What do Clark supporters think of Kerry exposing Clark's hidden records?

[TLM]

From...

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0110b.html

The way Clark listed his considerable speaking income is confusing and is not particularly forthcoming. His disclosure form lists the following:

Seven specific entities that paid Clark “speakers fees” totaling $20,926.
Speaking fees of $1,410,580 from “Greater Talent Network, Inc (NY). Greater Talent is Clark’s speaker’s bureau. He does not break out the original sources of these speakers fees/honorarium.



So let me see if i have this correct... Clark got over a million bucks prior to his sudden conversion to the democratic party and his revelation he would run for president despite having no experience in an elected office, and he won’t disclose who gave him that money?

As I recall the Clark supporters here on DU were recently making all kinds of noise about Howard Dean and Vermont state records and openness and accountability. Yet unlike Clark, Dean made the sources of his speaking fees public quite some time ago.



http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-dean10.html

Dean's fees and charitable donations were legal and did not have to be disclosed under Vermont law but were detailed in correspondence and tax records reviewed by the Associated Press.


So I wonder... are Clark supporters going to demand from Clark the same level of openness and disclosure they so emphatically demand from Dean? Or will this be another double standard for Clark?

[Bombtrack]

1. Yes

There has been no refusal from Clark's campaign thus far, and they should do what they can to clarify the info

And what do you mean by "another double standard"

[TLM]

5. What are you talking about? Clark already refused to answer the question.

Listing "Greater Talent Network" instead of the actual source(s) of the fees is in itself a refusal to answer the question fully and openly.

Why hide the source of these fees in the first place?



And by another double standard I mean all the things Clark has said and done that he gets a pass on that no other dem running would get away with.

If Kerry went to a republican fundraiser in 2001 and said we really need Bush and his crew in the white house...

If Dean came out tomorrow and said that he really feels Reagan was a truly great leader who ended the cold war and saved the military...

If Edwards had worked as a lobbyist for defense contractors prior to his run for office...

If Gephardt had no democratic record, and never held elective office before and only became a dem to run for president...

Their campaigns would be over.

And now, if Gephardt or Dean or Kerry or Edwards got a million and a half bucks in speaking fees prior to suddenly deciding to switch parties to run for president, and then hid the source(s) in their disclosure forms... what would happen to them?


That's why I mean by double standards.

[Turkw]

27. Is there a standard form in disclosure that lists how, and to what degree

a candidate must break down his or her disclosures? If not, then there is no refusal if it is only in a different form or degree on different areas. This IS DIFFERENT than sealing records. When an actual REFUSAL happens, then you there might be an issue. Anything before is hysterical hyperbole.

[slinkerwink]

28. we'll see what happens and if the clark campaign refuses....

then I'd say you have a problem on your hand, folks.

[Turkw]

33. It is an if at this point, and you guys are doing OK with Dean's Sealed

records, we will just have to see.

[TLM]

90. Dean records are not sealed....

the vast ajority are open tot he public, and those not open to teh public have been opened for judicial review.

And Dean already made public the soruces of hsi speaking fees... and he did not try to hide them behind some parent company.

[TLM]

85. Come on now... don;t you agree it is pretty obvious...

when asked to disclose sources of money given to you, that they want the sources of the money.... not your speaking company acting as an umbrella facade to hide the actual sources of the money?

[Democrats unite]

40. Clark has refused to answer something?

I sure am glad Dean hasn't refused to release something that happens to be public documents. Talk about hypocrisy!

[LuminousX]

43. It is Kerry bringing this point up

So why are you trying to deflect it onto Dean?

[bitchkitty]

67. I won't say that you're a liar,

but you are deliberately withholding one little fact - Dean has not refused to release his records. It is now in the hands of a judge. Smart move on Dean's part - now when the judge decides what to release, the usual suspects won't be able to whine about it. Not that simple facts will stop them.

Vermont Cheddar, anyone?

[TLM]

93. Did you miss this part too? Maybe I need to make it bigger?

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-dean10.html

Dean's fees and charitable donations were legal and did not have to be disclosed under Vermont law but were detailed in correspondence and tax records reviewed by the Associated Press.

Dean already made the sources of his speaking fees public.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[TLM]

88. What you just described is called money laundering....

taking what amounts to a bribe from someone, and runnign it through an intermediary to conceal the orginal source.

ANd a million five is a hell of a lot of money for speaking fees.

Something stinks here.

[bearfartinthewoods]

83. i agree. it would be good to know to whom else clark was speaking

[cornermouse]

2. Using Kerry as a source to attack Clark?

Other than not voting for Kerry because of his record, I haven't made up my mind yet, but I can tell you that I don't care for tactics like this.

