General Clark steals Deans thunder...... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-22-2003, 11:35 AM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Clark needs to have been a *candidate* for awhile for his numbers to make sense. Right now it's novelty. Don't misunderstand me, I like him, but these numbers don't mean that much to me. Media politics, which is really what politics is these days, is a tough, unforgiving game.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-22-2003, 11:54 AM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:48 AM
For those who put weight behind op-ed pieces, here is one that suggests the Clintons are pulling the strings with Clark.

From the NY Times

Quote:
The Clintons decided that the Democratic primary campaign was getting out of hand. Howard Dean was getting all the buzz and too much of the passionate left's money. Word was out that Dean as nominee, owing Clintonites nothing, would quickly dump Terry McAuliffe, through whom Bill and Hillary maintain control of the Democratic National Committee.

That's when word was leaked of the former president's observation at an intimate dinner party at the Clinton Chappaqua, N.Y., estate that "there are two stars in the Democratic Party Hillary and Wes Clark."

Meanwhile, the four-star general that Clinton fired for being a publicity hog during the Kosovo liberation has been surrounded by the Clinton-Gore mafia. Lead agent is Mark Fabiani, the impeachment spinmeister; he brought in the rest of the Restoration coterie. When reporters start poking into any defense contracts Clark arranged for clients after his retirement, he will have the lip-zipping services of the Clinton confidant Bruce Lindsey.

As expected, fickle media that had been entranced with Dean (Dr. Lose-the-War) dropped the cranky Vermonter like a cold couch potato and are lionizing Clinton's fellow Arkansan and fellow Rhodes Scholar. He's new, handsome, intellectual, a genuine Silver Star Vietnam hero and taught economics at West Point.

I admired Nato Commander Clark's military aggressiveness when the Serbs were slaughtering civilians in Kosovo. He wanted to use Apache helicopter gunships and send in NATO troops, as John McCain urged, but Clinton sided with Pentagon brass fearful of U.S. casualties, and the lengthy air campaign was conducted from 15,000 feet up; thousands of Kosovars died. (Four years later, U.N.-administered Kosovo is still not sovereign, and Clinton was there last week saying "I think we belong here until our job is finished.")

As a boot-in-mouth politician, however, Clark ranks with Arnold Schwarzenegger. He began by claiming to have been pressured to stop his defeatist wartime CNN commentary by someone "around the White House"; challenged, he morphed that source into a Canadian Middle East think tank, equally fuzzy.

Worse, as his Clinton handlers cringed, he blew his antiwar appeal by telling reporters "I probably would have voted for" the Congressional resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. Next day, the chastised candidate flip-flopped, claiming "I would never have voted for war."

Clark's strange explanation: "I've said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position." He put himself in the hot-pretzel position softly twisted.

Let's assume the Clinton handlers teach him the rudiments of verbal discipline and the Clinton fund-raising machine makes him a viable candidate. To what end? What's in it for the Clintons?

Control. First, control of the Democratic Party machinery, threatened by the sudden emergence of Dean and his antiestablishment troops. Second, control of the Democratic ideological position, making sure it remains on the respectable left of center.

What if, as Christmas nears, the economy should tank and President Bush becomes far more vulnerable? Hillary would have to announce willingness to accept a draft. Otherwise, should the maverick Dean take the nomination and win, Clinton dreams of a Restoration die.

Here is where the politically inexperienced Clark comes in. He is the Clintons' most attractive stalking horse, useful in stopping Dean and diluting support for Kerry, Lieberman or Gephardt. If Bush stumbles and the Democratic nomination becomes highly valuable, the Clintons probably think they would be able to get Clark to step aside without splintering the party, rewarding his loyalty with second place on the ticket.

G'wan, you say, the Clintons should be supporting Dean, a likely loser to Bush, thereby ensuring the Clinton Restoration in 2008. But plainly they are not. Their candidate is Clark. Either they are for him because (altruistic version) they think Clark would best lead the party and country for the next eight years, leaving them applauding on the sidelines, or (Machiavellian version) they think his muddy-the-waters candidacy is their ticket back to the White House in 2004 or 2008.

Which is more like the Clintons?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-22-2003, 12:20 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 07:48 PM
I think the whole Clinton/Clark connection is complete rubbish. Republicans are saying that the Clinton's want Clark in the race to add yet another candidate and weaken the Democratic front runners. This makes no sense because right now they are just running in a primary. Once they choose a democratic candidate, then it doesn't matter how many people ran for the primary.

Also, If Hillary is running next time, then logically they would want Dean to run and lose and have Bush be out in '08 for an easy step in for Hillary. Hillary is much more likely to get in following up 2 terms from a Republican than following a term by a Democrat.

