exposing the media and the voting machines?

[blm]

139. It would probably be more worthwhile if it was reposted in its own thread

by someone who is just seeing it for the first time - like you. Maybe it will be a good influence on others who don't realize how terrible this problem is yet.

BTW - I'm with you for picketing outside the news studios.

[yurbud]

143. in your Kerry timeline, I don't see anything bringing up Bush's service

or rather lack thereof.

Admittedly, The Roving on Dan Rather made that harder, but it could have been done.

When Murtha banged back at Cheney on that, I don't think the attacks on him stuck as much.

[blm]

146. Actually, that was something MacAuliffe mentioned alot. The Rather episode

made certain that no media would touch it further.

That's not my timeline, btw...a few people put it up at the research forum. I only added the speech to the Firefighters' Convention where he took on the liars straight up, but media wouldn't cover - it only played once on Cspan.

The greater point is that the swiftliars were faced down many times but with little discussion by the media who ignored it to protect the Bushboy.

Here's Kerry on Cheney during the campaign - did you ever notice that Bush never had to say a word in attack? He had a media machine in place to do it all for him. The DNC and Dem pundits have nothing even close.


Cheney's Five Draft Deferments During the
Vietnam Era Emerge as a Campaign Issue

By Katharine Q. Seelye
NY Times
May 1, 2004

WAASHINGTON -- It was 1959 when Dick Cheney, then a student at Yale University, turned 18 and became eligible for the draft.

Eventually, like 16 million other young men of that era, Mr. Cheney sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 and was no longer eligible for the draft, he had asked for and received five deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new father.

Although President Richard M. Nixon stopped the draft in 1973 and the war itself ended 29 years ago on Friday, the issue of service remains a personally sensitive and politically potent touchstone in the biographies of many politicians from that era.

For much of Mr. Cheney's political career, his deferments have largely been a nonissue.

In an increasingly vituperative political campaign, Mr. Cheney this week again questioned the credentials of Senator John Kerry and his ability to be commander in chief. Mr. Kerry, who was decorated in Vietnam and has made his service there a central element of his campaign, fired back.

Putting Mr. Cheney's record in the spotlight, Mr. Kerry said that he "got every deferment in the world and decided he had better things to do."
>>>>>>

[yurbud]

150. well, we're fucked. put that in the research and Wikipedia too.

[blm]

215. Not if we pull together and move to expose the GOP control of media

and how media works against Democrats AND the issues important to people.

I can't believe anyone thinks the media has a shred of integrity anymore - the way they ignored the Downing Street Minutes should have blown that illusion last year.

[yurbud]

264. in that case, as much as they down played it, a lot of the public got it.

just as a lot of the public gets the Plame case.

[Jai4WKC08]

62. Clark is on to the media

Does that mean he can convincingly expose them? I don't know; it'll be tough. But I submit that if he can't, no one can. Most are unwilling to try, for fear of being cut out.

Clark was cut out in Jan 05 just for declaring, in a NH speech, that media consolidation must be stopped and we need to reinstate the fair practices doctrine (or something like it) that was killed back in the Reagan years. I think it took him by surprise to some extent, but I suspect one of his "decision points" for whether to run in '08 will be whether he thinks he can by-pass or overcome the corporate media. One reason he's working very hard to develop and support alternative media, and trying to use the RW media against itself. For his own potential campaign, and for all the others as well.

Clark is also aware of the problems with voting machines. He's spoken about it several times since Nov 04, and I can remember hearing him talk about the problems with Diebold back during his own '04 campaign. ONE reason he cares so passionately about taking back Congress in '06 is because he recognizes that a Repub Congress is unlikely to do anything about voting reform. Or anything else important for that matter.

But I agree with you. Those are two major problems that if we can't overcome, it won't much matter who we nominate.

[JeffR]

5. Ignoring Florida just means

That the electoral calculus becomes that much more delicate and dangerous in other states. And a good candidate should be able to make inroads in the South.

As I've said elsewhere, Ohio is the new Florida. Without election reform and a firestorm of scrutiny brought to bear in Ohio, Democrats don't have a chance there, IMO.

You might be right that Clark could accomplish these things, but I'm not fully cionvinced about that either. But "authoritative and intelligent" is just what is needed for '08, and Clark is surely both.

[Bounce]

22. Clark???

He seems like a candy-ass to me.

There has GOT to be someone that isn't such a panty waist.

Hillery for instance???

[democrank]

39. Candy ass?

Is this some kind of freeper joke? Go read his bio and his positions on issues then come back here with a full report.

[Bounce]

57. Here's your report.

Joke? Hardly.

I have done the necessary research and have the in-depth report you requested.

First, Clark has a had sterling military career. He is a wonderfully malleable little man that, with his over 20 years of following orders, has learned (like a fluid) to naturally fill whatever container into which he is placed.

Second, NOBODY tells Hillery what to think. SHE is the one who naturally GIVES the orders. She doesn't follow orders, she gives them! She is much stronger than he is, not to mention "smarter."

Third, the neocons are scared to death of Hillery as evidenced by their offensive freep nickname (Hitlery). Clark, they simply refer to as "Wesley." Wow, scary huh?

Look, do you want to twist the knife in the neocon's back and add salt, or do you want them to sit back and laugh?

All is not lost for Clark. With is organizational skills and ability to follow orders, he'd make a great assistant to Hillery's Chief of Staff!

[bvar22]

69. Someone who doesn't know how to spell Senator Clinton's name...

...has NO CREDIBILITY with me.
That also puts LIAR to your claim of "all the necessary research".
Perhaps it is a holdover from spending too much time on sites that call her Hitlery

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Bounce]

72. Well, if you can't address the issues...

You can always hurl insults.

Just make sure Wesley doesn't forget how to fill out a job-ap.

He might need that.

[Dinger]

126. Well, You Started With The Insults, What Do You Expect?

I'm curious to see how long you'll last . . . .

[bvar22]

138. What "issues" did you bring to the table?

Answer: NONE

Where does your favorite candidate stand on:

*UniversalHealthcare

*The War on Terror

*Free Trade

*The Iraq Occupation

*Homeland Security

*Corporate Lobbying

*Fair Elections

*Verifiable Elections

*Choice

*American's Right to Privacy

*The Economy

*Education

*Worker's Rights

*Minimum Wage

*Living Wage

*Affirmative Action

*Corporate Personhood

*The Inheritance Tax

*Labor Rights

*Censorship

You see, all the items I listed above are ISSUES.
You brought BS opinions, NOT issues

The answers should be easy for someone who has "Done All the Research"!.

Cheers!

[Jai4WKC08]

88. If you'd done "the necessary research"

You might know...

that Clark spent 34 years on active duty, 38 counting West Point (which is part of the military). Technically "over 20" but almost twice as many.

that as a cadet, Clark dropped the swim team to have more time for debate, even tho then-Captain Norman Schwartzkopf advised it would be bad for his standing in the class.

that as a Captain in Vietnam, Clark fought to get out of Division headquarters, and finally got an infantry company out in the bush, where he took four bullets, not one of them superficial, and still continued commanding his company, saving the lives of every one of his soldiers involved in the firefight

that as a LTC, Clark bucked his Brigade Commander, which probably caused his promotion to full Colonel to be delayed by several years.

that as a one-star, Clark refused to certify two National Guard brigades for deployment to Iraq for the first Gulf War because he did not believe they were ready for combat, causing the FORSCOM commander to hold a grudge that would later keep Clark from getting release to use Apaches in the Kosovo war.

that in that same one-star position, Clark was presented an Audubon Society award for saving an endangered habitat, against the wishes of his Army superiors.

that as a 50 year old 3-star, Clark rapelled down a mountainside, amid small arms fire and mortar rounds, and despite what his civilian superior (Richard Holbrooke) was telling him, to attempt to save the people trapped in a burning French APC.

that, also as a 3-star, Clark advocated for intervening in Rwanda, even wrote up a plan for troop deployments, when no one in his chain of command wanted American involvement in Africa at the time.

that Clark was essentially fired, altho not officially, by Republican Sec of Defense Cohen because Clark was determined to fight the Kosovo war to win, to follow Bill Clinton's intent in how to prosecute it, to keep targetting and other operational decisions within the NATO command structure, and to limit civilian casualties as much as possible by introducing ground forces instead of relying on high-altitude bombers.

that there are many many other instances when Clark stood up for what was right, for his mission and for his troops, regardless of whatever consequences it might have had for his career; these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

I don't know what you think about military officers, obviously not much, but being "malleable" and just following orders is not what gets most of us promoted.

[IA_Seth]

105. Hear, hear!

My guess is that ol bounce won't respond to you..but I will..

Hell of a post. Thanks!

[Bounce]

124. WOW!!!

Now that's a record even a FREEPER could be proud of!

All you guys over at Clark's campaign headquarters need to understand that your candidate doesn't stand a chance of making it out of the primaries.

Rather than spend so much time humping your candidate, you might want to spend some effort developing a workable plan that someone wants to listen to.

You've got a lot of ground to make up.

[Bounce]

140. And another thing...

I am not trying to take a page out of the neo-thug playbook and "swift-boat" Clark! I do NOT dispute his military record at all. Like I said, it's sterling.

The problem is that prior military service has NOTHING to do with someone's ability to lead this country.

It's not relevant unless someone can claim that it's REALLY BAD. Nobody is doing that here. It's not the point.

[LittleClarkie]

145. Neither does drinkin' beer

But there you have it.

[Jai4WKC08]

141. Yeah...

"Limiting civilian casualties" is such a high freeper priority. Not to mention stopping genocide (among non-Christians, that is) in Rwanda or Kosovo. Not that YOU would know what freepers think is important, would you? :sarcasm:

FNG.

[Totally Committed]

184. Fee, Fie, Fo, Fum.... I smell a post

straight out of Freeperdom.

Thanks for sharing that. I see you're new, too.

TC

[Bounce]

214. Yeah, I'm new here, but...

I've been here long enough to notice that when someone has a slightly different point of view, the VERY FIRST thing they're accused of is being a "FREEPER!"

This party is a bigger tent than that.

We will have more than one candidate.

The DU probably needs to put up a new avatar: "FREEPER!!!!!"

It would be hilarious and save lots of key strokes. I have a feeling we'll see a lot more of it as time goes on!

lol

[Jai4WKC08]

229. If you stick around DU long enough...

(and if you're allowed to), you'll find that there is plenty of room at DU for divergent points of view. As a matter of fact, there are virtual blood-baths with the passion that people bring to conflicting, even opposite, opinions.

But what is usually NOT tolerated by long-time DUers is someone who comes into a thread and posts baseless insults against good Democrats, using words like "candy-ass" and "panty-waist" as you did above, while providing ZERO rationale for the attack.

Now, since your first post to this thread, you somewhat explained your opinion, altho with nothing that pertained to Wes Clark as an individual. Instead it was really just an attack against military officers, that we are "malleable" and only capable of "following orders."

It's pretty well known that freepers think that liberals have no respect for the military, and when they come to DU, pretending to be liberals, they usually attempt to parrot the extreme opinions they assume we all hold. So you fit the pattern in more ways than one.

One more thing. Dissing the military is against the rules here at DU. I suggest you take that back to whereever you came from.

[Bounce]

281. Hey Jai4wkc08

Should I be taking notes here???

The "authoritarian" thing doesn't exactly work for me. I'm not from battalion.

Look, are you expecting a "fair" challenge for the Oval Office? I don't think that's exactly realistic. :rofl:

Here's the deal... as I said, I was just messing with you (and I am going to completely stop now), but if this is all it takes to get your back up it's going to be an interesting couple of years... SIR!

OK, I'm outta this one.

No hard feelings on this end.

[Jai4WKC08]

284. Am I the only one who hasn't got a clue

As to what the hell this guy is talking about???

Other than the obvious, that is.

