Clark last nite: empty platitudes, the look of a deer caught in headlights

I read with great amusement the DU poll suggesting that Gen. Clark "won" last night's debate. IMHO, he didn't finish among the top 5.

His remark about "McCarthyism" flatly misused the term. McCarthyism (narrowly defined) refers to falsely accusing people of being Communist sympathizers. It is NOT just a synonym for someone (in this case General Shelton) criticizing you (for "character issues" -- not for political beliefs), which is how Clark tried to use it last night.

Regarding Clark's economic plan, the transcript shows the following:
==============

IFILL: General Clark, this week you introduced your economic plan in which you said that you would save $2.3 trillion in 10 years by repealing part of President Bush's tax cuts and cutting waste.

But you did not tell us how you would and when you would balance the budget, this budget deficit that you have said is so corrosive. Want to tell us now?

CLARK: Well, I'm happy to talk about this. I think that what you've got right now in this country is a real absence of responsible government. This government has lost its bearings.

They came to office with no policies except tax cuts. And they were tax cuts for the wealthy. They said tax cuts would help us. They said tax cuts would bring us jobs; they didn't. They said they'd fix Social Security; they didn't.

CLARK: This government doesn't have a policy.

What we need to do is work on America's needs, and to do that, we need to recapture some of the revenues that were given away in those Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, those making over $200,000 a year...

IFILL: But, General...

CLARK: ... and then we need to use them...

IFILL: Forgive me for interrupting, because I would really like for you to be more specific, in the time you have left, about exactly how you would do that.

CLARK: I'm going to give you that answer right now.

What you've got to do is you've got to put this country on a path to fiscal responsibility. That's why I gave the plan of recapturing $2.3 trillion.

I don't have a date to balance the budget, because I think it's important to use some of that money that's recaptured to meet America's urgent needs in education, health care and Social Security. That's what I'm going to do with that money. We're going to use it more wisely, more effectively and be more responsible than this administration's been.
===========================

Most of this is just vague rambling. Clark says Bush has not been responsible; but he would be more responsible. When Ifill tried to pry more specifics out of him, he lapsed into his admittedly first-rate impersonation of a deer caught in the headlights. Anybody trying to overlook Clark's vagueness & non-responsiveness to specific questions is in denial.

Asked about his shifting positions on the war:
========================

PERKINS: General Clark.....
You have not only praised the president that you now want to defeat but, according to the Arab Institute Voting Guide, in February of 2003, you said this, quote: "Saddam Hussein has these weapons, and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this, and the rest of the world has got to get with us," unquote.

But you have also so far refused to take a firm position on the president's request for more money. Can you tell us exactly where you do stand?

CLARK: I'd be happy to tell you where I stand. I think I've been very consistent from the beginning.

Right after 9/11, this administration determined to do bait and switch on the American public. President Bush said he was going to get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Instead, he went after Saddam Hussein. He doesn't have either one of them today.

(APPLAUSE)

I've been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now. It was an unnecessary war. There was no imminent threat.

On the other hand, just like Reverend Sharpton said, Bush got all our -- the president got all of our troops out there, got them poised, committed the United States to this thing. What he didn't do was he didn't use diplomacy. He didn't use leadership. He didn't bring the rest of the world with it. He should've. There was time to do it. There was no imminent threat. And there is no excuse for his failure of leadership.

You're right, I've been there, and I know that you don't start a military operation, if you know what you're doing, unless you know how you want it to end. This president didn't know how he wanted it to end. He doesn't know what he's doing today.

(APPLAUSE)

IFILL: Carl has a follow-up.

CAMERON: General, there is a long litany of comments from you, both in your time as a former television analyst and then over the course of the last several months. Are we to understand that what you're saying now is that those things you have said that were positive about the war was not what you meant?

CLARK: No, I always -- I'm a fair person, Carl. And when this administration's done something right, well, if they were Russians doing something right, Chinese doing something right, French doing something right or even Republicans doing something right...

(LAUGHTER)

... I'm going to praise them.

CLARK: Now, this country was attacked on 9/11, and it was right that this administration went into Afghanistan. And I supported that war; so did 90 percent of the American people. That Taliban government should have been taken out.

But the failure of this administration was not to put the troops in to finish the job against Osama bin Laden. And you know why they didn't do it? They didn't do it because, all along, their plan was to save those troops to go after Saddam Hussein.

So I support them for what they did right, and I condemn them for what they did wrong.
==========================

Once you take out all the banal accusations about Bush's "lacking leadership," you see that Clark dodged the question. He wasn't asked about AFGHANISTAN. The journalist was referring to Clark's work as a CNN analyst and as author of the London Times article, in which he praised the war on IRAQ. And he never answered the initial question at all, which was about Bush's request for the $87 billion. (Later, he got a second chance at this same point, in response to a barb from Lieberman. At that point, he did say he would have opposed the request for the money.)

Towards the end of the debate, Clark's anecdote about the election for home-room student council was too long & not nearly as cute as he'd intended. Then came his closing statement, nicely demonstrating how generals always see the world in military terms. It was centered around this:
========================

...I learned in the United States Army, in my military career, how to stand up to dictators. I learned how to put a plan together. I learned how to keep our troops safe and accomplish the mission.

I've put my finger in the chest of a dictator and told him if he didn't shape up, we'd bomb him. And when he didn't shape up, we did. And he's in The Hague now, awaiting trial for war crimes.

But I also learned leadership in the United States Army. I learned that generals don't win wars, soldiers do, that we're all in this together, that a unit is no stronger than every soldier in it, that every soldier in it has got to have the education, training and skills he needs, that you have to have a high code of ethics, that we're all in that together, and that great leaders don't only have plans, they listen to the lead....
===================
You see? Everything is reduced to a question of armies, generals, soldiers, evil dictators, and bombing enemies. That's the world-view you get, when career military people are pushed for high office.

please explain in the anal-retentive detail you used above.

By all means, give us some rhetoric - pure unadulterated rhethoric.

This poster is right. Clark is all about military. If you really look at Clark's view of the world, it is all about military - oh yes, fund healthcare and education too, of course.

