Have Hillary and Wesley Clark privately agreed to run together?

[_Wayne_]

Consider the following truths:

-Wesley Clark won Oklahoma (most conservative state) in the 2004 Democratic Primaries.

-He appeals to military-minded voters.

-The top 4 2004 Democratic Delegate winners were: 1. John Kerry, 2.John Edwards (running again) 3.Howard Dean (DNC chariman) 4. Wesley Clark (now appearing at Hillary Clinton fundraisers)

-His DLC/Clinton connections are more pronounced than any other 2008 Democratic candidate.

-Both John Edwards and Barack Obama are attacking Hillary, strange behavior if either thought they would potentially be chosen as Hillary's VP.

And Wesley Clark just said this:

"The world has reached a critical point, and we need a leader in the White House with the courage, intelligence and humility to navigate through many troubling challenges to our security at home and abroad. I believe Senator Clinton is that leader, and I whole-heartedly endorse her for President of the United States.

Senator Clinton and I share a worldview in which diplomacy is the best first-strike tool in our arsenal; in today's complicated global system, the United States should be making more friends than enemies." http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/257944.htm

I think this was a great strategy, if it happened. Hillary would be unstoppable with Wesley Clark as her VP candidate.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. Perhaps there is no nefarious reason. Perhaps Clark believes

Clinton is the best candidate for the job.

[CTyankee]

2. Well, I'm not sure the VP candidate will change a diehard anti Hillary voter

but I don't think it will hurt! His presence alone will signal that she is serious about the uses of our military. He is smart and articulate and that can help her enormously.

And yes, I have believed since he came out for Hillary that there is some kind of "agreement" between the two of them...

[youthere]

67. I love Clark..but even if I was guaranteed he would be her VP pick, I still will not caucus for her.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. I'd support a Clinton/Clark ticket. Kerry/Clark would've won in '04.

All Kerry lacked in '04 was a strong running mate.

[Bitwit1234]

4. OOOOOOOOH consipirary conspirary

Wes Clark....how about the governor who supports Obama is that a conspirary..could be...according to you all...you know who supporters.

[lojasmo]

5. I suspect if she gets the nomination, he'll be VP candidate.

[Sparkly]

6. If she's really smart, she'll want him for VP.

It's only guesswork at this point, though.

[JackORoses]

7. of course they have a deal

didn't you see Clark shilling for her on Bill Maher?
he was desperate to defend her when Sullivan called her 'Cheney-in a pantsuit'.

[phen43]

14. "Cheney in a Pant-Suit"

I like that!! such a funny guy!!!:woohoo:

[cuke]

21. Another Hillary Hater using right wing propoganda

and a murdering wingnut to boot

[Captain Hilts]

8. And he's not too much taller than she is. Yes. nt

[Donna Zen]

9. No

First, Wes Clark has said that there is no agreement. While that may mean little to those who wouldn't believe him consider then that Senator Clinton is a politician. The Clintons will be looking for someone who can raise money, use their connections, and bring in a state or maybe even two. They will also be looking for the photo-op candidate that signals youth and family on the ticket. I believe that their choice will be Bayh. Now that's primo DLC with big time IWR credentials.

Why would the Clintons worry about bringing in AR? They're not. Also, if they look west it will be with Richardson, the man who delivered NAFTA.

The last thing that they would want is someone with actual foreign policy military credentials that came out against the Iraq War. That is a recipe for too many questions.

As for Wes Clark and the DLC: if that were the case then the General would not have gone to Connecticut and campaigned against Lieberman. My take is that while Wes is friendly with the whole crowd, he has stayed out of the tug-o-war within the party.

Actually, I see most of the big cabinet spots as already spoken for, and would not be surprised if Wes Clark's name wasn't in the mix for anything. However, he is a team player and once he says he endorses you...that's it. He will fight the best fight that he knows how. And he's good.

He has been very good to the netroots, the DNC, and all of the rest of our mixed up party factions. I personally thank him for that and wish well in the future.

[TwilightGardener]

16. That's an interesting take. I assume Clark is HOPING and angling for

the spot, but I don't know if it will happen--her choice will be extremely calculated for maximum political/electoral benefit, rather than for personal loyalty, friendship, or shared world-view, I suspect.

[AndyTiedye]

10. That Might Explain Clark's Sudden Lurch to the Right

[calteacherguy]

12. There has been no "sudden lurch to the right." nt

[jonnyblitz]

13. you are correct, he has always been there. he was never "left". nt

[Clark2008]

60. Really?

I guess being the only 2004 candidate who had the guts to appear on the cover of The Advocate isn't left.

