Clintons Anoint Clark
By William Safire

The Clintons decided that the Democratic primary campaign was getting out of
hand. Howard Dean was getting all the buzz and too much of the passionate
left's money. Word was out that Dean as nominee, owing Clintonites nothing,
would quickly dump Terry McAuliffe, through whom Bill and Hillary maintain
control of the Democratic National Committee.

That's when word was leaked of the former president's observation at an
intimate dinner party at the Clinton Chappaqua, N.Y., estate that "there are
two stars in the Democratic Party - Hillary and Wes Clark."

Meanwhile, the four-star general that Clinton fired for being a publicity
hog during the Kosovo liberation has been surrounded by the Clinton-Gore
mafia. Lead agent is Mark Fabiani, the impeachment spinmeister; he brought
in the rest of the Restoration coterie. When reporters start poking into any
defense contracts Clark arranged for clients after his retirement, he will
have the lip-zipping services of the Clinton confidant Bruce Lindsey.

As expected, fickle media that had been entranced with Dean (Dr.
Lose-the-War) dropped the cranky Vermonter like a cold couch potato and are
lionizing Clinton's fellow Arkansan and fellow Rhodes Scholar. He's new,
handsome, intellectual, a genuine Silver Star Vietnam hero and taught
economics at West Point.

I admired Nato Commander Clark's military aggressiveness when the Serbs were
slaughtering civilians in Kosovo. He wanted to use Apache helicopter
gunships and send in NATO troops, as John McCain urged, but Clinton sided
with Pentagon brass fearful of U.S. casualties, and the lengthy air campaign
was conducted from 15,000 feet up; thousands of Kosovars died. (Four years
later, U.N.-administered Kosovo is still not sovereign, and Clinton was
there last week saying "I think we belong here until our job is finished.")

As a boot-in-mouth politician, however, Clark ranks with Arnold
Schwarzenegger. He began by claiming to have been pressured to stop his
defeatist wartime CNN commentary by someone "around the White House";
challenged, he morphed that source into a Canadian Middle East think tank,
equally fuzzy.

Worse, as his Clinton handlers cringed, he blew his antiwar appeal by
telling reporters "I probably would have voted for" the Congressional
resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. Next day, the chastised
candidate flip-flopped, claiming "I would never have voted for war."

Clark's strange explanation: "I've said it both ways, because when you get
into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position." He put
himself in the hot-pretzel position - softly twisted.

Let's assume the Clinton handlers teach him the rudiments of verbal
discipline and the Clinton fund-raising machine makes him a viable
candidate. To what end? What's in it for the Clintons?

Control. First, control of the Democratic Party machinery, threatened by the
sudden emergence of Dean and his antiestablishment troops. Second, control
of the Democratic ideological position, making sure it remains on the
respectable left of center.

What if, as Christmas nears, the economy should tank and President Bush
becomes far more vulnerable? Hillary would have to announce willingness to
accept a draft. Otherwise, should the maverick Dean take the nomination and
win, Clinton dreams of a Restoration die.

Here is where the politically inexperienced Clark comes in. He is the
Clintons' most attractive stalking horse, useful in stopping Dean and
diluting support for Kerry, Lieberman or Gephardt. If Bush stumbles and the
Democratic nomination becomes highly valuable, the Clintons probably think
they would be able to get Clark to step aside without splintering the party,
rewarding his loyalty with second place on the ticket.

G'wan, you say, the Clintons should be supporting Dean, a likely loser to
Bush, thereby ensuring the Clinton Restoration in 2008. But plainly they are
not. Their candidate is Clark. Either they are for him because (altruistic
version) they think Clark would best lead the party and country for the next
eight years, leaving them applauding on the sidelines, or (Machiavellian
version) they think his muddy-the-waters candidacy is their ticket back to
the White House in 2004 or 2008.

Which is more like the Clintons?

