Clark and Edwards

[quinnox]

What is the relationship like between these two? Is it true there was bad blood in the 2004 primaries or was that just message board generated and not true in reality?

I just had a thought that maybe they might make a good team in 2008!

[Leilani]

1. All I know is that Clark went to Edwards rallies

& campaigned with him, as he did for all Dems where he was needed.

Edited to add: Probably the most destructive attack on Clark, came from an advisor to Edwards; the General inferring that Clark was not to be trusted, (Shelton?), who later had to eat his words.

[adwon]

4. Hugh Shelton?

[AP]

2. Judging from Wes Clark Jr's posts here at DU, at least Clark Jr detests

Edwards. He cited the Shelton thing and foreign policy experience as his big issues with Edwards.

[Clarkie1]

5. I'd detest him too if he pulled that kind of crap with my dad.

The "Shelton thing" as you dismissively call it was politics at its lowest. Clark genuinely likes Kerry, and he did what was best for the country and campaigned vigorously for the Kerry/Edwards team.

[AP]

6. I don't how it's Edwards's fault that Shelton did that.

What's your theory?

[Clarkie1]

7. Edwards used a long-time friend and "advisor" to smear Clark.

I assume Edwards is a "the buck stops here" kind of guy, or is that not the case?

---------------
Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in September that Clark was relieved of his assignment as NATO commander because of "integrity and character issues" but he refused to elaborate.

Shelton "has been an adviser to Senator Edwards for years, prior to his becoming a presidential candidate. They are both from North Carolina and have been friendly for years.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/11/national1729EST0648.DTL

[AP]

9. Huh?

Do you have a link, 'cause that's not how I remembered it.

Here's my recollection: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1673378&mesg_id=1679878

[JI7]

11. but Shelton never endorsed Kerry

someone on DU claimed that once but they were wrong.

[AP]

15. In an interview...

...he said that he wasn't endorsing anyone, but that he felt that Kerry's experience qualified him to be president. IIRC those two sentiments were delivered in the same sentence. It was sort of an undorsement.

[AP]

16. Shelton made that comment in response to a question, probably by a student

at a small college in CA, and it's possible that he had no idea there was press there.

When it blew up later, he just said no comment.

If Edwards told him to say it, why wait around until some student at a tiny event asks a question?

Anyway, Edwards said that Shelton wasn't a paid advisor (and wasn't even endorsing Edwards) and he was speaking for himself. Do you not believe that?

Also notice the timeline here: Clark admits he and Shelton had professional disagreements that "became personal." Those disagreements were probably in 98 or 99 -- 15 or more years after Shelton and Edwards first met, but long before anyone knew that Edwards and Clark were ever going to run for president.

Isn't it conceiveable that Shelton said something nasty about Clark merely because the two of them don't like each other? How is this Edwards's fault? It just seems so silly that this gets turned into a blot on Edwards.

On Edit: Here's the article that broke the story:

http://latc.com/2003/09/24/community/news01.html

It has all the halmarks of dirty politics. First you have the high profile event at the, uh, the Foothill College Celebrity Forum. Then you get the reporter with connections to the campaign -- in this case, well, Joan Garvin, the Town Crier Correspondent (it's only a weekly but the Los Altos Town Crier has a lot of power), . She imediately reports the story so that the elves in the MSM can spin it into gold. In this case, that short time period was almost two weeks after the event.

Jeff Gannon, anyone?

[ClarkUSA]

32. Jennifer Palmieri kept repeating allusions to it to reporters

Hmmm... I wonder why Edwards' spokesperson would do that?

[AP]

36. Because complaining about it made Clark's campaign look bad

January 29, 2004

POLITICS: The Kerry Files

Yesterday, ABC's The Note re-posted a pair of hilarious memos from John Kerry's outgoing campaign heads to the incoming heads last November (one was from ousted campaign manager Jim Jordan to his incoming replacement, Mary Beth Cahill; the other was from departing communications spokesguy Robert Gibbs to the arriving Stephanie Cutter). These aren't smoking-gun stuff, since it's pretty common knowledge that campaign people talk like this, but they are deeply humorous reading and, since The Note doesn't have archives, I'll reprint them here in their entirety:

....