Or favoring tax cuts for the middle class and re-instatement of the taxes on the upper 2 percent isn't left.

Or testifying that we shouldn't go into Iraq isn't left.

I guess about the only thing that isn't "left" about Wes is that he actually stood up to Bush, which is more than any Dems currently running (save Kucinich) can say.

[calteacherguy]

11. Hard to say, but odds are he's on her very, very, verrry short list. nt

[cobalt1999]

32. I agree, he is definitely on the short list

I suspect that list isn't more than 2 names long either.

[Duppers]

15. yep, I said this last night in 2 other threads.

You're right on, but I don't support Hillary, Wes Clark or not.
BUT I'll have a 'vote for Clinton' sign in my yard if she's on the ticket. Sigh.

Gen. Clark appeals to the right-leaning independents. Anyone with 'Gen.' in front of their name would.

He's already acting as if he is. Even Maher said so in his 'after the show' video clip last night.

[ginchinchili]

17. If Clark was Hillary's running mate I might consider voting for her.

It's the only way I'd even consider it. Other than that, I won't waste my time driving to the polls and casting a losing vote. I don't want to be party to the Hillary failure. Perhaps the Democrats will eventually wise up and start supporting real leaders as their presidential nominees, like Wes Clark in 2004 and Joe Biden in 2008. But I'm not holding my breath. For a long time now I've thought that the Republicans do not have our nation's best interests at heart, but I'm beginning to think it's more than just a Republican phenomenon; it's an American thing. We get what we deserve.

[Adelante]

18. No. There is no deal.

He thinks she is the best candidate. Any nominee will, of course, consider Clark for VP or a cabinet position. He's got a lot to offer any Dem administration. He has said there is no deal with Clinton and I have every reason to believe him. He has also said he wants to serve the nation again in some capacity, so if asked, I think the VP answer would be Yes. But there are very many levels to Clark's experience, talent and expertise leading to very many possibilities as to where he might serve. There are the obvious, SoS, SoD (with an exemption), NSA director, but he is also a disaster preparedness and recovery expert, so FEMA could be on any list, or EPA, or Commerce, etc., etc.

There is an extremely weak point you make. Clark is no ideologue. He has connections to every corner of the party, including DLC types, because he believes in finding common ground when he can in order to accomplish things. He just doesn't play this small tent game and it confuses some people.

[karynnj]

19. I think a better reason is to look at what area HRC could need help in

On domestic issues, as a general election candidate, she can position herself further to the right than many Democrats, by some of the things BC did, while taking credit for any "Democratic" program that worked. The Republican will clearly be to her right, so she will need no help here.

But, for all the Clintons attempts,2001 - 2006, to define strong national security with a more militant stand than most Democrats took, she really does not have strong national security credentials. Clark is among the few Democrats that does. (Gore and Kerry did as well, though they are not anywhere near as likely.) Richardson is another possibility. (Neither Edwards or Obama do either, so Clark could be a possibility with the others.)

That Edwards and Obama are attacking her now does not mean they won't be considered, Edwards was calling Kerry's near universal heath insurance plan and his environmental/alternative energy programs unaffordable the week before Kerry clinched the nomination.

I think that HRC's VP and Secretary of State will face a strange dynamic. Hillary Clinton has already spoken of the role that Bill Clinton could play in the world. In a way, he will swallow a lot of the more significant roles of at least the Secretary of State. There were stories in the 1990s, that Gore was either the most influential VP in history and opposite ones that said he thought that Hillary was the de facto VP. Here, as Clinton is an ex-President and is known to take all the oxygen in the room, it will be interesting to see how this will work when others have those positions.

[Donna Zen]

24. I can't imagine

Senator Clinton ever admitting that she is light on security/foreign policy matters. Putting extra credentials on the bottom of the ticket might send the wrong message...and message is everything. Holbrooke is part of the Senator's A Team, and if he doesn't get his long-held wish of SoS, I pity the person who does. Holbrooke was very big on invading Saddam. I've seen a few names bantied about for SoD...none of them were Clark.

You are correct: with Pres. Clinton around, SoS, VP and any other job, may be the target of a serious tug-o-war.

[karynnj]

38. I thought Clark hadn't been out long enough for SoD

You might be right on not putting some one strong on those issues on the ticket. If they did, I assume they would take pains to sell it as both being extraordinary. (That actually makes sense - had Kerry picked someone like Hart, he could have made the point that both were unusually competent on terrorism - by having Clark or Hart speak of both their prescience on it - which Edwards could not do.)

[Donna Zen]

46. SoD=10 years out

Clark doesn't make that cut although a Dem. congress could grant him a waiver. I don't think that is the sticking point. I'm just hearing other names being touted and they don't include General Clark's. As you know, there are many reasons why people get appointed to these positions. To some degree it matters who is doing pushing and for whom. I should have saved the list I read, but I didn't bother.

During the Kerry days of speculation, I wrote a post on one of Will Pitt's threads about "Make Your Best Case." Although I had no idea whether or not the General was interested in the vp position (I don't think he was,) I made my case. One element that favored having Clark on the ticket was the "story." One purple-heart vet returns and protests; one purple-heart vet stays in to heal the Army. Now the two come together in brotherhood to bring the two sides of 'Nam together and fight to save the nation once again.

I thought that Kerry needed that story to negate the throwing the medals crap that was coming. In April a NC vet told me what the "Swiftboaters" were cooking up.

I fully understand why Edwards was Kerry's choice. Youth, and to be honest, the trial lawyers' bucks were very important. I think if Clinton wins the nomination, her handlers will want youth and a picture perfect family on the ticket---no need to say more. That is why I'm leaning Bayh (10 million in the bank) although that will probably lead to a loss in the Senate.

During the summer of 04, I was told that the 08 ticket would be Clinton/Richardson. Personally, I think Richardson has a huge problem, but who am I to say?

[Eurobabe]

20. Wes Clark as Veep? Bring it on!

:patriot:

[wyldwolf]

22. Just a couple of corrections

It's Bill Richardson with the most pronounced DLC connections - he's actually a member. Then it would be John Edwards, who was a member.

Edwards and Kerry attacked each other in 2004.

[Donna Zen]

23. Richardson is DLC

He ushered in NAFTA and he supported John Bolton. I would think that he is perfect for a Clinton ticket.

[janx]

25. Impossible to say!

The Clintons seem to like him. :shrug: The Arkansas overkill might be troublesome though.

[DFW]

26. Finally a thread concerning Hillary that neither pumps or disses her

Wes Clark is from Arkansas, so there is a connection. Wes is also
a down to earth guy who happens to be a mighty intellect. I think he
could be as good a vice-president as Al Gore (well, close, anyway).

I would be fine with him as VP. He certainly would make a ticket with
Hillary more appealing, although I don't have nearly the problems with
her as some do.

I guess Gore-Clark comes under the category of "too much of a good thing."

[wyldwolf]

28. but still with it's share of inaccuracies

[DFW]

29. C'mon, ya can't pick on every little detail.....

LOL!!

I was just intrigued to see a thread that neither deified her nor made her out to Lucifer's right hand man.

[cuke]

33. It's progress

(Now how sad is that to say on a progressive website?)

[surfermaw]

27. I don't know about the running togeather, some say he got in to stop Edwards in the last election

So as to give Hillary a chance to run this term, If Edwards had won, he surely would have run for two terms, that would have knocked Hillary out for another 4 years.

[FrenchieCat]

30. Wes Clark "got in to stop" Edwards.....who at the time that Clark got in, in'03, was polling at 2%?

Yeah....OK! :eyes:

Maybe Clark got in to run for President to specifically stop Bush?

Every thought about that one? :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

31. can you, perhaps, links to anyone who said that? I thought I'd heard it all on DU about Clark

[CarolNYC]

36. Yeah, I'd like to see links to that too...

The Howard Dean thing I'd heard about...and I don't doubt that there were some anxious to see Clark in the race because they were uncomfortable with Howard Dean's lead for whatever the reason...but pushing Clark into the race to stop Edwards? That's pretty funny.

[Clark2008]

62. Psstt... one small point: Edwards wouldn't have won.

He's too flakey.

:hi:

[DrFunkenstein]

34. It Was The Clintons Who Got The Arkansan to Run in 2004

With their eyes clearly on a run in 2008, the Clintons put together a strong organizational effort to put Wesley Clark in the mix. I suppose that is because they were willing to wait until 2012 for Hillary to run and they really wanted Clark to win the Presidency. I suppose it would be hard to imagine that the Clintons introduced Clark to the race to deflate the run by Howard Dean, who was well ahead at this point in the game.