-------------------------------------------------------------

A better question is "how will Dean like being politically maneuvered into
irrelevancy by the Clintons...and will he launch a third party candidacy out
of spite?" If Hillary runs, you can bet on it. If Clark runs without
Hillary, Dean will be a good little soldier and sit on the sidelines.

The more they fracture the Dem vote the stronger Bush gets.
Every time this has come down to "GOP and the 7 dwarfs" the GOP wins in a
landslide. Remember John Anderson, Gene McCarthy or George Wallace? The GOP won
all of those elections. On the other hand Perot fractured the GOP vote in 92
and 96, giving the Dems a win.

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Clintons Anoint Clark
By William Safire

Golly, I wonder which side of the fence Willie Safire sits?

Perhaps Bill understands Dems would be more likely to unseat Bush with a
southern military man that a northern doctor? I guess that simple fact was
too much of stretch for Willie Safire's brain. He's more interested in
connecting the illusory dots.

I think Bush'd be toast either way.

"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Clintons Anoint Clark
By William Safire

Golly, I wonder which side of the fence Willie Safire sits?

Perhaps Bill understands Dems would be more likely to unseat Bush with a
southern military man that a northern doctor? I guess that simple fact
was
too much of stretch for Willie Safire's brain.

What are your feelings on the question I asked?

"How will Dean like being politically maneuvered into
irrelevancy by the Clintons...and will he launch a third party candidacy out
of spite?"

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Clintons Anoint Clark
By William Safire

Golly, I wonder which side of the fence Willie Safire sits?

Perhaps Bill understands Dems would be more likely to unseat Bush with a
southern military man that a northern doctor? I guess that simple fact
was
too much of stretch for Willie Safire's brain.

What are your feelings on the question I asked?

"How will Dean like being politically maneuvered into
irrelevancy by the Clintons...and will he launch a third party candidacy
out
of spite?"


The Clintons reportedly encouraged him to run to give the Dems the best
chance of winning. I know of no more of an endorsement than that. You
cannot cite an endorsement unless Bill and Hillary comes out and says "I
support so-and-so." Otherwise, it's the same as encouraging Dean or
Gephardt or any of the other players to join the party and make it as
strong a field as possible.

Second, I don't think for a moment that Dean would launch a third party
candidacy...

"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Clintons Anoint Clark
By William Safire

Golly, I wonder which side of the fence Willie Safire sits?

Perhaps Bill understands Dems would be more likely to unseat Bush with
a
southern military man that a northern doctor? I guess that simple
fact
was
too much of stretch for Willie Safire's brain.

What are your feelings on the question I asked?

"How will Dean like being politically maneuvered into
irrelevancy by the Clintons...and will he launch a third party candidacy
out
of spite?"


The Clintons reportedly encouraged him to run to give the Dems the best
chance of winning. I know of no more of an endorsement than that. You
cannot cite an endorsement unless Bill and Hillary comes out and says "I
support so-and-so."

Huh? In your warped opinion, "encouraging someone to run" isn't the same as
"endorsing them"?!? What about Bill calling Clark and Hillary the "two
rising stars in the Democratic party"? Is that an endorsement?


Otherwise, it's the same as encouraging Dean or
Gephardt or any of the other players to join the party and make it as
strong a field as possible.


But they *didn't* "encourage" any of the other guys to run.


Second, I don't think for a moment that Dean would launch a third party
candidacy...

If he feels back-doored or betrayed, I think he would. Afterall, before the
Clintons maneuvered Clark into the lime-light, it belonged to Dean.

NOYB wrote:

Clintons Anoint Clark
By William Safire



Safire probably is the best writer among the right-wing apologists for
Bush.


--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Gfretwell wrote:

The more they fracture the Dem vote the stronger Bush gets.
Every time this has come down to "GOP and the 7 dwarfs" the GOP wins in a
landslide. Remember John Anderson, Gene McCarthy or George Wallace? The GOP won
all of those elections. On the other hand Perot fractured the GOP vote in 92
and 96, giving the Dems a win.


