Mounting concerns... Clark, Hillary, and my (admittedly) cynical mind...

I posted this in a thread but I think it was kind of buried and overlooked. I hate to start a new thread, but I want to get a feel for whether I am just being paranoid, or if others feel this way as well.

Let me preface this by saying that I like General Clark a lot, and I have stated it on this web site often recently. I also am appalled by the level of character attacks and cheap shots that have been taken at him here, especially last week (Friday was especially bad if I remember). Most of it seemed to come from Deanies, though there was a healthy variety of people from other camps joining in the "trash-the-candidate" bandwagon.

Now.. with that out of the way.. I want to offer an honest take on an uneasy feeling I am getting around the Clark campaign. If he really is "anointed" by the Clintons, that bothers me, because strategically, I don't see how they favor putting a winning candidate up there in 2004.

I like Clinton.. I like both Clintons, but there is no doubt they play the game. Bill has made some statements that raise my eyebrows, not the least was his recently mentioning that he was sure NY voters would "forgive" Hillary if she entered the race (which meant, to me, that she might still). Sorry I cannot provide the link - if I find it I will. And I saw a USA Today newsflash that speculation is increasing that Hillary might reverse her decision to stay out of the race.

But also concerning me is the fact that the Clark strategists, if they did come out of the Clinton machine, seem to be making some questionable moves. The first happened just after Clark announced his candidacy, and was put on his plane with three top political reporters: Adam Nagourney of the New York Times, the Washington Post's Joanna Weiss and Johanna Neuman of the Los Angeles Times… . They grilled him, he dodged or said "I don't know" on many questions, and that in-flight interview was where the alleged and now-infamous "Mary, help!" statement came from.

Why would his consultants allow this to happen? And why is his web site slow to present his stance on the issues (which I've seen in his transcripts and are in the right direction, in my opinion)…

Is there any possibility of a strange Clinton sabotage move, resulting in either of the following:

1) wherein they want Clark to get the nomination, only to lose the election?

2) they want him to further weaken the field, especially Dean and Kerry support, to make it easier for Hillary to jump in?

I guess you can tell, I don't really trust people that much.. and right now I really, really don't trust the Clintons. I'm not really a conspiracy nut, but I see anything involved in politics as being inherently dirty, until proven otherwise.

Any thoughts?

They seem to think that Hillary Clinton is some sort of mob boss who controls everything from behind the scenes. I assume they have issues with their mother or something.

Hillary isn't running, and Clark is running ... to win.

was to support Clark so he would win the nomination but lose the election, it may very well fail.

If that was their plan, they'd probably choose an unelectable candidate.

Sigh... I long for the old days when Democrats LIKED the Clintons and didn't accuse them of whacked-out conspiracies.

there is no support whatsoever EXCEPT the rankest speculation: that Hillary Clinton WANTS to run for President. She may or she may not but none of us really know. All we have is suspicion and speculation and the constant barrage from the righties who fear her more than Jospeh Stalin.

Clinton is a Rhodes scholar. Hillary is smart as a whip. If they want to nominate a sure loser this year they don't need to go drag Clark into it. Sharpton, Kucinich and possibly Dean will be just fine. Certainly they will be easier to beat than Clark.

Think about shit you hear from other sources. If it aint logical, it probably aint true.

If the Clintons wanted Clark to get the nomination and lose the general why would they let him make the big mistake on the plane....

on a different thread about the Vast Clinton Conspiracy. William Safire yammered on about it yesterday on MTP.

Clark as a stalking horse for Hillary makes little sense to me. THis is kind of how a Clinton Clark conversation would have to have played out for it to be true.

Clinton: Hey, Wes! Hil and I have this terrific plan about how we can take control of the WHite House. We just need your help. You need to run for president this year and LOSE, thereby guarranteeing 4 more years of Bush. Then Hilary can run in 2008. She'll pick you for her VP! Isn't that a swell plan?

Wes: Sounds good to me. I can't wait to subject my family, friends and associates to the intense scrutiny, mudslinging and propoganda that a campaign to lose the Presidency will bring. Count me in! When 2016 rolls around I can run for PResident on my own. I'll only be in my 70s!

Clark may be many things but he's nobody's patsy and nobody's fool.

MzPip
:dem:

I certainly don't think Clark would sign on to lose. In this "vast conspiracy" I pictured the Clintons not letting him in on their motivations. I thought maybe they would back him just to convince him to run, and then they would see how he hits the polls. Kind of "testing the water" for Hillary to jump in. Perhaps even why they would want him to jump in but be embarrassed on a few issues, like he was on the plane.