What I gather is: Clark thinks we went after saddam too early. Maybe the real problem with the bush war is that we shouldn't have gone after Saddam at all. Where is the argument that the inspectors and sanctions were doing their jobs. Saddam was contained. He was absolutely, undeniably contained.

Clark and Dean are absolutely political soul-mates - they complete each other. "Damn this war - Bush just didn't do it right. We'd do it right!" How's about: no war at all as a solution?

And Clark DID allude to afghanistan. The 'going after Osama and committing the troops to get the job done' is all about Afghanistan.

How's about those missing 28 pages, that will point to either or both of Saudi Arabia and Israel? Ahhhhh, and therein lies the crux of the solution for 9/11. Go after the real culprits. But I gather Clark thinks we should have done better in Afghanistan.

:)

(You do make a good point about the definition of McCarthyism. I think it's misused a lot.)

That was what Clark was responding to...

for being a two faced arrogant little fuck up who bombed civilians and journalist, lied about targets, tried to order the brits to attack the russians, and basicaly made a huge mess of Kosovo.

That's not McCarthyism...

character assassination; and you don't seem to have a problem reiterating discredited information.

It was utterly ridiculous. A real jaw-dropper.

Eloriel

eom

I think the candidates who did best were: Lieberman (not becuz I like him or what he stands for but because he does debate and doesn't back down even though I think he is flat wrong on some of the things he says), Kerry, Sharpton, Dean, Edwards, Gep, Kucinich, Braun, and then Clark.

you didn;t win the debate.

it is that they disagree with him--as I do--but I also thought he tends to be a good debator--like him or not.

If you can't win the crowd, you have lost the debate.

don't lose the crowd like Lieberman or to a lesser extent Kucinich.

"Anybody trying to overlook Clark's vagueness & non-responsiveness to specific questions is in denial."


:toast: Well said.



:hippie:

I like Dean, but I'm not rabid about it. I could easily vote for Clark or Edwards or Kerry.

I was hoping Clark would show me more than he did last night. You can't get an honest assessment of Clark in these parts. You can get the take of the rabid-pro-Clark people and you can get the views of the rabid-anti-Clark people (be they Dean, Kerry, or Edwards supporters, whoever). Anyway, Clark didn't quite look ready for prime time to me.

I thought his repeated "management experience" mantra sounded weak, came up a little short. The script he stuck to seemed a little too nice-guyish. If I were a Clark supporter, I think I'd want to see him blast back at his critics a litte more instead of "thanks, Gwen, I'd be happy to answer that question". This is a guy who is being attacked from all sides, and it felt a little like he was defending himself with a template that stressed affability above all else.

Beyond that, I just didn't see where he had a well-thought-out domestic policy. NOTE: he may have a beautiful and comprehensive domestic policy, I don't know, but he didn't do much to reveal it last night.

Finally, I'll allow that he may still be getting accustomed to all of this. If so, he needs to accelerate his learning curve in a hurry.

I expected much more from Clark and was left seriously underwhelmed last night. I had great hopes for Clark, and I think he's a genuinely good person, but I don't think he's at all qualified to be elected leader of the free world.

What kind of cheese would you like with your whine?



Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

Something tells me if his guy would have won that useless poll, we would not be seeing this post now.

or just insult him for asking the questions you can't answer as Clark Corps usually do?

.

You see? Everything is reduced to a question of armies, generals, soldiers, evil dictators, and bombing enemies. That's the world-view you get, when career military people are pushed for high office.

Either you find the military analogies appealing or you don't. It's a free country.

I find them compelling. I understand why others would not.

It's a mindset. It's the framework from which he views the world, and the framework from which he solves problems.

And there is a place for him -- but it's at the Pentagon, not in the white house in charge of every aspect of life on the planet.

the general is not used to puny underlings and little people being allowed to question him... it really clarly threw him off having to explain himself instead of just having that person tossed in the brig.


I do not want a pissy arrogant CO with the power of the white house... not one who worked for henry kissinger as a lobbyist and who openly defended his bombing of journalists.

Someone mentioned above that until the world situation calms down, we might need someone with military expertise.

Why not just stop the warring in its tracks?

and doesn't a president have a CIA and a Pentagon and the largest military in the world and generals galore and the FBI, and, egad, homeland security to DRAW from in order to help the warring world? Hell, it's the USA that is the miltiary problem on earth today.

We need someone with vision and heart about what is important for the people: food, healthcare, jobs, equitable trading practices NOT someone who can take the place of the secretary of defense! That's why we have a defense department.

When will we as a people STOP the destruction of the executive branch of the government? (ie, what bush started). Are we all just that paranoid? What we resist, persists. We are one fucked up nation. And until we stop the warring machine, the wars will continue -- no matter how friendly and diplomatic our military leaders are.

As a Clark supporter, I'd frame this more in terms of Clark simply doesn't have that many public forum debates under his belt yet. He's not as polished at this as a Beltway Boy or former Governor would be...but he's catching on.

As for the rest, you obviously don't like the military. Fine.

Moving on...

or more accuratly I do not like the type of people the military system promotes to leadership positions. Thinking folks who question authority and who push for change are not the ones who get stars in the military.

I respect the military as a whole for their function, which is to kill people and blow shit up... but when military leadership tries to cross over to civilian leadership rolls, that's not a good thing in my view.

Way to close to coup country for my tastes... I fear that Clark would be a military version of Cheney and haliburton.

or more accuratly I do not like the type of people the military system promotes to leadership positions. Thinking folks who question authority and who push for change are not the ones who get stars in the military.

To a certain extent you are exactly right. Not all military leaders are thoughtless followers, however; if they were, then none of them would make it above Private.

No, the military does not encourage creativity in their leaders. They do, however, try to select on initiative. I believe this is one of the ways in which Clark made his impact in the military. There are a lot of good fighters in the officer ranks; there are a lot of good paper-pushers in the officer ranks; there are a lot of good ass-kissers in the officer ranks; but there is something that distinguishes the people who are promoted to the highest levels from those who are passed over. Sometimes it is favoritism; other times it is initiative. I tend to think Clark, since he's not from a old-line political family or a family of wealthy investment bankers, earned his stars based on initiative.

Way to close to coup country for my tastes... I fear that Clark would be a military version of Cheney and haliburton.

