Sorry, Wes, you just lost a sizeable bloc vote.
Posted on 01/23/2004 7:13:53 AM PST by .cnI redruM
By the end of the Democratic presidential debate on Thursday night, it was impossible to avoid the question: Was Wesley Clark trying to hurt himself? Or had the retired four-star general simply not considered the possibility that debate moderators would ask him, like, questions?
Consider Clark's response to a query about the lobbying work he did in 2002 and 2003 for an Arkansas-based company called Acxiom. The software firm has developed a product called CAPPS II, which is an airline screening system that gathers information on passengers and color-codes them according to their potential terrorist risk (the name stands for Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System). Clark earned a reported $500,000 for pitching the product to the Transportation Department, the FBI, and the CIA.
Some civil libertarian groups have strongly criticized the CAPPS II system on privacy grounds, and in recent days, the campaign of Sen. John Kerry has attacked Clark for his lobbying. The Los Angeles Times quoted a Kerry spokesman saying recently, "Wes Clark was a high-paid Republican Washington lobbyist who cashed in on his military record."
So it was no surprise that Clark's lobbying came up in the debate. But when he was asked whether CAPPS II might "step over the line" of airline passengers' privacy, Clark seemed to have no idea what it was all about.
"Well, I don't know about CAPPS II because I have not seen the program, and I don't think many of the people who are worried about it have," Clark said. "I was on the board of the company [Acxiom], and I did take them around and introduce them to various members of the United States government, the Defense Department and so forth, because their technology will improve our security."
But was CAPPS II a threat to privacy? "Had I still been on that board when all this was going through, I would have insisted that the American Civil Liberties Union and others be brought in to pre-approve CAPPS II," Clark said. "Whether that was done or not, I have no idea." End of answer.
Consider also Clark's response to questions about his embrace of the radical leftist filmmaker Michael Moore. Moore, who famously wondered why terrorists struck New York City on September 11 when there were so many Bush voters they could have targeted elsewhere in the country, endorsed Clark recently, and the two shared an on-stage love-fest. In his remarks at the time, Moore referred to George W. Bush as, among other things, a "deserter."
ABC's Peter Jennings, who shared moderating duties at the debate with Fox News's Brit Hume, asked Clark, "That's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict [Moore], and whether or not you think it would've been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so."
"Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this," Clark answered. "I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot."
Clark then said, "This election is about the future, Peter, and what we have to do is pull this country together." Clark explained that he believes he can accomplish that with "the support of a man like Michael Moore, [and] of a great American leader like Sen. George McGovern."
Still, Jennings did not accept Clark's claim to know nothing about the "deserter" charge. "Since this question and answer in which you and Mr. Moore were involved in, you've had a chance to look at the facts," Jennings followed up. "Do you still feel comfortable with the fact that someone should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?"
"To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter. You know, that's Michael Moore's opinion. He's entitled to say that. I've seen — he's not the only person who's said that. I've not followed up on those facts. And frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign."
It turned out Clark didn't know any more about Michael Moore than he knew about CAPPS II, the product he had made half a million dollars selling.
On other topics, Clark backed away from an earlier statement that if he is elected president, the United States will not suffer any more 9/11-style attacks. What he really meant to say, Clark explained, is that "President Bush must be held accountable."
Clark also announced that he would "suspend all portions of the Patriot Act that have to do with search and seizure." He called for returning federal law enforcement to the days before cell phones changed the ways criminals (and terrorists) do business. "If they [investigators] want to do a wiretap, they can do it the old-fashioned way," Clark said.
Finally, Clark struggled to explain a decidedly pro-war article he wrote for the Times of London last April, shortly after U.S. forces entered Baghdad (See "Wesley Clark's Pro-War Manifesto). Clark repeated his assertion that "I did not support this war," but explained that in the article he simply did not want to criticize U.S. policy in a foreign publication. "I'm not going to take U.S. policy and my differences with the administration directly into a foreign publication," he said.