[TLM]

6. I do not like Kerry's record much either... but he is right on this one.

Hell I knew Clark had taken money in speaking fees, but I had no idea it was that much. I assume most of the Clark supporters didn't know either.

And the fact he intentionally hid the source(s) under a parent company... it really begs the question. I mean a million and a half buck for speaking fees? THat's a whole hell of a lot.

And I want to know if his supporters, who have been so vocal about openness and full disclosure, will hold Clark to the same standards they demand of others.

[cornermouse]

8. And if you're trying to talk me out of Dean, who I like,

you're doing a real good job.

[TLM]

14. How is it talking you out of Dean?

Do you not like that I am supporting Kerry's call for Clark to come clean on this?

Or is it the fact that after hearing Clark folks rant about Dean's records for the last two months, I'm asking those same folks if they'll hold their guy to the same standards?

Where's the part that's turning you off to Dean?

[cornermouse]

17. I like Dean's feisty attitude a lot.

I like his directness. Using Kerry in an attempt to take out Clark reminds me of the typical Bush administration tactics, which irritates me a lot. An indirect attack which smacks of manipulation.

Should Clark make his records public? Yes. Should Dean make a direct request/whatever of Clark? Yes. Should Dean use Kerry to go after Clark? No.

[JNelson6563]

39. I think you insult Senator Kerry here

Do you think Kerry is making these inquiries at the request of Dean? "Dean using Kerry"???

I think Kerry has a mind of his own and if he's going after Clark it's because he knows he is competing with Clark for many of the same votes.

Lastly, do you actually think Kerry would be doing Dean any favors on purpose??

Julie

[cornermouse]

50. Let's go back over this.

A Dean supporter uses quotes from Kerry to go after Clark. The type of attack that would do Bush proud and actually does Dean a disservice. Not untypical of remarks coming from Kerry lately, though.

Kerry has a record of voting for everything Bush wanted. War, tax cuts, patriot act, you name it he voted for it... The remarks he made on Face the Nation, I believe it was, last Sunday. That's another reason that I don't like Kerry.

[JNelson6563]

58. Kerry went after Clark

A Dean supporter merely posted the story. I'm sure one from another camp would've done so if it hadn't already been posted.

And frankly I don't have huge problems with Kerry. Sure I don't care for some of his votes of late but he has a long, distinguished record of being on the right side of many, many battles.

I'd have no problem voting for him in the GE.

Julie

[shivaji]

134. yeah...let's kill the messenger for delivering KERRY's message

why don't we? Will the Clark supporters stoop to the gutter to attack Dean when he is not even involved here?

[LuminousX]

46. How is Dean using Kerry?

Kerry has made a point and that point is now being disseminated.

[slinkerwink]

52. and we're discussing it here

Dean hasn't discussed it all on the stump or in the press releases yet unlike Kerry. Us Dean supporters are discussing it here.

[w13rd0]

100. <BEEP> Kerry is an operative of Dean <BEEP>

<BEEP> Harkin is an operative of Dean <BEEP>
<BEEP> Gore is an operative of Dean <BEEP>
<BEEP> Bradley is an operative of Dean <BEEP>
<BEEP> Jesse Jackson Jr is an operative of Dean <BEEP>
<BEEP> all your bases are belonging to Dean <BEEP>

I should get a ticker tape for this shit, it's HILARIOUS! So now this guy that is hacking off the media (tell US you'll bust us up, how dare ya), the fake do-nothings of the leadership of the Democratic party (I won't say 'democratic establishment, since so damn many of them are now endorsing Dean), Bush, Al From, Joe Lieberman...now he's GOT OPERATIVES EVERYWHERE! WE'RE COMING TO DEANINIZE YOU! OOOOOHHHHH!!!!!! RUN!!!!!!

[TLM]

86. Dean isn;t using Kerry at all... Dean had nothign to do with this.

I'm the one asking this question, because I've seen Dean taking so much shit over hsi records that I want to see if the Clark folks will hold their guy tot he same standard.

Kerry made this issue and so I cited him as the sources, since I know of no other.

Dean's got nothing to do with it.

[Eloriel]

110. Do you think Dean is posting here under the name TLM?

Neither Dean nor his campaign has anything to do with what gets posted here. They're a little busy elsewhere. All of us are Dean supporters.

Eloriel

[cornermouse]

9. I repeat. I do not like these tactics.

[Eloriel]

111. Well, DU hasn't been what you'd prefer

for a long time now. Stick around, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

I'm not disparaging your sentiments -- not at all. Just trying to let you know a little about the Reality of the situation.

