Taking it personally - defending the General (attacking his enemies) Story score: · Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sat Dec 27th, 2003 at 10:32:54 AM EST


An interesting argument started on the blog about the wisdom of attacking * D vs positive campaigning.
The gentler kinder souls argued that visitors to the blog may be turned off by the attack.
Me, being of the acerbic sort do not see it as a dilemma for me. Clark is a statesman - and needs to project that, so for him as a candidate, that may be a concern.
I OTOH have the freedom of being nobody - a mere supporter with a purely voluntary allegiance to his campaign. No concerns of statesmanship for this New Yorker.
    Many may not believe it, but I used to be a laid back, mild mannered, shy person with little interest in politics. That was before I became "Robbedvoter - the Supercrusader against the Coup" . All superheros have a dramatic story of their transformation. Mine is known by everyone not in a cave in 2000.
   Eversince, I became enraged with the appeasements of the democrats to W - the dreaded one way only "bipartisanship" - or pink tutu - as Bartcop calls it.
 Then came Clinton. I slept (politically)  through his presidency - but Robbedvoter discovered the unbelievable vicious attacks unleashed by Bushco and the the backstabbing of the democrats. Conason and Lyons filled in the blanks.
"Why do they hate you so?" they asked. "Because I won" he answered.
My personal encounter in 2001 seal the deal:
http://www.legitgov.org/front_clinton.html
From now on, I was to take every attack on Clinton personally
And this long story brings me to  the other Rhodes scholar from Arkansas who will trounce the other Bush.
The same forces are in alignment. And this time I am here too. He will win and they'll hate him for it.
And I don't care who is doing the attacking, Dem or bush: I'll beat the s out of them* Count on it

Taking it personally - defending the General (attacking his enemies) Story score: · Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sat Dec 27th, 2003 at 10:32:54 AM EST


An interesting argument started on the blog about the wisdom of attacking * D vs positive campaigning.
The gentler kinder souls argued that visitors to the blog may be turned off by the attack.
Me, being of the acerbic sort do not see it as a dilemma for me. Clark is a statesman - and needs to project that, so for him as a candidate, that may be a concern.
I OTOH have the freedom of being nobody - a mere supporter with a purely voluntary allegiance to his campaign. No concerns of statesmanship for this New Yorker.
    Many may not believe it, but I used to be a laid back, mild mannered, shy person with little interest in politics. That was before I became "Robbedvoter - the Supercrusader against the Coup" . All superheros have a dramatic story of their transformation. Mine is known by everyone not in a cave in 2000.
   Eversince, I became enraged with the appeasements of the democrats to W - the dreaded one way only "bipartisanship" - or pink tutu - as Bartcop calls it.
 Then came Clinton. I slept (politically)  through his presidency - but Robbedvoter discovered the unbelievable vicious attacks unleashed by Bushco and the the backstabbing of the democrats. Conason and Lyons filled in the blanks.
"Why do they hate you so?" they asked. "Because I won" he answered.
My personal encounter in 2001 seal the deal:
http://www.legitgov.org/front_clinton.html
From now on, I was to take every attack on Clinton personally
And this long story brings me to  the other Rhodes scholar from Arkansas who will trounce the other Bush.
The same forces are in alignment. And this time I am here too. He will win and they'll hate him for it.
And I don't care who is doing the attacking, Dem or bush: I'll beat the s out of them* Count on it

The happy warrior test Story score: · Remove from Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (News and Links) on Thu Dec 25th, 2003 at 03:36:56 PM EST


HOWARD DEAN NEEDS A TONE TRANSPLANT
by Matt MillerDec 17th, 2003
http://www.mattmilleronline.com/columns.php?id=74
My wife has a foolproof test for assessing a politician's true nature.

Try this at home. Turn off the volume on the TV when the politician in question is speaking and look at their face for a few minutes. It's an unerring test of whether at bottom they're a "happy warrior" or not.
Whether they're someone who naturally conveys that life-affirming sense of optimism, zest and even joy amidst political combat - a quality that for most of us is supremely attractive in a leader.

Or whether instead they're someone who seems more like an angry sourpuss.

I much prefer happy warriors, though history suggests it's not a prerequisite for going all the way. FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan were happy warriors; Richard Nixon was not. Bill Clinton was a happy warrior; Al Gore was not.
...

OK. Closing my eyes...picture coming....yesss!
http://www.dunckleystreet.com/you-be-the-judge.htm

The happy warrior test Story score: · Remove from Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (News and Links) on Thu Dec 25th, 2003 at 03:36:56 PM EST


HOWARD DEAN NEEDS A TONE TRANSPLANT
by Matt MillerDec 17th, 2003
http://www.mattmilleronline.com/columns.php?id=74
My wife has a foolproof test for assessing a politician's true nature.

Try this at home. Turn off the volume on the TV when the politician in question is speaking and look at their face for a few minutes. It's an unerring test of whether at bottom they're a "happy warrior" or not.
Whether they're someone who naturally conveys that life-affirming sense of optimism, zest and even joy amidst political combat - a quality that for most of us is supremely attractive in a leader.

Or whether instead they're someone who seems more like an angry sourpuss.

I much prefer happy warriors, though history suggests it's not a prerequisite for going all the way. FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan were happy warriors; Richard Nixon was not. Bill Clinton was a happy warrior; Al Gore was not.
...

OK. Closing my eyes...picture coming....yesss!
http://www.dunckleystreet.com/you-be-the-judge.htm

*Clark on the preemption doctrine*
:

Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog on Mon Dec 22nd, 2003 at 10:19:58 PM EST


Democratic debate statement

And just to pick up on what John Kerry said, this administration's preemptive doctrine is causing North Korea and Iran to accelerate their nuclear weapons development.

Now, there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now. But I'd like to ask all those who are -- let's see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption now. I don't think we can wait until November of 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5841-2003Oct9& ;notFound=true

 
Clark on the preemption doctrine: | 4 comments | Group threads together | Post A Comment | Edit Story
(#4) (No rating)

by Anonymous on 01/21/2004 11:10:13 PM EST

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply

ibelieve mr.clark is the best candidate for dem president. issues can be addresed more fully i find my self not understanding what he is saying i just hope new hampshire give him a chance. i know john kerry can not beat bush . i believe clar is our only hope as american democrat . the republicans will never admit this . but clark is his worst fear


OTOH, Kerry loves that preemption doctrine: (#3) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 06:17:51 AM EST

Reply

Senator Kerry issued the following statement
after the president's
(sic) speech last night:
"Even having botched the diplomacy, it is
the duty of any president,
in the final analysis, to defend this nation
and dispel the security
threats, both immediate and longer term,
against it. Saddam Hussein
has brought military action upon himself by
refusing for 12 years to
comply with the mandates of the United
Nations."
So, authiring the Syria accountability act for W was only consistent for him


Congress testimony - Sept 26, 2002: (#2) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 11:47:31 AM EST

Reply

Clark opposes the preemption doictrine - inappropriate for regime change and no time limitation
http://www.videos4clark.com/vidclips/15.wmv


preemptive vs preventive (#1) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/18/2004 04:33:17 PM EST

Reply

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3983123/
But Clark, the West Point debate team captain, insists on responding to those attacks by teaching something of a college short-course on the difference between "pre -emptive" and "preventative" war. On the campaign bus, he tried it again and landed on a slightly better definition of why Bush's war was a preventative war and why it was dangerous. He urged common sense by evoking the Vietnam-era talk of destroying a village in order to save it. "The whole idea that we should have a war now so we don't have to fight one later has always struck a lot of people as really bad," he said. "It's a case of logic overriding common sense." That was part of a sound-bite answer that voters could digest and his opponents would find more difficult to demagogue

Clark on the preemption doctrine:

Story score: · Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog on Mon Dec 22nd, 2003 at 10:19:58 PM EST


Democratic debate statement

And just to pick up on what John Kerry said, this administration's preemptive doctrine is causing North Korea and Iran to accelerate their nuclear weapons development.

Now, there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now. But I'd like to ask all those who are -- let's see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption now. I don't think we can wait until November of 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5841-2003Oct9& ;notFound=true
Congress testimony - Sept 26, 2002:



Clark opposes the preemption doictrine - inappropriate for regime change and no time limitation
http://www.videos4clark.com/vidclips/15.wmv
preemptive vs preventive



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3983123/
But Clark, the West Point debate team captain, insists on responding to those attacks by teaching something of a college short-course on the difference between "pre -emptive" and "preventative" war. On the campaign bus, he tried it again and landed on a slightly better definition of why Bush's war was a preventative war and why it was dangerous. He urged common sense by evoking the Vietnam-era talk of destroying a village in order to save it. "The whole idea that we should have a war now so we don't have to fight one later has always struck a lot of people as really bad," he said. "It's a case of logic overriding common sense." That was part of a sound-bite answer that voters could digest and his opponents would find more difficult to demagogue

Where Political Influence Is Only a Keyboard Away
More than ever, the Internet gives people a connection -- and a voice -- in campaigns.
LINK

  By Matea Gold, Times Staff Writer
NEW YORK — Every morning, before her 5-year-old daughter wakes up, Leah Faerstein sits down at her computer in her East Village apartment and logs onto Democratic presidential candidate Wesley K. Clark's Web site.
A few years ago, Faerstein was politically indifferent and didn't own a computer. But now the stay-at-home mom spends hours a day on Clark's Web log, or blog, munching on chocolate Clark bars and chatting with other aficionados of the former NATO commander.   
   