36. The next time The Candidate gets grumpy and masticates on the ineffectiveness of his staff, point to the Clark campaign's decision to attack Edwards over Hugh Shelton on Veterans Day as an example of how bad strategic decisions by staff (Lehane and Kym?) really can be. After that, you won't look that awful.

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2004/01/politics_the_ke.php

[yebrent]

24. The most ridiculous part of the whole thing was that...

former Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic used Sheldon's comments to try to discredit Clark's testimony at the war crimes trials. That is when Sheldon had to admit under oath that his comment was simply politics and he then praised Clark's NATO command.

[AP]

31. Do you have a link for the Shelton "simply politics" quote?

I just did some googling and the only place I can find any allegation that he said that was from Clark bloggers, and the claim is that prosecutor Carla de la Ponte (whom the bloggers mistakenly identify as the judge) called Shelton to see if he should come testify and that Shelton said that he didn't mean what he said.

This story seems to conflate a fact with a fiction: during a break in the testimony, Clark got a fax from Clinton that he entered into evidence to rebut the claim by Milosevic that he was removed for reasons relating to his strategic decisions. Shelton didn't testify at the Hague, AFAICT, and I can't find any first-person statement from Shelton saying that his September 2003 comment was only politics.

[Sparkly]

46. As I recall the exchanges, it wasn't about Shelton

It was about an Edwards supporter who made stuff up about General Clark's zeal for money, etc... Wes Jr. did draw a contrast between his father and Edwards, as already occurs on nearly every thread about the General. I'm sure you remember that.

If there was another exchange in which he said he "detests" Edwards for not having foreign policy experience, or for what Shelton said, I missed that.

[Clark2008]

3. Clark tried to bone Edwards up on foreign policy issues during

the campaign and even went with him to some foreign policy rally in North Carolina.

[SangamonTaylor]

8. Clark bit into Edwards in the TN and VA primary

...I remember it pretty well. I don't remember what he had mentioned, but I do remember Clark 'attacking Edwards' as any good primary candidate would that was aiming to become 'the alternative' candidate...

[tritsofme]

10. The relationship between the two?

Neither has any future in the Democratic Party...

[ZootSuitGringo]

17. Why is that?

and who does? Please enlighten us with your deep and knowledgeable "insight" of things to come, Ghost of the Democratic Future.

Thanks!

[tritsofme]

20. A one term senator

that was campaigning for president at least 1/3 of the time he was there, who now has no political leg to stand on other than being #2 on a losing presidential ticket.

And the other, while a very honorable man, has never held elected office, and whose candidacy in 2004 was little more than a media creation.

I see no future for either man in politics.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Media creation my ass!

Please do tell the details on that one, cause the media sure in the fuck didn't give him any attention other than negative attention during the primaries.

Too Damn bad that only politicians need apply (sorry Eisenhower, you can't run). But, but, but... when I look at what pre-requisites are required to run for the presidency, I only see "citizens, at least 35 years of age".

In MY opinion, a President needs the following skill set:
EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE that must be the pre-requisite for the presidency. That's why Senators don't make it often as Presidents....they lack executive experience. Clark has been Commander in Chief of Europe and of the Southern Command, along with being Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

Additional PRE-REQUISITE QUALIFICATION FOR THE PRESIDENCY IN 2008 should include those listed below. Please note that Clark is more than qualified....and in fact, one would be hard pressed to find someone else that is more or even as qualified.

VISION& INSIGHT = Wes Clark had one of the best thought-out and complete long term vision of his ideas for America. In 2004, he wasn't just talking about how he would beat Bush out of the White House but about his 100 Year Vision for America. Probably one of the most far-reaching themes of any campaign since JFK.

