Clark reveals his true self

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In an interview with Charlie Rose (PBS) after quitting his campaign, Clark had the following to say about his purpose as a candidate:



Quote:

ROSE: Mark Fabiani I think it was one of your advisors said about you 'We created this campaign as an anti-Dean campaign and then there was no Dean'



CLARK: (laughs) There was always some truth in that because...what I mean...John Kerry would have been the perfect qualifications that everyone would have looked for. He had foreign policy experience...he had..he was an elected official and the others had the qualifications to some extent but it seemed like nobody was taking off and then suddenly Howard Dean took off. Maybe that was what accounted for so many people coming to me from inside the party and asking me to run.



...a DNC detractor!

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    And just a few threads ago you were imploring him to consider being Dean's VP.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 15
    That was before he endorsed Kerry and confirmed that rumors of his establishment connections were true.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 15
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Anybody who thinks that the Democratic party doesn't plot in the tall grass with long knives don't know their ass from page eight in the phonebook. Dean never stood a chance, and you bet your sweet bippy that the media WAS out to get him on some level....welcome to modern politics 103, prerequisites being the last three elections.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 15
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    You think that General Clark was going to endorse someone who wouldn't stop calling him a Republican?



    The honeymoon is over Deaniacs, the writing's on the wall. Today is the last stand whether you want it to be or not. The campaign manager's gone, the money is gone, and the longer Dean stays in the race, the more he's hurting his chances for the future.



    General Clark is a hero. He is the highest decorated officer since Eisenhower. He holds honorary titles in almost every country in Europe and many more around the world.



    Clark skipped Iowa because he got into the race late in the game and when it looked like Dean was going to take Iowa, Clark's strategy was to be the alternative to Dean for NH. He knew it would be tough since Dean was from neighboring VT, but gained momentum in the weeks before the primary. The problem was, the wind fell out of the sails of Dean's campaign, and they ended up placing 3rd in Iowa to John Kerry and John Edwards.



    Kerry, from neighboring MA, was able to ride that momentum and sail over everyone in the NH primary with Dean, who had been campaigning for years, to only come in 2nd. Clark's strategy was lost because Kerry stole many of his constituents including Veterans.



    So it came time to choose someone to support. On the one hand, you have Dean, who has consistently written off General Clark as a 'Republican', and then on the other hand, you have Kerry, who is a war hero himself and has big veteran support. Clark also wants to have some kind of position in the new administration as well, and thinks he can bring a lot to the Kerry campaign when it is time to face off against George W. Bush.



    Basically, Dean's campaign is over, whether people want to admit it or not, and John Edwards is almost at that point as well. Edwards *might* be able to make it to March 2nd for his '1 on 1' showdown, but I don't think that he'll do very well against Kerry alone.



    General Clark is a good man, and he'd be a great leader for America. I hope that the Kerry campaign does give him an important position. I'd like to see him as the Vice Presidential candidate or Secretary of State, as he can't be Secretary of Defense or the National Security Advisor. As a NATO commander, he has great foreign policy experience and is an asset for the Democratic party. Also, I'll have you note that Clark didn't jump ship when his campaign ended. So much for being a Republican, eh Deaniacs?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 15
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Dean supporters are innately more aggressive and likely to lash out than supporters of other candidates.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 15
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    So when Dean endorses Kerry when he drops out, can I make a topic that says "Dean reveals his true self"? Everyone in the party is going to get behind the Democratic nominee for the purpose of defeating George W. Bush. I know there are people that don't like Kerry, but the majority of those people dislike Bush even more.



    The primary season was packed tightly together this year, and now we've got to gear up for the longest general election season in history. Both sides are going to blow the banks wide open with ads, media, etc. It's going to be dirty and ugly. People saying that they won't vote because their candidate wasn't the nominee is only going to mean that there will be 4 more years of Bush/Cheney.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 15
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Dean supporters are innately more aggressive and likely to lash out than supporters of other candidates.



    So who was going after Dean so hard for so long? Republicans?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 15
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    Dean supporters are innately more aggressive and likely to lash out than supporters of other candidates.



    Probably untrue on both accounts. Perhaps Dean just appeals to certain Democratic voters in a way that could arouse their anger? And what I'm seeing here is not just a Dean-specific phenomenon. It seems that everyone who had chosen a candidate during the early stages of the race had been protective of their candidate. Personally, I don't see the point. Was there really that big of a difference in policy between Kerry, Clark, Dean, and Edwards? Not really. Just differences in rhetoric (which is certainly valuable), image, etc. This is the Democratic Party after all.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 15
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Probably untrue on both accounts.



    I think my meta-joke was a little too metariffic.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 15
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Whoops.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 15
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    So who was going after Dean so hard for so long? Republicans?



    Definitely not. Staunch Republicans were rooting for Dean from the get-go.



    They're scared of the upredictability of Edward's populist appeal and middle-class roots. They're less afraid of Kerry, but they know that he has the capacity to trump Bush's War on Terror with his Vietnam bio.



    It's kind of ironic, really. With Kerry completely destoying Dean in the primaries, it's Dubya's military record that is in question. If Dean and Kerry's positions were switched, it'd be Bush going after Dean's bogus medical deferment instead. Karl Rove must have been licking his chops.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 15
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member




    You know, I was just playing Fran....this thread went kind of funky. All I'll say is that you're a robot if it doesn't rankle you a bit when "your guy" switches from warrior to statesman....that's when you realize that they really are a politician at heart. General Clark is playing nice now. If he was simply playing spoiler for Dean then his political councilors (Terry McAuliff and former President Clinton) are playing high Machievellian stakes poker. If he was earnestly campaigning for Prexy then he's deferring to Kerry's campaign and essentially dismissing his own campaign and supporters by allowing his campaign to be diminished by the statement at the top of this thread.



    But that's just based on that one quote, which I haven't seen in context.



    Anyway, that's the way you do it if you want to be involved in government.



    I'm not a fan of Clark or Dean.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 15
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fran441

    I'd like to see him as the Vice Presidential candidate or Secretary of State, as he can't be Secretary of Defense or the National Security Advisor.



    Why not?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 15
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    You have to be out of the military for 10 years before you can take those positions. It has to do with the seperation of powers.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 15
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fran441

    the seperation of powers.



    ther sure are some brilliant ideas in our governmental system

    Now if we could only go Parlaimentary so as to open up to other parties





    as for this Clark thing . . . if you take his statement literaly than you are wrong, it must be taken with a grain of salt . . its just chit chat about strengths and flows of power balance and campaign struggles . . . it clearly wasn't some long term strategy . . . if it were I'm sure he wouldn't have said anything
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.