What impresses me about Clark after seeing him with Hannity...

... is how calm and cool he is. Hannity never rattled him once. But he had Hannity redfaced.

He ate Hannitty for dinner and wasn't offered dessert.

...but I sure didn't think this was anything to write home about. In fact it was kind of boring. Talking to Hannity is like talking to a drunk that is never on the same page.

I would love to see that. Even a verbal recap would help.

DigitalClark.com has Clark's first appearance with Hannity and other TV clips.

they will have a video on the site. You can view videos of Clark's TV appearances on that site. As for a transcipt, it's a little soon for that. The show only ended 25 minutes ago. :D

I refuse to watch Fox news.

I don't know enough about Wesley Clark, yet, but I am really hoping he will get into the presidential race for the simple reason that he is a democrat and he can beat *.

Can you imagine what debates will be like against *? All we need is an articulate candidate and a debate format where * won't know the questions in advance.

for not speaking out against Clinton's Iraq policy - Clark reminded Hannity that the military *never* does that. They swear an oath of allegiance. Hannity looked like a fool.

Clark was cool as a cuke, articluate and I'm proud to support his candidacy should he decide to declare.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

From all the support he gets here I would have expected to see more. I dunno, theres something that just is very off- putting about him and the way he delivers.

that you find his style off-putting. That's a matter of personal preference and we've all got them. I am interested in what you expected to see that you didn't. Was it just a matter of style or was there some substance you were looking for but didn't see?

Since I am a Dean supporter I am used to the sorta "in your face " hyped up deliverance Dean has. I'm weird like that though...style is very important to me considering that Shrub has the likes of Rove to support everything he says and people are kind of blind to his mumbling know nothing speeches anyways so they jump on the bandwagon of fear . Plus I don't support Clark for his role in Serbia. I was hoping that in some sort of remote way he had something to get my interest but unfortunately he lacks anything that I would consider admirable in a prospective candidate.

Yeah, Dean's loud, in-your-face delivery is appealing to liberals, but I think Clark's style is what will get him elected. In the first Bush/Gore debate, Gore lost serious points with Americans because he was "too aggressive." Dean's delivery is much more aggressive than Gore's ever was; I don't think it would win him any favors with average voters. I like the way he speaks (although not quite as much as I like Clark's), but I think it seriously could hurt his chances of winning.

And with Hannity he failed to even assert his party affiliation, let alone something that could get him in a debate with Shrub/Rove.

eom

if you were debating with a supercilious clown ?

I'm sorry but I didn't feel that way at all. I was amazed at how the media spun the Gore/Bush* debates as it wasn't at all representative of what I had witnessed. I think the same will happen to any Democrat that is allowed to debate with Bush*. The media will tell you they were too hard on Bush* or too combatative, or to boring, or their tie wasn't straight or some really "important shit" but not what was said. Dean will be noticed that is for sure. I'm not sure that Clark will be. He has to grab the spotlight and get your attention. I just don't see that happening.

Clark has the 3rd most MeetUp people (just over 8900) and is about to catch Kerry. People have gotten $675K in pledges and enough actual (non-tax deductable) cash to run 2 physical offices with paid staff members and consultants, as well as to run ads in primary states--without a declared candidate. I'd say that he's inspired a few people.

And there's also those people who complain that DU has been flooded/invaded/whatnot by ClarkBars...so he obviously has gotten someone's attention...

That "in your face" persona is what I don't like about Dean. Can't win an election on anger alone - and don't get me wrong, I am one pissed off person, but I know it won't get me far and won't get whoever is trying to defeat Bush all the way either.

Most people don't go through their lives pissed off. Anger is a tough thing to maintain for year on end.

I prefer the more subtle approach of someone who is so knowlegdeable that he doesn't have to be continually antagonistic.

MzPIp
:dem:

My blood boiled. I felt like he looked embarrassed to respond. Perhaps that is what you do when you are trying to get moderate Repuke votes when you eventually run as a Dem.

It seems to me if he were to run he could play some games with the media concerning his CANDIDACY...but the fact that he won't say he is a democrat confuses me.

what his political affiliation is. And he has a point. At this moment, he isn't running for anything.

can temper pronounced partisanship. I expect Clark will always think more in terms of serving his country than advancing any political party.