I suppose that Hillary Clinton came out strongly against Kerry's botched Iraq joke because the badly told joke truly infuriated her enough to give the Republicans a few news cycles before the tight 2006 elections, and not because she wanted to eliminate a potential competitor at all costs.

I suppose Wesley Clark's allegiance to the Clintons comes from a position of independence and not out of hope for some position in a potential Clinton administration.

Nevertheless, I cannot see how a giving the VP slot to another Arkansan that occupies roughly the same political part of the spectrum would sufficiently add enough to the ticket to figure into Clinton's carefully poll-tested calculations. I just don't think Mark Penn would go for it.

[FrenchieCat]

56. If Jimmy Carter is a "Clinton"...then Yes, The Clintons got Clark to run!

Clark "Talked to Jimmy Carter in 2002 and was urged to run for President. Didn't think he was qualified Carter told him he was as qualified as anyone, because he commanded NATO. He had worked with heads of state, worked with administrations and congress, worked on strategy, negotiated peace accords, etc Has always been involved in international big picture stuff and there isn't much call for that in Arkansas."
http://securingamerica.com/node/1480

KING: We know you don't get involved in the primaries. Do you have any thought on General Wesley Clark coming in?

CARTER: I'm glad he's come in. I know Wesley Clark fairly well. I've talked to him a few times. Just two candidates have asked my opinion about whether they should run for president or not, and I've advised both of them to become candidates, and he's one of them. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/19/lkl.00.html

[surfermaw]

35. Wouldn't we then be voting for two former Republicans

wes Clark, narrowly beat Edwards in Oklahoma as did Kerry in Iowa, Edwards spent a lots of time in S.C and won, if Clark hadn't gotten in, he would have won Oklahoma, South Carolina and Iowa....

[CarolNYC]

37. No n/t

[Cameron27]

39. NO

[venable]

40. I'm afraid, technically, yes. nt

[Cameron27]

44. What is technically a yes?

[venable]

47. they both have clear Republican sympathies in their background

Hers is a matter of record (Goldwater girl), his has been discussed here ad infinitum, but basically boils down to him doing fundraisers for, and supporting, Republicans.

I say 'technically' because I don't think either are Republicans now, though I think Clark is farther from his complex past than she is from her complex past/present/future.

(clumsy way of saying I think she has more possibility of Republican-like behavior than does he. I think he has decided where his heart is, and i trust him to follow it more than I trust her fidelity to her heart, or even her knowledge of her heart)

This is my opinion, and understanding of their pasts.

[Cameron27]

48. He gave a speech on foreign policy

at a GOP fundraiser, and he did exactly the same thing for the Democrats a week later. Clark's been very straight forward about his desire to educate people of any party or any country for that matter. That's why he accepted the position at Fox; he'll talk to allies and opponents alike to get his message out.

He was a registered Independent before he became a Democrat, which is reasonable since as a commander of thousands of troops with varying political stripes, he'd want to appear as politically neutral as possible.

[venable]

52. Is that the speech in which he said something like

"thank goodness we have this team (Cheney, Rummy, etc) in place in this time of great need" ? (not verbatim, obviously)

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. I'm afraid that was a terrible abuse of the word "technically"

There is no way that a person who never belonged to the Republican Party for a single day in his life can "technically" be called a former Republican. You got the whole thing reversed, right? You meant to say that "technically" he was never actually a Republican although he had voted for some in the past. Sort of like Marcos at Daily Kos, or Arianna Huffington at Huffington Post, or Senator James Webb, except that those leftists and/or Democrats not only voted for Republicans more recently than Clark, they actually were Republicans more recently than the last time Clark voted for one.

[venable]

51. fine, let's not say 'technically', but I don't know why it's not OK

to acknowledge his support of, and public statements admiring, Republicans.

I state my belief that he is genuinely not one now, but - like his at-the-very-least-mixed early statements on the Iraq war, and the WOT - it is not allowed that he might be less than perfect.

Tom R., you and I have gone over this respectfully in the past, and I trust this is taken in the same spirit. I like him. I just don't like hagiography.

My guy Edwards has done and said things I disagree with. I don't think he's a saint. I would hope that supporters of all candidates see the whole person, and not some idealized icon.

