Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Real Wesley Clark
Washington Post ^ | 09/18/03 | Richard Cohen

Posted on 09/18/2003 9:29:18 AM PDT by bedolido

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: governsleastgovernsbest; Common Tator
"Nixon in 1968, who was not an incumbent, was more likeable than Hubert Humphrey, AKA The Happy Warrior?"

To enough pipple in order to elect him. Our view of Noxin today is a lot different than it was back then. Common Tator had a specific analysis of that race and perhaps he'll wander by and enlighten us.

Michael

21 posted on 09/18/2003 10:23:26 AM PDT by Wright is right! (Have a profitable day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
I watched this guy on TV the other day and I was struck by his cold, dead eyes. This guy is a psycho with clintinoid tendencies.
22 posted on 09/18/2003 10:25:20 AM PDT by Paulus Invictus (Freerepublic.com is eTruth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: judywillow
The Republican party has never defended itself appropriately. I don't want us to get into the gutter with the Rats, but a little truth telling and ruthless honesty is not out of line.

Keep posting those pictures on every Clark site you can find. I've come across a few DU'ers on those sites and perhaps you can sway a few.
23 posted on 09/18/2003 10:26:09 AM PDT by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; bedolido
I was kinda hoping for an article with a little more red meat in it.
24 posted on 09/18/2003 10:28:57 AM PDT by sauropod ("Oh Brian, Let's go to the stoning")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: judywillow
Thank you.
25 posted on 09/18/2003 10:29:25 AM PDT by sauropod ("Oh Brian, Let's go to the stoning")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
the hit pieces start.
26 posted on 09/18/2003 10:30:39 AM PDT by q_an_a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thegreatbeast
You should post some informative links...

Those images are all hyperlinked. Moreover those kinds of stories aren't hard to find on the internet. Kosovo is the elephant in the livingroom problem which made the Iraq operation impossible to sell in the UN. Most of the world's people simply couldn't believe that the same nation which did Kosovo four years earlier could conceivably do anything altruistic now. Try doing google searches on one or more of 'kosovo', 'wesley clark', 'war crimes', 'nato war crimes', 'milica rakic', sanja milenkovic' etc. etc. etc.

27 posted on 09/18/2003 10:30:44 AM PDT by judywillow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Endeavor
Let's face it, Hillary! doesn't want a dem to win in '04 unless it is her.

On the surface this sounds true. On the other hand, she and the DNC and the rest of the far left desperately need to stock the Supreme Court with activist red judges.

28 posted on 09/18/2003 10:30:44 AM PDT by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
Clark's candidacy won't survive outside the Beltway. He's a non-person in the eyes of the electorate. There's a reason generals don't gravitate to the power of the presidency: as a group, they are fairly obscure officials in the public mind.

Kosovo was no WWII, and Clark is no Ike, Mac, Patton, or Bradley. The American public have no clue who he is. They are willing to accept this in a candidate who has proven himself in the political ring before (a gov, rep, senator, whatever), but to think even a bare majority would rally to the cause of a general with no prior elective office is absurd.

The DC crowd doesn't see this, because they saw him at the parties, talked about him at work, covered his actions in the news. To them, he's General Wesley Clark, former NATO Commander. That and fifty cents will get him a cup of coffee in Everytown, USA.

29 posted on 09/18/2003 10:36:23 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wright is right!
Well, if all that the theory means is that the person who gets elected was, by definition, more likeable, then the theory doesn't tell us anything at all.

I was around in '68, and I think most objective observers would have concluded that Humphrey was the more likeable candidate.

Nixon was the sourpuss who had famously stated after losing the '64 CA governor's race that the press wouldn't have him to kick around anymore, because that was his last race. He was a glum figure.

Humphrey's loss was probably due to the riots at the Chicago convention, the notion that he hadn't stood up to LBJ on Vietnam, and perhaps the view that Nixon was tougher or better on foreign policy.

But I think it's impossible to argue that Nixon was more likeable. Humphrey was well liked and admired by people across party lines.
30 posted on 09/18/2003 10:38:41 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (Did I mention that Kerry served on the front lines?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Go find all of the junior officers under Ike, and all the junior officers under Wes...and there you find a huge difference. Ike led his staff, and impressed those around him. Wes would get into turf battles on a daily basis with anyone. He was generally reguarded as a average commander by most people who worked around him, and on numerous occassions...actually said one thing, and 10 minutes later said an exact opposite thing. There is no comparison between Ike and Wes...Ike was suited to lead America...Wes is suited to run Enron.
31 posted on 09/18/2003 10:39:40 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
"But I think it's impossible to argue that Nixon was more likeable. Humphrey was well liked and admired by people across party lines."

It's Common Tator's rule, so I'll let him defend it.

Michael

32 posted on 09/18/2003 10:40:10 AM PDT by Wright is right! (Have a profitable day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
Thanks for the feedback.

Apparently Weasel Carter is another Jimmy Carter control freak, who trusts no one under him, at his levels or above him.
33 posted on 09/18/2003 10:50:34 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (May our brave warriors kill all of the Islamokazis/facists/nazis to prevent future 9/11's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ServesURight
How many elections has the really stupid third parties won?

When you clowns win some elections, you may earn the right to call our party stupid.

Until then your party is the terminally stupid loser one. You guys need Carville to write some new hate mantras for you. That one became irrelevant years ago.

You clowns are like the bum on the street trying to tell a successful businessman how to run his business.
34 posted on 09/18/2003 10:58:36 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (May our brave warriors kill all of the Islamokazis/facists/nazis to prevent future 9/11's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
Here's what I find wierd: a U.S. general who's a Democrat. I know there are probably plenty more like him, but I still think it's wierd. The Dems are the anti-defense party. The Dems are the party that's permanently hung up on Vietman. The Dems are the party for turning the military into a social experiment. The Dems are the "nanny" party and the Pubs are the "kick a** and take names" party. It's not a good fit, and it makes me wonder what it is about him. that identifies with them.
35 posted on 09/18/2003 11:00:55 AM PDT by Califelephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Endeavor
IMO, the Clintons want to block Dean because he will kick McAwful out of the DNC leadership, and Hildebeast needs him there for her. Hence Clark, who I think the Clintons own.
36 posted on 09/18/2003 11:10:55 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Wright is right!
In 1968 not only was Hubert Humphrey a more likable person than Richard Nixon, but arguably even George Wallace was. In 1912 William Howard Taft came in third although personally a very lovable guy, and Teddy Roosevelt was more likable than Woodrow Wilson, who won.
37 posted on 09/18/2003 11:14:51 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bedolido

38 posted on 09/18/2003 11:33:00 AM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Endeavor
One other angle that's not necessarily incompatible with yours: The Clintons desperately want to bump off Dean, but can't figure how to get him to Fort Marcy Park. After all, his potential success is a desperate threat to them, as shown by the fact that he's already said he would probably can McAuliff (sp?). If McAwful goes, they lose control of the DNC and it's anybody's bet who will be the 2008 nominee.
39 posted on 09/18/2003 12:07:58 PM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Wright is right!
Fair enough. I'll look forward to his response.
40 posted on 09/18/2003 12:14:03 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (Did I mention that Kerry served on the front lines?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson