1
   

Dean+Clark? Clark+Dean? Neither? Either? Both?

 
 
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 11:02 am
From the Financial Times:

Quote:
Momentum builds for Dean-Clark ticket
By Deborah McGregor in Washington

Washington's political rumour mill spun into high gear on Thursday over the intentions of Wesley Clark (in the background), the retired general now poised to state whether he will enter the Democratic presidential race.
Speculation grew over the possibility that Gen Clark might team up with Howard Dean, the frontrunner in the race, and run as his vice-president after reports revealed the two men met to discuss the vice-presidency last weekend in California.
Neither man has yet shown his hand. Gen Clark, who was labelled a "star" of the Democratic party by former president Bill Clinton, has promised to announce whether he will enter the presidential race by the end of next week. He is to speak at the University of Iowa on September 19.
If he were to team up with Mr Dean, it would represent an unusually early bonding. Normally, a presidential nomination race runs its full course before the winner names a running mate.
It is not the first time Gen Clark has been mooted as good vice-presidential timber for Mr Dean, whose aggressive style and unabashedly liberal message have catapulted him to the front of the race.
If Gen Clark decides to enter the race on his own, it is still possible for him to join Mr Dean later.
Some Democratic strategists like the notion of a Dean-Clark ticket. Gen Clark, with his military background as the former Nato commander, is seen as a natural complement to the former Vermont governor, who lacks foreign policy experience. This week, for example, Mr Dean got into hot water with many congressional Democrats - whose endorsements he is seeking - for saying the US should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Both Gen Clark and Mr Dean enjoy a high degree of support among young, independent voters, who have been active in organising internet-driven "meet-ups".
With two-thirds of Americans unable to name a single Democratic presidential candidate, the nine-person race is considered open, although Mr Dean's momentum shows little sign of abating. He enjoys a comfortable lead in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. This week, he led the list of Democrats being considered for the coveted endorsement of the Service Employees International Union - the largest union within the AFL-CIO.
The SEIU decided to postpone its endorsement until after Gen Clark makes his intentions known.
Many of Gen Clark's supporters remain keen for him to enter the presidential race on his own steam.
"We think Governor Dean would make a great vice-president for General Clark," said John Hlinko, a co-founder of DraftWesleyClark.com, the grassroots group that has raised more than $1m in pledges for the general, hoping to encourage him to enter the race.
But he also noted that many Clark supporters were also Dean fans. "Once the general gets done with the Republicans, they are going to need a doctor," he said.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479761903
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,900 • Replies: 33
No top replies

 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 12:11 pm
Two-thirds of Americans can't name a single Democratic candidate? I find this discouraging, not just because I vote Democratic, but more because of what this says about political awareness in this country. Maybe the Dems can find an extra figure/actor to run. Might generate some interest in the electorate...

Anyhow, Dean-Clark sounds like an exciting ticket to me!
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 12:17 pm
I'll vote for the puke/poop ticket if it gets the criminals out that are currently occupying the White house, but yes, I do like a Dean/Clark ticket.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 12:22 pm
Dang -- why didn't I think to put a Puke/Poop option in that poll?!

D'art -- it's not the Dems' fault... it's... but you know the answer!
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 12:32 pm
T, I know it's not the Dems fault. It's the fault of all those who aren't even remotely interested in who governs them.

What was it Pogo said? We have met the enemy, and it is us. Or words to that effect...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 12:32 pm
Aren't republicans often accused of adhering strictly to party lines when voting? It seems that it doesn't matter who the democrats nominate, you will vote for them. That's too bad.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 12:33 pm
I doubt many Dems will cross over and vote for Bush, McG. He's been a lightning rod in that respect...
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 12:37 pm
Yeah, I think Bush can count out the Dems this time!!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 12:40 pm
I think that depending on the candidate chosen the percentage of dems voting for Bush may surprise you.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:09 pm
Here are some tidbits to ponder from Indymedia:

Quote:
Liberal Groups Strategise How to Defeat Bush
In what would for them be an unprecedented step, environmental groups and other left-leaning organizations are mulling early endorsements in the Democratic presidential contest in hopes of heading off an extended nomination fight that might sap the party of resources needed for the battle to oust President Bush....