   
 Recently, she was thrilled to hear Clark use a phrase about democracy that she had suggested on the blog.
"I'm not going to take the credit," said Faerstein, 50. "But I think it's osmosis. There's a back and forth between us and the campaign. I couldn't feel more connected."
Faerstein is one of hundreds of thousands of people who have turned to the Internet this year to participate in national politics, relying on a technology that is playing a central role in the way citizens are experiencing the 2004 presidential campaign.

Cohen's VP writes *D's foreign policy (volunteer)

By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (News and Links) on Wed Dec 17th, 2003 at 11:39:10 AM EST


Dean Plugs Gaps in Experience

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A26720-2003Dec1&am p;notFound=true

"Dean's most committed foreign policy wonk is a volunteer, Danny Sebright, a former Pentagon official who is vice president at a Washington consulting firm headed by William Cohen, who was President Bill Clinton's defense secretary.

Sebright -- who headed a Pentagon panel on global terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- compiled Dean's foreign policy briefing book and wrote the campaign's position papers on such topics as Israel, North Korea and nuclear proliferation."
LINK This should be taken in in connection with this interview from 2001 where Clark explains how Cohen sabotaged the Kosovo intervention because the Pentagon was obsessed with Iraq. (20 minutes well spent!)

Rangel, others endorse Clark in Harlem - 12/11/2003
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to New York City (Firsthand Accounts) on Sun Dec 14th, 2003 at 05:59:13 AM EST


It was a full room - reporters, cameras, supporters. One section was reserved for Harlem veterans - a general amongst them. Another had other groups representatives - including - sorry Joe - a lot of orthodox Jews in full regalia.

Rangel showed up to warm up the audience and started talking about this historic moment . He joked about reporters asking him why did Dean & Gore come to Harlem. "I thought they had told the cab driver to take them to Harvard" If they wonted to come and see Harlem all they needed to do was call" He then talked about the crisis we are where bush's secretary of DOD doesn't even know if we are winning or losing. He pointed to one veteran: this is the guy who shot the first German plane in WWII - I'd tell you some war stories myself - but this guy is here"

He explained that he knew we needed Clark the first moment the former governor of Texas climbed in that uniform. (Turns out he actually called Clark then). If Clark runs against him, I guarantee you he won't climb in an uniform again - "with all due respect to the Texas Air Guard and whatever it is they do"

Clark finally showed up - Rangel did his formal endorsement in a rouseing speech - that contain some of the previous stories. Got several standing ovations.

Clark had trouble starting - we wouldn't stop cheering him. He enjoyed every minute of it then he opened with: "They ask me if I favor draft. I never got drafted until Sgt Rangel drafted me. In a perfect Rangel voice he told us how he demanded him that he presents himself for duty to the American people

There was another bush, running against another Rhodes scholar from Arkansas and he was whining about "the vision thing" We now know what this bush's vision is: back to the past: Iraq war, Kennedy's space program...I believe our best days are ahead of us"

After the rousing speech, he took questions from reporters. WNBC's Gabe Pressman asked him if the dean thingy is a done deal. "IN the words of the Tuskeegee men "We just got our afterburners lit here in Harlem"

I am a navy man, Pressman(who has a Clark button in his pocket) said.

Some of my best friends are from navy" - Clark retorted without missing a beat

So would you use the famous words of.... and say :"We've only just begun to fight?

Clark: I'll use the words of another Navy man: "Damn the torpidos, full speed ahead" But really, I am an army man, he added - and we say: "Put the pedal to the metal, we're moving out!

A second reporter wanted to know why Dean is not good enough. "I am not a specialist in Dean - but let me tell you this about Bush....and launched into a powerful attack.

There was another question about No Child left Behind which he handled beautifully - "it's just that: an act" and Andrew Kurzman got snipy and asked for Clark's credentials with African Americans - good question, bad tone. Clark gave him a good answer - talking about the integrated army, affirmative action - his brief in support of the Michigan case.

The other endorsements followed - congressmen, Councilmen - state senators - mostly minorities - blacks, hispanic, Jewish - it was a beautiful group standing besides him.

After that, I gave Clark the button I describe in my previous entry and got hit with that lethal smile - it reminded me of Gingrich's comment: "After Clinton's charm offensive on me - I need to go into detox". Well, I migh need it, but I simply refuse to do it
So, kids, as Rangel said:

"When your kids and grandkids ask you, 'What were you doing when this country had the preemptive strike for war we shouldn't be involved with? What did you do to change the course of this great nation?' You'll be able to say, 'I endorsed and I won with General Wesley Clark,

*Why I picked Clark (and you should switch)*
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Wed Dec 10th, 2003 at 06:23:39 AM EST


Bill Maher: want to read you a quote, because Howard Dean said "...In Vermont, you know, politics is much farther to the left. A Vermont centrist is an American liberal right now." And then his campaign manager came out and said "That's not an admission he's a liberal!" Which, quite frankly pissed me off. Somehow they hijacked that word. And you're a Democrat, you said that last week.

Clark: Absolutely. (audience applause)

Maher: OK. I'm just wondering, of all the people who have the credentials to say "liberal" is not a bad word, I'm wondering if I could get you to say that.

Clark: Well, I'll say it right now.

Maher: Good for you!

Clark: We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this... this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back.

Maher: Thank you. (audience applause)

Clark: Can I follow up on that?

Maher: Yes!

Clark: A lot of people have said, what are you interested in? Why would you even consider running? Isn't it just about Iraq? It really isn't. Iraq is part of it, I think our foreign policy has serious problems, but I think the economy and the way the administration has dealt with the economy has serious problems. But more fundamental than that, it's about what kind of country we want to live in. I think this nation wants an open, transparent government. I think it likes the two-party system. I think it likes to hear reasoned dialogue, not labeling, name-calling, hateful politics. I think 2004 is the election the voters have to put that back in.
Full transcript LINK

Why I picked Clark (and you should switch)

By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Wed Dec 10th, 2003 at 06:23:39 AM EST


Bill Maher: want to read you a quote, because Howard Dean said "...In Vermont, you know, politics is much farther to the left. A Vermont centrist is an American liberal right now." And then his campaign manager came out and said "That's not an admission he's a liberal!" Which, quite frankly pissed me off. Somehow they hijacked that word. And you're a Democrat, you said that last week.

Clark: Absolutely. (audience applause)

Maher: OK. I'm just wondering, of all the people who have the credentials to say "liberal" is not a bad word, I'm wondering if I could get you to say that.

Clark: Well, I'll say it right now.

Maher: Good for you!

Clark: We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this... this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back.

Maher: Thank you. (audience applause)

Clark: Can I follow up on that?

Maher: Yes!

Clark: A lot of people have said, what are you interested in? Why would you even consider running? Isn't it just about Iraq? It really isn't. Iraq is part of it, I think our foreign policy has serious problems, but I think the economy and the way the administration has dealt with the economy has serious problems. But more fundamental than that, it's about what kind of country we want to live in. I think this nation wants an open, transparent government. I think it likes the two-party system. I think it likes to hear reasoned dialogue, not labeling, name-calling, hateful politics. I think 2004 is the election the voters have to put that back in.
Full transcript LINK

My hot button - don't push - or I go Boooom!!#$%&!!!!

By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sat Nov 29th, 2003 at 05:40:21 AM EST


Some months ago on DU (I was candidateless then) I spotted some Nadercamp positions "how W staying in there will be good for us" kind of thingy. After peeling myself from the ceiling, I was able to articulate something like this: "I don't care what candidate you support, I don't care where you are coming from - Democrat, GOP, Green, alien, freeper, troll - if your goal is to work towards ending the present junta in power you are all my brothers in arms - if not, you are my enemy"

It was appreciated as a rallying cry - although the "who cares" crowd objected: "Isn't that an "are you with us or against us" thingy?" Yes, it is. I made no excuses. Not committing to this larger goal at this time in history puts you in the seat opposed to mine. So: CHOOSE!

Of course, I am more specific these days: to be with me, you have to support Wesley Clark - although I still see the common goal with the rest of them.

I appreciate the huge array of interests, backgrounds and make-ups of our people: philosophers, veterans, Democrats, Republicans, Natural Law, Christians, Pagans,Budhists sportsmen and geeks, peaceniks, students, old hippies,moderates, - we are certainly a worthy sample of America. And I do revel in our differences. It takes a beautifully complex man like Wesley Clark to attract such diversity.

There's one difference from me I can't stand though: lack of passion. being vague and wishy washy about the common goal sends me back to the ceiling. When I read stuff like "It's not nice to attack out president, he is a very nice man who sacrificed his Thanksgiving to be with the troops and he he was too elected so stop saying that" I can only ask one question: "Why are you here?"

But that's just me. Don't push that one button, and we are brothers (or sisters). The more passionate you are, the more I love you.