[Crunchy Frog]

266. It's not having a slightly different point of view that arouses suspicions

People do tend to get suspicious of new posters who go immediately on the attack against other posters here and against good Democrats.

Also, while I don't support Hillary as an '08 candidate (or "hump" her to use your preferred terminology) I do at least respect her enough to want to see her name spelled correctly. Having a Hillary Clinton avatar whilst simultaneously misspelling her name tends to set off some people's Freepdar.

I am sorry that you've gotten off to a bad start here, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I do hope you will try to be a little more civil in your future posting.

[Crunchy Frog]

265. Wow. Are you calling a longstanding DUer a freeper?

Or are you simply suggesting that freepers are likely to have long records of outstanding and honorable service in the military, as well as histories of opposition to genocide, promoting the wellbeing of people under their command, protecting the environment, and maintaining their personal integrity even when it costs them careerwise. If that's what you're saying, then it sounds like you have a much higher opinion of freepers than most of us here do. My belief about freepers is most of them will simply turn tail and run, leaving a stream of piddle behind them, if you suggest military service to. Please do tell though, if your experience of them has been different.

Just for the record, and since you're new to this forum, I should explain to you that there are many people on here who support one or another of the potential '08 candidates, and we generally try to be mutually respectful. We tend to prefer the use of the phrase "supporting your candidate" rather than "humping your candidate". You may, in fact, find that you are happier on a board that maintains lower standards of civility than this one does.

Be that as it may, welcome to DU for as long as you're here.

[Dinger]

128. Yay!!! Tell It Jai! Testify!!!!

Clark is the ultimate nightmare for the repugs, write it down.

[Bounce]

147. funny, but...

"ultimate nightmare?"

I don't follow.

It might interest everyone to see his voting record though.

Oops, I forgot, HE DOESN'T HAVE ONE!

ROFLMAO!

[Dinger]

149. Whatever,

You go ahead and live in your world, o.k.?

[NCarolinawoman]

155. Oh my gosh, there's an actual DITTO-Head here at DU!!!

How transparent! What interesting timing!

[CarolNYC]

163. yep, looks like our General

is getting some people a bit nervous...Think it was the speech?? ;)

[Totally Committed]

183. Excellent, as usual, Jai!

I am saving this post to a file!

TC

[Jai4WKC08]

236. Thanks, TC, but...

I think I made a mistake, and it's too late to edit. I don't think WKC was held up for promotion for bird Colonel (he may have already been on the list), I think it was his selection for Brigade Command that was delayed instead. Minor difference to most non-military folk, but I like to be as accurate as possible. So if you do save it, you should make that change.

[Totally Committed]

241. Will do, and thanks...

It is still an awsome post!

TC

[CarolNYC]

157. Hillery? one of those misspellers...hmmmmm..... n/t

[Clark2008]

238. Nice try, Freeper.

Most Democrats don't want Hillary because your party DOES.

We're onto that game.

[lukasahero]

260. Hey - if you're going campaign for her, could you at least spell her

damn name right? It's Hillary. Makes it really hard to take you seriously. :rofl:

[Eurobabe]

49. pssst, got somethin fer you...

[Dinger]

129. Yup, All Patriot, No Act nm

[Adelante]

63. My, but Repugs love to come here and push Hillary

Welcome to DU, Bounce :hi:

[Coexist]

64. LOL! I was thinking the same thing

but didn't know if we were allowed to say stuff like that!

[Bounce]

67. Current events

You're obviously not keeping up with current events.

She scares the hell out of them!

:crazy:

[Adelante]

109. Got Rush's call today, did ya?

How sweet of you to join us. :)

[Dinger]

130. Yup, Always Good To Make A Convert, And Lead Another To The Light nm

[Bounce]

204. Hey wesdem...

I'm just joshing with you.

If Clark wins the nomination... I'll vote for him.

It's been fun playing with you guys. All kidding aside, you're OK in my book!

:loveya:

[Tom Rinaldo]

212. See you around then. Maybe we'll work together in the Summer of 08 n/t

[Totally Committed]

216. Horse-hockey....

a big steaming load of it, too.

TC

[Bounce]

228. nice....

:tinfoilhat:

[windbreeze]

209. LOL....sure she does...LOL....

that was my first laugh of the day...thanks...
wb

[Clark2008]

240. She scares me, too.

If she's the nominee, the Dems will lose - badly.

[Crunchy Frog]

268. I know. She's the boogeyman that they drag out

to whip up their base into a rabid froth, and to get the knuckledraggers to keep sending them lots of money from their welfare checks. She seems to be better for that than Bin Laden is. I don't think the people who pull the strings of the average freeptard are afraid of her, but they know the freeptards are and they find her a useful tool for manipulating them.

I respect Hillary a great deal, loved her as a First Lady, but I have real problems with some of the political positions she's taken, and I don't think she has a wide enough appeal to be a viable candidate.

[CarolNYC]

158. Or "Hillery"....oi! n/t

[Texas_Kat]

171. or Moran

[Totally Committed]

185. Democrat Party...

or ClarkE...

TC

[Crunchy Frog]

254. Wes Clark a panty waist? That's HUGH!!!!11

I'm series. Hillery is really great though.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

7. He's from Arkansas and the Reps love military people

n/t

[yurbud]

9. Clark/Edwards, Clark/Murtha, Clark/Boxer

[democrank]

13. Clark is a lot more than

a military person. His positions on domestic issues, international affairs, and family values are top notch. You don`t have to try to figure out where he stands on any issue, because he says so...point blank. His humble roots make a perfect basic for caring about the little guy, which he does. Clark had my vote in `04 and I`ll support him with enthusiasm if he runs in `08.

[pstans]

10. There is one Senator who has a spine

Russ Feingold.

http://www.russforpresident.com

[blm]

15. And he's a Judiciary Committee member, right? Did he sign the DSM letter

of inquiry? I can't seem to recall.

[Totally Committed]

186. About this time in a campaign, there are a lot of Senators

who start to think about viability over small instances of "duty" when they know they will be running for POTUS. I can remember being frustrated over things like this before from other candidates. But, unless we're willing to call them ALL out, and open the door to things like the IWR Vote, etc., I think we should just see things like this as necessary nods to 2008 Viability and be done with it.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying others have done it, thinking it was necessary for their own chances. It is one of the resone why I oppose having POTUS candidates run from the Senate.

And, FWIW, Feingold is a good man. I like him a lot.

TC

[blm]

221. Apples and oranges - IWR was negotiated to put in weapons inspectors

which should have prevented military action, and was also negotiated to contain any military action to Iraq and not extend it to Iran and Syria as Bush wanted.

So, those doing the negotiating were in a different spot than those NOT doing the negotiating. You can't assume that the WH is going to violate the guidelines and lie so blatantly, either. You would now, but not expect it back then when you believe he's being advised by his father, Scowcroft and Powell, none of who wanted to invade.

And some senate duties require you step up and fulfill them. Kerry was in Davos because itwas required of his Senate duties on the finance committee. He shouldn't have HAD to be the only senator willing to stick his neck out to stand with Kennedy.

[madmom]

11. Clark/Edwards .... Edwards/Clark ... equally acceptable to me.

[Thirtieschild]

12. Clark has it all

No way they could swiftboat a man who was shot four times in Vietnam, who at age 50 rapelled down a mountain to try to save men in a burning vehicle, who helped negotiate the Dayton Accords, who held 19 leaders of NATO countries together to save Kosovo, who was first in his class at West Point, who was a Rhodes Scholar with a master's degree in political science and economics from Oxford, who taught economics at West Point, who was a White House Fellow, who was raised - and lives - in the South, who was Supreme Comander of NATO. What more can we say? A lot more. Wes Clark is a man of vision, courage, briliance and honor.

[cali]

16. You're being naive

Of course he can be swift boated. Anyone can. Having said that, I think Clark's terrific, though it's far too early for me to be thinking about 2008.

[Thirtieschild]

17. They may try

but he'll come back fighting. As he said after a NH breakfast, he'd kick the s*it out of them.

[blm]

24. Because he controls newsroom editting rooms?

.

[Totally Committed]

187. This post is beneath you.

I may not always agree with you, blm, but I always think that you strive for a far more sophisticated and mature bent than the usual mere pithy putdown.

TC

[blm]

224. Read it in context of the issue - MEDIA is the enemy to ALL Dem campaigns

and to the real issues that matter to people.

Until we all pull togather to focus on exposing it, that will not change.

It has nothing to do with Wes Clark, who I have confidence in as a good man and express it regularly here - it has nothing to do with any ONE person specifically.

So, I don't see any putdown in my statement.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. He controls the editin rooms/ WOW

[knight_of_the_star]

177. You forgot something

After he found out the media caught that he sent out a clarification:

"I'll beat the LIVING shit out of them"

[lukasahero]

19. He can, he will but he'll do the one thing that wasn't done last time:

He'll fight back. :)

[blm]

23. There's a research forum here with a whole thread that proves you're wrong

.

[lukasahero]

25. Wrong about? Help me out here... eom

[blm]

31. It was media that created perception of no response. Here's the facts:

From DU research forum. Go there for the actual links - I'm just copying from there. The point of all of this is that it's up to us to stay honest and not be led by a media who creates perceptions that work against Democrats and the truth. Parroting that perception and spreading it for any reason is just wrong.


April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).


Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth



MH1 - This topic is to create a timeline of the response of the K/E04 campaign to the Swift Liars' smears. There is an RW-encouraged myth that K/E04 "didn't respond." As the timeline, once completed, will show, that is not true. Effectiveness of the response may be debated - that is subjective - the purpose of this thread is to collect the facts of the events.




On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...



Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc...



May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c....



Kerry campaign's quick response to Swift boat vets
By Marie Horrigan
UPI Deputy Americas Editor
Washington, DC, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts issued an exhaustively researched and extensively sourced 36-page refutation Thursday of allegations Kerry lied about events during his service in Vietnam, including how and why he received medals, and had fled the scene of a battle.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143...



Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
McClellan points out criticism by anti-Bush group
Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 2:37 PM EDT (1837 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.

"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.

"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attacka... /


http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/oldtricks.php




August 5, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE

Re: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Dear Station Manager:

We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively. It has been brought to our attention that a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has bought time, or may seek to buy time, on your station to air an advertisement that attacks Senator Kerry. The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the doctor who treated Senator Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and the man pretending to be his doctor was not. The entire advertisement, therefore is an inflammatory, outrageous lie.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" styles itself as a group of individuals who personally served with John Kerry in the United States Navy in the Vietnam War. In truth the group is a sham organization spearheaded by a Texas corporate media consultant. It has been financed largely with funds from a Houston homebuilder. See Slater, Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2004.

In this group's advertisement, twelve men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not a single one of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats (PCF 44 & PCF94).

Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Senator Kerry after the December 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts, Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Senator Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003. (National Review Online, May 4, 2004).

The statements made by the phony "crewmates" and "doctor" who appear in the advertisement are also totally, demonstrably and unequivocally false, and libelous. In parrticular, the advertisement charges that Senator Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." Just as falsely, it states that "he lied before the Senate." These are serious allegations of actual crimes -- specifically, of lying to the United States Government in the conduct of its official business. The events for which the Senator was awarded the Bronze Star have been documented repeatedly and in detail and are set out in the official citation signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Vietnam. And yet these reckless charges of criminal conduct are offered without support or authentication, by fake "witnesses" speaking on behalf of a phony organization.

Your station is not obligated to accept this advertisement for broadcast nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), You Can't Afford Dodd Committee, 81 FCC2d 579 (1980). The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" organization is not a federal candidate or candidate committee. Repeated efforts by organizations that are not candidate committees to obtain a private right of access have been consistently rejected by the FCC. See e.g., National Conservative Political Action Committee, 89 FCC2d 626 (1982).

