Thoughts from Kerry, Clark, Dean Supporters, RE: Bob Novak quote

Bill Clinton recently told Sen. John Kerry privately that it now looked as though he and Gen. Wesley Clark were the only Democrats who could beat George W. Bush in the general election.

Kerry supporters are counting on Clark to take away enough votes in New Hampshire from former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean to enable the Massachusetts senator to win a primary election he cannot afford to lose.

A Robert Novak observation. Thoughts?

Other than the fact I can find no other source for Novak's claim about Clinton, what about the general points he tries to make?

Will Clark draw votes away from Dean? Or From Kerry? I can see it both ways.

Clinton may be right, but I don't think so; if anything, I believe that Clark may well decimate the lower-tier candidates. So far, it appears that Clark's support is coming from the 'undecided' voters, rather than from the Kerry and Dean ranks.

http://www.intellivu.com/main.asp?brand=&fnum=142&pathb=/articles1/rnovak/novak101103.htm

Some may believe the Clark and Kerry would split the more conservative military vote. Others, like you said, feel Clark's base is from the undecided vote. Then again, there are those (and I know some personally) who will be voting for the first time in years based on the Clark and Dean campaigns.

So there are a lot of aspects here to consider.

Unbelievable the "quotes" attributed to both Clinton's that have never happened. All I want to hear from Novak is how he helped the White House in Traitor Gate.

As a Clark supporter I say: BS! More attempts from the wingnuts to divide us...
However:anectotal conclusion of mine: some Kerry supporters are so pissed at Dean that are relishing his getting his comeuppance from Clark.
Also, Clinton taught us that winning in New Hampshire is not a sine qua non condition to win (he lost to Tsongas in 92).
Considering that there are 3 New Englanders in the race, a 4th place for Clark in New Hampshire would not be a loss.

But it's a let the best man win thing. I'm sure that Clinton KNOWS a southerner has a better chance of beating bush than a New Englander.

Though columnist Charley Reese has already voiced them for me:

http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20031008/index.php

The general is just an insurance policy for the Establishment. Yes, Virginia, there is an Establishment, and the game it has played all of my life is to make sure that both the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee were controllable by the Establishment. What the Establishment fears most is an independent outsider.

The Establishment isn't concerned with conservatives or liberals, with the left or with the right. These are all just red herrings to keep the populace distracted. Politics in our country is about money and power. End of story. Look at recent history. The Establishment came down with all its power on Barry Goldwater, an independent thinker of the right, and on George McGovern, an independent thinker of the left. What the Establishment feared about both men was that it wouldn't be able to manipulate and control them.

The Establishment is scared to death of Howard Dean. The more progress he makes, the more you will see the Establishment press and think tanks attack him. The Establishment wants a choice between Wesley Clark and George Bush that would in effect be between tweedledee and tweedledum. Clark isn't even sure if he's a Democrat, much less what he believes, if anything. He just wants to be emperor. And the Establishment got him into the race simply because it was afraid Dean would beat Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Bob Graham and John Edwards.

Old J.P. Morgan maneuvered Teddy Roosevelt into the vice-presidency, which, at the time, was the death of a political career. When Morgan was told that President McKinley had been assassinated and Roosevelt was the new president, Morgan threw up right in the Waldorf Astoria's dining room.

I predict that if Howard Dean wins the nomination, Establishment types will be throwing up all around the Ivy League.

=====================

And here's some of MY thoughts:
Clark has been put in the race specifically to stop Dean, by other Democrats. And it's NOT because Dean is unelectable - it's precisely because he IS electable AND the movement that has formed around him, which is intent on "taking back our country" from ALL the special interests and putting it in the hands, for the first time in a very long while, of THe People.

He's raising his money from small donors -- people like you and me. He's running a grassroots, Open Source iterative Presidential Campaign in which he and his campaign listen carefully, respond and adopt the ideas of his supporters -- people like you and me. He's not bought, he's not handled, he's free and able to respond to The People. He is revitalizing the democratic process itself, and it's very scary for some who do not want to let go of THEIR power (which isn't The People's Power).

So he has become unbelievably dangerous for those who do NOT want to let go of their power and influence -- the DNC, the DLC, and people like the Clintons.

I should've paid attention when Bill Clinton said a few weeks ago that "there are two stars in the Democratic Party -- Hillary Clinton and Wesley Clark." I should've listend when Hillary gave a glowing review of Clark to a reporter, but said, "but this isn't an endorsement, I can't endorse anyone." I should've paid attention when Howard Fineman wrote a column about the Stop Dean effort in the party. But when Clark finally announced and then shortly thereafter I heard him spouting some DLC talking points, and THEN it was revealed that not only was Clinton "encouraging him to run," but a bunch of ex-Clinton aides and campaign workers had joined his campaign, I got it.

