Divided over possible unity-Talk of combined ticket unraveling as Clark, D

Divided over possible unity
Talk of combined ticket unraveling as Clark, Dean sharpen attacks
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/23/divided_over_possible_unity/
By Anne E. Kornblut and Joanna Weiss, Globe Staff, 12/23/2003

WASHINGTON -- After months of speculation that Howard Dean and Wesley K. Clark would someday unite to form a powerful Democratic bid for the White House, the two candidates are now locked in a bitter dispute over that very issue, increasingly directing attacks at one another and seemingly rejecting any chance they might work together to defeat President Bush.

Clark, whose campaign has developed a solid fund-raising machine, is one of the few candidates other than Dean to continually grab headlines -- last week by testifying against Serbian ruler Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague. Clark is also a Southerner, which could undercut Dean's bid in key Southern states. Unlike Dean, Clark has had a long career in international affairs. And Clark has also shown visible -- if incremental -- improvement in New Hampshire, home of the Jan. 27 primary.

"We're the candidate who is gaining while the rest seem to be sinking," Clark aide Laura Bergthold said. "I think if they look across the landscape and see any threat, it's us."
snip

The four-star general has sharpened his focus on national security and begun to pursue Dean by name, saying more directly that the former Vermont governor would not be qualified to be president and attacking a wider range of his policies.

Dean, in turn, has targeted Clark -- especially over a claim Clark made last weekend that Dean asked him to be his running mate in a meeting earlier this year. While Dean admits he will need a vice presidential candidate who is strong enough on defense to "plug that hole" in his own resume, he fiercely denied ever inviting Clark to fill the slot, touching off a very public tussle between the campaigns over which one was telling the truth.

"snip
.

As the spat continued, it appeared less likely Clark would agree to run with Dean if the former governor became the nominee. Asked yesterday whether it would suffice for a candidate such as Dean to recruit a running mate with strong national security credentials, Clark replied, "No."

"Having other people tell you what to do is no substitute for having been there in the arena yourself," he said. "You need a candidate who's got foreign policy expertise."

Asked whether he would consider running in the second-tier slot in any event, Clark said, "What I've said is that the decision for the American people in a Democratic primary and the reason I'm running is to be commander in chief. The president of the United States. That's the position in which I think I'm the best-qualified person of the field of candidates to serve, and that's why I'm running."

Glen Johnson of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
© Copyright 2003 Globe

You can't ask a 4-star general to take a backseat to a draft-deferrer.

It is a vulnerability for Dean (please, no flames. I like Dean, but I'm being realistic here. That WaPo poll shows Dean trailing Bush on national security by 67-21 percent. I know part of that's a post-Saddam boost, but the gap is sizable.)

For me, this squabble is good news. I never wanted Clark as Dean's VP anyway. He's not reliable or trustworthy.

You say General Clark is not reliable or trustworthy. Why do you say that? Can you share with us any factual data behind your assertion? I'm not looking for a Dean V Clark fight, I'm looking for allegations backed up with factual data by whomever's supporter states them.

Bosshog, but I would agree with you.

he also played the game for months of flirting with the press over the question of whether he was a democrat. two years ago he was fundraising for the repubs and praising Reagan and Bush. now he wants to lead the dem party. i think that's outrageous, and yes untrustworthy. it's as if some top general from the old soviet union had defected to the west, and demanded to be immediately put in charge of NATO. i'm sorry, but no matter how fervently he mouths the right words, he just doesn't have cred yet.

Dean has a proven record as a Democrat and one with a good mix of progressive and fiscally responsible achievements.

Clark gave a speech at the request of a friend to a republican dinner gathering. Actually he contributed and did funding raising for Democrats on his own time. Now the facts will set you free, or you may chose to ignore them in the interest of promoting disinformation, the choice of course is yours.