Thus, your station my freely refuse this advertisement. Because your station has this freedom, and because it is not a "use" of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.

Moreover, as a licensee, you have an overriding duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.D.2d 623 (1961). Your station normally must take "reasonable steps" to satisfy itself "as to the reliability and reputation of every prospective advertiser." In re Complaint by Consumers Assocation of District of Columbia, 32 F.C.C.2d 400, 405 (1971).

Under these circumstances, your station may not responsibly air this advertisement. We request that your station act immmediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny andy future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false, and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should exercise that authority in the public interest.


Please contact us promptly at either of the phone numbers below to advise us regarding the status of this advertisement.

Sincerely yours,
Marc Elias
Perkins Coie
607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005


General Counsel
Kerry-Edwards 2004 Joseph Sandler
Sandler, Reiff & Young
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003


General Counsel
Democratic National Committee


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/dem080504ltrswift...




From the transcript of the Aug. 5, 2004 White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan:

Q Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity. We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not -- and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I think that this is another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on. The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And, you know, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups.

* * *

In the days after the release of the ad a host of major newspapers published editorials condemning it including the Arizona Republic ("Campaign Non-Starter," August 6), Los Angeles Times ("It's Not All Fair Game," August 6), Plain Dealer ("Ad Says Kerry Lied; Record Says Otherwise," August 8), St. Petersburg Times ("An Ugly Attack," August 9), Las Vegas Sun ("Ad's Smear Should Be Condemned," August 9), Oregonian ("Now It Gets Nasty," August 11), and Washington Post ("Swift Boat Smears," August 12).

* * *

On Aug. 10, 2004 Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections.

* * *

From the transcript of Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance on CNN'S Larry King Live:


KING: In view of that, do you think that it's fair, for the record, John Kerry's service record, to be an issue at all? I know that Senator McCain...
G. BUSH: You know, I think it is an issue, because he views it as honorable service, and so do I. I mean...
KING: Oh, so it is. But, I mean, Senator McCain has asked to be condemned, the attack on his service. What do you say to that?
G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of
those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.
KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...
G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view...

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton's response to Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance:
"Tonight President Bush called Kerry's service in Vietnam 'noble.' But in the same breath refused to heed Senator McCain's call to condemn the dirty work being done by the 'Swift Boat Vets for Bush.' Once again, the President side-stepped responsibility and refused to do the right thing. His credibility is running out as fast as his time in the White House."

* * *

On Aug. 17, 2004 the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges.

* * *

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on Aug. 18, 2004:

"By saying nothing at all George W. Bush is a complicit contributor to the slanderous, lie-filled attack ads that have been launched on John Kerry on Bush's behalf. Instead of stepping up and taking the high road, George Bush's response has been evasion, avoidance, everything but disavowal.

"Larry King asked George Bush to 'condemn' it. He refused. Reporters asked the President's Press Secretary if he'd 'repudiate' it. He ducked. They can try to blame it on the rules or whoever else they want, but the blame belongs squarely on the Republicans. They wrote it. They produced it. They placed it. They paid for it. And now it is time for George W. Bush to stand up and say, 'enough.'

"This is not debate, Mr. President, and this unfounded attack on Senator Kerry has crossed the line of decency. I call on you today to condemn this ad, the men who put their lies behind it, and the donors who paid for it. It's time."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.h...




Please use this information as a guideline for 2006 and 2008 campaigns. What the media edits out of our campaigns is CRUCIAL to public perception.

[Adelante]

272. blm, do you have a link for this one?

I understood this press conference was canceled, although it could have been a different one in August.

"Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)"

I'd like it for my files. Thanks.

[Bounce]

151. With what, his voting record????

Bruhahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa...

I couldn't resist.

:nopity:

[Tom Rinaldo]

160. His values, his intelligence, his ability, and his accomplishments.

There are thousands of people with voting records, the above are more important to me. Votes are fine and dandy but they are easy to spin and too often they don't mean what they seem anyway. A clear record of courage and service speaks louder to me.

[froshty1960]

34. If they can swiftboat Max Cleland

... then they can swiftboat anyone. :'-(

[FrenchieCat]

40. The question is not CAN THEY? The question is will we let them?

Personally, I've got my foot up a few RW liar's ass as we speak.

Clarkies are doing what one would call Pre-emptive action as we speak (remember that Clarkies are "organized"). We are currently writing to various reporters everywhere (including overseas) and giving them the REAL Scoop about Wes' career, including the real low down on the slurs...and we are providing documentation. We will not be caught "flat footed"!

Please know that the terrain will be different next time, and Clarkies will be ready. No doubt about it!

THIS will be a WAR and we will be kicking asses and taking numbers!

NEXT! :mad:

[blm]

142. How does that trump the desires of the guys who sign their paychecks?

The only way for any Dem is to work to EXPOSE the GOP control of the media, at least enough to make them too uncomfortable to show their bias for the next few years.

You have to expose the source. The talking heads are all conditioned to spew against Dems. This was deliberate over the last ten years and certainly instituted by the top brass. Bias for the RW has been institutionalized by now. That's what needs exposing.

[democrank]

41. If I`m remembering correctly

I think Clark speaks four languages. He`s truly brilliant.

[xkenx]

279. On honor, please read this piece on Clark by Bernie Quigley

WES CLARK’S WORLD AND BUSH’S

Wednesday, February 01, 2006


I had a small epiphany a few years back when Ryutaro Hashimoto, Prime Minister of Japan, was forced out of office in a political scandal and he used these words on television. “I take complete responsibility. I resign.”

Wow. I gathered my children in front of the TV. We have heard that phrase many times before and since, but only the first part of it: “I take full responsibility.”

When we hear it now it means nothing. The last two Presidents have used it and many before. Usually today it means that none of the accomplices in the dastardly deed are going to get fired or go to jail. Even cowardly acts like those of the current President’s Men who publicly revealed the name and cover of a covert American agent and endangered the lives of others – a treasonous act for which they would have been taken out and shot a shot in the Korean War - have virtually no consequences.

Listen to this I told my kids. The Japanese Prime Minister takes full responsibility for his failure. He resigns.

Of course, a hundred years earlier, Hashimoto would have been given the option to throw himself on his sword, to save himself form the disgrace of living in the society he had betrayed. But the code of honor was stronger then and even Japan has pretty much relinquished the Way of the Sword.

Today corruption is an everyday part of life. Sin happens. But in an honorable society a leader takes responsibility for his actions. He acknowledges his failure to himself, to his family, to deity and country. He relinquishes the reins of power.

We are no longer a society which honor’s honor. Recently, I had a conversation with a very decent, intelligent and thoughtful young man who said he didn’t have any idea what I meant by honor. We live in a nation of laws, he pointed out. Honor has nothing to do with it. I think he explains it precisely. It is an American dilemma. Can a country live by laws alone? Our country does, but in each segment of our history laws have ultimately failed us and we have had to call upon men of honor at the hour of desperation: Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower, George Marshall. Very often they were military men.

The high Victorians lived by a code of honor, well expressed in its prelude by Lord Nelson, who said, “England expects that every man will do his duty.” This is the utter essence of honor. The Empress of India’s man of honor, like Japan’s, did not live by a battery of laws. He lived by an ineffable principle embodied more deeply in human nature and perhaps in divine nature; embedded in the notion of the Queen herself. British law reflects it. In the earliest transactions, like those of the Glorious Revolution, the Queen is referred to as “the Body of the Queen.” As a person, she has no rights or being whatsoever. She is honor incarnate and the sacred tradition of England. We have traded that for a body of laws. But listening to the President’s comments last night on this State of the Union address, a question still remains whether we have traded up or down.

The President tells us, “Americans are addicted to oil.” I think we have been telling him that for the last five years, since he hired oil men and car guys from Detroit to run his Cabinet and tell him what to do. But there is an accusatory attitude here, as there often seems to be with this President. It is somehow a weakness on our part. Do I have this right? Was it not Prescott Bush, the President’s grandfather, who brought these people from New England to Texas in the endless search for oil and new wealth? For a minute I thought I had accidentally switched the clicker to the aggi channel and was listening to Willy Nelson at Farm Aid or Neil Young, tooling around Los Angeles in his biodiesel Hummer.

"In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline," he said.

How did we become so isolated? As I recall, six years ago we had more friends than we desired, sneaking into our country in tunnels and crashing ashore at Far Rockaway in leaky boats. Now we have new anti-American states again to our South and Russia is again rattling its nukes and cozying alliance with Iran.

Most confusing was the phrase about Iran being captive by a small group of fanatics. They seem rather like endless hordes, no? With more newly hatched in Palestine and democratically elected. To Bush democracy is a talisman. Like a shaman’s turtle shell. Rattle and shake it and you get rich, build good government and go to heaven.

The tenor and tone of the entire speech was to turn away. He seems one foot in Crawford, cutting brush, waiting for the next three years to end. As do so many others.

I turned by contrast to Wesley Clark. Two days before President Bush was to give his annual State of the Union speech, Wesley Clark was invited to deliver a speech at The New America Foundation in Washington, D.C. It was a great speech. And what pervades it is that to which I was drawn to him early on.

General Clark is old school. He lives by the rules, but he also lives by a code of honor. It pervades every utterance and every act. I heard him speak a number of times in the New Hampshire primary and I think it frightened people. And what I thought that meant was this: We admire men like that. But we are not yet ready to turn to a man of honor. Our failure is not yet great enough.

This is some of what Wes Clark said in his State of the World:

“Today, billions of people abroad believe that America's beacon is fading, our star is dimming, and that America's time is passing. Why?

“Because four years after 9/11, Osama Bin Laden remains on the loose in the fastness of western Pakistan, and Al Qaeda remains a potent force among millions of Muslims.

“Because the threat of terrorism has actually increased, partly as a result of the unnecessary invasion of Iraq, where after almost three years, we find ourselves enmeshed in an intensifying sectarian struggle that is drawing in jihadi terrorists like a magnet and creating a new cadre of hardened opponents to America and our friends.

“Because, despite our tough talk, Iran is discarding its international obligations in the apparent pursuit of nuclear weaponry, while simultaneously questioning Israel's existence and raising the specter of wider conflict in the Mideast.

“Because, North Korea, with a standing army of more than 1 million men, armed with chemical and biological weapons as well as long-range missiles, is defying US efforts to contain its threat of nuclear proliferation.

“Because, in the process of this struggle against insurgents and terrorists and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we are in danger of losing the very principles we are fighting for as revelations of torture and degrading treatment of those detained confound our long standing commitment to human rights and undercut our moral strength and leadership.

“Because America's long-standing commitment to assisting democracy abroad was recklessly transformed into hot rhetoric and direct action in Iraq— and it has not only offended cultural and national sensitivities in the Middle East, but it is also contributing to the anger and violence in the region.

“Because while we are distracted by the war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan, rising global competitors like China are taking advantage of the security umbrella we have created to lock in their own access to the resources needed to fuel their stupendous growth.

“Because the United States has stood silently while the historic opportunity of a democratic Russia is systematically crushed and other new democracies threatened by the same power ministries and entrenched authorities that enslaved hundreds of millions during Communism's long reign.

“Because our oldest friends and Allies, in Europe and Asia, are questioning America's commitment to the dialogue, institutions, and principles that kept us safe throughout the Cold War and even helped end ethnic cleansing in Europe during the 1990's.

“The plain truth is, in America's rhetoric and conduct since 9/11, we've made more enemies than friends in the world - and that's no way to protect the American people!”

As our nation opened, New England’s greatest visionary, Ralph Waldo Emerson, made the auspicious observation that we saw ourselves ascending a stairs. We have to ask ourselves now if we are descending that same set of stairs.

How deep must we descend? How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and dishonor?