Watch too for Hillary to enter the race. Watch too for Hillary to enter the race -- and yeah, I realize the Rightwing has said that, but the Leftwing hasn't denounced it. There have been a lot of hints. An article someone wrote some time back about how the Clintons have been busy, busy fundraising and "building things." Some coy remarks by Bill about Hillary and it's her decision. Remember too a recent remark that he thought the people of New York would "forgive her" if she didn't keep her promise to serve out her Senate term. I hope it doesn't happen, but it's not imposible.

Bill Clinton does NOT have the right to pick our nominee for us, especially when he's thwarting the will of the people to do so. I have been increasingly "over" the Clintons (and Bill IS the only Republican I ever voted for), but this little move clinches it for me. He is NOT a friend of democracy, AFIAC, or The People. And he needs to get the hell out of this primary race. Period.

Eloriel

the Reese reference cites the indies Goldwater and McGovern. Yet both were buried (historically so) at the polls?

I have no dog to back in the Novak/Kerry/Clark/Dean speculation and rumor battle.

But I always have trouble with the carefully laid plans of invisible, power-brokering, king-makers. If for no other reason, the Intentionalist Fallacy is always at play.

:)

which meant reading The Orlando Sentinel and Charley Reese...

The man's a crackpot....

What do you mean , a crakpot?


The guy wrote a column in the 80's that there should be a "poor tax" and a tax on cheap wine cuz that's what poor people drink...

Even a blind dog finds a bone once in a while. That article is spot on.

that Tactical Peak so wisely brings up.....

I seriously doubt Clinton would be stupid enough to say that....

His detractors and supporters have said alot about Clinton but nobody has said he's stupid....

His name is Howard Dean.

"The Establishment is scared to death of Howard Dean"

He raised taxes in Vermont regressively through sales, gasoline taxes.

He worked to deregulate the energy industry and spoke at the Cato Institute about it.

He often reminds people that he balanced the budgets in Vermont, an impressive feat
compared to Bush's half-trillion dollar deficit. From 1994 to 1996, he received an
economic rating of B, the highest rating of any Democratic Governor, from the
Libertarian Cato Institute. "Believe me," he once said at a Cato Institute lunch, "I'm no
big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look
at my record in Vermont."

I wouldn't link it either if I were you. The article if full of to be charitable mistakes to be honest, lies. To site one you reposted here. Dean didn't increase the sales tax. It was 5% on all purchases except food when he got there and was 5% on all purchases except food and clothing when he left. For the math challenged that is a reduction not an increase.

In the same article it is claimed that Dean instituted a voucher program in Vermont. According to a October 31, 2001 Education Weekly article about vouchers the only voucher program in Vermont is called tuitioning, is over 100 years old, and is only in towns without school districts and is not permitted to be spent at religious schools (that is the precise opposite of what voucher programs usually are). For the author to be correct you have to believe one of the following three things.

a) Education Weekly, which reports only on education, was ignorant of Dean's voucher program in Vermont. That would be like Sports Illustrated not knowing the Bucaneers are an NFL franchise. Not very likely.

b) Education Weekly conspired with Dean, or for some other reason, is lying aboutg the existence of a voucher program in Vermont.

c) Dean passed a voucher program in Vermont between Oct 31, 2001 and Jan 3, 2003 and hid this fact from the press, teachers unions, and every other candidate's opposition research.

Given the unlikely hood of those three things that leaves that the author didn't know what he was talking about or didn't care if he had to lie to make points. In either case why should I beleive him on what Dean said at a luncheon?

Why are you talking about vouchers? I didn't even mention vouchers...

Dean worked to deregulate Energy in Vermont
Dean calls himself a fiscal conservative

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/dean/25.htm
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp
http://www.together.net/~wudchuck/987_watchman_34.html

But he weathered the storm. Dean is nothing if not a survivor--as well as an iconoclast. Even as he pursued wild-eyed social experiments, Dean carefully nurtured a reputation as a "business-friendly" governor. On numerous occasions he pragmatically swept aside onerous environmental regulations and last-use restrictions (this is the greenest state of all) to make room for business expansion and jobs, jobs, jobs. He supported electricity deregulation to take monopolistic pricing power away from big utilities. He even launched one of the nation's most progressive voucher programs for high school students

Look at the bold print and it is from the article which discusses the Cato luncheon you mention. So the Cato man did say it just like I said he did. Don't accuse me of making crap up when you evidently didn't even bother to look at your own links.

the first one has not one word about deregulating electricity. I read the entire article three times and it just doesn't, the second article has the voucher lie, the sales tax lie, and a host of other lies so has no credibility (it also is a Weekly Standard piece), and the third does. I will look and see what that paper's rep is since I haven't ever heard of it before.

not to believe Mr. Novak. And God knows, attempting to sew dissent in our ranks is not beneath him.

liars who tell them.