Welcome to DU.

Eloriel

[Dover]

118. //

//

[Turkw]

129. See post #27, and there is a lot of money to be made if you are a popular

speaker. Former Presidents make a fortune public speaking. With Clark's two books, his personal history, and his speaking ability, I am not at all surprised he made a ton of money, good for him!

I think that several of the current candidates could be highly sought after as speakers no matter who wins the nomination, Clark, Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton among the top.

[jadesfire]

135. Which part of his record

record do you have a problem with?

the single vote on the IWR (which has been hashed out ten thousand and four times and we all know was essentially the same as the biden-lugar amendment; and that your candidate was making statements about taking unilateral action in Iraq before trippi decided to court the anti-war movement)

-or-


are you talking about his lifetime of service to the country which includes serving in and then returning from Vietnam to found Vietnam
Veterans Against the War, Marching for the Equal Right's Amendment and holding a voting record that is honored by environmentalists, law enforcement, civil rights advocates, veteran's and women's groups, glbt organizations, and his time in Congress that resulted in the end of the Iran-Contra dealings and brought a close to the pain and suffering of the families of POWs/MIAs in Vietnam?

Just wondering...

[maddezmom]

Clark should release the records

just like Dean should open his. We need to know who we are voting for, warts and all.

[TLM]

12. Dean already did open his records of speaking fees.

And he didn't need Kerry to goad him into it either. Also Dean didn't get anything near a million and a half bucks in fees.

Dean made a paltry $13,633 in speaking fees and already made the sources public.

[maddezmom]

16. what do you think was in the "package"?

<<But in a 1993 letter to Dean, Primmer wrote that two insurers were sending a gift to the governor, described only as a "package," after Dean met with them to discuss the bill that would provide new tax breaks. Dean signed that bill into law later that year. >>


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/01/09/politics1546EST0686.DTL&type=printable

[TLM]

98. Well read the link....

"Dean's campaign said the governor does not recall what gift was referenced in the letter but said it could have been a token gift or one of several donations or checks Primmer collected to Dean's charity fund. "


The charity fund was for school equipment... so who knows what it was.


No why won't you answer the questions about Clark's million and a half bucks and where it came from?

[jumptheshadow]

32. Um, what about records of tax-supported activities?

We wanted to hear about the nuke plant, and months ago, when Dean should have taken a principled stand to unseal the records.

Nuclear security is a crucial national issue. How could he not have opened those records?

[TLM]

96. The records are unsealed, please be honest....

Most of the records are already public and have been. And the records which were not made public are are being reviewed by a judge... so they are no longer sealed.

[w13rd0]

103. Haha, don't take the bait...

...I read nothing in the original post about Dean. Dean is not the subject. The subject is a question and criticism asked of Clark by Kerry. Regardless how the Clark supporters might opt to try and deflect this, it's got NADA to do with Dean. Contrary to their opinions, I don't think Kerry is an operative of Dean.

[JI7]

3. isn't he calling on clark to disclose or be more open ?

i don't think kerry was able to actually "expose" the info himself though, other than what was already made public.

[TLM]

7. I use expose in the sense of making this public, drawing attention to it

Kerry is putting focus on what Clark seems to have hoped to hide under a little creative accounting.

[deminflorida]

4. Tell your candidate to clean his own house up..

by opening his sealed records first.....

By the way everybody lots of his records are all ready open, see the Dean Tapes at MSNBC:

Here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3908334

[Cheswick2.0]

10. lol

no the same thing, but good try

[TLM]

13. Perhaps you missed this part....

Dean's fees and charitable donations were legal and did not have to be disclosed under Vermont law but were detailed in correspondence and tax records reviewed by the Associated Press.

In other words, Dean's records on speaking fees are already public... have been for quite some time, even though there was no legal requirement in Vermont for him to do so.

So now that we've covered that...maybe you can answer my question about demanding the same of Clark?

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

51. And you're implying

Clark's speaking fees weren't legal?

Let me see...private citizen, ie NOT A POLITICIAN, speaks to groups for cash.

OMG :wow:

This has to be front page news! It's illegal I tell ya' Or at least immoral!

What nefarious evil frame of mind gave this man the idea he had any right to earn a living outside of the military? Doesn't he realize he was supposed to shuffle back to Arkansas & spend his retirement years in genteel poverty?

Don't people here (on all sides) ever get tired of this back & forth crap?

Just once on this forum I would love to see an actual "discussion" without a bunch of innuendo and "gotcha--gotcha back" rhetoric.

