Fire in the Belly: Is Clark His Own Man?

by Tamara Baker

Reposting with a different quote so as not to confuse the subject matter again ;)

http://www.apj.us/20030916Baker.html

"Sept. 17, 2003 -- SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA (APJ.US) -- So, who is this Wesley Clark guy?

Yeah, I know -- he was the head of NATO during President Clinton's time in office. But really -- who is he?

Does he have his own thoughts, his own views, his own philosophy on how a nation should be run? Is he running because he, Wesley Clark, really wants to become our next President?

Or is he not really his own man, but just the last gasp of the elitist Democratic Leadership Council's "Stop Dean" brigade?"

Please note, I did not choose the title of the piece, it was done so by the author...

old candidate bashing days?

Well...

At least the respite was pleasant....

<kisses>

Brian

:-)

The fact is, there is no way a New Englander perceived as liberal (even though he's more of a centrist) who avoided service in Vietnam is going to be more electable than a Southerner perceived as moderate (even though he's more of a liberal) who was shot four times in Vietnam and rose to become a four-star general.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history and political "science" knows this. Clark attracts many more moderates than Dean, as recent polls and common sense have shown, so this author's empty claim that Dean is the only one to attract Independents and Republicans is obviously false.

Dean can indeed win, but to do so he will require close to a "perfect storm" of favorable events. Meanwhile, Bush will be hammering at him with his ungodly $200 MM war chest for being an anti-war, anti-patriotic New England liberal with zero foreign policy experience who went skiing and worked construction after receiving a draft exemption for a supposed bad back that his personal doctor vouched for.

Now, I don't think those are fair statements at all...but whoever said Bush was going to be fair? These types of attacks have a history of resonating with American voters, particularly those in the South. That is why Dean will have a problem if he's the nominee.

DTH

I also think WE need time to examine Clark, so we know who we might be nominating.

I am fully comfortable with Dean as our nominee, I know he can beat Bush. I know where he stands on the issues.

In the words of Eli Pariseau:

"I think part of what you're seeing is a split between the Democratic elites and Democratic base," says Eli Pariser, campaign director for the political advocacy group MoveOn.org. "Elites are less comfortable with the candidates we have now."

And specifically, less comfortable with Dean. "There are non-trivial number of people in the party who say, 'Holy shit, how do you stop Dean? He's raised over $10 million in this quarter, and he'll probably hit the $15 million mark. How do you do you slow it?'" says a former White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity and who is not associated with any of the campaigns. "I think the traditional party operatives are afraid of the Dean campaign and don't understand it."

The Bushies have no idea how to stop Dean, they hope Clark will do it for them.

You can bet they know how to pursue the General. Given his short history in politics, he's already contradicted himself on several occasions.

I can see it now, a speech by Clark endorsing Bush, Rummy, Condi, (in his own words) it don't get any better then that my friend.

Who is that by the way?

:)

I highly doubt that. In fact, I would wager that MOST of them have NO idea that Dean was even rated the highest of all Dems by the CATO Institute because of his affinity for deregulation.

and the enviroment when done correctly.

"For the modern electricity market, the Founders' balanced constitutional framework means that deregulation will need to be a shared responsibility, administered by both state and federal officials. The goal should be clear: to ensure the nationwide development of competition and consumer choice on the most rapid timetable possible to benefit all Americans.

State officials and regulators should welcome federal efforts that complement or expand the deregulatory initiatives they are undertaking in their own states. Such cooperation is essential if electricity consumers are to reap the benefits that competitive choice can offer."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/BG1125.cfm

http://www.goodenergy.com/electricity_deregulation/deregulation.asp

http://www.nonprofitwatch.org/heinz/kerryhypocrisy.html

Another topic, but Cato is right about this...

http://cato.org/research/articles/lynch-030915.html

And I doubt that many have attached him to deregulation.

If you are so certain Democratic voters DO support deregulation, then why don't you try a poll here at DU. No names, just see if they support deregulating electricity.

I doubt most people have given it much thought.

I don't understand how some people try to spin support from people as liberal as Charlie Rangel, Michael Moore and various other columnists, to people as fantastic as Clinton, to people as moderate as certain DLC members, to even Independents and some Republicans, as some kind of negative.