Campaign to defeat Bush is Picking Up Steam
..Labor, environmental and women's organizations, with strong backing from international financier George Soros, have joined forces behind a new political group that plans to spend an unprecedented $75 million to mobilize voters to defeat President Bush in 2004.
The organization, Americans Coming Together (ACT), will conduct "a massive get-out-the-vote operation that we think will defeat George W. Bush in 2004," said Ellen Malcolm, the president of EMILY's List, who will become ACT's president.
ACT already has commitments for more than $30 million, Malcolm and others said, including $10 million from Soros, $12 million from six other philanthropists, and about $8 million from unions, including the Service Employees International Union.
The formation of ACT reflects growing fears in liberal and Democratic circles that with Republicans likely to retain control of Congress, a second Bush term could mean passage of legislation, adoption of regulations and the appointment of judges that together could devastate left-supported policies and institutions.
Other groups joining the fight against Bush include the American Majority Institute, which was put together by John Podesta, a former top aide to President Bill Clinton. The institute will function as a liberal counter to conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation. A network of liberal groups has formed America Votes to coordinate the political activities of civil rights, environmental and abortion rights groups among others, and former Clinton aide Harold Ickes is trying to set up a pro-Democratic group to finance 2004 campaign television ads....

The Dems are going after Bush the wrong way on the economy
Most Americans think, after the debacle of the past few years, that the stock market is rigged. They think legal casino gambling is better-regulated. The only politician to see this is Eliot Spitzer, who got more votes than the wildly popular George Pataki last time around in his attorney general's race. Spitzer's been outspoken in trying to clean up the game. But when the brokerage interests tried to snuff him last month, did any Democratic pol come to his side, even though he represents the key to the votes of those 55 million self-directed pensioners? Nah, another missed boat.
Speaking of spurned silver platters, has anyone from the Democratic Party read ex-CIA agent Robert Baer's Sleeping With the Devil? This credible source postulates that the coddled Republican-Saudi relationship is based on the love of high oil prices, the GOP's embrace of opec, and, alas, the dealings of the Republican-controlled Carlyle Group, a defense protectorate of retired GOP bigwigs that takes Saudi money and looks the other way at Saudi terrorism. Why not take up Baer's challenge and link the GOP to higher energy prices and a coddling of Wahhabism in the name of big profits in the back end from defense contracts and oil profits? Shoot, I bet that one resonates with the Fox News Network, MSNBC, and CNN!

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/58800_comment.php
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:44 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I'll vote for the puke/poop ticket if it gets the criminals out that are currently occupying the White house


http://logo.cafepress.com/4/2952.117294.gif
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:53 pm
tartarin I and I'll bet I can speak for the whole group consider you a valuable and much loved member of this forum, and happily overlook your poll oversite. We can always write in Poop/Puke should it become necessary. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 02:01 pm
ANYONE but Bush!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 05:35 pm
Thank you Bi-Polar! Just mention Bush in my neighborhood and I'll be glad to respond instantly with poop and puke for you! Easy!

Anyone but Bush?

Wayl, ah got this Brangus bull he ain't performing but he's smarter 'n' Bush and he lahks runnin' even thru new fences. Could be mah bull'd do better 'n' that snakesbelly them damnfool socker moms and greasy-haired krischins stuck in the white house. Yew kn borra my trailer 'n' hawl that bull outta here if you want him but just you don' come back with that other bullshitter, that damfool Texas richboy, not in my trailer you dont, not unless you clean it up after real good an' I mean real good.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 06:16 pm
Tartarin wrote:
Wayl, ah got this Brangus bull he ain't performing but he's smarter 'n' Bush and he lahks runnin' even thru new fences. Could be mah bull'd do better 'n' that snakesbelly them damnfool socker moms and greasy-haired krischins stuck in the white house. Yew kn borra my trailer 'n' hawl that bull outta here if you want him but just you don' come back with that other bullshitter, that damfool Texas richboy, not in my trailer you dont, not unless you clean it up after real good an' I mean real good.


Sounds like he needs killin', ta me. *spit*

Anybody for a barbecue? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 06:38 pm
I'm hearing more whistling in the dark in here.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 06:50 pm
I will never again vote for any Republican. Period.
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 07:40 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
I will never again vote for any Republican. Period.

Giuliani vs. Al Sharpton?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 08:51 pm
Certainly not Giuliani. He's acquired a bad case of the hubris. Yet another slicko. He's not the kind of person I'd like to see representing me to the world...

Now here's an interesting reference to Dean and Lieberman in the lead editorial in today's NYTimes. Interesting for a bunch of reasons: 1) the NYTimes is always hesitant to imply the slightest criticism of Israel; 2) they agree with Dean, not with Lieberman; 3) it puts Dean in the lead editorial, favorably. This review from the NYTimes editorial board is not pocket-fluff.