Really hard to keep count.

They are trying to get the Dean people to pile on Clark, the Kerryites to pile on Dean, blah blah blah.

The questions asked at the debate were meant to provoke a pile on, thus increasing the negatives of both sides. A lose-lose agenda. Making sure the following day, the spinners can distort the debate and avoid the overwhelming criticism of the boil-monkey. If there is a "plan B" it centers on how Novak etal are going to get a failed residency elected. IMHO, Democratic candidates--all of them--need to refuse the bait.

I listened to the NAACP forum and it was really refreshing. The candidates were asked "real" policy questions, and given time to express thoughtful opinions. Clark, Sharpton and Kucinich...the dream team!

John Ashcroft:...well he's not much of an attorney, and he sure isn't a general.

until I have proof..but if he did...then ..clinton doesn't know shit.

Novak is fast becoming irrelevant. How would Novak know of a private conversation between Kerry and Clinton? I can't see Clinton or Kerry leaking this kind of crap. Kerry supporters wouldn't want speculation out in the public that they think his campaign is in trouble.

MzPip
:dem:

Or Kerry's? I don't give a shit about Novak's theories. And I don't think Clark's a plant to destroy Dean - personally I want to see them run together, in one combination or another, because they've both got the juice. And so does Kerry, for that matter - I just prefer C/D or D/C.

But that's just what I, the lowly voter, want -- the "librul" media wants to promote infighting, and so they will. Next window, please...

but polls have suggested Clark is hurting Dean more than Kerry - which I didn't expect.

Also, Novak is trying to plant the idea that a Kerry loss in NH would be the end of his campaign.

is that the Repubs are meddling in our
nomination process and we are taking the
bait. Worse than that, the candidates are
taking the bait and using the red meat
thrown to them by the right to bait each other.

It does not seem that he is doing it. At least according to the poll results I have read.

Think about it, this guy, when he looks in the mirror, sees Bob Novak!

Just think about how that could warp your mind. :freak:

And I'm not even sure the conjecture involved in debating his thesis is healthy.

Next, he'll go to the standby: "Hiiilllllary!".

:shrug:

john kerry himself said that clark has the ability to take away from many. i think this came up during a conversation about their military service and kerry said he can see clark taking away support based on many issues and from many candidates. and i agree with that.

(on edit, i don't believe clinton told kerry that ONLY kerry and clark can beat bush. clinton may have said some things about how military service can help to beat bush and novak took that an interpreted in a different way. i think bill clinton believes most or all can kick bush's ass)

That makes it automatically suspicious, in my view. Why on EARTH would Clinton give any tips to a schmuck like Robert Novak, whose reputation is, by now, seriously compromised because of his playing fast 'n' loose with classified info. He should be facing criminal prosecution as an accessory to TREASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

with a 'Stay Out of Jail' card.

Hell, a 'Stay Off the Gallows' card.

Benedict the dumb traitor, the second-worst kind.

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean continues to hold his lead in ballot preference among likely Democratic primary voters in the New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Preference Primary according to the latest New Hampshire Poll. In ballot preference, Dean leads with 29% to 19% for Senator John Kerry. Dean and Kerry continue to be the only two candidates to receive double-digit support. When it comes to candidate favorability, 63% of likely Democratic primary voters have a favorable opinion of Dean and 63% have a favorable opinion of Kerry.

Awareness of Wesley Clark has increased to 90% from 47% in August, but over half of likely Democratic primary voters aware of Clark say they do not know enough about him to form an opinion.

These resultsare based on 600 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of registered Democrats and undeclared voters in New Hampshire saying they always vote or vote in most Democratic primary elections. This sample includes 413 Democrats (69%) and 187 undeclared voters (31%). The interviews were conducted October 5 through 8, 2003. The theoretical margin of error for the total sample of 600 is plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

The greatest change in ballot preference since the September survey is preference for Wesley Clark increasing from 2% to 5% (which is within the margin of error).

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/dem/

I admit, I read him, because I'm an older, white curmudgeon starting to resemble a young Andy Rooney. Doesn't mean I agree with him though. For God's sake, the man's a near-facist!

I am amazed to see Eloriel cite Charlie Reese...Its like having Cybil Shepherd cite George Wallace...it just isn't natural...I have no problem with you disliking Wes Clark, but please...