[TLM]

99. Speaking fees are legal... bribes are not.

We don't know which they were if he won;t tell us the sources.


Why would he try to hide teh soruces if verything was on the up and up?

If he got a million bucks from some neo-con group or group of Bush cronies just before he suddenly decided to be a democrat and run for office... that sure as hell would raise some serious legal questions.

Don't you agree?

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

117. And just where, anywhere in the posted article

did you see ANYTHING that referred to bribes?

What you have just posted is exactly what I'm talking about here on DU.

Everyone is so frigging busy trying to do a "gotcha" that they don't pay any attention to the facts as posted...nooooooooo that would be way too mature. Let's jump from speaking fees to BRIBES! Bribes just sounds so much more nefarious don'tcha know. Let's get everybody really going...conspiracy theories are sooooooo much more fun than facts.

Who needs facts and reasoned debate...sensationalism is the true measure of politics...ask any journalist.

And we wonder why they feed it to us...LOL...it becomes obvious anytime we drop in at DU. IT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT!

:nuke:

[TLM]

120. I do not, but since Clark won;t disclose the sources...

we have no idea, now do we?

Why try to hide the sources if everything is on the up and up?



Doesn't Clark trust his supporters to know where he got over a million bucks prior to his miraculous conversion tot eh democratic party and decision to run for president?

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

132. Since, as you point out

we have no idea...how about we knock of the snide remarks until we do know.

Stop trying to pretend your doing anything more than instigating with the "bribe" crap.

Hasn't anybody figured out that this is why the majority of our time at DU is spent being at each other's throats instead of doing the best for our candidates.

There isn't a one of these candidates that isn't a universe above Bush, but we spend more damn time ripping them apart than we do ganging up on the real enemy.

Most of us here have already made up our mind as to who we will support and why. For those who haven't the kind of shit slinging that goes on here isn't going to help...unless someone actually thinks behaving like infants in our candidates' name is somehow going to make that undecided voter want to join us in our special little "pig"pen.

We probably do more here to turn undecided voters off than any of our candidates could possibly accomplish. Wouldn't surprise me if a few of them even decided to vote repub because we sure don't offer a climate condusive to pointing out that we're different than they are.

It's disgusting.

[Birthmark]

11. SSDD <yawn>

[TLM]

15. So is that a yes or a no...

to demanding the same level of openness and disclosure from Clark as from Dean?

[jumptheshadow]

35. As I posted before

Yes, Clark should open any relevant records.

We need to see any pertinent information related to candidates before the nomination.

Dean didn't open his, and that was both a strategic and a character failure.

[TLM]

101. One more time.... DEAN ALREADY MADE HIS RECORDS ON THIS PUBLIC

Dean's records on charitable gifts and speaking fees are public, and were reviewed by the AP in the link I quoted in my first post.


So stop trying to turn this back on Dean to avoid addressing the fact that Clark is HIDING the source of over a million bucks given to him before he sudenly decided to become a democrat and run for president.

[Padraig18]

18. Hmmmmmm...VERY interesting.

I'd sure like to see some consistency on this issue, because the calls for disclosure on Dean's part suddenly ring hollow, unless there is.

[slinkerwink]

19. *rings hollow*

there's a double standard at work here :shrug: doesn't surprise me!

[Padraig18]

20. Nope.

Although most Clark supporters here are quite rational, decent sorts, there are a handful who seem to think that Gen. Clark should be exempt fropm the same sort of scrutiny that is applied to every other candidate. I find that most telling, and view their posts accordingly, in light of that warped view. :)

[slinkerwink]

21. I have to say they're a very vocal lot.

:shrug:

[Padraig18]

42. Vocal isn't a problem.

It's the small 'ass hat vocal group' that aletrnately amuse and enrage me, and every campaign has such a group--- even our own, much to my embarrassment. :shrug:

[funky_bug]

75. As a Clark supporter

I fully expect he'll answer these "charges" in an upfront manner... as he has already shown himself to do.

Just wait it out... or battle it out and eat your words later. My 2-cents.

[TLM]

105. Upfront.... Clark has shown himself not to be upfront.

He showed he is not upfront by hiding the sources of this money under some parent company.

That's not being upfront.

[Skwmom]

22. Are the Dean supporters going to demand full and open

disclosure from Dean?

[maddezmom]

23. of course they're not n/t

[slinkerwink]

29. because a judge is going through 40% of Dean's records while

60% are open to the public. We'll believe what an objective source (the judge) has to say on those records.