INTELLIGENCE = 1st in West Point Class; Rhode Scholar; written two best selling books and a myriad of op eds (first book currently used as a teaching tool at the Carnegy Council of Ethics and International Affairs.)
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplat...
http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cg...
http://www.thinkingpeace.com/Lib/lib028.html

EMPATHY FOR THE LESS FORTUNATE = self made man who made not more than $50,000 most of his life and has lived in real trailers/$90,000 as a 4 Star General; philosophy degree from Oxford; wounded to near death in Vietnam; called for action against genocide in Rwanda and Kosovo; wrote Army amicus brief for U of Michigan Affirmative Action case to the Supreme Court; called attention to Rwanda, Kosovo and Darfur; currently on board of the International Crisis Group. http://www.icg.org/home/index.cfm?id=3247&l=1

ECONOMIC EXPERIENCE = Masters in Economics from Oxford/White House Fellows in the Budget office. Is a licensed Investment Banker; Proposed the best Democratic progressive tax reform plan during the primaries. http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/my...

NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERIENCE = Clark is considered an expert in the field as he was in charge of all National Security in Europe and Latin America. Currently works for Witt and Associates--A Homeland Security company http://www.homelanddefensestocks.com/Companies/Homeland...

FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE = Negotiated Dayton Peace Accords in 1995; Negotiated with dictators and stuck his finger in their face; testified before Senate and the House against going to Iraq; Testified at the Hague against Milosovich. Has been knighted in England, decorated in France and received Medal of Freedom from Prez Clinton, apart from numerous medals from various countries, including the U.S. Clark has so much experience on the matter of Foreign Policy, it's not even funny.

POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING EXPERIENCE = Ran for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2004. Placed 3rd in NH after 1st and 2nd place New Englanders; was the only candidate apart from the eventual nominee to win a state that was not his home state; placed 2nd (without media coverage) in New Mexico, Arizona and North Dakota. Bowed out gracefully when it was clear that Kerry would be the nominee; Raised the most money after Howard Dean up to January of '04 (and raised the most in January '04) although was only in the race for 4 months (compared to 18 months for others); Put together a credible campaign in just a few months with leftover staffing; Had the biggest Grassroot movement after Howard Dean.

SPEAKING ABILITIES = Debating Team at West Point; speaking fees of $30,000 upon retirement; CNN commentator during the onset of the Iraq War; spoke one of the best speeches during the Democratic Convention; surrogate at large for John Kerry during the 2004 Prez campaign (meme that he's not "ready for primetime" made up by the corporate media who, to protect their various interests, did not want Clark as the nominee to go against Bush).

INDEPENDENCE & COURAGE = was his party affiliation until he became a Democrat. Cannot be described as highly partisan, but stands for Democratic ideals stronger than most Democratic politicians. Courage in the face of battle in Vietnam and was rewarded with Bronze, Silvers and Purple Hearts for non-controversial but couragous actions. Was retired early for standing up for principles. Privately Encouraged both O'neal, Clarke and S. Hersch to expose the Bush Administration.

TRUE "BLUE" REPRESENTATIVE OF FAITH, VALUES, and PATRIOTISM = Married to the same woman for 36 years. Is 1/2 Jewish, raised a southern baptist, converted to catholism. Southern Values are his forte. Served his country for 34 years. Firmly believes in the separation of Church and State. Wes Clark can speak on the subject of values, faith, patriotism like nobodies business. He has lived these values, he has breathed these values, in fact, he represents these values.

HAILS FROM A RED STATE that could be won= Arkansas -- Is a real progressive, but perceived as a moderate by the general voting public.

GRAVITAS = Sole Democrat 4 Star General who won the last war America fought (prior to Iraq) without losing a single American. Most decorated officer since Eisenhower. Perceived as a "Strong" leader by the masses.

NOT A SENATOR OR A WASHINGTON INSIDER but understands Washington and has worked there with congress= Wes Clark

VIABLE ACTIVE TRUE GRASSROOTS = Clarkies are everywhere and really did make a difference in his last campaign. Blog still gets over 300-500 comments per day.