"......The conclusion is clear. Israel must begin to plan its exit from the West Bank and Gaza not only to permit the creation of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state but to preserve its own future. Polls show that most Israelis understand. They do not want to drain their treasury and lose their children to protect West Bank settlements. At the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday night, Senator Joseph Lieberman criticized former Gov. Howard Dean for calling on Israel to dismantle most of its settlements. "That's up to the parties in their negotiations, not for us to tell them," the senator said.
We strongly disagree. True support for Israel means helping it see through its pain and rage to its own best interest. You do not have to believe in Mr. Arafat's sincerity or the Palestinians' good will to grasp the need for a radical course shift. You need only understand the meaning of self-preservation."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/12/opinion/12FRI1.html
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 09:38 pm
Quote:
Will he or won't he? Will retired four-star General, ardent critic of Bush's national security policies, telegenic TV commentator, and recently declared Democrat Wesley Clark enter the crowded presidential race?
As a former military officer, Democrats believe Clark could make the party more viable on foreign affairs than it's been since a general named George Marshall was containing Communism under the command of a president named Harry Truman. (That's the conventional wisdom, though the staggering cost of the badly bungled Iraqi occupation has diminished the Republican advantage on defense no matter who runs against Bush.)
While media commentary on Clark's prospective candidacy has been almost entirely favorable--even adulatory--it's worth looking back at a forgotten chapter in his military biography that occurred when Clark was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and Commander In Chief for the US European Command. Call it Clark's "High Noon" showdown. It's an incident that deserves scrutiny because Clark's claim to be an experienced leader in national security matters is tied, in significant part, to his record in the Balkans.
On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units--an order which could have unleashed the most frightening showdown with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. Hyperbole? You can decide. But British General Michael Jackson, the three-star general and commander of K-FOR, the international force organized and commanded by NATO to enforce an agreement in Kosovo, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting world war three for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport. (Jackson was rightly worried that any precipitous NATO action could risk a confrontation with a nuclear- armed Russia and upset the NATO-led peacekeeping plan just getting underway with the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo.)
After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered Admiral James Ellis, the American in charge of NATO's southern command, to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply--replying that British General Jackson would oppose such a move. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO- negotiated compromise with the Russians--a positive element in the roller- coaster relationship between Moscow and Washington, which eventually incorporated Russian troops into peacekeeping operations--might well have been undermined.
In the end, Russian reinforcements were stopped when Washington persuaded Hungary, a new NATO member, to refuse to allow Russian aircraft to fly over its territory. Meanwhile, Jackson was appealing to senior British authorities, who persuaded Clinton Administration officials--some of whom had previously favored occupying the airport--to drop support for Clark's hotheaded plan. As a result, when Clark appealed to Washington, he was rebuffed at the highest levels. His virtually unprecedented showdown with a subordinate subsequently prompted hearings by the Armed Forces Services Committee, which raised sharp questions about NATO's chain of command.
As a Guardian article said at the time, "The episode triggers reminscences of the Korean War. Then, General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the UN force, wanted to invade, even nuke, China, until he was brought to heel by President Truman." Of course, the comparison is inexact. The stakes were not as high in the Balkans, but Clark's hip-shooting willingness to engage Russian troops in a risky military showdown at the end of the war is instructive nonetheless.
Indeed, it is believed in military circles that Clark's Pristina incident was the final straw that led the Pentagon to relieve him of his duties (actually retire him earlier). Clark had also angered the Pentagon brass--and Secretary of Defense William Cohen in particular--with his numerous media appearances and repeated public requests for more weapons and for more freedom to wage the Kosovo war the way he wanted (with ground troops). At one point, according to media reports, Defense Secretary Cohen, through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, told Clark to "get your ******* face off of TV."
In recent years, it's only fair to note, Clark has insisted in interviews and in his memoir Waging Modern War that the incident was a surprising moment for him. Clark said that his order to confront the Russian troops was refused by an emotional General Jackson, who took the matter up the British chain of command, where General Charles Guthrie, British Chief of Defence, said that he agreed with Jackson. Guthrie, according to Clark, told him that Joint Chiefs Chairman Shelton also agreed with the British. This surprised Clark because he claims that the original suggestion to block the Russians came from Washington. Clark maintains that the matter was a policy problem between the US and British governments and insists that he was carrying out the suggestions of the Clinton Administration.
Despite concerns this incident raises, it remains a fact that the prospect of a Clark candidacy is tantalizing. Clark says he is a liberal Democrat who favors abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control and progressive economic policies. He has also spoken eloquently about basing America's role in the world on the country's better principles: "generosity, humility, engagementÂ… "
The other day, Clark told Bill Maher on HBO that this country was founded on "the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issuesÂ…We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back."
Perhaps Clark has learned that building alliances--and not risking showdowns-- is more crucial than ever in these perilous times? It would be good to hear from the general himself--whether he runs or not.

http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dean+Clark? Clark+Dean? Neither? Either? Both?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 02:26:44