Hell hath no fury like a Draft Clark enthusiast spurned.

THis is on TAPP today,
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/09/franke-ruta-g-09-25.html

doesn't sound to good, was the draft2004 movement an orchastrated movement? I knew what I saw Fabiani/Lehane that bad things would follow, and now Clark's spokesperson is the tweed that was running John Kerry's communications in NH (a friend of Lehane). Folks that wer counting (like me) for Dean and Clark to team up can pretty much forget it, because Clark has signed up some real Dean-haters that will likely set his tone. Anyway, here's some of the article linked above:

Like cool kids angered that their favorite cult band had signed on with a major label and started churning out pop drivel, some former members of the Draft Clark movement are already charging the onetime general with selling out. His nascent campaign, they say, has been taken over by mainstream political operatives who are minimizing the influence of the draft movement, dismantling the draft sites and slowly destroying the Internet community that, for the past six months, served as an incubator for Clark's then-hypothetical presidential bid. Even more disturbingly, others charge, the professional operatives may have been planning this all along.

"They systematically dismantled the Draft Clark movement and they are running a traditional campaign, and you can already see that," says 25-year-old Matt Stoller, a blogger who helped run the United For Clark Web site and ClarkSphere.com, while also publishing the daily Clark Tribune newsletter about all things Clark.

Stirling Newberry, 36, who runs DraftClark.com, used his Web site last week to disseminate -- and decry -- reports of Clark's newfound "suckage."

"We signed on for Draft Clark, not Draft Mary," an unsigned post on DraftClark.com read Friday, referring to Clark's cry to his press aide Mary Jacoby of "Mary, help!" when asked his position on the Iraq War by The New York Times.

Are you seriouis? Why not post an article from the "Limbaugh Letter"

The American Prospect is a liberal magazine, not a right wing one.

The aim of The American Prospect is to contribute to a renewal of America's democratic traditions by presenting a practical and convincing vision of liberal philosophy, politics and public life. We publish articles for the general reader that attempt to break through conventional understanding and creatively reframe public questions. Ours is not a magazine of complaint, of angry gestures or of private irritations. It is a magazine of public ideas, firmly committed -- however unfashionably -- to a belief in public improvement. America can do much good, and it can do much better.

The American Prospect was launched in 1990 by Paul Starr, Robert Kuttner and Robert B. Reich. The Prospect is available on newsstands, by subscription and online. It is published by The American Prospect Inc., an independent nonprofit organization established by the magazine's founders. We are also proud to host and produce Moving Ideas, an online consortium of more than 125 progressive policy organizations.

http://www.prospect.org/about/

The American Spectator is the rightwing rag, the American Prospect is centrist-liberal. I've seen others confuse them both before.

They really can't afford to turn off people like Stoller and Newberry.
And I wish they'd stayed away from the 'Masters of disaster'.

being printed to divide and confuse the Dems, and to try to bring down and/or derail Clark's candidacy. The repukes are terrified of his candidacy, and are doing everything they can to bring it down and destroy its credibility.

even though it seems that the Draft Clark movement may have been a con, it must be the Republicans that are trying to destroy Clark!

It couldn't possibly be because some in the Draft Clark movement may have realised that they were played...

when the article cites and interviews several people involved in the start of the movement? Those people quite obviously aren't political operatives hired by Clinton and the DLC.

The reality of the situation appears to be that professional political operatives took over the campaign, not started it. And, I see very little information about any promises Clark or any of his organization made to these people, so I'm not sure what they thought they could expect.

Bottom line, it's sour grapes or unrealistic expectations.

You are, however, doing a nice job of living up to your username. :D

Cause what this part says seems to contradict you:

Substantial parts of the draft movement, in fact, were led not by regular citizens inspired by Clark but by public-relations professionals and political operatives with deep ties to the Democratic Party and the Clinton administration. During the past week, it has slowly dawned on some of the less politically experienced members of the Draft Clark movement that this might not be purely coincidental.