[Dinger]

18. Clark Is The repug Silver Bullet, Period

He's the LAST one they want to get the nomination, not a doubt in my mind.:patriot:

[FrenchieCat]

20. Video of his last speech, "the REAL SOTUS" available

Here: http://www.securingamerica.com/node/574

Excellent Reviews.....


And Joe Wilson was there, and had nothing but good things to say about Wes!

Oh My....what will the Repugs do when their National Defense "TRUMP CARD" is snatched from right underneath them?
What will they do?
When "TERRA ALERTS" and talking about how AL QEADA IS READY TO STRIKE, and OSAMA BIN LADEN TAPES POPPING UP THREATENING US does diddly squat to make voters select Republicans?

How confused will they be?

PS. Pugs don't really expect Democrats to do something as smart as select a national Security defense expert as their Nominees. Maybe proving them wrong and keeping them off of their "conventional Democrat Wisdom" crystal ball will send them reeling!
I'd love to see it!

[yurbud]

29. your banana is doing a sexually explicit macarena

[FrenchieCat]

32. That is NOT my banana!

LOL!

[yurbud]

76. sorry, I meant your 'banana-ho'

[yurbud]

78. you don't need to be ashamed, we accept all orientations here

including dancing monkey fruit lovers.

[Totally Committed]

21. It's Clark all the way for me, and has been since 2003.

He has the integrity, honesty, strength, wisdom, and heart I seek in a POTUS. I feel I can trust him to do what's right because I know he loves this country, respects her Constitution, and is concerned for all his fellow Americans. He's the real deal, and he's who I want in that Oval Office cleaning up Bush's monumental mess for all of our sakes.

Go, Wes!

TC

On edit: Welcome to DU.

[paulk]

28. it's all about 2006, Mr. Grevstad

it's more than "a little premature" to be talking about 2008.

It's pointless, distracting, and ultimately divisive.

[FrenchieCat]

37. It is agreed that 2006 is most important....BUT....

I think that "freedom of speech" has an applicable basis here.....doncha think?

If the poster wants to post about 2008, shouldn't he be able to?

If you don't want to talk about 2008, shouldn't you be able to "SKIP" this thread instead of imposing what you think should be discussed?

I mean....can't we all get along? or something like that? :shrug:

[paulk]

50. freedom of speech applies to my post also

I didn't tell anyone to shut up - I just gave my opinion on this thread, and threads like this.

my opinion is that threads about the 2008 election, especially one's that advocate a particular candidate,
any candidate, are distracting, pointless, and ultimately divisive. Especially with a much more important election looming over us.

I believe threads like this should be banned by the admin (not that my opinion carries any weight) or, at the least, be confined to the candidate forums.

I don't have the power to "impose" anything on this board, other than my opinions. Which my or may not have an effect on other posters. The only thing I can do is put them out there - and that's what discussion forums are for, no?

[FrenchieCat]

56. I understand what you are saying...but

In you bothering to post in a thread about a particular topic only to say that we shouldn't be posting about the topic.....in essence, is you negating the entire OP in it's entirety....

and I realize clearly that you are certainly entitled to post what you want *(as is the OP).....but....

In the end, my suggestion of skipping this topic should not be entirely lost on you.
because.....
If you think that you posting "not the time to talk about this topic" within the topic is somehow going to desuade others who opened the topic knowing damn well what it was going to be about .....well....this is just a weird manner in achieving your so called objective of getting people focused on 2006.

But hey.....I empathize with your frustration....although I'm working 06 and 08 simultaneously. Please know that I learned how to multi-task shortly after giving birth to my second daughter. It was a neccesity and a real blessing in disguise. :hi:

[John Grevstad]

55. Pointless? I don't think so

Have you ever heard of planning ahead. You can't "work" in 2006 and "plan" for 2008. Recently, an article was posted about Edwin Meese loading the lower courts during the '80's. Roberts and Alito were marked as being part of this plan... 25 years later!

If the Democratic community does not plan for alternate candidates, we will be stuck with someone. And trust me, millions and millions of Democrats and undecided voters know zero about Clark or any other potential candidate except for H. CLinton and Kerry.

At any rate, thanks for changing my mind. I mis-wrote when I indicated a post on Clark was premature. It isn't premature at all. Unless of course, you want another Republican administration in 2008.

A divisive issue. Hardly.

[kentuck]

73. Bingo!

2006!

[Mass]

30. First 2006

We have work to do now.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Ironic! That's what Wes Clark said last time he was asked about

2008. Said it is 2006 that will make all of the difference!

[Mass]

35. Clark is a good man.

His SOTU was great.

[Benfea]

42. I was a big Clark supporter in '04, and may be again but....

…this time around I may be supporting Kucinich or Dean (please run again, Howard!).

I think the '04 election blew apart the myth of the "electable" centrist Democrat.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Just remember when making your decision for '08.....

to remember the GOP Playbook!

"terra Alert!" is all that they have!

[guidod]

82. Why did Wes Clark vote for

Richard Nixon, Ronald Regan twice and father Bush? Why has he raised more money for repukes than he has for democrats in his adult life? Just wondering.

[Adelante]

89. Do you have links to support your claims?

Not Nixon and Reagan, which Clark was honest enough to tell the voters he did, but every last word of the rest of it.

Just wondering.

[guidod]

91. I hope this is wrong

but when I googled his past history this is what I got.


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

[Adelante]

95. Yes, it is wrong

It was wrong in 2003 and it's wrong today. Wes Clark voted for Clinton, Clinton and Gore. Wes Clark attended one Republican event for which he was paid to speak when he first came out of the Army. Wes Clark has raised millions of dollars for Democratic candidates and for the Democratic Party.

[guidod]

100. I agree that he has raised

a lot of money for the democratic party and voted for Bill Clinton and has backed Democrats since 1992. I just need more clarity before he gets my vote.

[Adelante]

108. I don't know how much clearer I can be

Everything you said is untrue except he voted for Nixon and Reagan, which he says himself. It's been said about him over and over that he voted for Bush I, but I've tried very hard to find a source for that and there just isn't one. So unless I hear Wes Clark say he voted for Bush I, and if you have a link that quotes him saying it, I would appreciate seeing it, there is no proof of it. As you google around, you will find many links to articles just like the one you cited. The articles will be from the far left wing or the far right wing and they will all agree and they will be filled with lies. I'm glad to answer any questions you have that are not based on deception.

[guidod]

112. I'm not saying that I wouldn't vote for him.

If he was the only dem running he would definitely get my vote. I've just read some posts lately that say that he is far to the left, and that just isn't true. We have more than two years to go. I'm just perusing for the facts.

[Adelante]

120. Maybe if you cited issues

That might clear it up. Which issues concern you where you think he is not left enough for you? If it's flag-burning, yeah, I can see that. There is no way he is for burning the flag. If it's "out now" on Iraq, there, too, because he wants a political solution to avert a regional war in the Middle East. If it's School of Americas, he is absolutely opposed to torture; however, he believes the school to have been reformed in the 90s and says he would close it if there were evidence those practices have been revived.

Are those the kind of things you've been wondering about?

[guidod]

133. I 'm not worried about flag burning,

it's just a piece of cloth. I don't want "out now" on Iraq, I want a "back off". There already is a regional war in Iraq and we're right in the middle of it. I want a candidate who has snap answers to questions, not "how would it affect me politically" ones. Where does he stand on clean air, clean water, jobs, healthcare, foreign policies, immigration, getting religion out of the government, veterans needs, gun laws, gay marriage, states rights, restoring safety regulations back in the work place, a full and truthful explination of his voting records, accountibility in voting and if I sat here long enough I would come up with a lot of other things. I like Clark, and would vote for him if he were the only dem on the ballot.

How's the weather in Mexico, one of my favorite places?

[Adelante]

136. Well, it looks like he's more okay for you than you may know

Everything you've listed is fully covered in his speeches and issues papers and you would like what you see and hear, based on your expressed concerns. As far as his voting record goes, he's given his truth. You decide if you believe it or not.

Weather in Mexico is rarely anything but good.

Nice talking to you, guidod. Gotta go :hi:

Watch the speech if you haven't already. He gives a broad overview of his principles.

[Crunchy Frog]

274. It's not about whether he gets your vote,

it's about whether you're willing to retract the false statement that you made about his having raised more money for Repukes than for Democrats.

I actually don't have a problem with people who have a principled objection to voting for one or another Democrat. Having similar objections to a number of '08 hopefuls myself, as well having voted for Nader in 2000, I would be quite a hypocrite were I to condemn you for your own principled stand. Where I have a real problem is with posting falsehoods about candidates.

If you do end up with a principled objection to voting for Clark (should he get the nomination) I hope it will be based on something more substantial than how he used to vote years and years ago. Even George McGovern forgave him for voting Nixon and endorsed him in '04.

[Jai4WKC08]

98. In addition to that one event

Which was for his COUNTY Repub party, a week later he attended one for the local Democratic Party. He had just moved back to Little Rock, was trying to enter the business there (as opposed to just DC/Pentagon "consulting" like most retired generals do), and wanted to meet people. Sheesh.

And Clark has literally raised MANY millions of dollars for Democrats. He retired from the Army in 2000, and was campaigning for Max Cleland and other Dems by 2002. Not much more you can ask than that.

[Hippo_Tron]

168. That was over 20 years ago

I think that, that is adequate time for someone to change their views.

[Crunchy Frog]

273. Can you provide documentation for your claim

that he's raised more money for Repukes than for Dems? I believe that when you're in the military, you are not allowed to engage in partisan political activities like fundraisers. I'm aware of exactly ONE small Repuke fundraiser that he spoke at after his retirement, when both parties were courting him in Arkansas. He shortly afterwards attended a similar Democratic event. During the 2004 elections he criscrossed the country campaigning and raising money for the Kerry/Edwards campaign, as well as headlining fundraisers for numerous Congressional candidates. I donated $200.00 to Ken Salazar's campaign just because Wes Clark was headlining the fundraiser, and that was a HUGE event. He did similar things all accross the country. He has done countless events to raise funds for Democratic party candidates and organizations since then.

He's never made a secret of the fact that he generally voted Republican when he was younger, but he's been voting for Democrats since 1992. I frankly don't mind that nearly as much as I mind elected Democrats voting with the Repukes on various issues like war with Iraq and judicial nominees. We probably just have a different set of priorities there.

In light of the information that i've posted about his fundraising history, I hope you will either retract your statement, or explain why you feel the need to post blatant falsehoods on this board.

[Totally Committed]

44. I won't vote for a Centrist Democrat, but I will vote for Wes...

Why? Because lots of people (apparently even you...) think he's a centrist when he's actually a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal. If you read his SOTU, you would know that. If you can, read it, Benfea... you will be pleasantly surprised.

TC

[nickshepDEM]

111. If John Kerry is a centrist democrat, well, Bill Clinton

is an ultra-ultra-ultra liberal.

:sarcasm:

Speaking of Bill Clinton. I think he blew apart your whole theory.

[WCGreen]

45. I thought Clark was the guy in '04....

But he wasn't ready yet....

Now, he is....

[kerry-is-my-prez]

47. Yes- he's ready now...

n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

46. Could someone please tell me Clarke's ideas and his positions?

All I ever hear is that he's attractive and a military guy.......what are his ideas? And please prove to me he's not a DLC minion.

[CarolNYC]

51. I'm sure others can add more...but I just have a moment now so

I would say start here....

http://securingamerica.com

where his recent "Real State of the Union 2006" address is available on video and "as prepared for delivery" transcript.

And then go here....

http://www.clark04.com/issues/

where there is a treasure trove of position papers, etc, archived from the '04 campaign...

And thanks for asking....