I don't see anything in his past that would indicate to me that he would be as cowardly or craven as Cheney or that he would whore out our military and foreign policy to Haliburton. These things happening now are the result of clueless civilian cowards playing General with other peoples' lives and without one bit of remorse. This kind of braggadocio can only be found in wealthy chickenhawks who have never smelled battle before.

I don't think you would see a military leader make the same executive decisions that Bush has allowed his chickenhawk cabinet to make for him.

Like I originally said, a lot of whether or not you are willing to give Clark the benefit of the doubt while he is getting his policy together (which there is good progress on) depends largely on whether or not you like the military as a beneficial institution or if they represent the root of all that is wrong with America.

It really doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.

No, the military does not encourage creativity in their leaders. They do, however, try to select on initiative. I believe this is one of the ways in which Clark made his impact in the military. There are a lot of good fighters in the officer ranks; there are a lot of good paper-pushers in the officer ranks; there are a lot of good ass-kissers in the officer ranks; but there is something that distinguishes the people who are promoted to the highest levels from those who are passed over. Sometimes it is favoritism; other times it is initiative. I tend to think Clark, since he's not from a old-line political family or a family of wealthy investment bankers, earned his stars based on initiative.

On initiative, you say? Perhaps in the past, this was so. And perhaps it is so now. But is this wise policy for a just and restrained military? Hitler showed "initiative" too, I would remind you.

Perhaps you have seen the movie "Crimson Tide." For the benefit of those who haven't, it's a submarine story that takes place on a nuclear missile boat sent to patrol off the coast of China. The Captain was undoubtedly a very conservative character, set in his ways, following the rules and regulations laid out before him without question. The first officer however, was of the liberal mind set, who thinks, questions, and analyzes, before he acts.

On tour, the unthinkable happens. The order is received to launch the missies. Both the captain and first officer carried out their orders. Both waiting, praying, that a cancel order would be sent. But as the radio came on, they came under attack by an enemy sub, damaging the radio, and cutting off what could be the cancel order.

The captain followed his orders, and continued to launch the missiles. But the first officer decanted. The radio had to be fix first, to see what the new order was. To see if it was in fact a cancel orders. The Captain did not relent, and it became a mutiny as some took the Captains side, and others took the first officers side. Each to carry out their own imperative.

The movie concluded with the Captain successfully retaking the boat, but the first officer had focused on the radio, and had it repaired. So the test of wills, became a test of faith to see what the order was. And the first officer was the one proven to be right, as it was a cancel order.

There was a hearing for both characters, where the panel decided that both had acted correctly. That both were to be commended. But the Captain proved to be a wiser man than we might be led to believe, and as he retired, he confessed this to the first officer, soon to take his place. He was the old order, concerned with loyalty, with a blind interpretation of his orders. But the new world would be unforgiving to such blind faith. Only a thinking man could carry they ever growing burden of responsibility, in the nuclear age. He noted that even though he could just as easily have been right, only one of them had even considered the possibility of being wrong, and weighed against its consequences.

To digress back to the point. I find my self asking, is Clark the captain, or is he the first officer? Is he just a solder, just going through the motions of obeying his orders, as an expression of loyalty? Or is he contemplating his actions, aware of the consequences of being wrong? I find it difficult to believe that any one of the later frame of mind, would be so incompetent to produce Kosivo, and ultimately winning his own dismissal for his actions.


I don't see anything in his past that would indicate to me that he would be as cowardly or craven as Cheney or that he would whore out our military and foreign policy to Haliburton. These things happening now are the result of clueless civilian cowards playing General with other peoples' lives and without one bit of remorse. This kind of braggadocio can only be found in wealthy chickenhawks who have never smelled battle before.

Courage is not necessarily the measure of a mans steadfastness in the face of a battle. But is also the measure of ones capacity for internal reflection. Courage against moral fear, is often the cheaper form of courage, to that of one's capacity to admit when they are wrong. And often, when the later courage is found wanting, they tend to resort to the former courage.

The fact is that we have already seen the measure of this sort of courage from Clark. As sited in the root post, some one asked Clark about the comments he made as a CNN war commentator, and the numerous commonest made in support of the war. Clark indeed showed cowardice, by talking about Afghanistan in lue of an answer.

Like I originally said, a lot of whether or not you are willing to give Clark the benefit of the doubt while he is getting his policy together (which there is good progress on) depends largely on whether or not you like the military as a beneficial institution or if they represent the root of all that is wrong with America.

There is a vast gulf between giving Clark the benefit of the doubt, and lionizing him. And if he is just getting his policy together, then exactly what is this lionization built upon? One should first hear the speech, before standing up and applauding.

Before the debates when Clarks experience was being questioned tons of Clark supporters said that he had "lots of experience dealing with the press" (and other lame answers) and as a result would be king of the debates. Another failed Clark prophecy it seems...

I would have thought that he would have made the transition easier, but it is pretty obvious that he isn't as polished as some of the other candidates.

I can live with that.

Moving on...

bingo

The reason I say may is that there is enough truth in what you post that rather then refute it some of his supporters will opt to let it go to the bottom unkicked by defenses.

I too was surprised about how many DUers must be in denial when I saw the poll you are referring too. There is NO WAY he won the debate. He was vague, and it was uncomfortable watching him dodge the questions. That is not to say he was the worst of last night.

I support Kucincih and felt he was off last night too. It is hard to gage who won, because it is not really a debate at all. It is a mutated panel discussion hijacked by "moderators." Still, it is clear when someone dodges questions.

at the beginning, and then faded a bit.

In terms of his animation, he seemed much more engaged than I have seen before, which is good for television.

As far as substance, it's true he is vague, I don't know if this is a campaign strategy or not, but he doesn't give a lot of specifics.

I was thinking about the very same exchange with the moderator when asked to be more specific.
Clark said, I am about to say exactly what my plan is, then continued talking in generalities.
For a contrast, Gephardt said he supported the economic policies of Clinton, which he claimed to help usher in.
He got a loud applause for that.
Doesn't mean Clark is undeserving of support, but not a good performance.

But when he gets it altogether he will be strong. Remember he is/was not a politician like most of them.

Isn't articulating what you want for the country part of what makes a good president?
And what does it mean if a presidential candidate has not given serious thought to our economy?
What did he think would be debated?

