Senator Edwards goes on the offensive against General Clark

[w4rma]

…
The new focus on General Clark, who shook up the campaign and the polls when he entered the race this month, suggests that he may no longer sail easily through the fray as he did in Thursday's presidential debate, where most candidates focused their criticism on Dr. Dean.

Senator John Edwards of North Carolina also went on the offensive against General Clark today, on Fox News Channel.

Mr. Edwards raised concerns about General Clark's involvement with the Acxiom Corporation, a consumer database company that keeps personal information on American adults. The Washington Post reported Saturday that General Clark helped Acxiom win a contract to help create one of the government's largest surveillance programs, an airline passenger screening system.

Mr. Edwards said General Clark's involvement with the company raised some questions about his commitment to privacy protections.

The general's campaign dismissed the criticism. "Senator Edwards's year-old campaign has barely registered on polls, so we understand his frustration, but we do not see any value in criticizing other Democrats," said Kym Spell, a spokeswoman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/politics/campaigns/29DEMS.html

[roguevalley]

1. He resigned from the board.

*

[pruner]

4. got a link?

last I read he intended to remain on the board of all 5 companies while he campaigned.

[Tinoire]

16. No he's still on the Acxiom Board of Directors to this day

Board of Directors


General Wesley K. Clark

Dr. Ann Hayes Die

William T. Dillard II

Harry C. Gambill

William J. Henderson

Rodger S. Kline

Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty, III

Charles D. Morgan

Stephen M. Patterson

James T. Womble


General Wesley K. Clark

Age: 58, Elected: 2001

General Wesley K. Clark (U.S. Army, Retired) is chairman and CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a business services and development firm based in Little Rock, Arkansas. He is senior military analyst for Cable News Network (CNN) and is Chairman of the Board of WaveCrest Laboratories, a technology company that specializes in electric propulsion systems that transform electrical energy into mechanical motion. General Clark is a noted speaker presenting key insights on strategic leadership, foreign and military policy and high technology to corporate leaders and other audiences. He serves pro bono as a distinguished senior advisor for the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), as a Director of the Atlantic Council, and as a member of the board of the International Crisis Group, Messer-Griesheim and SIRVA Corporation. General Clark began his military career by graduating first in his class at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1966. Upon becoming the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, in 1997, he was in overall command of NATO’s military forces in Europe. He also served as the Commander in Chief of the U.S. European Command. In 1999, General Clark commanded the alliance’s military response to the Kosovo crisis. He retired in 2000 after a highly distinguished and decorated 34-year military career. In that same year, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor. Following his retirement from the Army, he was employed by Stephens Group, Inc. of Little Rock, Arkansas, working in high technology venture capital as Managing Director-Merchant Director. He resigned from this position in February 2003 to pursue other interests. In addition to his degree from West Point, General Clark received a master’s degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar.

http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=1668&Country_Code=USA

http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=2192&Country_Code=USA

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

Sep 18 2003

Wesley Clark Keeps Acxiom, Other Board Memberships: Reports


Wesley Clark, the former Army General who announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on Sept. 17, has not given up his board memberships, according to published accounts.
Since retiring from the military in 2000, Clark has held a variety of industrial positions, including jobs with a Washington, DC-based technology firm, an investment company, and director or advisor positions with six other organizations. In most cases he was brought on board to assist with military or government contracts.

One such company is Acxiom Corp., the Little Rock, AR-based data firm. Clark joined Acxiom in December 2001, and played a part in the company’s efforts to market its services to federal organizations involved in homeland security, according to Acxiom spokesman Dale Ingram.

<snip>

http://www.directmag.com/ar/marketing_wesley_clark_keeps/

[IndianaGreen]

2. At least Edwards is a real Democrat

and I see that the Clark campaign dismisses Clark's criticism with the same Rovian contempt with which they have dismissed the criticism lodged by the Democratic candidates against Clark.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

40. "Rovian contempt"?

That's laying it on a bit thick don't you think?

[0007]

48. Naw! probably not thick enough!

LOL! If Clark's elected would he keep junior's staff that he thinks so highly of?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

55. like Clinton hired all those Republicans?

and left half of Bush's staff? Hopefully Clark wouldn't be stupid enough to make that mistake.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

58. I'm still pissed at Clinton's appointment of Powell's boy.

Incomprehensible.