All in all, Clark's was the weakest performance in a presidential debate since, well, his performance in the early debates. And it could have been even worse; the general was lucky, for example, that no one brought up his embarrassing attempts to pull rank on his rival, Sen. John Kerry, who served as a lieutenant in Vietnam. It is impossible to see how Clark's performance Thursday night, as well as his performance in New Hampshire in general, will help his chances in the upcoming primary.
As for the other candidates, Sen. John Edwards, who has so far failed to capitalize on his surprise strong showing in Iowa, also had a weak night, bobbling a question on the nature of Islam and, on another occasion, showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Sen. Kerry, the frontrunner who has capitalized on his Iowa showing, turned in a generally strong performance. And Howard Dean, the former frontrunner who has never been particularly strong in debates, did as well as he could be expected to do, given the pressure created by his red-faced "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!" speech in Iowa.
Dean began the debate by explaining that his voice was hoarse, "not because I was whooping and hollering at my third- place finish in Iowa," but because he had a cold. Falling back on his now-stock explanation of the Iowa outburst, he said, "We did have a little fun in Iowa. I thought I owed it to the 3,500 kids that came out and worked for us."
Later, Dean returned to the subject, suggesting that unguarded moments like the Iowa speech are in fact evidence of his superior genuineness. "You know, I'm not a perfect person," Dean explained. "I think a lot of people have had a lot of fun at my expense over the Iowa hooting and hollering, and that's justified. But one thing I can tell you is that I'm not kidding about what I say."
Dean's non-mea culpa, clearly practiced and tested with his advisers, didn't fare any better than his early explanations of his Iowa rant. "Don't be hard on yourself about hooting and hollering," Al Sharpton advised the former Vermont governor. "If I had spent the money you did and got 18 percent, I'd still be in Iowa hooting and hollering."
This debate finished him.
Not surprising considering the type of people the Clintons pick, like Attorney General Janet Reno for example. To call them mediocre would be overstating it a bit.
Clark has used the boldfaced excuse in other matters and this is the thing that truly frightens me about Clark. In his mind a twice repeated rumor proves the validity of the rumor.
His answers were not even of the caliber of a wet-behind-the-ears butterbar. I know, because I was one! The best part about my eventual promotion to First Lieutenant was that I was no longer a Second Lieutenant (the pay raise was nice, too)!
It was hard work for me last night, as I watched about 90% of the debate. Certainly a lot harder than the effort put out by Wesley for the $500K he was paid.
Just once, I'd like for there to be a followup to any Democrat railing against the special interests. Are there no special interests on the Democrat side? Oh, I get it, the Democrats are on the side of the "Average American", ergo they are guiltless.
Sorry, Wes, you just lost a sizeable bloc vote.
He has always been portrayed here as a candidate who is lurking in the wings, having been put forth as the "Clinton machine" candidate in a weak field of Democratic contenders.
In fact, I think he's just a third-rate hack who has no business being in politics in the first place -- and the support he's gotten from the Clintons is nothing more than a half-hearted effort on their part to mend fences with him for having him fired as Supreme Commander of NATO.
If it's Edwards : ( giggle) ....welll, this guys such an empty suit that the possibilities are endless, but anyway.....play the answer he tried to give about the Defense of Marraige Act ( knew NOTHING about what the Act said)....play the answer he tried to give about Islam....ask him questions about his nonexistent military service....ask him why he keeps breaking the rules about spending limits.....need I go on?
If it's Sharpton : ............( no need to campaign)
If it's Kucinich :............(see above )
If it's Dean: This is what I'm rooting for.....no need to say any more
If it's Liberman: Um, it's NOT going to be Liberman
If it's Clark: God help us all....the man's dangerous....even Peter Jennings might start getting the idea after the debate last night....but all the RNC would have to do is put a series of clips together with each Clark gaffe followed by a series of his apologists lecturing us on "You have to read the WHOLE article"...."You have to realize that the General was in hostile territory ( a foreign country, a right wing editorial board conference room, a debate where he was asked actual questions ) and the General had to maneuver around the questions.....you have to read the WHOLE testimony.....We're all going to have to do a LOT of extra reading if it's Clark(shudder).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.