[TLM]

104. Dean already made full and open disclosure of the source of his fees.

As I noted in my first post... so why continue to dishonestly act as if he has not done so to avoid addressign the fact Clark clearly hid the source of over a million bucks given to him before the elections?

[Skwmom]

24. Stop the presses - Clark got money for giving speeches

just like MANY other people do. The man would be a very interesting speaker with his background.

[TLM]

107. He got almost a million and a half bucks...

and then hid the orginal sources of that money on his disclosure forms.

Spin all you want, but that's a big f-ing deal.

[Turkw]

25. perhaps Clark should refuse to disclose, BEFORE you accuse him of refusing

It is quite possible that he will, he has been VERY forth coming about his record. He has even told who he has voted for- you do know that voting is done by secret ballot, there is nothing that states you have to tell anyone who you voted for.

I see a LOT of Dean supporters who are VERY VOCAL about bashing Clark posting here, before and more than anyone else.

[slinkerwink]

26. how can we believe what clark says?

you can't produce proof of your vote---Clark could've easily voted Bush and lied about it. Plus, doesn't Clark being a lobbyist for a company that championed the use of the Patriot Act bother you?

[Turkw]

30. There is a mixed bag of things in the patriot act, some need to be

modified, some kept, and some thrown out. Some of the updates and new tools are needed, but my problem is with over site. We need Judicial review of many of the new tools. Since Clark has stated that the Patriot Act needs to be reviewed I an not bothered.

[Turkw]

31. How can we believe anything than any candidate says?

This is a sword that cuts both ways, We can go into great detail about Changes in what people have said.

[slinkerwink]

34. I wouldn't trust Clark since he helped Axicom collect names on

every woman, man, and child in America for Homeland Security.

[Turkw]

36. Please give us a detailed outline of exactly how we are supposed to

find, list, and prevent criminals and terrorists from coming into the US, or getting and using planes. Hopefully it is more than Dean's security for nuclear plants.

[slinkerwink]

45. when it involves putting our citizens on the list?!

instead of focusing on known terrorist groups in the US....and Clark, by doing this, shows that he really doesn't care about the erosion of civil liberties by the Patriot Act.

[Turkw]

128. Some of our citizens ARE terrorists, and they tend to be RW extremists

We need to go after them also. Bombing abortion clinics, shooting doctors, robbing banks, Blowing up a building-including the daycare- to get at a government office. I am all for going after them.

[TLM]

108. Clark already refused to disclose....

When he listed some parent company instead of the disclosing the orginal sources on the disclosure form.

[jpgpenn]

37. Kerry is the other Lieberman

I was a strong supporter of Kerry but this latest attempt to smear Clark has taken that away. I think all info pertaining to all candidates should be made public. This was more then that, his campaign seen a slight glimmer of hope in his dismal failure of a message and appeal. They have taken a postion now to say and do anything for a vote.

This is exactlly the same postion Leiberman has taken. They have hardly a following and when all is said and done I think this campiagn process will virtually end their carreer as they know it.

Perhaps these 2 guys should focus more on why 1 needs to appear on FAUX News so often and the other needs to borrow against his own home for lack of support. Negative attacks against those they once called friend will only show them as the spineless bastards as they are.

[JNelson6563]

60. Well apparently your idea didn't fly on its own

Perhaps it was too inflammatory, hence the locking.

Julie

[jpgpenn]

63. The topic was locked because

of the rules pertaining to posting a new subject heading, NOT the message.

Look at it from this stand point, I WAS a very strong Kerry supporter. That was of course until he showed just how pathetic he could be. The way I see he has burned the wrong bridges in his zeal to get what he wants. I also know i'm not alone in thinking this way.

[Killarney]

38. Holy crap!

He got money for giving speeches!
Oh my God... the horror... the horror...
:boring:

[BootinUp]

41. Yes, and he was spreading his war mongering too :)

What a world!

[xultar]

56. Hide the women and childeren....AHHHH the HORRORR!!!! n/t

[SahaleArm]

44. Why is this thread mostly filled with Dean supporters?

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
- hypocrite adjective

[LuminousX]

47. Actually, this is about pointing out Clark's hypocrisy

but that's okay, it's early.

[SahaleArm]

48. LOL - Sealed records, what sealed records? Let me call a judge...

And let me get my good friend the VT AG to help make sure the public never sees this stuff. What a joker...

[slinkerwink]

49. um......this judge happens to be arbitrately assigned to this case

but believe what you will, okay.

