New York Times: With the Race Changing Fast, Clark 'Adjusts'

overground1

(322 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-26-04 10:14 PM
Original message

New York Times: With the Race Changing Fast, Clark 'Adjusts'

Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 10:26 PM by overground1

With the Race Changing Fast, Clark Adjusts
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

Published: January 26, 2004

<snip>

Perhaps most troubling for the campaign is General Clark's continued inability to put to rest the questions about his position on the Iraq resolution. As recently as Sunday, on the ABC News program "This Week," George Stephanopoulos said to him, "Katrina Swett, a Congressional candidate here, says that you advised her to vote for the resolution � if she were in Congress � to vote for the resolution."

General Clark responded: "It depends on what `the' is, George. What I say is this: that I would have voted for leverage � if we were going to bring up the problem of Iraq � leverage to take it to the United Nations."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/politics/campaign/26CLAR.html?ex=1075698000&en=b08198307ad53131&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

"It depends on what `the' is" ??
Anyone else thinking what I'm thinking??
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

pinkpops

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-26-04 10:38 PM
Response to Original message

1. I know what you're thinking

and I noticed it when he said it. An unfortunate choice of words, to be sure, but not a semantic reference in this case, i.e. not "the meaning of 'the'" but rather contrasting resolution "A" to resolution "B". I think he was trying to infer that the resolution he advised her to vote for would require the prez to come back before going to war, but the one that got passed didn't. Dean has Warts, Clark has warts, the rest don't, right??

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

overground1

(322 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-26-04 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #1

6. sure, they all have warts, but it keeps coming to my attention that Clark

is not who he claims to be.
I know I can't be the only one who sees this as glaringly obvious.

I think there are some people who don't care that Clark is a manufactured candidate, and don't care that he has no principles or deeply held positions. They don't care that he has no integrity. They only care about this false notion that he is "electable". The more he talks, the more he shows just how unelectable he really is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jmaier

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-26-04 10:40 PM
Response to Original message

2. Probably not

I'm thinking that you have a serious axe to grind.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

overground1

(322 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-26-04 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #2

5. I just found this allusion to Clinton's infamous double-speak amusing

I'm not sure if "axe to grind" is the right term, but I am very opposed to Clark. He's a phoney who says whatever will get him the furthest that day. If I believed that he sincerely held even one of the positions he purports to hold, then maybe it would be different. If he even stuck to the same position for 2 days in a row he may earn himself a pass. But so far, he just seems like a blank slate, letting anyone around him write his political positions. He doesn't care, if someone tells him that saying it will get him elected, he'll say it. No matter how idiotic or inconsistent he looks in the process.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

arewethereyet

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-26-04 10:44 PM
Response to Original message

3. I'm reminded of Martin Short

and that furitive character he played on SNL, sweating and chain smoking. A little less sweat, equally transparant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

blm

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-26-04 10:51 PM
Response to Original message

4. For anyone who supported a process it is a matter of nuance.

Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 10:52 PM by blm

It's the demagogues who want to turn Iraq war into a black and white decision, prowar and antiwar. It was NEVER that simple.

There already existed a UN res 1441 that Saddam was violating. Inspectors had to get back in.

I wish someone nailed Dean for his support of Biden-Lugar resolution for use of force. That was NOT an antiwar position, but he got away with a lazy press who accepted the storyline from the Dean camp.

All of a sudden the press has questions for Clark? They hounded Kerry for it for over a year and now they want to beat up Clark.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:56 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.