War vote, schmwar vote - just make the damn thing stop! Remove from Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog on Thu Nov 20th, 2003 at 07:00:34 AM EST
Who cares now a day how everyone voted? (except for some rabbid  Dean&Kuchinich supporters)?
   Many parents confronted with fighting siblings came to the point of saying: "I don't care who started it, just make it stop"
I just surprised myself realizing that  while reading and viewing Dean's spot attacking  Gephardt.
I was one of these people almost saying: "I'll never vote for someone who voted for the war". Gephardt was especially eggregious in his actions - his support for Bush undercut the Senate vote on the Biden Lugar amendment . It was a timid amendment, but the votes were there for it.
    Still, while watching that ad I realized: who cares at this point?
All these purity tests are playing well to the converted, not to the majority that wanted the war (yeah, even Democrats, unfortunately).
   That's why, in the field of "others" - Kerry looks increasingly better than Dean who comes off as some  fanatic counting the drops of blood required for racial purity.
  The whole "flip-flop" fabricated issue about Clark is becoming more irrelevant with each body coming back home. Clark is the guy who can stop it - everything else is talmudic hairsplitting to rile the faithful.

Sabotaging Clinton's ME peace - by Bushco
I knew of Perle - and my story is a bit less one sided than yours - and fits better with the facts: Perle sabotaged the peace talks by going to BOTH SIDES in the conflict and making promises to each that if they hang on with the signing business hereby helping Bush the Lesser ascend the throne - there'll be something special in it for them.
As it happens, it was Arafat who went for it and not Sharon. It would take 6 months later, Summer Solstice 2001 - Arafat would figure out he was taken and would say: "I now want to sign that peace"
The half of the story you tell was printed in the Guardian reflecting their biases. The missing half reflects the facts.
Yes, Bushco (Perle was just a proxy) is responsible for every death in ME since 2000. And knowing this, how much more despicable and cynical is W's mind-boggling pronouncement: "The killing in ME is Clinton's fault - he raised expectations" (Fleisher voiced it, retracted it, then Bush said it again in an interview with a German magazine and had to sorta apologize).
Richard Perle didn't really resigned from anything. Seymour Hersch from the New Yorker had exposed his corruption and PNAC conquest dreams. Arrogant Perle threatened to sue Hersch - and in UK, no less. He was advised to step off the limelight. He is still there, same duties, just less titles.
As for Tom Delay's demented rantings - they surely don't help any these days. But I am not aware of his involvement at the time there was an actual chance of peace.

How to (not) make me explode - rant

Some months ago on DU (I was candidateless then) I spotted some Nadercamp positions "how W staying in there will be good for us" kind of thingy. After peeling myself from the ceiling, I was able to articulate something like this: "I don't care what candidate you support, I don't care where you are coming from - Democrat, GOP, Green, alien, freeper, troll - if your goal is to work towards ending the present junta in power you are all my brothers in arms - if not, you are my enemy"
It was appreciated as a rallying cry - although the "who cares" crowd objected: "Isn't that an "are you with us or against us" thingy?" Yes, it is. I made no excuses. Not committing to this larger goal at this time in history puts you in the seat opposed to mine. So: CHOOSE!
Of course, I am more specific these days: to be with me, you have to support Wesley Clark - although I still see the common goal with the rest of them.
I appreciate the huge array of interests, backgrounds and make-ups of our people: philosophers, veterans, Democrats, Republicans, Natural Law, Christians, Pagans,Budhists sportsmen and geeks, peaceniks, students, old hippies,moderates, - we are certainly a worthy sample of America. And I do revel in our differences. It takes a beautifully complex man like Wesley Clark to attract such diversity.
There's one difference from me I can't stand though: lack of passion. being vague and wishy washy about the common goal sends me back to the ceiling. When I read stuff like "It's not nice to attack out president, he is a very nice man who sacrificed his Thanksgiving to be with the troops and he he was too elected so stop saying that" I can only ask one question: "Why are you here?"
But that's just me. Don't push that one button, and we are brothers (or sisters). The more passionate you are, the more I love you

Welcome, newbie! You have passion - you'll fit! (#7) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 11/29/2003 05:13:04 AM EST
Reply
This CCN will evolve as the story of all of us - and you are part of it. Don't hesitate, tell your sttory, we are listening! (I have already revealed my pet peeve - people who hang around just cuz...fer sure...not nice to say bad things about that nice man in the White House who sacrificed his Thanksgiving for the troops). Everyone else - I consider you all my brothers (sisters) in arms

Clark's humanitarian record

Samantha Power's meticulously researched and notated 600+ page Pulitzer
prizewinning tome, "A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of
Genocide." .

General Clark is one of the "heroes" of Samantha Power's book. She
introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes
his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to
contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or
about the Hutu and Tutsi. She writes, "He frantically telephoned around
the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda.
Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to
Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) . He advocated
multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant
General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The
Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says.
'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and
we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or
high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action,
midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant
proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials"
(p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about
humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as
Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe. When genocide began
to occur in the Balkans, he was determined to stop it. She details his
efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command
of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who
probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's
battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign
succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring
the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for
Albanians the right of self-governance. Yet in Washington Clark was a
pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as
supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and
ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian
intervention had never been a great career move."

From "He's cute" to "He's electable"

I spent Thanksgiving with the same bunch I was with some weeks ago for a birthday party. Lefties, internet unconnected - Castro good, both parties bad kind of people. I have a hard time usually because of their "what 2000 coup?" attitude. Last time however they responded to my Clark buttons thusly:
"I'd vote for anyone against W - and at least Clark is very good looking" "As good a reason as any" I smiled.
Last night some of them were at the Thanksgiving dinner. They signed my ballot petition, expressed pessimism over the outcome of the election (based primarily on the Bagdad stunt) and then reprised the theme from last time: "The only reason I'd vote for Clark is because he might beat Bush" "As good a reason as any" I said again

My Letter to The Nation Add to my Hotlist

Re:Clark's True Colors  http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&c=1&s=taibbi

Disappointed. I waited for the obvious lines: "heh, heh, heh = Bababouie" The date was all wrong too: you meant to publish that on April 1st.

Whenever I start appreciating anything in your publication, an election comes along and then you remind me the real reason you get funded: suppress the vote by advancing the right wing friendly meme: "they are all the same". The good news for this democracy: after what you did in 2000, no sane person in this country is likely to look for voting advice from you.

I hope you accepted the responsibility of doing your part in bringing about the present disaster: GWbush. Whether you accepted it or not, it's on your heads. Publishing shophomoric trash like that is your attempt to earn him a second term - only now even youngsters are on to you these days.

Have fun on your way down the drain - I see Taibbi having a glorious career at Faux. He'll have to ditch Kuchinich of course, but he looks like someone who is more comfortable spewing venom anyway. And if he's lucky, he'll even get to date Ann Coulter!

Sneer all you want, people want a competent leader who is anti-war because knows intimately its horrors and who knows how to bring about a peace - having actually done it.

How does it feel to always be on the wrong side of history? You savaged Al Gore last election - did you hear his speech at Moveon.org? With Clark, you are just repeating your idiocy. Congratulations! You are consistent. Only this time, only Beavis and Butthead will follow you. On second thought, just Beavis.
http://writers.forclark.com/story/2003/11/27/6204/6126

On Cris's blog:
General Clark is going hot! Best Of Blogs? · Add to my Hotlist
By cris [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to cris's weblog (Firsthand Accounts) on Mon Nov 24th, 2003 at 06:05:08 PM EST
I know my boss!  If you read my Nov 17th entry; you'll find that I said that General Clark has his "war face on!"  General Clark has a battle rhythm plan.  You have seen the preliminary opening phase of the ground offensive. 

 It's going to get interesting people!  The boss is mission focused.  The face I saw tonight is the same face when Admiral Ellis, Commander in Chief of Allied Forces Southern Europe reported to his boss, The Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, General Clark "Missiles are launched!"   

Sir, your former military staff salute you this evening!  Eight cruise missiles down range!

Cris Hernandez, Chief Warrant Officer (Ret) Former Personal Security Officer to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe   
http://cris.forclark.com/story/2003/11/24/1858/5262

My letter published in Am-NY - our free daily

Posted to Writers For Clark on Wed Nov 26th, 2003 at 06:25:18 AM EST
It doesn't have an on line version so here's what I sent: Thank you for putting a picture of my favorite General in your paper. There was of course a good story outside the studios as well, with a bunch of us waiting for Clark with signs, handing out Clark bars and having a good old time in the icy wind. Here are some accounts: mine: http://bestofblogs.forclark.com/story/2003/11/20/185241/21 and another Clarkie's who got to talk to him yesterday http://bestofblogs.forclark.com/story/2003/11/20/182757/71 and here are some pictures: http://homepage.mac.com/stopbush/clarkforpresident/PhotoAlbum21.html Anyway, I still am a fan of the paper. I loved the "Protestors Topple Bush" pic,and Felice's Cohen column is a riot. It keeps getting better and better. Today I am alerting every Clarkie in the city to pick up their copy to see the picture. Thanks again. Now, only the first paragraph made it, but the title was good: CLARK'S DA BOMB" it's important to note that this is the one NYC publication not rightwing/supress the vote sponsored and so far they had no primary coverage (other than the pic I am referring to). It's in paper dispensers throughout the city - and judging by my neighborhood, wildly succesful!
http://writers.forclark.com/story/2003/11/26/62518/999

President Gephardt ?- the Unions as kingmakers 
  

Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog on Tue Nov 18th, 2003 at 01:21:31 PM EST http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2003/11/18/132131/24
The media is taking for granted that Dean will be the nominee (or is the frontrunner) because he got SOME unions endorsing him. Even Novak, in his skewering attack today labors under this assumption
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/13/column.novak.opinion.dean/index.html
Let's look at some history. The only other candidate running for Presidency as often as Larouche is Dick Gephardt.
     He's been running since for ever (1988, 1992 that I know of) and always got ALL UNION support. So, where is the nominee/president Gephardt?
Did Carter get union support? I know Clinton didn't.
Now the unions are at odds with each other - competing in the race - yet one guy who got 1/3 of the endorsement - and not the other- is crowned as the winner.
  So, to the operatives ensconced here to inject some "healthy pessimism" as well as to the media I say: tell it to president Gephardt.
 