"My operative theory is that a bunch of political insiders decided to recruit a candidate and created a fake draft movement to pressure him," says Newberry.

"My operative theory"

The "theory" of ONE person does not a conspiracy make.

The people involved suspect manipulation. You deny it. Were YOU involved? Have YOU got first hand knowledge, or are you just denying it because it sounds bad for Clark?

Nor do I jump on the bandwagon and repeat every little bad thing a third party ever says about a candidate as being indisputable proof and assume that since someone said it, it must be true. Not only that, but you then denounce the candidate himself as being unelectable because of what a third party may or may not have done.

They "suspect" manipulation. You assume it and repeat it as if it were the word of God. My point was that it is unreasonable to assume that a third party who feels scorned by the Clark organization is being completely rational in their assertions.

You, however, assumed those assertions to be completely accurate and indisputable proof of a conspiracy.

They are not "third parties". They were THERE. Are you saying only Clark press releases should be believed because only Clark will tell the truth about himself? Yeah right!

Secondly, I never said he was "unelectable", I said "he shouldn't be elected". There is a difference. Bush was electable, should he have been elected?

Finally, you refuse to believe the claims of people who were there. Why? What evidence do you have to counter their claims? That they feel "scorned", and thus must be lying?

Let me put it this way: where there is smoke, there is fire. If the people who worked the hardest for longest to "Draft Clark" are now feeling "scorned" and saying they felt that the whole movement had been a con from the very beginning, I believe their claims should be taken seriously.

Unless you are going to tell us that these Clark supporters are Republican plants or something, that is.

I love how this goes. Present an article critical of Clark from a right wing site, and Clark supporters say it must be a lie. Present an article critical of Clark from a left wing site, and they say that it must be a lie.

Now claims are presented from CLARK SUPPORTERS, and it is called a lie!

Exactly what is the level of evidence required by Clark supporters? Do we have to get a signed confession from Clark himself, witnessed by the Pope, in order to get you to accept that the claims being made just may be valid?

First, blindly accepting the premise of a third-party's interpretation (the person who wrote the article has no first-hand knowledge of the actual events or experiences) is misguided, at best.

If Rush Limbaugh said, "Bob Novak told me that Wesley Clark told him he wasn't going to run", would you believe that, too? Frankly, this is the same thing. You are taking the word of a third-party that I really doubt you personally know, and you're accepting it as truth.

I'm not going to take one article written by someone I've never heard of before, obviously written to poke fun at these people, as proof of some conspiracy. You are taking it as that proof.

It is human nature for people who feel scorned to lash out irrationally. These individuals show all of the signs of that. Then, with no "evidence" other than the whining about shutting down their web sites, they come up with this grandiose scheme that makes no sense. You further that scheme into proof of some huge conspiracy that Clark was running behind the scenes and planned to run apparently years ago.

Don't you think that if Clark had planned to run all along, he'd have a bunch of well-polished positions on all of the issues? One of the biggest complaints about him on this board - it's been a constant topic the past few days, especially by the Dean supporters - is that he has very few positions defined on the issues. There have been dozens of postings about his "issues" page on his web site alone!

That is not the sign of someone who has spent months scheming. That is not the sign of someone who planned to run for president all along. That is not the sign of someone who spent the past several months secretly scheming to piss you off.

You can't expect me to just hop on your conspiracy bandwagon and accept that he was hiding his entire organization behind grass-roots web sites when it's obvious that he hasn't even considered issues like health care in depth even now.

That just makes no sense. Use your head.

While you're at it, read some first-hand accounts of people who actually met him.

Why don't you start with DoveTurnedHawk's account in this very thread.

First-hand experience trumps third-hand interpretation every time.

Are you trying to say the author lied? Even though he is CRITICAL of the people he is quoting, he is actually lying about what they said?

Don't you think that if Clark had planned to run all along, he'd have a bunch of well-polished positions on all of the issues? One of the biggest complaints about him on this board - it's been a constant topic the past few days, especially by the Dean supporters - is that he has very few positions defined on the issues. There have been dozens of postings about his "issues" page on his web site alone!