[Jai4WKC08]

52. Not DLC... one of the most liberal!

Don't take my word for it. Here's a non-Clark-supporting evaluation of all the likely 2008 candidates.


http://headstrong-america.blogspot.com

You don't mention which issues interest you the most, so I'll refer you to Clark's campaign website where all his issue papers and many of his speeches on each are available: http://www.clark04.com/issues/ A more up-to-date overview is at http://securingamerica.com/issues/overview

If you don't want wade thru the individual issues and just want an overview, you might read his Vision Statement at http://securingamerica.com/vision. And I strongly recommend you listen to the "Real State of the Union" address he gave on Capitol Hill three days ago (the day before Bush) at http://securingamerica.com/node/560 You can watch the video, or if you're (like me) on dial-up, there's an audio-only version. It lays it all out and is expertly delivered.

Some people rave about Clark's good looks--sadly, that seems to be an important factor in electability nowdays. Others push his 38-year military career, having achieved highest possible military rank, and winning the war in Kosovo without a single allied combat casualty--probably because most Americans, especially moderates and Republicans in red-states, hold the military in high regard, but also because it was in the military that he got the experience he has in strategy and diplomacy (he negotiated the military side of the Bosnia Peace Accord), but also education, healthcare, environmental protection, many other domestic challenges, and leadership in general (no pun intended).

But believe me, to those of us who support Clark, and want him to run in 2008, those are not the only or even main qualities that keep us loyally in his camp. He's smart, he's educated, he's compassionate, he has incredible energy and determination, and most of all, as Sy Hersh said of him, he has "a great streak of integrity." When you ask him a question, as many of us have, he listens, looks you in the eye, and and gives you a straight answer, whether he thinks it's what you want to hear or not.

Clark is never afraid to speak truth to power, and to call out Repubs (by name!) on their failures. And he keeps himself well aware of ALL their many failures.

[Coexist]

66. Well - he was on the cover of the Advocate during the primaries

that, to me, put me over the edge on Clark.

Having no record - he was not a politician with votes you could analyze, and only speeches, it is sometimes hard to trust a person when they make promises.

But appearing on that cover - during the "be skeered of gays" election - made my mind up that he wasn't afraid to touch any third-rails. He would do what he thought was right - screw the polls.

Maybe I am wrong. But there is still something I like about the guy.

[iconoclastNYC]

84. What do you think of Feingold?

[Coexist]

94. I like Feingold too - I would like to see him run as well -

And Boxer - top, bottom or middle of the ticket. I think Wes has an edge for top-O-the-ticket in that he is a Washington "outsider" and lately, Governors and other "outsiders" seem to be popular. Capable of being seen as "not part of the problem" kind of people. Partisanship is very bitter - and as much as I like Boxer, and Feingold, they may be tainted as more of the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold#Electoral_History
Feingold: Ideological rankings
Americans For Democratic Action, a liberal advocacy group which rates members of Congress on a scale of 0 to 100, with zero being totally conservative and 100 being completely progressive, gave Senator Feingold a lifetime average rating of 96. With the death of Minnesota's Senator Paul Wellstone in 2002, this leaves Feingold tied with California's Senator Barbara Boxer for the title of the "most progressive person" in the Senate, according to ADA. At the same time, the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan advocacy group that pushes for fiscal responsibility, has placed him on its "Senate Honor Roll" every year since 1997, and he has ranked in the top two every year since 1998, making their suggestion that Senator Feingold is also one of the top budget hawks in Congress. The Democratic Freedom Caucus, a group of libertarian-leaning Democrats, has endorsed him during his last two senate campaigns.

In 2004, the National Rifle Association gave him a grade of D (with F being the lowest grade and A the highest). <12> On environmental issues, he was given scores of 100% from the League of Conservation Voters <13>, and 73% from CUSP <14>. The American Civil Liberties Union gave him a score of 89%. <15>

Clark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Clark <-- check out this link - it has a lot of information for you.

[benEzra]

191. Feingold has shifted to a much more pro-gun-rights position...

after studying the issue, he repudiated the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch in 2004, and voted against it when it came up for a vote. The NRA's D grade was probably based on his older positions (he voted for the ban in 1994, for example).

Feingold also asked some tough pro-2ndA questions of Roberts and Alito when they were being questioned in Congress.

I'm not sure what his NRA grade would be now, but I suspect it could be a B or so (I'm not familiar with his positions on things like centralized registration and such).

[Coexist]

197. I am not against owning a gun for purposes

of protection or hunting (and THAT statement on hunting is coming from a vegetarian! - Not to eat meat is my choice - you make yours) or even collecting. I think they should be regulated and there should be a three-day waiting period, and safety measures, but realize that will probably never fly.

I am strongly in support of the assault weapon ban. I just copied and pasted that bit for his rating from two organizations who do that type of thing.

[benEzra]

203. Very few gun owners are hunters...

Currently the number is about 1 in 5, and falling.

FWIW, this is an "assault weapon" according to the gun prohibitionist lobby, a Ruger mini-14:



The 1994 ban didn't affect this gun unless it was fitted with a black plastic stock, but the version of the ban being floated in 2004 (S.1431/H.R.2038) banned this rifle by name, even in its 5-round, wooden-stocked configuration.


The 1994 AWB mostly raised prices on replacement magazines for conventional civilian handguns; my wife paid over $100 for a $20 pistol magazine in 1996 or so.

:wow:

[Coexist]

217. I thought they had to carry 10 rounds to be banned.

can you please provide some links.

[benEzra]

261. Should've said normal capacity replacement magazines...

if your 15-round magazine for your Smith & Wesson or Ruger pistol broke or was damaged, or if you wanted to purchase a spare, you could either pay $100+ for a replacement, or else buy a new-production reduced-capacity mag. Problem was, not only did that cut the capacity of the pistol to that of a much smaller pistol, but the 10-rounders often weren't as reliable because the much deeper mag followers caused jams. Reduced-capacity Glock mags were notorious for this.

My wife wanted a REAL Glock 19 magazine, so she had to pay $100+ for it.

Here's an extended discussion of what the 1994 Feinstein law did and did not cover:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x114449

[iconoclastNYC]

235. Gun control ranks really low on my list of priorities.

Especially all out bans. I think the smarter thing is to mandate gun locks and decriminalize the drug trade as to reduce inner city drug violence.

[benEzra]

262. I tend to agree with you... (n/t)

[CarolNYC]

162. I know you're not asking me here....

but I love Feingold...I'd love to see a Clark/Feingold ticket in '08...I could work very hard for that one.

BTW, I do hope you will take the time to watch Clark's real SOTU speech from Monday....download it from www.securingamerica.com....video or audio....

[Crunchy Frog]

276. I personally love Russ Feingold

and at this point, he's probably my second choice for President after Wes Clark.

[Adelante]

97. Watch the speech in my sig

You will get a good overview of his ideas, such as single payer health care, sustainable energy independence, green engineering, protecting civil liberties, college tuition assistance, foreign policy based on diplomacy, etc. I just watched it today for the first time and I wanted to cry for this country and what's become of it.

[CarolNYC]

170. As for the military thing...

that was one of the things I had to get past in order to support Gen Clark...I never thought I was the type to support a military man...but I found that he's not just a military man...and even the military part of him is not ordinary but, rather, quite extraordinary.

[Pithy Cherub]

48. '06 & '08 will be about national security. Wes Clark

has those critical credentials in abundance, 4 stars for a lifetime of dedicated service, a liberal heart and stellar intellectual gifts. Clark is a potential president one can be proud of, inspired by and uplifted with policies that promote our values.

[SlipperySlope]

54. I'd think about him

His writing is very intelligent, and his credentials bring a lot to the party.

[Le Taz Hot]

59. Clark was or has not ever

been a serious presidential candidate. He was brought in by the Clintons in 2004 to take votes away from Dean -- this was while they were stetting up the Iowa coup. I think it's ludicrous to continue to talk about him like there was actually a chance he will make a serious run. He won't.

[zulchzulu]

61. So what was the "Iowa coup"?

:rofl:

[Jai4WKC08]

68. The people of NH seemed to think different

Where all the polls showed Clark moving up on Dean fast, to the point where he was just outside the margin of error mere days before Iowa.

Clark ran for president and did damn well for his first shot at elective politics. Clinton may have encouraged him to run, but so did Carter, Biden, Harkin, Rangel and dozens of other big-name Democrats. More importantly, so did some 70,000 of US in the grassroots. You apparently choose to believe we don't exist, but we do in fact.

You might notice that Dean and Clark are working together closely, as are most of us who supported both these good men, to do what's best for the party in 2006 and not trying to divide people over old enmities. Why don't you get over 2003/04 and join us.

[wiley]

70. Wrong.

[guidod]

83. Right!

[FrenchieCat]

99. wrong and checkmate!

Or hockey Puck...whichever you prefer!

Anyhow, I will be seeing the General this evening at a S.F. reception......And I will tell him that many "insightful" Democrats who are interested in winning would like to see him run in 2008.

I'll also let him know about those Democrats still cutting their own throats just because they were given a knife, instead of sticking it to the Republicans. K?

[guidod]

121. LOL!!

Thanks for the game, and have fun tonight.

[Dinger]

131. Riiiiiight,

whatever

[IA_Seth]

134. Oh lord...

As an Iowan, I detest the whole "iowa coup" thing...were you here? My money is on a big whoppin "No".

Iowans didn't caucus for Dean...plain and simple. Kerry had the support of the head of the Eastern Iowa AFL-CIO...Kerry had the IOWANS working on the ground for him.

Yes, Dean had a lot of support too..I'll give you that...but he didn't have as much support with Iowans and a lot of what you saw as Dean support in Iowa was out-of-staters.

There was NO conspiracy.

[Hippo_Tron]

169. By the way, Clark skipped Iowa

But I'm sure that Bill Clinton and his brilliant penis managed to set up the Iowa Coup by using a candidate that wasn't even running in Iowa.

[Texas_Kat]

173. Uh, Clark didn't compete in Iowa in 03

That would have been Kerry and/or Edwards.

Since Clark's concentrating on getting Dem's elected THIS year, we'll have to wait and see what happens.

If he does choose to run, I'm in all the way.

[Renew Deal]

179. Clark actually admits to being the anti-Dean

I think he wanted to win, but he also knew that he was the anti-Dean.

[Totally Committed]

188. Link, please.

n/t

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

196. You are confusing language here

The political concepts being confused are these: Trying to "Stop Dean" or being the "Anti-Dean". I always hated the use of the "Anti-Anyone" phrase, but it is common in political commentary. Right now pundits talk about who among the Democrats might become the "Anti-Clinton". They mean the person who may rise up and seriously challenge her after all the others contenders fall by the wayside. The use of "anti" is misleading in that context, it really means "only alternative to". However a "Stop Dean" movement implies something different. It implies that the primary goal is to prevent another person from winning rather than to win yourself. Clark personally had nothing to do with a "Stop Dean" movement. Some may have backed Clark hoping to "Stop Dean", just as early in the run up some had initially backed Kerry hoping to "Stop Dean". But obviously both Kerry and Clark and all of the candidates predominantly had supporters who believed in those men.

Clark was part of the "Stop Bush" movement, same as Howard Dean. Both of those fine men, as well as John Edwards, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich and others, thought they were the best guy to do that, and they fought for the opportunity to do that. For most of the pre actual primary vote phase of the race to win the Democratic Nomination for President, Dean was the clear front runner. All of the other contenders were hoping that they would emerge as the other major contender, and they all visualized scenarios whereby they would gather strength against Dean as other Democrats dropped out. When someone (in this case Dean) is the clear front runner, that is always what happens. After New Hampshire, for example, Edwards kept trying to position himself as the "anti-Kerry", trying to set it up as a showdown between the John's.

[Jai4WKC08]

278. Everything Tom said, and one more point

Anyone who's ever been involved in any type of strategic planning, whether economic, military, business or whatever, knows that flexibility requires resources. It just plain costs more to keep options open. Not just money--sometimes not money at all--but also manpower, access to markets or media, probably other things I can't think off, but most of all, time.