W Blinked part two: after draft dodging, "gay nightmare" Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (News and Links) on Sun Nov 23rd, 2003 at 09:30:10 AM EST
Yesterday I predicted that Dean's free ride in the media is over since the draft dodging silver bullet was finally released by the NYT Dean's Gay-Marriage Nightmare /a   It looks like the second silver bullet is out. Clift makes sure to print Dean's comment that was offensive to gays: "        "It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else," Dean replied. The remark made headlines and created friction with the gay community," When not attacking dean, Clift copies dutifully from the Rove memo: "        SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE scared to filibuster a prescription-drug entitlement even though they think the GOP plan is a scam, snip . If the GOP can keep rebellious conservatives in line and eke out a victory in the House, President Bush can claim credit for the biggest expansion of Medicare since the program was created 40 years ago. The benefits won't kick in until 2006 and the AARP membership is in rebellion. Nonetheless, Bush will have refurbished his compassionate-conservative credentials in time for the election" So, to repeat: Democrats scared, Bush compassionate conservative - and all Democratic candidates need to be put in their place. Sorry, Dr Boo-Boo, the teflon is due at the Rove's office.
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2003/11/23/93010/267

Quote of the Day Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sun Nov 23rd, 2003 at 04:53:35 PM EST
http://mykej.forclark.com/?rate=1&sid=2003/11/23/105838/05&op=displaystory&pid=&rati ng_5=1#5 "I'm not running to bash george bush. A lot of Americans really love him. They love what he represents, a man who has overcome adversity in his life from alcoholism and pulled his marriage back together and moved forward." There was another one, less subtle, but forceful enough on C-Span today. Caller answering the Time question: "Why do you hate W?" "I don't hate him. I don't like his policies, I think he is greedy, cruel, deceiving, dictatorial - other than that, he's fine" http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2003/11/23/165335/37

 

The anti-Goldilocks strikes again! Pledge? What Pledge? Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (News and Links) on Mon Nov 24th, 2003 at 09:54:38 PM EST
Reply-To: 911revelations@smartgroups.com Wesley Clark, the retired general and presidential candidate, insisting that the Republican National Committee pull a TV ad charging that President Bush's critics are attacking him "for attacking the terrorists," said on CBS' Face the Nation that the ad "violate [s] the pledge the president made not to exploit 9/11 for political purposes." http://www.ardemgaz.com/ShowStoryTemplate.asp?Path=ArDemocrat/2003/11/ 24&ID=Ar00102 Now, just between us, we know that Bush made no such pledge. They always accuse democrats of politicizing 9.11 whenever they bring it up, no matter how legitimate the context. Not only didn't Bush make such a pledge, he set his nomination to be made in NYC - next to Ground Zero - on the eve of 9.11. They even arranged for the cornerstone of the new construction on the Ground Zero to be set during the RNC convention - effectively making 9.11 the exclusive ownership of RNC. Of course, as Clark said, one cannot take credit without shouldering liabillity. So, Bush and RNC should be reminded that 9.11 is not an accomplishment but a tragic, colossal failure. And what's the best way of doing it without being accused of "politicizing " 9.11? Turning the tables around: Bush violated his own pledge. What pledge? Well, can anyone ask this question?
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2003/11/24/215438/83

Wielding wedge issues in the debate Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Mon Nov 24th, 2003 at 10:19:21 PM EST
In my second viewing I was struck by the length Brokaw went to to protect Dean, demean his attackers. In the process, he used two wedge issues: the religion - pointed at Clark and the Gay marriage pointed at everyone. Everyone? Not quite. There was one candidate conspicuously missing from the hot seat. And that was the very one for whom the damn thing was cooked in the first place. The annointed One - the one who said "I am as uncomfortable as anyone else" (about civil unions) was NOT asked his stand on civil unions. Brokaw wirked hard tonight for Peggy Noonan's men: Bush and Dean. And despite all that, Clark raised to the top. "His campaign style caught up with his resume" said Jesse Jackson. DU is Clark country since last night. Let's keep it clean and thoughtful. Deanie boppers - please throw the beer bottles in the trash. Thank you.
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2003/11/24/221921/81

Quote of the Day - John from Houston Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Tue Nov 25th, 2003 at 02:41:04 AM EST
On the famous Clark gaze: "His detractors have called that the-deer-in-the-headlights look. But it's really the-headlights-on-the-deer look. :o)"
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2003/11/25/2414/9975

Clark vs Tweety on Gay Marriage: Clark scored! Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (News and Links) on Tue Nov 25th, 2003 at 03:10:12 AM EST
Having cooked the Gay marriage issue for Dean, last night, Brokaw + mathews tried to beat every candidate with it (everyone that is, EXCEPT Dean) Tweety did his rapid screaming thing at Clark . Clark's answer was brilliant. Tweety was trying to get the money quote for Karl to be flashed in the South: Clark supports gay marriage" It was a trap and Clark avoided it. He said he supports their rights and WHATEVER LICENSE THEY NEED TO MAKE THEM WORK By saying that he both showed himself a good guy and denied them the money quote. Gay marriage is a matter of semantics - using words that make Moron-Americans squirm. They wanted Clark to use them - he declined. Keep it up, General!
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2003/11/25/31012/900

Quote of the Day - John from Houston

By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Tue Nov 25th, 2003 at 02:41:04 AM EST


On the famous Clark gaze: "His detractors have called that the-deer-in-the-headlights look. But it's really the-headlights-on-the-deer look. :o)"

Clark vs Tweety on Gay Marriage: Clark scored!
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (News and Links) on Tue Nov 25th, 2003 at 03:10:12 AM EST


Having cooked the Gay marriage issue for Dean, last night, Brokaw + mathews tried to beat every candidate with it (everyone that is, EXCEPT Dean) Tweety did his rapid screaming thing at Clark . Clark's answer was brilliant. Tweety was trying to get the money quote for Karl to be flashed in the South: Clark supports gay marriage" It was a trap and Clark avoided it. He said he supports their rights and WHATEVER LICENSE THEY NEED TO MAKE THEM WORK By saying that he both showed himself a good guy and denied them the money quote. Gay marriage is a matter of semantics - using words that make Moron-Americans squirm. They wanted Clark to use them - he declined. Keep it up, General!

The anti-Goldilocks strikes again! Pledge? What Pledge?

By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (News and Links) on Mon Nov 24th, 2003 at 09:54:38 PM EST


Reply-To: 911revelations@smartgroups.com Wesley Clark, the retired general and presidential candidate, insisting that the Republican National Committee pull a TV ad charging that President Bush's critics are attacking him "for attacking the terrorists," said on CBS' Face the Nation that the ad "violate [s] the pledge the president made not to exploit 9/11 for political purposes." http://www.ardemgaz.com/ShowStoryTemplate.asp?Path=ArDemocrat/2003/11/ 24&ID=Ar00102 Now, just between us, we know that Bush made no such pledge. They always accuse democrats of politicizing 9.11 whenever they bring it up, no matter how legitimate the context. Not only didn't Bush make such a pledge, he set his nomination to be made in NYC - next to Ground Zero - on the eve of 9.11. They even arranged for the cornerstone of the new construction on the Ground Zero to be set during the RNC convention - effectively making 9.11 the exclusive ownership of RNC. Of course, as Clark said, one cannot take credit without shouldering liabillity. So, Bush and RNC should be reminded that 9.11 is not an accomplishment but a tragic, colossal failure. And what's the best way of doing it without being accused of "politicizing " 9.11? Turning the tables around: Bush violated his own pledge. What pledge? Well, can anyone ask this question?

Damning with faint praise

Quote of the Day Story score: · Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sun Nov 23rd, 2003 at 04:53:35 PM EST


http://mykej.forclark.com/?rate=1&sid=2003/11/23/105838/05&op=displaystory&pid=&rati ng_5=1#5 "I'm not running to bash george bush. A lot of Americans really love him. They love what he represents, a man who has overcome adversity in his life from alcoholism and pulled his marriage back together and moved forward." There was another one, less subtle, but forceful enough on C-Span today. Caller answering the Time question: "Why do you hate W?" "I don't hate him. I don't like his policies, I think he is greedy, cruel, deceiving, dictatorial - other than that, he's fine"

What happened to you, Mr Rather?