Clark is not from the Soviet Union, he is from the Arkansas, a state in which very few people register under party affiliation. That is very easy to understand, and I'm sure you do. Also, I prefer that the military remain an unalligned entity. Having the military openly becoming a wing of any party is very dangerous in a democracy. However, Clark was already closer to many Democrats as opposed to repubs. prior to leaving the military. Who put Clark in charge of NATO? Answer: it was not someone from the Soviet Union, nor was it a repub.

Clark would seem to have plenty of credentials to discuss foreign policy. In fact, for those who take the time, they will find out that he was exactly right and consistently right about the situation in Iraq and what would happen in the aftermath of any invasion. He advised the House, on record, that we needed to be in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

That alone makes his word not worth the paper it is printed on. Worse still he said it under oath at the ICTY, even though the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1160 in March 1998 that says:

Condemning the use of excessive force by Serbian police forces against civilians and peaceful demonstrators in Kosovo, as well as all acts of terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army or any other group or individual and all external support for terrorist activity in Kosovo, including finance, arms and training,
http://www.un.org/peace/kosovo/98sc1160.htm

So did Clark commit perjury when he said:

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, thank you. First of all, if I might, I don't accept the definition of the KLA as a terrorist organisation. I want to state that for the record.
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031216ED.htm

That is right! UN Security Council Resolution 1160 condemned KLA terrorists acts, but according to Clark the KLA aren't terrorists!

All I can say is: They never are when they are on the US' side, are they General?

Just as an aside, remember all those reports of dead women and children in the media that were called massacres? Here is the part of the story the media doesn't tell you:

"I'm not afraid. We are prepared to fight. We don't do the cooking here, we fight with our friends." Said Koshe, nom de guerre of a 14-year- old daughter, fighting with her dad in the Kosovo Liberation Army in 1998-9.
http://www0.un.org/cyberschoolbus/briefing/soldiers/csprogress.htm

Yep, that's right 14 year old girls fighting alongside their fathers in a terrorist organisation. So when a young girl is found shot after a Serb anti-terrorist operation, does the media tell you "She could have been a KLA fighter, because the KLA has fighters of all ages and sexes"? Of course they don't. They want you to think a massacre took place, so they leave out the inconvenient facts.

It's not what they tell you, it's what they DON'T tell you.

If Clark had said the UN didn't consider the KLA terrorists, then you'd have something.

Or, more to the point, if a UN representative said the UN didn't consider the KLA terrorists, then that'd be perjury.

But Clark said he, as NATO SACEUR, didn't.

Whether you agree or disagree with him is another matter. But it's not a case of perjury.

And remember, this was a NATO action, not a UN action. NATO's definition of the KLA is what's relevent to this case.

Here's a clue: its a deliberate lie under oath.

The UN took a position. Clark disagreed and said so under oath. That is not a lie, that is telling the truth.

And young girls fighting against an enemy that is determined to rape and kill young girls just like her? Perhaps you should look up the definition of terrorist as well.

Apparently NATO didn't hold the same views as the UN either.

And the trial Clark testified at was a war crimes trial aimed at the man who masterminded the Serbian action against the Kosovans.

Its not what they tell you, its what they DON't tell you.

Which is why some of them are currently indicted for war crimes, and why Clark refused to admit that NATO was working with and assisting the KLA.

The State Dept even sent out alerts saying that the KLA was being assisted by Osama Bin Laden in 1998.

That is where the perjury charge comes in. Clark KNOWS the KLA were terrorists, but claimed they were not. THAT is perjury.

As for the charges of raping and killing young girls, I have seen no evidence of that EXCEPT the uncorroborated testimony of terrorists.

If Osama Bin Laden said that US troops were raping and killing Iraqi girls, would you just believe him, or would you require there to be some independant corroboration?

What action is Milosevic meant to have "masterminded"? There is proof that there was no genocide against ethnic Albanians, and proof that there was no "ethnic cleansing". So what exactly is it he is supposed to have done?