[SahaleArm]

53. Laughable - Dean could have waived privilege months ago n/t

[slinkerwink]

54. but no one would have believed him when he released some of those

40% records, so why not have a third party do it? That way more questions won't be aimed at Dean, "What else are you hiding?" Let the judge do it, and that's fair to me.

[SahaleArm]

91. Release it all with names/addresses redacted as per state law n/t

[SahaleArm]

92. *double post* n/t

[JVS]

116. Dean is popular, that's why. What do you expect, Lieberman fans?

[xultar]

55. Thanks John Kerry! For getting this issue out into the open so that

KKKarl Rove won't have to during the General Election!

Just goes to show, when you're a frontrunner they can't wait to talk about you!

WES WILL WIN!!

[Bucky]

61. Correction, "this non-issue out in the open."

By the way, there's no hiding, no sealed records, no cover up. Nothing was hidden. Behind all of Kerry's fireworks is this: Clark made a full disclosure of his income, but Kerry is asking him to clarify one item on the disclosure form.

This non-issue will blow over in a week. Probably about the time Kerry starts to draft his withdrawal speech. For which he will not get paid.

[Bucky]

57. Sure. He should disclose. It's clear he wasn't hiding anything, tho.

This is significantly less than a scandal. Clark was asked to disclose where he got his money, not where his employer got its money from. I'm sure Clark will show who was paying a retired general and military hero money to give speeches. I won't be surprised if among the people who hired a general to give a speech are defense contractors. and large corporations. Large corporations are among the people who pay good money for top speakers.

I'm especially eager to see the content of those speeches. Clark is a hell of a good wordsmith. Kerry's attempt to paint Clark as a special interest stooge is going to back fire as long as Clark can put the emphasis on what he was actually being paid to say. Kerry's tactics will be successful if the focus ends up on a glib "guilt by association" mentality.

[slinkerwink]

59. defense contractors?

that's even worse!

[Larry Gude]

66. May I ask a question...

...what, exactly, will Gov. Deans sealed records reveal that will be a 'big' deal?

Imaginations welcome...

[KaraokeKarlton]

71. They will reveal this...

That everyone whining and bitching over them being sealed were wasting their time and energy. There's nothing in those records but private letters to Governor Dean from private citizens and advisors. We'll hear about what people wrote to him, THEIR opinions, views, questions and comments. They won't hurt Dean at all and those pissing and moaning over them will look lame, petty and inane.

[Bucky]

82. Yes, defense contractors. Who'd you think would get an exgeneral to speak?

It's not a crime to talk to people in the weapons industry. Jeeze, do you want our candidates to pass a virginity test? That's not the only people he talked to--not for a million dollars. But that's clearly where this smear is going.

Clark, just so you'll know, is on record for CUTTING the defense budget and thinks that the defense contracts is the first place to cut. He's right, we're overarmed. But we need a president who can muster the political muscle to win the inevitable fight.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

64. Dean: Fifth of all money in first months came from energy sources

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/43125.html

MONTPELIER — When Gov. Howard Dean wanted to raise money for a possible presidential bid, he followed the example of a former governor of Texas and called on his friends in the energy industry.

Nearly a fifth of the roughly $111,000 collected in its first months by Dean’s presidential political action committee, the Fund for a Healthy America, came from people with ties to Vermont’s electric utilities, according to a recent Federal Elections Commission filing.

-snip-

[LuminousX]

65. We can argue over the relevancy of that , but at least we KNOW the source

[blm]

68. On this, Kerry is RIGHT. ALL candidates should be open to scrutiny.

Surprises later are NOT in our benefit for the long run.

I'm just amazed at the hypocrisy of those Dean supporters who want Clark to show his records while defending Dean's secrecy.

[KaraokeKarlton]

72. There is a distinct difference between the two

Dean's sealed "records" are nothing but private letters written to him by other people. This issue with Clark show who gave him money to speak on their behalf. It's a lot more important to know who's pocket Clark might be in than it is to read the personal story of a gay person writing to thank Dean for signing Civil Unions into law.

[TLM]

121. Why is it that folks seem to miss this every time....

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-dean10.html

Dean's fees and charitable donations were legal and did not have to be disclosed under Vermont law but were detailed in correspondence and tax records reviewed by the Associated Press.


Dean already made this info from his fees public.

[douginmarshall]

133. WE GOT THAT

It's the sealed records people are talking about, the ones Dean said he sealed so they could not be used against him(unless I got the story wrong). Yes Clark should clear this up but only to take away any ammunition from those who want to find things wrong about him.

It is clear Dean and his followers are scared and that all of the momentum is with Clark. Dean has peaked and Clark is on his tail.