Other than being looked down upon by the majority of Americans, nothing. My point is that he is not as pollished as the others. I understand his economic plan fine. He wants to retract the tax cuts for those making $200,000 or more. That simple. And for Gwen Iffel to try and pin him down on when he will balance the budget was unfair. Knowbody can predict that. Who knows how big the budget will be in 2004.

Perhaps I missed his statement. Other candidates stated their position on Bush's tax cuts.
As for people looking down on politicians...don't believe it.
If Americans did not want politicians in office, they would not vote for them. It's like hating lawyers, you only hate them when you lose.

He said that many times. I believe he said it last night too.

Being in Detroit, heard debate on the radio; unfortunately other debates were not broadcast here.
Actually, I don't think he said it. But you may be right, especially about other times.
Would you post something Clark said about repealing Bush's tax cuts?
That would help the discussion here.

http://meetclark.com/faq/index.asp?faqid=27

- Wes Clark's Job Creation Plan Is Deficit Neutral. General Clark will pay for his $100 billion Job Creation Plan by making changes to the Bush Tax Plan as it benefits families making more than $200,000 a year. As a result, there would be no net effect on the budget deficit in 2004 or 2005 from Wes Clark's Job Creation Plan - which would be more effective at creating jobs than the Bush tax breaks it would replace. Furthermore, General Clark's long-term economic strategy will restore long-term fiscal discipline.

> Did he actually say he would repeal tax cuts for those
> $200,000 and above?"

It's in the transcript above.

that are so bright and shiny.... we can't win without those shiny stars. Didn't you get the memo?


THERE ARE FOUR OF THEM! And they shine... how can he not be a great president?

I'm sure glad Dean's in the race. These other guys would have a lot of trouble thinking up good lines without him.

Eloriel

It works in american politics. It works very, very well. He will just coast into the oval office on an 'impression' as a decent, humane military man -- a man who can protect us.

It buys right into the entire GOP dogmatic platform that "we are not safe; our leaders must try to keep us safe." \

Clark is just the other side of the fear coin. He will just protect us BETTER than Bush.

I don't understand DUers who go on about the absurdities of the fear-mongering, but then buy right into a candidate who is just doing a different sort of song and dance, but still bases his beliefs and policies on none other than more fear-mongering.

What about the idea that this invisible enemy is really just a figment of our imaginations? That we are actually safe? that the ONLY thing that compromises our safety and the health of the earth is poverty and misery amongst the masses? That with a strong, vibrant economy and a stable middle class again, the world will be safer, and that includes us?

You can't be against the bush fear mongering AND be for Dean or Clark. That's the way I see it.

Anyways, Clark won't be getting too specific because it will detract from the 'impression' he has with the people and it will make him three dimensional. And he might just win the nom because of it. There is a REASON arnold refused to debate. Just let people think they know what you are about, and hope it translates into votes. Elections - the american way.

Then you get someone like Kucinich - who is laying out his proposed policies in great detail, and he is 'unelectable.' You bet he's unelectable - he's three dimensional, and that's death in american politics.

"Clark is just the other side of the fear coin. He will just protect us BETTER than Bush.

I don't understand DUers who go on about the absurdities of the fear-mongering, but then buy right into a candidate who is just doing a different sort of song and dance, but still bases his beliefs and policies on none other than more fear-mongering.

What about the idea that this invisible enemy is really just a figment of our imaginations? That we are actually safe? that the ONLY thing that compromises our safety and the health of the earth is poverty and misery amongst the masses? That with a strong, vibrant economy and a stable middle class again, the world will be safer, and that includes us?"

Fear is irrational. It prevents people from thinking things through, and politicians exploit the emotional advantage.

I was thinking about Arnold, and how he got into office using the same type of strategy.

I'm not sure if it will work with Clark though, on the national presidential level, if this is indeed his strategy.

Time will tell.

Tip O' the Hat to you for putting this so succinctly. :toast:

Clark is just the other side of the fear coin. He will just protect us BETTER than Bush...

promises? I don't... I have gotten to the point where I would rather not even hear them making promises - especially after what you saw Bush do. He broke EVERY campaign promise he made - and most of the people who voted for him fell for his b.s. hook, line and sinker.

...he didn't blink. Ever. I'm sure he's a good man, but those big eyes and that weird eyebrow thing and NEVER stopping staring at the camera, lol...weird.

Later.

RJS

Not blink, that is. The camera could be on him for minutes at a time and he would not blink. Some sort of occult training, I suspect.

how many of the candidates actually answered the questions asked in detail to your satisfaction? I know Senator Edwards has a plan because he wrote it down, and I know Senator Kerry has had something seared into him (loved the "Kerry Goes Wild" quip, btw) and so on and so forth.

What I found interesting was how totally uninterested the candidates seemed in what the "moderators" were asking, turning all of their "questions" into launching platforms for the points and issues the candidates wanted to bring up at that time. Of course, I don't know how anyone could answer a question such as when they would balance the budget. These sort of queries lend themselves to vague and unclear answers, and that's what Clark's rhetoric amounted to.

I would have preferred he ask her if she was serious, but I guess that is too much to ask of any candidate.

The definition of McCarthyism you use, by the way, is fairly archaic. Does each iteration require the use of Communism to actually become MaCarthy-esque? A more common use of the term would be the use of unsubtantiated and unverifiable accusations as the basis for attack on a person's credibility. I had no problem with what Clark was saying in regard to Shelton's remarks, and I doubt many people did.

I also noted that Lieberman was booed for his contribution to the fray, which may reflect a basic, growing dislike among rank-and-file Dems to internal, internecine bloodletting. Or maybe they just don't like Joe, which might also be true.

The good thing about democracy is that the people get a chance to decide. If Clark's message and performance is acceptable to enough Democratic voters, then he'll win the nomination. If not, he won't. I'm good with that, and if Dean wins the nomination, I'll be happy to go out and pound the pavement for him.

That's the beauty of the ABBA Tour. It's all good from where I'm sitting.

What I found interesting was how totally uninterested the candidates seemed in what the "moderators" were asking, turning all of their "questions" into launching platforms for the points and issues the candidates wanted to bring up at that time.

