Posted on 02/12/2005 2:50:52 PM PST by Cableguy
Here's another reason why some Democrats are fretting over installing antiwar former presidential candidate Howard Dean as chair of the Democratic National Committee. He might cede national defense to the Republicans. That's the charge from associates of another former presidential candidate, former NATO boss Wes Clark. Seems the Clark and Dean teams have been warring over the future of the Democratic Party, and now that threatens to spill into the public if Dean, as expected, wins the chairmanship this Saturday. Here's the fight: Clark wants the Democrats deeply involved in foreign policy and the war, and Dean's team isn't as jazzed about that. They see domestic policy and issues like Social Security and the deficit as the keys to success. But this might be the real rub against Dean: Clark fans think the retired general will be marginalized by Dean. Chart the fight on their blogs.
Dean fans blog here: www.peopleforchange.net Clark supporters chat here: chat.forclark.com
I can imagine but, then again, I'm a Conservative and everyone knows we don't have much of an imagination. /sarc
Oh I hope these teams unite. The dream ticket for 2008 would be Dean/Clark or vice versa.
That was a strong move for the DNC. It should get interesting.
Maybe the Democrats will run them both, as co-presidents. They've done it before.
No difference - they all have a "D" behind their names in this country.
This is my take: During the 2004 elections, there were tons of liberal 527's set up and they were raising funds hand over fist; including those supported by Soros. Some of Hillary's pals, like Sydney Bloomenthal, are running them. I expect Terrytoon will be heading one of them soon. Ickes is in place to spy on Dean's camp.
This leaves Hillary to run her own "moderate" campaign. Dean will lead the hate-Bush crowd and somehow they may manage to pull the whole thing together by 2008.
However, I think it will split the dems wide open - leaving Hillary without the support she will need to get elected. It's a Perot in reverse and we didn't even have to do anything. But 2008 will not be a cakewalk so don't anybody get comfortable.
I firmly believe the Clintons still run things and will for the forseeable future. Hill will be the candidate in '08, and Bill will be her campaign manager. (He can raise more money than just about anyone over the the DNC chair anyway, especially if McAuliffe is helping - which he will.)
All that to say that it doesn't really matter to Hillary right now that Dean is over at the DNC. He's going to lose bigtime during the midterms, at which time there will be a push to replace him with whoever Hill wants there. In the end, she'll have that person in place by early '07. All just in time to begin the run up to the presidential, starting around 9/07.
Sure. There's a funny play on the word brouhaha in Nick Danger (Firesign Theater). It also has a very funny dispute over a brown paper pag.
Told you it was deep!
Good thing I didn't mention the pickle...
He's also property of the Clintons.
His entire campaign team, up and down, came from Bill and Hillary's campaign staffs.
His only job during the primaries, was to tear down Dean.
Dean views Clark (and rightfully so) as a Hitman the Clintons sent out after him.
Looks like Hillary is still using Clark to go after Dean.
I think your analysis is right on....on the other hand, I've been drinking wine all day after working out today so maybe I just like your screen name.........LOL.......
Clark is easy to figure out. He started out as a repub - but suddenly made a course change. Clinton fired him as head of NATO - and there were no details as to why he was fired - but there there rumors of misconduct of some kind. I have always believed that Hillary reminded Clark that she knew why Bill fired him and he better do things her way or else. And .. Hillary knowing that info proves to me that Bill told her everything - even stuff she didn't need to know.
pouring wine now.....a nice Sterling cab....
I don't get it either. And what is stranger than Clark is the way the ultra libs idolize him. A man who never expressed a Democratic thought in his whole life until he saw a chance to run for president on the Dem ticket. A career military man and a rather heavy handed one at that. The Waco misadventure. Kosovo. Hard to fathom how they can be taken in by such an obvious fraud, yet the libs rave and drool over him.
He was on the board at Axciom. They are hooked into some really black stuff.
He still has some markers to play.
The Deaniacs hate Kerry. Clinton,et.al. It will befun watching the whole left implode.
"... [Dean will] lose bigtime during the midterms, at which time there will be a push to replace him with whoever Hill wants there."
Interesting thought!
But .. doesn't Dean have a contract ..?? And .. if the Clintons allowed Terrytoon to stay after he lost THREE major elections .. the Deaniacs will be furious if they try to force Dean out after only one loss .. and the Deaniacs could stay home on election day.
Clark fought the good war as the ultra libs percieve it. First of all, they saw Kosovo as the Yugoslav version as the civil right movement, with Slobbo as Bull Connor. And Clark brought Bull Connor to heel by bombing from 15,000 feet without American casualities (well, the media says that happened, and who is a liberal to quibble with that).
So uber-liberals long for a general who can lead the good fight against Bull Connors everywhere, who doesn't care that the fight has no bearing on American security interests - no, they PREFER a fight without American security interests in play, because that somehow taints the conflict.
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.