Time was the one thing Clark never had and couldn't get more of. He was pretty much confined to developing one overarching strategy to his campaign and sticking to it.

By the time Clark entered the race in Sept 03, indeed up until mid-January 04, Dean was the uncontested front-runner. The media was reporting that he had all but won the nomination already. So it made perfect sense for Clark to base his strategy on chasing, catching, and passing Dean. And by around New Years Day, Clark had started to catch up. In the first week of January, the pundits started to call Clark the anti-Dean (a few had speculated when he first entered the race whether he could be, but when Clark's initial poll ratings dropped, that all stopped).

The strategy, as I understood it at the time (admitedly just by watching from the grassroots cheap seats, assumed that Iowa would be split fairly evenly between Dean and Gephardt, that Kerry and Edwards would be pretty much if not completely eliminated. Gephardt didn't have much in NH or anywhere else, so altho he would take MO in a walk (duh), not much more. Dean was expected to win NH, but a respectable second place would be good enough, because Clark was certainly likely to fare better than Dean in the South without much effort, and in the Southwest with only somewhat more. So Clark committed most of his resources (especially time) in NH, some in states like WI where it would be much closer, and planned for the determining contests to be in the big states of CA, NY and FL.

Of course, the rest is history. Clark had not prepared to go against the Kerry whirlwind that blew out of Iowa and swept thru NH. Really, none of them were.

But it brings me to the point of rehashing all this. Clark was positioned as an "anti-Dean" in a way that was more obvious than for all the others, because the strategy was based on outlasting all the others until he could get to the states where he'd be naturally strong. But it was the limits of time that caused that--he just did not have enough flexibility to turn into an anti-Kerry as Edwards did (and Dean too for that matter). It killed him in SC, TN and VA, into which he poured what resources he did have after NH, but by then it was too late. Without the South, he stood no chance against Kerry and dropped from the race.

I never have understood why so many Dean supporters hold Dean's defeat against Clark in a way they do not against anyone else, even the guy who ended up defeating him. I guess it's partly because Clinton liked Clark, altho he sure never endorsed him, unlike Gore did for Dean. Why the support of one is ok and not the other, I don't get. In any case, Clark was not in Iowa and had nothing to do with any anti-Dean stuff that happened there. And if Clinton was responsible for any of it, it sure didn't help Clark. Just the opposite, in fact. Maybe they resent the big-money donors who supported Clark--Dean always did have problems there, even now as DNC chair--but they ignore that Clark's average donation amount was about the same as Dean's, so he had backing from us little guys too. I personally think, and forgive the paranoia, that a lot of it comes down to not trusting Clark as a military guy and "former Republican" *cough*, so he's an easier target for anger. At least here at DU, it seems to be some of the same people who make the same arguments and hold the same grudges.

[Clark2008]

255. Conspire much?

Geesch.

Clark was drafted by ordinary people to run: I know because I was one of those 50,000 who begged him to do so.

[Dawgs]

60. Agree, but I'd rather see him in VP position!!

At this point I think Fiengold/Clark could beat anyone.

[Adelante]

65. Why should a commander in chief

be presiding over the Senate with a Senator in the Oval Office? That's not logical. But I would LOVE a Clark/Feingold ticket, myself.

[Hippo_Tron]

159. A president is more than a commander in chief

He is also in charge of leading the nation's legislative agenda and Feingold is someone who I would love to see leading this country's legislative agenda.

That being said, I would absolutely LOVE either of these men in the number one spot.

[Adelante]

207. I love both of them, too

However, my judgment is that the vice presidency is where it makes most sense to organize the push of an administration's legislative agenda and lead it through Congress. This is not to say the country's domestic agenda is not the purview ultimately of the president, but the two offices need to be worked in tandem to be most effective, and it makes more sense to me to have a legislator working most immediately with legislation. Wes Clark could do this, but Feingold would do it better. Feingold could do commander in chief, but Wes Clark would do it better. So, speculating on a team of the two men, I say Clark/Feingold makes more sense than Feingold/Clark and would be an ideal team, especially since they are so very much in line philosophically and are both men of great integrity and honor.

[Nye Bevan]

213. Yes

Clark has no experience of running a winning election campaign so I don't think he should be at the top of the ticket. I think he would make an *excellent* VP candidate, however. I think if Kerry had picked Clark he would be president today. As far as I could see, Edwards added only two things to the ticket-- boyish good looks and a not-bad speech about "Two Americas".

[Tom Rinaldo]

218. Clark now has experience however in running a National Campaign

That is something that Russ, who I too also like a great deal, does not have. Most of the men who go on to win a Presidential Election had previously been through the trial by fire of having to organize a campaign simultaneously in multiple States while dealing with National media. It is a very different experience than running a single State campaign in a state in which one has long roots and an organization in place.

Clark learned a great deal from having made his own run, and by later serving as a key Kerry surrogate during Kerry's run. And Clark is staying sharp for National Media by dueling with the worst of them every week.

[Uncle Joe]

71. Anyone starting out by eliminating a third of the nation,

is not serious about winning in 08.

[Adelante]

74. I agree, Uncle Joe

Can you imagine Wes Clark saying anything like that? I can't.

[Uncle Joe]

79. No, I cannot, I believe Al Gore, Wes Clark or whoever

the nominee is in 2008 will have a full national campaign for the White House, the stakes are too great to concede anything to the Republicans.

[Adelante]

81. Exactly right nt

[AtomicKitten]

106. I'm a GORE supporter but LUV Wesley Clark.

I really think Clark would make a brilliant Secretary of State or Defense.

[Pastiche423]

101. To this very day

clark supports the School of Americas.

No-fucking-thank you.

[election_2004]

103. One advantage with running Clark at the very top of the ticket....

...is that Clark could put some of the red states in play for Democrats in U.S. Senate races (even if Clark himself doesn't win those states' electoral votes).

The same thing cannot be said for Hillary. In fact, the OPPOSITE would happen if the Dem establishment is stupid enough to line up behind Hillary before the primaries even begin.

[nickshepDEM]

104. There are a # of...

candidates who could do just as well Clark in the states you listed, if not better.

Richardson
Warner
Vilsack
Bayh
Edwards

[Adelante]

110. Based on what?

What's your argument?

[nickshepDEM]

113. Simple. See: their election results. Bayh's results are undeniable.

Warner's... Undeniable, especially with Kaine's success.

Same thing goes for Vilsack and Richardson.

They have proven their electability.

Just the facts...

[Tom Rinaldo]

115. With the men you list, that's just "the facts" for their own home states

and just the facts for running for an office that deals with domestic issues almost exclusively (except for Bayh). Virutally every sitting Governor can marshall "facts" like that in their favor. That proves nothing about their ability to win in states outside of their own, or with issues that expand to deal with National security, to cite one notable example.

[nickshepDEM]

118. No, Bayh has been both a governor and a senator. Indiana has elected

him on local and national issues. His results are undeniable. We can sit here and argue all day that he's living off his daddy's name, but Ill save you some time... I dont buy it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree that their local success does not translate into national success. However, winning local and state races is better than winning no elections at all.

Im at work, so Ill have to add more later.

[Tom Rinaldo]

123. I corrected my comment on Bayh while you were still posting

You are absolutely right in his case. It's not that local success doesn't translate into national success, it's that usually it doesn't. We are all looking for the exception to the rule, regardless of the rule we name. Lots of politicians who are popular in their home state do not make the cut when they run for national office. It never hurts to be popular somewhere though, I grant you that.

[Adelante]

210. Just the facts...

The Op listed these states:

Ohio
Iowa
Colorado
New Mexico
Nevada

How have the people you listed proven in these states in terms of a national race? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm trying to get at your thinking behind those names. Elections in home states, as Tom points out, maybe should be disregarded. How do you see those pols doing in the states listed that are not home states?

[Texas_Kat]

282. Nick

I don't think you really have a clue what a real red state takes to campaign in. (Virginia's really sort of purplish red) or at least parti-colored. Blue at the top, red at the bottom)

Clark has 06 candidates lined up around the block begging him to come to Texas to help them campaign.

He's doing it too.

None of the others on your list are getting fistfuls of invitations either.

[election_2004]

114. Warner and Vilsack, probably....

Richardson, Bayh, and Edwards - - a little more questionable. But still possible.

Although any of them would make those states more competitive than Hillary Clinton or John Kerry would.

[nickshepDEM]

116. You're probably correct. Richardson is iffy with the whole...

Los Alamos incident.

I think Bayh is very underrated, especially on this site. If he makes it out the primary, he could be tough to beat.

Edwards, eh, your probably right, but if the conditions are right, he could be a formidable.

[election_2004]

117. Bayh is definitely underrated.....

Even if some of his positions are a little more conservative than I'd prefer. He definitely has the political experience.

Bayh could be one to watch. Hopefully, we won't let the Hillaristas ruin everything...

[Dinger]

132. DLCers, No Thanks

But I'd never vote for a repuke over them

[Hippo_Tron]

166. None of them, except Edwards, have shown me a national vision

I don't deny that all of these men have done an exceptional job in their respective states. But the national level is very different than the state level.

The reason that I am so attracted to Russ Feingold and Wes Clark as candidates is that when I know that they are fully aware of national issues and already have a vision of how to face them even when it is not an election year.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton made such great candidates because not only because they were they exceptional state level politicians, but also because they were brilliant men who had an incredible understanding of national issues and a vision of how they wanted America to be.

Richardson, Bayh, Vilsack, and Warner need more than the accomplishments in their respective states if they are going to be the exceptional candidates that we are looking for. That being said, there's still a little time left for them to define themselves nationally.

[LittleClarkie]

119. U-Rah-Rah-Blah

Lemme know when he gives a speech or something. Otherwise it's too damn early for cheerleading. I, myself, only post Kerry stuff when he's actually done something. I don't mind hearing when one of our hopefuls has given a speech, passed good legislation, made an appearance in the media and the like.

Meanwhile, we'll see what he can do in the primaries. May the best person win.

[Adelante]

122. Watch the speech in my sig

Let me know what you think :hi:

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

127. I streamed it off C-SPAN.com last night. It was outstanding and

very refreshing.

Hearing Wes Clark speak with such intelligence and authority and be so straightforward on what is happening in the world.

Too bad that wasn't the Democratic response to the SOTU.

[CarolNYC]

161. You know you can download it from the WesPAC site now....

in either Windows Media or Quicktime...Very very nice files...but large. They take a bit to download...but worth it.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

164. I checked there but didn't find it. Thanks for the heads up tho! n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

165. Top of the Home Page for Securing America

Wes Stares right out at you from a video screen and the download options are right below that:

http://securingamerica.com/

[CarolNYC]

167. There are also download links to the side of the picture

Very nice files...much nicer than watching the CSpan steaming one....

[Adelante]

181. Here is the direct link, Tom

http://securingamerica.com/node/560

[LittleClarkie]

135. Will do, as soon as I get to a 'puter that can play it

I'm at work right now. :hi:

[Adelante]

137. Okay, girl

:pals:

[Clarkie1]

152. Uhhh...and exactly WHERE have you been? eom

[LittleClarkie]

154. Yodelling on the slopes of Switzerland

Where else?

[Clarkie1]

174. Sounds fun.

I'd love to go skiing there...

[John Grevstad]

125. Furthermore....

Anyone who wins in 2008 is gonna have to win in 2012, it is going to take more than four years to clean up the mess left by the Bush years. And, Democrats aren't so low that they have to start a war to win the next election, so we won't be able to "use" that like the Bushies did. Whoever it is gonna have to be good, real fucking good.
Again, it is possible to work in 2006 and prepare for the future.

