Has Clark criticized *any* of his Dem opponents thus far?

Earlier this morning, I was reading an article about Clark's visit to Iowa yesterday, and a curious thought crossed my mind.

After reading this statement:

Clark ignored his rivals and instead focused his discussion on the Bush administration.

I started thinking about the "ignored his rivals" part. Has Clark said anything negative about the other candidates in the race? I couldn't really find anything, and I can't recall hearing/reading anything that was targeted at another Dem in the race.

I'm genuinely interested in knowing if there is anything out there, so if anyone can cite an example, please do so. And, I'm not just talking "attacks"; I'm talking about any criticism whatsoever. (And, no, "he's letting his supporters do that" is not a legitimate response.)

If he hasn't done so, I think that speaks volumes about his confidence in this race and/or he knows the real target of this campaign is the dope sitting in the Oval Office. No, not Rove; I meant the other dope.

While I realize that this certainly isn't unique in a political candidate, I thought that attacking BushCo only was an interesting approach. It is representative of many who feel that attacking Bush in a united fashion is the best road to victory next November.

Obviously, that tactic could certainly change closer to primary time, but I found it interesting in its contrast to some of the other candidates questioning his loyalty, etc., and its contrast to the heated discussions between the various supporters on DU (specifically, the posts that summarily dismiss many of the various candidates as Republicans, conservatives, idealists, imposters, the "establishment" candidates, hotheads, warmongers, "too liberal", and so on).

Full article (short as it is): http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/2537366/detail.html

Full disclaimer: as of today, I'd probably vote for Clark, but I'm open to considering the other candidates. And, hey, Clark might need a VP.

so I don't know that he will 'go there' yet. Perhaps he never will?

Clark won't get his hands dirty criticizing Dean while they are doing it for him, IMHO?

they wouldn't be criticizing Clark, too.

:tinfoilhat:

point anything out. Also without any clear positions on the issues, he'd be foolish to do so.

*speaking about his positions not being 'in writing' KWIM?

that 'Clark was a repub until 25 days ago.' That would be fun. (eating barrel of popcorn smilie)

n/t

Clark doesn't have to, as opposed to that they were doing it for Clark.

I could be wrong.

... and type in 15-20 keywords - including all the candidate's names.

I get auto-generated e-mails from other sources on these same subjects, and I'm in contact with several writers in a couple of big cities.

To my knowledge (and If I'm wrong, I'm sure some here will tell me) Clark has never criticized another dem by name.

And I mean that in the "nicest" possible way.

If Clark hangs in there, at some point he WILL have to differentiate his positions and candidacy from the others.

My own impression is that he would make very sublte jabs....

His press secretary, Kym Spell, has issued two (to the best of my knowledge) responses to attacks by Lieberman and Edwards, however. The responses were typical, "above-the-fray, they are attacking out of desperation" responses.

DTH

will represent our Party in 2004.

He may never criticize the other Dems. He has been trained at West Point to take the high road with his colleagues and even with his opponents, though he has mocked Bush.

Both a great strength and a potential weakness in the General Election,
should he be the nominee. I'm not sure he'll let his campaign go dirty (push polls, etc), like Rove will to counter him.

the other Dems are not the enemey. Bush is. And Clark has been trained to deal with the enemy.

with that same mentality and without being devisive, it'll look very good from a "let's get the Dem party united" standpoint.

That's probably the best reason to hope it continues.

Whoever ends up as the eventual nominee NEEDS this ability to be above the fray and unite the party after the divisive primary battles.

He's in a difficult position regarding other Dems anyway, as someone who is constantly having his Democratic credentials challenged. He's already shown he knows how to attack; I think he's simply saving it for Bush. Personally, I hope he never goes negative on other Dems, because it means his campaign will always be at the top :-)

I think that if he can manage to win the nomination with that approach, it will be very helpful in rallying and uniting the Democrats for the first in November '04.