Clark ran because he was drafted, not because the DLC put him up to it. Bush's worst nightmare is Clark, which is why they're trying their damnedest, through their surrogates like Drudge, Novak, Will, FAUX, and anyone else, to smear Clark.

Any effort by Bush to smear Clark as supportive of Bush will simply make Clark look non-partisan and more attractive to moderates. He can also say he was never praising Bush, just his cabinet, and even that was years ago, pre-9/11, pre-Iraq. The whole country changed dramatically after that.

Meanwhile, Dean has many more problems, and moreover those problems fit right into the same mold that have doomed Democratic candidates for years.

Clark is much tougher to attack on all of these issues. Of course he's not invulnerable.

But he's sure a lot tougher to attack than Dean.

DTH

and if he is elected, not much, if anything will change..Just my opinion of course. I havent made up my mind who to support yet, however, Clark raises some major red flags for me.

Cid

He opposes their agenda.

I'm not really interested in "Clark is a PNAC/Republican plant" paranoia like that. It's really ludicrous.

DTH

In the general election, it is about winning the folks in the middle that can be persuaded to vote for the democratic candidate. Probably 10-12% of people who voted for Bush in 2000 can possibly be persuaded to vote otherwise (the rest are lost to the dark side, probably forever).

The thing is - people don't like to admit they were wrong - so it is hard to convince these people that voting for Bush was wrong. Instead, you have to convince them that Bush isn't what he billed himself to be - that he is a fraud. You and I and all DUers can pat ourselves on the back (or scream electronically) and say, hey we knew he was a fraud in 1999 - but guess what - lots of folks bought his act, hook, line and sinker and voted for him.

Thus, Clark - having actually professed to have some confidence in Bush's people - can very credibly get up today and say - this guy was reckless and wrong - he is not what he billed himself to be. We were duped. I was duped.

Dean is not subtle about it - he just gets angry. He looks self righteous about it - and that is not appealing to the Bush 2000 voter who needs to save face and be able to tell themselves "I was duped".

I don't agree with you when you say "I know Dean can beat Bush" I believe Wes Clark can beat Bush in the general election.

Iam from the anyone except bush in 2004 ! I will vote for whoever the Dem. nominee is ! With that said ,I just dont see Dean winning against bush ,he will be painted as a liberal, and its to bad that the shallow Amrican voters will look at things like who's taller and more Presidential looking ! I mean if Arnold ,who has no idea how to Govern a state ,let alone one of the largest economy's in the world, yet he wins ? Proof that even a heavily Dem state ,goes for what they see on the surface more then substance. Sad but true !

Edit to delete dupe post

His tactics suggests that winning is everything to him and that he will do and say whatever it takes to win. Clark isn't like that. She's right.

We'll see how/what he does when he drops in the polls.

I disagree that 'winning' is everything to Dean. I think beating Bush is, and I think Dean feels he's the best qualified to take his place.

I agree with Howard Dean... ;)



Give em hell Howard!!!

...Clark surpasses Dean nationally, and immediately he gets saddled with the dreaded DLC label. What's funny,though, is their way with words..

the last gasp of the elitist Democratic Leadership Council's "Stop Dean" brigade?"

Yikes! Hide your daughters!

I think its a viable position.

Again I will post the words of Eli Pariser (moveon.org)

"I think part of what you're seeing is a split between the Democratic elites and Democratic base," says Eli Pariser, campaign director for the political advocacy group MoveOn.org. "Elites are less comfortable with the candidates we have now."

And specifically, less comfortable with Dean. "There are non-trivial number of people in the party who say, 'Holy shit, how do you stop Dean? He's raised over $10 million in this quarter, and he'll probably hit the $15 million mark. How do you do you slow it?'" says a former White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity and who is not associated with any of the campaigns. "I think the traditional party operatives are afraid of the Dean campaign and don't understand it."

We know the DLC was trying to stop Dean. Perhaps now, they have found a way?

I think the base of the democratic party are moderate blue collar working class.

That is Kerry/Clark/Edwards territory and, if the truth be known, Dean territory.

And the elites are the ones who feel they are superior - a group I put into the further left fringe of the democratic party.

Howard Dean is not the elites' candidate.

How then do you explain the recent poll that shows Dean leading Clark in only one category - incomes of more than 75,000?