It's hilarious to me that the Clinton's can't back a presidential candidate without Republican's screaming conspiracy!!!!!

______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-22-2003, 12:28 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Who's screaming conspiracy?

I did find the flip flop on the Iraq war interesting.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-22-2003, 12:48 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Who's screaming conspiracy?

I did find the flip flop on the Iraq war interesting.
Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter are. And whoever wrote this NY Times article. I've been hearing it a lot. Things would be suspicious if they were backing Braun or Sharpton or even Kusinich. But Clark pretty much fits into the moderate Democratic mold like Clinton was, so it makes sense to me that they are backing him.

People seem to forget that the Draft Clark movement started with a Republican and a Democrat over 8 months ago. He wasn't some guy that Clinton just ran into last week and pushed him into running.

_______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-22-2003, 02:45 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 02:48 PM
wink

Do Bill and Hillary control the weather too?

At least they could have stopped that hurricane
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-22-2003, 03:02 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish
Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter are.
Sorry, I tend to identify with the Republican party, but I've never read or listened to Hannity or Coulter. Am I missing something?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-22-2003, 03:18 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 02:48 PM
I saw Ann Coulter once on TV.

She struck me as hysterical. Not funny hysterical, but hysterical hysterical.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 09-22-2003, 03:22 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:48 PM
I looked at a book of Ann Coulter's at work last week. I agree, she's hysterical, and I don't mean funny-hysterical, I mean hysteria-hysterical. Egads.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-22-2003, 04:02 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Not only is Clark the front runner in the Democratic party now, but he also does best in a 1 on 1 match up with Bush.

According to Newsweek, if the election were held today, Bush would defeat Clark with 47% of the vote while Clark would get 43% of the vote. All the other Democratic candidates run an average of 15 percentage points behind Bush in head to head match ups.

Based on these Polls, Clark might be the Democrats only shot at the White House. The Question is, how well will Clark perform in the Democratic primaries. Clark might have a good shot at beating Bush, but if he can't win the Democratic nomination, it won't matter.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-22-2003, 04:30 PM   #26
Refugee
 
Bunbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Close yet far from home \m/
Posts: 1,580
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I saw Ann Coulter once on TV.

She struck me as hysterical. Not funny hysterical, but hysterical hysterical.
Ann Coulter needs to get laid to shut her up
__________________
Bunbury is offline  
Old 09-22-2003, 05:04 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Not only is Clark the front runner in the Democratic party now, but he also does best in a 1 on 1 match up with Bush.

According to Newsweek, if the election were held today, Bush would defeat Clark with 47% of the vote while Clark would get 43% of the vote. All the other Democratic candidates run an average of 15 percentage points behind Bush in head to head match ups.

Based on these Polls, Clark might be the Democrats only shot at the White House. The Question is, how well will Clark perform in the Democratic primaries. Clark might have a good shot at beating Bush, but if he can't win the Democratic nomination, it won't matter.
This is also his honeymoon period. Numbers may change as he starts to reveal specifics and more clearly defines his position.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-22-2003, 05:08 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


This is also his honeymoon period. Numbers may change as he starts to reveal specifics and more clearly defines his position.
I agree. Once he's been a *candidate* for awhile the numbers will be more reliable, I think.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-22-2003, 05:10 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Sorry, I tend to identify with the Republican party, but I've never read or listened to Hannity or Coulter. Am I missing something?
Oh yes, you are missing some of the most uneducated, blindly patriotic, far right wing blather you can handle.

I'll give you a couple of examples. If a guest came on Hannity's show before the war and said, I think we should get more support from other countries before taking military action, his most likely response would be - "You hate this country don't you? You hate it and you hate everything about it and you want us to be attacked liked 9/11 all over again don't you?" There has never been a Republican decision I can remember him disagreeing with or even questioning.

Ann Coulter has written a couple of frightening books. One called "Treason" and the other I can't remember, but similar. Her book pretty much says that anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration about anything is committing treason and that all liberals hate God and the United States.

You really should give them a try. They can simultaneously make my blood boil and make me feel sorry for them because of their ignorance all at the same time.

Oh yeah, they both are staples on Fox News Channel, and they have radio programs as well.
_______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-22-2003, 05:23 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


This is also his honeymoon period. Numbers may change as he starts to reveal specifics and more clearly defines his position.
Let's not forget that he(Clark) almost touched off WWIII during Kosovo by ordering an attacfk on Russian troops. This was reported by the BBC a long time ago if I am not mistaken.

And, Clark is supposed to hurt Kerry and Lieberman, not Dean so much. And, yes, I posted this here before the article posted earlier in the thread. I want legal representation to sue the publisher of the article. They stole my theory.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com