Thank you!

I feel the opposite. He always answers questions head on and seems centered to me. His direct quality is one thing that I like about him.

Maybe one day you'll be able to put your finger on what is off-putting and could clarify it. I'd be interested.

this board is the Democratic Underground. It is not the Independant Underground, nor is it the Republican Underground.

If a maybe candidate can not state he is a proud Democratic, then fuck him. I want our next duly elected president to be a proud Democrat.

It's going to take more than Democrats to defeat the BFEE. Clark overall is the most appealing candidate we have, especially to white males. We are going to need all the independents and disenchanted Republicans we can get.

Get some diversity on,

*No I don't advocate telling the Greens to screw off...just extending some logic, or lack thereof...

Democratic or Democratic? I mean, it seems
everyone gets so hung up on labels around here. I
thought we were more enlightened than that.

Clark not preaching about party affiliation is refreshing
to me. I am tired of the R vs. D debate. It is killing
this country. We need to be about more than partisan
politics.

Give Clark a break, Pastiche, what do you really have
against him? You are on some anti-Clark holy war. Either
that, or you must go on every thread here and try to
vehemently sabotage any support for any potential President
but the person you support.

I suspect you are just threatened that he
may take votes away from your guy. Until you admit that,
your statements will have no validity with anyone who
can read between the lines.

She plumb loves Clark compared to Johnny E.!!

What did he say to get Hannity "redfaced"?

I watch his show everynight, ok sue me.

You must have veins of ice. My vision of hell would be Fox News and Commentary 24/7.

Just kind of stupid. I imagine his fans could outdo him there though.

On edit: Hannity really doesn't look stupid. He looks like he thinks his listeners are. I agree with him.

as VP, I think they would be an unstoppable ticket. Dean has the legislative experience and Clark has the kind of level headed military experience this country needs. Clark was great, but I wish he would come out and declare himself a democrat or an independent, it's time.

as VP that would be the perfect ticket

Clark/Dean 04

Clark/Dean 04

Clark/Dean 04

Clark/Dean 04

Clark/Dean 04

It just sounds right.

Unless we really are the GOP-Lite party, in which case it's perfect.

The American public is so shallow that handsome General Clark is extremely electable. I liked the way he kept his cool and didn't let Sean the dickhead talk over him.

and went down to the den to watch it.

There were two points which impressed me:

1. Clark didn't let hannity get away with trying to bully him. Turned the tables on hannity. This shows that he does his homework and that he is capable of using the appropriate technique for the situation presented to him.

2. Clark stayed very cool and actually seemed to be enjoying the moment!

I'm thinking this: Hannity could be a real "final exam" for all of the democratic candidates for the nomination. I would like to see each one of them go one-on-one with Hannity and see how they stack up.

have any of the others faced hannity that you know of? If so please provide a link.

on edit: I didn't leave the fast enough to avoid that awful, awful song by ????????

But I am holding my opinion on Clark until I see him perform on stage in an actual election. Hannity is Little Miss Muffet compared to Rove. If Clark announces, the ante (and the nastiness) goes way up. First he will have to face the other Dem's, then the evil one himself. Let's just see how it plays out.

1) I think you will be very impressed with Clark as a speaker. On a stage speaking directly to an audience he is very impressive.

2) Unfortunately, I think you may be looking for an in-your-face Dean style. This is not Clark, and it would behoove us Dems to discourage this approach as we get further along in the race against bush. One thing is clear: women voters (the bulk of our party) turn off to all that sound and fury (signifying....). We must be firm but calm. Clark knows this.

we're fighting someone who is killing our children, bankrupting our family, and polluting our neighborhoods.

Erin Brockovich was no "sweet, temperate" opponent.

Rove will be harder.
Hannity is good only at yelling over people and asking the same whiny questions over and over.
There are others that actually may understand and present the issues in a meaningful way.

So far the media seems to like Clark. I think there is a possibility that they will not play along with the bushies this time.

could make himself look good on Meet the Press he'd go back right away to take the black mark off his record.

