I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
I subscribe to vanden Heuvel's rag, the Nation, and have done so for thirty years. That having been said, there is no pleasing the holier-than-thou crowd over there. They'd far rather be right than actually be in charge of anything.
Or, to put it another way, politics is the art of compromise (who said that first, I wonder?), and the crowd at the Nation is rarely interested in compromise, and as such, marginalize themselves.
There's something to be said for political purity, but the thing that shall never be said in America is that the politically pure Left holds power.
I too was a Nation subscriber, but I long ago realized that they were more interested in cruises and cocktails at the editorial level than the actual opinions of their readers. Van den Hueval's defences of Hitchens are completely unforgivable.
I'm not really all that concerned about the airport confrontation as a political issue. I would be surprised if any of the campaigns tried to use it as an issue. I don't think the Conservatives will risk touching it if it comes to a General Election - Clark is 'standing up to the Russians'. Hard to construct a brief talking point around that will really stick.
The Nation/Cockburn crowds are going to try and find something wrong with every possible Democratic nominee, save perhaps Kuicinich (and even then....). If they want to be politically irrelevant, that is their business. If they want to do what the GOP does and actually gain some traction, they can do that too.
I'm not really all that concerned about the airport confrontation as a political issue. I would be surprised if any of the campaigns tried to use it as an issue. I don't think the Conservatives will risk touching it if it comes to a General Election - Clark is 'standing up to the Russians'. Hard to construct a brief talking point around that will really stick.
The Nation/Cockburn crowds are going to try and find something wrong with every possible Democratic nominee, save perhaps Kuicinich (and even then....). If they want to be politically irrelevant, that is their business. If they want to do what the GOP does and actually gain some traction, they can do that too.
Ugh. Ugh ugh ugh. Someone shoot me now.
The comparison to McArthur's actions in Korea is specious at best. Looks like we're still eating our own...
disagreement is one thing (a good thing in my book).... but calling Katrina vanden Heuvel a wingnut? isn't that a little over the top?
Cut her some slack, Atrios, she's drawing on her vast experience in massively explosive international military operations.
Watching her on TV, she's smart but she sure is smug. Thinking about it, I'm happy with the term wingnut for her. It should be bipartisan, if it's honest.
I meant it as "Katrina, leave the stupid pot shots to the wing nuts, please."
Just curious...
Does The Nation like Joe Lieberman?
Katrina's not being called a wingnut. She's being called on behavior befitting a wingnut.
This is to be expected: Clark, before even announcing, is a candidate so formidable that the trenchantly anti-military left is scrounging for ammunition against him.
This may be intended to erode Clark's appeal with the Democratic base.
Seems like a premature stab at leverage to me, and ineffectual at that.
I cringe and whine like a Bow-Tied Republican when I see her on Crossfire...
She also was on Aaron's show the other night and Aaron admonished her to "...slow-down, slow-down..." in her lust and thirst to slam the shrub with the "misleader" moniker...
Anyone Butt Bush also can translate to Anyone Butt Katrina...
Jingo mainstream loves her... No wonder, Soft bigotry and low expectations abound when numb-phucks bear witness...
Well, okay, then. The adult reporters are heading to AK to hear WC toss his hat in the ring on Wednesday. Gotta run.
thanks atrios,
i should have known better...
Katrina is making me question all of the fantasies I've had about her by messing with my man Gen. Clark.
what is the full story behind that incident at the airport anyway?
I don't have time to do read the book during college football season 
The Nation is no fan of Liebershrub.
They trumpeted Kookynich for a while and tried to apologize for his pro-life past. But since the groundwell has failed to develop, they haven't pushed the issues.
They've seemed more open to Dean. Well at least Katha Pollitt has. The line seems to be he's not that progressive but at least he was against the war and has some moxie. Pretty much the same kind of reasoning I've been reading by folkd about this corner of the blogosphere.
Just curious...
Does The Nation like Joe Lieberman?
Assuming the best, that is, that you aren't Jew-baiting, or some such, the answer is no, the Nation despises Joe Lieberman.
Or you could take it another way and appreciate the fact that we on the Left are willing to question our own. Unlike "them".
If we fry anyone who brings up an uncomfortable question about one of our candidates, are we not just as bad as the Republicans, just Left Wingnuts.
I read that piece before it was posted and appreciated knowing there are questions about Clark and was glad it was from our side, from a reasonable voice.