TELEGENIALITY AKA "IT"= Face it--The guy looks great!

SCIENTIFICALLY INCLINED = http://www.greenspeed.us/wesley_clark.htm

HUMOR = Does really, really good impressions.

CALM UNDER PRESSURE BUT WILL KICK ASS WHEN REQUIRED = See Faux Smackdown appearance being interviewed by AsSman!

HONESTY shit, the man even told us who he had voted for in the past. He didn't have to, now did he?)

LEADERSHIP POSITIONS(Partial list):
1980-1982- Commanded the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor, 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colorado.
1983-1983- Chief, Plans Integration Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, United States Army, Washington, DC
1984-1986-National Training Center, as Commander Operations Group, he revised the overall training program by improving scenarios, enhancing After Action Reports, and developing the first Brigade-level training exercise and the first heavy-light rotations.
1986-1988- Commanded the 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado.
1989-1991- Commander of National Training Center General Clark --spent 5 years training leaders and soldiers at the National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, California.
1991-1992 - Deputy Chief of Staff for Concepts, Doctrine and Developments, US Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia
1992-1994 - Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.
1994-1996 -Director, Strategic Plans and Policy, J5, the Joint Staff where he was the staff officer responsible for world-wide politico-military affairs and U.S. military strategic planning. He also led the military negotiations for the Bosnian Peace Accords at Dayton.
June 1996-July 1997 - Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command, Panama
1997-2000 - Supreme Allied Commander Europe on 11 July 1997. Also the Commander-in-Chief, United States European Command.

[Leilani]

23. Terrific post, Frenchie!

You are the "Ultimate Wes Warrior!"

[Totally Committed]

39. I have to agree...

Frenchie is the ultimate Wes Warrior!

WTG, woman!

TC

[tritsofme]

26. I don't oppose Clark

Or think that he is not qualified for the job, but he just didn't come off to me as that great of a politician.

He won only one primary in 2004, and Oklahoma isn't exactly a large base of support in the Democratic Party.

Like Edwards, I don't see what he is going to do the next few years to keep his name in the news, he has no platform to speak from.

You said he is percieved as a moderate, but I don't think he really has that much name recognition outside of Demcratic circles, especially now that we are a year removed from the 2004 primaries.

And just as a side note, I would prefer someone like Clark much more than Edwards, but despite that I personally don't see him going anywhere in the Party.

[Pilgrim4Progress]

42. Among other things. . .

General Clark currently serves in leadership roles with a number of non-profit public service organizations, including the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Distinguished Senior Adviser), the Center for American Progress (Trustee), the International Crisis Group (Board Member), City Year Little Rock (Board Chair), the National Endowment for Democracy (Board Member), the United States Institute of Peace (United Nations Task Force Member), and the General Accountability Office (Advisory Board Member).

Last paragraph on this page

[driver8]

28. Nope...sorry. Wes Clark is OVER qualified for the office of President.

How could the people of Mer'ka possibly relate to someone like that? He is just too damn smart. The voters want a guy in office they can sit down and have a beer or a few lines of coke with. They want a man who makes a decision and sticks with it, no matter how fucked up it is. They want a man who doesn't read anything and is proud of his ignorance.

Nope -- Wes Clark is definitely too smart. We all know that "smartness" equals trouble. Ignorance and stupidity is what we need in the White House...nothing more, nothing less.

Can anyone think of an ignorant democrat that might want to run??