The fact that Clark thrives in environments where the other candidates fear to tread makes me think he will do more than okay in the debates. If he doesn't he can't win the nomination.

self assurance and authority...not allowing that bully boy who passes himself off as an intellectual journalist to overide his viewpoint..what is with that guy Hannity ?? he must ask people to appear for interviews then does not allow them to speak..I am waiting for someone just to punch him in the head...

Just the other day I mentioned that it would be fun to think that he was playing that Republican game and what did he say tonight? That exact thing.

Wingers that Bush is a liar and make them feel honored to debate with him at the same time? At the end of his appearance on Winger Joe Scarborough's show this week on MSNBC Clark basically called Bush a liar as usual and Scarborough ended the interview by saying, "the Democrats need more men like General Clark." Clark's interview is in the middle of the show.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/954459.asp

He can stay calm with a faint smile as he rips you apart. Ritter totally bitchslapped O'Reilly that way.

I agree with you.

personable. The way smirk is looking lately, Clark's appearance and demeanor is a sharp contrast.

Clark vs. Bush would be one of the more interesting races.

This really is turning into the "General Discussion Forum"
- the "General" being General Wesley Clark

:-)

Came across this article:

"This isn't War"

snip....While this was, homogeneously, a liberal crowd, it was not an ironic crowd, or a contentious one, or showbizzy in any sense. These were not social liberals, or cause-y liberals, or polymorphous liberals. There was not even a hint of gayness. These were just overachieving liberals. (They were not just achievers but the arbiters of achievement.)


The opening panel at the first evening’s dinner featured several estimables, including Madeleine Albright, a Singaporean diplomat, and a token (and not too bright) member of the Bush administration, but everybody on the panel was irrelevant except for Wesley Clark. The vibe was as powerful in the room as if you had a panel of B-listers and then, say, J.Lo. The intensity was of one mind. Clark was the romantic figure here. He held the collective crush.


It was, for this audience, such incredible good Fortune to have not just a real general (the victor of Kosovo) who would be willing to run as a Democrat but a real general who is a genuine brainiac (he was precise and clear and overarching as a panelist, whereas Albright was huffing and puffing, and the Bush official was nearly incoherent). This was what the liberal Establishment was waiting for.


Of course, the brainiac thing represented a certain order of coolness, which might play less well with the nation’s not-so-cool people. The warrior-intellectual, thrilling to these people, might have a limited wide appeal.

But the love here was real and powerful.


You know it when overachievers sense one of their own.

note: This is a two page article, so the snip would seem to meet the board standards.

Anyway, I'm not worried that a four star can turn up the rhetoric at the right moment. Hannity and Faux provide their own speen, behaving like a well reasoned person who doesn't fall for false bait would seem rather wise. Anyway, as the above article points out: "brainiac" might not suit everyone. The best part comes on page two with the Big Dawg's comments:"...the Republicans who “will run over you unless you beat their brains out..."

C'mon, Wes! We're getting clobbered here! Bring on the cavalry!

He is expected to declare in about 10 days. Whatever his pre-announcement strategy is, it's getting him tons of uniformly positive free publicity and giving him more Bush-bashing attention than the candidates.

The wait for his announcement is a non-issue. When he's in the race he's in the race and the delay will be forgotten. If he doesn't get into the race he'll retain more Bush-basing credibility for being undeclared.

As long as he is a non-candidate, his Bush-bashing can be seen as a good, loyal American speaking out against the policies of the Bush administration. Once he declares, everything he says is partisan rhetoric.

Hannity tipped us off tonight...he tried desparately to paint Clark as a candidate and his criticism of Bush as "pure partisanship." He will try to minimize anything Clark says after he announces the same way the rest of the Repubs are doing now: labeling all criticism as partisan bush-bashing.

The longer Clark stays out the more credible his message. But he can't stay out too long.

good call synntri! I feel stupid for not recognizing it before.

Clark has already passed the point where he's regarded as a partisan. I don't think it's good strategy for him not to declare an affiliation at this point. He's not Eisenhower, some beloved war hero. He's not even Schwarzkopf. What this failure to declare suggests to me is that he has a political tin ear. If he enters politics, at any level, he has to take on the role of being a poltician.