I agree, and this has been a common theme in all of the debates thus far. Each candidate essentially repeats a series of stump speech sound bytes slightly altered to vaguely respond to the question asked.

perhaps I should rephrase -- it's not so much that Clark failed to "actually answer the questions" (because they all pretty much failed to do that, as you point out). Rather, the other candidates -- being professional politicians, & more practiced -- used the questions more skillfully to launch into their own talking points. Clark tried to do this too. But his efforts seemed far weaker to me, because his talking points are not so well-developed. He "launched into" boring generalizations like "Bush didn't provide leadership, but I'll provide leadership."

About the term "McCarthyism:" I'd say that it's reasonable to use it as a somewhat-generalized METAPHOR, which would extend to situations having nothing to do with accusations of Communism per se. But these situations should still consist of trying to destroy someone's reputation by falsely accusing them of some POLITICAL belief. That's not what Clark did last night. He was asked about Gen. Shelton's criticism of his character, & tried to call that "McCarthyism." Shelton's criticism was not "political."
=============

CAMERON: General Clark ... your military service in general is considered a large part of the predicate for your candidacy. I wonder if you could take a moment and explain to us why, at the end of your time as the supreme allied commander of NATO, you were not re-upped and why such folks as Retired General Hugh Shelton have suggested you were effectively fired for what he called character and integrity issues.

CLARK: Well, thanks for the opportunity to talk about this.

(LAUGHTER)

We used to call charges like that "McCarthyism" when they came out in the 1950s.

Mike higgins asked: "how many of the candidates actually answered the questions asked in detail to your satisfaction?"


I am awaiting your wisdom, if you will actually are willing to answer.

First, look carefully at my response to the MikeHiggins post. You should find the words "because they all pretty much failed to do that, as you point out..."

Thus, Mike's question was not really "dodged," now, was it? But to give it some more detail: I think Sharpton really did answer some of the questions. He nailed a few of them very much to my satisfaction. Kucinich (whom I support, & who I don't think had a very good outing overall) did try to pack as much substance as possible into the minimal time he was given to speak.

IMO, ALL the others were well described by MikeHiggins' metaphor of using the questions mainly as a "launching platform" for their own pre-formulated "stump-speech(es)." Some of this was responsive to the questions asked; much of it was not. But most of these stump-speeches offered more substance than Clark's empty banalities along the lines of "I will provide leadership & responsibility; the current administration has not provided leadership & responsibility."

One minute to describe how you would handle foreign policy? Or balance the budget? Or spur the economy? Sheesh. They all basically ignored the time limits anyway, but it's gotta be almost impossible to explain any but the crudest solutions in this format.

Personally, I don't give too much weight to what is actually said in these so-called debates. It's more of a beauty pageant. Don't screw up, look good, make some points against your opponents.

It's drive-through politics, and it's typical of our general state of mind right now, and it's dangerous to democracy.

And one more thing- none of these guys roll out new policy positions at a debate (do they?). They will say the same old stuff they say in their stump speeches, try to say memorable little quips, and generally act like they're auditioning for The West Wing. Sharpton, for example, has the format down cold, but that doesn't make him a good candidate.

My rant is now over. :-)

1. The political practice of publicizing accusations of disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence,
2. The use of methods of investigation and accusation regarded as unfair, in order to supress opposition.

Sounds like this tactic is now in the popular lexicon, like jello or kleenex. AND it sounds a lot like what was done to Clark.

allowed it to be a generic expression. And Wes Clark is of the generation who should know better than to use the word the way he did with his fellow Democrats.

...I think it has followed the path of "red herring," "fifth columnist," "fellow traveller," et al.

I have no issue with that use of the word. And yes, I was a member of the Party.

And thought it was right on.

Thought Clark did as well as any of the others...who all had very uneven performances. If you hate Clark...you thought he was bad.

I happen to love him...

Yet that is what Clark tried to pull last night. General Shelton had accused Clark of being fired for "character and integrity issues." A journalist last night asked Clark why Shelton had said such a thing. Clark called Shelton's comment "McCarthyism." This is just bullshit. Shelton's comment is a criticism of Clark. It is NOT McCarthyism. The 2 things are not the same.

of a man who did what was right to get the job done. I found the articles below revelatory....and they were written long before the current partisan...be it Republican or Democratic or media...hack jobs that pass as serious "debate" in our political process.

http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm

and had a perfect night. I certainly agree with meegbear, though - I'd like to see your analysis of your candidate's performance. Must have been perfect.

That's why these debates, especially with 9 people, are not terribly helpful at providing insight into the candidates. There is no time to have any meaningful dialogue or any detailed responses to the issues.

None of the candidates was particularly thoughtful or detailed in his or her responses. Generalities are what debates end up being about, solely because of the time restrictions. When someone tries to discuss details, like Kucinich's screwup on 300 deaths in Detroit in September, it looks even worse than "platitudes".

That's why most of us spend time looking at other sources for information on the candidates rather than spending hours painstakingly debunking eight minutes of responses made by one candidate at one debate.

Edit: in fact, why don't you provide us with this detailed of an analysis on all nine candidates' performances at the debate? That should save us a ton of time.

..when the mistake was brought to his attention. I was impressed.

a nice job in acknowledging the mistake and providing the correct information after the break.

On that note, it's interesting to consider how "perfect" the candidates really have to be. They're under intense media scrutiny. They give thousands of speeches throughout a campaign period and make hundreds of media appearances. It's amazing that there aren't more "misstatements" than there are.

It takes a certain personality to be able to deal with the pressure and say the right things the vast majority of the time.

I did not watch the debate (I don't watch television). However, in defense of Wesley Clark, bush brought to the world the spectre of never-ending war. At least for the time being, until world affairs become more balanced, it may be wise to have a president (or vice president) who is well-schooled in the mechanics of war, particularly in devising an appropriate exit strategy well in advance of engagement in military action.

I have read other interviews of Wesley Clark, notably on Josh Marshall's talkingpointsmemo web site. Clark is a very fast study. And he does recognize that the last thing Americans want is permanent entrenchment in war. I believe he will devote his efforts to reversing our current course of action, to seek an honorable removal of our troops from Iraq, to devote more effort to obtaining stability in Afghanistan.