[driver8]

29. FrenchieCat -- great post! I enjoyed reading it. n/t

[AmericanDream]

27. And that now the pundits have spoken ...

It must be an inevitable fact! Excuse the sarcasm, but I think both men have great potential especially since the democratic party has few leaders who really inspire these days... I think both Clark and Edwards can be credible candidates. As for their platforms to speak from... I don't know how Clark is going to keep himself in news other than being on the talk shows giving advice about Iraq ... but Edwards has been in the news ever since the election... he's been getting pretty good local coverage as he travels the country speaking about poverty, Today is going to profile his efforts at the Poverty center tommorrow... and I think with his national recognition at this moment, he has the potential to capitalize on that and further the cause of poverty, work and opportunity through the center... he could have a pretty effective political platform if he uses his tools wisely, which he quite seems to be doing at the moment. He is probably going to be releasing policy papers soon after they finish their countrywide research and debates and might even testify before the senate to try to get some policy initiatives focused upon and all those are ways of maintaining a national profile. Plus, I think it was really smart of him to get involved in podcasting... that is a great medium of building up grassroots... anyway, so I do think Edwards has the right kinds of opportunities and he IS a smart politician ... to be able to keep himself in the spotlight in the coming years. And, since he has so many connections with the local parties (showcased by the number of keynote addresses he has given in various states since the election).. he is probably going to be campaigning out there for the '06 elections, another way to stay involved. Therefore, I think Edwards is in the kind of position Reagan was in after 1976. Clark on the other hand is also going to be doing public speaking but I think his biggest drawback as a politician will be the fact that he is not too well integrated with the democratic party since he has never been an officeholder of any form... and that might hinder his efforts a little.

[Clark2008]

41. Up until today, I have not seen Edwards in the news for a long, long

time.
I have, however, seen Clark all over the talk show circuit and in the belly of the beast, giving Dem dinner speeches in the South and at colleges and universities.
Sorry - I don't agree with your assessment that Edwards has been in the news.

[AmericanDream]

44. Umm... it was not an assessment

It was a fact... he headlined the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Florida, addressed the bar association in california, headlined the NH party's annual dinner, attended the washington days and spoke at their annual dinner in Kansas, spoke at another annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner at Missouri, has been on Today, Charlie Rose, with Campbell brown and other shows among other things.... Look i was talking about political activity as a democrat... yes, I've seen clark on TV a few times, but mainly on radio giving his opinion on the war and its strategies, which is great but it is not enough. What I have specifically mentioned is his seemingly not-too-strong connection with party activists and the democratic base. Nevertheless, I do think they are both being part of the political and policy debate, which is great. But from my neutral observation, I do think that edwards gets more news for his events because of his national profile, and that is not a plug for him but a mere political observation.

[JI7]

12. Edwards may pick Clark for VP

[ZootSuitGringo]

14. Hahahah!

I don't think that Clark will be plugging that foreign policy hole showing up on Edwards' resume. Maybe Edwards can run Shelton as his VP. They are such good friends, after all.

[Leilani]

18. LOL!

I don't think the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff could plug that hole.

[JI7]

19. if Edwards is the Nominee i think Clark would be open to VP position

[Leilani]

21. I seriously doubt

it would ever come to that.

[Texas_Kat]

34. Not a snowball's chance in hell would Clark become a VP for Edwards eom

[AP]

38. I think he'd play Democratic team ball, don't you?

[Texas_Kat]

40. If he didn't want it when Kerry was the nominee

what makes you think he'd be interested in it if Edwards happened to survive the nomination process?

[AmericanDream]

45. Was he even offered the spot?

Everyone denied the position of VP candidate, including edwards during their own campaigns ... no one openly says that I want to be the veep nominee, while they are shooting for the top job. Edwards didn't want it either, but like him, Clark would've taken it up too. Nevertheless... this topic is asking for too much "speculation." I mean c'mon we are four years away from the damn election.... people need to focus on the congressional elections for the sake of the party.

[Radical Activist]

43. What will plug the

"never held elected office, did poorly in the primaries, and has no strong base of support in any state" hole in Clark's resume?
Six years in the Senate and serving on the Foreign Relations committe gives Edwards more experience than Bush had when he became President.