Howard Dean appeals to elites and only elites. Wes Clark polled higher with every other break out group (men, elderly, women, minorites etc

over whelming suppport for the Iraq War after the Saddam 'ultimatum.'

But, on the other hand "one" poll does not make it 'truth'...

Seems like you insult the very voter you claim loves or will love Dean. Strange way to win over support for your candidate.

...because I don't consider the elites defined as economic but as exclusivity.

Like I said, I see the elites as those further left and outside the mainstream base.

There is far too much paranoia here about them. Let them support who they want. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

I count the broad-based support Clark can garner to be a big plus. So do most rational people.

DTH

Clark has never been. Dean has. Also Dean seems to be a centrist rich boy born in NY. It sounds like Dean is a DLC elitist in populist clothing.

;)

Dean is hated by the DLC, and they have the articles to prove it.

My recollection was that Dean and the DLC were told to make nice with each other by McAuliffe/the DNC, and they did.

DTH

That Tamara Baker is. Enough.

Nope.

* He had to be told that is would be a good idea if he told the people he was a Democrat before making the decision to run on the Democratic Party ticket.

* He had to be told that "UNK" wouldn't cut it when he was filling out his party affliation of the FEC form to run for the Democratic Party.

* He had to be told that it wasn't a good idea to say you were for the Iraq invasion, after saying you were against it days before.

* He has yet to post his written stances on major issues. (Something he should have thought about when he was being "coy".)

The above and for many other reasons, IMHO, he is being lead/backed by someone(s) (DLC) that want their own breed of dog in the race.

Now, as a dog lover, I love most dogs, but there are some that I stay away from. I have learned to do so after paying attention to life experiences w/certain breeds of dogs.

:thumbsup:

people oppose Howard Dean because 'he's too liberal to win.' Wrong! I oppose Howard Dean because he is dishonest, has a campaign built on false rhetoric, and above all, will lose every single Southern state without a fight in a general election. I don't care if he's 'liberal;' in fact, he isn't liberal enough as far as I'm concerned. It's his overall electability that concerns me.

Of course, in her little Dean puff piece, Ms. Baker presents no evidence that Dean is electable -- he isn't really a liberal, therefore he is electable: that is the extent of her logic.

The 'fire in the belly' stuff is laughable, as it also rests on false or debateable premises: Clark ran 'because his friends want him to run;' and only one candidate (and guess who that might be?????) has 'fire in the belly,' although this assertion is totally unsupported with evidence.

Why do people dislike Deanites? Because of illogical, hyped-up nonsense like this. This might as well have been written by one of Dean's DU fanboys or girls -- it is of no higher quality than a DU post.

"Why do people dislike Deanites? Because of illogical, hyped-up nonsense like this."

Her logic contends Dean is electable and the polls show that he is.

Deans position on Guns can get him votes in the South, along with the right VP.

Clark will be vulnerable in the South as well, once the Repubs start the Clark trashing, I wouldn't kid myself if I were you.

Clark is no shoe in, he's got plenty of baggage.

Polls consistently show Dean as among the worst in terms of electability vis-a-vis Bush. Practically every single one.

As for Clark vs. Dean, listen to yourself, Gully. How can you honestly claim that it will be harder for Bush to trash Clark than Dean in the South?

At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that Clark has a better shot than Dean in the South.

DTH

Written by a Clark supporter.

http://counterspin.blogspot.com/2003_09_14_counterspin_archive.html#106379711994726685

"HOW THE GOP WILL ATTACK CLARK: The campaign of rumor, innuendo and attacks against Wesley Clark will get extremely vicious. It will make the attacks on John McCain during the South Carolina GOP primary look tame in comparison.

For a rundown of the lines of attack, read this PeePer thread on Clark.

Among the attacks that will be launched on Clark are:

1) He's just a front for Hillary and Bill Clinton. Mostly, he will be portrayed <sub>as Hillary's Presidential stalking horse. There will be rumors flying that he would entertain asking her to join the ticket as his VP.