JFK and RFK and Carter - all people I admire without hesitation - all had weaknesses and foibles. It appears to most that Clark has some past 'flirtation' with the Republican party, and an early, educated, articulate, and clear support of the IWR and doing something about Saddam. He changed his mind and lobbied against it, but the early statements can not be erased. I don't think that either his republican past or his early musings on the war should be held against him, not in the least. But it's as if these entirely reasonable and not wholly indicting facts are considered lies.

My response earlier was to those who simply wrote, re him being a Republican: "NO". It is simply not that unequivocal.

[ShortnFiery]

69. The NYT supports your assertion that Clark is a former Republican.

:shrug:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E6DB133AF93AA2575AC0A9659C8B63

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

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

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. But there is no supporting quote and that reporter was notorious...

...for taking liberties with what Democrats actually said all throughout the 2004 campaign. I trust that reporters word for it as much as I trust Bush's Press Secretary to give an accurate summation of anything. We know Clark had voted for some Republican presidential candidates prior to Clinton and that has always been an excuse for some to blur the issue. It happens here all the time and I think that reporter was capable of it also. Meanwhile I always found it interesting that two of the Democratic Presidents who Clark voted against were so instrumental in his 2004 campaign. Jimmy Carter asked him to run and George McGovern endorsed him.

[venable]

53. And, anyway, 'technically' IS what I meant.

ie they are both clearly not Republicans today, but if one were to be unforgiving in assessing where they have been politically, if one were to look to see if they had ever been Republican in their sympathies, than one would have no choice but to say that, yes, in those stringent terms, they are both, by that definition (ie technically), former Republicans.

Official Party affiliation is not the only measure of Republican-ness.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Bullshit. Have you ever heard of Independents? Is that a radical new concept to you?

If so let me review it with you. And Idependent is someone who does not affiliate with a political party. An Independent is NOT someone who only votes for other people if THEY have not affiliated with a political Party. Virtually all Indpendents have voted for some Republicans and some Democrats in the past. That did not make them Democrats when they voted for a Democrat and Republicans when they voted for a Republican.

[venable]

83. Your post is self-evident, and not news to me.

Given your past posts, and your blog, which I've read a number of times, I'm surprised at your tone, and your unwillingness to even acknowledge my argument, which you clearly have either not understood, or chosen to dismiss out of hand, which is exactly what I mean by hagiography.

(to review my argument, just for the record: he walked and talked like a Republican...so it is 'technically' incorrect to make the blanket statement "NO" when his past is mentioned. The absolute, blanket quality in that exclamation is what is not correct, - technically it is not absolute.)

Obviously, there is no more to be said on this disagreement, at least from me.

Sorry for this development.

[Tom Rinaldo]

84. Venable I'm sorry but these words carry too strong a charge on a political board to use so loosely

A Democrat is a Democrat. A Republican is a Republican. A Green is a Green. And an Independent is an Independent. If instead you had said that there were times in Clark's life when he had Republican leanings, I would not have bothered to dispute you, but even the difference between that and BEING a Republican is far more than technical.

I would give you a pass on "prior Republican leanings" although even there the truth is more complicated. You seem to not even acknowledge that Independents often do split ticket voting. During the time when Clark had Republican leanings on the National level; because of his focus on national security and his concerns about how to best contain the Soviet Union, Clark had Democratic leanings on the State and local level; because of his consistently liberal orientation on matters of class, race, unions, equality of women, a women's right to choose, free speech and the right to dissent, the environment, and so on.

Clark did not need a wholescale reevaluation of his core values to become a Democrat. With the end of the Cold War he concluded that Democrats were the National Party that gained the best perspective for how America then needed to re-orient itself to the world, and with that conclusion there went Clark's basis for holding Republican leanings on the National level, making his entry into the Democratic Party a smooth transition for him.

I don't concede this point to you Venable, and I am passionate about it I admit, because rooted in the legal definition of the words and working up from there you are wrong to claim that Clark "was a Republican". Clark did not Register as a Republican and prior to ceasing to be a registered Independent Clark chose to participate in Democratic primaries as was his right and choice to make in Arkansas. He never called himself a Republican, and he did not consider himself a Republican. He registered as an Indendent, he called himself an Independent, he considered himself an Independent, and he acted like an Independent who concluded for a period of time that Republican Presidents were best equipped to deal with America's National Security issues. If you take the latter and frame it to say Clark supported Republicans for President over Democrats prior to Clinton, that's Okie Dokie with me. That doesn't make him a former Republican. It makes him an Independent who voted for some Republicans in Presidential elections.