And yet the Clark people are saying that that claim is NOT true, and that he has articulated his positions quite well. Which is it? Is he unprepared, or is he prepared?

Me, I think it is a combination. He WAS prepared, but found that his positions left a lot to be desired, so he has changed them at the last minute.

None of that means that he was not intending to run all along, it just means that he has been changing course with the direction of the "wind".

While you're at it, read some first-hand accounts of people who actually met him.

Why? Did they look into his soul?

Like I said, the people who actually were in the forefront of the "Draft Clark" movement are saying that they were manipulated by Clark and DLC insiders. Why should I believe them LESS than someone who has met Clark while he is campaigning? Are you trying to tell me that such people are capable of reading Clark's mind?

By the way, I've locked horns with DoveTurnedHawk (what a name huh?) before, and I wouldn't take his opinion as gospel if you paid me to.

First-hand experience trumps third-hand interpretation every time.

Yes, I know. That is why I trust the opinions of the people who were actually there over people who seem to just assume that nothing Clark does could be bad.

people don't understand is that if Clark is to win the nomination and then the election, his campaign has to become a traditional one. The idea of a brokered convention that would then turn magically to someone who hadn't already been running, is simple fantasy.


A true Clark supporter, I would think, would be deliriously happy at this point that Clark has formally entered, is raising lots of money, and is getting good poll numbers.

eom

:D

Rove's Machiaveli machine.

Dean's campaign will be a hybrid between grassroots and tradition models. One of the main goals of the Dean Campaign is to rejuvenate the Dem Party and the political process by bringing in new people with fresh ideas and energy. That is stated in his formal announcement speech and has been a theme throughout Dean's campaign.

a "totally traditional campaign".

Since when did people who back political candidates bitch the very moment that the campaign isn't run exactly like they expect it to be run? The guy's been in the race for a week, people!!

"taken over by mainstream political operatives"

I've got news for you - a grassroots campaign is not enough to win a major political race. You need major organization. First, people bitched about Clark's lack of organization. Now, they want to bitch that professional political people (which you NEED to win) are getting involved and that he's actually developing some organization.

The bottom line is that these bloggers/webmasters/etc. thought that they were going to get major positions/recognition in the "real" campaign only because they had a web site that begged Clark to run. There obviously isn't going to be enough high-level recognition to go around.

Besides, he's been drafted already. If he didn't turn out to be what the drafters wanted, it's certainly not his fault. Maybe they just didn't know Clark as well as they thought they did.

Ok, rant over.

when you read the article it seems more that people are bitching because they thought they were part of a grass-roots movement, but it seems that they weren't. They in fact were played for suckers and as soon as they had generated enough "buzz" for Clark, he announced and quietly began shutting them down.

Substantial parts of the draft movement, in fact, were led not by regular citizens inspired by Clark but by public-relations professionals and political operatives with deep ties to the Democratic Party and the Clinton administration. During the past week, it has slowly dawned on some of the less politically experienced members of the Draft Clark movement that this might not be purely coincidental.

"My operative theory is that a bunch of political insiders decided to recruit a candidate and created a fake draft movement to pressure him," says Newberry.

But of course, they're all just bitching because it's not being run their way, huh? It couldn't possibly be because they feel used.

Nope, it's those damn repukes just trying to tear Clark down.

You gotta wonder though, if Draft Clark types are starting to wonder if they have been manipulated, cn he really be that "electable"? Should he be?

I still think they're overreacting. I think it's a knee-jerk reaction to not being as involved as they assumed they would be in the campaign.

Just as the article points out, they feel scorned. When people are scorned, they are often irrational. Irrational people can believe and see conspiracies that do not exist.

The bottom line is that Clark's organization is going to want a focal point of the campaign, and that is the official web site. Any web sites that they ask to shut down to avoid confusion are going to feel left out. Some of their complaints could certainly be legitimate, but my guess is that bruised egos are more likely.

"Played for suckers" - These people act like Clark shouldn't have bothered to involve any "professional" political people until after he decided to run, or worse, that he shouldn't have ever involved them at all.

That just isn't realistic and would be counterproductive. He's taking enough flak about lack of organization the way it is.

(Edit: minor wording change)

What they are saying is that the idea for the Draft Clark movement came out of Clark's home town from people close to him. At the same time some DLC and Clinton operatives (who played down their connections) "responded" to the call. As more genuine people came on line, they believed they were part of a "grass roots" movement.

Once the "buzz" had been created, and Clark formally announced, suddenly the "grass roots" movement was exposed to have been filled with Clark operatives from the begining.

Thus Clark wasn't drafted - the "Draft Clark" movement was.

That is why these genuine people feel played. They thought they were trying to convince Clark to run, when it seems that they were merely pawns either for Clark himself, or for DLC/Clinton operatives to create "buzz".

For example:

Though the draft movement spread to locales across the country, the idea for it was first floated publicly by Clark's friends in Little Rock. "Arkansas friends of native son Wesley Clark, a former NATO supreme commander, are feeding 'Draft Clark' talk in hopes he runs for president in 2004," reported U.S. News & World Report in October 2002, more than six months before the two main draft movement organizations materialized. In August 2003, AlterNet reported, "In Little Rock, Clark confidants say that he told them several months ago he wouldn't run for president unless he was drafted. His request has definitely become a reality."

<SNIP>

Several members of the movement told me in August that they knew Clark wanted to be drafted like Dwight Eisenhower was, and, because they wanted Clark to run, they created the movement to give him what he wanted.

The suspicion that the Draft Clark movement was something less than a purely organic groundswell of support has been entertained seriously by political veterans.

Clark "wanted to be drafted"? Isn't that the same as volunteering?

Couldn't the bolded setence be said to show that Clark was merely trying to make it seem as if people "forced" him to run, when that in fact was what he wanted all along? Doesn't the whole thing smack of manipulation?

And we thought Rove was the master of manipulation...

Frankly, who cares if it was "filled with operatives" or not? Either he's a good candidate or he isn't. Either you support him and agree with his ideals or you don't. The fact these people started these web sites tells me that the "operatives" weren't running the show from day one.

"wanted to be drafted" = "volunteering"

Uh, no. People have egos, and having a ton of people beg you to run for President of the US is a huge ego boost. Did he encourage it? Of course he did. Would any of the other candidates have done the same thing? Of course they would. Don't be ludicrous.

Nobody forced him to run. You think he doesn't really want to be President? Think again, pal.

You're so desperate to find a conspiracy here that you aren't even using your head. Your leaps of faith are almost as wild as the guy who posted that Clark was running so he could lose the primary on purpose, and then run as an independent to make sure the Dems lost.

And regarding your comparison of Clark to Rove, I have no doubt that you'd believe every word Rove ever released about Clark and probably make up some of your own. If you accept one article as proof of a Democratic conspiracy that forced Clark to run, you're nuts.

For the record, I'm not even 100% committed to Clark yet. I like Dean and Kerry a lot, as well. I, however, am actually going to bother watching the debates and reviewing the issues instead of buying someone else's opinions at face value and using them to find some vast Wes-wing conspiracy.

Frankly, who cares if it was "filled with operatives" or not? Either he's a good candidate or he isn't.

Is honesty one of the qualities of a good candidate? If Clark was behind the "Draft Clark" movement, but pretends that he had nothing ot do with it and he is only responding other people "begging" him to run, is that honest? I sure don't think so.

The fact these people started these web sites tells me that the "operatives" weren't running the show from day one.

And that is what is so strange - those people ARE saying that Clark operatives were running the show from day one. They are saying that they thought they were part of a natural movement to "Draft Clark", when it appears that Clark operatives were the ones who were for months agitating for the creation of a "Draft Clark" movement.