2) He's an unstable hothead who "almost started World War III." This line of attack has already been raised, ironically, by Katrina Vanden Heuvel on the pages of The Nation. That incident was less aggressive and hotheaded than it seemed. From the Washington Post:

"When the NATO allies realized, late on June 11, <1999> that the Russians were moving men toward Pristina, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, the NATO commander, speedily devised a plan to deploy NATO troops by helicopter to the Pristina airport, creating the possibility for the first NATO-Russia confrontation since the end of the Cold War. But British Gen. Michael Jackson, head of the peacekeeping force, argued that such a move would upset the delicate arrangements he had negotiated with Yugoslav officers on their withdrawal from Kosovo, and Clark's plan was dropped."
In context, it's explainable. Read the Post article about the Russian plan to deploy over 1000 troops into Kosovo to stake out a Russian Zone of influence, and to preempt NATO. Later, it turns out, British troops DID confront the Russians at the airport:
"A top British military official tried angry words and body language, but failed Sunday to persuade Russian soldiers to allow British troops to enter the airport in the capital of Kosovo.

Control of the Pristina airport has become an unexpectedly tense issue since early Saturday, when Russian troops moved into the city ahead of British peacekeepers. The Russians settled at the airport, which was supposed be the headquarters for the international peacekeeping operation.

Russia had been expected to take part in the Kosovo peacekeeping operation, but its role and commander have been the subject of delicate discussion.

On Sunday, a Russian armored personnel carrier blocked the road to the airport as a British contingent of 17 vehicles and about 50 soldiers arrived Sunday.

British Brigadier Adrian Freer, the commander of the units that led the way into Kosovo early Saturday, launched into a tirade at the Russians.

''What the hell are you doing here? Get on to your commanders and get out of here now,'' Freer shouted. Then he pulled down the collar of his uniform shirt to reveal Russian Airborne Division T-shirt."
I also seem to remember the Clinton administration taking a ton of criticism from Congressional Republicans about letting the Russian take the Pristna airport unchallenged. I may be wrong, but I swear they were attacking Clinton on this very issue. If some enterprising soul wants to dig that up, it might be very helpful. If not, I will do so at a later time.

3) He was involved in the Waco disaster. Clark commanded the 1st Cavalry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas at the time of the Waco siege. Gun nuts and militia wackos will go bananas over this allegation.

4) They will repeat the smear perpetuated by George Will and the Weekly Standard that Wesley Clark lied about being contacted by the White House to hype the Iraq-9/11 connection.

5) They will try and downgrade his military service, which will be hard to do.

6) They will, probably in the "confederate" South bring up his Jewish ancestry.

7) He did not get along with his colleagues in the military. This is an effort to portray him as arrogant and aloof. Unable to work with people, etc. In other words, they will portray him as another Douglas MacArthur. Of course, to rightwingers, MacArthur was a hero.

It's unlikely that George W. Bush or most national Republicans will bring up some of these things directly. But you can bet that talk radio and the internet will be spreading this stuff like wildfire. I also wouldn't rule out "sympathetic" groups taking out radio adds, or doing push polls with these attacks.

The Clark campaign better damn well get ready to fight back against this stuff...hard. Ruthlessly, in fact. If I were Clark, I'd start hammering Bush for going AWOL. Believe it or not, while this is common knowledge to those who read this blog, most of the American public has no foggy clue about it. If Clark started hammering Bush on it, every day on the stump...and running campaign ads in key states, it would really get a lot more traction. .

But, he should hold back on it until Bush and Rove start unleashing the deluge of toxic waste I've listed here.

ADDENDUM: I should probably point out that I believe the Bush folks are, at this very moment, rifling through Gen. Clark's service record, NATO files, and any other scrap of paper that has anything to do with Wesley Clark.

Activity that, at one time, would have justified the appointment of an Independnet Counsel.

UPDATE: Sure enough, as Scoobie Davis discovered, Rush used many of these very attacks against Clark today.

And, of course, this drumbeat will go on day after day after day...without any balance. So much so, that Rush's listeners will actually believe all of this, even though 99% of it is complete bunk.

It will be repeated on every conservative radio show today, and for weeks afterward. Everytime Clark does something, it will be rehashed. Eventually, the rednecks and others who regularly listen to these jokers will assume its true, and start repeating it like a mantra.

By that time, it will be too late to rebut the charges in the traditional media.

That's how it works, folks.

That's why we have to fight back against this stuff now. And with both guns blazing."</sub>

The Clark campaign 'aint' seen nothin yet. They will have plenty o dish.

Dean has a favorable rating with the NRA, which I think should help out in the South.