My prediction, the way things are going right now he won't get more than a few % in any primary (which is the fate of most candidates who enter a presidential race). Clark shouldn't enter this game if he's not willing to say, "I stand for this, I oppose that, these people are my allies, those over there are my opponants", etc. That's basic.

If you agree with his stances, why does it matter?

people seeing the party first, the man second. Very smart.

He will get the women's vote. I could tell how my wife reacted to him, just how she reacted to Clinton. Remember, we are just animals, subject to the same instincts as the Bonobo or the Spring Bok. Those animal instincts are just as valid at the intellectual reasons for supporting one candidate over another. We cannot deny the power of our genes.

shouldn't that be First?

"the man first" sounds like playing along with the popularity contest that is the US elections.

...boring 'by the book' campaigns seldom win large elections these days.

so much support from Democrats when he is either NOT a Democrat or is ASHAMED to be a Democrat?

it really wouldn't be anyone's business.

Otherwise, if you want to look at the legal aspects, Wesley has satisfied every requirement of the law in the state in which he is registered to be a Democrat. In other words, he is a de facto Democrat, exactly like I am.

The only difference is that I did not spend a career in a profession where non-political is the norm.

At this point it is a smart political move. What do the Media keep asking?? Go to Clark websites and study his positions on issues, he sponsored a 2day forum at Georgetown U on Conversation about Americas Future. He totally organized lined up speakers
Most Speakers were people from Clinton Administration whichwas shown on C-Span, you would have to conclude his beliefs are in keeping with Democratic Party. There are several things going on. As long
as he keeps some mystery about himself--better chance to get on TV--free advertising. Also there is a group of Republicans called Republicans for Clark. It is better to try to keep people behind you long enough that they will stay even if you are of a different party. Look at Howard Dean. Some people think he Liberal, Moderate
and some think he is a conservative. Look at his record and I say he would make a perfect DLC Candidate--and yet DLC attacks him.
Do not fall into Reublican trap--they started this "why won't he say what he is" Let us be honest, Clark is th WH worst night mare. They are doing every thing they can to smear him already.
"

he has had that air of self-assurance.

You realize, of course, that no one gets those four stars without a certain amount of what was called "virtu" during the Renaissance. It's only a short distance from that to arrogance, but I haven't seen arrogance on Clark's part. At least not yet.

Even Washington and Eisenhower had enemies who tried to trash them at every opportunity, and both did have their faults, but rose above the sound and fury. If Clark is secretly ambitious and moving behind the scenes to push this "draft" movement, so be it. Eisenhower made no secret of how he wanted the White House and spent months taking bids from both parties. He could have done better, but he didn't do all that badly for eight years.

We could do a lot worse than Clark. At the moment, we are doing a lot worse.

if I hadnt known beforehand. He doesnt give off
much of an authoritative vibe to me. Nice guy,
earnest, smart, but ... He seems to be kind of
looking for his footing, or his political persona.
Not quite lined up with himself somehow.
That doesnt surprise me, come to think of
it. Jumping from the military to politics might
cause a person to seem a little at sea for a while.
Plus playing the what-party-am-I & am-i-gonna-run
games adds to that sense that he's not quite all
there. Has anybody asked him how he *voted* in recent
elections, party-wise?

Also note that there is no party registration for voting in Arkansas.

...but there is something decidedly chickenshit about someone that won't talk about which party they supposedly belong to....

- It's as if he's embarrassed to say the word Democrat. He won't get my vote because of his mealy mouthed 'tactics'.

There is a method to his madness. It is not "chickenshit". He knows what he is doing.

Trust me. It will all unfold.

understand and even appreciate what Clark is doing. Clark is trying to save himself from being, "Gored."

I find it odd and disengenous that you apply the term, "mealy-mouthed" to a patriot like General Clark. There's only one thing motivating him to consider running for president. His love of country and his revulsion to bushco.

After 34 years of sacrifices-- some of them physical; in service to our country he doesn't owe you an apology because he won't wear the label you want him to, at the time that you want him to.

The part about being Gored, that is.