[AmericanDream]

25. Depends on the state of the union

At this point, I do believe that the economy might be the forefront of all issues by 2007 if we continue down the path we are on right now. And, if that is the case then Clark's military experience will only get him so far because he has virtually no experience or no initiatives to tout of when it comes to domestic policies or programs. Someone mentioned he has a degree in economics, but education is one thing, working in those fields is another... However, if the war still remains a burning issue, Clark's prospects are brighter... plus, while Clark has a massive following at this forum, he will be behind Hillary and Edwards when it comes to a national profile and name recognition. Like the CNN pollsters cited the polls that show Edwards is the most favored of all the candidates on either tickets in 2004.. that is a plus for him. Nevertheless, like I said.. it all depends on what are the issues in 2007... Clark and Edwards both have their strengths and weaknesses. Instead of criticizing our own party leaders we should be focusing on holding the white house responsible for its acts. Remember.. both Clark and Edwards are on our side (they have a lot of similar policy positions) and neither is the enemy. Peace!

[Donna Zen]

30. Peace indeed!

Nevertheless_ there is something in your post that needs to be corrected:

Someone mentioned he has a degree in economics, but education is one thing, working in those fields is another...

^^^^^^^^^^^

While a Masters in Economics from Oxford may or may not qualify someone for understanding the nation's fiscal affairs (depending on your criteria,) working in the White House OMB, and having written a federal budget from scratch does have merit. Of course, so would the administering of budgets for huge commands that cover all of the same domestic areas of concers as any state government, with the additional areas that are strictly military. Wes Clark has this experience, something I have never expected to be included in the resume of all candidates, but since this board tends to raise the bar for Clark, there it is.

That Clark chose after retirement to enter the field of investment banking, and continues to work in that field, one would think he has some understanding of economic policy.

Recently, Clark has mentioned the term "holistic economics" which is a way of looking at economic decisions and their impact on labor, the environment, and political direction, rather than the "old" economics that regards decisions in isolation.

Let's look at what he is saying:

For the first time in American history, we're entering a period where we will compete with nations that have larger, more integrated markets than we do. They're not larger in dollars but they are larger in consumers. As they develop economically, they will tip the Law of Scale. In economics, you worry about the Law of Scale over supply and demand. In a country of 1.3 billion people, when those people start buying cell phones you will find that that's where cell phones are manufactured and that's where the technologies are developed. China doesn't have the cultural impediments that affect India, so China is growing at a rapid rate and India is a little further behind.


This country was the greatest economic power in the world at the start of the 20th century. Our steel industry, our coal, our iron, our railroads, they all came from foreign investments. After the Civil War, money poured in because European investors like Germany and Britain looked at this country and said, Wow look at the size of that market. How can we not get into the American market?


And now in this country we're looking at China. We're saying, Wow look at the size of that market! How can we not get into that market? And with that size and scale will come new challenges for this country. It will be in the economic sense, the educational sense, and in the military sense. ~Wes Clark http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/107

^^^^^^^^^

I pay close attention to what Clark is saying about this country's domestic affairs for many reasons: he is not a pandering politician, he thinks "out of the box," and he is brilliant. Moreover, in a global market which will be our economic climate for the foreseeable future, domestic policy and foreign policy are inextricably combined.

[Pithy Cherub]

33. Clark also gained economic expertise equivalent to a governor

as Supreme Commander with NATO. He had to choose how best to allocate resources for the military component, security, education endeavors, the attendant community concerns and interactions with heads of state and the diversity of his direct reports from the NATO vountries. You are right about his economic expertise has been parcticed for almost his entire working and military career. :)

My vote is upon securing the nomination to let Clark choose with whom he would best work to lead the nation. There are many qualified individuals to assist with that.

[Totally Committed]

37. Plus...

His advanced degree from Oxford, if I'm not mistaken, was in Economics.

He worked in the White House OMB on the national budget, as well.

This is a man who isn't _just_ National Defense, National Defense, National Defense.

TC

[sandnsea]

13. I suspect they're grown ups n/t

[WI_DEM]

35. I agree an Edwards/Clark ticket might be effective

or even Clark/Edwards.