Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Wes Clark asked to join Dean as VP?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I did not know they've met four times already. Thoug h I think that Kerry/Clark is the likely ticket, I see solid value in a Dean pairing as well. That dean said we should be more neutral in the Israel/Palatinian conflict, scored big points with me...while catching flames from the Government operatives of Israel ( both Dem & Repub)

www.washingtonpost.com...




posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I think this would be a solid ticket. It flies much better than Kerry/Clark as I don't think Kerry stands a snowballs chance at this stage. He is too far behind in the polls and in the fundraising. Kerry squandered his frontrunner points a long time ago. He is struggling.
Dean on the other hand is a rising star and with the recent revelation that Clark is a Democrat, man I really see that as a lethal combination.



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I thought it was still unknown whether Clark was going to run for the top spot? Did he already make the announcement? I must have missed it.



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Dean who? Ramsey Clark? Oh, Wesley Clark: They're unknowns in the eyes of many Americans, imho.

I honestly think the pack needs to be thinning if they want to pose a threat to Bush -not the other way around. If I were a DNC strategist I'd be pressing for some of these candidates to starting dropping out, like Dennis the Menace, Braun, and Sharpton, Graham, etc. There's just too many.

BT, on the flipside, I think Dean pissed of the Jewish folk with those comments...Jews bloc vote demsy, don't they? None the less, I'm supporting Dean, for now



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by observer
I think this would be a solid ticket. It flies much better than Kerry/Clark as I don't think Kerry stands a snowballs chance at this stage. He is too far behind in the polls and in the fundraising. Kerry squandered his frontrunner points a long time ago. He is struggling.
Dean on the other hand is a rising star and with the recent revelation that Clark is a Democrat, man I really see that as a lethal combination.


I don't think so. We are not even into the cycle in earnest yet: this is training camp ...maaybe an exhibition game or two ...tops.
Mrs. Heinz-Kerry is already on record as saying she will not let her hubby be flamed without retort ( she meant the Republican dirty tricks team). But, I can't see him being out spent, regardless of the early stuff. As the campaign gets closer to the party nomination, it'll be like Clark as the fair maiden character....to the winner goes the spoils.



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I think Dean stands a better chance than Kerry. Kerry represents, for many, the same "middle-of-the-road-clinton" democrat that was sent an obvious message in 2000. Kerry's voting record, especially over the war, has been killing his image as a strong independant thinker. Its the same for Gephart.
I think the democrats have to go on the offensive and try to pull the left and the greens back into the party to have any chance. Contrary to media reportings there is tons of Anti-Bush sentiment waiting to explode. A savvy politician could ride that into the whitehouse. Kerry is too Gore...to much of an insider thats been voting right along with the republican agenda for years.
Aside note to the Dean comment on Isreal...Dean said that the US must have a more unbiased approach to the Palestinian/Isreali conflict. I was impressed with that also...until I heard his follow up saying, that aside, he would continue to follow the policy of his predecessors in regards to preferential treatment of Isreal in foriegn policy.
Sad, sad, sad.
Deans health insurance policies have been a model of success, according to some people, in his state.



[Edited on 11-9-2003 by Voice_of Doom]



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 04:31 PM
link   
VOD, you're right: Lieberman, Kerry, Gebhardt, Edwards, Graham, voted for the patriot act - and it was just Graham (out of those), I think, who didn't support the Iraqi war.

So, with Clark opposing the war - he could only team with Dean, or go it alone. Otherwise, the GOP would have a field day with Clark teaming with the Dems that supported the war.

But, keep in mind, Dean comes from a state of only 600K and little diversity. What's good for his state isn't always going to be a model for the US.



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Heh, I read the title and thought Helen Clark.



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 07:51 PM
link   
1) Who? Myth - People know who the candidates are...polls of the great gray masses who don't vote are not your optimal sampling....unless you're an RNC pollster, then, any fantasty will fly.

2) Too many Candidates Myth - It's very early in the process, go back to the Last Dem incumbent where there was a legit race possibility ( Clinton was too strong, think Carter)....many a GOP candidate up until primaries started to tell the tale.