In both those elections, the Democratic candidate got more votes than
the Republican candidate. I believe Americans are now just beginning to
see Bush for the lying piece of crap he is.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Huh? In your warped opinion, "encouraging someone to run" isn't the same
as
"endorsing them"?!? What about Bill calling Clark and Hillary the "two
rising stars in the Democratic party"? Is that an endorsement?

Huh? In your warped opinion, encouraging someone to run is the same as
endorsing them. Out of context it can certainly be made to seem like an
endorsement, but only to those who'd like to spin it that way.

In context he's standing beside his wife so he cannot ignore her and says
the right thing. Since Clark is a relative unknown, it's easy to say that
he's a rising star since he's barely cleared the horizon. We can safely
assume the other candidates are already bona fide stars in the Democratic
party, otherwise they wouldn't have enough support to be standing on the
stage.

Next point: It's not likely the other candidates went to the Clintons
seeking their input. Clark did and received their encouragement. Put in
the same position, few politicians would be stupid enough to say "no, I'm
already supporting someone else, don't bother" unless the race was already
very apparent. It's not.

Is it your supposition that the Clintons sought Clark out to encourage him?

Otherwise, it's the same as encouraging Dean or
Gephardt or any of the other players to join the party and make it as
strong a field as possible.

But they *didn't* "encourage" any of the other guys to run.

They didn't have to!!! And, how do you know that the Clintons didn't call
Mario Cuomo to try to pry him out onto the stage. You only know what's
reported or falls into the hands of the media.

Second, I don't think for a moment that Dean would launch a third party
candidacy...

If he feels back-doored or betrayed, I think he would. Afterall, before
the
Clintons maneuvered Clark into the lime-light, it belonged to Dean.

That's rolling around in your head. No one with an ounce of common sense
would attempt to run a third party candidacy, other than the Greens. Most
of their constituency has had four years of Bush and won't be making the
same mistake again.

"jps" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Huh? In your warped opinion, "encouraging someone to run" isn't the same
as
"endorsing them"?!? What about Bill calling Clark and Hillary the "two
rising stars in the Democratic party"? Is that an endorsement?

Huh? In your warped opinion, encouraging someone to run is the same as
endorsing them. Out of context it can certainly be made to seem like an
endorsement, but only to those who'd like to spin it that way.

In context he's standing beside his wife so he cannot ignore her and says
the right thing. Since Clark is a relative unknown, it's easy to say that
he's a rising star since he's barely cleared the horizon. We can safely
assume the other candidates are already bona fide stars in the Democratic
party, otherwise they wouldn't have enough support to be standing on the
stage.

Next point: It's not likely the other candidates went to the Clintons
seeking their input. Clark did and received their encouragement. Put in
the same position, few politicians would be stupid enough to say "no, I'm
already supporting someone else, don't bother" unless the race was already
very apparent. It's not.

Is it your supposition that the Clintons sought Clark out to encourage
him?

Yes.





Otherwise, it's the same as encouraging Dean or
Gephardt or any of the other players to join the party and make it as
strong a field as possible.

But they *didn't* "encourage" any of the other guys to run.

They didn't have to!!! And, how do you know that the Clintons didn't call
Mario Cuomo to try to pry him out onto the stage. You only know what's
reported or falls into the hands of the media.

I know they didn't make a pitch at Mario 'cause after the way they sunk his
son, Andrew, he'd have told 'em to **** off. Andrew was sold out for the
black vote . The party wanted McCall, and Andrew would have got trounced
anyhow...so Hillary and Bill cast Andrew aside.







Second, I don't think for a moment that Dean would launch a third
party
candidacy...

If he feels back-doored or betrayed, I think he would. Afterall, before
the
Clintons maneuvered Clark into the lime-light, it belonged to Dean.

That's rolling around in your head. No one with an ounce of common sense
would attempt to run a third party candidacy, other than the Greens. Most
of their constituency has had four years of Bush and won't be making the
same mistake again.