The Repubs are going to be all over Dean this week because his rich boy pedigree is even more exclusive than Bush's, and they will knock him for that. It would be nice if we had already parsed it here on the Left. Since it's coming from the Right now, they will control the dialogue and Dean is going to be bruised.
Clark could be roughed up in the same way over this. Wouldn't it be cool if we'd already talked it out over on our side and didn't have to feel defensive about it?
Let the questions be asked, stay in front of the dialogue, and leave the pack mentality attitude that would ostracize any Dem who speaks out to the Freepers.
thank you jeff!
I read the article and didn't have an impression one way or the other. I like Clark and I receive mailers from his Draft Clark folks. But up to this point I think no one has gave him a critical evaluation in the media which wasn't partisan in nature. Most of what I've read has been a love story basically with the occasional negative story by a Will or Morris-type. Can Wes Clark be too good to be true? This should be the time we scrutinize the candidates, not after they hold office. Personally if this is the worst so one can come up with, Clark should have no problems with the press.
Her point in the piece (all 4 or 5 paragraphs of it - you really could have read the whole thing) was that perhaps Clark learned from his mistake and maybe (or maybe not) it is a part of his makeup now.
So, he wrote a book about international alliances, perhaps a guy who almost attacks the Russians for no good reason and saw his military career come to an end because of it (up for debate) learned something from the experience. Maybe this event is true, and that change in his character arc is all the more reason to vote for the guy.
In the final summation she praises him as one of the most "tantalizing" candidates and expresses the hope he will talk about this event on his own. "Perhaps Clark has learned that building alliances--and not risking showdowns-- is more crucial than ever in these perilous times?"
I think that's fair. I think Clark should get it on the table before the Republicans do, and so does The Nation apparently.
But all you can see is the mark it might leave on your guy. Here at Eschaton we apparently think anyone questioning something like that is a "stupid liberal." Pretty fast shootin from the hip there, pardner.
I can see I'm not going to make it to November 2004 with this site. I prefer independent thinking to partisanship.
While I don't trust her interpretation of the events, nor her speculation about the General's retirement, at WORST we have a candidate who almost ruined relations with one nation versus a president who ruined relations with at least two continents and a major religion.
Michael Moore writes a glowing letter to Gen. Clark:
http://www.commondreams.org/view...s03/0913-
06.htm
...a president who ruined relations with at least two continents and a major religion.
At least two is right.
I don't think Antarctica is mad at us. Are they?
I think I have to go w/ Joe B. & Jeff on this one, Atrios...
Despite concerns this incident raises, it remains a fact that the prospect of a Clark candidacy is tantalizing. Clark says he is a liberal Democrat who favors abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control and progressive economic policies. He has also spoken eloquently about basing America's role in the world on the country's better principles: "generosity, humility, engagement… "
hardly a hit piece, or a "stupid pot shot." The guy's entire appeal as a candidate is his military record. Why not look at it? Why not (horrors!) even suggest that someone's mistakes or setbacks could play a big role in forming him as a future leader?
I know I know: Will Rogers, circular firing squads & all that. Fine, But some folks here seem so wounded by the attacks on the Clenis (tm) & the 2000 Selection they assume a defensive posture where Clinton never did wrong and any questioning of Our Boys must be punished immediately. Excuse me if I think this is neither wholly honest nor politically wise.
As for The Nation, I happen to think it generally contains more actual news, and (gasp) debate, as opposed to simple proselytizing and self-congratulation, than just about any political mag around. There's certainly more diversity of views there than Marty Peretz would ever allow in TNR. I don't know about vanden Heuvel's "defenses" of Hitchens, but ol' Hitch has nowhere been skewered as thoroughly as in her magazine by the likes of Alterman, Cockburn and Pollitt.
now more than ever, I wish Erwin Knowl(sp?) was here. I would love to just here what he thinks of Bush and the 9+ Dems. I bet his words on Lieberputz would be hilarious.
Ok, first off, The Nation is hardly some out-in-left-field, radical publication. It's a widely respected progressive weekly. The point of the publication is to give word to a progressive view point. It is a not a Democratic ragsheet. They are hoping to push a progressive platform. Good for them. They shouldn't be Democratic hacks. That's the point. You should be happy they are beating up on Clark. It does two things:
1. It shows that Clark is not an extreme lefty and it puts him in the center
2. It gives voice to very important position. Of course, they'd rather be right than win. Because winning is often perceived in such short-term views. In 30 years, The Nation hopes that their opinions that they hold now will be mainstream then. The point is to keep the center of the country to the left. If the Nation goes out and endorses wholeheartedly, without critique, folks like Clark, then the center of the country will move right. Look at right-wing publications. Many of them criticize Bush but by doing so they keep the center of the country to the right. I'm really fucking tired of the Democrats ripping on "left-wingers" like the Nation or whatever. These folks have huge hearts and are trying to instill some compassion into the country's politics. Just because they don't stump for every Democrat doesn't mean they are useless. You hacks often say, "Quit eating your own."
Well listen to your own advice.
Also, did you see Michael Moore's letter- praising Wesley Clark. Moore is a lefter-than-the-Nation guy who supported Nader yet look at him trying to build alliances to get rid of Bush. Maybe you Democrat loyalists should take a hint and try to build alliances with Greens and other Nader voters. Look, I was a Nader voter but I'm planning to vote Dem this election. I want to be a part of the Democratic party. But if everytime I criticize a Dem, I'm called a "Stupid Liberal" well forget it.
I think that Michael Moore letter about Clark is going to mean a whole lot more than vanden Heuvel and The Nation. After all, he has another bestseller coming out in October.
Dean and Clark should be talking daily by phone. I don't care who's #1 and who's #2 on the ticket. These two can win in 2004.
And they should spend every waking minute working to win in 2004. For Dean and Clark. Or Clark and Dean. For us!
Atrios and others...
Why the hell are you pissed about this Nation article?
Can you not take criticism of a Democrat? It looks like a very serious issue... it's not some baseless attack. It has substance. If Bush had done the same thing, you'd be ready to hang him. Look, I can't stand Bush. But I can't stand inconsistent principles. For you to fail to apply your principles to Democrats makes your principles absolutely hollow. You're always whining about how inconsitent the SCLM is but look at you. You reduce yourself to petty attack on the Nation because they raise a serious issue. Look do you care about Democrat principles or Democrats? Are you so sucked into politics as a game that you have lost your ideals. What's the point in winning if you've so forgotten what you stand for? I'm not a purist but I'm also not an apologist.
Dean '04.
And healthy democratic criticism forever!
The wingnuts have already started.
My husband, who leans right (but my daughter and I never let him out to vote) came home the other day to tell me that Clark has "done something 'despicable' and if true, is open to legal action."
"where did you get that," I asked as I readied a pot to swing at his head."
"I heard it on Hannity."
The long knives are out and I think they are plenty scared.
The Josh Marshall/Neal Pollack fans are settling on Clark as their best bet to stymie Dean. Pure and simple.
The question is, will they dance all the way to the last dance.
Stay tuned.
Freddy, thanks for the Michael Moore link. I think he's a terrific writer.
Pretty much slams the rest of the field though, which may be a bit rash.
Not bad, though, for a Naderite Traitor. (sorry, couldn't resist).
Exeter: "The Josh Marshall/Neal Pollack fans..."
ahhhh, whu?
Now there's an odd couple.
Josh Marshall and Neal Pollack don't have much in common, but I can think of one thing.
John, please don't make me guess.
If it's anti-Deanism, I ain't seen it, unless you read Pollack's satire literally. Maybe I'm just behind the times.
Sterling Newberry does a number on vanden Heuvel's post here:
http://www.theclarksphere.com/ar...ves/
000347.html
What sort of alliances? Like deferring national sovereignty to the UN, that completely ethical and moral foundation whose Human Rights Commission is headed by Libya and also contains Cuba?
No thanks, I'll pass.
"Or you could take it another way and appreciate the fact that we on the Left are willing to question our own. Unlike "them"."
Yeah, I mean it's not like Instapundit, Sullivan, LGF ever critisize Bush, O'Reilly, Trent Lott,etc.
(sarcasm level VERY high)
Please check your holier-than-thou attitude at the door.
As for Michael Moore, who cares what he thinks? He's a piece of trash liar, and phony "man of the people".
www.moorewatch.com
Well, I sure as hell haven't seen LGF or Insty criticize the main party base. The only criticism of Republicans I've seen from them is of those who don't follow the party line 100%.
"Like deferring national sovereignty to the UN"
Now that I've seen it. I won't even try to argue with you anymore. You've proven to be a paranoid nutcase.
Here's why Clark is bad news for those who are small d democrats. He's Geo. Soros' boy. (Also on board of major Soros org. ICG, Int'l Crisis Group, w/Richard Allen & Zbig). Plan is to create World State - WTO w/addition of political body representing World Elites to run things. (Heard rap about it this spring @NoCal. World Affairs Council by Gary Hart). US will even have to cede taxing authority. Apparently US elites are split bet. reactionaries/neo-fascists, who've seized Repug party, who want to express US dominance militarily & those led the God of the Age of the Dictatorship of Capital who seek more discreet ways. (If he weren't Soros' boy - were he say ret. Gen. Joe Schmoe - he couldn't enter race so late) Go to pbs.org/now & check out is '03 speech in Seattle (I think).
Stupid Liberals Hey now,
Leave the ignorant potshots to the wingnuts.
Did pie give us a purple smiley?
([{never mind}])
erm the Bosnian Conflict ended in 1995.
Your talking about Kosovo conflict. Kosovo was/is a part of Serbia.
Clark maybe preaching alliances now but back then he was ready to shoot up some Ruskies in '99, maybe he has learnt from his mistakes and his McArthur attitude...he wanted to punish the British general (Michael Jackson) who refused to engage the Russians and send him home in disgrace.
Behaviour like this, should be examined, would you rather the press had a compliant attitude to all those in power including George jnr?
Clark maybe preaching alliances now but back then he was ready to shoot up some Ruskies in '99, maybe he has learnt from his mistakes and his McArthur attitude...he wanted to punish the British general (Michael Jackson) who refused to engage the Russians and send him home in disgrace.
Indeed...Clark was (allegedly) forced into retirement, while Lt. Gen. Jackson was promoted to full General and became Chief of the Defence Staff.
"The comparison to McArthur's actions in Korea is specious at best."
"Specious" ps being too kind...
Ms. Van-Whatsername don't know shit about MacArthur, Korea, or anything else that might actually have an effet on us "Proles"...
God, I'm glad I quit taking her stupid rag...She and Hitchens deseve each other...
By the way...How does one join up with this "Trenchant Anti-Military Left"?
And do you get to wear one o' them snazzy coats?
"Maybe you Democrat loyalists should take a hint and try to build alliances with Greens and other Nader voters."
No thanks...Let the Greens stay on Bush's side where they belong...
I think the McArthur comparison is more about attitudes. Yes Clark didn't want to use the bomb but he was happy enoughy to plunge the world into crisis over the Russians in Kosovo.
As Jackson was quoted to have said to him 'I am not about to start world war 3, for you'. I think it was something like that!
Another thing clark's defence that an english general was 'emotional' ?!?!
Sooo Don't think so.
Another thing clark's defence that an english general was 'emotional' ?!?!
Sooo Don't think so.
The Nation is a magazine in desperate need of threapy. It has a few good writers, Alterman, for one, but its major function these days seems to be to give a hot foot to anyone who has a chance of winning over Bush. In other words, it functions as a adjuct of the Republican Party. Maybe it is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. Maybe it's just being self-centered. The world doesn't revolve around the employed members of the scribbling class, most of us have to live in the real world.
I stopped subscribing over Hitchens and don't plan to re-subscribe soon.
"I stopped subscribing over Hitchens and don't plan to re-subscribe soon."
For me it was their Cover-Boy Treatment of David "Duke" Horowitz that did it...
As I have reminded them every time they call me on the phone...
"Adding TeleMarketing to Insult"...
"I think the McArthur comparison is more about attitudes."
Then she don't know shit about MacArthur's attitude, either...
Where's "Castlereigh"?
Is that in Irelend?
If so...What's somebody doing painting himself Irish and defending the Brit who perpetrated the "Bloody Sunday" massacre?
(Or...Is it in Northern Ireland?)
So Atrios begins his post by yelling "Stupid liberals" and ends it by suggesting we leave the pot shots to the Republicans. Usually you have to go to Republicans to get the kind of wacky lack of self-awareness needed to miss something that contradictory.
I think someone up above said it best, we're so defensive about what was done to Clinton even the suggestion of criticims of one of our own freaks us out. That article was pretty compassionate toward Clark... it'll be a lot worse when the Republicans jump on this. If they do. And one good way to keep them from doing so is fairly and effectively review this issue over here before Sean hannity gets a chance to be the first guy to push it into Nexis-Lexis.
Notice, folks, also that everyone agreed the Nation sucks and took a potshot, until a couple of people said something different and then the opinion was split.
Reminds me of a time I was in a jury duty pool and everyone kept saying they could decide fairly, they loved cops, they had no opinion... and one guy finally said he hated cops and didn't want to be on the jury, and from that point on people told the truth, whether for or against.
Before that, they were intimidated by being in court among judges and they didn't want to speak out til someone broke the spell.
Break the spell. Ask hard questions of your candidates. Party mentality isn't any more attractive in us than it is in them.
Dearest Marvel
Castlereagh is indeed in the north and 2nd Viscount Castlereagh was also one of the greatest British foreign secretary's who ever lived. He too was a great believer in alliances: check out the congress system.
Jackson did not personally perpetrate the bloody sunday massacres, he was in operational HQ if memory serves me right.
But if that makes Jackson still guilty over bloody sunday then Clark (who was incharge of the military in the Kosovo campaign) is equally guilty of criminal actions.
Actions which included the indiscrimnate bombing of serbian civillians and infrastructure.
Who also remembers the attack on the TV station, the attack on the cemetary in kosovo and the attack on bus on bridge.
Also Lets not forget the NATO support of the KLA, who's connections now to Islamic Militants and drug running is rather embarrasing for those who supported the war in Kosovo.
McArthur and Clark do share simililarties they both thought nothing of trying destroy the careers of those opposed to them.
If Clark truly is the superior candidate then he will have no problems in explaining incidents like the pristina airfield.
Just because he is a democrat doesn't necessarily make him the best candidate to become president. For all we know at the moment he may turn out to espouse or carry out military/foreign actions very similar to George.
I ain't taking Clark's side...Nor have I any apologies/excuses to make about the shit over Kosovo...I thought it was stupid at the time to get involved...
Like I've repeatedly told the Clarkies (including Newberry)...I spent enough time in uniform to make me very suspicious of any son-of-a-bitch wearing stars on his collar...(Or flaunting them on the fender of his taxpayer-provided, chauffured
limo, for all the "Snuffies" to salute)
In fact...In the midst of all this madness that's going on (and on) I'm willing to listen to what Clark - or anybody else - has to say...But I ain't "Objective"...
The Brit General (now) was a Captain (on the scene) back then...And all those dead people didn't shoot each other...
- The Brit General (now) was a Captain (on the scene) back then...And all those dead people didn't shoot each other... -
True, Bloody sunday was a terrible mistake/crime committed by the British army but Jackson was not personally involved, he did not shoot any of the demonstrators, he was on the scene but only in an operational sense.
On the whole Clark thing, writing about the need for alliances is one thing but acting on it is another thing. The Pristina incident does show that Clark was willing to disregard then partners in war (ie the British and the Russians)
Look at all that drivel bush spouted before the election compassionate conservatism!! Actions speak louder then words.
Like any good comander Clark now probably realises that America needs alliances, it can't afford unilateralist Bush approach.
But seriously is the Kosovo incident really going to matter to the average american? Can't imagine them going 'I ain't going to vote for clark because he nearly wrecked the then kosovo alliance'.
Even if the republicans pick up on it, will the voters care? No.
"he did not shoot any of the demonstrators, he was on the scene but only in an operational sense."
What "operational sense" was that?
Was he holding the list/keeping score?
-Was he holding the list/keeping score?-
No, Dearest Marvel
and not really that funny.
Go here for a better explanation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/north...and/
2922767.stm
On the ground but not really involved more like Wilford's P.A in my understanding.
Again if you accuse Jackson of total complicity, Clark must be equally guilty for Kosovo.
When Clark got into it with Jackson...
Clark had the approval of the NATO Secretary-General to enter the airport. Solana, a member of the Spain's Socialist Party, was certainly no warmonger.
Clark had the approval of his American military and civilian commanders.
It was the French who offered the troops to take the airfield.
Nobody anywhere was condoning firing a shot at the Russians. To the contrary, everyone was worried about what would happen if the Russians violated Hungarian airspace in an attempt to reinforce the airfield. Providing "logistical support" to the Russians in a way that just happened to occupy parts of the runways was an attempt to avoid WWIII.
The media's becomming increasingly pathetic.
Robert Sammel seems to have at least looked up what actually happened at the Pristina Airfield -- which is far more than vanden Huevel seems to have done before writing her piece.
To actually tell this story correctly one must also include the Russian side of the story -- Afterall those Russian soldiers left Bosnia and drove through Serbia to Pristina under someone's command -- and that is the interesting part of the story.
NATO and an expanded group of European Countries were very involved for several weeks in negotiating a diplomatic settlement to end the Kosova Airwar. The Finnish President and representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry took the final terms to Milosevic, and when he realized that Russia was not willing to provide any assistance to Serbia, Milosevic finally agreed to the document, which withdrew Serb troops from Kosovo, etc.
However, in Russia all hell broke loose because the Foreign Ministry which had been involved with the negotiations had not cut in the Defense Ministry on the plan -- and the Defense Ministry was demanding an exclusive zone for itself in Kosovo, actually the French Sector. So -- Yeltsin was in the hospital at this point -- the Defense Ministry ordered the movement of the Russian Units then in Bosnia without telling the Foreign Ministry.
Much of this story is in Strobe Talbott's book as is the emergency meeting called in Finland where Madeline met with the Foreign Minister who apparently had to literally drag someone from the Defense Ministry along so as to make certain Russian Defense understood the complex agreements that had been made, and had been approved by Yeltsin before he got sick.
All this needs to be added into the very complicated maze of agreements that were background to Clark's decisions. It is equally important to understand that while State and The Department of Defense in DC were not as divided as the same functions in Moscow -- they were divided. DOD never wanted the Kosovo action, and Cohen was much more responsive to Republicans in the Senate than to Clinton. The House, at the beheast of DeLay had voted not to fund the Kosovo supplement Clinton had requested, and Cohen was hearing talk that some of his other requests might get trampled if all this made Clinton look like he had won a war. (Remember this is just after impeachment daze). Clark however had great relations at State and in the White House -- good with Madeline, with Holbrooke at the UN, with Berger in the WH, and with virtually all the other NATO Foreign and Defense ministers.
It is an interesting story on its own, and it illustrates the complexities of alliance action -- but it also was about undercutting Clinton and anything the Republicans thought might make him look OK.
vanden Heuvel missed the best part of the story.
"vanden Heuvel missed the best part of the story."
But I'm sure she got to use lots of big words...That's mostly what they strive ton do at the Nation...
Showing Daddy he didn't waste all that tuition money...
If the Nation Gang are "Liberals", the Working Class is Fucked...
Atrio: You're way off on this. Katrina is smart, and you owe her an apology. Anyone expecting The Nation to be the Democratic Party's house organ doesn't know anything about the magazine.
See:
http://thenation.com/about/
The Nation will not be the organ of any party, sect, or body. It will, on the contrary, make an earnest effort to bring to the discussion of political and social questions a really critical spirit, and to wage war upon the vices of violence, exaggeration, and misrepresentation by which so much of the political writing of the day is marred.
-- from The Nation's founding prospectus, 1865
Sorry I missed the s in Atrios.
I've found this post and thread disappointing. She's a "stupid liberal" because she dares to examine the career of a potential presidential candidate?
Atrios' response, that Clark wrote a book about alliances, is somewhere short of convincing. Actions speak louder than words. A certain William Bennett can attest to that. I don't care how many books Clark has written about alliances, how he ACTS under pressure is more important. If Van den Heuvel has the facts wrong about this incident, then we should criticize her for that.
But it seems that most of the criticism of her is coming from people saying "we need to unite behind a winner," or better yet, "the nation sux!"
In other words, y'all are clamping down on dissent just like Republicans, except it's "Support the candidate of the week!" instead of "support our troops."
For the record . . .
I let my Nation subscription lapse a couple of years ago, primarily because of my increasing disdain for Hitchens.
So, I've been critical of the magazine and of Katrina.
But she's not stupid. And her commentary on Clark wasn't stupid.
Does Clark have any positions? All the fuss about Schwarzenegger's vagueness and I don't know any of Clark's opinions. We only know his party affiliation as of last week, that he prefers coalitions, and that he's allowed the rest of the candidates to bloody each other while he sits out. If I were a Democrat, I'd say screw him unless he's Dean's running mate.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