I am not bothered by a private citizen taking money for speaking. If he was talking to defense contractors I'm sure he was not afraid to tell the truth and they did not like everything he had to say.

[Renew Deal]

69. There is nothing hidden here

There is a difference between hiding and answering the question. Now someone asked to go deeper. Let them go deeper.

[Mattforclark]

70. I think

He was doing the Uni speaking tour and talked at a bunch of colleges and universities around everywhere.

"Clark’s financial disclosure reports lists speaking fees of $1,410,580 from “Greater Talent Network, Inc.” of New York. Greater Talent is Clark’s speaker’s bureau"

One of those places that Clark spoke at was the University of Iowa. I guess that's a special interest.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~ournews/2003/september/090803clark.html

And here he is talking at the Kennedy Library at the University of Massechusetts, Boston during the war in Afghanistan. He talks about JFK, Afghanistan, renewable energy, and a whole host of other topics. You can listen to his speech at http://www.wbur.org/special/specialcoverage/archive_121301.asp and see for yourself

I am sure the Kerry campaign can use google as well as me though.

Personally I would love to have a President who is beholden to the special interests called Universities. That might mean that the President would be intelligent, and intellectually curious. That sounds great to me.

I am sure that Clark will release a list of all the Universities that he has spoken at now that he has been asked, even though one could easily find out where he had spoken other ways. Those speeches that right wingers like to quote out of context are - surprise - surprise - given at Universities. The one where he says George Bush was doing a good job on Afghanistan, for example, was given at a college in Arkansas.

[Tinoire]

73. Students allege violations of campaign laws

Students allege violations of campaign laws

By Kristen Schorsch
Iowa City Press-Citizen

Two University of Iowa students and one Kirkwood Community College student have filed a complaint against UI and presidential candidate Wesley Clark, citing what they think are potential federal campaign finance law violations.

For Clark's lecture on foreign policy at UI last month, he received $30,000 plus travel ex-penses for two. David said he thinks Clark's lecture was political in nature.

<snip>

FEC spokesperson Ian Stirton said presidential candidates cannot use corporate money in connection with federal elections. While saying that Clark did nothing wrong, his campaign spokesman Mark Fabiani said in a statement that the presidential candidate would no longer give paid speeches.

Clark also will return payments he received from each speech, Fabiani said.

<snip>
"I'm arguing he has to reimburse the university for travel expenses, for security, food, drinks, press releases they put out - any money or time the university invested in this lecture," Davis said. "Clark has to reimburse them because this was a campaign event."

<snip>

http://www.press-citizen.com/news/101003clark.htm


You can read more about the GTN link here:
http://greatertalent.com/ just select the name Wesley Clark and it will tell you what he was basically speaking about.

[SahaleArm]

102. Greater Talent Networks also represents 'The Onion' and 'PJ O'Rourke'...

Oh the horror! New headline: 'Newspaper fails to do research'.

Clark Returns Speech Cash: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/08/politics/main577025.shtml

[JVS]

114. Shame on Clark

[seventhson]

74. CLARK SPEAKING FEES: $1.5 MILLION FROM BFEE MIC Dean only $15,000

Dean gets a measly $15,000 or so in ten years and the neocons go apeshit.

Clark gets $1.4 MILLIONS and there's NO STENCH?

Where is the LOVE?

Hypocrisy.

[slinkerwink]

76. see? there's a huge double standard at work here!

[SahaleArm]

95. The governor of Vermont is not a highly sought after speaker n/t

[Padraig18]

112. And....?

:shrug:

[SahaleArm]

115. Explains the income differential which was the question n/t

[ozone_man]

81. 100 times more money over a period of time ten times shorter.

That's 1,000 times the dollars in speaking fees per unit time. I think Clark could out do Bush in this area. MIC at it's finest. Bush starts Homeland Security after he LIHOPs 911, and people like Clark rake in the profits.

[SahaleArm]

97. A four-star General/Nato SACUER can make $25k-$50k/speech

It's quite easy to rack up a couple million without propping up theories.

[windansea]

77. TANK

who woulda thunk it

Dean supporters defend Kerry....yummy politics!!

[slinkerwink]

78. we're not defending kerry---we're asking why there's a double

standard at play here. Also, please answer the original post---how do you feel about this?

[windansea]

80. ok tell you what

taking a page from Dr Dean

I'll unseal mine when he unseals his

and don't give me some goobledegook about it's in the courts hands

[TLM]

122. Dean already made the soruces of his speaking fees public.

As noted int eh link in my first post.

Why should Clark get special treatment?

Why do his supporters think he should have to disclose the sources for over amillion bucks given to him before his decision to run for president?