I have no doubt that Clark will be quite proud of being a Democrat, once when he announces for the nomination, but given the state of today's SCLM, I see no need for him to expose himself to their labelling one minute before he needs to do so.

said he was amused of our efforts. So, I am on board with Clark.

If he decides not to run, what possible business of your would it be what party he belonged to?

If he does run, he will clearly announce his party affiliation. If he doesn't run, it's no one elses business.

on Clark. I don't think he is embarassed about anything.
Why would anyone be embarassed about being a democrat?

You using that word is giving into the Republicans and
their brainwashing. They made liberal a bad word and you
are helping them make Democrat a bad word every time you
associate it with embarassment.

Clark is playing it smart, pure and simple. WE have to
win the center and Clark is left of center. But if goes
on and on preaching about it, he will be stigmatized by
the right as a partisan politician (even though they are
the worst form of partisan politicians imaginable).

With grace and composure, Clark can comfortably come to be an American candidate for all of us via the Democratic nomination --
meaning, the parties exist to serve the people and the country,
not the other way around.

We should stop making this Orwellian slip of "four legs
good, two legs bad" all the time. It is an example of a
true decline in our democracy. It makes us no better
than the Right if we keep on with this hyper-partisanship.

Hannity was just rude and interrupting all the time, the General made Hannity look like an IDIOT with his accusations about being partisan, as ALL of the military folks who watched the show last night must have known immediately.

And I actually loved how the General deflected Hannity's demands to state that he's a Democrat: he didn't dissemble, he just COMPLETELY IGNORED Hannity as if he was beneath notice (which he is) and instead addressed the other substantive issues.

General Clark will declare when he's ready, and he will declare as a Democrat. As others have said, that's where his little-known but existing-if-you-know-where-to-look loyalties and support have gone in the past, and that's where he'll be now and in the future.

He is looking better and better! Go General Clark!

I can barely take seriously these absurd "concerns" that Clark is a Repug, or "ashamed" Dem, or indie, or confused. Next there will be a "theory" that he is a "stealth Green".

Plant, water and grow a clue!

Some of the apoplexy above over this sounds very similar to the Huffing Ham last night. Both amount to unrestrained screaming of "TELL US! TELL US! TELL US NOW!". Whaaaaa? Or else we won't be your friend?

I know where His Hammitiness' yelling is coming from. Its a current pug point used whenever possible against any criticism of aWol: "Oh, you're just partisan. You're only saying X about ______ (IraqNam, economy, deficit...) because you're trying to get elected. You're just playing to the extreme left of the Democrat Party to get the nomination. You're dismissable."

The chimp used it last week between brush cutting and golf ball slicing. Something about, Aw, that's just politics, just guys running for office, you know they'll say anything. Shucks, just dismiss 'em. (Press presses playback on handheld recorder, presses to ear, mills around mumbling "dems are about politics", "dems just seeking office", "dems dismissable"...Flash: "pay no attention to those politikin' dems over there". Wow, look at that drive.)

The Puffed Ham knew Clark would not announce anything on his slimey show. He is pissed that he can't hammer Clark as a dem, so he tried to get mileage by poking him for not declaring demness. And my man was getting the Ham pretty upset as it went along, because it was working out poorly for the planned prosecutorial cross-exam.

Don't think Clark doesn't have the coordinates already dialed in for all the possible positions on this affiliation declaration item. At the close of his appearance, note the mortar rounds stepping in closer and closer to Hambone and his implication that dems are evil. It zeros on Hambone, cornered and eyes down, reluctantly sorta admitting that he believes in the two party system! Much more RW backtracking like that and he will have miles of ideological recovery to go.

Clark's tease "ploy" is increasing his face-time on the toob, where he gets to hammer the Hammer (sweet!)and the chimp; and its probably increasing interest in his candidacy among some I's, mod R's, and otherwise nonvoters. We NEED VOTES to oust the usurper! His dem primary votes/dem affiliations are inside baseball, interesting to us, but not to most voters, yet.