Did some Serb soldiers commit war crimes. Most definately. Did some US soldiers commit war crimes in Iraq and Viet Nam? Without doubt. Does that mean that the US government was commiting genocide against the Vietnamese and Iraqi people? No.

Did you know that the Serbs prosecuted over 500 cases against soldiers and police said to have commited crimes in Kosovo BEFORE the US bombing. How many US troops were prosecuted for their crimes in Viet Nam? How many for their crimes in Iraq?

Just which nation, and which Presidents were the war criminals here? The ones that actually prosecuted and punished soldiers who committed atrocities, or the ones who covered up the crimes of the soldiers for years and even decades?

When the US military leaders and Presidents involved in the Viet Nam war are hauled before a tribunal charged with war crimes, THEN I might believe the US' claims against other nations.

Take for example Colin Powell, now THERE is a war criminal. Why is he a senior member of government? Why isn't he rotting in prison?

As for Clark, I could tell you what I think Clark is, but I have already been warned against making such statements (apparently contrarily to the written rules of DU), so I will just keep them to myself.

doesn't mean he's untrustworthy. It's just me.

Sorry, I am naturally distrustful of defense lobbyists. I don't trust ex-military working in the industry. It's a "thing" with me, what with the missing 3 trillion and all.

Now, if Clark could shed some light on this issue, that would go a long way with me.

Clark was in the operations end NOT the procurement end of the military. Perhaps we should call on all former Army/Marine/Navy/Air Force officers to descend on the Pentagon to audit the books.

BTW, this is one of the things we have a Congress to oversee.

100%
90%
80%

Am I suspect? I'm a retired construction worker who's been active in politics for over four decades. Are you qualified to label me as "suspect"?

I doubt it, Cap.

I never thought Dean reliable or trustworthy either.

So now that we've agreed, can we just go about our business and let this one go?

I'll pass on the last three words.

If Dean is nominated I'll swallow my disappointment and go to work for him as our candidate. Let the other side launch the attacks.

They know how badly they need each other. The also know that nothing would make the Bush camp happier than for them to have a falling out.

b]rocknation

You make an interesting point.

Neither Clark nor Dean are going to be satisfied with second place on a ticket. You can have Clark or you can have Dean. You can't have both.

In less than 1000 hours we'll start learning who it will be. Hell, it might even be Kerry and all this Clark/Dean bullshit will be proven useless instead of just seeming useless.

This is when it starts to get really interesting...

This is part of the political theater that surrounds contested primaries. Ticket building won't being in earnest until March.

Can anyone tell me what Foreign policy experienc GWB had when he ran for president ?

That was pre 9-11. People are a lot more concerned about that now.

Bush turns out to be a "quick study" huh ?

He has experience now as perceived by the American people. They will be the one's voting. It matters what they think. Dean is not going to be able to convince the American people who are risk averse by nature to abandon someboody who makes them feel reasonably safe for somebody with no experience. Don't confuse your opinions with what the rest of America thinks.

Americans in poll after poll after poll assume (think corporate propaganda) that ALL republicans are better than ANY Democrats on defense. That includes junior and another other republican governor.

That is their story and they are sticking to it.

The Democrats for their part are seen as weak; considering the complete animosity shown by many in this forum toward both the military and General Clark, I am not expecting to break this cycle of pain anytime soon. And, let this be perfectly clear, I am not referring to those who disagree with Clark on policy issues--if you don't think we should end our sanctions against Cuba, so be it--I am only reflecting the numerous posts that cite his connection to the military as the sole reason to disregard him as a caring and well-rounded human being.

We can only elect Presidents who have been in Military Leadership?? Do we need to have the Constitution changed??
Do we get to vote??

We can have whomever the people elect (ideally!). My point is that right now, today, I don't think it's likely that Americans will elect somebody without this kind of experience. Today it matters. Just because it's not important to you donesn't mean that it's not important to most people not on DU.

as well as Commander status very close to being Head of State.

And Foreign Policy experience need not be dependent on having been in the Military.

but no one promises that it will be counted.

nt

You fool! All they need to know is "get tough".