[Adelante]

41. Are you under the impression Gen. Clark was once a Republican?

He was not at any time in his life a Republican.

[ShortnFiery]

65. According to the NYT Clark STATED that he was "A Republican" and he would have voted FOR the IWR.

How's "two war hawks" as running mates sound on the Democratic Ticket?

Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: September 19, 2003

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E6DB133AF93AA2575AC0A9659C8B63

''At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question,'' General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: ''I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position -- on balance, I probably would have voted for it.''

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

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

----------------

The oft typed adage comes to mind, "You're entitled to your own opinion but NOT to your own facts. :shrug: ;)

[Clark2008]

70. Nagourney is a shill.

Clark was NEVER a Republican.

Clark has never been registered as a Republican. During his Army service he registered to vote as an independent (as do many career military officers) in his home state of Arkansas . Clark says he voted for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan out of concern for national security during the Vietnam and Cold War years. But he says later he found Republicans to be “shrill” and “isolationist.” And so he says he voted for fellow Arkansas resident Bill Clinton and most recently for Al Gore, both Democrats. Clark changed his voter registration to Democrat only after retiring from the Army in 2000 and declaring himself a candidate for the party’s nomination late in September, 2003.

http://www.factcheck.org/was_wesley_clark_a_republican.html

Proving that neither YOU nor Nagourney is entitled to your own facts, either.

:hi:

[ShortnFiery]

72. So the man is LYING? That's a tough call. I'm not inclined to accept even a shill would flatly lie

No, I believe Clark said what he said. Otherwise he would have challenged the article, which he did NOT. :shrug:

On edit: Please recall that one of the worst republican shills, Tucker Carlson, reported Bush's callous attitude a woman on death row? "Oh Please do not kill me?" ;)

[Clark2008]

79. Nagourney would lie.

Yes.

He's a hack, a shill and not a very good reporter. I had lots of trouble with his "reporting" when I was working for Clark in 2004. He rarely got things right... erm... correct.

But, in any case, Clark was NEVER a registered Republican. He voted for a couple, but he was never registered as a Republican. Hell, I've voted for a couple of Republicans in my lifetime - and I'm also not registered as a Dem or a Republican.

In most Southern states, one does not have to declare Party affliation. I haven't and Clark didn't until after he retired from the military.

We can still vote in primaries, too. We simply must choose on election day in which primary we'll vote.

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. I replied to this point above...

Some think there is a fine line between distorting and lying. Others think there is no line there at all, it is all simply lying. Let's just say that the reporter in question has a habit of distorting much the way that Bush's Press Secretary does.

Clark did immediately challenge that aritcle of course but he focused on the distortion that clearly mattered the most at the time; regarding his opinion of the IWR options open to Democrats preceding the vote that took place on the version that finally passed. That was much more important politically to clarify at the time. Clark is on record numerous other places with direct quotes and audio and video loops talking about having been an Independent all his life, never a Democrat or Republican, influenced at the Presidential level by his national security concerns at the time, but liberal on domestic issues of the sort candidates for lesser offices run on.

[Texas_Kat]

82. Nagourney is famously slanted and spins like a top

No less than Glenn Greenwald is concerned with Nagourney's slanting stories to smear Democrats..... and it's not just about Wes Clark.

Here's Greenwald's take on Nagourney and the Times pushing the Edwards Breck Girl persona:

http://susiemadrak.com/2007/04/24/04/42/eat-the-press/

.... if the New York Times uncritically publishes petty, anonymous personal smear quotes about Democratic candidates in its front page section without printing any response or critical analysis of any kind, that actually has the effect of helping to introduce such smears into our political discourse? Apparently, it took Nagourney three years to discover that novel journalistic insight.

[Clark2008]

63. No.

Clark was never a Republican.

Hasn't this bit of historically incorrect crap played through, yet?

[sampsonblk]

42. I sure hope so!-nt

[ronnykmarshall]

43. OH MY GOD!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHjFxJVeCQs

[janx]

45. !!!!

:rofl:

[CK_John]

50. Hillary needs a winner for VP, Gov K Sebelius would be better. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

54. If Rudy Giuliani is the nominee, Hillary won't pick Clark--

one word why: AIPAC. I don't believe Clark is seen as Israel-friendly enough, and that will hurt Hillary against Rudy, who is the darling of AIPAC. Just something to factor in here. I think that's why she voted for Kyl-Lieberman, too--and why Clark is sticking up for her vote now.

edit to add: Richardson ranks pretty high in "the Israel Factor"--he might just be the VP pick--I also think he's more respected than Clark by Repubs--more crossover appeal.