[Donna Zen]

153. 2008 and 2012

You are absolutely right. And how do we do that? We do that by introducing programs that work, by cleaning up the mess, and by uniting this country. Tough orders, but it can be done. First you need to get some money, and the place with the most waste is the Pentagon. Wes Clark is the only person on the list who would know where the money is, dare to go after it, and convince the country that they would still be safe. Without that money, forget 2012. The mess will take a leader, I mean a real leader, one trained in leadership and familar with its burden. I snickered about the posts touting the DLC leadership. Good grief where have they been? (psst read Digby's latest--he nails it.) The members on that list of our current ruling class, all the Davos-Bilderberg set, will not upset the status quo because they are the status quo.

Uniting the country means busting the republicans' grip on the packaging of politics. It will take an outsider, one not considered partisan, and someone who defies the sterotypes of what is Democrat.

That is how you win in '08 and hang on to '12. That is how you rebuild the Democratic Party, but more importantly, that is how you save our country. I would mention Foreign Policy but we all know the expert at that. Personally, I think that we need to get serious now, and while that means '06, we had better be planning for '08.

[election_2004]

285. Exactly!

The Hillaristas don't seem to realize how detrimental their *goddess* could be to downticket races even beyond 2008 - - specifically in the 2010 midterms plus 2012.

[Donna Zen]

287. How many blue states would turn red?

And that's the question. Hillary might...might be able to take 10 states (that's not me talking, that's inside talk.) All the republicans would have to do to foil her advantage with women is to put a woman in the vp spot.

If Hillary were ever to gain the WHouse, she would do everything to court the Pentagon including giving them any toys they want. I mean look at her wearing that big cross around her neck. Listen to her spouting how kick-ass militaristic she is. Oh please. Save me from this horrible debacle.

[Clarkie1]

148. Damn straight it is! eom

[thatsrightimirish]

156. Clark, in my opinion,

Has excellent qualifications in foreign policy and is liberal on domestic issues as well as foreign. I think he can teach Americans that not only is it important to be tough and prepared, but that it is also important to be smart. Something that this White House is seriously lacking. I think it would be great if one of those "Fighting Dems" would be our 2008 candidate. The last time we had a general as a President people were very happy. And people are not happy now. Which is why I am not fully committed but leaning toward Clark for the DEM nomination in 2008.

[abex]

172. pro-military civilians are bad enough

Don't think I'll be voting for a career military guy anytime soon. Don't forget about his support for the interventionist NED.

[Clarkie1]

175. What you don't understand is the difference between pro-military

and pro-war, my friend.

[abex]

176. these days, what's the difference? nt

[Totally Committed]

189. Murtha, the new Anti-War Patron Saint of some here,

is pro-military, yet NOT pro-war. Wes is one of the most Anti-War people I know. You just need to read what he's written and hear him speak to know that. Honestly, some people's prejudices just do the talking for them! Uninformed b.s. like this just makes you appear ignorant.

TC

[abex]

202. murtha did the world a favor with his redeployment bill

but up until then, for the bulk of his political career, and for the most part, he never met a pentagon request he didn't support. General Clark's career has, likewise, followed a similar arc. And for both men, they were this way when the military was undertaking some pretty dubious missions. Gotta vote no on military involvement in civilian affairs. Remember Ike? He waited his entire career before finally laying down some truth about the the unholy alliances between government and military contractors. Again, a similar path to 'enlightenment', one, it seems, available to military men who, through some magical process, have become 'liberal'.

[Tom Rinaldo]

211. Clark believed that an expansionist Soviet Union was a threat

Although I am a life long leftist, I agree, it was. It was a totalitarian State. The United States also posed a threat to many poor people in the world through our backing of dictatorships among other things. That is also true. What I did with my adult life was work inside of the United States to try to change United States policies and priorities in the world. What Clark did was work to keep the United States safe from a real external threat.

Were you ever inside Eastern Europe? I was married to a woman from West Berlin. We were both Peace advocates, but I can't tell you how chilling it was to pass through Soviet Check points going in and out of Berlin. The Cold War was real. There were troops massed on both sides.

At the close of the Cold War Clark recognized that the mission of the military in America had profoundly changed. He realized that far more rapidly and more profoundly than most of his peers.

You are wrong that Clark never met a Pentagon request that he didn't support. Often it was the other way around. The Pentagon wouldn't support Clark's plans for an intervention to end the genocide in Rwanda for example. When Clark left the military, he made a conscious choice NOT to sign on to work for any of the major Defense contractors, which is very unusual for people of his potential use to them.

[abex]

223. then you don't believe our gov was complicit in prolonging the so-called

Soviet threat in the world? Or at least making more of it then what it was? After all, who stood to gain the most from an alledged bogie like communism if not the military and civilian privateers?

[Tom Rinaldo]

226. I said there was a real threat. Carter & Reagan & Bush differed

But "a threat" was real. It is not a mutually exclusive premise that real threats exist AND that special and/or political interests won't try to profit by and/or exploit them for personal gain.

[abex]

256. the robert gates faction of the cia in the eighties

cooked intelligence to show the soviet 'threat' to be greater than the reality. you think robert gates invented this early forerunner of perception management? gates was only reinventing long established and quite successful propaganda. or have ever been harmed, personally, by the ruskie? if yes, then your talk of the soviet threat might be credible.

[Tom Rinaldo]

267. It was a competing ideology and it offered great promise

to oppressed people world wide. Historically it saddens me that it was not all it was meant to be. I understand why many good Americans were Communists in the 1930's for example, but I always had more sympathy for Kropotkin than for Lenin. Communism generated a Stalin and a Mao, and these were not people whose leadership I would have wanted to follow. Many of the dissidents who they murdered are exactly the type people I honor in my personal life. Communism as it developed was usually totalitarian in practice, and they tried to gain control over the worlds natural resources just as surely as American imperialist business's did.

Khrushchev did try to install nuclear warhead missiles 90 mile from Miami, and they weren't aimed at Grenada. I fully realize that we had missiles in Turkey at the same time, and all of the rest of it. I do not think in simple black and whites, but the Soviet Union was expansionist by intent. If there was low lying fruit their inclination was to grab it. If the Soviet Union had not invaded Afghanistan in the first place the chain of events that brought about our current situation there and in Iraq probably would not have occurred.

There really was a Berlin Airlift. People did routinely get shot trying to climb over the Berlin Wall. It wasn't just a Reagan Hollywood movie set for him to do a John Wayne at. Czechoslovakia really was invaded by it's "Warsaw Pact Allies" in 1968. Lech Walesa really was a freedom fighter, no matter what else you may think of him. Ceausescu was a bloody tyrant in Romania who the people were finally able to overthrow. And so was Fernando Marcos, and so was Mobutu Seko in the Congo. Our hands were never clean, but there WAS a real threat.

[abex]

270. that's the propaganda, alright

and it's true the soviet empire did all you said it did, but isn't it possible the people who gained internal control of the USSR were playing roles determined not by reality but what would give them the greatest amount of wealth and power, too? Like our system's leaders? Strikes me as more symbiotic than competitive.

[Tom Rinaldo]

275. There's truth in that

But most things can ultimately be boiled down to that when "Power" is at stake. There usually are some true believers in any cause who get pushed out of the way by posers seeking some personal pay off. Many say the "competition" between the Republican and Democratic Parties ultimately is like that also. I think the truth is usually somewhere in between. There are differences and there are common threads. Ideologies do influence some people to make sacrifices. A lot of good American soldiers have died wanting to defend Freedom in some instances where it is debatable whether freedom was being defended. Many "Red Guards" were absolutely sincere in their convictions about building a socialist utopia.

The tipping point for me is usually totalitarianism, because once that takes firm hold it is extremely difficult to organize against. As bad as we say we have it here now, or even during the McCarthy witch hunts, it got far more advanced in many "Communist" nations.

[abex]

277. indoctrination is the glue that holds all empires together nt

[Adelante]

243. How do you feel about Chavez?

Just asking.

[sampsonblk]

178. Wes Clark is by far the best man...

Can he win? I don't know, but my shirtsleeves are already rolled up.

A Clark presidency could transform the party - and this party is BADLY in need of transformation. And he'd surely bring in some of his own people. As long as their honest and think like us, that would be a welcome breath of fresh air.

[More Than A Feeling]

180. Sorry, not in the primaries, I'm supporting Russ Feingold

He's a man of principle, and I agree with his principles, for the most part. I don't like his habit of confirming people like Condi Rice for SecState, but at least he was willing to come down off his high horse to try to stop Alito. It shows that he knows when principle must be set aside for a greater good. One complete disappointment was when he did not stand with Boxer to challenge the vote count, but other than that, he's been excellent.

Last time I would have supported Kerry, if my primary had been early enough to matter, for electability reasons. This time I'm voting for the one I agree with the most. Yeah, yeah, Jewish, twice-divorced, too liberal, blah blah blah...I'm not hiring him to be the minister at my church, or a marriage counselor, and if he's too liberal, I'm right there with him.

He's shown he is willing (most of the time) to do what's right, even when he stands alone. But when he does it's not for spurious reasons. The Patriot Act deserved to be voted against, if nothing else, because of the way the administration tried to ram it through. Among the first national Democrats to get media attention for his call to develop a plan for withdrawal (pre-Murtha, even). Fiscally responsible. All in all, a nice mix of high-profile opposition to the administration and reliably liberal voting. Good times.

[Adelante]

182. Love Russ

Not for the primaries, but if he wins the nom, I'm so there for Russ Feingold.

[Totally Committed]

190. Russ is a very good man. I can't support him in the Primaries, but...

if he ever got the Party nomination, I could support his candidacy. (He's one of the few I can say that about at this point, btw...)

For me, it's Wes Clark in the Primaries, if he runs. I sincerely believe he is the only candidate that can transform the Party, and start getting this country back on track to being the America we all knew and loved before the Bushies got ahold of it.

TC

[More Than A Feeling]

192. off-topic: love your sig line.

Down with the Alito 19!

[Totally Committed]

194. Thanks!

Hell hath no fury after that vote, I tell ya!

TC

[abex]

206. feingold is fine by me nt

[election_2004]

286. Yeah baby - - that's my U.S. Senator!!!

Love Russ!
Love him, love him, LOVE HIM!!!

I'll miss being Feingold's constituent once I move out of state (although I look forward to having Barbara Boxer as one of my new senators).

I'm inclined to believe that Senator Feingold would be more effective in the V.P. slot (Clark/Feingold?)....but running in the primaries may help Russ get his foot further in the door.

[mikeanike]

193. I should have voted for clark

Jog my memory, how did Clark do in the primaries? If the supposed changes to the primaries happens how will that effect his chances?

[Adelante]

225. He did very well

For someone who entered the race a year or two after everybody else was running; in a field of ten who were 80% elected officials or ex-elected officials. Before withdrawing on 2/11/04 and endorsing Kerry, Clark competed in 13 states. He won Oklahoma. He came in second in Arizona, New Mexico and North Dakota. Third in New Hampshire, Tennessee and Virginia. Fourth in Missouri and South Carolina. Fifth in Delaware, Maine, Michigan, and Washington.


Edit: forgot link :hi:

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/candidates/1771/index.html

[mikeanike]

237. wow

that was much better than I expected him to do. Do you have info on what his platform was? Frankly I don't really know but as someone who pays attention to the other factors of elect-ability, (speaking prowess, "the look", etc.) he's is very viable. Much more than I felt Dean was. With that dumb smile of his there was no chance in hell. I know that sounds petty but study after study prove that looks matter.

[Tom Rinaldo]

242. Clark's 2004 platform

It really was a good one (in my obviously biased view):

http://www.clark04.com/issues/

[Joe Fields]

195. Screw the South and Florida? WTF?

I think the south has been screwed enough these past few months. By the way, I'm a Missourian, and not a southerner, but your compassion (or gross lack of it) offends me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

198. Clark is fighting for the South

He was just campaigning for Democrats in Texas last week. He campaigns for Democrats in the South a lot, and frequently appears at Party fund raisers in the South.