[Monte Carlo]

79. Dean people trying to spread unrest?

Don't you have anything better to do? I guess not.

[Padraig18]

89. LOL

When all else fails, blame Gov. Dean. :P

[Monte Carlo]

106. Someone with a Dean-avatar...

... concerned about conflicts between Clark and Kerry? That certainly sounds blame-worthy of Dean supporters, like I said.

[Padraig18]

109. LOL

It never impedes anyone else's supporters, when Gov. Dean is the target, and we believe in equal rights. :)

[Lobo_13]

84. I told you so

Kerry finally realized who's been leeching his votes. It was only a matter of time before he started trying to get them back.

[citizen snips]

87. Kerry's link does not work.

n/t

[maddezmom]

113. huh n/t

[TLM]

123. Yeah weird... not sure why...search of the site still shows the statements

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=clark+fees&sp-a=sp1001847f&sp-f=ISO-8859-1&sp-x=all

1. :: John Kerry for President - Kerry Calls on Clark to Disclose Sources of Special Interest Compensation :: •••
Kerry Calls on Clark to Disclose Sources of Special Interest Compensation
...Kerry Calls on Clark to Disclose Sources of Special Interest Compensation 10, 2004 For Immediate Release Des Moines, IA - With one of his...
...Wesley Clark has become extremely wealthy since leaving the Army, and the public has a right to know what is the source of that income. The Associated...
...this week reported that Clark earned more that $1 million in speaking and consulting fees since retiring from the military. Clark’s financial...
79% Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:44:09 GMT http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_...


2. :: John Kerry for President - Wes Clark: In Defense of Revolving Door Lobbying :: •••
Wes Clark: In Defense of Revolving Door Lobbying
...Wes Clark: In Defense of Revolving Door Lobbying “I’m very proud that I did that” “Somebody has to be able to knock on the door and go in.” 09, 2004...
...In Peterborough, New Hampshire on Wednesday, Wes Clark delivered a surprising defense of his own practice of the same “revolving door lobbying” that...
...door lobbying” that corrodes the Bush Administration. At the same time, Clark gave New Hampshire voters a new perspective on the candidate who is new to...
76% Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:12:14 GMT http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_...

[Walt Starr]

94. I have to say, this makes me admire Kerry

He sees where he is in the polls and understands that for now, Dean is not the direct enemy to his campaign. Clark is the one person who stands between him going further in this thing and having to drop out early, so he goes for the jugular on Clark.

Kudos to Kerry. He's doing what he must do to get the job done!

Before now, I didn't have a second choice to Dean. As of now, John Kerry is my number two simply because he has seen what needs to be done to keep his candidacy alive and he is doing it.

[Dover]

119. Excellent! I may even start to like Kerry.....been wondering why

no Dems seemed concerned about having someone like Clark in their midst. Don't we have enough damage done due to corporate influence peddling in Washington and blatant conflict of interests to justify
not only a thorough accounting of all candidate's records, but to
dismiss them out of hand if they do not pass this litmus test?
It seems if we DO accept this kind of pandering, then we have a whole lot of apologizing to do to Bush and Co.

Now...can we get someone to blow the whistle on the portion of the Patriot Act that was quietly slipped through in December? How about someone demanding to know how each member of the Senate voted on that?

[Crunchy Frog]

124. I'm happy that all the candidates

are starting to see Clark as a big enough threat to begin attacking him. All it means is that his name is out there more. Voters this year don't seem to respond well to attack politics so it generally backfires on the attacker and benefits the attackee.

As for the actual issue, I think it's pretty much making a mountain out of a molehill. Dean has been attacked of much worse, and the attacks have only helped him.

[democratreformed]

125. Personally, I think Senator Kerry has the right to ask any question he

wants. If the people are concerned about it, he should detail the list of speaking engagements.

[democratreformed]

130. OH LOOK. HERE'S THE ANSWER.....

Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg109145.html

Complements of a fellow supporter.

[davidinalameda]

126. Clark did these as a private citizen

Dean's records were from when he was governor

I see apples and oranges here

[Printer70]

127. Good question- you will never get an answer

I have tried repeatedly to engage supporters of Clark on various issues and I have never gotten a straight answer. It's very bizarre. It's different with Kerry, Gephardt, Kucinich, and Edwards supporters. With Clark supporters, I usually get "he's answered that question" with no follow-up. My guess is there is an ethos amongst the Clark camp to shrug off these questions but I don't think that's an effective long term strategy because ultimately, Americans are going to demand answers.

[Kahuna]

131. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

:boring: