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
Sunday, December 28, 2003
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
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
Thursday, December 25, 2003
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
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
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
Monday, December 22, 2003
*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
:
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
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
Sunday, December 21, 2003
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. Â
 Â
 Â
 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.
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. Â
 Â
 Â
 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.
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
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!)
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!)
Thursday, December 11, 2003
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,
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,
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
*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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)