[KittyWampus]

3. Edwards May Register On Polls Yet!

Hopefully he won't get too negative on any candidates... but a jab here and there means he's alive and kicking!

[HFishbine]

45. Edwards

is picking up steam. He leads in South Carolina and check out his position in Iowa (scroll down): http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html

[AWD]

5. Hmmmm....

Still waiting for the dozens of "I'm outraged" threads piled on against Edwards and his supporters.

What? There are none? Gee, I guess some people just LOOK for a reason to attack Dean.

[Julien Sorel]

12. LOL

Notice that Edwards' supporters aren't jumping all over this thread yelling 'fascist' like the supporters of a certain other candidate are wont to do. The thread was actually started by -- gasp! -- a Deanite, and most of the people who've posted on it are -- gasp! -- Deanites.

Why would the Deanites be posting Edwards' interview? Gee, another chance to bash Clark -- but this time, some of them get the joy of doing it by hiding behind someone else's candidate! Perfect set up for the cowardly and bitter.

[w4rma]

15. Woah there buddy. Don't be so personal.

1) There are way more Dean and Clark supporters on DU than Edwards supporters. This is why Dean and Clark supporters are responding in greater numbers.
2) Dean isn't hiding behind anyone and should be obvious from the earlier flame fest today.
3) Neither am I. Edwards is making some points that I wasn't aware of and I think that the Clark campaign response was arrogant, much like your own response, BillyBunter.

[Julien Sorel]

22. Personal? Whom did I personally address?

Or is this a case of a shoe finding its rightful owner? ;-)

1) No kidding. But it doesn't disguise the fact that a Dean person -- yourself -- started this thread, and a bunch of other Dean people piled on. So what's your point?

2) I think you need to re-read my post. I said Dean supporters, not Dean.

3) The Clark campaign response was no different than the Dean response when he was getting attacked by Lieberman and Gephardt. How soon we forget. Back then, the Deanites were slapping each other on the back for the brilliance of Dean's replies; now when Clark's campaign adopts similar tactics -- standard in a campaign, I might add -- it's 'arrogant.'
:nopity:

[w4rma]

24. Personal.

As in you're attempting to turn anything into a smear on Dean or Dean's supporters.

1) My point is that you need to calm down and remember that if Dean wins the nomination, you'll have to support him in the general to defeat Bush and you also need to remember that if Clark wins the nomination, he'll need Dean's supporters to support him in the general election.

2) See 3.

3) IMHO, Clark needs to address what Edwards is saying directly and quickly. His campaign is trying to blow it off, but the result will only be to postpone the criticism and allow it to become more widely known. I'm thinking now that the use of the term arrogant was colored by the tone of your post which I was responding to. I think that a better term would be 'unprepared'.

[Julien Sorel]

25. You chose to post the article. You knew what kinds of posts it

would draw. Now you're trying to blame me for it? Accept some responsibility for yourself -- that would be a good example of taking it personally. The comments I made about Dean's supporter's are correct in this case; if you think otherwise, prove it -- don't hide behind name-calling like 'you're taking this personally.'

Incidentally, please look up the word 'personal,' so you'll be less likely to use it incorrectly again. :-)

My point is that you need to calm down and remember that if Dean wins the nomination, you'll have to support him in the general to defeat Bush and you also need to remember that if Clark wins the nomination, he'll need Dean's supporters to support him in the general election.

My friend, you just read my previous post and made some pretty basic comprehension errors, for example mistaking Dean for his supporters. Somehow, I don't feel I'm the one who needs to calm down.

By the way, you might want to keep this thought in mind yourself. I have a couple of questions about Dean's campaign I've been holding back on because the environment is too volatile, but you chose to post this after a full day of bashing. Whether it was because of bad judgment or bad intent, it was still a bad decision if, as you claim, you want to see some comity between the two camps. I have my doubts.

IMHO, Clark needs to address what Edwards is saying directly and quickly. His campaign is trying to blow it off, but the result will only be to postpone the criticism and allow it to become more widely known. I'm thinking now that the use of the term arrogant was colored by the tone of your post which I was responding to. I think that a better term would be 'unprepared'.