[John Grevstad]

201. This was kind of my point

I live way up here in Washington, and national politicians never come up here, in part because they know what we will do. Washington has a Dem governor, two Dem. senators, and a Dem. controlled House of Reps. and Senate. Oregon has similar traits.

There are numerous states that would swing if they were given the attention that is given to the South (Arizona, Nevada, Colorado among others) All were close in the last national election. "Screw" the South was a bit hyperbolic, but there are states that are on the cusp of going Blue, and not very many of them are in the South, and they don't get very much attention. Was any Southern State close to going Blue in the last election?

[Tom Rinaldo]

205. Democrats have done fairly well below the National elections in the South

In State legislatures, in Governor and Senate races, etc. It is dangerous to cede the South to the Republicans because then they can start out a Presidential race with most of the electoral votes they need in the bag, allowing them to concentrate all of their resources on swing states and allowing them to make an assault of a few key generally Democratic States, such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, like they did last time. If Bob Gammage can win the Texas governorship, even Texas won't be safe for Republicans if Clark runs in 08.

[John Grevstad]

208. I understand you're point

But the South has always been a hard win for Democrats in presidential elections. Remember that the only two Dems who won the presidency since 1960 were from the south. That was 46 years ago. My point was that there are places that are largely ignored in favor of the South, and these areas are close to turning Blue, real close. They need attention and I don't think they get enough of it.

[CarolNYC]

199. I agree

We concede nothing...go after all 50 states...screw nobody but the damn neocons and their brainless supporters....I don't believe that Gen Clark, if he does choose to run, has any intentions of giving over any state....

[John Grevstad]

200. Why would my lack of compassion offend you?

I meant screw genuflecting to the South for electoral votes, not screw the victims of Hurricane Katrina!

I have compassion for the poor and undereducated who are ignored in record numbers in the South and in Florida. I'm one of those sanctimonious characters that refuses to shop at Walmart because of the way they treat workers. It's Costco shopping all the way for me baby... 18 bucks an hour plus benefits! Don't even get me started on the lack of attention paid to public schools in the South.

The south needs the compassionate help of liberals more than any part of the country. But the capitulation to the Religious Right and their followers in pursuit of electoral votes has to stop, and we certainly can't count on them in today's hyper-religious climate.

Go North and West young Man! Ya got all the electoral votes ya need. Then us Democratic do-gooders can help the South fix themselves. Perhaps we can start by convincing them that it is in their best interest to put more money into their schools and less into their prisons.

Before you go making lame judgments about my numerous character flaws --and at times a lack of compassion is one of them -- ontemplate the post.

[Totally Committed]

219. "Why would my lack of compassion offend you?"...

Lack of compassion, wherever found, and in whatever context, should offend any decent human being.

Unbelieveable that you would think this is an auspicious start to your time here at DU.

TC

[John Grevstad]

227. I'm a dupe?

Wow, I lack compassion, and I am some sort of "dupe." Interesting accusations.. It Nice that name-calling marks the beginning of my time at DU.

Before accusing someone of anything, you should probably have some sort of proof. I thought we were better than that. It is also easy to hide behind message board posts when making personal attacks. I doubt you would say any of this shit to my face or make those comments if you actually knew me.

Explain how I am a dupe. And be totally honest, I am curious. You started it, so you should clarify your comment.

[Totally Committed]

244. Both of those posts were DUPLICATES and the "dupe" is short for that....

I edited them out and that word is to let others know why. I didn't mean that you were a dupe. Feeling a little sensitive, maybe?

TC

[John Grevstad]

247. Maybe

Again, nice that you veil your insults behind a cute name on a message board. That's the easy way... and the way of the chump.

[Totally Committed]

253. What are you talking about?

Dupe is short for duplicate, no "maybe" about it. :shrug:

Chump? Nice.

Peace anyway.

TC

[Adelante]

258. Relax, John Grevstad

You don't know the person you're talking to and I do. She would never do as you are saying. You are new on this board. There is a glitch presently causing duplicate posts - "dupes."

[Totally Committed]

263. Thank you for the support, WesDem...

:hug:

You are such a sweetie-pie!

TC

[Totally Committed]

220. dupe.

[Totally Committed]

222. dupe

[Clark2008]

230. No need to say, "Screw the South," John

If Clark's the nominee, I predict the flipping of Arkansas and Virginia and possibly Tennessee. Florida's a lost cause because of Bush corruption, however.

But, in response to the rest of your post, "Hell yea!" :hi:

[fiddlestix]

234. I don't think Florida's that much of a lost cause...

My parents live in Del Re Beach, southern Florida, a mix of transplanted retired Northerners & old money...

And they were all VERY unimpressed with the way the Bush Administration handled the last hurricane...I mean it practically totalled their town & the response from FEMA etc. was VERY piss-poor...

Now, my parents are life-long Democrats (OK, my mom was a Socialist, back in the day), and yeah, they were front & center in Election 2000 with the Butterfly Ballot (they saved the one they got in advance of the election, for posterity)...and they tend to be hopeful optimists, BUT, they see a Change, somewhere Off in the Horizon....many Bush-Lovers (including Jeb) have stopped drinking the Kool Aide...

We'll see...

I love Gore. I love Clark. I'd vote for that ticket any day!

[John Grevstad]

245. Re: "Screw the South"

I did not mean to offend anyone by my "screw" comment. I actually wanted to write "F" the South... I am maturinging. But people have to understand that there are millions of Americans who watch the South and Florida go Red, while other areas are virtually ignored. It's hard to watch Florida decide the election when you are on the west coast and it is only 8:15.

It may be the ol' West Coast bias. New Mexico went Red by 6k votes or something like that and I believed some residents of Colorado wanted their electoral votes split. Plus Arizona and Nevada were close also, but not many people rally the forces to go and get this group of states. What about these states deciding the election for a change. My state will not vote Red in 2008, no matter who runs, so we will get a "cup of coffee" visit.

The other point I was trying to make about Clark is that we need a candidate that is as perfect as perfect can get. No losing history (Kerry, Edwards), no anti-Clinton or anti-woman bias (shameful) that applies to Hilary, and I read on the wikipedia entry posted in this thread (we all know how reliable they are) that Feingold is about to be divorced for the second time. This is an election we cannot lose, because they bought one-third of of our system of checks and balances when Alito and Roberts were confirmed.

And I stand by the belief that we can work in '06 and plan for '08. For me, it is has been interesting to see what other names people are mentioning.

[Adelante]

248. Alabama, too

Something tells me. The whole Gulf coast is in play now.

[SpecialK]

231. How about Gore/Clark 08? - Love them both n/t

[VonDoomPhd]

232. Clark could work.

Especially a Clark/Edwards ticket.
I believe the man is more committed to truth than any "band of brothers" bullshit which would ensure a reasonable foreign policy as far as military action is concerned.
The important thing to understand about Clark is that his military service is a BONUS; not a magical shield that will indemnify him against GOP attacks and bestow upon him the golden crown of "electability." Clark would be just fine had he no service whatsoever.

[benburch]

233. I can support Clark if he wins the Primaries.

Because I believe he is an honest, brave man, and a true patriot.

Even a slightly right-wing Democrat is better than anybody the Repiglicans could nominate.

But I am not sure that he would be my choice in the primaries until I see what the choices are.

[Tom Rinaldo]

239. That is a reasonable stance, but I think of Clark as left of center

We will have a lot of time to debate the pros and cons of different Democratic potential candidates later. Meantime, Clark's Real State of the Union Speech deals with pressing current realities. I hope you view, listen or read it.

[Totally Committed]

246. Ben, trust me when I tell you...

Wes is not a centrist (he would not have me in his corner if he were.) If you read his issues page, you will see that on social issues he is Left, and his anti-war stand makes him left of center on foreign issues.

TC

[benburch]

249. I will examine those issues closely in the run-up to the Primaries.

I always do my research!

[Totally Committed]

269. Here's a place to start when you are ready:

http://www.clark04.com/issues/

Thanks so much, Ben! You are ever a gentleman.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

250. wES CLARK is not even the slightest a "right-wing" Democrat......

But, I'll tell you what.....this is what Wes Clark can do to the Republicans for the Democrats:

WHOOP SOME OF THAT "TERRA-ALERT-OSAMA-TAPE-RELEASING-NATIONAL SECURITY FEARMONGERING AND LYING" GOP ASS!

[Crunchy Frog]

259. Welcome to DU John!

I can't agree with you about simply dismissing the South and Florida, I think Florida may well be out of our reach as long as Jeb and his machine are there, but that it's not inherently unwinnable, especially since Al Gore did clearly win there in 2000 had the votes been counted. I think it may be a good while before another Dem can win a deep Southern state, but some of the states more on the periphery may be attainable, and ultimately we have to try to get through to the people living there if this country is not to split along the lines of the Civil war again.

I do agree with you though that the West and Southwest are an area where the Dems can begin making serious inroads and are more likely to be winnable in the short term. I'm from Colorado, and it was very much in play in the last presidential election, and we managed to elect a Democrat to the Senate, (far too conservative for me, but at least a Dem), and we managed to take back both of the State houses for the first time in 40 years.

I absolutely feel that Wes Clark is the person most likely to be able to have a wide range appeal to many areas of the country that do not normally go Democratic, and I think he has the ability to frame progressive ideas in a language that Southerners can understand, and that won't make them simply throw up their defenses.

Are you really the same John Grevstad who wrote this book? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0595344844/qid=1115354705/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-4626097-1300913?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
It looks quite intriguing. Welcome to DU.

[Texas_Kat]

280. John

If Clark were on top of the ticket in 08, even Texas might go blue.

It's amazing the number of Democrats AND disaffected Republicans that would love to be given a chance to vote for him.

Don't write off the South. If he can do it here, he can do it anywhere.

No other candidate--NOT ONE-- not Warner, not Edwards could have a chance. But Texas LOVES Wes Clark.

[John Grevstad]

283. Trust me

I hope they all go Blue. Send them motherf'ers packin' for the next twenty years... like Gingrich. Remember him?

[Texas_Kat]

290. Yep, I'm also old enough to remember Sam Rayburn

:D "A Democrat without prefix, suffix or apology"

There are some quick things to know about posts.

n/t= no text: used when only the headline is intended to be the message. For those who view threads "post by post" instead of "view all" it allows readers to skip to the next message without spending extra time.

eom = End of Message: pretty much the same thing as n/t

If you go back and edit a post, unless it's just to fix a typo that doesn't change the meaning of the post, it's best to add an explanation of the edit. For example:" On edit :intended to say '"not" broken' instead of '"now" broken' "(there is a short interval where you can edit posts once submitted) Once the edit period has passed, you can clarify anything that needs clarifying in a new post.

Dupe: to reduce the number of posts in a thread, if for some reason you wind up with a double post (hit the submit button twice by accident) it's nice to go back and remove the duplicate post so as to allowing readers to skip over the dupes.

Self-delete: Used by a poster during the 'edit' period to remove posts they may have second thoughts about or are no longer necessary

Delete: what a post indicates that has been removed by a moderator.

DU can be a little volatile. Clarkies aren't willing to surrender ANY state in 06 or 08. Even if it becomes impossible to turn the state blue for a presidential race, it's possible to have enough of an impact to help downballot candidates. The Democratic Party can not afford to write ANY state off entirely. The tendency to do so has created a lot of the problems we have today.

[jeannicot]

288. Won't make it to the debates.

the Democratic primary debates.

Most likely won't even anounce. He's smarter than his supporters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

289. OK, we'll mark your words.

Are you happy now?

[Adelante]

291. Welcome to DU, jeannicot!!

:hi:

(awful lot of visitors we're having this week)

[CarlSheeler4U]

292. Sheeler Something about Us military candidates

Here's a positive outlook, too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2450397&mesg_id=