As for flip-flopping, it makes no difference to me when any politician flip-flops on an issue, as long as their change in position is a wiser outlook when they are confronted with evolving facts. The bush administration refuses to reverse its position on Iraq, when the facts are screaming that they are wrong, wrong, wrong. Pigheadedness is not an admirable trait. Flexibility can be a positive attribute.

As for the "McCarthyism" critique, the term has indeed evolved to encompass an overall smear of one's personal character as well as their political beliefs. Is not one's political affiliation a reflection of their character? And in the specific instance of Clark, to smear him personally is also to smear him politically. For a politician, the two are inextricably linked. Just ask Karl Rove.

Clark, when asked about HIS views, HIS plans, and HIS record could do nothing but deflect to Bush. Now I like going after Bush, but Clark used it as a way to avoid the questions about him.

All he'd say about himself, his plans, or his record were empty hallmark platatudes. Crap like "This government has lost its bearings. "

He had nothing, and when called on his lack of substantive answers, he was dumbstruck.

So when does Dean plan to balance the budget? This was an unfair question for any of the candidates. Maybe Iffel should go ask Bush that question. And dont forget that nice dodge Dean gave DK on why he lied in his new ad.

Shame he didn't get the question... Dean has an answer.


http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9899&JServSessionIdr002=zynybpr8t1.app196a&news_iv_ctrl=1426

Don't get me wrong I will vote for Dean if he is our choice. Everybody has a plan to balance the budget. But that wasnt good enough for the questioner, she wanted to know when the budget would be balanced and not one person on this earth could answer that. Not Clark not Dean not Kerry not etc. It was an unfair question period.

Which Kerry attacked, because his is a 10 year plan.

Dean is the only guy running who has done this already in his home state.


And while VT is a small state, the economic models are still sound on a larger scale.

But I think putting a number on a plan can be awful risky. Especially if in five years its not balanced. He would actually only have four years, because he may be out of office before his plan starts to work.

Unless Deans's clairvoyant and can project federal budget revenues for the next 5 years, all of which may go down. The other option is to cut social programs and I don't think any of those 'entitlements' are on the table.

misused it. And, whatever else he said was pretty unimpressive. I feel he takes statements from the other candidates and just parrots them back. I was expecting him to come on strong after all his supporters here built him up to be "Our Savior" and a total threat to Bush.

He's got alot of work to do on conveying convictions about his statements. His supporters and backers who thought it would be a "cake walk" for him, just because he's a retired General were overly optimistic based on what I've seen of him in the last two debates.

ARE YOU NOW OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Is this really so hard to understand?

Do smaller words have to be used?

Lieberman is implying that he isn't Bushlite and that Clark is a Republican.... because he was an independant voter who voted Republican over 10 years ago...

CAMERON: General Clark ... your military service in general is considered a large part of the predicate for your candidacy. I wonder if you could take a moment and explain to us why, at the end of your time as the supreme allied commander of NATO, you were not re-upped and why such folks as Retired General Hugh Shelton have suggested you were effectively fired for what he called character and integrity issues.

CLARK: Well, thanks for the opportunity to talk about this.

(LAUGHTER)

We used to call charges like that "McCarthyism" when they came out in the 1950s.

===========

This is simply a response to Shelton saying he was "fired for ... character and integrity issues." It has absolutely nothing to do with being Bush Lite or a Republican, or anything else. He's not even talking to Lieberman; he's responding to the journalist Cameron.

The question was about what Shelton said.

One man gave his opinion about clark. That is not McCarthyism!

And I'll take this opportunity as the only kid in a rural Florida junior high school who supported McGovern in 72 that this election feels like 72 redux with all it's horrible consequences...


Folks are scared.... They will go for the p-e-r-c-e-i-v-e-d strong man.... They always do....

I'd take bets on the outcome but I rather make my living from my wits than be a war profiteer....

<sigh>

Brian

Yes, that's about the size of it, unfortunately....

Your final shot just struck me deeply.....

"You see? Everything is reduced to a question of armies, generals, soldiers, evil dictators, and bombing enemies. That's the world-view you get, when career military people are pushed for high office."

Did I ever tell you that my father was a US Navy flag officer? And a mustang at that? Don't think I did. But you've just defined my dad to a tee. Dear ole Wes and Admiral daddy Bob scare the shit out of me.

I wouldn't trust my dad to run for cat catcher.

Too much black/white...my way or the highway...no ifs ands or buts...make me stay the fuck away from high ranking military folks who want to domin...er I mean govern.

Catch my drift? Yes I'm sure you did. I love my dad but he has a place and it isn't in politics.

He even looks like Wes. Strong jaw, peppered hair, swooooon....

(I also remembered to murmur a greeting from you & Peyton to Alta Bates, when I walked by there last week. As promised! :hi: )

Too bad you project them onto Wesley Clark.

She brought up a valid point r.e. authoritarian leadership. Do you have a valid rebuttal, or are you reduced to attacking the messenger and not the message?

Your guy could turn out to be the perfect candidate, but no one will ever find that out based on your impertinent defense of him.

Not to worry, you're not alone. There are lots of petulant defenders of their candidate:

-My (Wesley, Howard, Dick, John) is the best, and anyone who doesn't agree is just wrong, so there! If you don't vote for him, I'm not going to be your best friend anymore.

Do you think it would be possible for us to raise the level of discourse about the candidates?

about doing anything - sure as you do, it won't happen and never does. As for the question about what General Shelton said - General Shelton should be asked. How in the hell would Clark know what he meant. I think Gen. Shelton has been asked and refused to answer. Clark spent his life in the military so if he answers in a military manner, what is wrong with that? I get the impression that some people would prefer that anyone who ever served in the military could not run for president. The "deer in the headlights" describes "Slimy Shrub" the day it was whispered in his rear that the Towers had been hit. Please don't compare the General to the Slime in our House.

Two people are a debate.....

Three or more are a joint news conference.....


Being purely objective, in a one on one debate Kerry would school any of his opponents...*


* I am not necessarilly a Kerry supporter but I saw him debate Bill Weld who is a serious man and a extremely bright fella to boot...

on edit-Gep, Edwards, Kerry, Dean, Lieberman (yeeech) are all skilled debaters and consummate politicians. After all they have over a century of collective experience playing the game but I guess that's how we choose a leader.....