LOL. Basic electioneering rule: don't get in a mudslinging contest with someone who is so far behind they can't even see your dust, let alone choke on it. The Clark campaign's response -- your humble opinion notwithstanding -- was the correct one. If a reporter asks Clark the question directly, that's the time to answer; otherwise Clark elevates Edwards by allowing Edwards to cross-examine him via proxy.

[w4rma]

27. My reading comprehension is fine, thank you.

You attack Dean's supporters, of which I am one. I'm also the person you talked about who posted this thread.

I did not mistake Dean for his supporters. I will repeat point 3, which addressed that directly, here:
Neither am I. Edwards is making some points that I wasn't aware of and I think that the Clark campaign response was arrogant, much like your own response, BillyBunter.

As for your comments about Dean supporters. First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye (Mathew 7:3 KJV):

Poll question: Which candidate's supporters are the biggest, most relentless bullies?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=423504

[Shanty Oilish]

30. No Deanite here. Not cowardly/bitter either.

IMO Clark is not even a Democrat, so I bash in good conscience. I'd vote for any of them, even Lieberman---at least he knows his way around the Capitol without a brochure. I would not vote for someone who praised the illegitimate Bush regime. That falls outside my definition of a Democrat.

[juajen]

33. Man, that is one beautiful $20 bill. That should be used as

a campaign handout. Tis gorgeous. Can we have one with Kucinich? I can see this being a widely distributed bumper sticker. Go for it!!

[Julien Sorel]

36. Thanks!

It's probably my favorite to date. I don't know about copyright rules for a handout and so on -- I manipulated the original image a fair amount, but it still could become a problem. Plus the candidate's name isn't very legible. But a friend of mine used to be in the sign making business, and we're talking about starting up something on the side together -- maybe we'll do some campaign materials.

I wouldn't mind making one of Kucinich, although not with this design :-)

[JNelson6563]

38. I cannot imagine Kucinich

having his face on filthy lucre. It's counter-intuitive to his whole message. Just my .0125.

Julie

[jonnyblitz]

57. my first reaction when I saw that was not positive, I had similar thoughts

[WilliamPitt]

19. I'M OUTRAGED!!!!

Wait...no I'm not.

Never mind.

[w4rma]

6. Transcript: Sen. John Edwards on 'FOX News Sunday'

TONY SNOW, FOX NEWS: Joining us to talk about his presidential candidacy, from Lafayette, Louisiana, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Senator Edwards, Wes Clark joins the fray this week, immediately goes to the top of the list, at least in polls. Senator Joe Lieberman calls him a counterfeit Democrat. What do you think?

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, D-NC: Well, I think anybody who got in the race this late and got some attention, particularly in this crowded field, would be expected to pop up as a result of that publicity. The same thing happened to me back in January when I first announced.

I think we're now entering the serious stage of this campaign, where every candidate needs to lay out their specific ideas. And for me, that means real opportunity for everybody, doing things to lift up the middle class, college for everyone, making sure every young person in America has health care.

I mean, I think it's incumbent on General Clark and all of the candidates to lay out their specific ideas, because I think that's what the voters are looking for.

SNOW: Well, you've heard General Clark take several positions on whether he supported the war in Iraq some months ago, the resolution of which you supported.

EDWARDS: Yes.

SNOW: You have heard the quotes of his praising the president and his entire foreign policy team as recently as May 2001. This has led to concern on the part of some Democratic candidates that this guy's a Wesley-come-lately. What do you think about his credentials as a Democratic candidate?

EDWARDS: Well, I'm going to let General Clark defend his credentials. I disagree strongly with the things he said a couple of years ago about President Bush, about Rumsfeld and Cheney and other members of the administration. I think he was wrong about that. That was during a time that a lot of us were standing up very strongly against some of the actions of the president. And I think General Clark will have to explain to the Democratic voters in the primaries why he did that and why he's changed positions.

SNOW: You said that you strongly disagree. He merely said the president has a good foreign-policy team. You don't think he's got a good foreign-policy team?