By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog on Thu Nov 20th, 2003 at 10:33:15 AM EST


Dear Mr Rather
Let me first thank you for a wonderful interview. I read the whole transcript - the 3 parts of it and it was fascinating.
    Now, I do understand that it was an extensive interview and you had limited time on the show, and Clark knew that not everything would be aired.
     I do think however that less editorializing about the "stumbling campaign" might have left more time for the actual interview (you do know that Clark is leading/tied for first in most national polls, has a movement and record fundraising, right?)
    Still the reason that compelled me to write is this:
Towards the end of the interview a magic moment happened. A moment so inspiring occured, I gasped. His words: "When you can do good you should" made it into my signature tag. Any seasoned  journalist (as you are) would have ended on that note.
     Yet you felt compelled to cheapen the moment by adding an unrebuttable comment: "humanitarian, but not for Iraqis"
    What happened to you, Mr Rather?
What happened to the young reporter who challenged Nixon in the Watergate era eliciting the retort: "Are you running for something, Dan? and  responded: "No, Mr President, are you?"
      Since when was the Iraq war about humanitarian reasons? Are we talking payback for what they did to Kurds 12 years ago? I thought Bush the Smarter did that already. What were the humanitarian reasons justifying shocking and awing Bagdad and killing thousands?
   What happened to you, Mr Rather?

 

Who said what? NH canvassing quotes (Clark's call too)

By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog on Sun Nov 16th, 2003 at 10:52:57 PM EST


Who said what? NH canvassing quotes (Clark's call too) Firing up the supporters (before his coffee), Steve Boucher said (to the 150 students): Latter in life when you'll be running for office, you'll be listing this as credit: "In 2003 I helped in New Hampshire elect President Clark" Bill Cash - Manchester alderman (the first official to endorse Clinton in 92) "this is a mission to bring back democracy.
He told us he resigned after the appointed bush - to disgusted to have anything to do with public life. This changed when Clark declared - the first moment of hope - he is on board.
Heard while canvassing: Woman:"Honey, what candidate are we supporting? Honey: "Just leave us a brochure" Husband of registered Democrat: "Mia: Is your name French?" Man: "Yes." "No." " What?""Who?" I've been in service in 1040 - one year and Clark is a phony" Mia: "Why?" "He is a joke - all Democrats are - an insult to the White House. They are no Truman, FDR or Eisenhower. I only like Bush - he knows how to talk to people" Me - smiling sweetly: "True, especially his "Who cares what you think"
Saturday evening Clark called from the NBC Green Room. We were all listening on speaker phones. Clark: "Hi. I am waiting here to be grilled by Tim Russert" He then said he was so grateful for the work we were doing and wanted to know what they were feeding us (zitti with meat sauce). he wanted to know the details of the canvassing organization - how do we keep track so we don't visit the same people twice. he then asked for the best story.
Someone obliged: "we arrived to this house with a porch covered in Dean paraphernalia. We said: "We know you support Dean but..." "Nah, I am not that sure about that Dean anymore" So we talked to her, and by the time we finished, she tore down all her Dean stuff." Clark then wanted the worst story - so I volunteered my dialogue with the confused Bush supporter (I left out the "phony" remark)
Chris , the organizer of the canvassing then reported that we knocked on 8,525 doors. "OK, how many doors in new Hampshire? And Clark started one of his dead pan number crunching with Chris seriously saying: "yes sir! "We need to reach all voters by december - that means we need 100,000 people next weekend, unless we get families of 20" "yes sir" We were all laughing and I was thinking of Scotty: "She canna take it anymore" Kirk: "I need warp 9 NOW" "Aye aye, captain" Someone mentioned some students from the military academy were amongst us, including some who served in Iraq. "I love you and thank you" Clark said simply to them.
Yesterday and today we were telling people to watch MTP, so the last sound bite comes from Justin: "The last door we knocked on someone said: "Clark? I am voting for him! I just saw him on MTP and O decided that he is the one"
 
Who said what? NH canvassing quotes (Clark's call too) | 5 comments | Group threads together | Post A Comment | Edit Story
Re: Who said what? NH canvassing quotes (Clark's c (#5) (Rated 4.00/1)

by thatmia on 11/17/2003 11:41:54 AM EST

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply

Leah,
Glad to see you're so quick on the ball with your report! It was fun going door-to-door with you. Only thing is, you might want to post a correction: we went to about 170 houses total, not 75 (between the 1st and 2nd day). Makes it seem even more impressive. Keep up the good work!


My own NH canvassing experience (#4) (No rating)

by mike from ri (mike-from-ri@forclark.com) on 11/17/2003 04:16:11 AM EST

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply

Dear Robbed (leah?): here is my post from the othetr Blog:
Leah, 17 & 20. I showed up late for canvassing at 10:30 Sun., driving up from RI. So I missed the conf call and the ziti. I did manage to get one-and-a-half routes done in a middle class section of Manchester.
Having taken part, but having missed Sat., I appreciated your report all the more.
I agree 100%. Virtually all were undecided (altho, after talking to me, a few inclined towards the General, I like to think.) Working class and middle class NH is still up for grabs.


Thank you, Leah... (#3) (No rating)

by Linda Grinaker (linda4140[at sign]yahoo.com) on 11/16/2003 11:38:39 PM EST

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply

Thank you, Leah, for sharing that with us.  It was terrific to read and feel like I was with you folks.
And to all who were a part of the efforts this week - THANK YOU!


Re: Who said what? NH canvassing quotes (Clark's c (#2) (No rating)

by Harry (no@email.com) on 11/16/2003 11:29:02 PM EST

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply

Hi Leah, have you heard anything about the Grenwich-Stuyvesent Democrats meeting? 


Re: Who said what? NH canvassing quotes (Clark's c (#1) (No rating)

by leonardr (leonardr at forclark dot com) on 11/16/2003 11:14:51 PM EST

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply

Could you clean this up a little so that it's easier to read? This is good stuff but difficult to read. I can do the editing for you, if you like.

More on Clark's blog:
50. Let me add one point to the already excellent response you already got.
The general's plan more than all others puts the emphasis on preventive care (that responsibility thingy she was talking about).
Is she trully a nurse? I hope I won't need her ministrations. I'm sorry, but when I hear Republicans talking about "responsibility" I always hear: "fend for yourself, you beggar! I got mine, scram".
In other words, did you notice they always mean OTHER PEOPLE's RESPONSIBILITY? Never their own.
Whenever something goes wrong in their life is "because affirmative action took my job" or "Clinton led me to believe that crime pays" or"France didn't let us have our war the way we wanted it, so now we'll rejoyce in them dying from the heat wave"

Why is CNN supporting Dean?

72. Miran
I was just about to post on that very fact. Note, CNN doesn't even say it's ,only one point - it leaves the difference to the reader imagination.
A bit of explanation on the reasons: remember yesterday I brough you this nugget of information:

CORPORATE MEDIA: According to Center for Responsive Politcs, the second biggest donor to Dean presidential campaign is AOL/Time Warner executives and employees.

least any of you wonder if Aol/Time Warner (owners of CNN) were suddenly seduced by Boo-Boo's cockroaches/CF rhetoric + civil unions state governor, there is this: the guy who heads AOL/Time Warner is called Steve Case. He is a right wing ideologue known by GLBT activists for his(wife's) donations to religious groups who try to "convert gays to straightness". So, why is Case giving to Boo-Boo?
When he acquired Time Warner Case had a scarinng Ashcroft-like speech. There was that code word there about his commitment to "changing the world"
So, why is Case giving to Boo-Boo? Why is CNN whitewashing Boo-Boo?

Posted on Clark's Blog:
63.I dunno what stup speech you are so tired of. How many did you hear exactly? I heard 2 in NYC - one on jobs, one on civil service, Others heard speeches on Iraq and on economy. What same stump speech are you talking about?
Should I remind you that out of all candidates (as of Graham's departing), Clark is the only one speaking about the responsibility for 9.11?? About Bushco having to provide documents for the commission?
I have a suggestion. Go visit the press room:
http://www.clark04.com/press/
See the many things Clark expressed his stands on.
I am getting tired of the criticisms of those who are not even informed of what's going on.
The other day, I was reading the Clark Tribune. In it, another know it all was tearing apart the campaign, concluding: "AND WHERE IS THE EXIT STRATEGY FROM IRAQ?"
Well, guys, if us supporters don't keep up, how do we expect others to? The media is marginalizing us - so navigate this site, get informed and then, as the general asked, GO SPREAD THE WORD!!!!
The only difference between Gore and Clark - as far as what they are cooking for them - is CLARK HAS US!!!!!
So, get crackin!!!!!!!!

As posted on a Salon blog re: Clark's War in NYT

Thank you for the reminder. It is timely, since the New Yorker seems to be digging into the morass of the past. And then it's this funny thing going on: Republicans like Bill Cohen, Hugh Shelton say they wouldn't vote for Clark. I am so very shocked! I mean, 50% of those polled would not vote for bush, but his Generals might - who'd have thunk it?
And Tommy Franks thinks (in the New Yorker story - blurbed by the NY Post): that Clark would be a lousy president. Of course, the last thing we heard from Franks before that was that he himself was a lousy general and please, Rummy, don't hit me, I'll never say the truth again - you are da man on Iraq planing!"