If he doesn't have to smooth over hard feelings, he saves a lot of time! :P

I think that Bush is fair game in the General Election, though. Clark is already hitting him pretty hard, so I'd expect him to continue that if he becomes the nominee.

:thumbsup:

In Clark being attacked, he will only appear as an underdog, unfairly picked at, by Ordinary voters. They will want to protect him and keep him safe. Works in Clark's favor.

The problem that attackers have is that the portrait they paint of the General, and the opinion that people actually come away from when they are exposed to him do not reconcile.

that can reach out to voters.

Clark is starting late and is way behind the others in building a campaign organization. He's basically using Iowa as a training ground for stump speeches. He's got no organization there, so he's written off Iowa. He may contest New Hampshire, but Dean and Kerry have strong organizations there. Most likely he's planning on Super Tuesday in Feb with the more conservative states, like South Caroline, Arizona, etc..

Clark can sail above the fray, but voters can't reach him there. Dean has a formidable campaign organization that reaches out to voters and that will eclipse Clark if he keeps his nose up in the air too long. We'll see the Clark campaign change gears and get rough when he picks a state to fight for and one or more of the other candidates, like Dean, already have a formidable organization in that state who will battle back.

It's going to get interesting :)

Frankly, I don't think you know the first thing about Clark's organization in Iowa, or much of anything else about him, for that matter. It's much easier just to make ridiculous blanket statements like "he's written off Iowa".

What a ludicrous assertion. It's utterly ignorant of the entire political process. Do you suppose any Presidential candidate can afford to just ignore Iowa? Not likely.

Have some sources you'd like to provide to support that?

Clark is certainly not writing Iowa off. He's already scheduled several appearances (he was there yesterday, as well) and his campaign organization is building very quickly there. Trust me, I'm close enough to get local coverage.

Continue to underestimate him, as I'm sure his campaign will appreciate it. People underestimated Clinton (who entered the 1992 race late - in October, in fact) and he won handily.

Its so early and things change so swiftly, its hard to predict though.

Why would he want to give some free ink to his opponents? He is already leading them, so there is not sense in him attacking them. The status quo is preferrable.

but I haven't heard him say anything negative about the other candidates. I've been trying to catch all his appearances. So far, so good.

I would hope that in future debates, the candidates can finally illustrate how their various plans for the economy, foreign relations, health care, education etc. contrast with each other. I know some of the nuts and bolts of Clark's ideas but not as much about the other candidates.

I'd like to see a chart like we get each year for choosing health care plans. It's a big fold out sheet with the plans all listed and I can tell differences at a glance. Guess I should just get off my duff and make one.

He has said repeatedly that he wants to talk about the issues/policies not mud sling. That said, Clark does know the fine art of the backhanded compliment. I would expect cuts like the one delivered on Maher: "nice flight-suit."

Note: For the poster up thread...are you really saying that Kerry, Edwards, and Dean have not been slamming Clark everyday? Hmmmm? Those of very different press releases than I'm reading.

It would be great if he could maintain this through the primaries, as it would promote some party unity, should he win. Plus, it makes him look like the good guy. And, other posters are right - if his opponents are going to criticize each other, he doesn't really have to. Best of both worlds.

He wins the nomination and unites the party and it'll be all guns blazing (pun entirely intended) on Bush at that point.

How would it look for a guy with NO RECORD to attack another candidate?

You do it all the time.

Broken record Clarkies.

that our congressional dems get defeated next year because according to Dean, they've been sitting onn their hands over prescription drugs? You should really include this as a disclaimer in your sig line.

caution the other candidates to not try to get cute during this week's debate (Lieb will certainly try). Clark has a sharp wit. And he will slice and dice those guys so cleanly that they won't know what happened. Be forwarned Kerry etals. Be vewy vewy careful. Should be interesting. (need a eating bucket of popcorn smilie here)

spokesperson said Lieberman was a "desperate candidate" in response to the slam the day after the debate.