ALSO.....on issues - the Left looks for INFORMATION, the Right looks for AMMUNITION. Diversity of opinion is sought to formulate the best choice; on the Right, diversity of opinion evokes a "chicken Little the sky is Falling " type panic. Conservatives, true conservatives that is, are pushing the stock of TUMS through the roof because the have to stay the party line for such an inept fool...else risk being disloyal.

3) Kerry's vote Myth - Ex military is a fraternity; especially ex officers. So when the Senator sought assurances from someone in the White House, he didn't go to the obvious Scumbags ....he went to Powell. What Powell did was to be anything BUT an Officer & gentleman....he was a Bush Republican now.

Kerry Sought Assurances on Conditions of Invasion
Powell Provided Them (Lied)


Flashback - September 27,2002:

The Bush administration's push for a congressional expression of support for disarming Saddam Hussein is being slowed by Democratic concerns about a blank check to wage war...

Three other Democratic senators, Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, told Powell the White House was asking Congress for unprecedented backing.

The senators did not question a need to get tough with Iraq for blocking U.N. weapons inspections for nearly four years and refusing to disarm.

But they said the congressional resolution the president proposed was far too broad.

For instance, Sarbanes said, it would authorize force against Iraq for refusing to return Kuwaiti prisoners held since the Persian Gulf War in 1990-91.

Kerry told Powell "you are asking for blanket authority" and Feingold said "we are hearing shifting justifications for using force in Iraq."

Powell tried to placate them, saying the Bush administration was unlikely to use force except if Iraq continued to refuse to get rid of weapons of mass destruction.


www.cbsnews.com...

4) Small state Myth - Good governance is good governance - every state in the Union is subject to the same processes. By this myths logic.....Bush running a HUGE state extremely bad made him MORE Qualified !?!?!


5) Kerry is M.O.R. - Kerry is his own man, not shaped by the perceptions that would have him jump through hoops.....look to the vote records content. Officers go to class to study tactics. Multi term Senators survive to that venerable post by them....SO why be suprised that he HAS NOT prematurely ejaculated everything he is going to bring to bare on the Dem contenders, and then the ILLIGITAMATE SON OF AN ARSEHOLE !?!?!


( Excuse the points of flame; I was in my NYC office for too long so far this week......memories, you know? And those to blame are still so smugly in the White House)



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 09:50 PM
link   
His own man? Maybe. Politician? w/ out a doubt.

What Kerry said/did leads me to believe that he's like any other politician out there, BT. Votes for the war and leaves himself an out (in the event he runs for pres. and needs an issue) he covered his tracks, plain and simple.
So, Powell reassured Kerry, I guess there isn't any honor among liars, thieves, or politicians. How nave.

Speaking as arm chair political analyst and GOP operative, (in other words, I don't know what I am talking about) - it comes down to Dean or 'the others' - Clark SHOULD back Dean and run w/ him. That way, (operative side of me speaking) it'll help ruin the party; he's not a 'clinton democrat'.

You're right, early process. McCain, our guy, jumped in AFTER Iowa. (was really gunning for him, myself). Johnny Mac would have probably still 'done Iraq' BT, he did support it, though, I think the world would have supported HIM more while doing it. (he would have just scared the living crud out of Saddam - sort of like a certain republican that comes to mind that won a war with against a big threat, peacefully)



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Why do people keep saying Dean is really liberal? If I had to guess, I'd say he's more conservative than Clinton was.



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Interesting to say the least BT....

"Dean & Clark -- a Republican dream?"
Link:
www.dfw.com...

"For some Republicans, Howard Dean's supremacy among Democratic presidential aspirants -- $10 million expected to be raised in the July-September quarter; a 21-point lead in New Hampshire -- causes merriment. They think a Dean nomination, featuring opposition to the war, enthusiasm for higher taxes and approbation for same-sex civil unions, would mean four more years of what Dean considers the Bush-Ashcroft Terror."

"Gen. Chutzpah: Wes Clark wasnt prescient about his own war"
Link:
www.nationalreview.com...