Anyway, it's all kind of unraveling in my mind and I don't really buy it myself, so thanks for your input and reassurance.

If Hillary entered now, recently or a long time ago, she would (be) have been guaranteed the nomination. Why support such a popular candidate as Clark, only to have * win, then let Hillary run in 2008, when she could have had the whole enchilada four years earlier. Plus, I think the Clintons are smart enough to know that after four more years of * we won't have a shot at fair elections. We WILL be banana republic central.

Finally, if that was the Clintons' "plan", it's not working. Clark is getting support from all over the political spectrum. He's wiping the floor with *'s sorry arse! :kick: :kick: :kick:

Paranoia is not a bad word and is no indication of any mental problem, it just means that you do not trust people that are manipulative and controlling.

I think the Clinton/Clark conspiracy is a Repub talking point. And it is intended to demoralize the Dean Kerry and Kucinich supporters to the point that they do not vote in the election, or vote Green

they bring it up on Faux, I'm certain it's a Repug talking point.

Expect more of the same only louder and more vicious.

MzPip
:dem:

Why would Clark (or anyone) play that game?

Now, I can't say that the Clintons wouldn't support someone that they think would lose so the nomination would be open in '08, although I seriously doubt it. But that would be their opinion about his chances. I don't believe for a minute that Clark would go along with such a plan.

I don't support Clark (I need a lot more info about his positions on several issues before I even have an opinion), but he's not spending his time and energy as part of some plot. He's running as a serious candidate.

thanks for the response, actually I didn't see Clark as necessarily being completely on board with what the Clintons want to do. I thought maybe he was being used, only to have the rug pulled out from under him.

My fears are somewhat allayed already, and I am feeling more confident in the General. I do hope you're right and any "power" I see the Clintons as having is just perceived or illusory at best.

The next few months will see a lot happen but I definitely support Clark and I wish him the best. I like Dean too, and I symathize with a lot of Dean supporters who have been working so hard, and now see a shakeup in the race that they were starting to really control.

But I hope that in the end it will come down to the issues and we will nominate the best candidate on substance, whichever candidate that might be.

It just pains me to see a lot of DU'ers fall for the same "all-powerful Clintons" fallacy that a lot of right-wingers go for.

Of course the Clintons are powerful: he's the only living two term Dem president, and she's a powerful Senator and rising star in the party. But so many people seem to think that any sort of Clinton "endorsement" (and the clintons have NOT endorsed Clark) is part of a secret back-room plan to disrupt the normal electoral process.

Hi Dookus,

The thing is, I really like Bill Clinton. A lot. And I like Hillary too, although I'm not as familiar with her politics. I'm afraid I do think she is a very polarizing figure, and that she would have a very difficult time in a presidential race. It's a sad reality that the right has demonized her terribly, and that stigma is going to remain for quiet awhile (very undeservedly so).

The things that gave me pause are:

1) when Clinton basically defended Bush a few months back, which kind of took the steam out of the dem contenders at the time, who were really rolling against bush.. and..

2) the constant speculation that Hillary might enter the race. Will she or won't she? I don't want to get completely on board with a candidate like Clark, only to see Hillary jump in because the polls show she has a chance.. and then suddenly I am having to support her for prez (and clark for vice?) or go back to Dean.

I realize Clark kind of did the same thing, waiting to announce, but we all had an idea he would do it, and he ended the speculation and joined in due time for a full primary season.

to answer your points, as I see 'em:

1) Yes, Clinton backed Bush to a degree. It would be VERY unusual for an ex-president to criticize a sitting president on military matters either just before or during a military operation. It's a courtesy given to all presidents. I think Clinton's support was minimal, and was in response to questions. He didn't hold a press conference to voice his support.

2) The only speculation about Hillary running for President comes from far right-wingers, who manage to raise a million dollars every time somebody on TV mentions the possibility. She has said on every possible occasion that she is NOT running. She couldn't possibly be clearer about it, but that doesn't satisfy some people. Of course, the right-wingers believe every word out of her mouth is a lie, so if she says she's NOT running, it means she really is.



on edit:

One further point. Today's poll showed Hillary with a 54% national approval rating, and a 40% disapproval. The "Hillary is too divisive" meme is also a right-wing talking point. Clearly, by these numbers, she's a lot less divisive than Bush himself.