EDWARDS: I think he said more than that, if I — and I've only heard this anecdotally, but what I was told is that he gave great praise to the president, gave great praise to Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney and what they were doing. And at least from my perspective, I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with that.

{SNOW}: All right. There's been a little skepticism also of his involvement with something called the Axiom Corporation. One of your home-state newspapers, the Raleigh News and Observer has a story about it. This is an outfit that gathers tons of information about people's personal lives and than distributes it.

Do you have any concern with Wes Clark having earned his keep, at least working on the board of Axiom?

EDWARDS: Yes, I have some concern about it. I think general — a lot of us are concerned about general privacy issues in this environment after September the 11th. And I understand that General Clark, while campaigning this week, said very strongly that he believed we need to be careful about making sure people's privacy was protected and talked about this subject matter.

And the fact that he serves on the board and has worked with and for a company that's involved in this, and specifically I think had some involvement with Jet Blue and some problems with people's privacy being violated, I think those are just all questions, since he's new to the race, that he'll have to respond to. And there may be answers, but I think he has to give the American people those answers.
…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98539,00.html

[tjdee]

9. Tony Snow is a media whore if there ever was one.

He was baiting Edwards throughout that entire thing. Disgusting.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Being an experienced trial lawyer, Edwards is not one to be baited

unless one were to use the term "baiting" as a way to dismiss what Edwards is saying about Clark's past support for Republicans and Republican policies.

[tjdee]

56. I should have said "tried to bait".

Edwards didn't bring up Axciom, Snow did.

It's like Snow kept handing Edwards an opportunity to bash Clark, which he did not.

[AP]

21. Nice of RACHEL L. SWARNS with RICK LYMAN, authors of this article

to exaggerate what was going on.

Snow baits the hell out of Edwards, Edwards replies with a very mild statement, which nobody here at DU interpreted as an attack, and Swarns and Lyman do the rest.

[tjdee]

7. Sigh...

My two favorite guys.....

They don't have a quote from Edwards, so we don't know what exactly he said, and somehow I don't think it warranted the curt response from Spell. Edwards is usually pretty gracious even if he's criticizing someone. At least he has a real concern instead of this nonsensical "Clark is a Republican" thing the others have got going (IMO).

Don't think there's much to see here, though. Spell is not Clark, though she is fielding his questions.

**on edit**
Just read the transcript, and AS USUAL, John Edwards handled himself quite well. Very gracious, even defended Clark slightly there. He didn't latch on and hammer it home. He talked about what he would do, and then he ended with hey, they're all questions that Clark will have to answer because he's new. He just went up several notches, again, with me. The Washington Post is so eager to have everyone bickering that they don't even bother to say what Edwards said--which was really, not much. Then they take it over to Spell, and she overreacts. I'd like to hear what they told her Edwards said. Thanks Washington Post!!

I will say that Tony Snow is a #*$(&#*@*.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. I Hate Kicking This Thread...

I'm with you......

I like Edwards.....

I like Clark......

I like Kerry.......

The rest are "o k " with me........

I'm not going to give aid and comfort to the enemy (Faux and BushCo) by sewing discord in the Democratic party.....

[sugarcookie]

8. kick

n/m

[PurityOfEssence]

10. Clark's campaign responds in a republican mode of laughable hypocrisy

Using the universal horseshit modulator, allow me to translate this haughty elitist vulgarity:

"Mr. Edwards is obviously a jealous, inferior loser, desperate due to his failed campaign and vindictive to such a degree that he has to insult fellow Democrats, something we'd never do..."

Yes, folks, from the competent folks who brought you the Gore Campaign, we bring you this year muddle. May Mark Fabiani burn in public for his deliberate upstaging of Edwards' formal announcement.

"...but we do not see any value in criticizing other Democrats." The very act of Ms. Spell's statement is precisely that. They are, however, above the fray.

[catforclark2004]

28. Gee you read a lot into "do not value criticizing other dems"

You've got some vision! What the Clark campaign said was....Edwards is low in the polls...which is true....and We do not see any value in citicizing other Democrats.....sounds like a lesson to be learned. Republicans do not respond in this way...they attack and lie.....so I am confused with your post....is the response Clark's campaign gave to Edwards criticizing like the Gore campaign or like the Bush campaign????? or Both???? or none???? whew!