"Call him "Gen. Chutzpah." General Wesley Clark is riding high on what is universally considered his prescience about the current Iraq war. Going unremarked is his utter lack of prescience about his own war, in Kosovo in 1999. Back then, Clark thought he had Slobodan Milosevic figured out, and that the mere threat of NATO bombing and perhaps a day or two of the real thing would bring him to the negotiating table and force him to be reasonable. When this turned out not to be the case, Clark had no Plan B, because President Clinton had ruled..."


"Wes Clark: The new McClellan?"
The Washington Times ^ | 10 September 2003


"On the Fox News Hannity & Combs Show of August 21st, General Wesley Clark said the President Bush removed Saddam Hussein under false pretenses. The General should know something about false pretenses, as he was the NATO military commander in 1999, during the military intervention in Kosovo. This operation, during our recent co-presidency, was designed to save Muslim Kosovo from a rabid Serbian leader. It was hyped by a media campaign that charged ethnic cleansing, but found little evidence of mass murder (unlike the killing fields of Iraq). The propaganda campaign included faked photos supposedly taken of starving concentration camp inmates (in contrast to Saddams torture pens). However, the conflict did produce a mass of refugees, and Clark deserves credit for handling this problem. Clark also said on August 21st that he had told the Clintons Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, that more damage is being done in Yugoslavia, than Iraq. Yet, on December 16th, 1998, Gore had said...If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons?...He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. Yet, Clark found the situation in Yugoslavia a greater threat than Iraq.

As noted, Milosevic had no weapons of mass destruction, and didnt threaten to use those weapons to control the worlds greatest oil resources--and therefore effect millions of jobs and the economies of the civilized world. He didnt attempt to assassinate a former US president, or pay bounties to the families of suicide bombers. He didnt train terrorists, nor provide a safe haven for them. Saddam Hussein did all of the above, but apparently Wes Clark never noticed--he considered poor little Serbia a bigger threat than Iraq. So, under Clarks astute leadership, we bombed: a hospital for the mentally ill; a passenger train; a convoy of tractors and carts loaded with refugees--and Bill Clintons strategic partners at the Chinese Embassy. We also lost an F-117 stealth fighter under mysterious circumstances (some of the parts for which have probably long since been delivered to Clintons strategic partners); and, we could not fly our Apache helicopters due to inadequate crew training. But we succeeded in helping the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an Islamic military force financed by drug money and allied with Osama bin Laden. These same forces are now poised to launch an invasion of Albania. And regarding refugees, It has gone without notice that our action in Iraq, unlike Kosovo, produced few. This is due to careful planning under the leadership of a serious and less flamboyant commander, and the efficiency of our bombing--which left civilian neighborhoods, hospitals, passenger trains, and the Chinese Embassy intact. Iraqis have also chosen to remain in occupied Iraq.

Clark deserves praise for his service and personal valor in the chaotic and disastrously mismanaged Vietnam War. However, while commanding our forces in Panama in 1996-1997, he failed to alert the country and the congress to the implications of the US leaving the strategic waterway unprotected, with Panama mostly defenseless and a narco-financed Marxist insurgency active in neighboring Colombia. The Chinese communists quickly filled the strategic void, and now control key services in Panama, creating a national security dilemma which is still unaddressed. Regardless, Clarks candidacy is probably a Clintonian move to give military and national security cover to Hillary or some other left wing candidate that could select Clark as a running mate in 2004. By putting Clark on the ballot for vice-president, the Democrats can claim they are for a strong America. One national magazine that normally tilts left is all ready on the bandwagon, declaring Clarks...military and national security credentials cant be questioned. Oh, really?"


Possible "Dumb and Dumber?"
Or is it that if anything is "dumb and dumber," it is the voting sheeple who elected B. J. Clinton twice and almost elected Gore!?

Dean+Clark would make a formidable pair. Clark could easily fool the Southern conservative Democrats. If Clark wins a couple of southern states, the going gets tough for us. Personally, The country will never elect an ultra left liberal democrat. Clark is neither a fiscal nor social conservative. He's pro-choice, wants to end the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, he believes the country was founded on the notion of progressive taxation, and if he's prepared to support or join Dean's team I'm assuming he's in favor of socialized medicine too. There is not one conservative (or even centrist) position amongs these two clowns. They are left wing loonies and have no chance of being elected in my opinion.....sad cause something needs to be done about Bush.

