Moore and Clark: Joined at the hip

When the Michael Moore endorsement came out, I was happy as a Clark supporter, but the implication from Moore was that his support was primarily based on Clark's electability.

He clearly liked and respected the General, but there was a certain mercenary quality to his statement.

Well, things have clearly moved to another level, haven't they?

Clark not only defended Moore's right to his own opinion, he refused to refute the AWOL story. Moore blasts Jennings immediately after the debate, AWOL is back in the news, and Clark's Democratic bona fides have never been more apparent.

But what pleases me most about all this, having gotten over the Faux-whore spin about this fracas costing Clark the debate, is that Michael Moore will now pour his heart and soul into Clark's campaign to a greater degree than even he previously imagined possible.

And, given Moore's impact on Democratic politics, that's good news for Clark.

and how soon before people will be tired of Clark's non-answer answers?

It's an endorsement, they're not suddenly best friends or long lost relatives! lol! What Moore is doing for Clark is part of the perk of getting the endorsement but there's no need to go overly melodramatic about it.

is that fond of Moore. He comes off as a self serving jackass sometimes, and General Clark would do well to distance himself somewhat. Moore has done some wonderful things in exposing hypocrisy, but he gets a little over the top at times. That might not serve the General in a completely positive fashion.

But I don't anticipate anything destructive. He knows what's at stake.

And, anyway, he's right about AWOL.

He didn't fucking know what was at stake in 2000, why should we believe he knows now?

Although you're right about Moore being right about AWOL, and assuming Clark does NOT get the Dem nomination, Clark makes the perfect stalking horse to FORCE AWOL to public consciousness.

and we all know what happens when he's mad....he makes a documentary! :7 No, just kidding...he'll take to the airwaves, if anyone will give him the air time and he'll speak about this in every speech he does. This will not be forgotten anytime soon.

He said that he never looked into it. I'll assume he was being honest. That's hardly ANY kind of support for the "AWOL Bush" theory.

I think he came off O.K. on that, but tried to distance himself from Moore's statement.

He did say he had heard the story bandied about quite a bit....but he didn't dismiss the story outright. He simply said it was irrelevant to why he is running....

Meanwhile, the AWOL story is now being discussed and Moore has put up all the damaging evidence on his site and called Jennings out.

And the General keeps his hands clean. Perfect.

Meanwhile, two other campaigns are defending Bush...in the face of reports that will now surface yet again....At the very least, it shows that they are still chicken when it comes to Bush....

Clark essentially sidestepped it and (in my impression) made it seem as if he didn't think it was an issue.

Everything I said is true (not about Moore, that's pure subjective opinion, I mean the AWOL story is analytically defensible).

AND ALSO

Everything you said is true (i.e., analytically defensible).

BUT the General does not keep his hands clean in the long run, i.e., he will not be able to plausibly deny that he refused to repudiate the allegation that "Bush is a deserter." Clark gets tagged for this regardless.

The other two campaigns, though, CAN have clean hands while the common adversary to them all, Bush, is weakened.

IOW, Moore is stalking horse for Clark just to be able to bring the topic to public debate. Then Clark is a stalking horse for the other campaigns because by his refusal to repudiate the charge, he makes a more-than-one-cycle news story out of it.

Let's see.

He's backing an Independent for the 2004 Democratic nomination.

He backed a Green for the 2000 general election.

He dismisses Bill Clinton as the best Republican President the country ever had.

Let's see .... that takes us back to the '88 cycle. If Moore backed Dukakis, he didn't have much "impact."

"credibility with progressive voters"? Does that work for you?

And spare us the "independent" nonsense.

"credibility with progressives" works for me.

But as for Independent. Please. The man is 50-something years old and had been Independent his entire adult life until he decided to run for President as a Democrat.

The perjorative wasn't even directed at Clark, it was directed at Moore.

As a matter of civil order, I happen to think all command-grade military officers should be Independent anyway unless and until they retire and run for office (which category Clark fits).

Missed it. Can someone recap for me?