I agree that he had the deer in the headlights thing going on. He needs better debate coaching.

including the vile Lieberman .... Perhaps they deserve to win....

and especially impromptu public speaking is all practice, practice, practice. No amount of coaching will replace experience. The question is, can Clark get good enough fast enough? If not, he's in a lot of trouble.

How could a republican win a democratic debate?

Admiral James Stockdale moments. I would have assumed that high ranking military officers would have a better handle on public speaking, but I guess not.

That's all I have to say.

I for one hope that Democrats concentrate on what the American public will vote for, rather than what will stroke their egos.

I'd like to see what the good Doctor had to say:

---

CAMERON: You opposed the war and now the $87 billion to fund its reconstruction and the stabilization of the region.

What do you say to service members and their families who view your position as something short of supporting the troops?

DEAN: I don't think service men and women do view my position as short of supporting the troops. I've made it very clear that we need to support our troops, unlike President Bush, who tried to cut their combat pay after they'd been over there and he'd doubled their tour of duty, unlike President Bush who tried to cut -- who successfully cut 164,000 veterans off their health-care benefits.

I'd say all of us up here support our troops a great deal more than the president of the United States does.

---

IFILL: Governor Dean? (Response to Kucinich)

DEAN: Here's what the ad says, among other things: "130,000 troops in Iraq with no end in sight and a price tag that goes up daily. The best my opponents can do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they supported the war."

Now, that include -- that's those opponents who supported the war. Clearly, Ambassador Moseley Braun, Dennis Kucinich, Bob Graham, Al Sharpton and myself opposed the war right from the beginning.

Despite Wes's statements to the contrary, he did support the resolution. He told Katrina Swett in New Hampshire that she should support the resolution. These other folks voted for the war, too.

So don't think my ad is inaccurate at all. I'm talking about the
people who supported the war, with whom I disagree.

---

Wes Clark on 10/22/2002: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

---

IFILL: We are attempting to imagine each of you in the White House in the Oval Office, and in that spirit, Governor Dean, I have this question for you.

You have been unstintingly critical of this war, yet, with all due respect, you have commanded nothing more than the Vermont National Guard. You did not serve in the military.

How would you, as president, be able to exert any credibility, any command over a post-war Pentagon?

DEAN: Well, first of all, I have as much foreign-policy experience as George W. Bush did when he got into office.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

And Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Secondly, the important part of what you do as president of the United States is to have very good people, which I do, talking to me about issues and defense and foreign policy, and to use judgment and patience.

In view of what is happening in Iraq today, I would submit to you that my foreign-policy experience might be more valuable in the White House today than the foreign-policy experience of many of the people who supported the Iraq war. Because I was, for some reason, listening to my folks, able to tell the president was not being candid to the American people when he sent our brothers and sisters and our sons and daughters to Iraq.

The truth is, the president tried to make us think that Al Qaida had something -- that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Three weeks ago he admitted there was no evidence for that. Now we've got 135,000 people over there, over 300 casualties and over 1,200 people wounded and injured because of that lack of patience and judgment

---

Did he even answer the question? I have no foreign policy experience but I'm still the best?.

---

PERKINS: But we are now facing the biggest budget deficit in history. You have promised that you would balance the budget by your second term.

Is Medicare on the table? Is Medicaid on the table?

DEAN: Medicare is not on the table.

DEAN: I'm a strong supporter of Medicare. It's a sound contract between the seniors of this country and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The rest of our Social Security is not on the table. I'm a strong supporter of Social Security. And those programs need not be cut.

We can balance the budget. But if those programs are in trust funds and the trust funds are reasonably solvent -- Medicare until 2023, Social Security until about 2043 -- what you need to do is get rid of every dime of the Bush tax cuts.

Some up here say we should keep the middle-class tax cuts. What middle-class tax cuts? On the average, 60 percent of the people in this country got a $304 tax cut. One percent, which are rapidly writing $2,000 checks to George Bush, got a $26,300 tax cut.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

And in the meantime, think of what's happened to your college tuition or your kids' college tuition. What about your property tax? Has that gone up more than $304 in the last 2 1/2 years?

We need to get rid of every dime of the president's tax cuts, begin to start balancing the budget and restore things like Pell grants and full funding of special education...

(APPLAUSE)

... so we can pay to have a good college education and balance the budget.

(APPLAUSE)

IFILL: Excuse me just one moment. Did you say Medicaid was off the table, as well?

DEAN: I'm sorry, what?

IFILL: Did you say Medicaid was off the table, as well?

DEAN: Well, I plan to add $87 billion to Medicaid so we can have universal health insurance for everybody.

---

My property tax went up because my property value increased (re-assessed) from '00-'03. My tuition rose every year from '92-'96, during the Clinton economic boom. I'm happy that he's now a strong supporter of Medicare.

---

IFILL: Governor Dean, in your case, the rap on you, of course, is that -- is some of the things you've been hearing tonight, but including the fact that you were a small-time governor, that you are in favor of the war, but that you're -- you are against the war, but you're in favor of other things.

How do you respond to that, and how do you respond to Senator Kerry?

DEAN: Well, you know, George Bush the first called Bill Clinton a governor from a small, failed state. I welcome Senator Kerry's remarks.

He managed to get two punches in right before the bell so we had the spectacle of Senator Kerry using President Bush's financial arguments and numbers in order to spend (ph) the Bush tax cuts, and then he attacks me on the policy that I disagreed with him on. Senator Kerry agreed with George Bush on the war.

If you're going to defend the president's tax cuts and you're going to defend the president's war, I frankly don't think we can beat George Bush by being "Bush lite." I think we've got to stand up for Democratic principles.

(APPLAUSE)

IFILL: And how do you expect to sell that notion on the road?

DEAN: How do I expect to sell that to the nation?

IFILL: Yes.

DEAN: Because I expect that when you stand up for what you believe in, people desperately want to have somebody who's not just going to tell them what they believe or what they ought to believe or what they think. What they really want is somebody who's going to stand up for Democratic Party principles.

I started out this campaign saying I was from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, which Paul Wellstone said. And I didn't meant that I was a big liberal, I was a big conservative, I was a big moderate. What I meant was, just like Paul Wellstone, I say what I think, and I don't care if 70 percent of the people in this country disagree with me, as long as I believe it's the right thing to do.