Quote of the Day

"In my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama bin Laden,"
Al Gore

Dean in ME:

Ladies and Gentlemen
I have gathered you from both sides at this table to reach an agreement. It's time for peace and unity. It's time to get past religion, history, territory squables and private grudges. You all need to think of your children instead! So, let's move on, drink some whiskey and eat this great Virginia ham together and be friends"
Inspired by Drudge's headline: Dean to the South: "Don't vote based on Guns,Religion or the gay issue"
DU-er improvement:
"Let's do the Christian thing and make peace"

Sharpton:

That is why, I say, instead of chasing a few bigots with confederate flags we ought to be registering and galvanizing our natural base. That is where our victory lies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17480-2003Oct25.html

Funniest headline in today's papers from the NY Post Online - "DEAN STANDS BY 'POOR WHITE' VOTE"

Alan Brisbort:

. Former first lady Barbara Bush recently described the 9 Democratic candidates for president as a 'sorry group.' The Democratic lineup contains two decorated war veterans, a Rhodes Scholar, a top West Point grad, a longtime legislator, a successful mayor and governor, and numerous other public servants, none of whom warrant such an undignified characterization. Especially not from the matriarch of three substance-abusing grandchildren, a felonious whoremonger son (Neil), ethically challenged son (Marvin), HMO-fund-embezzler and election thief (Jeb), coke-sniffing AWOL Air Guard pilot son (W.), vehicularly homicidal daughter-in-law (Laura) and father- and grandfather-in-law who traded with Nazi Germany."
http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content.html?oid=oid:40617

Post debate analysis:
Ok on Clark v. Zahn great analysis here:

At the moment, on her "Post-Debate Wrap-Up," Paula Zahn is trying to trap a series of candidates into calling Howard Dean a racist. It's pretty annoying, actually. First she asks each of them, "What do you think about the fact that Governor Dean refused to apologize for comments about the confederate flag? Do you think he's a racist?" And then when they say, no, of course he's not a racist, but I disagree with him for this and that reason, she follows up with, "Wait a minute, let's be fair. He did say tonight that he thought the confederate flag was a racist symbol. Are you accusing him of trying to have things both ways?"

Clark, on the other hand, just answered her question on gays in the military pretty well, clarifying that if military investigators are trailing servicemen to gay bars and trying to out them, then clearly the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy isn't working terribly well. I'm also reminded again that his military background allows him to stand up for moral behavior without sounding like, well, like Joe Lieberman. When Zahn phrased a question to him as, "You did not admit to inhaling marijuana," he cut her down -- "There wasn't anything to admit, Paula, because I've never touched the stuff." She pressed on, pointing out that with this young crowd, marijuana use might be something that resonated. Clark's answer was classic and I hope Zahn cringed in response: "It really doesn't matter to me if that's something that appeals to them. In the United States Armed Forces, we don't respect drug use. It impairs people's ability to perform their duty. I've never used drugs and there's nothing wrong with that."

This is Amy Sullivan.

Why dean is stuck with the C-flag:
chimpymustgo  (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-02-03 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. No, it's a recognition of tone-deafness on Dean's part about race.
Geez Louise. If Dean supporters could put down the Kool-Ade just long enough to look at this objectively.
I don't think Dean is a racist. He just doesn't understand the issues, the language, the nuances of the debate.
My first exposure to Dean was last January - Martin Luther King's birthday. Dean was asked about the state of South Carolina flying the Confederate flag.
Dean hemmed. Dean hawed. Dean kicked the dirt with his shoe. Dean said it's a state's rights issue.
Okey dokey. I knew then and there what we are dealing with here. Now I've watched for months, as Dean says what he THINKS needs to be said it any given situation to get votes.
Please, let us as a party, be capable of doing better than this. 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=636191
Silver stars vs Silver Spoon

Dean wants to be the racists' candidate:

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," the former Vermont governor said in a telephone interview quoted in Saturday's Des Moines Register. "We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=2&u=/ap/democrats_2004

Faux quote of the day:
A large minority of Americans would vote for George W. Bush if the election were today,

..http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101732,00.html

Maureen Dowd:


"He's my man," Mr. Bush laughingly told Tom Brokaw about the entertaining contortions of Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf, a k a "Comical Ali" and "Baghdad Bob," who assured reporters, even as American tanks rumbled in, "There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!" and, "We are winning this war, and we will win the war. . . . This is for sure."

Now Crawford George has morphed into Baghdad Bob.

MWO'S Quote of the Day


"I guess that next thing we are going to hear is that the sailors told him to wear the flight suit and prance around on the aircraft carrier."

- Four star general, war hero, brilliant scholar, Eagle Scout Wesley Clark on pipsqueak AWOL squatter's assertion that the sailors were to blame for the now infamous USS Lincoln photo op banner.

A fun turn of phrase just in from the New Haven Register (newhavenregister.com)

"President Bush is ahead, but he's hearing footsteps. The loudest come from Gen. Wesley Clark's combat boots...."

The "Register" was quoting Quinnipiac University's polling director, Maurice Carroll.

Lott on War:


“Honestly, it’s a little tougher than I thought it was going to be,” Lott said. In a sign of frustration, he offered an unorthodox military solution: “If we have to, we just mow the whole place down, see what happens. You’re dealing with insane suicide bombers who are killing our people, and we need to be very aggressive in taking them out.”

poppy bush:


"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and
political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have
been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no
viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles.
Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for
handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq,
thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have
destroyed
the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to
establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could
conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

bush provides the Quote of the day:


"The ambassador and the general
were briefing me on the—the vast
majority of Iraqis want to live
in a peaceful, free world. And we
will find these people and we will
bring them to justice."—
Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003

Wow! Truth?


"As our casualties continue to mount, America's leaders could do themselves and us a favor by calling things by their right names. What's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan today is not nation-building. It's not postwar reconstruction. It's not pacification. It's war."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21855-2003Oct26.html

Gene Lyons:


"Let's just look at the situation like this: How much of a partisan do
you have to be to look at George W. Bush and Wesley Clark standing side
by side and say to yourself, "I'd pick George W. Bush to lead this
country." How partisan do you have to be to decide that Bush is more
qualified in a national emergency -- a guy who can scarcely speak in
complete sentences -- to handle a crisis over a decorated war hero, a
Rhodes Scholar, a retired four star general, and the former Supreme
Commander of NATO?"

From Clark's blog:
General, you're my hero, please get well.

I know the others offering you advice on your cold mean well, but here is a truly Russian remedy which never fails:

You need a glass (stopka) of genuine Russian vodka, a liter of water and a table spoon of honey. First heat vodka a bit beyond room temperature, take a shot of it and chase it down with honey and a liter of luke warm water. Proceed to bed and cover yourself with three to five thick blankets. You will spend a nightmarish night half awake dreaming of Faust and ghost of Hamlet's father but in the morning you will feel fresh and healthy as a cucumber. I know this one really works because I was doing it since I was 5 years old.

This method with warm vodka also reminds me of a funny story:

My uncle Fedya was asked by his captain once if he likes warm vodka and sweaty women, to which which Fedya wholeheartedly answered "No!!!"

"Great", said captain Vasili Efimovich, "then will give you a month off during winter." :)

Gen Boykin on W:

Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not
vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."

He is painting not-so-subtle contrasts with the Republican president.

"I'm reasonably intelligent," says Clark, a Rhodes scholar, when
asked by one voter what qualifies him for the presidency. "I read."

Leaker leaks bush's no leaks policy (Philly Inquirer):

Concerned about the appearance of disarray and feuding within his administration as well as growing resistance to his policies in Iraq, President Bush - living up to his recent declaration that he is in charge - told his top officials to "stop the leaks" to the media, or else.
News of Bush's order leaked almost immediately.
Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used."

"At Wednesday's luncheon, Clinton said his inability to convince Bush of the danger from al Qaeda was "one of the two or three of the biggest disappointments that I had."

Quote of the Day


"On Monday, Representative George Nethercutt Jr., a Republican from
Washington State who visited Iraq, chimed in to help the White
House: "The story of what we've done in the postwar period is
remarkable. It is a better and more important story than losing a
couple of soldiers every day."

Samela on Clark's National service speech:


it seems a radical break. If I'm not wrong, what he's saying is that America's presence in the rest of the world will no longer be the sole province of corporations and the military. It will be the genius of individual Americans serving under the auspices of the government: microbiologists, writers, teachers, doctors, filmmakers, etc. That banded together as a Reserve Corps of human talent helping to solve problems here and abroad, we can actually change the power structure and the direction of America's relationship to the world.
It's an empowerment of the people ... THROUGH the government. It's the antithesis of the 'what can Washington do for me' mentality operative since Reagan (give me my money back, reduce my taxes, give my kid a voucher) and the beginning of a new mentality: how we can take back the government by giving to it. And take back power from corporations and other entities. (Water problem in an African nation? Don't send Halliburton, send us!) It's the antithesis of 'government is the problem not the solution,' which so needs to be changed. It's a reminder that we ARE the government. This is not some half-assed charity, faith-based, ladies' luncheon volunteerism. This is asking artists and scientists and machinists and mechanics and engineers to take back the country and work to make it ours again. The more I think about it (if I'm not hyperbolizing), it's really fairly remarkable, if it were to work.
And even if it doesn't, the sentiment alone is the kind of out-of-the-box, big-picture thinking that at least can give us hope and change the perspective. And it tells us that we are all important to the well-being and security of the country. Not just politicians or businessmen or soldiers who make the decisions for us... but frontline musicians and artists, teachers and scientists, workers and caregivers. In some way, it is what we sometimes call a "paradigm shift." And if any country were ever in need of a new paradigm, it is ours. This is pretty out of the box.