Clark will shortly discover that he hasn't a clue about running for president. And he has no experience in or taste for all the drudgery of campaigning in primaries.
He'll probably hold out for a bit and then endorse Dean and accept an early VP slot. Mostly, he'll just wait to see if Dean can eliminate some of his flipflopping and polish his act, especially since CNN and Clinton both fired Clark for being incompetent.

I still don't believe those nine are the real candidates...they don't "debate", they try their best merely to bash Bush...to soften the opposition for the "real" candidate. It could just be too skeptical of the Libs knack for deception.

Clark has no political substance; will the Dems be able to distinguish him from any other CNN armchair General? The man already is back peddling on comments he made to the effect that the White House told him to link 9/11 attack to Iraq/Hussein. To me, this trips him up before he even makes it to the starting gateguess he thought he could just say some slander and not get called on it.

Well, this could be a sign that their "connections" couldn't arrange an "accident" for Dean...or perhaps they believe Dean will truly lose in a landslide to Bush and they're counting on Dems coming out in droves to "save" their party in '08. Sure she lies, but the Clintons also pay close attention to polls and with the economy ignoring the Dems pleas to lay low...they realize the timing is not there for ANY Dem to sneak in.

I dunno, to be honest....this could all be a boon or a hinderance....I guess it all depends on how you want to view this. Best wishes and may the best party win.....a nation is counting on just that.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 12-9-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Ok Seekerof, you posted a bunch of Republican propaganda. Sorry....editorial comments. Great.
All this flak coming from both sides just makes me want to vote for him all the more.

P.S.- And was one of those articles commenting on Clark bombing Serbia even though they didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction?



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
Ok Seekerof, you posted a bunch of Republican propaganda. Sorry....editorial comments. Great.
All this flak coming from both sides just makes me want to vote for him all the more.

P.S.- And was one of those articles commenting on Clark bombing Serbia even though they didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction?



Flinx...
Republican proganda? LOL....maybe so...maybe not.
As to WMD....don't ask me.....don't matter to me anymore!
The point is....what smells like dog poop, looks like dog poop, feels like dog poop....is dog poop! Party affiliation has no bearing on this dog poop. Why? Both parties stink!


BTW: vote for who you wish....a vote is a vote....unless you live in Florida....for that matter, with the fact that the voting machines can be "tampered" with, does your vote matter?

regards
seekerof



posted on Sep, 12 2003 @ 08:06 AM
link   
The point of observation to keep in mind......
Any ticket with Kerry or Dean at the head will be intelligent enough, wise enough, tactical enough, and balls to the wall tough enough, to counter the complicit corporate media stacked against them.....which is the real debate forum. We can take as a given that there is no content in the Bush/Cheney ticket.....all perception. The Dem lead contenders will have the fortitiude and the team to counter that, even though it's stacked against them. And if you don't think it's real, the complicit media/propaganda arm of the Bush Republican machine....you're a fool. Why? Look at this point of spin logically for a second: the "Nobody can name a Dem presidential candidate" canard has been hyped so frequently and so broadly.....don't you think everyone by now has a clue who the lead dogs are!?!?

But as Masked, me, Seek and numerous others have contended.......Bush Pioneer level contributors run the software/machines that could likely be used in the election....ground zero in displacing this current corrupt regime. Or not.



posted on Sep, 12 2003 @ 05:34 PM
link   
BT....
Seems Dean has been very busy.
"Dean Invites Clinton to Join His Administration"
www.newsmax.com...

"Democratic Party presidential front-runner Howard Dean indicated this week that he would like ex-President Bill Clinton to play a major foreign policy role in his administration, saying that Clinton is "just the person we need" to oversee peace negotiations in the Middle East.

"I think Bill Clinton is the president who has come the closest to bringing the Israelis and Palestinians together," Dean told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Wednesday night."

regards
seekerof





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join