I mean what experience did Reagan have in foreign policy?

Only Democrats are required to have experience. Republicans just need handlers.

I knew there was a good answer for this.
Now shall we move on to the draft and who all missed out on Nam ?????/

I never imagined when I signed on here at DU three years ago, that I'd have to defend against republican talking points right here. WOW !

That is exactly Clark's point. Lets not risk it again
with Dean.

and who WILL engage in power struggles.

That is, in fact, one of the reasons Junior's tenure has been so dangerous.

"Having other people tell you what to do is no substitute for having been there in the arena yourself," he said. "You need a candidate who's got foreign policy expertise."

Could easily become,

"Having other people tell you what to do is no substitute for having been there in the arena yourself," Dean said. "You need a candidate who's got Domestic policy expertise."


Full Disclosure

fob still leaning Sharpton for primaries, but will accept who/whatever is listed as the DEM in Nov 2004

He's better than Dean and Clark combined. ...works for me.

First Strike War!! Great, a REAL leader (after all , who wants to get along with the rest of the world?)

and war ALWAYS as a "last resort"- unilateral or not. Perhaps you missed Kerry's statement on Libya?....

"Libya's agreement to terminate their weapons of mass destructions program is an important step forward in addressing the great security challenge of our time, proliferation. It is particularly important that it will be done within the international non-proliferation treaty regime and using the IAEA, the bases of international law and multilateral cooperation and verification. After all, if anyone has any illusions about the true character of Qaddafi and the importance of vigilance in holding him to his word, they need only remember the victims of Pan Am 103 and their families who have paid the price for Qaddafi's past brutality.

Ironically, this significant advance represents a complete U-turn in the Bush Administration's overall foreign policy. An Administration that scorns multilateralism and boasts about a rigid doctrine of military preemption has almost in spite of itself demonstrated the enormous potential for improving our national security through diplomacy. If the President can put aside his go it alone unilateralism to engage with a longtime enemy like Qaddafi, why are the ideologues in this Administration so hesitant to negotiate with North Korea to end their nuclear weapons programs? Why not rally the United Nations and NATO to forge a new cooperative effort to combat proliferation around the globe?"

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1220.html

Seeing Iraq overrun with American military and Saddam captured had no effect on Qadafi's position to abandon his WMD program, and if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

for both NATO AND US troops.

He's had to deal with bureaucracy... and CONGRESS... to get approprations and supplies for his troops and their families.

No matter who is his VP {Graham?}.

as a possible Dean running mate. it was pure speculation, but i for one thought it was a great idea.

"Having other people tell you what to do is no substitute for having been there in the arena yourself," he said. "You need a candidate who's got foreign policy expertise."

Clark seems to think the need for first-hand experience applies only in his area of expertise, but not to domestic electoral politics, where he is a babe in the woods.

Well Clarks argument would be that in Foriegn Policy

there are decsions that have to be made on the moment

which are life & death and having been there will help

give perspective.

Domestic Issues can be dealt with in a more

studied environment, and actually Clark's experience

is in a sense more "firsthand" dealing with

issues such as education health care on the

large scale as a kind of "mayor"

(base commander).

n/t

in fact, that's part of his campaign. Public Service.

The only thing Dean might claim is having run a campaign to get elected before.

Oh Boy! Dean's another politician. People really love that.

Public service is working for the good of your fellow Americans, sometimes at significant cost to you.

Professional politics is a career, a way of making a living. Dean is not a "public servant", he is a long time professional politician looking to move on up. Being President is good work if you can get it; being an ex-President is even great. Just ask Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.

I used to think he was a great candidate. But he sounds like an egomaniac. Essentially: I'm top dog or screw you. Yeah, so he's got foreign policy expertise. But Dean has superb domestic policy expertise. Doesn't Clark have any respect for that?

I am sick of his attacks on Dean. Is Clark more interested in playing big-shot commander in chief or in ousting George Bush?