Clark's Hunter speech report

went there at the time doors opened and even offered to help the volunteers with the signs,
Clark bars - confident that my name was on a list at the door. It turns out there was a huuuge
line of people waiting - and I hardly fit in the 600 people auditorium - pack to the limit. There was
plenty of media. Clark was late almost 1 h but his reception was enthusiastic with stand up
applause. Liz Kruger , a new NYS Senator introducing him made a jab about her also being new in
politics "although I wouldn't have started with running for president"
"You won an election there's a podium free, come on - join us" Clark responded to her.
He went on to describe the great reception he had in Florida. He mentioned that as he came
to NYC he saw this great crowd with flags, cheering. "For me? Nice!" He then was told that these
were Yankee fans, celebrating. "And this is the oldest problem with intelligence - you see what
you want to see" - big applause there.
He proceeded to talk about his life of service in the military.
Suddenly, behind him, one of the kids standing on the stage fainted. He immediately jumped to
see what happened - others too. In a few minutes he announced us that the kid was OK - he is
conscious and alert and will be able to join us shortly. He talked about veterans of parades and
locking of knees and asked the Hunter lady to bring chairs for those on the stage.
"I was talking about the war - I didn't know we'd have a real casualty" he reprised his speech.
He was very well received, standing ovations at the end - a great event which I'm sure brought
new people into the fold.

--

Posted on DU (re: avoiding Liberal media - Gore media):


49. I could do it. Here's how I'd start
None of this seasoned, reasoned, we'll-beat'em-with-our-ideas crap. You wanna win? You throw punches.
"Bill O'Reilly wants you to shut up. Of course he does, he doesn't want everyone to know how dishonest he is. What a wimp. 'Stop hurting me, stop hurting me...turn off that mike, get out of my studio....' If he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen. Even Stuart Smally kicks his butt. We know a liar when we hear one.
Hannity could bore the dead. Watch out Sean baby, Hillary's comin' to get ya!!! Someone give this guy a new ex-president to play with.
Let's see? How many bombs did tough-guy Bush drop on Afghanistan prior to 9/11? None. How many convictions did Ashcroft secure for 9/11? None. (They DID get Taliban John though. Whew...)
What was Bush doing in the fighter jet YOUR tax dollars bought, in that ridiculous get-up, when the Texas Air National Guard had BARRED HIM from flying because he was a afraid of a drug test??? No wonder Rushbo is such a Bush supporter...
How many terrorists do you think we could have caught if Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott and Tom Delay and Ken Starr weren't fixated on Bill Clinton's pecker? That was $70 million of sleeper cells laughing at us. Are you happy Scaife? Are you happy helmet-hair? Newt? How many wives did you leave last week?
How many convicted felons in Clinton's administration? None. How many in Bush's? Three. All appointments, too. Bush knows talent when he sees it.
How many indictments in Clinton's administration? 1 (overturned)
How many in Reagan's? 136
Who gets the airport named after him?
Clinton won elections the old fashioned way - by getting more votes. Who remembers that?
It took a Rhodes Scholar and 8 years to fix the mess that Ronald Reagan left us, despite a Congress that investigated every deposit slip and signature the guy laid down for the past twenty years, and it took a rich-kid Connecticut Cowboy, who's never even gotten a job on his own talents in his entire life, six months to screw it all up again. This is a guy who couldn't find oil in Texas, campers. Reminds me of the local brat that blows his allowance in one day and them blames his sister. Truth hurts, don't it????
Welcome to The Bottom Line, campers. Notice served to Hannity and Rush (now we know where you got that name), Mike "Ocscar Meyer Weiner" Savage and Bill NotReally.
This'll leave a mark."
I could do this.  

Wshington Post responds:



Mark Stencel wrote:

> Many thanks for your note about the missing bit of the debate transcript on
> our Web site, washingtonpost.com. Several other very alert readers also
> called that to our attention this morning and the problem has been fixed
> now.
>
> The wire service that provides of our transcripts moves these long text
> files to us in the short takes, often as the events take place, and we then
> assemble and publish the documents. On rare occasions a bit is
> unintentionally dropped. We usually catch that, but as is often the case in
> online journalism we sometimes hear from our readers before we can catch
> and fix our own errors.
>
> Again, we appreciate the message very much -- and apologize for the
> unintended "editing."
>
> Mark Stencel
> Co-editor, Online News
> The Washington Post

--

My letter to Wash Post

anscript of democratic Debate - you mean selected excerpts?
Date:
Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:12:54 -0400
From:
Leah Faerstein
To:
letters@washpost.com




I was checking your transcript to see one of the most important
responses (on the dangers of preemption) and noticed it was missing .
For your information, here's what you didn't include in your transcript:



"Clark, who has been very critical of the Bush administration's foreign
policy since entering the race, charged Thursday that its "pre-emptive
doctrine," as expressed in attacking Iraq, "is causing North Korea and
Iran to accelerate their nuclear weapons development."
He also challenged other candidates who serve in Congress to directly
confront the president on that issue.
"Let's see you take apart that doctrine of pre-emption now. I don't
think we can wait until November of 2004 to change the administration on

this threat," he said. "We're marching into another military campaign in

the Middle East. We need to stop it."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/elec04.prez.democrats.debate/index.html

Can you explain to me why this was excluded from your transcript? Was it
not newsworthy ? Too long? Too boring? Too irrelevant?
Please enlighten me.

Maureen Dowd:


It doesn't help to have a former-NATO-commander-turned-presidential-
contender running around telling the country that the Bush dream team
is a bunch of dunces. Or a former-diplomat-turned-angry-husband-of-an-
outed-spy running around telling the country that the Bush dream team
is a bunch of backstabbing lawbreakers who are dead wrong on Iraq.

Election headline (Reuters):

California Chooses: Arnold or Mr. Technocrat

Moonie Times - W is angry:

"My sense is that if there's any truth to this, the people have as much to fear from an
angry president as they do from any criminal penalty," the official said.

John Dean on Traitorgate:

“I thought I had seen political dirty tricks as
foul as they could get,
but I was wrong. ... Bush's people have out-Nixoned Nixon's people. And my
former colleagues
were not amateurs by any means.”

MWO:


SCHWARZENEGGER:
"I ADMIRE HITLER"

ABC News:  Schwarzenegger Cites Hitler as Hero


Asked who his heroes are, he answered, "I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."

He is quoted as saying he wished he could have an experience, "like Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium. And have all those people scream at you and just being total agreement whatever you say."


The California Republican Party has officially endorsed an actor/bodybuilder who admitted to assaulting women as they attempted to do their jobs or walk down the street, and who cites Adolph Hitler as his hero.

(Chris Matthews found Schwarzenegger's admission of assault against numerous women "refreshing," noting to Senator Diane Feinstein that, while Schwarzenegger might have assaulted women, he at least admitted it, whereas President Clinton lied about a consensual affair initiated by Monica Lewinsky.  Don't ask us to explain under which rules of logic the mind of the cable news media whore operates.  But it should be fascinating to see how Tweety will defend Arnold Schwarzenegger's admiration for Adolph Hitler.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another Kool Kid Groper Groupie Weighs In

Possibly even more striking than Tweety's comments are those of Slate.com's Mickey Kaus, who simultaneously notes the brutality of Schwarzenegger's sexual assault while describing his admissions of assault "refreshing."


(In particular, "playful" doesn't own up to the pecking-order cruelty of his actions. They didn't just "offend" people. They were offensive. And not just to "the women.") But count me among those who found it refreshing nevertheless, especially the smoke/fire admission.


Presumably, The Mickster finds the following apologies similarly refreshing:


ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) - A man who bludgeoned his landlord to death with a claw hammer apologized in court Thursday as he was sentenced to 22 years to life in prison.

Story

GOLDEN, Colo. (AP) -- A man who helped arm the Columbine High School killers apologized to relatives of the slain as he was sentenced to six years in prison.

"I can't adequately express my sorrow to the families of the victims," said Mark Manes, 22. "I am truly very sorry."

Story

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (CNN) -- Apologizing before a U.S. federal judge, former FBI agent Robert Hanssen was sentenced Friday to life in prison without parole for spying for the Soviet Union and Russia.

Hanssen pleaded guilty to 15 counts of espionage and conspiracy for passing classified information to the Soviet Union and, later, Russia, during a 20-year period

Story

WHITE PLAINS — Dennis Salvador Alvarez-Hernandez sat quietly at the defense table for six weeks as details of his brutal stabbings of three people played out in a Westchester County courtroom. Yesterday, on the eve of the jury considering whether he should live or die, he addressed jurors for the first time, apologizing for the deaths of his girlfriend and two of her young children and asking for the forgiveness he said he cannot offer himself.

Story

Monticello – Elaine Ulbrich cried as she apologized to her family, co-workers and the community in Sullivan County Court yesterday for setting fire to her Town of Callicoon home. Then she was sentenced to five years probation and 300 hours of community service. And she was ordered to undergo a mental-health examination.