Would you prefer it if I instead recited a litany of bogus attacks on Dean that Bush will certainly use? Because I certainly can do that.

Again, do you honestly think Bush will have a HARDER time attacking Clark than Dean in the South? Do you honestly think Dean has a BETTER shot than Clark in the South?

DTH

I provided information as to what Clark might face in the election.

We know what Dean might face, because everything has been hashed out here over and over again.

Also, I refuse to support a candidate because I think he'll do 'better' in the South.

Sorry, but I personally need more-like clear issues in writing somewhere?

Also, Gore lost his home state remember?

ANY Dem is gonna have a hard time in the South-Clark is no different (period).

I also stated Dean could choose a 'Southern' running mate which may help along with his NRA support.

WHY is it SO HARD for you to admit two simple things:

1) Clark will be more difficult (however marginally) to slime in the South than Dean; and

2) Clark will have a better chance (however marginally) to win Southern states than Dean.

As for what will be thrown against Dean, here is a litany:

1) Typical New England liberal;
2) Anti-patriotic;
3) Complete foreign policy novice;
4) Tax-and-spend liberal, wants to raise EVERYONE'S taxes;
5) From a lily-white state, out-of-touch with people-of-color;
6) Rich patrician, out-of-touch with the poor;
7) Anti-family, he supported civil unions;
8) Anti-elderly, wants to cut Medicare and raise social security age;
9) What an angry, unpresidential man;
10) Soft on terror, Uday/Qusay/Hamas;
11) He destroyed the Vermont environment;
12) He dodged the draft, then went skiing and did construction;
13) Flip-flopping, hypocritical opportunist.

And that's just off the top of my head.

Now, I think EVERY SINGLE THING up there is COMPLETE BS except for maybe aspects of 12 and 13. The problem is that many of those attacks will resonate, simply because they are caricatures of the left that have been floated for decades. Another problem is that for quite a few of these attacks, you need a VERY HIGH degree of voter education to defend against them, and that is incredibly difficult in today's sound bite society.

Clark is, IMO, MUCH MUCH HARDER TO SMEAR using the standard RW attacks. That is why he is so dangerous to them.

DTH

Each and every one of these points have been argued on DU, with the exception of #6 (Clark's Jewish ancestry), which was brought up but with a different slant.

Of course it's good to get practice on DU defending against such attacks, as many Clark supporters have done. It makes one wonder about the people who cling to these points as reasons not to support Clark, though...

I never said Clark was a 'shoe-in' (the correct phrase, by the way, is 'shoo-in' -- one of my many pedantic pet peeves.)

Clark will do better in the South than Dean, who polls at about 5% across the region, I believe. It's rather basic logic that a military guy from a Southern state would, but as I suggested earlier, elementary logic and Howard Dean mix like oil and water.

I actually prefer an experienced candidate. I won't limit my choices based on what the 'confederate' flag wavers in the South think.

*not a slam on the south BTW, just a certain segment of the Southern voting population*

I can only surmise the DLC feels the same way you do.

shoe in? shoo-in? Whateva... :shrug:

I'll send you a copy. :D

.

If they're the DNC and if it's true that they're uncomfortable with Dean, then I think that's because they think he'll lose the general election. That's the bottom line. I'm not sure why Dean is considered to be the left liberal. I honestly think a lot of it is because he's from the same state as Ben & Jerry and Phish. Ben and Jerry know it's not the case and they've endorsed Kucinich.

As far as I'm concerned, Clark is going to be the candidate of the proletariat. In this area, the people attending the Dean Meet-up and those attending Clarks are strikingly different as a group. Dean's supporters here tend to be upscale professionals or students. Clark's tend to be a bit closer to working class folks. A lot closer in many cases, and despite their liberal and Democratic leanings, a lot more like the "average American". I'm very much looking forward to being able to think of the working class American as the Democratic base again and I think Clark, and no one else, can make that happen.

piece. I pretty much reminded her that Dean is the yuppie candidate with a yuppie constituency (like her), and that she should try thinking outside the yuppie box. I also attached a link of the demographic breakdown of the current Gallup poll. I thought she should have some facts to back up her next opinion piece. :evilgrin:

I guess she KNOWS who he is now. He's the guy who's kicking her guy's butt.