PLEASE!

are you KIDDING!

Clark hasn't even really attacked him YET.

On the other hand, Dean lied and said Clark was a "Republican until 25 days ago".

:hi:

I've donated thousands of dollars to democratic candidates. I've given to Dean. I was about to give to Clark, because I agreed with many of his stances. Up till this incident -- and I don't quite know what to make of the VP tempest in a teapot, and tend to think it's just a matter of misinterpretation or crossed wires during their conversation -- I thought very highly of Clark indeed. Each of the candidates has punched the other. But to say that Dean is totally unqualified is just ammunition for the Bushies.

The worst that Dean said, so far as I can recall, is that Clark's "Democratic credentials" are in question. I don't think Dean said Clark was unqualified. I think he even said he thought Clark was a good candidate. He never, ever said that Clark was incompetent to run for President.

So bye bye Clarkies to my check. Clearly you're happy to see me go, and you've just reinforced that with your bye-bye message.

I'm happy to see anybody go who can't find it in their hearts to support my candidate. That's it.

It was obviously derogatory, and it was right after Clark came into the race. It was also a lie, and Dean knew it was a lie at the time he told it.

Dean has also misrepresented Clark's position on Iraq numerous times. Deliberately.

DTH

tell me which candidate(s) you support have essentially said "you don't need to nominate me, I'll be happy with just being the VP"? Of course he is promoting himself as the one most qualified and just VP isn't good enough. They all do that. And of course Clark thinks that his strengths are worth more than Dean's strengths. Guess what, Dean thinks the exact opposite. I think that there are some legitimate reasons to dislike Clark and Dean, but this just isn't one of them.

Personally, I think this whole issue is a non-issue. The media should drop it and start covering some real stuff like policy issues.

Did you contribute money? Man tables? Join Meet-Ups? Write letters?

What exactly was the nature of this support, and why should someone worry about it being "pulled"?

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

I don't go around calling people liars.


"It would scare me if it did, to be honest, because supporters of EVERY candidate here are much nastier than they are in real life.

I'm quite certain it has to do with the fact that relative anonymity and the safety of a computer screen make people a lot bolder here than they are in real life."

Is that your excuse?

I totally confused you with another, vitriolic anti-Clark poster.

You have my apologies.

I still urge you to check out my post #72, however.

DTH

The response that Dean gave was very disengenious.

He can't be pinned down as lying, but in my opinion

the Vice Presidency was discussed.

Anyway, Clark has to make this clear that he

is not interested in VP becuase he has to encourage

those who are now for other candidates to more

seriously consider him, that he does not exist

to "plug" holes in other peoples resumes.

About Clark's support for the War? Or not supporting the War? Or supporting the War? Seems Dean couldn't offer something he did not have...Clark seems to have jumped the gun a little.

Who's going to bow down now? Duh.

United we stand, divided we fall! Dean needs Clark, more than Clark needs Dean. Dean can win with Clark. Dean CANNOT WIN 2004 without Clark. Dean - Clark 2004 brings everyone in, Clinton, Hillary, and the South to VICTORY!!!

So, plug your candidate's holes in a different way.
http://bestofblogs.forclark.com/story/2003/12/22/13729/055
This one is finally over.
P.S. Trolls coming to our blog inform us you got Nader for VP already. Congratulations! I am really happy for you - I mean it!

:evilgrin:

In the future, please limit article excerpts from copyrighted sources to four paragraphs or less.

Thanks!

DU Moderator

and that Dean really DID offer the VP slot to him during a private conversation. Why did he come out and reveal that to the press right now? What's the point of it? To trumpet to the world that he's too big to be VP? To reinforce that Dean needs him (in other words, making Dean look small)? Why not just keep it between them and get on with the campaign?

What is Clark's motivation in all this? I don't get it. It just makes him seem like a bantam crowing, "Dean wants me! He needs me!"

this story has been wandering around for months now. You can only guess why it would suddenly become "front page" news.