I honestly think Clark has gotten at least some R's and I's thinking about: wise use of military force; fiscal accountability; foreign policy that's better for our national security, etc. Things that they can wind up moving to Clark on, away from the increasingly stained disaster area in the WH. When Clark keeps focusing on the issues, not the process, these people may be attracted to what they thought were "Republican" values, but are really simply good American values. We must reclaim that turf, which they have sullied. We may need these folks for the presidency, and we surely need them in order to take the House and Senate. We need those majorities, too, because we're going to have a lot of undoing to do.


edtd:tipoz

...him as a threat to their candidate. I think we should keep our eyes on the prize and go for the candidate who has the best chance of moving the country in the right direction. Which you can't do unless you win the general election.

It is like this, whether you like it or not. Wesley spent his entire profesional career being non-political because he had to serve the Commander in Chief, per the US Constitution. Political officers do not prosper because one party does not own power.

IF Wesley does not run, his party affiliation is no one's business. Remember, people began courting him for this. He never once, to my knowledge, asked anyone to try to draft him. In fact, initially, his first reaction was to be flattered by the suggestions. He did not discuss this with family before the Draft Clark movement started. I think it actually surprised him and I also think that it grew because Wesley took on Bush's foreign policy in a way that others had not.

Wesley is a Democrat in the same fashion that I am a Democrat. In our state, one does not register by party. We have open primaries. To be a Democrat, one simply asks for a Democratic ballot on primary day. Party affiliation simply is not provided for by state law.

If Wesley runs, he will clearly and succinctly advise us of his affiliation. If he doesn't run, it is no one's business.

The people who know Wesley have no doubt what his party affiliation is.

advise us of his affiliation."

If it was me: why officially declare the party I "might" run with, and then later on announce that I would run (or not)? I don't see the point. I'd rather put all that powder in one barrel for better effect. My announcement would spell out both why I decided to run, and why I run as a Democrat. There's obvious rhetorical parallelisms in them thar hills, particulary effective going initially after the dem nod.

If one is confronted with welling, unexpected support to become president, personal integrity would require taking careful consideration of all aspects of that undertaking. If only as a mental exercise, I imagine Clark seriously gamed out running as R, as I, as some third party. He better have. Part of that is about knowing your opponent. You want to know about those guys over in the next valley. Friendly, no-so-friendly, ali baba's, charlie, don't know? What does he have for strengths, weaknesses? What are his likely options in a confrontation? What's it like to be him should we battle? Then, in an unfolding encounter, you're more prepared for his bob and weave, whatever, you may confront. Both essential and an edge.

Yes, Virginia. There was a time when men of honor and integrity, with experience and ideas, could hope to become a Republican president. Alas, remember John McCain if you doubt those times are fading, or gone.

I disbelieve that Clark is torn with doubt over R or D. I also see what a lesson he has given to some Republicans about their GOP. Some should feel at least a little disquiet when they imagine the factors and analysis a man like Clark would go through, and the conclusions he would reach about which party he should hitch his star to.

A Clarkster can help me out on this, but I am 90% sure he has said he'd have to run as a Democrat, and also he has said that he accepts the two party system. It's clear as a bell to me (and Pepperbelly, who would know) that Clark is a Democrat. He said a few days ago that he could not be more opposed to Tom Delay....and on and on and on.

I think he is torn with doubt over running a political campaign and possibly losing--not to mention dealing with his family and getting them behind him. I've heard his wife would prefer he not run. He is in an uncomfortable position, but I think you misunderstand where the conflict is.

I don't think there's a doubt in his mind over which political party he is with. He insulted the Republicans today on Crossfire, without doing the same for the Dem party--I believe he said the Dem party was brimming with ideas (someone confirm that?).

I don't see how people can honestly doubt his affiliations. Out of the curiosity this thread spurred in me, I checked out digitalclark.com , unfortunately the interview with Hannity discussed here isn't up yet.

So I am watching another (2 hour) clip on this site, Clark speaking at the New democratic Network (!), first thing he says is, after getting an intro with bio :
"Yes indeed I am from Arkansas. And I have to say, I'm very proud of our senator, Blanche Lincoln"

I had to look it up, but she's a (D)...

Noteworthy point : It's almost impossible to find out what party she's with, reading her own website :-) she seems to be very "bipartisan"...maybe she gave Clark some ideas ?

edit : notice the word "proud"