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Republicans like to dismiss people as jealous inferior losers

It's one of their favorite tactics. They post pictures of crying babies, violinists playing "Hearts and flowers", bluster about the inevitability of their candidates ascencion to power and laugh at the misfortunes of others.

What this spokesthing is saying is just a slur, it doesn't address the issue of Clark's involvement with this activity at all, it just marginalizes Edwards as some desperate little nobody, and then has the gall to say that infighting is bad.

To recap: met with questions about dicey business affairs, their response is to stoop to the personally slanderous and then revile people for having the gall to question them. Hmm, smacks of privilege to me. If they were the upright people they claim to be, they'd say that it was a case of mischaracterization of Clark's activities, and then maybe even offer an explanation. Instead, this woman huffs up with indignation, doesn't even address the issue, and sneeringly attacks on a low and personal level and caps it off with some kind of posturing about ethical superiority.

Why is it that so many Clark supporters sound like and act like ham-handed conservatives? How many uses of the word "whiner", other cackling dismissals and standard-issue right-wing blugeoning does one have to hear before one smells a rat?

Edwards questioned his business activities, the response was to completely duck the question, tar him as a pathetic loser and then have the hypocrisy to say that the Clark camp was above such tactics.

Of course: it benefits the front-runner to not have any infighting; theirs is a holding action. Remember, though, claiming the moral highground only works if one's actions support it.

[DemDogs]

41. Edwards not so low

Either (1) in the polls -- 1st in SC, 4th in NH and Iowa,and rising everywhere or (2) in his conduct. He answered questions in as non-inflammatory way as possible, just saying primarily these were Clark's questions to answer not his and he kept trying to bring Snow back to his own positions and issues. He was great.

[juajen]

34. My goodness,

would you please tell us your preferred response from the Clark camp on this issue?

[PurityOfEssence]

37. Okay, how about: "That's a mischaracterization of his activities,

actually. We'd be happy to discuss his involvement at length."

Or how about: "General Clark's activities were in no way sinister in this involvement; it was a legitimate enterprise that had great promise for society at large."

Or even: "Although information gathering can be a sensitive issue, this was a cutting-edge business venture that was meant for the good of mankind. It's being quite misinterpreted"

Then there could be a simple: "I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding about the nature of that endeavor, and we'll be more than glad to point out the specifics."

Hey, I wouldn't even mind a little: "This is a mischaracterization, what you're hearing here is a little political sparring; you'll see that there's nothing to the contention."

Why not even: "Well, we are the competition, it's inevitable that someone would jump the gun with something as easily misunderstood as this."

Take your pick. Here's the crux of it: dismiss the allegation, offer willingness to disprove it, even characterize it as political sniping, but don't dance a jig of aristocratic glee at the snivelling failure who's desperate to hurt you, and then claim to be ethically above campaign ugliness. They hurt themselves on this one.

[JNelson6563]

39. I agree

those are all fine alternate answers. I believe the problem here is that the spokeswoman addressed the messenger, not the message.

Loved this:
dismiss the allegation, offer willingness to disprove it, even characterize it as political sniping, but don't dance a jig of aristocratic glee at the snivelling failure who's desperate to hurt you, and then claim to be ethically above campaign ugliness.

We would all do well to follow it.

Julie

[DemDogs]

42. Edwards won't be dishonest

So he won't say what you suggest.
The characterization of Clark's activities was not flattering but it was not really wrong either.
And you want Edwards to say that it was just dandy that Clark served on the board of a company whose activities include what you call "cutting edge" information collection but which are, as we all know, tremendous invasions of privacy (for which it and Jet Blue are being investigated for example) and even more -- you want him to say that it was for "the good of mankind"? He could not say that; it would be a lie.
He did not condemn Clark (as some have); he said he had concerns and that Clark has to explain it, which, frankly, he does. (Apparently not to you, but I think you'll agree that many Democrats and Independents would like to understand better why he chose to serve on that board, why he was so complimentary of the Administration. Being an Independent is fine, no problem there; complimenting the Administration on its foriegn policy is not fine.)
BTW, Edwards was great on Fox

[PurityOfEssence]

59. These are suggestions for CLARK's people to say

I agree with your assessment of Edwards, though.