Lets assume Clark is telling it like it is...

That would mean Dean is lying about what he said, wouldn't it?

Rashoman (sp) explains it all.

that he was tired of being used to plug what many people perceive as Dean's weakness. He wants to compete against Dean, not against Dean/Clark. I think it was an understandable (maybe even good) move for Clark, I just wish the media would move on already.

And everything else grew from there.

DTH

Then Clark turns around and says Dean's no good as a candidate.

I'd say Dean just got bitten by the dog he was trying to befriend.

I'm not talking about an alleged paraphrase by the Boston Globe, either.

DTH

"Asked yesterday whether it would suffice for a candidate such as Dean to recruit a running mate with strong national security credentials, Clark replied, "No."

Do I need to interpret it for you?

Clark is saying, quite bluntly: "Dean is not qualified to run."

Although it would also be an incorrect one, IMO.

Clark is offering his opinion that a successful Democratic Presidential candidate needs national security experience, and that you cannot get that experience via some kind of bizarre VP "transference" principle.

Of course that's going to be his opinion. It's one of the main reasons he's running.

Clark is not saying Dean is a bad person; he is simply stating a fact, namely that Dean has no national security experience, and an opinion, namely that a successful Democratic Presidential candidate needs to have that experience.

This is no different from Dean claiming that the other candidates are Bush-lite and that you're not going to win the election by running as Bush-lite, except that Dean's claim that the other candidates are Bush-lite isn't even factual, unlike Clark's claim that Dean has no national security experience which IS factual.

Are you as mad at Dean for that, as you are at Clark?

DTH

D
I'll put my question to you, since I know you and believe you will try to give an honest answer.

Why is FP the burning topic among Dem candidates ? Is it not fairly obvious that the person in the White House now had absolutely NO FP of any sort upon taking office. If he has supposedly "grown" on the job or has great advisors around him, then why would we Dems waste our time talking to EACH OTHER about who'd be the best. Both men are capable of surrounding themselves with competent people and both have strong administrative backgrounds....so what is all this about, other than an opportunity to slam the other guy.

To me it's simple misdirection and a real boost for rove & co.

Dean and Clark are both very smart men, and either in my opinion would handle FP much differently and with much better results as the current guy.

We're at war, or so the significant majority of Americans believe.

Bush got away with being light on foreign policy, because he was left with a fat and happy nation at peace.

Unfortunately, 2004 will be all about foreign policy, especially since it fits so neatly into the stereotypes and themes that Republicans and the media have pushed for decades.

It's not enough, IMO, to surround yourself with competent advisors when all that ultimately matters is the final say. We look at Bush every day, and see how that's a problem. It's not enough to say, "Bush didn't have foreign policy experience either," because the fact is that he does now, and again, it was a different world pre-9/11.

IMO, we need someone who will inoculate us against the inevitable Republican smear jobs as much as possible. Because the sad fact of the matter is, smear jobs like that WORK, especially when they feed into decades-old stereotypes of the Democratic Party.

DTH

on a ticket, I do hope they are not
pissing each other off so much that
they will not consider being together
on a ticket in the future.

We had enough of your "hopes". Make a choice already, OK?

it is to see those on Democratic Underground fighting among themselves. What a victory for Republicans. I am very disappointed to see the candidates taking shots at one another and to see that hostility magnified here. This is not the time to fight among ourselves. We have a greater evil to overcome. Do we want our government, our foreign policy, our very lives run by corporations? To miss an opportunity to work together to rid ourselves of Bush Co. would be a tragic mistake. Ugly bullying rhetoric is not what is needed at this time and is really something best left for those we hope to defeat. We need to work together to make sure our votes are counted at all in the next election. So please take the time to contact your representatives with your concerns over electronic voting and voter verification. And stop fighting. Eventually there will be a candidate chosen that will be the Democratic nominee. I hope you will all join me in uniting behind that person. Whoever it may be.