Uh, no. People have egos, and having a ton of people beg you to run for President of the US is a huge ego boost

But is it honest to con people into begging for you to run when you always intended to run? What kind of person says "Beg me for it!"? Isn't that the sort of thing bullies do?

Would any of the other candidates have done the same thing? Of course they would. Don't be ludicrous.

But they didn't did they? No, they honestly approached people and asked them to become a part of their organisations. They didn't play little games to make it seem like they were reluctantly answering a call from the common people. They didn't play little games like denying they had decided to run when in fact they intended to run all along.

Nope, they were HONEST with their supporters.

Nobody forced him to run. You think he doesn't really want to be President? Think again, pal.

No, but that was the impression he tried to give. You know, little games like saying that he would make his decision after he conferred with his wife last week. That was bullshit, and now everyone knows it. He had been intending to run all along, and now we are expected to think this guy who lied for months on end is the best candidate?

And regarding your comparison of Clark to Rove, I have no doubt that you'd believe every word Rove ever released about Clark and probably make up some of your own. If you accept one article as proof of a Democratic conspiracy that forced Clark to run, you're nuts.

What, you don't think creating a fake "Draft Clark" campaign is somewhat Rovian? You don't think lying about whether he was going to run or not for months on end is typical Rove tactics?

It seems to me that you are the one who is buying Rovian manipulation.

For the record, I'm not even 100% committed to Clark yet. I like Dean and Kerry a lot, as well. I, however, am actually going to bother watching the debates and reviewing the issues instead of buying someone else's opinions at face value and using them to find some vast Wes-wing conspiracy.

Good for you. Of course listening to his preplanned answers to standard questions is not really going to tell you a whole lot, especially as he is not as stupid as Bush. I highly doubt that anyone is going to back Clark into a corner where he might accidentally blurt out the truth.

By the way, where DOES Clark stand on the issues? Or should we wait for Mary to tell us?

Obviously, you're completely convinced this is some kind of elaborate setup. What a joke. Numerous people have told the media (since you believe everything else the media ever says, you should believe this as well) that Clark wasn't even sure he was going to run until a couple of weeks ago, much less "all along".

Have a nice time looking for more conspiracies. If you overanalyze all of the candidates the same way you've done with this one article, and if you assume everything everyone ever says is true, you might as well stay home from the primaries.

People saying Clark operatives were running the show does not make it necessarily true. People have said every candidate in the race is unelectable for one reason or another - does that make it true? Using your logic and your blind belief in everything you read, we might as well skip the election because all of the Democrats are unelectable.

If you believe every negative thing everyone ever says about every candidate, trust me, you won't find one to support.

It's funny - you compare Clark to Rove, yet you're spouting as many conspiracy theories as you can find. Are you sure you're not a Rove operative?

Edit: "Good for you. Of course listening to his preplanned answers to standard questions is not really going to tell you a whole lot, especially as he is not as stupid as Bush."

Would you knock off the condescending bullshit, please? Obviously, you're right, your candidate is perfect, and heaven forbid that anyone should ever have a different opinion from yours. Except it's not your opinion; you're just blindly assuming every word in every anti-Clark article every written is true.

Thanks for having an open mind and thinking for yourself.

Obviously, you're completely convinced this is some kind of elaborate setup. What a joke. Numerous people have told the media (since you believe everything else the media ever says, you should believe this as well) that Clark wasn't even sure he was going to run until a couple of weeks ago, much less "all along".

Would these be the same people now being accused of having manipulated the whole "Draft Clark" movement all along? You know, those people "close to Clark"...

Have a nice time looking for more conspiracies. If you overanalyze all of the candidates the same way you've done with this one article, and if you assume everything everyone ever says is true, you might as well stay home from the primaries.

Actually, I am a New Zealander, and as such I don't get to vote in US elections, even though US politics has quite a large affect on my country and my life.

However, I DO analyse all the candidates, and so far Clark, Kerry and Lieberman seem the most likely to affect my life in a negative way, and thus I support their Democratic opposition.