[quinnox]

11. They need to fire this Spell woman pronto

Yuck, way to smear and leave a very nasty impression.

[tjdee]

13. She is kind of harsh, indeed.

But, I'm sure the WP had its ears cocked for just that kind of reaction. Edwards' comments were *very* mild, but I can guess that they were not presented to Spell as such. After all, the WP was writing a story on "bickering"--they had to have their story!

She is harsh, though. And definitely overreacted here.

[quinnox]

17. No kidding

Especially this nonsense, "..we see no value in criticizing other Democrats." WTF?? I would expect this kind of statement from an Ari Fleisher. This is America, and of course other Democrats can quite rightly criticize other Democrats, it kind of makes sense when they are competing in a race for the nomination.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

14. What's with her?

She was NH spokeswoman for Kerry, was she not? Before she left to join Clark.

That was a nasty snipe at Edwards, IMO. Of course this is the tone from most of the candidates at this point (my guy included), so I'm not shocked, but I don't think Edwards' words merited this ugliness.

[quinnox]

18. If she was with the Kerry campaign,

I'm glad she's gone.

[w13rd0]

23. No kidding...

...Hardball the other night, after the debates, had several of the candidates commenting. Not a one of them said anything of any importance, except Sharpton, who reminded them ONCE AGAIN, that it is BUSH we want to remove from office, not any of the 10 running for the office.

[dkf]

26. Edwards is really starting to grow on me.

I like this guy.

He's now my #2.

[Shanty Oilish]

29. "Meow," added Kym Spell, a spokes...purr-son.

Senator Edwards is not soaring in the polls. This is a response?

Sounds like his people may be quite as inexperienced as Clark himself, if they expect to get anywhere without give-and-take criticism.

I can't get enthused about Edwards, but Clark makes them all look like statesmen.

[mhr]

31. Clark's Troubled Past Discussed Here

http://www.prorev.com/politics.htm#clark

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

[DoveTurnedHawk]

32. WOW, FIVE SPAM RESPONSES!

You are really on a roll!

DTH

[Trek234]

43. Clarkies and Rove strats...

Refering to Clark as if he is still a General again?

No better than Rove having Bush be a war hero.

Deceptive and dishonest. Oh well, I should expect that from Clark supporters...

[Padraig18]

44. In Clark's defense

That sort of dismissive, contemptuous 'flame' well represents what this entire forum is becoming; no one would suggest that Bill Clinton is not entitled to use the honorific "President", nor would any sane person suggest that Ann Richards is not similarly entitled to use the honorific "Governor". In that same vein, retired military 'lifers' are entitled to use whatever their former rank was as an honorific; far from being unusual, it is in fact customary. Finally, under U.S. law, General Clark is subject to recall to active duty at the pleasure of the President, absent a demonstration of illness or infirmity, or extreme advanced age, so it would be just as accurate to say that General Clark is on 'sabbatical' as it would be to say he is 'retired.

The sort of petty flame you chose to engage in ill serves both our party nand whatever candidate you personally prefer; it serves only to aid the * re-election campaign.

*Edited for typos

[OKNancy]

49. or Doctor Dean for that matter n/t

[CMT]

47. well yet another Democratic candidate attacking the General

yet the only candidate the Clarkies on this board will single out as doing it is Howard Dean.

[JVS]

50. They keep their eyes on the prize!

[CMT]

52. true

I guess they see Dean as their main rival for the nomination. I guess we should be honored.

[spooky3]

51. I don't like the response from the Clark staffer.

She should respond to the content of his remarks: Is Edwards correct or not? Is there another perspective?

As I've said in criticizing Repugs who attacked Kennedy for being "uncivil", it is a red flag for me when you go after the person speaking rather than address the concern expressed.

[im4edwards]

53. they can't speak to these issues, they can only whine

the General comes into this with so much baggage that it ties the hands of the people working for him.

If they don't like a real candidate doing what he's supposed to do then how are they going to feel when the GOP lines up the heavy artillery and start peppering him ?

Go Edwards !

[CMT]

54. politics is a dirty business

and the General and his staff and his supporters are going to have to deal with these kinds of questions just like very other campaign out there.