Story


As you can see, criminals often do end up apologizing for their crimes.  But, Mickey's willful credulity aside, the apology is far more likely to represent an attempt to avoid losing one's freedom (or life) than a newfound "refreshing honesty."  While Schwarzenegger was never prosecuted for his crimes and so does not face losing his freedom, he does face losing the California governorship (which could at long last provide him the opportunity to "have all those people scream at you" and "be in total agreement with everything you say").
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACTION ALERT

From MoveOn.org:


This is a real emergency. The polls in California show Schwarzenegger pulling ahead, while the truth about his character is only now starting to get out. We have just a few days to make sure everyone in California knows who this man is. Today we ask you to do two things: (1) contribute to a TV ad that we will run across the state of California on Sunday and Monday and (2) send this message on to friends, so they know the details that are only just now getting into the press.

We need to raise $500,000, by the end of day today.

We're launching a television ad devoted to putting Arnold's problem with women into the public eye. We feel that this is a critical step that absolutely must be taken, but we need $500,000 to make this happen.

* Contribute

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TUCKER CARLSON FALSELY ACCUSES MWO
Claims Site Savaged Rush for Addiction


JAMES CARVILLE:  [Rush Limbaugh] is a human being, we should express compassion for him and hope that he gets treatment and gets rid of what could be a serious addiction to a very addictive drug.  Rush, I hope you get well soon.

TUCKER CARLSON:  I don't think your fellow Democrats will take up your offer to be compassionate and decent.  I'm sure they're savaging him right now on the Internet for some addiction that's probably beyond his control.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Oh please, you know right now -- Go on to Media Whores Online.  Go to Media Whores Online right now...


Evidently Tucker had not checked in with the Horse today, which is always a mistake for anyone.  If he had, he would have seen this, posted hours before Tucker made his uninformed remarks on national TV:


"We hope Rush finds the help and support needed for a successful recovery."


* Email Tucker Carlson.  Demand he apologize for cruelly maligning a Website that had in fact responded to the Rush Limbaugh controversy precisely as he and James Carville suggested liberals and Democrats should.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 



DIRTY OLD RUNNING MAN

LA TIMES EXPOSES LONG HISTORY OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
BY GOP-ENDORSED SCHWARZENEGGER

NEWSPAPER DRAWS OUT DETAILED ACCOUNTS OF ACTOR'S
GROTESQUE BEHAVIOR FROM NUMEROUS RELUCTANT VICTIMS

"REVOLTING" AND "BIZARRE" ACTOR
"ON BEST BEHAVIOR" IN PRESENCE OF WIFE

CALIFORNIA ELECTORATE TO MIMIC ARNOLD ENTOURAGE?
"IT WAS KIND OF LIKE EVERYTHING HE DID WAS OK
AND ISN'T IT FUNNY AND ISN'T IT SWELL?"

Women say Schwarzenegger Groped, Humiliated Them
Gary Cohn, Carla Hall and Robert W. Welkos, Times Staff Writers


"Six women who came into contact with Arnold Schwarzenegger on movie sets, in studio offices and in other settings over the last three decades say he touched them in a sexual manner without their consent.

"In interviews with The Times, three of the women described their surprise and discomfort when Schwarzenegger grabbed their breasts. A fourth said he reached under her skirt and gripped her buttocks. A fifth woman said Schwarzenegger groped her and tried to remove her bathing suit in a hotel elevator.

"A sixth said Schwarzenegger pulled her onto his lap and asked whether a certain sexual act had ever been performed on her.

"According to the women's accounts, one of the incidents occurred in the 1970s, two in the 1980s, two in the 1990s and one in 2000...

Another woman, now a wife and mother in her 30s, said she also fell in Schwarzenegger's "sight lines" while "Terminator 2" was being filmed in Fontana.

A member of the movie crew, she said Schwarzenegger was sitting in a director's chair, surrounded by three or four other men, waiting for filming to start. It was either late afternoon or early evening, she said.

"I was walking on the set and Arnold called out, 'Come here, you sexy devil,' and reached out and pulled me on to his lap," the woman recalled.

She said he then whispered in her ear: "[redacted as MWO is a family site and thus cannot publish comments made by Republican Party-endorsed gubernatorial candidates.  See original LA Times report]?"

Young and unsure of herself, the woman said, "I didn't know how to react. It was bizarre. What he said was so specifically sexual, it was bizarre.

"I remember looking around and seeing this bank of smiling faces and feeling alone," she continued. The men standing at Schwarzenegger's side, she said, "were in total support mode — of him, not me. It was kind of like everything he did was OK, and isn't it funny and isn't it swell? It was like they were proud of him .... Nobody said, 'What are you doing? Leave her alone.' "

After the incident, she said, she continued on her way. "I didn't fall apart," she said, but added: "It's embarrassing and degrading when you're doing a job."

She did not report the incident, she said, because she was simply a low-level crew member. "You're in an environment where you just go with the flow but not cause trouble." The attitude on the set was: "Isn't it flattering that Arnold is paying attention to you?"

The woman said she recounted the incident at the time to a family member. In an interview with The Times, the family member confirmed being told about the encounter and said, "Arnold thought it was kind of fun to toy with her. It embarrassed her."

The woman said she wished she "wasn't so spineless," but feared that she would be shunned in Hollywood if quoted by name.

"There's an unspoken rule in the industry," she said. "What happens on the set stays on the set."...

Another stuntwoman, Chere Rae Bryson, came away with a different impression after working with Schwarzenegger on the 1990 movie "Total Recall." She said he often used vulgar words for vagina and clitoris during her contact with him during the filming.

"He was crude, boisterous and disparaging around women," she said. "In the makeup room, his language was so bad I turned around and walked out."

Bryson said Schwarzenegger was also on his best behavior whenever his wife, Maria Shriver, was present. The couple married in 1986. "When Maria was around, he was a gentleman," Bryson said. "When she wasn't around, he was the opposite."


* Email the California Republican Party.  Congratulate them on their official endorsement of a grossly lecherous, steroid-popping actor/bodybuilder.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Howard Kurtz Minimizes Schwarzenegger Abuse
Behaves Like Star-Struck Fan


I wonder how much of an impact the stories will have. In the case of the Terminator, voters will probably see this as a late hit, six days before the recall. The groping charges, which surfaced a couple of years ago in Premier magazine, seem to have been discounted by much of the electorate (a Hollywood star grabbing at actresses and crew members -- shocking!)

Story


So, Howie doesn't appear to believe Schwarzenegger's behavior is terribly serious (he's a big Hollywood star, after all).  Might that have something to do with the fact that Howie's wife, Sheri Annis, has been on the pervert's payroll and has spoken favorably of him in recent weeks?

Whatever the reason, there is quite a different tune the media whores are singing about Arnold Schwarzenegger's from the one they sang when Kathleen Willey accused President Clinton of "groping."

And none of Arnold's victims even followed up on their attack in the curious manner Kathleen Willey did (penning affectionate notes to her assailant saying such things as "You have been on my mind so often this week").



One wonders... Has Ms. Annis-Kurtz ever been a victim of Schwarzenegger's?  Would she mind?  Would Howie?  From this article, it doesn't appear he would, and would instead be in "total support mode" of the actor, thinking it was all "funny and swell," just like a good movie star groupie should.

* Email the Washington Post Ombudsman.  Ask why no disclosure was required in the Kurtz piece about Kurtz's wife's political connection to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mrs. Kurtz Fawns Over Groper

Let Ah-nold be Ah-nold
What a Schwarzenegger run might look like.
by Mrs. Howard Kurtz


On my first day as Arnold Schwarzenegger's press secretary, I realized this would be a campaign unlike any other. One reporter wanted a picture with Arnold. The cameramen wanted pictures and autographs. Newspaper staffers high-fived each other during editorial-board meetings. We could not get away from the hoopla that usually surrounds the Terminator because some of the journalists were behaving like fans.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to Media Whores Online

Media Whores Online takes an unbiased, in-depth look at the vast myriad of whores who call themselves "journalists."  MWO casts a garish spotlight on the relentless screaming heads of television, the babbling paranoids of squawk radio, and the crayon scribblings of lazy print media "journalists."

Whore Watch
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great Moments in Pathological Denial and Deception


"I am unaware of any investigation by any authorities involving me. No governmental representative has contacted me directly or indirectly. If my assistance is required in the future, I will, of course, cooperate fully."

- Rush Limbaugh

"There's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president's office, as well."

-  Scott McClellan, subsequent to first Washington Post story/prior to Justice Dept. probe

Bush on racist druggie Limbaugh:


"Rush is a great American," the president said of the beleaguered
host, who has championed the conservative movement for decades. "I am
confident he can overcome any obstacles he faces right now."

Dowd on Traitorgate:


The men who won (sic) the 2000 election by promising to restore honor and integrity to the White
House spent yesterday doing a pretty good imitation of O. J. Simpson, looking for the culprit.
You could just picture President Bush with his Sherlock Holmes deerstalker, magnifying glass
and bloodhound Barney. Silly. The White House knows who did it. All Mr. Bush has to do is roll
heads.

Like his press secretary, W threatens reporters:

Bush said, "By the way, if you know
anything, Martin, would you please bring it forward and help solve the problem?"

Clark on the War:

"``This administration is trying to do something that ought to be politically impossible to do in a democracy, and that is to govern against the will of the majority,'' he said. ``That requires twisted facts, silence, secrecy, and very poor lighting. That's why you need night-vision goggles to see what's going on over there.''

Quote of the Day:

"Who vares if we discover he was an evil genius or an evil idiot"?
Aron Mcgruder on W