To begin with I liked Clark, but the more I learned about him the more anti-Clark I became. The smell of manipulation is quite strong around Clark, and I hate behind the scenes skullduggery. If Clark is the right man for the job, he should have just come out and said so. But no, he decided to play a little game, and that sort of thing is HIGHLY suspicious to me.

If you believe every negative thing everyone ever says about every candidate, trust me, you won't find one to support.

Not true, I like Kucinich and Sharpton and Mosley Braun, and I have seen and agreed with many of the criticisms of them. For instance, I am not sure that Kucinich will be able to seperate his anti-abortion beliefs from his role as representative of ALL Americans. But US abortion rights don't affect me, and are unlikely to lead to war, so I can forgive him that.

It's funny - you compare Clark to Rove, yet you're spouting as many conspiracy theories as you can find. Are you sure you're not a Rove operative?

Why is it a "conspiracy theory" when someone claims something you don't like? You admitted you were not involved, yet refuse to even consider the claims of people who were, and yet have NO EVIDENCE or even SOUND REASONING as to why they should not be believed.

You claim they feel "scorned", but give no reason as to why they should feel scorned, and yet you refuse to believe THEIR reasons for the way they feel.

Do I know for sure that the whole "Draft Clark" movement was a con from the beginning? No, but the people who were there say it was, and I believe their claims should be taken seriously. I also believe that it would be in keeping with the character of Clark to do something like this. Could I be wrong? Sure I could. Should I take a chance? Well, I couldn't prove that Bush was the most evil fuck to walk the face of the planet in recent years, but I sure wish people HADN'T taken the chance.

Would you knock off the condescending bullshit, please? Obviously, you're right, your candidate is perfect, and heaven forbid that anyone should ever have a different opinion from yours. Except it's not your opinion; you're just blindly assuming every word in every anti-Clark article every written is true.

Umm... If you re-read the article you will see it is NOT an anti-Clark article. In fact it says:

Then, just one day after Clark's announcement that he would seek the Democratic presidential nomination, some of them -- instead of celebrating "mission accomplished" -- started to whine.

Like cool kids angered that their favorite cult band had signed on with a major label and started churning out pop drivel, some former members of the Draft Clark movement are already charging the onetime general with selling out.

Does that sound like it is critical of Clark, or the "Draft Clark" people making the claims?

I mean, who is BLINDLY ASSUMING what, here? You just assume that because the article has claims critical of Clark in it that it MUST be an anti-Clark article. Did you actually read it, or are you just spouting off based on what you have been told is in it?

Thanks for having an open mind and thinking for yourself.

Uh huh. Well, when you're done attacking me, perhaps you can address the actual CLAIMS? Or is actually thinking about such things too close to blasphemy?

I'm an outsider who likes both Dean and Clark. To me it looks like the Clark campaign dropped a great opportunity here.

http://www.dailykos.com/

That's why I support Dean, and that's why the Draft Clark movement used to excite me. I used to say -- "There are two campaigns that make extensive use of netroots tactics -- Dean and the hypothetical candidacy of Wesley Clark. Those are also the only two campaigns that have generated a groundswell of excitement and buzz. That's not a coincidence."

We were witnessing two examples of net-based participatory Democracy. And the more obviously successful the tactic was, the more future campaigns would be goaded into opening their campaigns to this more decentralized model.

But it was obvious from Day 1 that Clark's new organization was hostile to the netroots effort that had driven the campaign. People I had worked with in the Draft movement were up in arms, and hires like Fabiani pointed to a disappointing return to old school political management (top-bottom).