---

Vote for me, I'm Bill Clinton combined with Paul Wellstone. Don't bother looking at my record though.

---

IFILL: Thank you, Ambassador.

Governor Dean?

DEAN: There are a lot of politicians in America today looking at our campaign and wondering how we're doing it, and the truth is, we're not doing it, you're doing it.

This is not an election just to change presidents. This is an election to change Washington and change America.

DEAN: The people on this stage with me have over three-quarters of a century of experience in Washington. And if one of them wins the nomination, believe me, I'm going to do everything I can to make sure they become the next president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

But we have to change American politics. And that means we have to be free of special interests. A lot of people have talked about that. A lot of people have talked about a lot of things. We are where we are today, those 200,000 Americans gave us $75 a piece. There are no special interests in Washington anymore that are going to be able to buy us for $75 a piece. The special interest that's supporting us are the American people.

It is time to take our country back. You have the power to do that with what you have done already in this campaign. We have the power to take back the Democratic Party and make it stand up for what we believe again. We have the power to take back the United States of America so our flag is not owned by John Ashcroft and Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell anymore. It belongs to all of us.

(APPLAUSE)

And we have the power, we have the power, you have the power together to take back the White House in 2004. And that is exactly what we're going to do.

Thank you.

---

Why do I feel like I'm stuck in a Tony Robbins infomercial? You have the power!

In the end 99.9% of us will be voting for the Democratic nominee. I find all of this nitpicking just silly.

There's only so much policy that can be discussed in 8 minutes worth of soundbites; most of which was spent attacking each other.

moderator look good.

So, if Clark is the man. Who among you who hate him will vote for
him?

I dont think you can state your view on any issue when you only get 1 or 2 minutes to answer a question until you hear some stupid bell go off. That is why these people jump to there talking points.

And who is "they"?

Just like all of those trashing Clark will vote for Dean if he wins the nomination. Unless they waist there vote on a third party.

on the democratic count.

for a repug, thus will not vote for clark.

In addition, I will not "waist" my vote on a third party.

But I will vote for a Democratic candidate.

vote for Kerry, Gephardt, or Kucinich. Dean's a Libertarian masking as a Wellstonian liberal Democrat.

Clark had an excellent night, and the DU poll that showed that was correct. The second best was Kerry, who did fabulously.

By whose standards of specificity at the debate are you making your judgement about vagueness? All of the candidates except perhaps Kucinich hit broad themes. That's what I want them to do.

Very, very few people want debates to be a rote list of specifics. As to the responsiveness of Clark's answers, you are just plain wrong again. Same for the other candidates.

All of the candidates did well. Celebrate!

I liked Clark when I knew less about him.

Sharpton came up with a strong performance. I'm still leaning toward Dean.

Thanks Rich. I sorely needed a dose of good ol' fashioned un-selfaware irony. Can you repeat the part about banal, shallow thinking and reducing things to easy thoughts? Please?

He is putting his justifications or background info first instead of later.

To appear as a no-nonsense straight-talker, you have to put the "how"
or "what" first.

More often, he needs to start with a concise generalization, give some examples, and then talk about his justifications. By the time he might get to specifics he runs out of time.

In the first quoted passage he seems to like to start from the "why" in order to justify his rolling back of the tax cut, instead of the "what."

"I think that what you've got right now in this country is a real absence of responsible government...." in other words, the current
approach is wrong, then he begins to give his part of his plan

"we need to recapture some of the revenues that were given away in those Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans" Here he is interrupted.

Then he finally provides the concise generalization: "That's why I gave the plan of recapturing $2.3 trillion". But he then neglects to give details, because he is running out of time.


Instead he should start:
1) "I have a plan to recapture $2.3 trillion."

2) It includes A, B and C (maybe 3 examples at most, maybe just one example)

3) Then he can generalize and for example, contrast this with the current admin's approach: Bush's govt is not responsible, they have no plan etc.


In the second quoted passage he gives background first, before he answers the question: "I've been against this war from the beginning."
This is OK, but it would be better to start with the "what" first.


He may be better with just a little debate coaching. In debates with longer answers, it is less necessary to hit the main point first, though it certainly couldn't hurt.

Clark did fine....needs some refinement....He is not a politician per se.

Just like Sharpton never gives specifics....name me one of his programs, I dare anyone....yet many said he won the debate.....

So Clark is not a politician but is being judged as one....and given low marks for not quite pulling it off. Not enough specifics is the flaw.

Sharpton gives no specific.....but the one liners are so good...makes him a winner??

Looks like different standards for some and not for others.

Now let me go find the transcript...the part that Dean talked about being like Bush in terms of foreign policy experience.....cause I guess that was OK too.....was that his best line of the night?

I can't hear you!

Funny how some pass the "smell" test and others don't.

Gee, many judges......

You're absolutely right about Sharpton often not going into specifics, but is still considered a great speaker.

Why? Because he is so good at the 1st step I listed in coming across
well. He makes great concise generalizations. Why are they great?
Because they are not only are they clear, but they are often funny as
well, which makes them memorable. It really shows the value of
answering questions by first stating a concise general answer (summary)

When you can do this, you have 3/4 of the battle done.

Still, if he were considered serious competition by the rest of the
field, he would be criticized for the depth of some of his answers.

That's much of the battle won for a Democratic candidate to gain enough votes to win the election.

But that doesn't mean I agree he won the debate.

Some Democrats are happier as losers than winners, because then they have something to yell about.

It will always be this way.

Democratic bashing. "Democrat" is a noun, not an adjective.

W/that said, Democrat is the operative word.

Someone that became a democrat on September 17, 2003, AFTER he had already entered the Democratic presidential race as "UNK affliation", does not instill a feeling of loyalty to the party I have been a member of for thirty one years.

When you add in that he praised whistle ass et al less than a year ago, spoke at a repug fundraiser two years ago and worked as a lobbyist for Acxiom (Big Brother), earning more than 300K until October 9, 2003, I fail to see how or why he could be thought of as someone to lead the Democratic Party.

There is a lot more, but that's enough for me.

against Bush. Clark/Dean ticket would be a great one.