[ShortnFiery]

58. OMG! It seems that I can't support any of these people save for Kucinich.

They're so distanced from the "values and needs" of the average hard working American. Their interests all seemingly lie with Corporate American, Big Oil and AIPAC? I can't relate to the foregoing AT ALL. :(

[Clark2008]

57. Clark has no DLC connections.

Edwards and Kerry did, but not Clark.

He does have Clinton connections, having been under President Clinton's command as CinC.

But, if Hillary wants to win this thing, she'd do well to pick him. He can bring back some white male Dem and Indie voters to the HRC campaign.

[ShortnFiery]

59. But if HRC wins it's not wrong to believe that the DLC will be a large part of The Executive Branch

and/or staffing? - Both Clintons are LEADERS within the DLC?

[Clark2008]

64. No - it's not wrong to believe that, but the OP didn't say that.

The OP said Clark has DLC connections - and, other than the fact that he happened to be a four-star career general commanding a war during Clinton's presidency, that is a false statement.

The OP said that Clark will be picked because OF his DLC connections. He doesn't have any direct DLC connections. He was never a member.

I was making that point - not a point regarding who will or won't be her VP and cabinet picks.

[ShortnFiery]

66. Thanks for the clarification. I humbly stand corrected. n/t

[BootinUp]

68. That was very big of you.

:)

[ShortnFiery]

71. No, it's called accepting when one has been in error - and making the mental and open correction.

:shrug: I'm sure that you would do the same ... admit if a statement typed had inadvertently been in error? ;) :hi:

[BootinUp]

74. I meant that

and I try to do the same.

[ShortnFiery]

75. Very Good. Thank you.

:-) :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. They would have some real influence I suspect...

...but they would not comfortably be running the whole show. Both Clintons, but maybe Hillary more than Bill, IMO seem to "triangulate" between Democratic centrists and Democratic liberals. Sometimes the centrists come out on top, some times the liberals do; it varies case by case and situation to situation though it seems the Clintons lean left on social values issues and lean centrist on economic ones. Even that breaks down somewhat though, they can flash conservative about back to work programs and liberal about universal health care coverage for example.

Having said that I have no doubt whatsoever that DLC Democrats would get some significant appointments in an Administration headed by any of our current canidadates other than Kucinich and Gravel. With Clinton more so than most others no doubt, but they will be represented with all of them. What bothers me about how some now describe Hillary is when they make it sound like she triangulates between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dick Cheney's positions. The truth is much closer to the spread between Tim Harkin and Diane Feinstein. Hilary isn't who I wanted to have win the nomination. You know I wanted Clark but I would have been pleased with Gore or Feingold, and I see some advantages in Biden or Dodd over Clinton also.

But I do not believe Clinton is a genuine war monger - her husband wasn't and she would not be either once in office. I do not have to claim that either of them have the best foreign policy we can hope for from an American President in order to clearly support Clinton over whoever the Republicans will nominate. Clinton thinks she has to pander somewhat to the center right in order to get elected come November since the Right wing has her tagged as a flaming Liberal. That is unfortunate for several reasons, but she has been very good on Judicial nominations for example, having opposed both of Bush's Supreme Court nominees - even that so called charming Roberts character. Supreme Court appoointments will be a major arena for the next President to bring influence to bear in.

[Adelante]

78. This point seems hard to grasp here, but you're right

"DLC Democrats would get some significant appointments in an Administration headed by any of our current canidadates other than Kucinich and Gravel"

[BootinUp]

81. I agree with your characterization

of the Clintons. It was an advantage to Bill in national elections and also speaks to his ability to build coalitions to pass legislation. As for Hillary's tough national security stance, I believe it is splitting hairs a little with the Obama for instance to say she has taken tougher stances. Biden and Dodd have differentiated themselves more, but in practice I do not see their administrations being much different than a Clinton administration as far as national security. Its more positioning for domestic politics imho.

[BootinUp]

61. It doesn't work that way

and I would be very surprised if Clark is chosen to be on the ticket. We democrats don't like to win elections by large margins lol.

[truebrit71]

73. I don't know...but Wes was REALLY on the Hillary kick on Bill Maher's show last week...

....might persuade me to soften my stance somewhat....