Two pro-Clark sites, ClarkRecruits.com and DigitalClark.com, have already been shut down, and a third, DraftWesleyClark.com, is slated to be disbanded within the month, according to its founder. ClarkRecruits.com had helped would-be volunteers link up with other Clark supporters in their areas; now volunteers have to fill out a form on the candidate's official site (Clark04.com) and wait for the main campaign to figure out what to do with them. And on Saturday, DigitalClark.com was shut down at the behest of the Clark campaign. "Our apologies -- this website, and its content, is no longer available. For information about General Clark and his presidential campaign, please visit www.clark04.com," read a message on the site. DigitalClark had provided visitors with downloadable video files of past Clark media appearances; that information is no longer available. According to Ellen Dana Nagler of Santa Barbara, Calif., who maintained the video archives, the campaign was concerned about the possibility that the site violated copyright laws and prevailed upon its managers to shut it down.

You know, as one of the leaders of the Draft Gore movement, I wish I had Gore's ear.

Hell, I wish we had professional ANYTHING.

The leaders in Draft Gore have never done anything bigger in politics except run a local office or is on a state committee. Sigh..

Fortunately, most of us in the REAL movement are in it to change this country, not for personal glory.
We already celebrated the end of the draft - at the last Meet-up, it was understoof that things will change. The NYC group actually is pretty much going on as it started - we hooked up with them and they with us and it will all merge nicely. Sorry about the guys who were either duped by reporters or were in it for themselves, but we are still a movement, growing steady and fast and we still lead bush in polls So, there.

to begin with.

I think the problem that Clark is going to have is that he's taking a General election approach in the primaries. Potentially fatal.

all along. The whole thing has been playing too much like a seriously planned out strategy designed to enhance the "reluctant hero" called upon by the people to serve image.

I'll have to watch this closely.

...though I'm not quite that cynical yet.

And think about it - if these so-called seasoned DLC masterminds were behind the DC movement from the get-go, don't ya think Clark would've been a tad more polished those first few days?

Personally, I believe the Draft Clark movement was started by some well-meaning folks without any affiliations. If campaign veterans jumped in along the way, no big deal. They were gonna be needed eventually anyway.

(edited to streamline...)

These are some of Gen. Clarks most earliest and devout supporters dropping him.

My gosh we have some egotistical and shortsighted idiots running Democratic campaigns.

Clark made his final decision the Monday before his announcement. Here is my personal account to that effect:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=377795

If this had been planned out far in advance, don't you think that he, with a mastery of logistics that only a general could have, would've been just a WEE bit more prepared and organized when he came out of the gate?

The grassroots in LA is strong and real, there are hundreds if not thousands of us who are volunteering for the General, but we still don't even have official BUMPER STICKERS yet for our guy. Or lawn signs. Or even much (or any, in certain cases) coordination with the campaign, which by all accounts is still sorting itself out since it was called together so hastily.

These are not the hallmarks of a slick, pre-packaged campaign.

Frankly, I kind of wish these wild, sour grape theories HAD been true, because that would've made our lives a whole lot easier and the General's transition a whole lot smoother. But it's not, and we just have to let the chips fall where they may.

I am much more interested in the debate tonight, than reading about a bunch of idle speculation and rumor from a few people who were upset that they weren't immediately selected as campaign leaders. Check your egos at the door, folks. The rest of us have work to do.

DTH

Certainly, one would expect a candidate's son and friend to speak well of him. But for some reason, seeing the genuine love and respect and reverence emanating from his daughter-in-law was by far the most powerful thing, for me. It reinforced my belief that I'm supporting the right candidate, and damn, did I feel good about it!

This is from your linked thread, and I only have one thing to say: Clark is a General, not the Messiah!

REVERENCE????

Give me a break. I tell you what, anyone that worships Clark as much as you do is NOT a good source for whether or not Clark was behind the "Draft Clark" movement.

Next you are going to tell us he fed the entire meeting with only a single loaf of bread! :eyes:

And your negativity and your selective search for any old story that will support your own preconceived notions and your, "But you can't 100% PROVE my hypothesis is false, so there!" style of debating.

I love Clark. You hate Clark. That's no secret. I'll let my positive posts stand against yours any day of the week. :-)

Have a nice day!

DTH

I have been wondering this since I have noticed the first DraftClark site. The only saying which seems relevant is you reap what you sow.